Sunday, September 28, 2008


"The activity taking place here, however, is a symptom of the growing barbarism in American life. Tattooing has traditionally been a marginal activity among civilized people, the calling card of cannibals, sailors, and whores. The appropriate place for it is on the margins, in the back alleys, the skid rows. The mainstreaming of tattoos (on main street) is a harbinger of social dysfunction." - James Howard Kunstler

Tattoos, for those who love them, are an ultimate expression of what they want and love, and it brings great happiness. Some tattoos are stupid looking and probably terrible mistakes, but even then, if it brings happiness to the owner, then great. I myself will probably get tattoos when I figure out if I am done shrinking or growing.

Friday, September 26, 2008

More Politics

It is incredible that John McCain and Sarah Palin are both willing to demonstrate repeatedly, while having to pretend to be experts on the subjects, that they know far too little about both Russia or the Middle East. I am not asking them to be actual experts, but for John McCain to say stuff (and I am not really sure what point he was going for at all) that they were 'ready' for perestroika and glasnost under Gorbachev is so utterly absurd. If he is going to make up lies, at least just go with good old anti-Putin 'communist spectre' era arguments instead of trying to make something up on the fly with a biased and incorrect view. Gorbachev sprung perestroika and glasnost with no safeguards and no preparation for the short-term pain they would intimate, and no one really expected reform at this point either, and so on and so forth.

Then there is Palin, with the video of the year . Every single aspect of this amazing, but the best is probably how when she makes the Putin rearing his head comment she actual motions and looks upward to evoke imagery of, I guess, Putin rearing his head and planes flying in or something? Then she states so matter-of-factly that we are all idiots for not getting that, duh, of course it lends her foreign policy experience that some trade might come through Alaska. We have to protect ourselves from trading with Russia and encouraging them to be an ally!

McCain and Palin both ignore basic facts about the Middle East, and I am not even going to bother because they are merely catering to the typical evil Arab, super special awesome friend Israelis point of view.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

2008 Election

I may not be able to technically fire someone, but let me tell you, when I'm president, if I want someone to resign, they will resign. - John McCain on Sixty Minutes

I may have slightly misworded it, but I certainly have captured his exact intent, which is that he supports an authoritarian ideology and would love to abuse his office just as Bush has.


Lying is condemned as immoral and as nothing but destructive, but this is a farce if anything. There are many lies that improve one's lot in life so long as he or she is able to keep the facade going, or rather if the lie is credible and there is no danger of it being exposed. There are a few basic types of lies, and I will examine why each is good or bad.

The worst type of lie is certainly a 'white lie'. The reason for this type of lie is supposedly to spare another person's feelings, but that means that all one is trying to do is cater to that person's weakness, which is utterly terrible. Furthermore, it also caters to the liar's weakness in either not being able to overcome a 'sadness' or whatever in telling the truth in hurting someone or a weakness in being unable to convey it without causing excessive hurt by telling the truth. Furthermore, these people who are being lied to often need to know the truth.

Now, liars who feel guilt over their lies are fucking charlatans (I will get into why guilt is an improper emotion later on, but emotions are a very complex subject to address). If one is going to do something that he or she considers bad, then have the strength to not feel negativity toward yourself over it, or understand why it is not bad.

Indeed, lies that are to reward yourself, to protect your position in life, to spare yoruself trouble, are all probably a good idea, and improve one's chances of keeping situations pleasant or improving one's lot in life in general. It is fairly evident that well thought out and well backed up lying is a strength!

One more type of liar that is horrendous is the type that lies, but pretends to have a higher sense of morality elsewhere. Certainly, lies are among the worse 'sins' if one constructs a vain moral code for oneself. It is hypocritical cowardice to condemn others for other faults if one lies at all.

The reason that I do not lie at all is because it takes a greater strength. While this actually hurts me more than lying would, it takes a greater strength within myself to do this! I am not interested in improving my lot in life by chicanery or outright prevarication. It is undoubtedly hard to never lie, and one must genuinely have good will toward everything or be very intelligent to do so. I certainly do not have good will toward many aspects of life at all (as I like and hate everything almost equally), so in my case, I find it a great fun to never lie. It has nothing to do with morality or a sense of right and wrong, and making the emphasis as those two moral constraints is folly.

