It will only take you 10 minutes to read this, but it is probably the most important thing I wanted to write this year. It is my message for Mankind for Christmas and New Years Eve. It’ll also be my last post this year. So enjoy.
Did you ever notice how your mind has an amazing ability to adapt? How flexible people are and how many different things they believe? From the most amazing, to the most ridiculous, to the most mundane. There is a pattern here, your mind has a pattern of thinking, do you see it?
If you were born in India and follow the teachings of Hinduism, you will believe reality is created entirely out of sound. If you were born in an Aborigine culture you will believe that reality is a dream. If you were born in the Western culture and sometimes watch the Discovery channel you believe reality consists of objects, like atoms, particles, cells and neuron networks in your brain. If you follow what you were taught in school (well at least outside of Kansas) you will believe in evolution, and that man evolved from ape. If you follow what Christianity tells you, you will believe God created you. If you follow pastafarianism you will believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster rules the world. If you were raised in ancient Greece you believed the history of the world were Gods and Titans fighting each other. If you were born today you think the history of the world is what you can read on Wikipedia. If your interest is science you will believe science has answers. If your interest is spirituality and esoterism you’ll believe the Tarot or I Ching has answers to everything. If you lived a long time ago you thought the world was a giant tortoise. If you lived in medieval ages you thought the world was flat. If you live today you think the world is round. If your interest is economy, you’ll see marketing and money everywhere. If you are an alcoholic it seems impossible to stop drinking. If you are not it is impossible to not refuse a drink. If you listen to metal, you think metal is king. If you listen to cha-cha you think cha-cha is king. You might think Quake is the best shooter, or Unreal, or Crysis, some even think Soldat is. If you were born in a poor family, you see rags everywhere. If you were born in a rich family, you see riches everywhere. If you’re a programmer, you see people and the world as computer programs and machines. If you’re a musician, you see songs everywhere. If you study geometry or math, you see the golden ratio, spirals and fractals everywhere.
Everywhere you look there is a spiral. From the smallest to the unimaginable.
Everything is myth, math and metaphor.
There is no reality other than what you percieve. Everywhere you look at, there are only myths, numbers, metaphors and spirals. The problem arises when you believe that it is real.
There are no spirals.
All these different people I wrote above believe that what they are thinking IS real.
Think about it. They thought or think it is real as much as you think your reality is real.
All people today and in history were thinking that what they know is the truth.
Science exists and is believed to be a method of understanding reality because it works and gives useful results. Thanks to science we have computers, medicine, Tamagotchi’s.
Mysticism also exists because of one and only reason. The same reason science exists. Both are methods of understanding reality through experience. If a ritual did not work it was discarded, people practicing it were not dumb.
Every tribal and ancient society in the world had shamans and rituals. Does that ever make you wonder? They couldn’t possibly know about each other, there was no internet to communicate and share ideas about shamanism. Whether it is South America, middle of Africa or the Arctic Pole, every society living there had some kind of spiritual belief system. Why was it so important? The best explanation I found for this is exactly because shamanism WORKS. A shaman in trance gets things done: he helps hunters find animals, he cures decease and he predicts future events.
Scientists also make our lives easier (find food), produce medicine and use statistics and physical laws to predict future events. I don’t know which method is better. It depends on your purpose, shamanism won’t invent a Tamagotchi, but science won’t help you talk with the spirit of the earth. The fact is, both methods work in one way or another in everyday life, that’s the only reason people use them.
Do you think your reality is better than the Indians? Does the Indian think his reality is better than yours?
Your method of understanding and knowing of the world is a belief system. Christianity, science, Buddhism, shamanism, nihilism, optimism. I believe that all of these systems don’t tell us anything about reality itself, they only tell us how are we thinking at any given moment of time. They are metaphors that help us operate in this world. They don’t tell us anything about the ultimate reality itself. Our minds work only on metaphors…
…and we cannot escape the realm of the metaphors we create for ourselves to live in.
Some people try to find the ultimate Truth and believe that tools like science are able to find it. Yet they don’t see that the only reason they can’t find it is because they are not true to themselves. Face it, “Truth” is also a metaphor. Like all ideas, just created by us humans. Why is there a need to find what it is?
It is like looking at an Escher picture.
The steps always lead somewhere, even if it looks like there is an end, you are always stuck on the damn steps. You cannot go beyond the metaphors of your mind, you are always stuck on your interpretations.
And you are always stuck on thinking they are real.
Enlightenment often comes to students of philosophy. Philosophy for me is a study of different world views, not about what is reality. If you learn about enough world views soon you’ll start seeing a pattern. Read about Nietzsche, Plato, Socrates, Kant, Wittgenstein, Krishnamurti, Yoda. The more far out of your reality the better! If you are a nihilist try being a religious fundamentalist for a week. If you are an optimist, try being a pessimist for a week! If you follow Greek philosophers try following Hindu philosophers for a while. Do it and you’ll see that the new understanding is fundamentally no different than the other. EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER. Most people are stuck with their one reality model and think that it is the truth. We all think that what we are currently thinking is true, just because it makes sense. It’s as if everybody was right, yet all our views are different?
You can believe in just about anything if you give it enough time. EACH PERSONS REALITY MAKES SENSE TO THEM. They wouldn’t call it reality if they didn’t believe in it.
We are all right and at the same time we are all wrong. In every moment, every second of our life time we’re creating and experiencing ONLY interpretations and metaphors. We are not actually seeing reality as it is. From a neurological point of view our brains are just constructing meaning from sensory input. What you perceive consciously is the end phase of a massive filtering and modelling. The final result, what you see or think of reality, is an INTERPRETATION. The Hopi Indians, Aborigines or Toltec’s said that we are all dreaming…
It is just in your head.
You see spirals everywhere, but that does not mean there are spirals anywhere really to be found. If you look at a galaxy and then look down until you see a snail, spirals are the only thing you can see. It is the limit of your mind.
You cannot see anything else.
If this dawns to you, it changes everything. All that you see, hear, smell, think, everything you have been taught by your parents, friends, society, religion, school is just an interpretation of reality based on simple mind structures like geometry, psychological archetypes and myths. No understanding is different or better than another. Everything is a model existing entirely in your head.
All is myth, math and metaphor.
This is why there are currently 6.6 billion realities. Not ONE reality. Every person in the world, has his own reality. And the sick thing is that most people think that their reality is better and/or more true than the reality of his neighbors.
