Okay, I'm back. I'm feeling inspired again.
Last night I was bored, so I decided to watch a documentary on my computer called What the Bleep do we Know [sic]. I failed to understand which of its theses it was advocating primacy over, which did nothing to unify its message. I did however glean that perhaps this was not the point - that instead I, as the audience memeber, had the responsibility to absorb whichever message I chose to, for my mind constructed my entire interpretation of it. I took from it two main points.
1. We really really do construct our worlds entirely from our own minds. Thoughts are physical and have mass. The experiments spoken about have performed less well on scientific testing than portrayed, yet I do not feel this has done anything to disprove it either. Psychologists cannot explain the placebo effect or somatosensory disorders, which all prove that thoughts can alter chemistry. This means they have energy, and can therefore affect mass.
2. Our emotions are addictive. Through much discussion with a friend as well as this movie, lately I've begun to understand that EMOTIONS ARE DRUGS. Does this make sense? Emotions release neurotransmitters, which work the exact same way drugs do. Our brains then become addicted to experiencing the emotions. So we create much drama in life. We drive fast, construct ridiculous rules in society about sex and relationships and shout and yell over them because the rush is addictive. All emotions are based off exactly the same chemical reaction. It is only your brain that creates context and therefore decides which emotion is the 'correct' one.
This brings me to my overall point. Our lives, then, are for us to make how we want. Our thoughts construct reality, not the other way round. The reality we see around us is nothing but collective imagination. There are as many universes as there are quantum possibilities. As humans we are agents of consciousness. Right now I feel our consciousness is at war with itself and highly self-destructive. The consciousness is ever-evolving, and we are manifests of it.Think of your body as the engine of this consciousness. Emotions, then, are neither good nor bad, the same way drugs are. They can be used for purposes of good or evil. Morality is simply a balance system by the game designer brain of the collective consciousness. However, WE ARE AGENTS, inasmuch as we can affect the programmming of the game.
By living lives that consist of making everyone happy, and the world collectively a happier place, we reinforce happiness. And if we do the opposite and fight wars verbal and military, we reinforce sadness. This is crucial. The consciousness is something that works on principles of inertia and momentum. The more collectively happy the consciousness is, the more it will be like gravitational force -accelarating closer and closer to the target. However, if the consciousness is damaged by sadness, it will be the same, only replace 'the target' with 'destruction'. We are the ones that can see this and therefore change it.
Strive to make as many people happy as possible. Use efficiency principles. That, I believe, is how we will elevate our consciousness and fulfill our destinies. By elevation of consciousness, one day we will be able to answer the questions to the mysteries of why we exist.
That's how you win the game.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Why I belive the things I do
Now this particular post is one I've been intending to make for QUITE a while. Longer than a month, actually. Every time I think about writing about this I usually end up distracting myself with something else - a terrible vice of mine.
Anyway, here goes:
In a world of good sense, it is entirely necessary to justify explain and criticise one's own beliefs. To question them. To question everything, really. I am introducing a concept here - that of critical thinking. Critical thinking means evaluating ideas, propositions, theories, ideologies and systems in detail, with as much neutrality as possible (i.e. not taking sides) to find out the hidden motivations, structure and power behind what appears simple on the surface, In short, critical thinking asks "why" and doesn't stop until every avenue has been explored and the root causes and motivations are discovered.
Critical thinking is not some fancy thing university kids do. Critical thinking is for you, and anyone that ever wonders WHY things work (or don't) the way they do. Sure, it takes a bit more effort than merely stating what appears obvious, but this effort is worth the greater understanding that it affords you.
If you cannot justify your beliefs, I have no reason to accept them. For if you can't justify it, it means it did not originate through your own effortsn which rather negates holding the belief in the first place. For example, I certainly did not come up with the concept of critical thought myself. However, I have outlined the reasons I support it, therefore justifying my position. Curiosity is a vital instinct for human survival, and should be celebrated.
Atheism
I am an atheist because I have found no evidence whatsoever for the proof of a being named God, who (which) by his (its) very definition is unfalsifiable. 100% of events that have occured in my life can be explained by completely natural phenomena (as opposed to supernatural). Furthermore, even events that cannot be explained by today's understanding of science do not prove religious miracles - all they prove is that science needs to do some more investigating. Religious miracles are invalid scientific hypotheses, not as a direct result of being religious, but rather because they are unprovable to begin with. For individuals that claim they have had a conversation with (God), there are plenty of natural, scientific explanations that suggest how the individual might have experienced such a conversation that do not require the intervention of an unfalsifiable, supernatural being. Furthermore, most religions advocate faith, which I see not as something useful, for this reason: Faith, quite simply, is the tendency to believe an assertion despite a complete lack of a method of ever testing that assertion. Faith is irreconcilable with science, which requires that assertions be tested and thrown out if they cannot be proven. Faith might go undefeated by logic - because it ignores logic entirely. This is not a strength of the concept, it is a weakness. That some people might be happier entertaining beliefs of (God) through faith does not make the existence of (God) any more or less probable. Finally, I have no need of (God) or a belief system to behave morally - I instead think that one can arrive at a perfectly good system of ethics and morals through intelligent debate, critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Bisexuality
This one shouldn't require much elaboration. Quite simply, I am attracted to both sexes. That's all there is to it. My justification for being attracted to both sexes is my own sensory perception, which I will never attempt to impose upon anyone else. Despite claims to the contrary, bisexuality is as diverse as any other sexuality. Some bisexuals favour one sex over the other (this does not mean that they are less attracted to either, but that experience of their 'preferred' sex has resulted in more feelings of attraction over a lifetime, statistically speaking, when compared with their 'less preferred' sex). I consider myself as having a preference for females, if only because I feel I can relate to them better. There are other bisexuals that have strong preferences for one sex (often termed bicurious) and there are those that have a preference for neither, being equally attracted to both. In the end, what does it matter? The belief that bisexuals are really just gay people in disguise is an idiotic one - if even one person in the world can experience attraction to both sexes for even a single minute in his/her lifetime, that alone would be proof of bisexuality's existence. What the world needs is to stop taking a prescriptivist approach to sexuality, instead exploring it for whatever they want it to be.
A possible reason that bisexuality might worry certain monogamists is the cold, hard realisation that should their partner indeed be bisexual, they can never fulfill their partner's entire epectrum of sexual desires alone, owing to being only one sex themself. My rebuttal to that is that any person that truly believes that they, and they alone can satisfy the entire spectrum of sexual desire of another person, bisexual or not, is delusional and arrogant.
Anarchy
Everyone that reads this blog has probably picked up on it by now - I'm an anarchist.
First of all, this does not mean i advocate chaos and disorganisation of society. The association of anarchy with chaos is a linguistic error. I believe that organisation is an important ability of humans and is entirely necessary to achieve functionality in society.
Anarchy, then, actually means that I oppose statehood and any of its associated power structures. I instead believe that decisions should and must be taken only by those proven qualified to take them. Where these decisions affect other people, the others will be given a say in how they are implemented. I oppose hierarchies on the basis of a hierarchy being a very inefficient method of organisation. Hierarchies limit creativity, define some humans as being worth 'more' or 'less' than others and are all too often imposed on people unwillingly and without any merit. Defining people in terms of being 'less' is abusive, as it is a personal attack on that individual's identity, compentence and autonomy. So what I advocate is the abolition of all that divides people into categories of 'better' or 'worse'. This also includes the abolition of the concept of criminality. My point is simple. If even one person suffers from a faulty 'justice' system, THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. Consider this: which is more important, laws or people?
As a further point, I am often asked why I oppose capitalism if it indeed creates a free-market and promotes egalitarian trade. The truth is that it does NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS. Capitalism is NOT egalitarian - it favours the established over the newcomer by affording more resources to those that already have them. Corporations are becoming more and more powerful and find ever more ways to influence lawmaking in their favour, while small businesses and individuals continue to suffer as they simply do not have the resources to compete. 'Market factors' are typically understood as being events that affect the economy. No one really creates market factors by themselves - it seems to be something that just happens. So let me get this straight - we can't enjoy ourselves like we used to, because there is a recession? Who the fuck exactly decided that there was going to be a 'recession', and how dare they interfere?
You might say, yeah, but the recession is no-one's fault, money just devalues over time, shit happens.
But I have two quick points of rebuttal to that.
1) This in istelf proves the unfairness of capitalism (and as per my previous point, if a system is unfair or flawed, it MUST be fixed as a humanist imperative). You can run a business on perfectly sound, ethical practices, be completely savvy about the world around you and quite honestly market your shit like a baws, and still end up getting completely screwed owing to factors beyond your control. And by get screwed I mean end up having no money to pay for health, education and food. You know, things we don't really need.
2) There is also the fact that not everyone loses out from a recession.
Oh, fuck, you mean somebody might actually be doing better as a direct result of many others doing worse?
No shit. Take banks, for example. They can fuck around as much as they like with people's money (such as by lending out up to nine times their actual assets) and the economy, but what happens when people have less money to give to the banks? Oh, that's allright, the government will write a nice cheque for them.
From your taxes. Which if you don't pay, you will be kidnapped legally by the government and tortured mentally and physically every single day for up to 10 years.
Oh, but there's more.
Did you know that the capitalist system owes more money than it has?