Friday, September 19, 2008


Today I was reading an article by Stephen A. Smith that conveyed his absolute indignation at Josh Howard vulgarly disrespect[ing] America's National Anthem." I was torn between whether to be indignant at this disrespecting of a personal right to not be patriotic, which most of are not when truly examined, or to laugh at his folly. The large portion of people in this world do not care about society, they care to live their lives and do so in a way beneficial to them and their loved ones; patriotism is foisted on us vehemently, yet no one cares - only zealots care.

The notion that one must respect one's nation is a false and tyrannical attack on our free will and is absurd. I will never stand during the national anthem, nor remove my earphones if alone at a ballgame, nor avoid going to the restroom if I have to at that moment. It is a song, and not a terribly great one, that has nothing in particular to do with my life. I am an intellectual man who could fashion a great life for myself anywhere in the world. I do not enjoy meeting any person of any nationality more than others, as most are very interesting. My nation has provided me great wealth, but it has also provided me with fearmongers, with zealots who scream at me relentlessly at the University of Texas, and many more interferences of my life that could be avoided in a more secluded setting. Hell, with electricity and a place to get food easily, I am pretty certain that my quality of life would not decrease at all secluded from others by a couple of miles. There is nothing special about where you are born, and we indeed do not choose where we are born either. I am not born American, I am not born Texan; I am born a human.

If patriotism is worthless as I state, then why do so many zealots scream about it so loudly? The reasons are simple. The first is that it lends one authority. By caring more about where one lives than another, one clearly is more passionate and caring about his or her brethren, and ought to be respected and listened to more! The second reason is easily evident: it allows one to beat others in declaring one's passion for something arbitrary that is utterly meaningless to most people. My flag is bigger than yours; I wave it more valiantly; I roll it up more carefully in the rain; I take more care to make sure it does not touch the ground; I know more about American history than you. This nation has done some terrible enactments! Slaughtering the Native Americans to steal their land? Slavery? Sexism? These are all part of what you are supporting when you so vehemently and loudly proclaim your love for the United States of America! The worst reason that people effect a patriotic attitude is that of mere conformity, and I mean either actively or merely because it is so ingrained in our attitude that we have to. It is foisted upon us in school with the Pledge of Allegiance. It is foisted upon us at ballgames with the ridiculous national anthem. Why should we respect something that tyrannizes us? We should extirpate it, expunge it, and banish it from our lives if we so choose to do so! It is us who are offended, not others! We have to endure a patriotism that we have no desire to, and if we do not, we are labeled as terrorists, we are ostracized, and we are made to feel inadequate (or they try to make us feel such, I certainly do not). I am an intelligent person who will never violate laws besides jaywalking and speeding; I am intend my life to certainly positively contribute to humanity, and I will incidentally positively affect my country in the process, and patriotism is not necessary for me to be this good citizen at all.

Now, as usual, I am making extreme statements. I know some people enjoy patriotism because it can just be mindless fun, and while I personally do not enjoy mindless fun, it does have value! If going FUCK YEAH GERMANY SCORE A GOAL KICK FRANCE'S ASSS WOOOO makes you happy, and it is not malicious, if it is not pernicious, if it is not patriotism that is for the reasons I mentioned earlier, then great (it would seem competitive here, but it is not; it is merely euphoric). I personally do not indulge in this, but it is absolutely acceptable.


There are only two causes for censorship, and one is appropriate and one is not. The first is to create a formal setting, and this is fairly noble. The second is not appropriate, and it is a moral indignation, an outrage at the sensibilities being offended. What is offensive? People intensifying their words? Taking offense on moral justifications is due to a sense of vanity and is solely an extension of ignorance. If you find yourself outraged at someone saying fuck, then it is fairly safe to assume you do not understand much at all about this world, and are not fit to live in it.

I must say, whether or not for a formal setting, there is only one way to censor something and that is to leave it out. Editing something to say f*ck is NOT censorship, it is a false attempt at such, and all it does is make you morally pretentious, even above people who are outraged, but whom at least have the decency and honesty to eschew it from their vocabularies altogether. If the reader can still guess with ease and certainty what is being censored, then you have not censored anything at all, you have merely made it take longer for them to read the 'vulgarities' that have been espoused.

