2021: the Sequel to the Nightmare 

    Welcome to the new year. It is a time to get things going for the new year. Namely the things that I like to call the creative endeavors. I also want to get my WARFRAME clan on a new level this year. I plan to push them to some degree but I also don't want to push them too hard. I am on the verge of some ideas for the clan on the long term, but we're also dealing with an extenuating circumstance regarding the state of the world. I would be foolish not to consider that I might have to make changes that go with things in a way that I am not comfortable with.. Much like being an extrovert--

   It's been eleven years now since I had an awakening moment that was bound to define the future me for some time to come. What I didn't know, at the time, is how influential this stuff would be in my decision making for a lot of other things through the last ten years. 

Much of what I've been working on in my art has been related to a deeper understanding of the sciences and also logical debates. I had wanted to look at my art from a different perspective since I am an intuitive. It is easy for me to use my intuition and it is even easier for me to give some kind of purpose behind the little things in my art. What is hard to do is to keep the consistency throughout the work. 

    Within the first few years of my awakening process I was growing to the inner machinations of my mind and also what my subconscious had been trying to do to me most of my life. This was after all the drug use and all the strange experimentation I was doing on my mind, so to speak. It really wasn't the greatest time in my life. I would characterize the experience as lessons in futility; my immaturity was a product of my youth. 

I had just come out of a serious relationship at the time. There was some other problems on the horizon to face in those years such as switching where I lived and also where I worked. Then there was the many complications to face with the political sphere and also life situations related to family and the like. 

   At that time I hadn't really made any concrete decisions about what I wanted to do or what I thought about life so far. There were the generalities of religious doctrine governing my conclusions on things and also my intellectual consensus on scientific principles.. But it just wasn't the same as what I'm going through right now. I'm sure that in the next ten years, if I survive, I'll feel a similar thing about how I am as of writing this. 

I've more of this feeling that what I'm seeing in the world today reflect a lot of what I'm going to be seeing in the next ten years. What I've been warning friends about is coming true and I'm feeling more and more vindicated about having been into so many conspiracy theories. But in the end I wasn't the one going around telling everyone about what I found. Mostly because it was just too outlandish for me too. How in the world could I articulate something that I couldn't quite prove? But that's ok.. I've learned a few lessons from that whole experience. It makes a difference that I was a believing Christian in my early years before I got to the point of apologetics. After all.. Having to explain why you think what you believe is right is much harder than just saying there's something you believe in. 

Hope in what Future?

    This one needs to be addressed seriously. After all, it was a driving point I was making in the video I said I would explain the other side with here. And this is the bigger problem I'm seeing with the world; as a whole, with regards to what I feel is causing humanity to seem broken.

I see it as as greed and jealousy turning to hate and murder. I see a lot of hypocrisy. I see a lot of people who are willing to point a finger but not willing to lend a hand. I see a lot of rumors of war and of people fighting to the death, but I also see a lot of cowards who start fights with a mask on and blame it on innocent people. I see people starting fires in the name of peace. I see a lot of people starting political fire in the name of progress. I see a lot of destruction and barely any progress... I see a lot of people claiming there's a lot of progress and I see a lot of people hurting for the bountiful harvest supposedly out there. 

    But what I don't see is groups of people sticking it to the man with the end of a iron barrel. 
        Take that for what you will...
            I will advocate violence to protect our rights and freedoms. 

                It's why we send young men to die on foreign soil, returned in a blank box. 

I'm sick of the idea of not being able to talk because of insecurities and sensitivities. I have never had a problem with minding my words so as not to be a tool of discouragement. But I also have learned that there's no benefit to sugar-coating life. Perhaps you should with a child.. A baby.. No, an infant. Such a thing may be necessary with kids, but at what point does the responsibility fall on the adult to maintain their own integrity? What standard is good enough to uphold if adulthood is about escaping these responsibilities through trickery and manipulation?