Isn't that funny? That means that all these debts everyone seems to owe each other can never and will never be repaid. Logic dictates that value cannot arise out of nothing - it takes value to create value. Labour is one such transaction. We can call it the Law of Conservation of Value - the sum of the value around the world in the economic system will always equal 0 (or x). It works in the exact same way as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Except now, thanks to this unpayable debt, capitalism expects us to believe in a negative figure of value. What nonsense!
If this was something that resulted only in a few rich men in suits having arguments, it wouldnt be a problem.
Except, Third World countries owe debts to the First World that they cannot pay. Colonialism is unneccessary, and quite frankly, too much effort. Why not just subjugate them by imposing debts on people that cannot pay them? Who cares if 1 billion people are starving? It must be their own fault.
Make sense now? This all comes back to a belief based on an obsevation of mine. That is that power, by its very nature corrupts. But further, that corruption, by its very nature, empowers.
When no one person has any power over any other person again, we will witness the end of corruption.
Recreational drug use
I recognise the dangers that recreational drug use, like any kind of drug use, may pose. I even admit that there is plenty I do not know about drugs. However, I consider it my human right to use whatever substances I please. I never agreed with my state or any state's rule on banning any drugs. I do not and never have recognised the legitimacy of such rules. If you, government, are reading this, my statement is clear. You do not have the right to impose these laws on me, or anyone else.
Please note that this does NOT extend to behaviours while on drugs that may harm people, animals or other beings, such as drinking and driving, a behaviour i do not by any means support. My point, rather, is thus: My sensory perception is mine to experiment with in whichever way I see fit. If you know of a person that 'takes drugs' (never forget of course that alcohol is a drug, and most often a recreational one at that) and then becomes abusive, then what is problematic is the abusive behaviour. If the person cannot maintain his/her behaviour while on a drug, then it is that person's responsibility not to take the fucking drug, not the law's responsibility to ban it for everyone else. Banning recreational drugs is the same as censorhip - entirely baseless and applied on spurious evidence. Indeed, "it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak", in the words of Robert Heinlein.
Polyamory
I've saved the best, and most controversial, one for last.
(Drumroll, please)
That is, polyamory, the belief that a human may indeed love, or even hold attraction for more than one other human simultaneously. A person who practices this belief is called a polyamorist - see also Ethical Slut.I have argued this point against people time and time again, and it never seems to stick. So perhaps I should start with first principles.
In an earlier paragraph, I stated that I do not believe that the full spectrum of an individual's sexual desire can ever be fulfilled by a single person. Sexual freedom is a human right. It is up to each person to decide how important the fulfillment of their sexuality is. To attempt to decide this for someone else is abusive. Any person that convinces you that their sexual needs are more important than yours, or even, that your sexual desires are not as important as something else (i.e. patriarchy, religion) is not to be trusted. My personal belief is that sexuality is nothing short of divine - not in terms of being granted by (God) or by a powerful being, but in terms of something to be respected and valued. As such, you have no right to interfere with the sexuality of another person. My own sexuality desires nothing short of a kaleidoscopic plethora of varied experiences. (I think my references to colours, light and waves when talking about sexuality is a result of my occasional synaesthesia).
As such, I see the very idea of commiting exclusively to one person indefinitely to be a rejection of one's own sexuality. Because one person cannot satisfy the entire spectrum,what this says is thus: My sexuality is not so important. I'd rather have the security of a monogamous relationship that both my partner and I are emotionally blackmailed to stay in.
The reason I think these relationships invariably result in emotional blackmail is that sexuality is hard to suppress. It wants to be free. If you are capable of feeling attraction to someone (i.e. not asexual) then how can you not feel attraction for someone else? I have never been convinced of a legitimate case of a person's entire sexuality consisting of one person over a liftetime. A married couple may be legitimately and sincerely in love, later divorce, and both partners should retain the ability to feel attraction for other people, as evidenced by them dating others after the divorce. I think that they had this ability even while attracted to and professing love for each other, but they suprressed the ability to be attracted to others in the vain hope that perhaps they could engineer theirs and their partners' sexuality to respond only to each other.
See, I had a discussion with some friends a few days ago. It amounted: "If one partner in a relationship experiences attraction for another person, doesn't act on it but merely experiences it (because attraction is not a choice), they will immediately start feling guilty. The guilt is self-imposed. Furthermore, upon expressing this to the partner, what will most likely happen in a conventional relationship is that the partner will condemn the other's sexuality and express anger and jealousy. To add insult to injury, the jealousy is blamed on the other partner, and this is somehow sanctioned as fair behaviour. When I suggested that the feelings of anger and jealousy are the responsibility of the jealous partner to fix, not the other partner, I got the response "so then you must take care to suppress your own sexuality for the sake of your partner, because you hope they'll do the same for you".
I could go on about this for pages and pages. The point is, sexuality is something to be valued, not restricted. Restricting your own sexuality for the sake of others is, in my view, allowing them to manipulate you.
One final note: Do not respond with
"omg your polyamory is dangerous and you're going to get STD's". I am not advocating having unprotected sex with people indiscriminately. In the interest of pragmatism, that would be a very bad idea.What I do advocate is caution, honesty and full disclosure, all guided by the principle of caring for other people.
"your idea of casual sex is against the ideals of committed, loving sex". Not if the point of sex is for pleasure. What I am actually telling you is that the only person's sexuality you are allowed to determine is your own, NEVER that of your partner, children or members of the community that you may influence.
"tl, dr". Then fuck off and go read someone else's blog.
Critical, well-thought out replies are absolutely welcome, even if they disagree with everything I have posted above.
Thanks for hanging in there. Good night :)
Anyway, here goes:
In a world of good sense, it is entirely necessary to justify explain and criticise one's own beliefs. To question them. To question everything, really. I am introducing a concept here - that of critical thinking. Critical thinking means evaluating ideas, propositions, theories, ideologies and systems in detail, with as much neutrality as possible (i.e. not taking sides) to find out the hidden motivations, structure and power behind what appears simple on the surface, In short, critical thinking asks "why" and doesn't stop until every avenue has been explored and the root causes and motivations are discovered.
Critical thinking is not some fancy thing university kids do. Critical thinking is for you, and anyone that ever wonders WHY things work (or don't) the way they do. Sure, it takes a bit more effort than merely stating what appears obvious, but this effort is worth the greater understanding that it affords you.
If you cannot justify your beliefs, I have no reason to accept them. For if you can't justify it, it means it did not originate through your own effortsn which rather negates holding the belief in the first place. For example, I certainly did not come up with the concept of critical thought myself. However, I have outlined the reasons I support it, therefore justifying my position. Curiosity is a vital instinct for human survival, and should be celebrated.
Atheism
I am an atheist because I have found no evidence whatsoever for the proof of a being named God, who (which) by his (its) very definition is unfalsifiable. 100% of events that have occured in my life can be explained by completely natural phenomena (as opposed to supernatural). Furthermore, even events that cannot be explained by today's understanding of science do not prove religious miracles - all they prove is that science needs to do some more investigating. Religious miracles are invalid scientific hypotheses, not as a direct result of being religious, but rather because they are unprovable to begin with. For individuals that claim they have had a conversation with (God), there are plenty of natural, scientific explanations that suggest how the individual might have experienced such a conversation that do not require the intervention of an unfalsifiable, supernatural being. Furthermore, most religions advocate faith, which I see not as something useful, for this reason: Faith, quite simply, is the tendency to believe an assertion despite a complete lack of a method of ever testing that assertion. Faith is irreconcilable with science, which requires that assertions be tested and thrown out if they cannot be proven. Faith might go undefeated by logic - because it ignores logic entirely. This is not a strength of the concept, it is a weakness. That some people might be happier entertaining beliefs of (God) through faith does not make the existence of (God) any more or less probable. Finally, I have no need of (God) or a belief system to behave morally - I instead think that one can arrive at a perfectly good system of ethics and morals through intelligent debate, critical thought and scientific reasoning.
Bisexuality
This one shouldn't require much elaboration. Quite simply, I am attracted to both sexes. That's all there is to it. My justification for being attracted to both sexes is my own sensory perception, which I will never attempt to impose upon anyone else. Despite claims to the contrary, bisexuality is as diverse as any other sexuality. Some bisexuals favour one sex over the other (this does not mean that they are less attracted to either, but that experience of their 'preferred' sex has resulted in more feelings of attraction over a lifetime, statistically speaking, when compared with their 'less preferred' sex). I consider myself as having a preference for females, if only because I feel I can relate to them better. There are other bisexuals that have strong preferences for one sex (often termed bicurious) and there are those that have a preference for neither, being equally attracted to both. In the end, what does it matter? The belief that bisexuals are really just gay people in disguise is an idiotic one - if even one person in the world can experience attraction to both sexes for even a single minute in his/her lifetime, that alone would be proof of bisexuality's existence. What the world needs is to stop taking a prescriptivist approach to sexuality, instead exploring it for whatever they want it to be.
A possible reason that bisexuality might worry certain monogamists is the cold, hard realisation that should their partner indeed be bisexual, they can never fulfill their partner's entire epectrum of sexual desires alone, owing to being only one sex themself. My rebuttal to that is that any person that truly believes that they, and they alone can satisfy the entire spectrum of sexual desire of another person, bisexual or not, is delusional and arrogant.
Anarchy
Everyone that reads this blog has probably picked up on it by now - I'm an anarchist.
