The weakness of backwards minds will eventually expose itself.

This is a message to those backwards minds or anyone interested in my opinion on them.

I will begin to consider your opinions seriously when you can be honest with yourself and with others. You cannot admit a fundamental truth, one which precludes other fundamental and neccessary truths. You need other people. You do not do everything yourself. You are not self-sufficient. Personal responsibility will not stop other people from being irresponsible. Nothing stops an earthquake, no matter how careful and responsible you are. You cannot admit that you need other people, which you do. If you argue that you are self-made, and have bootstrapped yourself to where you are now, I will remind you of some things to consider. That is, after you make your own clothes, shoes, soap, cups, bowls, plates, forks, knives, hammers, tires, engines, cars, gasoline, plastics, computers, medicines, penicillin, fire, flour, wheat, bread, meat, beans, guns, bullets, glass, wiring electricity, powerlines, transformers, gps satellites, the music you hear, the movies you watch, the books you read and anything else you use but pretend “doesn’t count” when it comes to being “self-sufficient”. You buy those things, at best. You buy them from other people who spend their time (which is just as precious as yours) making them. Not only do they spend time making things, they figure things out. They think of things that you will not spend the time thinking about. They create things that you do not create. They contribute to the shared system that provides the opportunity for us to participate in. Yet, they receive less than you. You feel that you deserve more, so you have found clever ways to get more from the system than you put in. Unfortunately, this model will not sustain itself. At one point, either those who contribute will suffer until they disappear, leaving only those like you, who can’t do or make anything other than follow simple instructions provided to you by someone else. The internet on which you are likely reading this may be the surpreme example of this hypocritical claim of the “self-made man”. By its fundamental nature, the internet is the contribution of multiple sources to a shared pool. To exist, the internet REQUIRES computers with different tasks to communicate with and depend on one another. You use the internet to rail against this kind of behavior. I hope you can see the… remind me again, which is it? Irony or hypocrisy.

There are a handful of people receiving this correspondence that live close enough to the earth that they do, indeed, glow with the mystic fires of self-reliance, but they too are just an illusion. Hypocrites in their own right. Liars, all of them. You are a liar too, and if you’re not, it’s because you are a fool. Think, can you remember the last lie you told? I would bet that you can. Even those of you who think they are not liars, try to think a little deeper.

One day, in the not too distant future, a parent will kneel over a bed praying for their child to live just a little while longer. They will beg God for the child to have just a few more years of life. God will not respond.

Weeks later the parent will kneel again, but this time without prayer. All hope will be lost, the child will have only months to live. In the background, the television in the other room will create the only sound in the house. The news will be on on. As the reporter begins to speak, the parent will freeze in disbelief. To them, the story is miraculous. The report will have just announced a cure for the exact disease from which her child is suffering. She will not be able contain her joy, and she will cry out thanking God for his kindness. Her faith will be restored.

The parent will ignore that parents have prayed daily, for as long as people have prayed, over children suffering the exact sickness as their child. Parents who did not experience the joy of a cure. Children who died. The parent will ignore the cure itself, and the researchers, the funding, the years of time spent, the dedication and sacrifices, the cummulative knowledge, the millenia of mathematical and scientific development required to achieve the sort of nanotechnology coupled with understanding of the human biological system required to perform such a simple task with such a noble goal. The same parent will vote and rail against interests that are positive for society, and even positive for themselves, in the name of their religion or ignorance. The same parent will criticize that which they need. The same parent will believe that the men and women who worked their entire lives to come up with this cure shouldn’t have health care of their own unless they “work for it”.