Now, a misconception that many people seem to have is that they have the right to free speech at all times. You have the right to free speech where it will not bother the sensibilities of others! You do not have the right to disturb the peace screaming; you do not have the right to stalk and harass people who decide they do not want to hear your idiotic views; you do not have the right to speak however you may like at a private or semi-private meeting that has standards you are expected to meet, whether or not you agree with them. You may try, and if you get dismissed for doing so, then you deserved to be dismissed. It would be laughable indeed to espouse that one could have free speech at all times, and only idiots get upset about not having it all the time. This, of course, applies to censorship in proving my basic assumption that one does not have the right to curse all the time. In a formal setting, when it is expected to not curse, then it is best used not at all or as an intensifier. I am all for not following norms, but cursing is usually for an effect to make speech lazier or humorous in most cases, so it is only appropriate sparingly or not at all in a formal setting, and then only to intensify and make a very useful point.

This does not belie my point that anyone who is actually offended on grounds of morality is an idiot; what I am espousing one might be offended on the grounds of is the use of 'vulgarity' as a crutch! If one is too stupid to speak without curses, then one deserves to be ousted from an intelligent setting, which is the only place censorship ought to be occurring in the first place.


The greatest problem of most religions is how oppressive they are. As arbiters of good and evil, they must necessarily vehemently state what is right or wrong. Forget that most issues of debate over what are good or evil are all but impossible to decide with certainty, and that most situations leading to 'evil' actions are complex, or that everyone has differing views of what is good or evil about most issues, or at least to what degree something is so. What is important is that in declaring what is right and wrong so stringently, claiming a spiritual authority to back their assertion up, which is often more about lending legitimacy to a code of oppressive morality than actually celebrating any principle of holiness or holiness vested in some god or God or gods, they make you an enemy of this spiritual authority; you become an emphatic and terrible 'sinner', a terrorist against the greatest holiness imaginable, and in doing such you are clearly led astray, idiotic, depraved, or even maybe insane. Forget that there are competing claims among all these spiritual authorities, no, what is important is that the problem is them declaring you an enemy of spirituality, of the supposed splendor of life which springs from this probably imaginary spirituality. What proof is there of a soul? I find that a person thinks spirituality is what it is because they go to these mass gatherings, or in private more rarely, force themselves to euphoria out of such a desperate desire or 'need' for this euphoria and, upon finding this euphoria has occurred, declare it a miracle, a meeting with some god or gods or God; they declare that they have been enlightened and overcome these urges which must be oppressed. Now, I understand my view of the soul conflicts with that of ordinary people, since they like fooling themselves into euphoria, so let us move on to a point that anyone can actually agree on, which is that religion oppresses that which is natural and right. The morality in any oppressive religion uses as its complete proof that 'evil' actions cause negative consequences, and this alone is plenty to suffice. What of the positive consequences? Well, anything with only positive consequences must be good, and anything with even a little bad is bad, right? Nonsense! Giving to the poor turns out to be a mistake if you end up short of a little cash later on. Lust is a great if it leads to 'true love' (not that anyone can define true love for everyone, this is different for everyone, and lust surely plays a huge role in it: equal parts lust, a constant desire to ravish one's partner is important, as well as an intellectual connection, but I digress). Pride fuels ambition, commonly, which fuels almost all of the innovation and other great acts in our world. Yet these are evil! It is ridiculous and absurd folly. Saying whatever you please and randomly affixing a spiritual authority to back it up is not proof at all.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008


Suicide ought to be held as an inherent and basic human right of all people. The concept that all life is precious is absurd, as life is transparently some mixture of preciousness and utterly atrocious and terrible matters. Furthermore, we are not born into this world by any choice of our own, so we have every right to remove ourselves. Now, I am not writing this post because I am suicidal; I enjoy living life because it is so much fun to think, even if other matters were to go wrong from here on out. I am writing this post because this nation we live in so insanely and errantly condemns and demonizes it.

There are a few basic types of suicides. First there are those that are suicides of the weak. The worst are the type where a young child who went through a breakup (often of a few months) decides life is just too tough, or a child does not like his or her parent's rules (remember the kid who killed himself over not being allowed to play the Wii?). These people are worthless, at least at the time they kill themselves, and thus the world is, at least at that point, BETTER OFF WITHOUT THEM. Any type of lover's death because of fear of ostracization from society, from not being allowed to and being unwilling to run away, et cetera, are people who are utter cowards and if they want to commit suicide a la Romeo and Juliet then good riddance. Another weak type are those who enjoyed living but became destitute, and those deaths are very rational, and the weakness, though maybe their fault, certainly provides ample impetus to commit suicide. Cripples also certainly have ample impetus to commit suicide, as they are cursed with some inexorable weakness, and their death is not one due necessarily to a cowardly or fearful death, and they might not even be worthless (although some cripples certainly are), they might just merely be tired of living with such a constraint. I am sure there are other weak types, but I would like to move onward to the strong who commit suicide, who commit noble suicides.