First of all, this does not mean i advocate chaos and disorganisation of society. The association of anarchy with chaos is a linguistic error. I believe that organisation is an important ability of humans and is entirely necessary to achieve functionality in society.
Anarchy, then, actually means that I oppose statehood and any of its associated power structures. I instead believe that decisions should and must be taken only by those proven qualified to take them. Where these decisions affect other people, the others will be given a say in how they are implemented. I oppose hierarchies on the basis of a hierarchy being a very inefficient method of organisation. Hierarchies limit creativity, define some humans as being worth 'more' or 'less' than others and are all too often imposed on people unwillingly and without any merit. Defining people in terms of being 'less' is abusive, as it is a personal attack on that individual's identity, compentence and autonomy. So what I advocate is the abolition of all that divides people into categories of 'better' or 'worse'. This also includes the abolition of the concept of criminality. My point is simple. If even one person suffers from a faulty 'justice' system, THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED AND NEEDS IMPROVEMENT. Consider this: which is more important, laws or people?
As a further point, I am often asked why I oppose capitalism if it indeed creates a free-market and promotes egalitarian trade. The truth is that it does NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS. Capitalism is NOT egalitarian - it favours the established over the newcomer by affording more resources to those that already have them. Corporations are becoming more and more powerful and find ever more ways to influence lawmaking in their favour, while small businesses and individuals continue to suffer as they simply do not have the resources to compete. 'Market factors' are typically understood as being events that affect the economy. No one really creates market factors by themselves - it seems to be something that just happens. So let me get this straight - we can't enjoy ourselves like we used to, because there is a recession? Who the fuck exactly decided that there was going to be a 'recession', and how dare they interfere?
You might say, yeah, but the recession is no-one's fault, money just devalues over time, shit happens.
But I have two quick points of rebuttal to that.
1) This in istelf proves the unfairness of capitalism (and as per my previous point, if a system is unfair or flawed, it MUST be fixed as a humanist imperative). You can run a business on perfectly sound, ethical practices, be completely savvy about the world around you and quite honestly market your shit like a baws, and still end up getting completely screwed owing to factors beyond your control. And by get screwed I mean end up having no money to pay for health, education and food. You know, things we don't really need.
2) There is also the fact that not everyone loses out from a recession.
Oh, fuck, you mean somebody might actually be doing better as a direct result of many others doing worse?
No shit. Take banks, for example. They can fuck around as much as they like with people's money (such as by lending out up to nine times their actual assets) and the economy, but what happens when people have less money to give to the banks? Oh, that's allright, the government will write a nice cheque for them.
From your taxes. Which if you don't pay, you will be kidnapped legally by the government and tortured mentally and physically every single day for up to 10 years.
Oh, but there's more.
Did you know that the capitalist system owes more money than it has?
Isn't that funny? That means that all these debts everyone seems to owe each other can never and will never be repaid. Logic dictates that value cannot arise out of nothing - it takes value to create value. Labour is one such transaction. We can call it the Law of Conservation of Value - the sum of the value around the world in the economic system will always equal 0 (or x). It works in the exact same way as the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Except now, thanks to this unpayable debt, capitalism expects us to believe in a negative figure of value. What nonsense!
If this was something that resulted only in a few rich men in suits having arguments, it wouldnt be a problem.
Except, Third World countries owe debts to the First World that they cannot pay. Colonialism is unneccessary, and quite frankly, too much effort. Why not just subjugate them by imposing debts on people that cannot pay them? Who cares if 1 billion people are starving? It must be their own fault.
Make sense now? This all comes back to a belief based on an obsevation of mine. That is that power, by its very nature corrupts. But further, that corruption, by its very nature, empowers.
When no one person has any power over any other person again, we will witness the end of corruption.
Recreational drug use
I recognise the dangers that recreational drug use, like any kind of drug use, may pose. I even admit that there is plenty I do not know about drugs. However, I consider it my human right to use whatever substances I please. I never agreed with my state or any state's rule on banning any drugs. I do not and never have recognised the legitimacy of such rules. If you, government, are reading this, my statement is clear. You do not have the right to impose these laws on me, or anyone else.
Please note that this does NOT extend to behaviours while on drugs that may harm people, animals or other beings, such as drinking and driving, a behaviour i do not by any means support. My point, rather, is thus: My sensory perception is mine to experiment with in whichever way I see fit. If you know of a person that 'takes drugs' (never forget of course that alcohol is a drug, and most often a recreational one at that) and then becomes abusive, then what is problematic is the abusive behaviour. If the person cannot maintain his/her behaviour while on a drug, then it is that person's responsibility not to take the fucking drug, not the law's responsibility to ban it for everyone else. Banning recreational drugs is the same as censorhip - entirely baseless and applied on spurious evidence. Indeed, "it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak", in the words of Robert Heinlein.
Polyamory
I've saved the best, and most controversial, one for last.
(Drumroll, please)
That is, polyamory, the belief that a human may indeed love, or even hold attraction for more than one other human simultaneously. A person who practices this belief is called a polyamorist - see also Ethical Slut.I have argued this point against people time and time again, and it never seems to stick. So perhaps I should start with first principles.
In an earlier paragraph, I stated that I do not believe that the full spectrum of an individual's sexual desire can ever be fulfilled by a single person. Sexual freedom is a human right. It is up to each person to decide how important the fulfillment of their sexuality is. To attempt to decide this for someone else is abusive. Any person that convinces you that their sexual needs are more important than yours, or even, that your sexual desires are not as important as something else (i.e. patriarchy, religion) is not to be trusted. My personal belief is that sexuality is nothing short of divine - not in terms of being granted by (God) or by a powerful being, but in terms of something to be respected and valued. As such, you have no right to interfere with the sexuality of another person. My own sexuality desires nothing short of a kaleidoscopic plethora of varied experiences. (I think my references to colours, light and waves when talking about sexuality is a result of my occasional synaesthesia).
As such, I see the very idea of commiting exclusively to one person indefinitely to be a rejection of one's own sexuality. Because one person cannot satisfy the entire spectrum,what this says is thus: My sexuality is not so important. I'd rather have the security of a monogamous relationship that both my partner and I are emotionally blackmailed to stay in.
The reason I think these relationships invariably result in emotional blackmail is that sexuality is hard to suppress. It wants to be free. If you are capable of feeling attraction to someone (i.e. not asexual) then how can you not feel attraction for someone else? I have never been convinced of a legitimate case of a person's entire sexuality consisting of one person over a liftetime. A married couple may be legitimately and sincerely in love, later divorce, and both partners should retain the ability to feel attraction for other people, as evidenced by them dating others after the divorce. I think that they had this ability even while attracted to and professing love for each other, but they suprressed the ability to be attracted to others in the vain hope that perhaps they could engineer theirs and their partners' sexuality to respond only to each other.
See, I had a discussion with some friends a few days ago. It amounted: "If one partner in a relationship experiences attraction for another person, doesn't act on it but merely experiences it (because attraction is not a choice), they will immediately start feling guilty. The guilt is self-imposed. Furthermore, upon expressing this to the partner, what will most likely happen in a conventional relationship is that the partner will condemn the other's sexuality and express anger and jealousy. To add insult to injury, the jealousy is blamed on the other partner, and this is somehow sanctioned as fair behaviour. When I suggested that the feelings of anger and jealousy are the responsibility of the jealous partner to fix, not the other partner, I got the response "so then you must take care to suppress your own sexuality for the sake of your partner, because you hope they'll do the same for you".
I could go on about this for pages and pages. The point is, sexuality is something to be valued, not restricted. Restricting your own sexuality for the sake of others is, in my view, allowing them to manipulate you.
One final note: Do not respond with
"omg your polyamory is dangerous and you're going to get STD's". I am not advocating having unprotected sex with people indiscriminately. In the interest of pragmatism, that would be a very bad idea.What I do advocate is caution, honesty and full disclosure, all guided by the principle of caring for other people.
"your idea of casual sex is against the ideals of committed, loving sex". Not if the point of sex is for pleasure. What I am actually telling you is that the only person's sexuality you are allowed to determine is your own, NEVER that of your partner, children or members of the community that you may influence.
"tl, dr". Then fuck off and go read someone else's blog.
Critical, well-thought out replies are absolutely welcome, even if they disagree with everything I have posted above.
Thanks for hanging in there. Good night :)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
The Risk-Free Zone
I'm going to plagiarise pretty mercilessly from David Icke in my following piece, but I found the following applicable and would like to share it with you.
A friend recently suggested I include more photos and diagrams in my blogs as it would make them more reader-friendly. I shall follow this with an illustration from Paint about the next statement of mine.
In our modern [Occidental] society, more allowances have been made for individual freedom than ever before (such as in the eras of slavery and feudalism). Liberty, while not as expressly granted as desired by a constitution, is at least seen as an ideal by enough people that they should do something to protect that liberty.
The trouble is that the 1% - or those in charge of those in charge - cannot allow too much individual liberty and choice. It threatens their power base. The weakness of the 1% is that all it would take to defeat them is freedom and power distributed to a critical mass. George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four postulates a slightly different system, one less polarised by figures, because even the Inner Party were suppressed by today's societal standards. In the manual for anarchy within the book, the secret 'Brotherhood' manual written by 'Emmanuel Goldstein', we are given a history lesson about the hierarchies present in most societies, called by many different names but essentially meaning the same as what effectively came down to this - three groups, given as the High (the richest 2%) the Middle (the 13% inbetween the rich and the poor) and the Low (the other 85%) vying for control. The needs of each of the groups are incompatible with the needs of the other two. In the end, the Middle would end up enlisting the help of the Low to usurp the High, but would always end up using corruption and would screw the Low over. In Orwell's anti-Marxist work, the Low could not start an uprising, being too disempowered.