Everybody will try to convince everybody that it is their reality that is more real than everyone else’s. They argue, write books about it, brainwash one another, start political parties. Some people go to the extreme and start wars. Wars are fought over ideas. Think about it.
If enough people would realize what I am saying here, I believe the world would be a much better place to live on, it would probably be an end to war. But even if not, certainly earth would be a much more chilled place to live on.
It is scary that people kill each other, just on the basis of their thoughts. One side wants to get rid of Jews, the other side wants to get rich and dominate the world. This was World War 2. If you live in the Western culture you think the Allies were the good side and they were saving the world from evil, if you were a Nazi you thought the Axis was the good side because you needed more space, if you are from the middle east you just see the grand plot of white people to establish Israel on Arab land. Of course on whatever side you are, you think you are on the good side. If everybody is good why do we fight each other?
You must notice this, if anything is ever going to change. Like any other, World War 2 was a war of reality models. A war over whose metaphor is better than the other.
There is a movie that I can watch every single day and not get tired of. It is The Great Dictator from 1940. Please watch this clip. It is one of the most powerful scenes in movie history. Charlie Chaplin is being mistaken for being the Führer and he is asked to give a speech. He is only a simple barber and this is what he has to say.
Watching this I have no fear of the future. As long as individuals like this keep inspiring us we’ll all be just alright. This is power ultimate.People like Charles Chaplin don’t try to force any idea into you. They are open minded, they don’t think something is better or worse. This allows them to take anything, any world view and use it as a source of creativity and inspiration. This is the only way something new can be created. First you must destroy whatever it is that is enslaving you. You think something is, must be, can’t be or should be? Chill out. That’s only a metaphor you have created, destroy it and use another one. Use a metaphor that will allow you to be great. Use a metaphor that everything can be and will be.
Stop thinking about the things you want to accomplish and make them happen. If it seems impossible, it’s because that’s the meaning you created. Don’t EVER believe anyone telling you something is impossible, they don’t know shit.
You’re only as powerful as the metaphors you use. A powerful metaphor in your mind is a leverage which will allow you to accomplish and do things that previously you thought were out of your reach. If you have a lever long enough you can move the world.
On the other hand a lousy metaphor will make you bitter and sad, and you’ll believe some things just can’t be done. That is your reality. One of 6.6 billions. You can change it anytime you want. It is your choice.
I wish you get some worthy presents this Christmas. It would be great if you could get and read one of these books:
– if you’re on the rational/psychology side of thinking read Radical Honesty by Brad Blanton.
– if you’re more on the spiritual/mystical side of thinking read The Four Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz
The best thing you can do is read both and see that there is more than one reality, not just psychology OR mysticism. Both books are really about the same thing. They are about liberation.
That’s all for now, I’m taking a break from this blog.
Just to free myself from my own creation and not get too stuck in my own metaphors.
Don’t follow anything or anyone.
Don’t ever think that you know the truth.
Don’t ever believe anything you see, hear or read.
Don’t believe what you think.
And of course don’t believe me.
Question everything.
Questioning is the most powerful metaphor of all.
That’s what I wish you this Christmas… and have fun.
“sammy enron harvard” you struck gold
Did you realize that what you writh is what YOU think!
An other clear picture is a human and a dog. We think reality is colorfull because our brain and eyes can interpret light differently then a dog that belives that the world is black and white.
You wish us a happy Christmas because You think it’s Christmas and you think Christmas exist my fish dosent belive this shit he say’s that in 2 days it’s gonna be Haloween because I decorated is house with pumpkens.
I’m appaently too stupid to agree with what you’re writing.
Reality is external. From our selfish perspective it is indeed internal – we experience only electrical stimuli. But we are much more than just a lump of gray goo – look at a man, or better, look at men. Make it two, three, ten men. Make them grab a rod and heat it up very fast. Each men will do the same thing, will he not? In fact, each man will respond in the same basic way to the same stimuli – what might differ is the interpretation of the world, not it’s vision, essence. One man may interpret that you were trying to harm him, attacking you, the other may as well run away. Their interporetations are based on their knowledge, their character, their experience. Reality may seem a cruel and uncaring place to one man and a blissful and joyful paradise to another. But if both of them see a rock, they see a rock. What meaning they choose to attach to it may differ. Humans are patern-finding machines and attach metaphors and meanings to objects. How do you know a bottle of medicine will save your diabetic ass? It’s physical properties – it’s taste, shape, warmth do not suggest it can actually do so, but it does. For a tribal this object may represent no value at all, where as for a civilized yet healthy man this might be an object of no interest despine knowing it’s function. For the diabetic this will be very valuable indeed. Th meanings attached to the object are different, but in all cases it is the same thing. Bearing different names, different meanings to different people, but it’s still the same thing in the same reality.
It is indeed scary people kill over ideas. All parties certain that their interpretation of reality is true and good. But it was not a war of metaphors. That would be a big blunder on your side. It was not the idea, it was the land, the people, the resources Hitler wanted. Ideas were secondary. Why, haven’t you noticed that? Look at the war in Afghanistan. Americans supported the militant Islamis in Alghanistan when they were overthrowing the soviet union. They were given military help, weapons, training, they were heroes. But not one generation has passed before the same people are labelled terrorists, criminals, the ultimate evil. The war was not fought over ideas, Michał, it was fought over the very concrete land of Afghanistan. And Iraq? What reasonable threat did Saddam represent to America? None. The ideas were a cover-up for the plundering of oil. People can’t grasp the importance of land and resource. They won’t fight over new land and resource until they themselves have no place to live and are hungry. It’s much simpler with ideas – young men may voluenteer to die for ideas if you convince them it’s right. It’s because humans always do what they think is right. In this aspect Charlie was right – people don’t do wrong on purpose. But who is to say what’s wrong and what’s right? Who is to say war must always be evil, or conformity and peace always good? There is no person who can give the true answer to any moral question. At the best he may be presenting his own, ALWAYS biased opinion.
Also, Chaplin here is a populist. An even bigger populist than Andrew Lepper and Roman Giertych together, I believe. Minus the sun-tan and a few inches of height that is.
You’re saying my metaphor is restrictive. That I can do the impossible. Please, say that on a business meeting and you’ll be laughed at. Corporations and maths all not only know what impossible is, but can exactly define it’s regions. And as nice it is to dream, most dreams will never, ever be realized. And, haven’t you noticed, that the more dreams shatter, the more bitter you become? I would like nothing more than to adopt your hurra-optimistic view of the world, but I’m affraid that’ll just leave me on a wild goose chase, pursuing goals which I can not realistically furfil.