Noble suicides are multifaceted and praiseworthy. To commit suicide for a genuine cause, especially against a tyrannical government, is commendable. To commit suicide for some vast failing of 'honor' is also fairly noble and commendable. Committing suicide due to a feeling of letting down a boss or a group or a lover, however, is absurd and ignoble (this gets complicated when discussing whether how they let them down deals with honor, but for now, I am assuming it was something that was not that dishonorable). A suicide because one finds the world tyrannical, unjust, unchangeable, or even mayhap insuperable is also commendable, though not if done with feelings of cowardice and fear. Of course, none of us can certainly judge if fear or cowardice is involved, so it is a little more impossible (unless writings elucidate for us) to tell if the person committed a noble or ignoble suicide in this case.

Monday, September 15, 2008


Tradition lends itself to mindlessness, stagnation, and strife far more than it lends itself to anything worthwhile. It might bequeath happiness, which is fine if it is not happiness coming maliciously at the benefit of others, but if it the tradition is conformist (e.g. Christmas) or mindless (the invasion of the Ottoman Empire to free already mostly free Christians), then this happiness is not worthwhile at all, whether or not the happy person realizes it (think of 'ignorance is bliss' and all).

The first and most incredibly dumb indulgence of tradition is to follow tradition with no thought for what or why one is following along. The gravest and easiest way to demonstrate this occurring is the repugnant manner in which holidays are celebrated, but it easily may occur in other places, such as how we speak or espouse morality or think of emotions (which is of course very much so influenced by this inherited and ignorant tradition of morality).

The reasons that the celebration of holidays is repugnant are multifaceted. The first is that the occasions to celebrate a holiday are fixed by tradition, often incorrectly. Christmas is correctly a day to celebrate a pagan god bull with a giant dick instead of Jesus. Thanksgiving is a day that ignorantly espouses unity and thanks ignoring the joke that the holiday is due to our massacring of the Native Americans. Furthermore, it is not even sensible, since people are not on the whole grateful at all, so they are getting together and lying to themselves and the world (at least more than usual)! An aside: the tradition of celebrating 0 AD, setting dates by Jesus supposed birth, is ALSO incorrect (which is why common era, C.E., and before common era, B.C.E., are commonly used now). Jesus was born at some point between 4-7 B.C.E. if the Bible is true at all, but if you want to mistrust the very book that you believe in, then you can certainly follow in the tradition of not understanding the religion you espouse as utter reality.

Granted, this is not necessarily a condemnation of tradition, but people in general when I detail the other largest reasons, which are that people need to force a day to be especially happy or celebrate some cheerful matter and the centering of these holidays around food and alcohol, which lies contrary to the sense that there is some greater humanity reflected by these holidays; they are ignoble instead of noble. Is it bad for people to eat or drink? No! It is bad that all this mixture of tradition and human folly has centered around a NEED to force this to occur! So the conformists think such days actually are important; they are fools. Which leads to the point that those who are not mindless conformists are tyrannized by this most cruel culmination of events and the incessant 'throwing in their faces' of each and every popular one. Now, I will grant that these holidays do genuinely make some people blithely happy, but most people are only parroting a pretend happiness that comes from the excitement of people deciding to parrot something at the same time, which is a false excitement and will make them the worse for having experienced it. Any person who enjoys this excitement does so because his or her life and mind are mundane, dull, unused, and unfulfilled. The satisfaction that ought to be supplied by themselves is instead to be supplied by others and the tradition inherently vested in such glorious days!

You might think I have forgotten the consumerism aspect of this, which is the most prominent repugnance, but it is so transparently repugnant that I do not even care. A majority of people probably find it repugnant (but many go along with it because society dictates they must or they see something attractive), and any who do indulge heavily still probably realize how pitiful what they are doing is. This aspect hardly merits consideration.