There are some of these people whose job is akin to that of a person who sits in an office, surrounded by lavish gadgets, and simply surfs the internet for most, if not all, of the workday. Sometimes they choose not to come in to the office at all. Sometimes they have a home office and work only a few hours a week. Their job is essentially simple, and requires only the task of sending a few emails a week or responding to a phone call. When they make their sale, close their purchase or whatever it is that they do to get paid, they receive a handsome check which covers far more than their expenses. Because of this extra income, they can afford health care, as well as “nice things”. They believe that they deserve these things, and that the “bums” who want free health care don’t. The same bums who make everything that they use. The same bums who created and built the very products by which they make their income. These people will sell something made by someone else, while claiming that they have worked hard and done it on their own without anyone’s help. These same people believe that the type of life they lead is perfectly acceptable, as there is nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of their labor. Except that they have done no real labor, and they have definitely not contributed to the shared system by which we all live. By which they live, yet in their fog of denial, claim not to. They have shared no labor, no knowledge, no insights. They have been sold an image of life that they believe they want to live. The mirages of fame, celebrity, class and lavishness have spoiled them. They contribute nothing, take everything, and believe that they should not be asked to even contribute some of their income since it is theirs, and they earned it. They want to keep as much for themselves as possible, while finding any means neccessary to keep it, including taking it from others by means of lower wages or acceptable deceit or technicality. For every one of these people that take from the system while not giving, they remove resources that should be available to people who ARE contributing. Many of these people got their jobs or money, from which they claim their entitlement, by means of a personal connection or inheritance. Even those who have worked hard and learned much have still depended on others the entire way. Whether it was the professors that taught them, the craftsmen that trained them, the people who wrote the books they’ve read, the bank, government or family they borrowed their college money from, the government (federal, state or municipal) that pays their salary, the friend or relative they stayed with, the people who made all of the material goods they’ve used in their trade and life, the corporation that pays their salary now or the customers that buy their goods or services. No matter what it is, everyone has depended on others to get where they are. I don’t imagine that most guitarists make make their own guitars, guitar strings, amplifiers, CDs and tourbuses; just as soldiers don’t make their own weapons, tanks, grenades and medical supplies.

These same people, who create the disparities in the economy, are those whose selfish votes put into power those who claim that they will look after and protect only the particular financial interests and dogmatic beliefs that match their own. They have no regard for the collateral damage this produces, the ripples it creates and the wave it forms into. Even when these decisions ultimately negatively affect those who made them, either by means of a crooked electorate or a continual decline of personal and society freedom, health and well-being, they continue making them under the delusion that they are “right”. Their closed minds will not allow in new perspectives, other than surface level examinations for the purposes of criticism, not knowledge. Some of these people bask in their ignorance and consider it a virtue. Often they cannot recognize the value of brain over muscle or mind over matter, although sometimes they fail to realize the value of muscle or matter too. They almost always forget about the heart, unless it is theirs, in which case they defend it viciously. They have forgotten the role that chance and circumstance play in our lives. Children born into poverty, squalor and ignorance do not have the same awareness of opportunity as those born into privilege.

There are unemployeed, sick and disabled engineers, scientists, nurses, janitors, construction workers, artists and people from all walks of life who need help and care, but don’t receive it because of unfair imbalances in the system by which everyone survives. There are homeless and mentally ill alongside perfectly healthy people who suffer because of these inequalities and injustices. Even if they’ve spent their life contributing, they may be down and out now while those who spend their lives complaining that they don’t have enough (for doing less) are well-off. We all depend on everyone, even the undesirables, the ones perceived to do such menial labor that you may have dehumanized them into only their statistical dimension.

We can’t all be “executives”, giving orders to a non-existent workforce, and just because you are one doesn’t mean you are entitled to manipulate and take advantage of everyone else. Even though you probably devoutly believe it, you are not smarter, better, more aware or more deserving… you are just more willing to sacrifice others to benefit yourself, and maybe you’ve put in a little more effort toward that goal than most. You call it ambition, sometimes initiative, but what you really mean is ruthlessness. You have not contributed. Personal freedom and a societal conscience both need to exist, together. This has nothing to do with geography or any other perceived divisions. Your stuff comes from everywhere, people come from everyone. All people are connected. All people are relevant and valuable.

This does not mean that some people could not have or are not allowed to have more than others. In fact, I can imagine a world where those who contribute would have more than those who don’t, rather than the other way around. More does not neccesssarily imply material goods, but perhaps more reward for their realizations and efforts. People who contribute should be able to benefit from their contribution, and more from a larger contribution, this is not something to be ignored. It is the measure by which we define these contributions which must be most closely examined.

As it stands, people who contribute are often rewarded, but rewards also go out to those who don’t contribute and also to those who do everything possible NOT to contribute. This deprives those who make a real effort, as well as establishes a boundary for those wanting to contribute but for whom resources are minimal, if not non-existent, preventing them from taking positive action. Because of this extant condition of society, those who don’t contribute should not be distinguishable from those who CAN’T contribute. A rich thief is still a thief. People are not perfect, or honest or always well-intended, this is recognized, but you joining those ranks doesn’t help anyone except you, and probably not even then, if you consider at the true aggregate of human life. If society were better, if your money went further, if technology were further along and more people were well-informed, healthy and happy and considerate of the lives of others, your own life would almost assuredly be better too.

A conscious effort to make a contribution, to deserve what you have and to respect others who respect others is all that is needed to do accomplish this.

You will feel better about yourself and about life if you do this.