But I’ll tell you this. I’ve been raised with a certain specific mindset being carved into my mind: that the world is cruel, malevolent, brutal, that everyone is a predator and potential backstabber intent on getting money and only that. That whenever life kicks you – and it will kick you all the time, turn around, and kick it five times harder now but if you can’t, remember, and kick it twenty times harder tomorrow. And it doesn’t go against what I wrote a few paragraphs up – no, that’s the horror of it. That my good is another man’s wrong, and it is usually so – that I do what’s right, but right for me and right for another man are the polar opposites. That there is no universal good or evil. So far, it has regrettably worked for me. Because, again regrettably, it fits so well into today’s society, and I’m sure both you and I could find hundreds of points that could prove how practical this mindset really is.
You don’t hate – only the unloved hate. Only the unloved and the unnatural.
Those words struck me.
Happy Christmas Michał and every other MM blog regular.
Bloody hell, you sound depressed or something.
Maybe programming to hard for too long
I start behaving strangely after programming for days on end.
But an answer from me to your ‘Do you ever think…’ questions is yes, of course. I’m sure most of us do. We all question; it’s the reason we’ve have advanced this far.
DarK out.
Fuck, all this time I thought Odin made tamagotchis.
I lost you there at the spirals bit…
Fuck, all this time I thought Odin made tamagotchis.
LOL!
“If you were born in so-and-so place and at this-and-that time, you believe in something-or-the-other”
I already mentioned this is social programming. Even in ancient Rome, there were people who rose over their social programming and denounced gods. Your social background doesn’t necessitate your beliefs. You can choose what you believe in.
“A shaman in trance gets things done: he helps hunters find animals, he cures decease and he predicts future events.”
LMGDAO. Yeah, right after he makes out with the Easter Bunny.
“if you were a Nazi you thought the Axis was the good side because you needed more space”
Yeah, I guess the fact that they killed non combatant Jews in Germany, Poland etc in concentration camps doesn’t make them wrong. In your model, they are justified murder because they arbitrarily thought it was necessary. You are oversimplifying.
“I believe the world would be a much better place to live on, it would probably be an end to war.”
Religious zealotry is just one factor of war. Resource control is a far more important factor.
“Everything is a model existing entirely in your head.”
Yep. And between contradicting beliefs, it’s physical reality that sets the score. I respect people’s religious beliefs and all, but without religion, there would be less zealotry.
Interesting post. Maybe it is the ultimate goal of life to live in peace?
Oh look BigBossSNK is here, ROUND 1, FIGHT!
MM you need to agree that there’s a “true” and a “false” somwhere maybe beliving in something makes you stronger but somewhere if somone says that there’s a god of war and a god of apple and somone else says there’s only one god and the other one says there’s no god at all somone will be right and the other’s wrong that’s a truth of life.
Thanks for sharin’ your reality, MM. 😛
I still think mine beats yours. 😀
lol.
id say: walk against a wall believing it aint real, if u dont pass out when bumping it with your head, tell me.
Ultimate goal of life to live in peace? Oh yes, most certainly.
It’s most certainly a great vision. Great but untrue.
It is in the very nature of life to fight. We desire to live in peace until we are old and strong enough to fight. Usually the fight comes in before we’re ready – take school for instance. Then we go to niversit, now willingly, and fight the system. We struggle for notes, we cheat, we stay up late at nights, we wake up early, we make essays and presentations, we learn – we fight.
We fight for food by working, and if all else fails, we fight for space and resources by killing fellow men.
But there’s more to it than that. Ever thought of why the US are as powerful as they are? It’s because they have an enemy. Leo Strauss noticed this fact. A society without a common enemy, a common target of hatred falls into disorder, moral and social collapse. Peace does not result in unification and happyness – peace reslts in wild individualism, destabiliation of society. And war against a common enemy is a glue stronger than anything. Hatred of a person, a group, a country is ultimately beneficial. Take the Al-Quaeda. An organiation that never existed, that spposedly had sleeper cells in 60 countries, several hidden bunkers. When in fact, there was no organization. No bunkers, no training camps. Just two people and their bodyguards. The Americans spread myths and lies about two people, created a public enemy. Ossama bin Laden is America’s Goldstein – literally! But Michał – look at our own beautyful country. “You can’t destroy the polish national-consciousness or Poles on the battlefield, but if you give them power, they will destroy themselves” -Otto Von Bismarck – Isn’t that the ironic truth? That war, death, hatred, famine, blood and tears unite us, worker and aristocrat, doctor and thief, young and old, liberal and socio-democrat? But when peace comes, doesn’t our society disintegrate and all traces of patriotism fade?
Peace ultimately results in corruption. In wild individualism, abhoring the norm and standard. Ever wondered why more and more people turn gay? An interesting disease, spread by culture, boredom and constant satiation. If this would have occured 500 years ago we would probably be dead as a species by now.
“Being gay is a disease”
LMGDAO. Yeah, right. Homophobic assflake.
“If this would have occurred 500 years ago we would probably be dead as a species by now.”
Your uninformed opinion is at once insulting and bewildering. Homo erotic relationships existed even in ancient civilizations (Romans, Greeks, Egyptians etc). It’ s not at all that “more and more people turn gay”. It’s just that people are more open about their sexual orientation today than 1000 years ago, and there’s much more information to go around. I ask you this, if I’m secure in my manhood, what the fuck do I care if other people have different sexual preferences?
You realize that it’s just your reality and your way of thinking? And it’s nothing better than a nazi’s? And you have no right to say that killing people is bad. You have no right to tell anyone that war is bad.
Actually, when you fight for freedom and stuff you only fight for your own idea. And you are forcing this idea into other people.
If you say that everybody has a right to have his own reality and after that you say that people who are forcing their ideas to others are bad, then you are a hypocrite.
And if enough people would realize what you are saying here, the world would be a better place only for people who think like you. It woudn’t be better for people who like wars etc.
“I respect people’s religious beliefs and all, but without religion, there would be less zealotry.”
agreed.
archont:
People don’t “turn” homosexual, they just are. And it is not a disease, it is natural. Scientists even found out that homosexual “relationships” are pretty common even under animals. So don’t propagate such bullshit please.
“Peace ultimately results in corruption.”
Does that mean that countries that are constantly at war are less corrupt than lets say our western society? That doesn’t make sense. Peace doesn’t have anything to do with corruption.