    I'm talking this way because that's all it is anymore. This world isn't really about individual success and such a thing seems rather arbitrary any more. It's not like there's much to be discovered, since normal people are literally barred access from devices and places.. And such a thing will always be in the interest of people as long as they are treated as the arbiters of truth and justice. In fact.. I can't see this world working any other way than it is now, unless there is divine intervention. And.. I pray that someday there will be mercy with divine intervention, because wrath may be all that we're rewarded with.

        Obviously I'm not one to trust government to take care of life. I think there's some good that can come from people who want to help and are willing to correct mistakes to prevent harm coming to people. I can't say I wouldn't support it even in the mistakes.. But what utopian bull shit is this? In what fair-tale land do people actually follow the rules....? What is this lie people are shoving down their own throats just to feel good about the things they say?

Again.. Maybe I was humbled at such a young age because I am capable of understanding the importance of a haughty demeanor. After all.. It's the most shameless of people who get into a position of power and abuse it. Not something I can relate to at all... Just... I don't know what it really is that causes me to be so disagreeable.. It's just unavoidable. 

But that's just it.. I feel like the more that this invisible 'watcher' puts the squeeze on people through a digital grip of watch and tell... I'm starting to feel that insecurities are boiling over and people are starting to look towards the crazy for answers. 

What is crazy though?

Like.. Really.... What is considered too much?

2020 Was A Dumpster Fire

    I'm sure there's some people out there who feel that 2020 was just such a great year. 

    Yeah.. They will paint the picture as some grandiose experience. Shamelessly. 

Ok. Obviously most of them are just using an asinine approach to being funny. It's just that most of the comedians, who are actually funny, aren't using the negativity of 2020 to make a joke. Not unless it is about the weird behaviors that people show; such as the toilet paper shortage. 

Outside of that.. You're playing with fire. Much like mocking the victims of tragedy. 

    But here's my thing.. 

    Most people will also say to have thick skin. 

But is that the proper thing to be telling people who are offended by the lack of sympathy for tragedy? I don't think so.. Personally, my offense over any one thing isn't justification to lash out, especially with violence.. In fact, I don't regard my feelings as important enough that they should ever be considered important enough to make decisions for--be it to get me to react or get me not to feel a certain way. 

I'm of the thought type that your personal feelings really don't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it is important enough that it determines your behavior. Therefore, the essence of choice becomes critical in understanding how emotions influence an individual. 

    Have you noticed how people put a lot of importance in reactions based on etiquette? Is it coincidence that society governs behavior based on the consequences of actions as opposed to emotions? Perhaps the people who decide on things like etiquette standards in society have worked out the problem of gray areas in ethics. 

But of course.. No such etiquette committee exists; and it probably never should. 

    And this is where I have a critical thought. 

        If you're willing to mock the people experiencing tragedy on a good day, mock the world on a bad day...and...all for a quick personal laugh that no one else finds funny.....

            Schadenfreude. 

Don't Make Me Laugh

    I'm not laughing. Because it's not funny. None of this is funny to me. Then again, I've lost family through this ordeal and have had other losses that have hit close to home. So to me, it really isn't something I can mock even for the sake of hating evil. I can't bring myself to laugh about any of this, for the sake of what I find ethically disturbing. Even though I refuse to take the side of negativity and want to speak the truth, I don't find it hard to understand that there's no conflict of interest here. I just have one thing to say for the type of people who mock tragedy..

But I think it may be best to let violence speak first. 

The kind of violence where it is the mouth that causes itself to get into trouble. 

Won't be so funny when they're mocking someone who throws a punch...And that's where people are increasingly going, as they feel increasingly disregarded and forgotten..even murdered. 

    And so here it is. 
My final thought for the turn of the new year. 

Most of what I put is an emotional rant, but so is this blog. 

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. 

    What I didn't talk much about is what I will do within my own personal endeavors such as my art. That is a bit too specific of a thing to not get emotionally excited about. So I'm resolved with what I have talked about so far, as I will continue this concept in detail within the other blogs over the next few weeks.

        To everyone, godspeed.