If you do not, I haven’t much use for your opinions.

If you are truly self-sufficient, you aren’t reading this.

Have a nice day! 🙂

Advertisements

Owls

Sometimes when wise men wander into the mist, they happen to stumble upon a place where they are shown the secret window through which they might view the truth. Each of them, save not a one, will press their nose against the glass, snarling for the thing that lie just beyond their reach. There, just through the window, the truth that may be seen but never touched. The lure of such a prize possesses the will of all wise men; and in their ignorance, they persistently press harder to the glass. The wise man’s eyes turn to white as his soul fixes upon the holy object; unable, for any reason, to release its want. Having abandoned all sense and reason, the wise man descends into beasthood- clawing for the other side of the glass, his hellish breath forming a fog on the window, obscuring his view. Until at last, when his sight is blocked by the smoke of his greed, and his grail is all but forgotten, the wise man retires to his grave, having lost sight of the truth through his desperate pursuit of it. Wise men have been so unable to bear the truth when shown a direct glimpse of it that they disbelieve what they have seen. They become so obsessed with grasping the truth rather than knowing it, that they fail to see it right in front of their eyes, as clear as it could ever be, through the window. Fueled by this greed, they toil endlessly toward owning that which they can never own. In this toil they hide the secret window from themselves… forever.

Will And Wager

If we are anything other than the fruit of some divine lottery’s pluck, if others have been more than puppets, then we, too, can select ourselves as both arbiter and chronicler. If all is merely in the hands of those who would will the world’s shape to their fashion, show me those hands and I shall learn to master them. If any fool can declare himself designated, what stops other fools from doing the same? There are no true law-bringers, there are only those who fail in understanding. I shall not be left to chance nor to fate, I have something altogether different in mind. I will not wait and hope for the chaos to settle by it’s own accord. This freedom truly is priceless.

1 for 3

It has gone as follows: You sit, sometimes restlessly, waiting. What you wait for would seem a mystery to most, perhaps even to yourself, but not to I. I know. I know for what you wait. At first you might think me trite, and perhaps arrogant, especially with the seeming directness of my statements and lack of uncertainty contained therein. However, these statements are not nearly direct, and therefore not nearly trite. Ambiguity is a sign of depth, depth a sign of complexity and complexity represents typical uncertainty, thus, complexity (and vicariously, ambiguity) is a sign and inhibitor of mystery. Not all complexity is mystery, but certainly that which is not understood is, without a doubt, mysterious. Not all complexity is valid, either. Now, I will give that the of level of the complexity, that is, the source of the mystery, differs among conscious beings by great degrees. That is to say, unconscious beings experience no ambiguity, and conscious beings may experience a drastically different range of amiguity, and thus, a drastically different range and experience of mysteries. You see satisfaction of your mystery, for one, but that is not all you seek. I know for what you truly seek, and perhaps have even given up on ever finding. Yes, I know.

I said to myself, “These are the words I should be writing.” and I turned to type just now…

I would have liked to have been more careful in my life as to not say anything in such a way that it comes off as far-fetched enough from the fringe of ideas that it invalidates to others my very valid and more credible opinions and collections of a posteriori facts. Unfortunately, I cannot contain myself at times and have felt the need to announce more thoughts than I probably should have, many of them unfinished and expectedly weak at the time. This though, however, is one of the more well-considered of the lot.

We must first admit that there are some incorporeal notions quite easily identifiable, such as love, fear and taste. Taste being a rather interesting one, for if we objectively examine any edible item which we identify as having particular taste, such as chocolate, we find some curious questions. A first question is “What does chocolate taste like?” or “How does chocolate taste?” A few quick notes to make include that there is more than one way to prepare chocolate, and its taste depends greatly on this. The next note to make, a more poignant one, starts to lead us down the road towards a discussion regarding verbally constructed reality, language and the symbolic mind. We will approach these subjects later, but do stir them around in your brain a bit. That more poignant note is “How can we describe the taste of chocolate in terms other than simply comparing it to something else?” To say “It tastes like chocolate.” is circular and points us to Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem, which states: “For any consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.” To say “Chocolate is sweet.” or “Chocolate is bitter” is to only describe it, again, in terms of comparison to the qualities of other things. To borrow from Melville here (again, as I know I’ve quoted this line at least a few times previously, don’t worry, I haven’t developed a case of can’t teach an old dog new tricks syndrome):

“… truly to enjoy bodily warmth, some small part of you must be cold, for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself. If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more.”