It’s impossible to have peace if you let everybody go with there own idea you need limits because people that kill somone and think it’s good you would need to let him or her go that would lead to a wrong future maybe good for people with othere point of view but you can’t make everyone happy and that’s true (exept if you would have a sort of virtual personal world)
“People don’t “turn” homosexual, they just are. And it is not a disease, it is natural.”
Oh, so now it’s natral. I thought heterosexuality was natural and homosexuality was a deviation. Tell me, since when on man can make another man pregnant?
The interesting thing is that the percent of people admitting to be gay has been rising, but that’s against logic, because gays are defective and incapable of procreation by definition. As if they do, they’re not gay after all. This goes hand in hand with liberalism and better living conditions. And as for animals doing it, sure, hamsters also eat their own children when they’re scared. There was a case here in Poland where a woman put her babies in a barrel of cabbage. We do many things just like animals do, indeed. But this discussion is NOT about gays and gay rights, so please for decency’s sake let this be the last post and fragment about this matter. I will refrain from discussing it any further and I plead you to do the same.
“Does that mean that countries that are constantly at war are less corrupt than lets say our western society?”
Our western society IS constantly at war. Haven’t you noticed? Ever since neoconservatives went into power, USA has been in a constant state of war. The soviet union wa portrayed as a terrible communist monster, a military superpower hell-bent on destroying the world. It was the ultimate evil, while the US were the ltimate good, the defenders of freedom and democracy. The truth was that the soviet union was collapsing. Their military was no threat to the US, I wold say a shadow of it’s glory but unlike during WW2, it didn’t even have the numbers, and it’s soldiers were woefully underequipped, untrained and of low morale. The best evidence to support it is that nobody needed to topple the regime – it fell under it’s own weight! Now how could a country that barely suported itself be a threat to the US?
But as the soviet union disappeared, a new enemy was needed. Terrorism. Any rational man will say that’s not a threat to anybody. That it isn’t a concrete man, group, country, but a fictionalized term, portrayed as the ultimate evil of the world. Myths and lies are spreas to give this elusive foe a fierce face – networks, bunkers, weapons of mass destruction, 9/11. It’s a tactic of fear and intimidation. But this isn’t the terrorist’s tactic, but the neoconservatives. Leo Strauss said that the US needs an enemy. It needn’t be real, but it must be fierce enough to unite the American society. And so it is – America is fighting a term, a word. And has been since a long time.
Peace has always led to corruption on the society scale. In the lack of a common enemy, a nation finds an enemy within. This very thing is happening in Poland. It’s not peace itself that directly leads to corruption, but that peace has always led to liberalism and prioritization of the unit over the society. And, in my mind, people are too stupid to effectively use liberalism or even democracy. A wise man excercies his right to freedom, while a stupid man abuses it.
“And you have no right to say that killing people is bad”
Sure I do. It’s called a legal system. All countries have it. Getting convicted of murder lands you in jail, where most of your freedoms are taken away. Those were the rules since I was born, a social programming that was already established for me. Since I examined it critically and agree with it’s purpose, I can propagate this social programming.
“If you say that everybody has a right to have his own reality and after that you say that people who are forcing their ideas to others are bad, then you are a hypocrite.”
A man finds a balance between his own freedom and the freedoms of the people around him.
“Peace has always led to corruption on the society scale”
There’s no causal link between peace and corruption. Corruption exists during war just as well, you just rarely get to hear about the rapes, non combatant murders, torturing etc. Peace allows corruption too, but it’s far easier to take measures against it during peace.
“There’s no causal link between peace and corruption. Corruption exists during war just as well, you just rarely get to hear about the rapes, non combatant murders, torturing etc. Peace allows corruption too, but it’s far easier to take measures against it during peace.”
I agree, to an extent. War is not good in itself. Murder, rape, bombings. They bring out what’s worst in individual units, but what’s best in a society or group. But then again, does it not create brotherhood, humility, sacrifice, loyalty and Just like tobacco – if we do a shallow cut along the tobacco plant, the nicotine content in it will be much higher. Just as certain species of fish – they need to swim upstream, where they breed, otherwise they die. It’s the powerful stimuli that nobody can shrug off. It’s the absolute thing that puts your job, your khakis, your gaming laptop, your designer clothes, your britney spears CDs into the right perspective. See, we humans have not evolved beyond our simplistic psychological selves. We still have to have the stimuli to fight, win or die. It was in the human nature to fight, which is easily seen in that we fought since the beginning of time.
No need to be something big to call it war. people killing others in a city is the same
The only reason war is war is because science got involved. You can see that the development of technology correlates with the development of war. First there were spears and daggers, then catapults and longbows, then pistols, rifles, tanks, helicopters and nukes. More powerful weapons were being developed because it would give an advantage over the enemy.
Can you imagine combatants in Iraq going at each other with swords & shields?
There was a lot of death with swords and maybe even more then there is today in war
Can you imagine combatants in Iraq going at each other with swords & shields?
Haha, yes!
It’s called a crusade.
Thanks for the truest things I have ever read.
If only men were to respect each other’s opinions and all were to agree upon the multiple possibilities, where there are no facts, only opinions…
“It’s impossible to have peace if you let everybody go with there own idea you need limits because people that kill somone and think it’s good you would need to let him or her go that would lead to a wrong future maybe good for people with othere point of view but you can’t make everyone happy and that’s true (exept if you would have a sort of virtual personal world)”
Peace != Anarchy.
If only men were to respect each other’s opinions and all were to agree upon the multiple possibilities, where there are no facts, only opinions…
If only all people were german nazis. Everyone would be happy and there would be no wars.
THANK YOU, THIS IS THE BEST PRESENT GIFT I EVER HAD!!!
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO THINK IN WAT KIND OF WORLD WE’RE LIVE IN!
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
As I’ve quoted previously…
Let’s agree to respect each other’s views… no matter how wrong yours is.
This article is whats wrong with people.
That sounds mean and it is meant to be so.
Of course I can explain. simply take sometime and find and read the original futurist manifestos. im not going to spam mm’s sight, they are easy to find.
in it you will find a worthy counter to many things and they will all be crystal clear.
@MM: You are a smart guy, i like your engage to discover the reason and truth of human being. We often have the same opinion, i think.
Your thoughts in this post are the fundament for intelligent thinking. I hope that many people will understand your message and pass it to other people.
Damn christmas time,- i had to accept some othe peoples opinion for a while to sit on the same table. I liked it anyway 😉
P.S.: At the end, we have to decide. Thats live.
Happy new year.