Now, to Icke's conception. The High or the 1-2% cannot allow the 98-99% to gain power. If they ( the Middle/Low) did, they could potentially unseat members of the elite. But they (the High) cannot openly enslave everyone - they can only do it covertly to a small group of people. For the rest of us, they have to rely on other devices. Similarly, they cannot imprison everyone, as they will destroy their own power base. They have to rely on people policing themselves, to a large extent. So we have the prison system and unemployment to keep people in line, but there is another, largely invisible (unless you know where to look) apparatus used to keep control, or at least the illusion of control, which they need.
That is, the Risk-Free Zone. Step out of this zone, and you will be punished - not necessarily by the police and prison, but often enough by your peers. The ostracism that will come your way for transgressing custom means that you are leaving the Risk-Free Zone, which the 1% have convinced us is morally incorrect because this is what they need.
To see a brilliant explanation of this concept, please watch this video. It's amazing. A Perfect Circle - Counting Bodies Like Sheep to the Rhythm of the War Drums. The sheep that cross the line are impaled. It has to be seen for oneself.
For a less artistic version of this, here is my diagram. I am focusing on South African, as influenced by Western culture here, and notice these are generalisations, not absolute categories.
Just to be clear, by including these I am not giving my personal judgement of these activities, merely explaining how sanctioned I believe these activities are by society in terms of Risk-Free zones. Notice the overlap. As a general rule, I support columns 2 through 5, see column 1 as overly conformist, recognise the grey area of 'victimless crimes' of column 6 and oppose column 7. The diagram is an illustration of my analysis of the matter. I would welcome any questions and arguments.
Good night.
And watch the damn video.
A friend recently suggested I include more photos and diagrams in my blogs as it would make them more reader-friendly. I shall follow this with an illustration from Paint about the next statement of mine.
In our modern [Occidental] society, more allowances have been made for individual freedom than ever before (such as in the eras of slavery and feudalism). Liberty, while not as expressly granted as desired by a constitution, is at least seen as an ideal by enough people that they should do something to protect that liberty.
The trouble is that the 1% - or those in charge of those in charge - cannot allow too much individual liberty and choice. It threatens their power base. The weakness of the 1% is that all it would take to defeat them is freedom and power distributed to a critical mass. George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four postulates a slightly different system, one less polarised by figures, because even the Inner Party were suppressed by today's societal standards. In the manual for anarchy within the book, the secret 'Brotherhood' manual written by 'Emmanuel Goldstein', we are given a history lesson about the hierarchies present in most societies, called by many different names but essentially meaning the same as what effectively came down to this - three groups, given as the High (the richest 2%) the Middle (the 13% inbetween the rich and the poor) and the Low (the other 85%) vying for control. The needs of each of the groups are incompatible with the needs of the other two. In the end, the Middle would end up enlisting the help of the Low to usurp the High, but would always end up using corruption and would screw the Low over. In Orwell's anti-Marxist work, the Low could not start an uprising, being too disempowered.
Now, to Icke's conception. The High or the 1-2% cannot allow the 98-99% to gain power. If they ( the Middle/Low) did, they could potentially unseat members of the elite. But they (the High) cannot openly enslave everyone - they can only do it covertly to a small group of people. For the rest of us, they have to rely on other devices. Similarly, they cannot imprison everyone, as they will destroy their own power base. They have to rely on people policing themselves, to a large extent. So we have the prison system and unemployment to keep people in line, but there is another, largely invisible (unless you know where to look) apparatus used to keep control, or at least the illusion of control, which they need.
That is, the Risk-Free Zone. Step out of this zone, and you will be punished - not necessarily by the police and prison, but often enough by your peers. The ostracism that will come your way for transgressing custom means that you are leaving the Risk-Free Zone, which the 1% have convinced us is morally incorrect because this is what they need.
To see a brilliant explanation of this concept, please watch this video. It's amazing. A Perfect Circle - Counting Bodies Like Sheep to the Rhythm of the War Drums. The sheep that cross the line are impaled. It has to be seen for oneself.
For a less artistic version of this, here is my diagram. I am focusing on South African, as influenced by Western culture here, and notice these are generalisations, not absolute categories.
Good night.
And watch the damn video.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
I'm back, bitches!
And, I dare say, it feels good to be back.
I have had many posts stored and partially stored in my head over the last few days. But I've written exams and managed to convince myself that writing here would be procrastination. (Shame on me!)
But here I am with some more quasi-controversial stuff for my readers.
Let us begin by making a reference to perhaps the best known psychologist ever. No, not the one who played with rats in cages. Yes, the one for whom the unconscious id was capable of mainly two types of thinking - sexual or violent. And surely the first one is better known. The reason I mention our friend Sigmund is because, when you read this, I want you to think like he might have when you read the next paragraph.
Imagine that there were a device that someone could somehow persuade you to wear or use that made your sexuality their exclusive property?
Oh shit, wait, those do exist anyway. They have for a while and most of them are not very pleasant.
But let's say you were opposed to such forcible treatment of people. After all, this should be voluntary. Just difficult to remove in case one had reservations about something like this. Something that you were convinced had great value and therefore should not be trifled with.
And there exists something like this as well! They're so common that almost all people in Western culture want one. Most end up getting one too.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way. Maybe I should just state it more plainly. My question to you is, what do you think the connotations of a wedding ring are in relation to sexual bondage and ownership?
I have had many posts stored and partially stored in my head over the last few days. But I've written exams and managed to convince myself that writing here would be procrastination. (Shame on me!)
But here I am with some more quasi-controversial stuff for my readers.
Let us begin by making a reference to perhaps the best known psychologist ever. No, not the one who played with rats in cages. Yes, the one for whom the unconscious id was capable of mainly two types of thinking - sexual or violent. And surely the first one is better known. The reason I mention our friend Sigmund is because, when you read this, I want you to think like he might have when you read the next paragraph.
Imagine that there were a device that someone could somehow persuade you to wear or use that made your sexuality their exclusive property?
Oh shit, wait, those do exist anyway. They have for a while and most of them are not very pleasant.
But let's say you were opposed to such forcible treatment of people. After all, this should be voluntary. Just difficult to remove in case one had reservations about something like this. Something that you were convinced had great value and therefore should not be trifled with.
And there exists something like this as well! They're so common that almost all people in Western culture want one. Most end up getting one too.
Perhaps I'm going about this the wrong way. Maybe I should just state it more plainly. My question to you is, what do you think the connotations of a wedding ring are in relation to sexual bondage and ownership?
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The night-walks through suburbia
...tend to produce interesting conversations. I met the Monkey somewhere around 8pm. It was dark, but we had a business deal to conduct. The transaction lasted an hour under minimal light, and all I was wearing was a t-shirt and shorts, but I wasn't even remotely cold.
For, my dearest audience, we are philosophers.
An unusual kind, mind you. But the following was reasoned:
Essays suck. They distract you from more life-enriching experiences. Blogging is better. You can do it at your own pace.
Our personal narratives can be altered with relative ease. When said narratives are entwined, intervention can be interesting (if experimental). It must just be pointed out that the intervener would need to possess a strong code of ethics for any of this to be morally permissible. It is known that I argue more for moral relativity, which is why I cannot truly claim another's behaviour as wrong if I do not have certain proof that said behaviour is causing inefficiency in the human project. In the end, we are story-tellers masquerading as journalists (or philosophers even, perhaps?), the Raoul Dukes of the twenty-eleven counterculture project.
In case you're wondering why I say essays suck and then apparently write myself one, this is what I am studying for something claiming itself to be an academic essasy. It's an excerpt from my dear friend Thomas Elsaesser,
After having argued that the New German Cinema, despite its allegiance to the Autorenfilm, did not function according to an ideology of self-expression, this chapter will try to show that it did: that self-expression as self-representation profoundly marked many of the films themselves, making them allegories of their own problematic existence, endlessly examining the question of what is cinema, and what can films produced in such a context, be 'about' except the conditions of their own impossibility?... Nothing is more consistent than the parables one finds of the subsidy system, the direct thematisations and indirect representations of its impact and paradoxes.
...w t f? I know I am given to sesquipedalian loquaciousness (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) at times, but This, dearest audience, is a mouthful I can barely understand. And now I have to study it. FML.
One more thing: I don't pay That much attention to politics, compared to some, but I would like to say, quite laconically (a new style for me perhaps? We'll see) that as a performer, Julius is perfectly within his rights to sing songs and I do wish that right had not been taken from him, for this dealt a blow to freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with the content of his songs (which I most assuredly do) I just see the problem: Now it is up to judges to decide, subjectively, what hate speech is. And they have a stupidly large amount of power to decide that, given their clearly subjective views! So now there is going to be trouble. I urge people to write discursive message and disseminate them widely in order to educate people on the nuances of the system. For only then can they ever learn to promote efficiency in the best way possible, given the proliferation of the system.
Even if you don't agree that my approach of achieving increased efficiency is the best one, you should surely concede that efficiency is what the human race deserves.
