Random Spurts of Insanity
A spot where the author, Derek Hill, has blatant and interrupting moments of insight or just plain strange thoughts. This area may also contain content that expresses an event in a more literal sense but expect to find opinions as well as extrapolations of detail in a manner that is detailed for the use of anyone who finds themselves to be crazed in a more passionate sense. The purpose here is to express emotion, no matter how removed from the norm it may be.
Thursday, July 24, 2025
Friday, January 1, 2021
2021, the Sequel to the Nightmare
2021: the Sequel to the Nightmare
Hope in what Future?
Take that for what you will...
I will advocate violence to protect our rights and freedoms.
2020 Was A Dumpster Fire
Yeah.. They will paint the picture as some grandiose experience. Shamelessly.
Don't Make Me Laugh
My final thought for the turn of the new year.
The solution I have is to not behave in the mannerism in which my anger dictates. But it also means that I shouldn't think of myself as needing to interfere with anyone's business; because I'm not a good judge of their circumstances even on a good day.
Thursday, December 3, 2020
Dying in Darkness
Light Pierces
Ok. So why is it this way?
Some People Care. Others... Well..
But for as much as we live in it, with it, and for it.. It's amazing how little we know about it.
Tuesday, December 1, 2020
A Day To Remember
Does anyone remember the days that we just hung out in the sun, as opposed to this nonsense of trying to do everything on a computer or just not in person?
I don't have much to say in regards to what anyone is going to assume about me. I like things as they are developing into. For the most part I'm just taking a stance of silence until things become more understandable. I see no reason that we can't be civil. Am I right? OR Not? 3+4=9? ^_~* Yes. or. No.
[This post was created in 2015 and saved as a draft. Five years later it is more crazy than a rant]
Friday, November 15, 2013
Prudently Truant
I like the idea that some people believe, with everything they have, that being punctual is important and also making good on appointments. What I don’t like is when there is an expectation that somehow Murphy's law doesn’t still apply and to everyone. This is easily seen from individuals who make more of a fuss about someone being late or missing out on something, because somehow it was offensive and anyone should feel bad about it, yet the compassion for circumstance is ignored. I understand that there is a level of integrity that needs to be met when dealing with any individual, but it shouldn’t take place over conflict resolution or empathy.
Too bad.. I get my hopes up that offense doesn’t turn into retaliation.
The one thing in this world that I have a major problem keeping up with is my schedule. I don’t care what it is, important or not. Productive or not. Artistic or scholarly. You name it, I have to manage it as well as the US Congress does the nations finances. Sometimes I am on point and just can’t be caused to miss a beat. Yet sometimes I struggle so hard that everything turns into a domino effect. School is the best place to see it in action because I get bored easily and I have a hard time sitting through a lecture because of my learning type. Yet it isn’t procrastination that grips me, usually. I’m distracted by another productive work and mismanage my time because of how things have been prioritized by me. In the more rarer of cases, it is a mismanagement of my time by others who have the authority over it.
I think it is unfair to hold anyone to the expectation of being on time, being on point, or however we can define focus in this day of age. I say this because no one is perfect, that’s such a common-sense truism that it’s not worth using anymore. Though reliability is an asset in the workplace and also in the family structure, it would be a misnomer to call failure a propensity; that is unless it is rare that someone is reliable. So how is it that the expectation is laid out that an individual perform to a set of standards and do so without excuse?
I don’t pity a person who doesn’t take my time seriously, in regards to an apology for the time being wasted, but I do have sympathy because I know you can try as hard as you can to do everything right and yet somehow a wrench is thrown into the gears. A wrench with your name on it yet unfamiliar and not thrown by your hands. I mean.. Honestly... Who doesn’t get angry at the world for conveniently laying down distractions whenever the important things have a chance to be accomplished?