That is to say, we are caught in an infinite regress when trying to provide actual truth to an idea such as taste. We could identify all of the parts that make up our chocolate, determine that it most likely originated from the bean of a cacao tree, determine its mass, pigment, chemical composition, identify its alkaloids, study the microbial fermentation and its final metabolizing and then monitor and construct logarithmic graphs of each and every chemical, neurological, physiological, psychological and sociological effect it has had on a large control group of human beings. We would do this all in the name of science and truth and come to know everything that there is to know about chocolate. After all of this, one fact about the chocolate would remain curiously missing, and it is the most important fact! What does chocolate taste like? There is no property for taste on the periodic table of the elements. To different tongues the chocolate tastes different, has a different effect and is interpreted differently, either positively, negatively or sometimes neutrally. This is much like the rest of the universe. The taste of the chocolate does not exist objectively, only the energy compromising the chocolate exists. The taste is left to the person who experiences it, which we will call the observer from this point on. I would like to give a nudge here towards a later conversation about artificial intelligence with mentioning that taste is sort of an emergent essence of the system comprising it. Anyway, back to our observer.

To the observer, his or her (or who knows what!) ontological truth is that they exist materially. By materially, I mean physically, of hard matter and “stuff”. I state this definition because the word “material” or “materialistic” has taken on the definition of “superficial” in recent years. They, as adults human beings, believe this physical world to be the only real existence available to human perception in this lifetime. They believe this for two reasons. First being that they have constructed their epistemological base from their subjective experience through the five basic senses and hardened this into a truth they call fact. Second is because they have been told so. Social conditioning plays the largest part in hindering our mind’s ability to determine and compile a complete picture of reality. We learn what things are and what things are called by means of communication from others. As a human mind is developing it takes its cues on how to interpret the waves of energy in the universe from other seemingly sentient beings. In this predicament the mind is never free to, ironically and profoundly, “make up its own mind”.

The physical brain and its 100 billion or so neurons take in signals from various parts of the body and compile a picture of reality a few hundred times per second. If you place a radio and a flashlight on a desk that is 10 feet away from you and turn them both on facing you, as the light and sound waves come towards you they travel at different speeds. The light signal is arriving much faster than the sound signal. So when you are observing what you assume to be coinciding events, they are, in fact, happening at different times even though in the reality that the mind constructs they seem to be happening at the same time. The eyes take the most recent light wave and the ears take the most recent sound wave and transmit them to the brain simultaneously. The brain converts the most recent visual signal into what you now see and the most recent sound signal into what you now hear, combines them with your other senses, and presents them all to you at once. Of course, the most recent sound signal that has reached you left much earlier than the most recent light signal that has reached you, so two non-parallel chronological events are being displayed to you as a simultaneous occurrence, when they are in fact not. The brain compiles hundreds of these pictures of reality per second and presents them to you as if they are happening right now, at the same time. This is the reality that you are now experiencing. The reality that you are experiencing this very moment has already happened. It has been compiled and presented to you for observation by the brain, so has the next, and the next, and so on. There is a touch of destiny to this. (Instead of watching the compilation, watch the compiler, and then… learn to watch the watcher) This constant compiling is why we can see anything happen. It is why we can notice the change in a a single frame of movie or a video game as it happens at 30 – 60 frames per second. Two important things are happening here. First is that each time the full-picture and experience of reality is compiled, all other data received since the last compile, milliseconds earlier is ignored. Between each compilation of reality in the brain, much more data comes through, as light and sounds are traveling extremely fast, but the brain only compiles at certain intervals so it can only process some of the data, not all of it. This is not to mention all of the types of energies we cannot detect naturally (sonar, infrared, uv, magnetism, gravity, etc) and which are only able to be augmented into our picture of reality through displays and data with the current state of industrialized technology. This fact alone lets us know that we do not have a complete picture of reality as human beings. Second, as the data is coming in, the mind takes the raw data provided by the waves and builds it into something identifiable. In a quantum system, when an observer (in this case, a mind) is introduced to the system, the system behaves differently. While seemingly deterministic, our reality is quite probabilistic, and apparently entangled. We affect the way we experience this projected outside objective reality by how we condition ourselves to interpret its signals. We form symbols in our conscious minds of what we experience. That is to say, it is our subjective perception and conditioning that determines what chocolate tastes like, not some objective property of the chocolate. We can modify our program to manipulate and interpret the data in any number of ways if we simply learn the language and apply the proper energy. We live in a giant conception. We can, indeed, control our own reality. Now, what exactly would you call someone who controls reality? Hmmm?