And if you don't, you are free to disagree with me. That is your right.
For, my dearest audience, we are philosophers.
An unusual kind, mind you. But the following was reasoned:
Essays suck. They distract you from more life-enriching experiences. Blogging is better. You can do it at your own pace.
Our personal narratives can be altered with relative ease. When said narratives are entwined, intervention can be interesting (if experimental). It must just be pointed out that the intervener would need to possess a strong code of ethics for any of this to be morally permissible. It is known that I argue more for moral relativity, which is why I cannot truly claim another's behaviour as wrong if I do not have certain proof that said behaviour is causing inefficiency in the human project. In the end, we are story-tellers masquerading as journalists (or philosophers even, perhaps?), the Raoul Dukes of the twenty-eleven counterculture project.
In case you're wondering why I say essays suck and then apparently write myself one, this is what I am studying for something claiming itself to be an academic essasy. It's an excerpt from my dear friend Thomas Elsaesser,
After having argued that the New German Cinema, despite its allegiance to the Autorenfilm, did not function according to an ideology of self-expression, this chapter will try to show that it did: that self-expression as self-representation profoundly marked many of the films themselves, making them allegories of their own problematic existence, endlessly examining the question of what is cinema, and what can films produced in such a context, be 'about' except the conditions of their own impossibility?... Nothing is more consistent than the parables one finds of the subsidy system, the direct thematisations and indirect representations of its impact and paradoxes.
...w t f? I know I am given to sesquipedalian loquaciousness (see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness) at times, but This, dearest audience, is a mouthful I can barely understand. And now I have to study it. FML.
One more thing: I don't pay That much attention to politics, compared to some, but I would like to say, quite laconically (a new style for me perhaps? We'll see) that as a performer, Julius is perfectly within his rights to sing songs and I do wish that right had not been taken from him, for this dealt a blow to freedom of speech. Even if I disagree with the content of his songs (which I most assuredly do) I just see the problem: Now it is up to judges to decide, subjectively, what hate speech is. And they have a stupidly large amount of power to decide that, given their clearly subjective views! So now there is going to be trouble. I urge people to write discursive message and disseminate them widely in order to educate people on the nuances of the system. For only then can they ever learn to promote efficiency in the best way possible, given the proliferation of the system.
Even if you don't agree that my approach of achieving increased efficiency is the best one, you should surely concede that efficiency is what the human race deserves.
And if you don't, you are free to disagree with me. That is your right.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Pure randomness
As I sit in the Mendi Labs (or more colloquially, the Dungeon) this morning, with nothing currently else to do (can you believe that) I've decided to make a couple of rather laconic, random points about my observations.
Hard drive space is relative. When we get a new hard drive we never think we'll use up all of it, but we do. It's because we think in terms of how much space we have available and tend to use compression, especially lossless and also pure formats, and create an entire catalogue if we wish, with double redundancy. That's how I manage to use up about 75% of my 4.5 TB. In fact 75% is a reasonably stable point at which you start thinking about space.
Not mine but apparently the best predictor of pro-weed opinions is pro-premarital sex opinions.
You can find inspiration in anything if you know where to look.
Write.
The world is a pretty ridiculous place. Gone are the illusions of childhood in which the world is orderly and contained, a closed-loop as it were. The place is completely dysfunctional.
Aspiehood brings a surprising sense of egotism. how can we make this a good thing? I only started noticing the world around me at about 13 or 14, as in becoming really cognisant of its multiplicitous, hypercomplex nature.
The internet would always emerge, given sufficient advancement in technology. The military would never be able to suppress it (or indeed any technology) forever. The internet will continue expanding as long as computers exist. For then there will be hard drive space (secondary storage) and someone else, somehow, somewhere, will be able to access it in virtual form, but that delivers, in effect, a perfect digital copy to the receiver. The internet will always be rebuilt.
And that is awesome.
EDIT:
I've been thinking about technology a lot lately, and how systems often seem to be let down thanks to bottlenecking somewhere. That leads me to think about bandwidth limits on broadband networks.
<30 minutes pass>
I've just spent the last half hour trying to find out UCT's bandwidth backbone. The best I have managed to infer is that it is currently 1 Gbps and that it may be updated at the end of the year. Some campuses are subdivided, I think Hiddingh is allowed 20 Mbps for example. But with four thousand plus connection nodes, and given that perhaps 60% of nodes could theoretically be using it simultaneously, you have, say, 2400 users. The resulting bandwidth is still 833 Kbps, not bad at all for peak usage of a connection in THIS goddamn country.
I love how everything is a metagame inside my head.
I'm very interested in days and their length and sunlight hours and equinoxes and other weather intricacies like the midnight sun, and how large a degree is in which part of the world.
It links to my love of temporal systems and understanding them.. how long does an ant live? Is its time of life related to how long it sleeps? As humans, we may sleep 8 hours at a time, given a standard life of 72 years, that's 631 152 hours, so each sleep might be 1/78894th of your life (0.00001%). A male ant lives, say, 3 weeks. For it then, each sleep would last 18 seconds, and their idea of a day would be 54 seconds, and a single calendar day would feel like 3 and a half years to us.
Speaking of which, I think I'm going to celebrate New Years 2012 on 1 January 2012 at 18:00 - that is only when 2012 actually begins. Because a year is actually 365.25 days.
INTERSPERSED EDIT (or META-EDIT): Another thing spoken about is the true realisation of what capitalism is really doing. My contention is such: The World Bank, IMF and WTO have well and truly fucked Africa up. Truly and absolutely. Consider this for a moment: How can the financial system, the capitalist system have ANY legitimacy if IT OWES MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS??? Please for the love of god can someone actually fucking realise that this is solid proof that the capitalist system has NO basis in real money and value, BECAUSE OWING MORE THAN WHAT EXISTS violates the zero sum game required for economics to have ANY parity whatsoever! Now, back to Africa. I hold the extremely firm contention that Africa will NEVER be OK under the capitalist system, and indeed will only get worse. And I say that Africa is a good place to start the revolution. We are less indoctrinated in capitalism. (That said, we will have to work hard to explain that we are not proposing communism or state socialism either, as those are just as bad). If you think about it, the only more monstrous thing that the colonial powers could do than massacre millions of Africans is reduce hundreds of millions to starvation and suffering for generations to come. People knew this was going to happen since the mid 1800s if not earlier. YOU FUCKING ECONOMY-IMPOSING PIGS. If anyone deserves hell, it's the likes of you.
Now imagine talking about all of this in the space of half an hour on a spring afternoon.
ADHD indeed.
Hard drive space is relative. When we get a new hard drive we never think we'll use up all of it, but we do. It's because we think in terms of how much space we have available and tend to use compression, especially lossless and also pure formats, and create an entire catalogue if we wish, with double redundancy. That's how I manage to use up about 75% of my 4.5 TB. In fact 75% is a reasonably stable point at which you start thinking about space.
Not mine but apparently the best predictor of pro-weed opinions is pro-premarital sex opinions.
You can find inspiration in anything if you know where to look.
Write.
The world is a pretty ridiculous place. Gone are the illusions of childhood in which the world is orderly and contained, a closed-loop as it were. The place is completely dysfunctional.
Aspiehood brings a surprising sense of egotism. how can we make this a good thing? I only started noticing the world around me at about 13 or 14, as in becoming really cognisant of its multiplicitous, hypercomplex nature.
The internet would always emerge, given sufficient advancement in technology. The military would never be able to suppress it (or indeed any technology) forever. The internet will continue expanding as long as computers exist. For then there will be hard drive space (secondary storage) and someone else, somehow, somewhere, will be able to access it in virtual form, but that delivers, in effect, a perfect digital copy to the receiver. The internet will always be rebuilt.
And that is awesome.
EDIT:
I've been thinking about technology a lot lately, and how systems often seem to be let down thanks to bottlenecking somewhere. That leads me to think about bandwidth limits on broadband networks.
<30 minutes pass>
I've just spent the last half hour trying to find out UCT's bandwidth backbone. The best I have managed to infer is that it is currently 1 Gbps and that it may be updated at the end of the year. Some campuses are subdivided, I think Hiddingh is allowed 20 Mbps for example. But with four thousand plus connection nodes, and given that perhaps 60% of nodes could theoretically be using it simultaneously, you have, say, 2400 users. The resulting bandwidth is still 833 Kbps, not bad at all for peak usage of a connection in THIS goddamn country.
I love how everything is a metagame inside my head.
I'm very interested in days and their length and sunlight hours and equinoxes and other weather intricacies like the midnight sun, and how large a degree is in which part of the world.
It links to my love of temporal systems and understanding them.. how long does an ant live? Is its time of life related to how long it sleeps? As humans, we may sleep 8 hours at a time, given a standard life of 72 years, that's 631 152 hours, so each sleep might be 1/78894th of your life (0.00001%). A male ant lives, say, 3 weeks. For it then, each sleep would last 18 seconds, and their idea of a day would be 54 seconds, and a single calendar day would feel like 3 and a half years to us.
Speaking of which, I think I'm going to celebrate New Years 2012 on 1 January 2012 at 18:00 - that is only when 2012 actually begins. Because a year is actually 365.25 days.