That morality, for the most part, stems entirely from practices oppressive to the senses and to instinct is absurd. Any time that an action does not directly (or one could argue malignantly, but I think it does not matter if there is ill intent or not, you do not bother someone who is not asking to be bothered) cause someone injury, then it is not immoral. It is absolutely, emphatically proper. If one wants to fuck in the park at 3:00 A.M. with no one else around, then it is a great thing! To address sexuality in general, the tradition of it being scandalous and impure (outside of marriage, but to some no matter what) is so entirely offensive to rationality and sensuality as to be insane. Sure, there is a risk of pregnancy and STDs, but when both members of the relationship (or more than two, whatever!!) understand the risk before engaging in the action, then there is no justification for it being wrong if it does not then interfere in some other lives. I mean DIRECTLY affect; a mother or father being upset about their son or daughter fucking is NOT direct, it is indirect and an invasion of basic rights. The tradition of thinking men having any femininity or women masculinity wrong is blatantly wrong, and the very traditions of what is or is not feminine or masculine is very often blatantly wrong as well (although that is less morality, but people portray it as such incorrectly). To think that pride is a 'deadly sin' is an outrage. Pride fuels men to the zenith of their abilities, to act when they might otherwise not, sometimes to ruin, and sometimes to greater success than seemed feasible at all. Emotions have drawbacks when people utilize them incorrectly, they are not good or wrong by themselves.

Reliance on tradition to formulate any part of one's ideology is also insane and should easily be realized as ignorant, but, unfortunately, even for one who realizes this, tradition inexorably constrains one's life. The way banks go about their business (look at how that worked out in the last year) constrains our lives due to tradition. The absurd concept that waving a flag makes you patriotic is impossible to escape, and ought to rightfully make one angry, as, at least in the United States, our tradition of patriotism is nothing but destructive because it creates massive ignorance and an inflated sense of ability that is NO LONGER TRUE IN THE UNITED STATES - THE SUPERPOWER HAS FALLEN. Now, with the greatest of asseveration, let me say that tradition ought to guide us and lead us and teach us; knowledge can do nothing but help us, and many traditions are genuinely from knowledge, and so long as one examines and understands that knowledge at least passingly, then marvelous. The tradition of how to properly run will help oneself (but, for instance, it seems maybe not the traditions of squatting and leg pressing and et cetera are as valuable as used to be thought!). To allow tradition to entirely dictate the actions of our world would cause massive failure and destruction, and it is a shame that humanity takes decades or hundreds of years after a tradition is proven rubbish to abandon it (and I am using humanity to refer to a majority, surely it is impossible to eradicate all but the most supremely and impossible to refute traditions in entirety; the rest will always have someone to espouse them.)

EDIT: I am going to add this as maybe a way to clarify and paraphrase my entire viewpoint as pertains to holidays: the problem is not with people being happy or excited about something, the problem is where they say 'happy Christmas' as opposed to 'hey, so what fun activities did you do today? :)'. The former is an artificial and generic construct that does not impart any personal meaning, but the latter actually specifically addresses the person.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Miracles and Predetermination

My favorite part of religion is the debate, and often ignorance of the contradiction, of miracles versus predetermination. A miracle should not be noteworthy at all because it ought to be entirely reasonable, even without fate involved, because God/gods/whomever is causing it to occur! It should, by that logic, be worthy of praise, but not of wonder, although this could be debated I suppose. However, if one brings predetermination into the picture, then it is not a wonder or marvel at ALL. It may be an act of God/gods/whomever, but it was absolutely guaranteed for all of eternity to happen at this point in time and it is not noteworthy at all. I do not know that anyone will care about this little post at all, but I just wanted to share my justification for not caring about the 'miracles' that supposedly occur at all.

Also, I want to say, random shit happens with the body. When a guy 'miraculously' recovers from a disease, I am not at all going to be going out on a limb to say it is just some random shit. My hands have this strange disease where my skin layers on my hand apparently are separating slightly...or something, I did not really understand the explanation, but the only time it is noticeable is in water, when my entire hands' surface (touch side) becomes inexplicably shriveled (like fingers normally do, but in five minutes and all over). This is, by TYPICAL DEFINITION, actually quite miraculous when you apply the way people view good occurrences as miraculous (which I will deconstruct in a moment)! Guess what folks, it is my body randomly fucking up. This normally is supposedly caused by excessive sweating, and my hands actually sweat less than a normal human's. This miraculously terrible occurrence is not miraculous in any way, it is just a random problem that my body had randomly happen. If it went away without treatment, it would not be a miracle, it would be another random thing that just happened to be good instead of bad. It is folly for people to view only the good as miraculous, which is what most nice little conformist sheep think like.