So what happens when you refuse to do something on account of the consequences of leaving something else behind? Is that not an even bigger sacrifice because there are inevitably negative consequences to face even while doing the right thing? Parents should know best about the toil of trying to do what’s right yet still having to compromise on everything but moral integrity. Suddenly personal desires are wisped away like a fevered dream.. Anyone who has lost what they like, or been refused what they need, knows the bitterness that comes shortly after from making sacrifice that wasn’t a FREE gift. Yes, sacrifice has the same value even when it’s done out of necessity, but not for the heart of the one doing it. Yet most people wonder how there could be a negative reaction to being responsible or for making good on our ‘promises’.
I don’t know of a guaranteed solution to such problems.. My logic says that there’s nothing logical about the situation in the first place because it’s all emotional. So why bother trying to analyze a situation of conditions when the conditions have a subjective bias that doesn’t have to be logical in itself? Yet is it wise to just ignore the situation in all respects, to literally walk away just because we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place? Maybe that’s the only solution if the expectation is that others give a damn about the time of others, money, or the individual themself. Though I do not hold the same idea as true in my own lifestyle, I certainly understand the aggravation associated with these things and know I have been guilty of it all. I have a nice long word for the laymen regarding this.. The word is called: Sycophancy. It is the scourge of broken promises and hinders the sincerely punctual. A sycophant filters out the truth so that you hear what you want to hear and not what you need to hear. In the end it breeds arrogance in everyone and is what is called “two-faced”. The fear is an expectation, which is based on a paranoia, which all paranoia’s are unreasonable. Yet there is a suggestion based on a need or an incorrectly interpreted desire; the worse kind of people to deal with are the ones who smile to your face yet curse your back. Isn’t that called traitorous? Isn’t it a well known truism that: it is better to know your enemy, who wants to kill you and stands to your front, than to not know your own brother wants to kill you, who guards your back?
Next time someone holds you to a standard.. Ask yourself what that standard represents. Who is being glorified by that standard being upheld and why would dishonor shame people not directly involved with failure? Why is the fear of failure justified by a lack of proving what your Character is? Has compassion and forgiveness left the equation despite the answer of the first two? If you can’t answer the questions yet are being presented with a perception of reality of such.. Perhaps you’re dealing with someone in love with Sycophantic affection. Perhaps the true problem isn’t that you aren’t punctual or respectful, but instead you didn’t stick your nose up someone’s ass far enough for them to forget they now have a neighbor.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Be More Than Yourself
Not as many as mistakes leading to consequences that are slow to build and easy to cover up.
I count life-changing consequences as anything that turns everything upside down, inside out, or in the opposite direction.
Some decisions I make in response to what is done to me, sometimes I suffer consequences of my creation.
This is part of being Human. This is not some special circumstance of mine, especially about my propensities.
Who has lived without being afflicted with the consequences of a mistake?
In all respect to the people who suffer great loss, given no justification and struggling to find their value, I have great sympathy for the pain that any person endures.
It is difficult to say that my mistakes have helped shape me into a better man. More often than not, I feel that I have worsen the state of my destitution because of my mistakes.
The statement is not confounding unless awareness of fault is absent.
Reconciliation must take place, especially if hope for the next of kin is to abound.
Is my hope real? Is it something valuable? Does my hope matter?
There is a stark contrast to this world that reminds me the meaning of hope. It is beyond a desire to see the world change because change is useless if it doesn't start within. When the perspective of the environment fits the desires to what it should be, action is taken to fix problems that prevent the environment from being a manifestation of what is desired. This is true for good or evil intent.
Why is there so much energy, false to what supports long-term goals, put into hopes? This is vanity, to wish for things that are not reasonable. Anything defined as reasonable should hold true to the test of righteousness. For anyone who refuses to align themselves with the absolute nature of righteousness, desires become as frivolous as chasing the wind and happiness as fleeting as the meaning of a dream.
The reminder to persevere comes to my mind as I contemplate the absolute frivolous nature of the lives of the Proud, the Rich, and the Logical. Their lot is nothing more than a maniacal bunch that pretends to have an orderliness that is a testament of 'excellence'. I humbly disagree due to the premise of orderly chaos, the nature of this universe demands more than wealthy pride in a linear fashion.