Anonymous=Yasan v3
gameplay vids plz 😀
show us some weapons!!!!!!!!!!!
show us something 😐 😐 😐 😐
Charles Chaplin Talk!?!
Anyway, the video rocks.
All beliefs have a degree of correspondence to reality, others stronger, others weaker. After critical examination of preexisting beliefs, and possibly creating your own if you are unsatisfied with current options, you can choose which belief to follow. If you don’t consider things critically, you are being manipulated.
That’s how you do things. Happy holidays, ya’ll
consider things critically
How do you go on about doing that? I don’t think i have a high enough IQ for that.
Great post, even if I may not agree with the ideas.
Also, minor point but it leads to a lot of ignorance, especially among the religious fundies:
“If you follow what you were taught in school (well at least outside of Kansas) you will believe in evolution, and that man evolved from ape”.
Evolution is about humans and apes evolving from a common ancestor, not man from modern apes. 😉
“I don’t think i have a high enough IQ for that.”
I doubt that. It has very little to do with eachother. It’s just like when your mom says “dont take candy from strangers”. Just that life tells you “dont believe what strangers say. In fact, its better not to believe anything anybody says”. Consider the consequences if something were true or not, find out what makes you happy, then follow that path.
People that believe every shit they hear end up having miserable lives, women spend their entire lives in hell with men that beat them up just because the church sees a divorce as something bad or because the relatives would start talking about her. Fuck that. Live your life, and if something isnt right, discard it. Regardless of what anybody else says.
I wish u all a Happy New Year and see you in 2008 !
Then again, if we were all to live by this, nothing would get done in the world.
In fact, we would all go back to hunting for food and living in houses made from wood.
“…Of course on whatever side you are, you think you are on the good side. If everybody is good why do we fight each other?…”
Piękny wpis, daje do myślenia. Poza tym to chyba najdłuższy tekst jaki przeczytałem w sieci w 2007 r.
Pozdrawiam. Wszystkiego najlepszego w Nowym Roku.
GAMEPLAY VIDS 😐 😐 😐
One of the best things i’ve read so far.
You need to read more. Or think more.
Thanks everybody who took it to the heart.
Everybody else, thanks for doing exactly what I wrote about, try and think about it, discussions about the truth of your reality are the source of all human misery.
bigbossSNK: jealousy is an emotion that is not obvious at first glance.
“jealousy is an emotion that is not obvious at first glance.”
No disagreement. I do resent the implication that I am somehow at such a fault though, simply for countering your arguments. I presented evidence and counterexamples that clearly contradict your models, the validity of which you haven’t defended with more than a “it is so because I say so”.
I pointed out that Amida needs to reevaluate (his/ her) opinion to achieve a stronger correspondence rate to reality. My motive in this wasn’t derogative, I simply entered this conversation to transfer to other people what I know to be true : It’s introspection that sets people with similar social and biological programming apart.
Besides, emotions aren’t really my thing anyway. I’m more the rational type.
I really liked your blog. Still even if I do not (or just can’t) accept all of your points i still think it’s the best blog I’ll read this year. I think it’s not WHAT you have written, but that it makes you think about your perspective.
bigbossSNK: Besides, emotions aren’t really my thing anyway. I’m more the rational type.
Believe me, I was also the rational type until I discovered that I was using only 1% of my mind.
Ny24: I think it’s not WHAT you have written, but that it makes you think about your perspective.
That’s my point thanks. I’m not here to concvince anyone to my point of view, because to be honest it constantly changes. I would like you to also do that, reevaluate your world view and see what changes it brings for you.
“I was also the rational type until I discovered that I was using only 1% of my mind”
That’s just a myth. Your brain doesn’t have any areas that aren’t used. Here’s the evidence to disprove this erroneous claim:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220195639.htm
Hi!
Cool blog, it’s very interesting and i had a lot of these thougs, too.
But the Youtube video is not longer available :/
“Live your life, and if something isnt right, discard it. Regardless of what anybody else says.” – Cosmin
Is not that kind of intolerance exactly what this blog post rebukes? Yet you dare to post such an egotistical,”I-am-right” comment underneath it.
“After critical examination of preexisting beliefs…, you can choose which belief to follow. If you don’t consider things critically, you are being manipulated.” – bigbossSNK
Yes! I find that too many people (believers and nonbelievers alike) flock to institutions and doctrines just because they seem convenient with their current lives. Especially with religions: if one very, VERY carefully analyzes what religious doctrines say, one finds that they tend to actually be very humanitarian, moralistic, and positively welcoming. But too many shallow believers warp their own “beliefs” incorrectly and attempt to make their beliefs mold around themselves instead of them molding to its superior standards of peace & harmony as they ought to, which is what gives the religion unnecessary bad name (the zealotry declaration above is incorrect; there is no denial of the fact that bigots have indeed misused religion as a scapegoat to cause all sorts of problems in the past, but the religion itself is not to blame and should not be eradicated, since it has helped even more countless poor and needy throughout time [trying to annihilate religion as a whole would be impossible anyways]).
You realize that all of this leads to humility; not trusting yourself and being aware of all present faults makes one humble and caring. Atheism, or perhaps more specifically Evolution (with a capital ‘e’), mercilessly decrees that the weak die and the strong and ruthless proud survive. Hm, hm? 😉 There is an absolute morality, but all of our experiences prevent us from wholly discovering/comprehending the enigma.
“not trusting yourself and being aware of all present faults makes one humble and caring”
Nah, you should trust yourself either way. And be humble and caring if and to whom you so choose.
“religions tend to actually be very humanitarian, moralistic, and positively welcoming”
No disagreement. The problem is, they wrap a small nucleus of humanitarian beliefs under half truths and erroneous claims that are outdated to the modern critical reader. People should be taught humanitarianism is schools, rather than religion.
“Atheism, or perhaps more specifically Evolution (with a capital ‘e’), mercilessly decrees that the weak die and the strong and ruthless proud survive”
I can see where you’re coming from, but the Theory of Evolution is more complex than strong defeats weak.
The Theory of Evolution suggests that given a physical situation and a set of organisms, the ones to survive are the ones with a genetic makeup geared towards surviving the specific physical situation (Darwin’s theory has been greatly transformed after the discovery of DNA). Depending on the physical situation, this might be strength, speed, specialized appendages etc.
For humans, strength stopped being a major biological advantage when we stopped hunting for our food. Conceit and inconsideration is a result of social programming and a lack of introspection, rather than biological programming.
KICK REASON TO THE CURB!