This is not really related to any of the former content, as it is almost a separate rant, but people who believe in fate are incredibly imbecilic. The concept of fate must be taken to its extreme necessarily (which most people neglect, treating only major occurrences as fate). This means that every single aspect of your life is meant to occur exactly in the way it turns out, which is insane. Is it really fate that I use one word instead of another? If I use the word commensurate instead of same, then some 'force' actually compelled me to do so? I decided not to eat Free Birds tonight because my legs started to hurt, not because of fate! My legs started to hurt because I ran. I ran longer than I meant to because I got really excited from adrenaline, and that is why they hurt now. If you really believe in this necessary extreme of fate, then you are insane and may as well just start believing in nihilism.

Now, there is a more reasonable approach to fate, which is to say that there are 'branches of paths' that can occur from individual actions, but that is just asininity, and the word fate here is now a generic term meant to entail the vagaries of our lives causing life to turn out how it does, which is to say that we decide to do something and it effects either ourselves or others and that has some other effect, which is just how life works, so calling it fate is imbecilic. Now the actual application for this is to say that 'it does not matter what you do, it will have minor changes in individual lives, but we will still end up invading Iraq' or whatever, but this is just a silly attempt at intermingling free will with the more extreme concept of fate, which is silly. If you believe in fate, then you believe six million Jews and five million gypsies, homosexuals, et cetera died because of some grand scheme that also controls your life, so enjoy.

Saturday, September 13, 2008


In John Locke's famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he begins with an elaborate coddling of readers, basically saying "if you judge candidly, then I shall not be harmed nor offended, whatever be thy censure." While his intent is respectable, the people that would need to be coddled like this are not. Offense is formulated merely by our own undue idea of values (morality, essentially) or vanity. Anyone so frail as to actually be offended by trivial matters is likely ignorant or has an immature morality. While this does not mean that it is wrong to rail against repugnant matters (murder, bigotry, et cetera), as some things deserve condemnation, the offense propagated within oneself is one's own fault and problem, and one needs, therefore, not be concerned at all with causing offense to anyone. I know it is a delicate and hard to contemplate difference between, say, anger and offense in the way that I am describing, so I might need to attempt to do a better job of that. Anger is a natural response (and I would say proper) when the formulation is 'I have been wronged; how dare you punch me in the face!!' Anger fueled by a sense of offense, such as 'holy Hephaestus, that man is naked in public, that is soooooo grody' is wrong, although it is what we are INGRAINED BY SOCIETY to feel, so if you would react this way, then I am not necessarily condemning you as weak or ignorant or anything in a negative vein at all (although it could be the reason if you have thought about it extensively).

As to a sense of offense due to vanity, it is absurd, and if you are vain to the point you feel offense, then you are a fucking idiot. A problem with dealing with this is what people instantly think of when they think of vanity, which is most often to equate vanity with excessive pride in appearance (which is NOT a bad thing at all, as we all should hope to look good, and being told we are good looking leads to sexuality and great happiness!). What I am talking about is an excessive feeling of worth to where one becomes indignant over being served a wine one dislikes, or if one were to pitch a fit if that similar wine was spilled all over one's primly perfect carpet. This indignation and offense is the most offensively immature and ignorant form of undue expectations that anyone who is not this way inherently ridicules it; however, most people would act this way if rich or able to get away with it, probably.

I will say that some people find it fun to be senselessly offended or to rail about matters that ought to make every human indignant because by HERA it makes me offended! and that is fine, although it is a prideful and ignorant indulgence (because offending what makes us indignant, once again, mostly morally, is the proper way to approach life is absurd).

Thursday, September 11, 2008


The strange problem of human passion is that it inexorably limits us. The first way that they do this is not something that can be helped. Humans have a limited amount of time, and we can only choose to like or indulge in so many things, and we must sacrifice the possibility of indulging in other things we might like just as much or even more. The second way that they limit us is by us wanting them so much, which is both the fault of us and the things we are passionate toward. The best example of these are drugs because they actually create a profound addiction most times, requiring you to continue them or face great pain (of course, there is pain involved in taking them, often, yet people continue to indulge), and additionally having to have the resources in people and money to indulge in them. Every single thing that one feels compelled to do thus limits oneself.

There is a third way that they limit us, but that is more the result of how we act upon our passions than the passions themselves, and that is that for things that we like or love, we find something else anathema, or are merely indifferent to the other options we could harbor passion toward.