INTERSPERSED EDIT (or META-EDIT): Another thing spoken about is the true realisation of what capitalism is really doing. My contention is such: The World Bank, IMF and WTO have well and truly fucked Africa up. Truly and absolutely. Consider this for a moment: How can the financial system, the capitalist system have ANY legitimacy if IT OWES MORE MONEY THAN IT HAS??? Please for the love of god can someone actually fucking realise that this is solid proof that the capitalist system has NO basis in real money and value, BECAUSE OWING MORE THAN WHAT EXISTS violates the zero sum game required for economics to have ANY parity whatsoever! Now, back to Africa. I hold the extremely firm contention that Africa will NEVER be OK under the capitalist system, and indeed will only get worse. And I say that Africa is a good place to start the revolution. We are less indoctrinated in capitalism. (That said, we will have to work hard to explain that we are not proposing communism or state socialism either, as those are just as bad). If you think about it, the only more monstrous thing that the colonial powers could do than massacre millions of Africans is reduce hundreds of millions to starvation and suffering for generations to come. People knew this was going to happen since the mid 1800s if not earlier. YOU FUCKING ECONOMY-IMPOSING PIGS. If anyone deserves hell, it's the likes of you.
Now imagine talking about all of this in the space of half an hour on a spring afternoon.
ADHD indeed.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
I want to be a part of it
But the question is, do you need to?
Yes, that's right, I started a blog without an introduction. Whatever. Here's the lowdown: While I copy 108 GB of data from the laboratory computer to the external hard drive, I have a question for all of you. Why would you try, so hard, to be a part of something, anything, when the actual truth is that you are already a part of everything?
Here's how I see it. Human beings around are always trying to plug into some sort of collective: their country (patriotism), their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, their sports team, their occupation. The problem with all of these systems is that they are divisive: they, by definitition, include some and exclude others. Now do you see why this is ridiculous? To want to belong to a collective in order to EXCLUDE? The whole point of humanity is to INCLUDE, to realise that you are an autonomous, unique, beautiful expression of a whole that encompasses all of consciousness! Of a singular being that lives through us all.
This is a reason power has to go. No people deserve the power to make decisions for other people. Everyone deserves to be educated to a level in which they truly can make decisions for THEMSELVES. That would be our human rights fulfilled.
So the simple truth is that you are ALREADY a part of it all. The greater cosmic simulacrum would not be the same without you.
So make it count.
Yes, that's right, I started a blog without an introduction. Whatever. Here's the lowdown: While I copy 108 GB of data from the laboratory computer to the external hard drive, I have a question for all of you. Why would you try, so hard, to be a part of something, anything, when the actual truth is that you are already a part of everything?
Here's how I see it. Human beings around are always trying to plug into some sort of collective: their country (patriotism), their race, their sexual orientation, their gender, their sports team, their occupation. The problem with all of these systems is that they are divisive: they, by definitition, include some and exclude others. Now do you see why this is ridiculous? To want to belong to a collective in order to EXCLUDE? The whole point of humanity is to INCLUDE, to realise that you are an autonomous, unique, beautiful expression of a whole that encompasses all of consciousness! Of a singular being that lives through us all.
This is a reason power has to go. No people deserve the power to make decisions for other people. Everyone deserves to be educated to a level in which they truly can make decisions for THEMSELVES. That would be our human rights fulfilled.
So the simple truth is that you are ALREADY a part of it all. The greater cosmic simulacrum would not be the same without you.
So make it count.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Insight
Yes, I'm back. You may now all perform the customary sharp intake of breath warranted by this sudden turn of events.
Pardon my theatrics. But I have an idea for you (or is it my idea anyway?). That is, are the thoughts that you have, creative or logical (or perhaps even illogical, hopefully not too often or else I'm not getting through to my intended audience, truly yours to begin with?
From whence exactly do we, as human beings, ostensibly individuals, truly glean ideas? Do they come from your brain? What inspires them? Or did they exist elsewhere and your brain just absorbs them, crediting the individual that is you with the idea? As far as capitalists are concerned, it makes sense to credit individuals with ideas, insights and creative works, so that corporations may come and exploit such people under the banner of intellectual property rights, of course. But my question to you is as follows: Are these ideas manifestations of entirely individual thought processes?
Naturally, we all gain our inspiration from the world and our subjective experience of it. But some of us forget how much we owe to it for providing us with these thoughts and ideas. Instead we exploit or allow others to exploit these ideas for personal gain. And most of us do so not greedily and selfishly,but rather, in accordance with the system requiring us to earn money to surivive, just to make our survival that much more likely and comfortable - even at the cost of the free use of the idea.
My view, though, is that these ideas stem from the collective consciousness and that when you chance upon them, you should be grateful, and you owe it to the collective consciousness to express these. For you, with your free will, have a unique ability to express it, in a way no-one else can. The ideal, then, is for any ideas to be freely disseminated so that they can be enhanced further by other 'individual' aspects of the collective consciousness - improved, and then perfected. For that is all I believe we are, in the end, a unique aspect of this unknowable, ethereal substance we call consciousness.
In effect, I believe that what you are reading right now, in a blog typed by Dave Dornbrack, is an idea that is manifest in the consciousness itself, and that I am merely expressing this idea, using my gift of language, this particular variety that is known as English, to disseminate across the interwebs. All I am doing is increasing the palpability of a preexisting, if dissolute cogntion.
Something to consider: Sometimes, in a certain species, if enough individuals learn a behaviour, it can become instinctual to the rest of the species without ever being taught.
Make of that what you will.
Pardon my theatrics. But I have an idea for you (or is it my idea anyway?). That is, are the thoughts that you have, creative or logical (or perhaps even illogical, hopefully not too often or else I'm not getting through to my intended audience, truly yours to begin with?
From whence exactly do we, as human beings, ostensibly individuals, truly glean ideas? Do they come from your brain? What inspires them? Or did they exist elsewhere and your brain just absorbs them, crediting the individual that is you with the idea? As far as capitalists are concerned, it makes sense to credit individuals with ideas, insights and creative works, so that corporations may come and exploit such people under the banner of intellectual property rights, of course. But my question to you is as follows: Are these ideas manifestations of entirely individual thought processes?
Naturally, we all gain our inspiration from the world and our subjective experience of it. But some of us forget how much we owe to it for providing us with these thoughts and ideas. Instead we exploit or allow others to exploit these ideas for personal gain. And most of us do so not greedily and selfishly,but rather, in accordance with the system requiring us to earn money to surivive, just to make our survival that much more likely and comfortable - even at the cost of the free use of the idea.
My view, though, is that these ideas stem from the collective consciousness and that when you chance upon them, you should be grateful, and you owe it to the collective consciousness to express these. For you, with your free will, have a unique ability to express it, in a way no-one else can. The ideal, then, is for any ideas to be freely disseminated so that they can be enhanced further by other 'individual' aspects of the collective consciousness - improved, and then perfected. For that is all I believe we are, in the end, a unique aspect of this unknowable, ethereal substance we call consciousness.
In effect, I believe that what you are reading right now, in a blog typed by Dave Dornbrack, is an idea that is manifest in the consciousness itself, and that I am merely expressing this idea, using my gift of language, this particular variety that is known as English, to disseminate across the interwebs. All I am doing is increasing the palpability of a preexisting, if dissolute cogntion.
Something to consider: Sometimes, in a certain species, if enough individuals learn a behaviour, it can become instinctual to the rest of the species without ever being taught.
Make of that what you will.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Lives ruined
This is going to be quite a negative post, at least in the beginning. I just think I should warn you of this before you begin reading.
Okay, now that you've decided to go on reading anyway, let me start by stating the obvious: The world is not a just place. History tells us about how many people have been killed, tortured and excommunicated, sometimes with the illusion of justice having been done. At best, this justice is administered capricously and arbitrarily. One must remember through all of this though, that these are not statistics as much as they are human lives. Every time a person is sent to jail, exiled, beaten, killed or forced to suffer pain, it is unnecessary. These brutalities are quite simply being imposed on such people, for no reason other than those imposing them considering them just or even necessary.
Dehumanisation of people leads to said people's potential becoming less fully realised. Putting the people through hell on a personal scale is horrific enough - they have only their own lives to experience, after all. But when you consider the macrocosmic effects of such behaviour, it should become clear that if you dehumanise one person, you dehumanise everyone. The pain they feel is going to manifest itself as pain in the greater cosmic environment.
It has never been more clear: Strive to do no harm. To anyone. Ever. Making a single person suffer makes us all suffer. For we are all connected. We are all just slightly different manifestations of a collective consciousness. Why should we harm something we can help grow? We can build on happiness and efficiency to the point that they become self-sustaining. If there is a purpose for the human race, it is for everyone to live in harmony. For 100% of people, and indeed all sentient beings to enjoy their existence, however brief, to the full.
So you ask, how can I make a difference? The answer is simple: Be kind to everyone. Be generous with your time, your patience, your knowledge and your possessions. Develop yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, all the time. Seek an education. Strive to be fair, non-violent and efficient wherever possible. Listen to people. Laugh, shout, cry, celebrate, mourn with others. Most importantly, enjoy your life. It gives you greater ability to help others enjoy theirs.
Okay, now that you've decided to go on reading anyway, let me start by stating the obvious: The world is not a just place. History tells us about how many people have been killed, tortured and excommunicated, sometimes with the illusion of justice having been done. At best, this justice is administered capricously and arbitrarily. One must remember through all of this though, that these are not statistics as much as they are human lives. Every time a person is sent to jail, exiled, beaten, killed or forced to suffer pain, it is unnecessary. These brutalities are quite simply being imposed on such people, for no reason other than those imposing them considering them just or even necessary.