Perhaps the duality of the three attributes I am condemning is forgotten and it is causing my rebuke to appear as though there is nothing but vanity. The harshness of my words is reserved for anyone who disrespects the character of having Pride in serving others to help build positive characteristics in others, having wealth to help others from the afflictions of poverty, and using Logic to make sense of mysteries to help bring light to darkness. This world has to suffer Pride that demeans others who have unalienable value, wealth that breeds greed, and logic that is reserved in secrecy. The insufferable combination of all three attributes make for character of the Elite of this world!
Enough?
Good luck trying to change the world, as if it hasn't been attempted countless amounts of times all through history. The most prominent figures of history didn't seek to change the world, they sought the opening of eyes to the true potential of the individual by re-establishing the inherent value each individual has.
There was one exception: Unlike the many prophets who came before and after his time, Jesus didn't come to the world professing that any human could save the world or themselves. He professed that he could and explained why. His words didn't resonate with all, but it changed the intellectualized concept of relating to the divine in the most profound way possible.
In essence, the vanity under the sun is the self-reliant demeanor that so many are blindly following.
We are not the light because we are righteous by good works, we only become like the light because we believe in a truth that is above the Sun. It nourishes us, this world, and hope itself. To obtain it is simple, but it requires accepting that which the world calls foolishness and weakness.
This is more than random, this is more than a spurt, this is more than insanity.
Only if you can break through the barrier which has you gravitating back to the world you live, this hell-hole of a broken existence that binds us to vanity.
We Must Rise above the Sun if anyone is to see the Light!
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
"Free Speech" Never Used to Cost This Much!
In most cases, 'free speech' is infringed upon constantly, that is why the general public is bitter.
What leads an individual to believe that their volition has anything to do with the 'freedom' of speech?
- Is free speech a concept that is philosophical in origin?
- Is free speech defined politically as the legal freedom to say particular things?
- Is free speech, in the most unregulated sense possible, detrimental by society?
- Is free speech influential on the health of humanity or the individual?
- Is free speech a manifestation of any attribute of the human 'condition'?
When does Free Speech become legitimately regulated?
Honestly.. I have a personal outlook that differs from my 'global' outlook of what regulation on communication should look like. Because there are different mediums of communication, there is a heavy relevance to the capacity of transmitting information and what kind of energy goes along with it. Though most people consider my inference to derive from pseudo-sciences, I feel it is important to note the growing empiricism of the fields I reference to. So to all the Naturalists, just deal with it if you aren't going to research it yourselves.
Personally, I think every individual should know when to SHUT THE HELL UP.
Sorry.. I just have a hard time with people who are so closed minded that their mouth opens up even wider when they experience Cognitive Dissonance.
The process of maturity includes knowing when to fight a battle, knowing how to fight a battle, and knowing who is fighting on what side.. In fact, the 'art' of discussion has many rules of logic as well as etiquette of behavior to properly convey contextual meaning in anything. Let us not forget that the etiquette extends to social behavior, a general precept to having a discussion as opposed to a street brawl that the cops have to break up....
On that note, I have a global view that is quite wild.. It may even be contradictory at the core, if I don't explain it succinctly.
I think that Free Speech is an illusion, it isn't necessary, and it is a sign of immaturity.
The only thing 'free' about "Free Speech" is the fact that you can speak what you want. regardless of consequences. In fact, most revolutionaries don't publicize their intents or even their thoughts until after the danger clears their area. This is not a constant, however it is worth mentioning. Moreover, historically we can find that the 'rules' of speech can change between words of a sentence. Tyrannical 'lordship' anyone? How about a court trial? Ever been robbed at the business end of a weapon? Honestly, I could go on all day..
Aside from the freedom to talk being a basis of accepting consequences, the idea of Free Speech in society is always held as what comes off as 'controversial'. Generally speaking, we don't say that our volition is what decides free speech, it the perception of the ideas we express.. Even if that means the ideas are misconstrued. Which is a very legitimate point to make, since many people have lost their lives to incorrect understanding of ideas, be it something petty or 'national security'. Basically, assume that anything you say can and will be held against you. (doesn't that sound familiar?) In fact, when speaking about personal beliefs you may as well assume you could be burned at the stake just for expressing yourself. Even if you did it without any inflammatory statements or loaded questions. In fact, the sad part is how much anger you can expect from people who are made at a corporate ideology, therefore they express that anger at you for speaking about it (be you a proponent or not).