It is amazing and good to feel inspired! It is empowering to understand your inspiration.

A Definition Of Freedom

Before I begin, I must qualify the purpose of this message. My intentions are not to impose any personal or religious beliefs upon you, nor to invalidate what you currently believe or to replace your mode of thinking with mine. Likewise, I am not addressing you to destroy your religion or lack thereof, nor will I attempt to change your beliefs, values or way of life. I do not believe that my will should be imposed upon others. I am here to do what I consider to be the only logical thing that I can do. I wish to share my opinion with you. My words and ideas are my trade value. I am sharing my perspective because I believe that I should do that which I honestly consider will provide the most value to others and the most happiness to myself, both in the long-term and in the here and now. I believe that I must do this without impeding the freedom of others or myself. I believe that I must not interfere with the ability of other people to live their lives, make their own choices, believe their own beliefs and achieve personal happiness. In accordance, I assert that men should not hold ideals that may result in the denial of another’s ability to practice their own ideals freely. I wish that all of mankind shared these same aspirations. Unfortunately, they do not. Mankind has corrupted its general purpose, perverted its sense of justice and destroyed that which it once held to be precious. Mankind has lost its proverbial way, assuming that we had ever known it.

It does not require more than an average intellect to realize this observation and reckon it into fact. We are plagued by confusion and paralyzed by our fears. In this condition we have constructed a monstrous apparatus of control. It was born out of our collective angst, nurtured by our desperate confusion and fueled by our ignorance and indifference. The synthetic blankets of responsibility, which we call laws, society and progress, are known to nearly all men everywhere. In their current form they functionally do little more than perpetuate one another in the claim of a simultaneous real world and esoteric greater good, for which the only prizes to show are the laws, society and progress themselves. These things insofar have done little in the name of providing actual truth and freedom to men. This is not to say that the triumvirate of civilization is invalid or should be done away with, but rather that it has the potential to be something much greater than it has ever been and should be tended to properly, so that it may flourish. For a civilization to truly flourish it must value culture, individualism and freedom while still maintaining a collective purpose, security and flexibility, all the while encouraging and promoting an appreciation for happiness, creativity and resourcefulness in the midst of equipping itself to provide knowledge, understanding, natural ethic, stability, reason and a means of survival for all those involved. Civilization must treasure its constituents and their freedom above all things.

Rules and restrictions should only be considered legitimate if they are accepted through voluntary agreement by all parties to which they apply, both in the domain of enforcement and in that of subjection. Furthermore, a party should be able to demonstrate an acceptable level of comprehension of the proposed terms before consenting to any agreement or being subjected to any obligation, compulsory duty or imposed sanction. All other actions, save those requisite to nature’s whim, should be decided by the liberty of men. For those policies that act in the name of protecting freedom from those who would destroy it, voluntarily or by unconscious action, and those ordinances which act on the premise of justice, they must be sure to serve in the best interest of all men, while maximizing freedom and minimizing restriction.

I have personally witnessed man’s greatest virtues and most absolute convictions disappear into hiding in the face of delusion and fear. Man will sacrifice his last ounce of integrity and reason to defend his most poisonous personal beliefs, most often without any consideration or noticeable conscious or concern. This abject mindset is a destroyer greater than any other. When man chooses not to exercise his freewill in the looming shadows of external edicts, he sacrifices those precious and only things with which he is born; his freewill, his body, his mind and his spirit. This kind of sacrifice is not only unjust, but penetrates life with a dangerously vast effect. This level of apathetic defeat and submission is a primary cause of the suffering of men and so-called evil in the world.

No individual man may lay claim to the all of existence, even in the localized form of the environment in which he lives. It is a stark and undeniable truth that the reality in which we exist in is shared by others and therefore cannot solely belong to any one of us. However, what does belong to each of us is our subjective experience, that is, the life that we choose to lead and the way in which we choose to experience it. Those who seek to deny others of this freedom are attempting to stake a claim to all of man, all of life and all of reality. This is not their claim to fulfill. Those who allow others to push this claim are as guilty as those who are pushing it. There can be no freedom if the manifestation of men’s delusions and errors in judgment represent the substance of reality experienced by others. Likewise, unbound self-interest and reckless hedonistic behavior when exercised within the confines of a civilization will not bring about a free and prosperous result for the individual or civilization as a whole. It will only procure complication and troubles. These types of mistakes do not result in an objective solution that provides individual liberty, nor do they provide a means through which one can contribute to any type of true greater good. As long as man as an individual and as a whole does not think, feel and act on his full capability in complete freedom, we are forever doomed to chaos where there could be order and forever enslaved to order where there should be freedom. That is not to say that each and every last person must fit a specific mold, but rather that he should be free to exercise that which is provided by his natural equality, that of being alive and free. If the position that a man holds and the will that he may choose to exercise does not allow for the positions and will of others to be held and exercised then it cannot be said to be applicable to anyone. Likewise, if a man bases his choices upon a belief that is invalid or unreasonable in a practical sense, he threatens the freedom of himself and of all men. However, beliefs and experiences that affect only that domain which is solely experienced by the individual, those of the mind, should be left solely to the discretion of the individual.