Dying in Darkness

 Light Pierces

And the light is greater than the darkness. 

    That is.. In power and potential. But in sheer volume, it's a perplexing question suddenly. 

I'm not speaking about scientific terms, such as dark matter or even the aspect of the lack of photons of the universe and how much space exists as such. 

No..

What I'm speaking of here is the light of people and the darkness within. 

    Get away with the spiritual self-help or the new-age metaphysical outlook. 

    What we have here is something we all know is true.. Even the psychopath can understand what this is, even if they don't seem to care. It's the very reason why the court-of-opinion exists, as well as any other court of law in this world in all this histories of mankind. 

I have to introduce this as something different than what we usually here, and that's why I started with a simple statement. This statement is more true than any one can claim to realize, but also it is so true that none can deny it even in the metaphorical sense. 

Interestingly enough there is this point in time that seems to be cyclical in nature and it involves the collective thoughts of society. There are many beliefs that this time is cyclical in nature because humans are dealing with a state of decay in psyche and maybe deeper. Perhaps it is our genetics that are causing things to happen the way they do, all the way down to personality type and propensity. Many scientists of differing fields claim to have evidence of involuntary properties to our physical and mental construct that overrides free will; much like some biological processes can't be controlled by the individual yet are controlled by many mechanisms within the body--All of which can yield in different problems if you disturb any equilibrium of any system throughout the body. 

    Ok. So why is it this way?

Is it just coincidence that UV radiation sterilizes ? In as much that it is a good disinfectant--as a first-hand solution, long term care, and sufficiently sourced.. How about how UV radiation carries the spectrum of color, responsible for at least half of the excitement in all of existence ? Howabout the interesting mechanics of light, such as what it really consists of and how it moves ?

    Aside from glorifying light itself, the appeal here is to point out the versatility and ever-present nature of light in that it truly does pierce the dark in many ways. The only thing that light does that the darkness does not is rely on a source. Perhaps my understanding of darkness, in any sense of the word, should be amended to better articulate the substance of darkness itself. 

What is darkness that it covers things that aren't in the light? What is it that it seems to go where ever the light is not and when it comes to the psyche it can be a matter of naivety, blasphemy, or some other twist to the natural that may not be considered morally reprehensible yet still ugly in form. 

Between people, one person's perception of light and darkness from another doesn't change much. Usually the more complicated extrapolation of individual and societal behaviors are of influence; however, it is also within the complex construct that the lines become hazy. Only certain individual or societal behaviors can be seen as purely detrimental or purely beneficial. Which may be the reason why humans have had a clinging need for dogmatic articulation of what is considered the "reasons" for human life and our responsibilities because of what we can do. 

    Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, my interest has usually been a matter of historicity. I could care less who won and loss as much as who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Though I should clarify that this largely is due to my belief that there is a hierarchy that can't be toppled and shouldn't be rebelled against; be it a respect for authority or a deeper sense of balance to the order of the natural world. 

Perhaps the reason why I claim that true religion is certainly illustrated as a relationship as opposed to an adherence to guidelines. Though not to separate the two like they are not connected or one doesn't lead to the other. 

Some People Care. Others... Well..

No blame game here. 

    We all know what we're actually guilty of, usually. 

I wouldn't know what the measure of seeking the light is. I don't know if it is something that is appealing to all people; I imagine that in the lifetime of each individual there are multiple instances that the light pierces the dark. Yet I know that can't always be true since some people die in horrible circumstances, having been born into the circumstances. Just as some people never see the light of day--use your imagination. 

Looking through the sciences is an interesting one in the regard of all the potential influences light has on everyday life; even more so when you consider that a ball of fire floating in the sky has been responsible for eons of ideas from mankind. 
But for as much as we live in it, with it, and for it.. It's amazing how little we know about it.

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]

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.

Be More Than Yourself

How many times have I made a mistake that has turned out to have life-changing consequences?
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.

How have I managed to stay alive this long?

Hope is defined as, "A feeling of expectation and desire for a certain thing to happen".
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.