Reason kicks your ass. Any day of the week.
By Michel’s and my own principals, I should agree to disagree with him, but that’s a paradox, so I’ll simply say “Cheers”
My reality is that this blog never existed and that I have a unicorn horn shoved up my butt. It’s also our prerogative to exterminate the Jews and then nuke the moon, because that leads to better living for everybody.
Seriously, do you honestly believe that if somebody believes something, that makes it true? What about the insane people in asylums who think that people’s faces are melting and that there are spiders in their heads? What about ravers and trippers?
I think science is responsible for us being so certain that there’s some sort of “real truth” that exists without our own perception of it.
I think that truth is only obtainable when the universe with a lens that allows us to see all perceptions at once. This means that we can never obtain “real truth”.. but rather, the best we can do is arrive to an agreement on what is “practically true,” given the perceived similarities between the perceptions of ourself and others. This is what science is really achieving.
Don’t get me wrong, science is a great, beautiful thing… I just don’t like when people are so certain about things. Our views change radically over time, and they seem to be changing even more rapidly than ever due to science. If we follow the principals of science, I doubt we’ll get closer and closer to “real truth” as much as we’ll just change our minds with increasing rapidity.
“Our views change radically over time, and they seem to be changing even more rapidly than ever due to science”
Science strips away the layer of arbitrary bullshit people come up with and pass off as the truth. Our point of view IS changing rapidly, but only until it reaches a 1:1 correspondence to reality.
“Our point of view IS changing rapidly, but only until it reaches a 1:1 correspondence to reality.”
But this 1:1 correspondence is impossible, as ∞/∞ is undefined.
Indeed, we’re approaching infinite rapidity of change, but we’re merely approaching it. We cannot reach it.
I try not to worry about the implications of the futility of reaching “real truth,” as it’s not something we really need to worry about. “Practical truth” is really all that matters: the stuff that works for whatever goal we’re trying to reach is “practical truth.”
I’m only saying that our goal shouldn’t be to find “real truth,” since it is futile. Know your goals well.
namuol Says:
By Michel’s and my own principals, I should agree to disagree with him, but that’s a paradox, so I’ll simply say “Cheers”
Hah, best response so far :). Cheers!
What you said suits my current thoughts fairly good..
Weird though.
“But this 1:1 correspondence is impossible, as ∞/∞ is undefined.”
Your claim is ill informed. The only infinite thing in the universe is the gravitational pull below the event horizon of a black hole. Current science can correspond to everything else in the universe, and if not today, it will eventually.
“Indeed, we’re approaching infinite rapidity of change, but we’re merely approaching it”
We are not approaching any kind of infinite rapidity of change. If you don’t provide a physical example of your claim, no critical examiner can be convinced of it.
“I’m only saying that our goal shouldn’t be to find “real truth,” since it is futile.”
Real truth is a redundancy. Know your grammar.
“‘Indeed, we’re approaching infinite rapidity of change, but we’re merely approaching it’
We are not approaching any kind of infinite rapidity of change. If you don’t provide a physical example of your claim, no critical examiner can be convinced of it.”
I cannot give a physical example; the context is too abstract…
I can — at best — give vague statistics, if that is what you mean by “physical.”
For instance, if you look at the development of western civilization, you can see that the number of breakthroughs (and likewise, the denouncement of previous theories) has been increasing. By “increasing rapidity of change” here, I meant that we’ve been questioning current theory and arriving to new conclusions, and so on.
“‘I’m only saying that our goal shouldn’t be to find “real truth,” since it is futile.’
Real truth is a redundancy. Know your grammar.”
It was meant to be a play on words, but if you must, call it “absolute truth;” surely, that is more precise.
“For instance, if you look at the development of western civilization, you can see that the number of breakthroughs (and likewise, the denouncement of previous theories) has been increasing.”
You still don’t provide a physical example. What is this breakthrough you’re talking about? Number of patents filed each year? Because new theories are only accepted so long as they correspond to reality. Once we have a full correspondence rate to reality, no new theories are needed, apart for academic purposes.
“It was meant to be a play on words, but if you must, call it “absolute truth;”
There is only -truth-, a 1:1 correspondence to reality. Everything else is just a conventional notion, either through social programming or faulty introspection that doesn’t correspond to reality.
“There is only -truth-”
That’s where we fundamentally disagree.
“What is this breakthrough you’re talking about?”
The advent of science, the “theory” of evolution, the transistor, the internet, globalization… I don’t think the issue at hand is easy to discuss under strict logical methods, as it questions the credibility of things such as logic, itself. It’s difficult to discuss.
“Everything else is just a conventional notion, either through social programming or faulty introspection that doesn’t correspond to reality.”
Such notions are what I’d call “practical reality”
Anyway, it’s hard to describe what I mean without being in person.
I’m saying that the stuff that makes up what we call “facts” are still products of symbols in our minds… the universe has no substance without being observed and interpreted, and there’s no wrong way to look at something. I think our concept of things having absolute “facts” or “truths” is a consequence of our utter similarities in spite of our poor communication (humans in general, that is). For instance, we might say that all humans can agree that two particles are X centimeters apart, but this “distance” is still being observed by all of us in a very similar way… hell, this concept of distance may only be something familiar to beings originating from the first strand of RNA that formed on this very planet. Again, it’s easy to disregard stuff like this, and I don’t really blame you for it.
If you want to jostle your certainty about “facts,” read up on quantum theory (I’m not claiming to be all that familiar with it.. I just know that it’s really baffling current-day scientific method…)
Anyway, I’m sure if we had more time to talk about this, we’d form a conclusion that we’re discussing two different things… it’s far too abstract.
“social programming or faulty introspection that don’t correspond to reality are what I’d call “practical reality”
There is only one physical reality. You create representations of that through neuron structures in your brain. Your representation of reality is a conventional reality. In this respect, you can have as many “realities” as you have humans. But whether this conventional reality is true or not is ultimately judged by whether it is in 1:1 correspondence to physical reality.
“the universe has no substance without being observed and interpreted”
That’s just BS. The universe doesn’t need an observer. It will exist whether you’re there to witness it or not.
“For instance, we might say that all humans can agree that two particles are X centimeters apart, but this “distance” is still being observed by all of us in a very similar way”
The basis of measurement is based on reference to a single physical reality: Find a physical reality (a stick). Have two people create a neuron structure to represent the stick. Now the two people can reference the stick and be able to make measurements on their own that are in correspondence to the original physical reality.