(My main point is that free speech comes with some consequences that cause people to regulate speech)
[The secondary point is that it is necessary that people not have free speech]
{The conclusion is that reality says anyone can do what is in their capacity, but it doesn't make it right}
Friday, May 3, 2013
Junk In the Trunk
I'm no fool, I know when I must lead something to destruction.
I am no picture of Piety. Maybe I am a good example of a self-proclaimed man of low worth, but no one should confuse that with me saying I don't have value or that I have low self-esteem. I am humble and full of confidence. I respect my limitations and I understand my mortality, there is no person in this world that can convince me otherwise. Their words may hurt me, but I'm not transformed into the negative image some people think.
I like to state things as a paradox.
The cause of this is a simple process of realizing my own problems before ending the introspection. Once I look out at everything else I have a strong desire to recognize things for what they are. Even if I have to state it openly.
I have plenty of junk from my past, almost an arsenal for demonic forces to auction off to the most negative force. I usually feel like something wants to get into my head and pull the junk to the surface as if it hasn't buried with intentions of never being seen again. It seems logical when considering that the goal is to bring my destruction to fruition. It's too bad that it is possible if I don't actively fight against it.
There are times when arguments come across as a defense to continue self-mutilation. Sometimes it is truly a matter of remaining in an abusive environment and sometimes it is absolute ignorance to ramifications of a situation. However you portray the situation, don't settle with the idea that the situation can't change.
That sounds like an excuse to evade the catalyst of change in my opinion.
Maybe if we all lived with a little bit more conviction of the positive elements life has to offer..
This world wouldn't need heroes to save people from the Fire that consumes our spirits.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Atheism: As Abstinent from Faith as a Catholic Priest is True to Celebacy
Well I can't get into all the facets of each theory of Abiogenesis, as I even care for such frivolities anyways, I didn't make this entry to rant about theories of the Origin of Life either. The point I'm getting at is there is such a strong appeal to Atheists in the form of the calling of empiricism to support their assertion of Naturalism (I've yet to meet a Dualist Atheist, they usually just go by Agnostic to keep intellectually safe). Which is absolutely ironic to me since there is such a strong faith in the lack of evidence, it looks similar to a young-Earth Creationist who denies all catchall facets of Evolution. Don't get me wrong, I laugh at Darwinism and every Neo, Neo-Neo, Neo's Neo-Neo form that will come up for it. I only believe in Micro Evolution in biology. Furthermore, the term Evolution can be applied in so many ways that it seems misleading to use the word without an adjective to accompany it at all times. So, though I'm not an 'Evolutionist' I still can be called a Theistic Intelligent Design Proponent who accepts certain facets of Evolution processes.
For all the people who are offended that I'm making sweeping generalizations about Atheists, I'll try to clarify my perception so it doesn't seem like I'm assuming the only kind of Atheists are those who subscribe to a particular 'event' for the origin of life as opposed to refusing to allow themselves to be subjected to a God of the Gaps fallacy just because they are lacking irrefutable observation of a process of Abiogenesis.
I'll be rather frank..
There are two kinds of Atheist minds I've dealt with over the years.
- I don't believe in the Supernatural because there is no observable data that's falsifiable.
- I don't believe in God because "He" can't be proven.
The second example is your typical brain-washed, stereotype of Anti-Christian rhetoric propagandist who relies on the concepts of religious atrocities and Church-body corruption to make Ad Hominem fallacy arguments to support the idea that anyone trying to prove Divine action, presence, or otherwise Authority of this Universe is religiously bias and therefore unqualified to search for the supernatural (sometimes they go so far as to discredit *said* religious believing researchers work on the same incorrect manner of inference).
These kinds of Atheists rub my skin until it's chapped..
The first other kind of Atheist is the kind I can maintain emotional stability and intellectual integrity with. I am at ease to say that these are the kind of minds I can agree to disagree with, usually it comes with an inability to reconcile the merit of data based on personal preferences that may be as simple as Cognitive Dissonance.