All is Vanity, Under the Sun?

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!

"Free Speech" Never Used to Cost This Much!

Free Speech. What an incredibly hot topic throughout history, manifested in power struggles of many kinds. Not limited to any particular ethnicity, nationality, era, or religious creed. Everyone struggles with the concept be it with parental influence or the 'ruling' class in society. In any way you define human thought, you are also forced to define regulation or thoughts that are allowed into public view as different than journaling or keeping thoughts at their point of origin.
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'?

I think these questions aren't asked frequently enough, there is more concern about emotional inference through personal experience about 'rights' than a logical criterion of etiquette. I believe if the latter were true, there would be more of an intellectual outlook on statements and ideologies before they are expressed; even without words (you have to be a strong empath or psychic to get the depth of the importance of wordless interpretations of thought).

Furthermore, I believe half of the trouble with how people are 'regulated' comes in with individual ignorance of the meaning of words that are spoken. Especially in regards to how other 'energies' are perceived within those words. 

Doesn't it make sense to look at written words in full context?

The last time I was given any wise instruction from a literary scholar, they made it utterly clear that all communication occurs within context. When it doesn't, communication has stopped because the ideas that explain are lost to literal meaning of individual words that can't collaborate anything beyond grammatical accuracy (meaning their construction may make sense, but nothing was expressed as far as unique information. Which is why it isn't considered an idea, just a grammatically accurate usage of words).

Since I am doing something along those lines right now, I can express the utter importance of understanding my own context just to make sure I'm being the least confounding as possible. This includes trying to refrain from offensive, ignorant, emotionally charged, loaded questioning, and/or begging the question. 

There is a time for using certain illogical processes to make a point, but the style reflects the logic used when put together predictably. This isn't the point of context, but it certainly does give weight to why context may explain perceived contradictions and the like. 

This is one reason why I can hear someone say, "I'm going to kill you" and I don't even raise my guard. In fact, I may become more dismissive even though I was clearly given a threat. That little thing called "context" is tremendously important in my assessment. 

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}

Junk In the Trunk

No, I am not talking about a girl with a big booty, I am talking about people who have all that emotional baggage from the past. Nothing but Junk filling their Trunk, keeping them from being able to use any of the room for something useful. I suppose what one man considers junk another man considers it treasure.. However, I refuse to let my Junk be the best thing that ever happened to someone because I know it is trash that destroys everyone it comes in contact with.
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.

Here's a good Acronym that explains this about me. 

GuLuWuFuMu

Give up. Listen up. Word up. Firm up. Move up.

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.

Atheism: As Abstinent from Faith as a Catholic Priest is True to Celebacy

I usually don't rant about the beliefs of others, but in this case I figured I'd express my frustration with being told that my faith has no empiricism or that there is no Science behind theology. What chaps my ASS is that the people saying it are ignorant of the history behind how Theologians have been skeptical of each other, using proper logic. Furthermore, they assume that theories like Intelligent Design aren't relevant to Real-World professions like CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. I just don't figure how anyone can assume that a lack of data suggests an impossibility to find it. Abiogenesis (A myriad of theories stating how living organisms came from non-living matter) has been disproved in favor of Biogenesis (The observation that living things only come from living things, by reproduction); unless you'd like to argue it only was relevant to Spontaneous Generation (Which is like arguing that an orange isn't an orange because it's name is different in Chinese).
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.

1. I don't believe in the Supernatural because there is no observable data that's falsifiable.
2. I don't believe in God because "He" can't be proven.

It is very important to make notice to the second example, because these are usually opponents of Judeo-Christian concepts of divinity more directly than any other religious cult. I find it very disconcerting to deal with these people because they tend to use circular reasoning, AKA begging the question, to push the precept that there is nothing that gives rise to supporting evidence.
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.

ANOTHER TERRIFYING INTRO!!

Do you ever get the feeling that the only thing that matters to a news article, or any other article made that isn't hosted by the media giants, is the headline itself? What about when you are sucked into viewing the article and then there is hardly any substance to the content that reflects the headline?
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.