“Again, it’s easy to disregard stuff like this, and I don’t really blame you for it.”
Well, hopefully, you’ll put up a little fight over my counter-arguments and disambiguation of your claims, before you agree with me.
“If you want to jostle your certainty about “facts,” read up on quantum theory”
Quantum theory, or even superstring theory for that matter, doesn’t deny facts. It simply states that on the sub-Planck scale, there are different, yet defined rules for interactions of matter and energy.
“it’s far too abstract”
That’s the excuse people who don’t work under strict definitions use to allow themselves to be vague. However abstract the subject, you can describe it and reach an ultimate solution.
“The advent of science, the “theory” of evolution, the transistor, the internet, globalization…”
Cavemen had rocks and stones. We have the internet, science etc in addition to that. They are different tools, but tools nonetheless. The world is headed towards organization, abolishing randomness / arbitrariness. Infinite change isn’t necessary, because there isn’t an infinite degree of randomness in your everyday life.
“That’s the excuse people who don’t work under strict definitions use to allow themselves to be vague.”
You seem almost offended that I’m not arguing in the same manner as you, as I was trying to explain when I suggested when I said we’re arguing about two different things.
I’m not saying the universe doesn’t exist if no one is there to observe it, I’m saying that a “fact” is meaningless without perceptual context. I’m saying that facts about the universe are composed by measurements that only make sense in our perceptual context as human beings. We “see” light, we “hear” sounds, etc, etc. Who says life cannot exist, for instance, within light? When you think about the patterns of life, there’s enough unseen complexity in our universe for patterns to be perceived as “natural” when they very well may be lifeforms saying the same thing about us. Likewise, then, would you expect such a life form to understand our conceptions of “space” or any other fundamental “realities” that are part of the way we all perceive things?
I’m not trying to debate this with scientific method, so if that’s all you understand then let me know, and I’ll cease.
“You seem almost offended that I’m not arguing in the same manner as you”
Most conversations I’ve had on this blog went like this :
SoAndSo “Arbitrary notion”
Me “I thought about your claim and after critical examination I find it to be physically, medically or logically impossible for reasons A, B, C”
SoAndSo “I don’t care for your scientific impossibilities, I’m speaking abstractly”
Me “You need to restrain yourself to the physically possible”
SoAndSo “No, that’s too narrow minded”
Me “Whatever, bubba”
“patterns in our universe are complex enough to be lifeforms”
Our current definition of life requires metabolism, reproduction and adaptation. We sort objects into dead or alive by these parameters, not by complexity. If you have a new definition for life, present it.
“Would an alien life form understand our concept of “space”?”
So long as a life form has an intellectual structure that allows referencing, it will be able to understand such concepts.
“I’m not trying to debate this with scientific method, so if that’s all you understand then let me know, and I’ll cease.”
Nah, I get what you ‘re saying, man. You’re saying aliens are all around us, maybe even among us 😛
“Our current definition of life requires metabolism, reproduction and adaptation.”
Have you ever played with Conway’s Life? Take this and put it on a large enough scale and speed it up. Give it time, and you’ll find all of these characteristics will have emerged from chaos. If life can be simulated in an abstract sense such as in Conway’s Life, why couldn’t it also exist in unseen forms, like within light, as I suggested?
“Have you ever played with Conway’s Life?”
Conway’s Life is a game. It’s just a catchy name for an algorithm based game. The closest it comes to life is silumating replication. Metabolism and adaptation are absent. The same goes for your “life in light” theory. A life form would have to exhibit (as in manifest in physical reality) the above three traits. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t fit our definition of life, and is not considered alive. If you want it to be considered alive, propose the physical realities that allow it to meet today’s criteria of life, or propose a definition of life that is in closer correspondence to reality.
“Conway’s Life is a game.”
It _can_ be a game, but in general, when saying “Conway’s Game of Life” one refers to the cellular automata aspect of it. You never answered my question, have you played it? Instead of denying importance to questions, you should answer them.
“It’s just a catchy name for an algorithm based game.”
All games can be defined algorithmically; does this make all algorithms games?
“Metabolism and adaptation are absent.”
How? Imagine a “game board” that has the dimensions on the order of a googolplex. If you can exhaustively prove that patterns as simple as “metabolism” (the changing of one substance into another) and “adaptation” (the changing of one’s form to better suit itself for replication within it’s environment) are impossible to witness in such a system, _then_ you can say these aren’t present.
“A life form would have to exhibit (as in manifest in physical reality) the above three traits.”
Last time I checked my computer is part of physical reality. Regardless of whether or not something is “artificial,” it still genuinely exists within our universe. Just because a simulated lifeform wouldn’t be interacting with our reality in ways we’re already familiar with (such as eating and shitting matter) doesn’t mean it is in no way a part of our reality.
“The same goes for your ‘life in light’ theory.”
Likewise to what I said above, lig- no, electromagnetic radiation (I’ll refrain from the word “light”, as it only refers to the visible frequencies) is part of our physical reality.
Furthermore, this isn’t a theory. It’s a thought experiment. My intention was to make you consider the possibility, without evidence. The way light behaves is very different from the cellular automation in Conway’s Life, so even provided that you manage to prove our definition of life cannot be a result from Conway’s Life, you couldn’t say the same thing about electromagnetic radiation.
“If you want it to be considered alive, propose the physical realities that allow it to meet today’s criteria of life, or propose a definition of life that is in closer correspondence to reality.”
I thought we agreed upon a definition. The issue I was concerned with wasn’t “what is life” as much as “life, defined as such: where can it be found?”
There, I’ve given you plenty of sentences to systematically misinterpret and subsequently “denounce.” There’s a big difference between sounding confident and being principled; and on the internet, you cannot stutter. Have at it, but I meant to come here to have a discussion, not a pissing contest.
Cheers
“You never answered my question, have you played it?”
A perceptive reader would have noticed I used a term to describe the game that hadn’t been introduced up to that point (“algorithm”)
An insightful reader would have realized such familiarity stems only from personal experience.
“All games can be defined algorithmically; does this make all algorithms games?”
Nope. Games and algorithms have common spaces, but neither is completely included in the other.
“If you can exhaustively prove that metabolism and adaptation are impossible to witness in a googolplex sized game board, you can say these aren’t present.”
Ok. Here goes. Metabolism requires chemical reactions. The Life game board consists of chemically inactive set pieces. QED.
“Just because a simulated lifeform wouldn’t be interacting with our reality in ways we’re already familiar with (such as eating and shitting matter) doesn’t mean it is in no way a part of our reality.”