With that, I must pose the following questions: Are you free? Are all men free?

Before that question can be answered, one must truly understand what it means to be free. One must also provide themselves with a full examination of their own circumstance, as well as that of others. As long as all men are not free, no men are free. This is the mire of logic in which we exist.

We must remind ourselves that the illusion of freedom is not freedom itself, just as the illusion of happiness is not happiness itself. This is as literal as understanding that the illusion of magic is not magic itself, nor is the mirage of an oasis actually an oasis, but rather more dead landscape in which we are likely to perish. We should not suppose that things are what they are until we have concluded so through reason, experimentation and full examination. Only then may we say that a thing is what it is.

The ages-old debate still raging among men is that between what is real and what is not, what can be done and what cannot, what is of value and what is not and that of what should be done and what should not. This debate exists both between men and inside them, as external and internal conflict that eats away the very thing it means to be human.

I am here to assist in this debate, to anyone willing to participate.

Nothing is profound. Indeed!

I find this to be a remarkably spellbinding axiom and I am quite proud to be its originator. (As far as The Almighty Google has answered my inquiries, I have found no others seeking to say these words with only their intrinsic profundity.) I would be elated to receive any attribution in regards to it, especially to its use in certain contexts. Most especially in the deepest concepts revealed in the various levels of entendre it contains in all of its mystical void.

I need an honest book with no mistakes.

If I were a more efficient man, not to mention more productive, I would possess quite a collection of personal works and accomplishments. My current lack of distinction is due to a stubborn disregard for “the rules” and nothing less, enabled by a terminal case of perfectionism. No incapability, incompetence or bland and unimaginative ideas have led me to where I currently stand. I have chosen this, inspired out of curiosity and driven by obstinacy. To say it simply, I want answers… to everything.

Recently, after its having persisted for a good while in my personal philosophy, I gave up on the idea that a writer (or any exponent of any theory through any medium, for that matter) must have a nearly complete viewpoint on all subjects, as they relate to one another. That is to say, he or she must have a thorough and comprehensible knowledge of all previous attempts at approaching the chosen subject matter. I held the contention that one must be well versed in their most important contemporaries and predecessors, as well as counterparts and various antitheses, as they may be, to be considered a credible and worthwhile authority. I no longer hold to this. I had originally formed this stance as a means to single out a source and voice that I could trust for truth concerning the nature of reality, the human experience and all things important, ingenious and beautiful. I was looking for someone who “knew it all”, with real world experience, a grasp on the gritty reality of life and an appreciation for its ferocious beauty. I wanted someone who had examined this scientist and that theologian and these rituals, etc, and the list goes on. The more I sought this inspiration, the less I was able to find it. Each hopeful candidate for my bearer of truth was examined until a weakness found. An out of place statement, obvious untruth or bold leap of logic would always send me away from them with crushed memories of a fallen idol. I secretly like to believe that I was hoping to find this spring of fulfillment so that I could remain lazy and not be driven to actually write such a thing myself, a daunting task let me assure you.

I do still hold that a contributor to the common knowledge, that is, one who creates and shares their works, of any sort, although especially applicable to writers (of all types), should have their own original and personal viewpoint to be considered valid. Additionally, I believe their work must be an honest reflection of that viewpoint to be considered artistic and valuable. In a free market of ideas, that which is unique or curious is precious and priceless, that which is necessary or appealing has trade value, and that which is unoriginal or useless is ignored or discarded.

Scruples

Imagine yourself in a room with the only scientist alive who holds the knowledge of a 100% effective cure for all forms of cancer and HIV/AIDS. Also in the room with you is your beloved child and man with a gun. The gunman is in complete control of everyone else and is going to kill one of the other two people and spare your life. He says that you may choose either your child or the scientist’s life to spare, along with your own. You know for sure that the scientist is the only person alive with these cures and no one else knows the secrets that he does. You are 100% sure that the gunman will honor his word and spare whoever you choose. You are not allowed to trade places with the person you choose. Which person would you choose to save?