Those things linking...

A recent discovery has supposedly determined that there is an intrinsic link of color to aroma.
The discovery was found to have consistency with flowers in the sense of non psychosomatic effects, however there are many studies linking the perception of taste of certain foods/liquids with the color of dishware.

A strange coincidence? Hardly. In one case you have the potency of a chemical being linked to it's pigmentation and in another case you have the perception of these chemicals being linked to the perception of pigmentation.
These two things are wildly different even though they lead one to question the nature of the brain and natural elements. Which I'm sure some evolutionists will try to proclaim, in some fancy manner, that the brain developed a safety mechanism to discern certain elements as harmful simply through pigmentation.

I have my own idea, but I don't think I'll be able to articulate it well enough for any layman. Instead, I'll just ramble on about what I think; which is what this blog is good for anyways!

This 'link' is relative to how shape determines sound or density affects weight.
Physics, the unchanging attribute of forces that determine how everything in the Universe operates upon predictable principles, is this interlocking weave that brings simple elements like hydrogen into something as complex as a star. Which from there gives rise to something more complex like other elements, which gives rise to planets, which give rise to ecosystems, which give rise to complex organisms, which give rise to intelligence, which give rise to sooooooo much more.. And on and on and on we go...
Yet at every level there is a host of factors determining the rendered system. In fact, as we've come to know it in the modern times, there are a host of systems from the Quantum level all the way to the Super-Macro level that must all be coordinated in a perfectly harmonized orchestra of processes.

I usually don't concern myself with how things work in a purely scholarly way. Usually I look deeper into it to become acquainted with the facts so that I can understand the totality of some system in a purely intuitive manner. For example: the moment you bring in mathematics to explain complexities, I will look at you with disgust and tell you to stop torturing my mind. I do not find math to be 'wondrous' or 'beautiful' in any way. I know that it determines so much, but my imagination doesn't center around numbers and the possibilities that they help explain within the physical universe. Quite frankly... SHUT UP WITH YOUR NUMBERS!!
However, for the sake of continuity of knowledge and the scholarly approach, I tolerate the existence of the necessity for mathematics.

Ok.. I totally went on a rant because of my bitterness about numbers.. However, my point was supposed to be that mathematics easily display a simple quality to the universe without expressing some outlandish number that impresses scientists.
All you need is 3.
It's the magic number when expressing the mysterious quality that the Universe is endowed with.
Since I don't like using my intuition and math together, even though I can, I'll put it in a way that explains my point.

1 is something. 2 is divided. 3 is a group. 

For those who aren't highly intuitive, the explanation is relevant to how things exist beyond just simply existing by virtue of not being non-existent. That is not a convoluted statement.
What I am getting at is explainable on the atomic level.
Essentially, all matter is defined by the quality of 3. Or if you must, a frequency that has three variances.
I can't speak for the forces of physics in the same way, but that is simply a medium for things that exist in the universe; they have no value by themselves.

Positive, Negative, Neutral. Or when it comes to atomic science, Protons, Electrons, and Neutrons.
By this simple formula, complexities arise on a grand scale. from something relatively simple. In fact, conventional physics aren't enough to explain quanta (those subatomic particles that make up an atom). However, I'm not going to get into Quantum mechanics because it doesn't explain my point.

It's this interconnected quality that I am trying to make a point to. Because the Universe seems to express the quality or even the virtue of interconnected things. Which is one reason why I'm never surprised, though I may be amazed, by the linking of certain qualities to other qualities that are seemingly unrelated.
This expression of seemingly non-connection is all over the Universe. However, the better we understand how things really work, then we seem to realize that everything is interconnected. Through this understanding, we humans can give rise to things that are beautiful to the senses. Then again.. We humans are a display of that very quality of manipulating the elements of the universe in harmony with physics to create something more as profound as humanity.

Wow.. All that to express such a simple thought.
This truly was a random spurt of insanity.