You needn’t deny what I haven’t claimed.
Read this carefully: Life forms replicate AND adapt AND metabolize. Your computer does none of the above. Light does none of the above. Galaxies do none of the above.
“You can’t disqualify that electromagnetic radiation can’t be a life form.”
I just did. There’s a whole branch of physics about light, called optics. Guess what, no replication OR adaptation OR metabolism for light. (Other forms of electromagnetic radiation are no different)
“The issue I was concerned with wasn’t “what is life” as much as “life, defined as such: where can it be found?”
Where there are physical occurrences of replication AND adaption AND metabolism.
There you are. Clear, concise and in 1:1 correspondence to physical reality. I make this shit look easy, but it’s not, let me tell ya.
What you write is a clear fact but it seems you stopped thinking when you reached a certain level. A lot of people know what you said AND they use it in their own purposes. Such people started and start wars not because of their ideas but because they know what they want and they aren’t clamped in their realities. What you have said here is partly an agnostic point of view. Or thou may also call it solipsism because it is an expression of an individualist. People must not multiplicate the existing “realities”, they should minimize their quantity until they all come to a certain conlcusion. Or else no one would care about anyone else and that is exactly what is happening now and what is growing together with the population. I don’t think we need billions of realities which express the same. We should be mentally prepared for possible meeting with another race which could possibly have another perception. And for that we should merge all our realities even if the chance to meet that race is simply theoretical. Nevertheless what i’m trying to say is: if we continue to have separate realities we will kill each other. That’s as simple as +1 and -1. They give zero and so will our opposite realities give.
But the fact is you can’t convince anyone of that until they themselves realise it. And so chaos will continue.
fuckin great post.
to the “this is what you think” — at some level there is a truth. weather we understand it or not, we can’t deny it what there is. we are like (understand the truth behind the metaphor) blind men feeling an elephant. each sees/feels in a different way.
cheers.
If your perception is limited, expand your perception. Until you reach a 1:1 correspondence to reality. Problem solved.
It’s impossible just because we are people. We can’t see infrared rays and so on. We use different gadgets and they are not part of our perception just some tools that help us.
An expansion of perception through machinery is still an expansion of perception. Your point is invalid.
A 1:1 correspondence with reality is impossible.
Here’s a proof that the universe is infinite, and since ∞/∞; it is a proof by contradiction:
First off, assume the universe is finite.
This would mean that we could keep track of every detail of our universe in some symbolic way, such as storing the information on a computer; more precisely, in digital form.
This means that the details of the universe can be broken down into discrete values of some maximal precision we will call P. Since we assumed the universe was finite, we must assume there is also a finite number of such details, which we will call N. So the theoretical storage space of the universe would be P*N, which we will refer to as U.
Now, to store, or to “know” each of these details simultaneously, effectively having a 1:1 correspondence to reality, requires the storage space of U, so we build a computer as efficiently as possible. This is done by creating a total of N storage spaces, each of which takes up some minimal value of P+X, where X is some minimal value greater than zero that represents the slot where the information is stored, and P represents a 1:1 precision detail.
Such a computer would require a total of N*(P+X) precision-details, which is greater than our assumed finite universe size U (N*P).
This is a contradiction, which means the assumption that the universe is finite is false, so the universe is infinite.
“so we build a computer as efficiently as possible.”
Your proposed computer isn’t as efficient as possible. Compression algorithms eschew 1:1 representation on the hardware level, while allowing for 1:1 representation on the data level.
Furthermore, even if I were to disregard your argument’s flaws, it doesn’t conclusively disprove that the universe is finite. It only disproves AT LEAST ONE of your initial assumptions which were:
1. That the universe was finite, and
2. That you can build a machine to represent reality 1:1 within a finite universe.
It’s a logical fallacy to claim that the impossibility of building a 1:1 representational machine within a finite universe also implies the impossibility of a finite universe.
“Compression algorithms eschew 1:1 representation on the hardware level, while allowing for 1:1 representation on the data level.”
I don’t understand, what do you mean?
Compressed data is meaningless until decompressed. A JPEG image is converted to a raw bitmap and stored in RAM before it can be used.
“1. That the universe was finite, and
2. That you can build a machine to represent reality 1:1 within a finite universe.
It’s a logical fallacy to claim that the impossibility of building a 1:1 representational machine within a finite universe also implies the impossibility of a finite universe.”
Looking over what I said again, you’re right. But I meant to disprove that having a 1:1 correspondence to reality is the impossibility, so I should have started with the assumption that it’s possible to have a 1:1 correspondence, not that the universe was finite. It would be impossible if the universe was finite or infinite…
“Compressed data is meaningless until decompressed”
So what? Decompress the data when needed. Your rule of “each atom needs it’s on data packet” is arbitrary.
“I should have started with the assumption that it’s possible to have a 1:1 correspondence, not that the universe was finite. It would be impossible if the universe was finite or infinite…”
You ‘re missing the point. Whatever your initial assumptions are, your “impossible machine” argument only proves that you are unable to create such a machine OR that one of your initial assumptions is incorrect. Your argument offers conclusive proof of nothing.
strangers against predator free…
Interesting web page is, i\\\\ll see you later one more timea…
Gurren Lagann!!
Watch it.
And try not spoiling yourself
There is indeed a reality, it is whether we can or can’t see it. Some say psychic powers are impossible. Yuri Geller believed they were possible, and he managed to perform on TV. The only limitations are in the mind. What you believe is what warps your sense of the real reality. Believe you can make a huge jump on a skateboard, and you can. Placebo effect, having a real effect on what you can do. Reality is not changed by us, but we change ourselves.
“it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself”
psychic games…
…
[…] MM: What I Do ” Blog Archiv ” Myth, math and metaphor […]
ive just been blown away by an overexposure to an apparently infinite supply of dumbness. ( dont blame my english , it sucks, and yes i know )
Noone can answer any question correctly, because every truth is for each one of us to choose themselves. I prefer a truth that there is no limit to anything. Neither to human idioticy nor intelligence. We keep evolving to make ourselves look even more stupid.
Every Generation is an Evolution.
To what?
Found your blog on AskJeeves, great articles and other content, but the site looks awkward inside browser setup, but operates fine in IE. head out figure.
Water is always a better option when it comes to any drink. Your customers will know quickly whether or not the center is staffed with top fitness professionals or people who aren’t up to the task.
If you want too improve your familiarity just keep visiting this web sikte and be updated with
the most recent gossip posted here.