As a supplement, consider that you are allowed to take the place of the person you choose and be killed instead. Would you sacrifice yourself to save both of the other people?

As a secondary supplement, consider instead that your life will not be spared and that only the gunman and the one person who you choose will survive. Would you choose your child or the scientist?

As a final supplement, consider that the gunman allows only one other person than himself to survive. He leaves the choice to you. Would you choose yourself, your child or the scientist?

Priorities are a funny thing… on a universal, human and individual level. Some answers are obvious. Being forced to make those types of choices would leave a person wishing that they were dead.

The book I want to write would go something like this…

Our dictum has failed us. Both in action and interpretation. If a person recognizes time as an empirically true observation then we may submit that this moment is the most up to date moment in your consciousness and in all of history. At this moment you have more ability, information and resource available to understand reality than any other person living before you.

As I began to write the sentence “Many books are written, but usually on very focused topics. We lack a collective and modern volume of informative interpretation of all of our knowledge, history and various philosophy as it relates to us and our total experience of reality.” something dawned on me. People do not read anymore.

So, this volume would have to be a comprehensive and fast-paced video series. As I thought about the production time required, etc… to produce such a thing, I realized something far more sinister. We have an interactive multimedia network available to us now. With the right cooperation, organization and energy we could create a properly presented interactive experience to help people learn how to come in contact with reality and the endless possibilities of the mind.

We could, indeed, move mountains.

I would ramble on about mystic visions, flowing rivers in lush magic forests and bucolic rural villages of humble ambition and daring imagination. Speak of rites and traditions that would weave you from Leonardo to Olympus and down on into Avalon, Atlantis and beyond. I would give prophecy on fire and steel and machines and cosmic expansion and mind-bending paradigm shifts and inner journeys. Dignify Mr. Verne, explain intelligent life and interpret music for you. Perhaps even entangle Einstein with Buddha if you are lucky. One theory to rule them all, one field to find them, one state to fool them all and in illusion bind them! Poetry is my physics. Cellar Door indeed. That was a dark joke. Some of you will understand that, some of you won’t. Or maybe it would be a novel (No pun intended, Mr. McKenna), some timeless thing of steam-punk innocence but adult and of heavy literary significance where progress imagined and real does not detract from the story holding foot in the esoteric realm. Joyce would be proud, or maybe Fyodor or even Poe! Someone does understand sir. Or perhaps someone more modern, such as a jester, muse or player. Who do we respect these days? Dylan? Reznor? UNDERWOOD? Oh, are we serious here?

The world has many people now, and a lot more dreamers. A billion dreamers results in a billion broken dreams. Thank goodness I’m just a fractal.

All most people really want is to feel worth something, to themselves and to someone else. People look at others who represent the qualities of the person they want to be and who have the characteristics of themselves and feel an association, but they do nothing to achieve that desired state other than desire it. This is where the dream dies. Take a look around and see how many people are just like you.

We’re off to see the Wizard…

Instead of learning, learn how to learn.

Don’t spend too much time on the title, it’s as circular as they come.

When someone questions another person’s opinion and understanding regarding a particular discipline such as science, mathematics, religion or literature they usually throw out facts, problems, challenges or memorized interpretations as their argument to purport the idea that because someone else does not have an empirical and provable knowledge of those certain concepts that they lack understanding. (e.g. If someone talks about physics but cannot do certain equations or does not know the terminology for certain concepts, their opinion is typically considered less valid than those who do even though they may understand the concept.) When someone seems to be completely capable and versed in a certain discipline such as mathematics or science and is able to work on difficult problems but seemingly possess no understanding of other people’s perspective, they are intelligent but oblivious and sometimes have a problem using ability in conjunction with understanding. When someone possesses good comprehension and understanding of things and of life in general but lacks the actual agreed upon knowledge base and abilities that we use in the real world to put that understanding into action as science, engineering or music, etc… and they refuse to widen their viewpoint, they are capable but closed-minded. When someone possesses the ability to understand things, as well as the understanding of how to put them into action, they no longer need to do either. Understanding alone will bring you comfort. Intellect alone will bring you reward. Together they bring you harmony. The second you understand what an equation is doing, rather than how to do it, you will no longer need to remember it. The more things you understand the more places you can use your understanding in your own thought process. If you truly see the connection of all things as they are, there is no such thing as math, science or anything else. However, if you you choose to observe things as real and understand their relation to everything else, they become very much so.

Random interjection: Meme = “Me, me!” Touché Dr. Dawkins, it is indeed a selfish gene.