I may have a problem with the manner of inference, mostly because there is a clear misunderstanding of the veracity of methodology, but I never feel attacked. Furthermore, it is these kind of minds that I've found become reasonably Agnostic while uncertainty rests at the center of their thought.
However... I just had to separate the two to make this entry CLEAR that I'm making a rant about my indignation as opposed to an ideology.
Moving on...
I will always feel that Atheism, at it's very core, is a belief system just like Theism.
There is wiggle room in using terms like, "Lack of" or "..poised in Empiricism" but the problem isn't that the terms are used capriciously to make the wiggle room or a matter of equivocation.. It is dishonest if the claim is that the conclusion for the worldview of Atheism is based on irrefutable fact, that being that there is no facts about the possible existence of a deity.
I would prefer not to argue from the stance that Intelligent Design has made claims that are growing in merit. I would rather hold to an argument that this supposed absence of empirical data is a false claim entirely. For one, an extensive amount of research has gone into the area of Cosmology that deals with origin as much as the same facet of Biology. In both areas the conclusion is just as helpless in the pursuit of proving Naturalism is absolute. This isn't because a 'proper' theory doesn't exist, it's because the proponents for the tenets of Naturalism FAITHFULLY hold to the fundamental assumption of undirected cause from nothing.
I don't hold it against any Atheist for being faithful to the Naturalistic Methodology, as long as there is honesty that there is Cognitive Dissonance preventing them from accepting a notion that discredits their world view. I can relate, it's not like there's any shame in saying: "I'm a Naturalist of the Gaps. It's a fallacy of logic, but it's better than assuming an answer wont come eventually let alone that it was God or something."
Think I'm playing...
Assume I'm talking from my rear..
Get offended because I'm supposedly wrong.
The basic bottom line is that there is a huge pitfall when it comes to the Atheist worldview presuming that it is the Atheist's with the upper hand in Science. There is a growing concern about the Duality of the Human experience, prominently the existence of a force that directs the energies of the Nervous System to give rise to the Conscious Individual. Also there is a growing discontent with Science's inability to show or even suggest what existed before the Universe, other than the circular reasoning that the Universe is expanding and contracting (which is even more ridiculous than assuming the Big Bang happened for no apparent reason, even though that can't be determined empirically yet). Those are the two biggest reasons not to be a Naturalist, which is the basic premise of an Atheist worldview. The one other thing I find critical is the inability for Researchers to explain the origin of genetic information; even Darwinism is rife with the contradiction of 'special' creation at some point.
I would rather hear someone say they are Agnostic, just so I could propose all the reasons to believe the sheer ludicrous nature of believing that a finite Universe wasn't created since the mathematical attributes of Physics and even the statistics of it giving rise to life naturally are more improbable than just saying 0.
Don't get me started.. There's a greater change of winning the Lottery ten times in your lifetime. Yet, I don't even care about statistics and the Singularity or the Hubble Constant. All I care about is that I don't believe there is any accident of interpreting data or a lack of ability to measure the Phenomenon in the Universe well enough to dictate what the proper worldview is. The Human Experience is enough to remind me that no amount of biological complexity to explain the attribute of Love. I came into this world because of Love, I survived to this age because of Love, I think about these critical concepts because of Love. So if there is anything I have to say about Love, it's that no Science and no data can legitimize or otherwise nullify the importance of Love. Even an Atheist seeks it like an Alcoholic does a Liquor store.
I wonder how Einstein could be so profound in his proverbial sense of intuition that he simultaneously fathered Quantum Theory and understood the indisputable nature of the creator being non-malicious? Perhaps he wasn't bound by the constraints of a bias that is steeped in misconceptions of Theology?
Who knows.
Most people hate on Einstein the moment it comes to using his expertise to show he understood the pitfall of being a strong Materialist.
Saturday, March 23, 2013
ANOTHER TERRIFYING INTRO!!