So this begs the question of whether it is better to try and indulge in as many passions as possible, to do it in a fairly limited nature, or to not care about having passions at all? There is no simple answer. Every approach is very legitimate because of these limits. While experiencing the passion feels great, the aftereffects are often awful and substantial: eating, working out, headbanging, and sex (getting disgustingly sweaty during) all portend problems with their joys. A simple solution of these is to only indulge in them in a limited manner, which might make the disparity between positive and negative greater, favoring the positive, but it also means not getting as much of an amount of either. Lastly, not having any passions in general, while it might seem similar to laziness which I despise, is actually a little different in that one might be focusing on just completely avoiding the negative effects while still living to the best of their ability otherwise (kind of symptomatic of the 'caged bird' situation). While the last seems the least fun approach, and I certainly could never tolerate it even if dilapidated by age, it is defensible.

Monday, September 8, 2008


I would like to start by exploring the fact that humans have only two faculties in which they can improve their lives, which are their bodies and their minds. The mind formulates ideas, reactions to various stimuli basically, and the body is the only tool with which to express ideas, unless one wants to endlessly monologue within one's mind. Astonishingly and regrettably, many people continue to ignore a cultivation of the mind, the body, or most incredibly both. I am not saying that one must work out to the point of being superbly chiseled; rather, one ought to work out to the point that one has a fit enough body to move easily and have good health, even if one absolutely hates physical activity. Whatever reason one finds to do any physical work, whether for increased vigor, for the excited feeling many get when working out, for the strength, all are valid reasons to be celebrated. I, of course, do not want to assign just physical value to laziness; one ought every day to exercise the mind at least for a good portion of the day. Playing a lot of video games or goofing off is no crime, but to do so to the point one never really thinks much at all is such egregious folly so as to be criminal to oneself.

I would like to next argue that this lack of cultivation is essentially what we call laziness. While many people incorrectly assign laziness to something such as not doing a job as well as one is supposed to, that is simply untrue if the job is so utterly unstimulating or truly worthless to oneself, although I am of course not saying it could not be an indication of laziness depending on circumstances. Living in continued routine without ever indulging one's facilities to think or move in any meaningful manner is where true laziness might be found.

Closemindedness could decidedly be thought of as the decision to reject something blasely while barely knowing what you are rejecting. Often, this is derided because one rejects something that is so universally hailed. This is insanity at its zenith. If one ignores one's various desiderata, especially when one already is well aware of what he or she actually likes, then one will most likely retard oneself by indulging in something that he or she has good reason to reject. If one finds something utterly repugnant, no matter how small the reason, then it follows that he or she has every right to reject it blasely. I find pot smoke utterly repugnant to smell, and I furthermore find the ability to think at a high level an orgiastic feeling, so why would I ever indulge in smoking pot or being around others smoking pot?

Now, the worst result of this worldwide derision of closemindedness is a gross spawning of conformity. I would rather save my thoughts on conformity for later, so I will suffice it to say that conformity, which I would define as doing something because someone else (or many others, usually) do something without any real thought or inclination that one will like it, is the greatest worthlessness that there is in humanity, yet humanity insists that one must try out anything at least once, and peers insist one must try out anything regardless because they demand so. This is rubbish and creates insipid human beings.

What I mean to declare with both these arguments against laziness and closemindedness and conformity in accepting repugnance is that there is true worthlessness in this world, whether in humans or objects, at the very least pertaining to how one receives these objects and humans (also I am classifying all other non-human living beings as objects; they hardly think, so it is basically the same to me, although I know some might ridicule this assertion, and it is just an aside). If a human being's entire personality is crafted out of conformist ideals, and if he or she is furthermore grossly fat and speaks at the level of a third grader (ignoring children as I hate children and have no reason to care about them), then they are a worthless human being as presently existing, and one ought to utterly dissociate oneself from that person. Furthermore, many objects are worthless due to laziness. Paint splattered on a canvas repeatedly is utterly worthless, no matter what convoluted explanation the artist comes up with to assign it worth. A song that is just one note is asinine trash that ought to be ridiculed.

These are, of course, not the only reasons that persons or objects are to be dismissed, and it is hard to so summarily dismiss something, as, especially pertaining to humans, a state of existence is often very much so more complex than we at first glance can perceive it to be. I also ought to say that laziness is not any lack of activity or anything such as that; I try harder than anyone to be active at all times, and even I find myself lapsing into inanity at times just from the sheer impossibility of trying to achieve this.

Next time I will probably talk about the absurd relations of hair with masculinity or femininity and homosexuality, since those two are kind of related.