Dehumanisation of people leads to said people's potential becoming less fully realised. Putting the people through hell on a personal scale is horrific enough - they have only their own lives to experience, after all. But when you consider the macrocosmic effects of such behaviour, it should become clear that if you dehumanise one person, you dehumanise everyone. The pain they feel is going to manifest itself as pain in the greater cosmic environment.
It has never been more clear: Strive to do no harm. To anyone. Ever. Making a single person suffer makes us all suffer. For we are all connected. We are all just slightly different manifestations of a collective consciousness. Why should we harm something we can help grow? We can build on happiness and efficiency to the point that they become self-sustaining. If there is a purpose for the human race, it is for everyone to live in harmony. For 100% of people, and indeed all sentient beings to enjoy their existence, however brief, to the full.
So you ask, how can I make a difference? The answer is simple: Be kind to everyone. Be generous with your time, your patience, your knowledge and your possessions. Develop yourself physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, all the time. Seek an education. Strive to be fair, non-violent and efficient wherever possible. Listen to people. Laugh, shout, cry, celebrate, mourn with others. Most importantly, enjoy your life. It gives you greater ability to help others enjoy theirs.
Monday, August 15, 2011
The Pot
If you want to get anywhere studying a degree, I have one piece of solid advice for you. No, it's not study hard, no it's not don't party hard, and it certainly isnt 'stay off the pot'.
Stay the fuck away from TV Tropes. If you're anything like me, you will likely find the site irresistible and remark, 8 hours later, where the fuck has my life gone?
Ah, another symptom of Internet addiction. Kinda distracts me from the important things in life, and indeed the important point of this post, which actually has nothing to do with internet addiction.
This post is about weed. It could be about drugs in general, but for now I'm going to focus on weed.
Now of course I've never been high before. (It's illegal, and I don't break the law). But, lets, just say, hypothetically, that I were to try this, I suspect that with enough use I could come to recognise the dangers, but also the potential of this. And by 'this' I mean being high, having one's state and/or perception altered, and importantly, allowing it to be altered by choice. The drug user voluntarily enters this state. And then strange things start to happen.
You see, you start seeing the world in a different way. You notice that things around you have a strange flow to them... some are functional and efficient. The dysfunctional ones don't affect you quite as much. Your senses are all enhanced and you feel quite sharp, reflexive and agile. And then you make a key realisation. The world around you - when high - is the world that you want to see. It's no Utopia, but it's a projection of your desires.
One paying any attention at this point could figure out the obvious danger involved here: Such a world is highly desirable and preferable to the so-called 'real' one. The drug user will reach a point that he/she rationally concludes that living in such a world is simply better than the other, and begin to smoke pot regularly. (Addiction? Or rational choice to continue using? You be the judge). The point is that using this drug allows you to see things in a different way. A good metaphor for it, for those who have read Harry Potter, is in the first book where Harry finds the Mirror of Erised (desire backwards). The mirror is a projection - nothing more.
But in this same post I argue that this is entirely necessary. To boost creativity and efficiency, to imagine a better world, is entirely necessary if one is ever to create such a thing. Creativity naturally comes to those that know where to look for it. And by serving as a 'distraction' to a person, the drug may allow a person to enter such a space. And then it is used in the service of the present (to have fun/be more calm/enjoy a party more/succeed better at attracting people) and the future (inspiration for creative works, whether for one's career or just for the world in general).
Perhaps those that postulate a causal relationship between weed and schizophrenia see these experiences as delusions. (Perhaps they are). Except, for a schizophrenic person, these delusions become all to real, indistinguishable from so-called reality. While I, of course, am in doubt about such a reality existing in the first place, certain people think that because weed has hallucinatory effects, users cannot separate them from the more commonly experienced life (presumably one not affected by psychoactive drugs). However, let me make a bold suggestion: if a person develops schizophrenia through use of weed - what if they were paranoid and delusional in the first place, and smoking helped to naturalise it? This would be a strong argument for people not to smoke if they were schizophrenic. However, I very strongly doubt that a person with no preexisting psychosis could induce delusions by smoking pot - the test would be: while high, is the subject able to tell the two 'realities' apart? If yes, then where's the risk? It does not make sense that one would lose the rational ability to separate imagination from, well, 'reality' (another layer of imagination?)
So I don't buy the whole schizophrenia thing. Interestingly, my psychiatrist believes that ADHD and schizophrenia are on opposite ends of a continuum - ADHD patients have an underproduction of dopamine, and schizophrenia patients and overproduction.
Nor do I believe that weed is physically addictive. Psychologically, perhaps - if only for the fact that regular users enjoy their experiences and therefore choose to repeat them.
But of course, I have never experienced any of this for myself. Because I don't do drugs. Drugs are bad.
Fuck it, there's no getting through to you kids, is there? Drugs are... Forget it. I'm going for a beer.
Stay the fuck away from TV Tropes. If you're anything like me, you will likely find the site irresistible and remark, 8 hours later, where the fuck has my life gone?
Ah, another symptom of Internet addiction. Kinda distracts me from the important things in life, and indeed the important point of this post, which actually has nothing to do with internet addiction.
This post is about weed. It could be about drugs in general, but for now I'm going to focus on weed.
Now of course I've never been high before. (It's illegal, and I don't break the law). But, lets, just say, hypothetically, that I were to try this, I suspect that with enough use I could come to recognise the dangers, but also the potential of this. And by 'this' I mean being high, having one's state and/or perception altered, and importantly, allowing it to be altered by choice. The drug user voluntarily enters this state. And then strange things start to happen.
You see, you start seeing the world in a different way. You notice that things around you have a strange flow to them... some are functional and efficient. The dysfunctional ones don't affect you quite as much. Your senses are all enhanced and you feel quite sharp, reflexive and agile. And then you make a key realisation. The world around you - when high - is the world that you want to see. It's no Utopia, but it's a projection of your desires.
One paying any attention at this point could figure out the obvious danger involved here: Such a world is highly desirable and preferable to the so-called 'real' one. The drug user will reach a point that he/she rationally concludes that living in such a world is simply better than the other, and begin to smoke pot regularly. (Addiction? Or rational choice to continue using? You be the judge). The point is that using this drug allows you to see things in a different way. A good metaphor for it, for those who have read Harry Potter, is in the first book where Harry finds the Mirror of Erised (desire backwards). The mirror is a projection - nothing more.
But in this same post I argue that this is entirely necessary. To boost creativity and efficiency, to imagine a better world, is entirely necessary if one is ever to create such a thing. Creativity naturally comes to those that know where to look for it. And by serving as a 'distraction' to a person, the drug may allow a person to enter such a space. And then it is used in the service of the present (to have fun/be more calm/enjoy a party more/succeed better at attracting people) and the future (inspiration for creative works, whether for one's career or just for the world in general).
Perhaps those that postulate a causal relationship between weed and schizophrenia see these experiences as delusions. (Perhaps they are). Except, for a schizophrenic person, these delusions become all to real, indistinguishable from so-called reality. While I, of course, am in doubt about such a reality existing in the first place, certain people think that because weed has hallucinatory effects, users cannot separate them from the more commonly experienced life (presumably one not affected by psychoactive drugs). However, let me make a bold suggestion: if a person develops schizophrenia through use of weed - what if they were paranoid and delusional in the first place, and smoking helped to naturalise it? This would be a strong argument for people not to smoke if they were schizophrenic. However, I very strongly doubt that a person with no preexisting psychosis could induce delusions by smoking pot - the test would be: while high, is the subject able to tell the two 'realities' apart? If yes, then where's the risk? It does not make sense that one would lose the rational ability to separate imagination from, well, 'reality' (another layer of imagination?)
So I don't buy the whole schizophrenia thing. Interestingly, my psychiatrist believes that ADHD and schizophrenia are on opposite ends of a continuum - ADHD patients have an underproduction of dopamine, and schizophrenia patients and overproduction.
Nor do I believe that weed is physically addictive. Psychologically, perhaps - if only for the fact that regular users enjoy their experiences and therefore choose to repeat them.
But of course, I have never experienced any of this for myself. Because I don't do drugs. Drugs are bad.
Fuck it, there's no getting through to you kids, is there? Drugs are... Forget it. I'm going for a beer.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Kids
I am having a bit of an angry day today. It happens from time to time. I merely remark upon it to justify, in advance, the somewhat hostile tone of this post. The reason I shall persist with it, though, is because I feel it is appropriate in this case.
It's a quick issue. But it gets to me and needs to get out. And it is this: Most of my friends are in the age range 18-30. (As one would expect). All of these people have had childhoods of varying strictnes, control and parental intervention, ranging from little to great. You must ALL be aware, though, of how terrible a life under the latter would be.
Yet then why do I hear you declare that when you have kids, you are going to be similarly tough on them? DONT YOU LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES??? Being tough on people never works. it just makes them hostile towards you, and makes an enemy out of someone you could otherwise have co-operated with. Here's my approach to parenting (God forbid I ever need to use it myself, but here goes)
Teach your kids fucking decent communication skills, so that they can always be honest about what it is they want. Then communicate well and reach an informed decision about the best way to proceed, instead of forcing your authoritarian will on them. When your parents did that to you, what did you do? That's right - you went out anyway. You had sex. You drank alcohol. You smoked pot.