I know it is a marketing technique to pull in unsuspecting victims through catchy phrases and also controversial words, especially in regards to satire. I think it is something funny when seen on a forum site and I think it is offensive when it is done by the media giants. Perhaps the reason why I see a difference is because the media giants don't need to do it while individual people have to. The reason is stark after all, because the media giants already have a big following of sheeple who mindlessly stare at the TV or let their radio blast in the air with fervent loyalty that incites hysteria if you tell them any opposing truth. Whereas the common individual is overlooked in favor of the next ridiculous meme circulating. It is a sad method when you think about it, the giants use this psychological trick to further push their biased agenda onto the masses while the common individual is trying to incite thoughtfulness to prepare you for their 'volunteer' service of informative research.
I find it very fun to play with subliminal messages. It has more to do with how I can turn a good friend into an enemy without their conscious approval or how I can incite emotional outrage over something that is literally harmless to everyone. However, it doesn't mean I am not well aware of the affinity people have to material things because of subliminal messages they are pulled in by or that they perpetuate subconsciously.
I don't like to blame the common person for being lost in subliminal advertising, but I'm becoming increasingly despondent to the attitude of people who can't point me to sources of information even though hey swear up and down by the information they speak. I have no doubt that many people think the same thing of me, which they have every right to do so, I find it ironic that most people aren't willing to ask me to give them my sources for their own benefit. Then again, most people see information that is relevant and they disregard it purely out of a misguided sense of superiority which is just a manifestation of a cognitive disorder called dissonance.
Take religious nuts for instance.. You could show them all the empirical evidence of what you are talking about, not conclude on what the evidence is, suggest that there be further investigation, and even be open to hearing a rebuttal against the information.. Yet somehow you're nothing more than a hedonistic terrorist to peace and should be silenced for the good of human kind. Yes, I include Evolutionists in the realm of Religious nuts, because they favor supporting evidence so much that they can't even deconstruct my postulation of what I have a problem with let alone admit there are holes to their theory.
With that said, we can pretty much include many people who fall in the middle of Religion vs. Science.
When does an individual lose their coherency and become a convoluted mess? I used to think it was whenever there is a lack of clarity to explanation or a refusal to cooperate with proper logical inference. Now I'm starting to think that it is whenever someone concludes their information to be irrefutable or when there is a total absence of openness to possibilities.
I don't consider myself religious, by a long shot, for reasons of sanity that has always separated me from blind followers. However, I take the scholarly approach to my Spirituality and am able to admit that I don't have an orthodox view that is a matter of tradition as opposed to analysis. I may conclude on certain aspects that haven't been well proven, but I don't push it onto other people as a matter of fact as opposed to intuitive inference of my own perception. Which is why I am quick to let someone know when what I believe is subjective or a matter of faith. Furthermore, I at least listen to opposition without arguing a bunch of mundane rhetoric
Ah hell.. Am I doing that right now?
Sometimes you have to read between the lines. Sometimes even between the words.. At worse, between each letter...
This is not always a good thing for anyone. Aside from being able to come up with a book that is separate from the simple statements you're reading, there is the aspect of being totally lost in your dissonance. It is ok to disagree with someone or something. It is not ok to do it without some kind of explanation, no matter how intuitive or linear it is in your own head. To say that there is a fundamental problem, in your own head, that isn't fundamentally unexplained in itself is akin to willful ignorance.
If you're going to argue against a politician, at least maintain continuity in your personal affairs. If you're going to bash a religion, at least respect the people who don't bash your own. If you're going to spread rhetoric against your neighbor, at least talk the full truth that includes the positive things.
The same should be applied in the practice of reading things.. If you get so bent out of shape over one obscene word, you probably are victim of successful satirical usage. If you confuse an inflammatory headline as being the body of an article that explains why you should be outraged, you probably can't remember the exact words of the article that literally agrees with your emotions.
Yes, it is that simple. So don't be simple minded by being caught up with frivolities like bickering children.
If what I'm saying makes you feel defensive, try looking inward towards the cause. If you don't believe me about how common this seemingly innocent sense of misguided perception is, look around at different Ads and ask yourself why you feel extreme agreement or extreme disagreement.
You might find yourself already stuck in the whirlpool of brainwashing.
It's not too late to get out.