And your kids will do the same.
Good night.
It's a quick issue. But it gets to me and needs to get out. And it is this: Most of my friends are in the age range 18-30. (As one would expect). All of these people have had childhoods of varying strictnes, control and parental intervention, ranging from little to great. You must ALL be aware, though, of how terrible a life under the latter would be.
Yet then why do I hear you declare that when you have kids, you are going to be similarly tough on them? DONT YOU LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES??? Being tough on people never works. it just makes them hostile towards you, and makes an enemy out of someone you could otherwise have co-operated with. Here's my approach to parenting (God forbid I ever need to use it myself, but here goes)
Teach your kids fucking decent communication skills, so that they can always be honest about what it is they want. Then communicate well and reach an informed decision about the best way to proceed, instead of forcing your authoritarian will on them. When your parents did that to you, what did you do? That's right - you went out anyway. You had sex. You drank alcohol. You smoked pot.
And your kids will do the same.
Good night.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Idealism
Allright, so I have this friend. To preserve his anonymity, we're going to call him MW. Yesterday, MW and I were talking about matters related to sensitivity vs toughness, but more importantly, something TV Tropes refers to as the Sliding Scale of Idealism vs Cynicism. Read it here. In short, it's about how those two concepts belong on opposite ends of a continuum. And perhaps they do.
So guess which end I'm on? Yeah, I suppose that didn't take much effort on your part. The reason I mention MW is because he's the self-proclaimed opposite. Whether this is true or just wishful thinking on his part is his concern, because that's the problem cynics have: they distinguish between the two.
I used to be a cynic, myself. I hated the world and everything it stood for. I was never a misanthropist, unlike a certain ex of mine (who herself fulfills most of the criteria for cynicism). But I certainly was quite negative, not to mention depressed and disillusioned with the world.
And then something changed. Perhaps I am mistaken or overly optimistic in assuming this change is for the better. But my senses tell me it is. Life isn't nearly quite as empty when you take a look at it, and realise, hey, I'm actually achieving some of those goals. This is really happening. We're not scaremongering....
Forgive my Radiohead moment. (What kind of idealist listens to Radiohead, anyway? Or loves films like Fight Club, Sin City and American Beauty, not to mention said person's own films always seem to be about depression and suicide).
So perhaps we're not all achieving our goals. In that case, I can understand cynicism. But a certain amount of achievement, be it in the arts, the sciences or the wonderful world of seduction, is bound to make a person realise, hey, life isn't all that bad. We have agency. We have a 'reality' fully built out of our own subjectivity.
And that's when things start to get really weird. (See my post on solipsism). After talking to MW, I went to see my psychologist, whom I was imagining was pretty sick of me and my delusional monologues regarding sociology, politics and individual psychology. But I started developing a theory (honestly, one I'm completely unable to let go of, for letting go would mean letting them win. And that, I refuse to do. Acquiescence to my enemies' constructed reality isn't happening any time soon.
My theory is: Efficiency is a virtue. And the best one. But I need to redefine your idea of efficiency first. You're supposedly only thinking about terms of work and success. And those are great things. But there's another dimension entirely to efficiency - your happiness. It's total bullshit that up to 85% of people are forced to do jobs they hate. They're not contributing much to the world, not because their jobs aren't worth much, but because they're not happy. A happy person is a far healthier, more engaging, more EFFICIENT person. The so-called virtue of hard work should be replaced with a virtue of EFFICIENCY. See, hard work isn't efficient, or else it wouldn't be hard, but smart.
I have thought of many ways to go about my life and have as much fun as possible, while still being productive. And I've realised that the way I'm going to do that is by championing the kind of efficiency that looks after the individual. People aren't as lazy as we think. Indeed, we only call people lazy in opposition, say, to doing work they don't want to. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Societal determinism has created a situation where you must choose the lesser of two evils: work hard instead of starving. What I'm trying to say is that this is WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's a DYSFUNCTION of the system when a person is unhappy. Happiness, if represented by a critical mass, will solve all the world's problems. This I guarantee you. Your environment determines your life. Not your personality. So, let's work on the goddamn environment, and turn as many people as possible (obviously, it will never be everyone) into individuals that love, care for and look out for each other. And slowly the dysfunction of the world will vanish. Institutions that are no longer relevant will fade into obscurity.
EDIT: I had to rush off, but I'm back. To make sense of what I'm saying, you will have to understand my mathematical take on the world. Imagine that people's happiness is represented on a scale, say from 1 to 100, 100 being happiest. Happiness is contagious and reinforces itself. So if enough people have an average over 50, reaching critical mass, it will be a good enough world that most people can reach that. Let's imagine all people walking around with auras. Those with green (happy) auras improve their world around them. Those with red auras damage it. With enough green auras (which engage in energy transfer and, if left unguarded, entropy) the world will be improved far faster than it can be destroyed. See, I belive happiness is absolute, and there is an unlimited quantity of it, yet it is highly vulnerable and currently unstable. That is why it needs to be protected. By eliminating waste and caring for people, we care for the human race, and as a result, the planet. Dumping waste in rivers is inefficient - it destroys far more than it helps. This goes for any kind of environmental degradation - it is inefficient to destroy life. It causes more harm than good. So we must focus on doing good instead of harm.
I hope this post makes sense, for to me this is nothing short of a vital epiphany.
Good morning.
So guess which end I'm on? Yeah, I suppose that didn't take much effort on your part. The reason I mention MW is because he's the self-proclaimed opposite. Whether this is true or just wishful thinking on his part is his concern, because that's the problem cynics have: they distinguish between the two.
I used to be a cynic, myself. I hated the world and everything it stood for. I was never a misanthropist, unlike a certain ex of mine (who herself fulfills most of the criteria for cynicism). But I certainly was quite negative, not to mention depressed and disillusioned with the world.
And then something changed. Perhaps I am mistaken or overly optimistic in assuming this change is for the better. But my senses tell me it is. Life isn't nearly quite as empty when you take a look at it, and realise, hey, I'm actually achieving some of those goals. This is really happening. We're not scaremongering....
Forgive my Radiohead moment. (What kind of idealist listens to Radiohead, anyway? Or loves films like Fight Club, Sin City and American Beauty, not to mention said person's own films always seem to be about depression and suicide).
So perhaps we're not all achieving our goals. In that case, I can understand cynicism. But a certain amount of achievement, be it in the arts, the sciences or the wonderful world of seduction, is bound to make a person realise, hey, life isn't all that bad. We have agency. We have a 'reality' fully built out of our own subjectivity.
And that's when things start to get really weird. (See my post on solipsism). After talking to MW, I went to see my psychologist, whom I was imagining was pretty sick of me and my delusional monologues regarding sociology, politics and individual psychology. But I started developing a theory (honestly, one I'm completely unable to let go of, for letting go would mean letting them win. And that, I refuse to do. Acquiescence to my enemies' constructed reality isn't happening any time soon.
My theory is: Efficiency is a virtue. And the best one. But I need to redefine your idea of efficiency first. You're supposedly only thinking about terms of work and success. And those are great things. But there's another dimension entirely to efficiency - your happiness. It's total bullshit that up to 85% of people are forced to do jobs they hate. They're not contributing much to the world, not because their jobs aren't worth much, but because they're not happy. A happy person is a far healthier, more engaging, more EFFICIENT person. The so-called virtue of hard work should be replaced with a virtue of EFFICIENCY. See, hard work isn't efficient, or else it wouldn't be hard, but smart.
I have thought of many ways to go about my life and have as much fun as possible, while still being productive. And I've realised that the way I'm going to do that is by championing the kind of efficiency that looks after the individual. People aren't as lazy as we think. Indeed, we only call people lazy in opposition, say, to doing work they don't want to. WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Societal determinism has created a situation where you must choose the lesser of two evils: work hard instead of starving. What I'm trying to say is that this is WRONG WRONG WRONG! It's a DYSFUNCTION of the system when a person is unhappy. Happiness, if represented by a critical mass, will solve all the world's problems. This I guarantee you. Your environment determines your life. Not your personality. So, let's work on the goddamn environment, and turn as many people as possible (obviously, it will never be everyone) into individuals that love, care for and look out for each other. And slowly the dysfunction of the world will vanish. Institutions that are no longer relevant will fade into obscurity.
EDIT: I had to rush off, but I'm back. To make sense of what I'm saying, you will have to understand my mathematical take on the world. Imagine that people's happiness is represented on a scale, say from 1 to 100, 100 being happiest. Happiness is contagious and reinforces itself. So if enough people have an average over 50, reaching critical mass, it will be a good enough world that most people can reach that. Let's imagine all people walking around with auras. Those with green (happy) auras improve their world around them. Those with red auras damage it. With enough green auras (which engage in energy transfer and, if left unguarded, entropy) the world will be improved far faster than it can be destroyed. See, I belive happiness is absolute, and there is an unlimited quantity of it, yet it is highly vulnerable and currently unstable. That is why it needs to be protected. By eliminating waste and caring for people, we care for the human race, and as a result, the planet. Dumping waste in rivers is inefficient - it destroys far more than it helps. This goes for any kind of environmental degradation - it is inefficient to destroy life. It causes more harm than good. So we must focus on doing good instead of harm.
I hope this post makes sense, for to me this is nothing short of a vital epiphany.
Good morning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)