Catalyst Parallels

America wants to make the world into what it wishes it still was. It cannot recognize its own faults. Pride? Absolutely. And we all know what happens when pride gets involved… ask Ms. Austen what she thinks. Or Andy Kaufman, your choice.

Future sight

This content and its message may begin to become more integrated into writing which refers to experiences in my personal life and events that occur in my reality. Things are beginning to be too consuming around me, the clairvoyance of my synchronous experience is in a tornado right now and I am at the center. I don’t know if I’ll have an original thought, song or phrase left when the manifest is finished. I may not be fast enough to beat my counterparts to their manifests. Mind bandits, all of you!

Take pause…

There does exist a place outside of space and time that can be witnessed and interpreted during this lifetime, as we pass through this most excruciating of dimensions. Few experience it, they are called mystics, prophets or sometimes artists, but often they are simply considered insane. I am most apt and likely to carry the last of those labels.

I have seen whatever “it” is, heard whoever “he” is speak and been to the top of wherever “the mountain” is, once, for long enough to consider it eternity in moments, in perfect harmony, in and above the endless illusion making machine of no substantial or ontological reason applicable. I have been analogously obsessed since. I have found deeper meaning in all, even though I cannot recall this place and memory anymore than you can remember the awe and wonder of your childhood. You may recall some events, but you do not remember your true perception before learning. I have a fleeting star holding it up in my head, but I cannot grasp it. It is there though, and I am aware of it. I claim no dogmatic principle or hard language definition, other than that it is a bridge of the gap between science and religion. To be human is to fill this gap, regardless of form.

This experience is nothing like you have experienced, although it may seem to be something people believe is replicated by child birth, etc… this is not what I am speaking of. (Although, sometimes, be it EXTREMELY rarely, transcendence can be triggered by an epiphany, extreme astonishment or even trauma.) Some people apply a name or construct to the concept that they have peeked at, usually in religious context. Others only claim that they have had the experience, while some believe that any shaking of their foundations of reality is equivalent to true understanding. Still, some others believe that the small wonders and distortions that they have seen and experienced are this thing and that they have experienced truth because they agree with it, it agrees with them and it seems to be logical. This is not the level I am speaking of. This place has no description here and is not conceivable in shape or sense, it cannot be only daydreamed of, but must be experienced to be understood. I am not only speaking of merely a feeling and an overwhelming sense of unconditional love and joy, wholeness and disappearing loneliness and excited, elevated spirit in marvel of the miracle of creation as one does with such grand and wondrous events of life, but of a visible, audible presence of universal oneness and complete understanding of being, with foresight, universal knowledge of ALL things, love, dissolution of time and space itself into infinity as long as one chooses to stay, new dimensions and grand perspective while the body disappears, the ego dies (the real ego, Freud and Jung’s ego, not the street definition) and you literally become and see everything and everyone who is everywhere and see the endless painting of the machine while the meaning of life is revealed and understood as simply as 0 + 1 = 1. From Wonderland to Eden in a split second and forever, teasing death in glorious, synchronous apathy. The unborn mind waiting to be interpreted… insane.

The only people that talk of this rare moment with authority are the enlightened ones or those who have received some type of inner light for moments to elate their spirit to recognize the real. The rest of those who experience it talk about it with excited zeal and wistful eyes. Those who get only a glimpse weep in the absence of the experience when they cannot replicate it. We live in a false world, a matrix of Maya, a godhead of ourselves in a schizophrenic dream. There are no rules, only perceptions. There are signs, there are symbols and provoking tools to use to reach this point, unfortunately it is not the same for everyone. There are, however, sure ways to at least induce more perception, and for those with enough context and general intellect, a special place to be reached once ready. This does not happen to everyone who tries, but does sometimes happen to those who do not. I am speaking of a rare and beautiful moment, a divine lottery. Space, time, terrestrial, alien, synthetic, organic, computer, mind, science, religion, etc… these are all epistemological terms that are only relatively true. We live in a constant perspective shift and we constantly compare it to how it “was” before. Evolution, cycles, history, Tao, the internet, “self-transforming hyperspace machine elves with an agenda of their own”, Buddhas, reptilian overlords, black holes, God, all of it… illusions of agreed upon existence by one consciousness. There are waves of everything, everywhere and of all proportion, although most humans ignore them in favor of the tunneled safety of the five senses, time, matter and belief. Every discipline says the same thing, but our words get in the way of understanding, we have knowledge but we do not have wisdom, collectively. Reality is polluted in its objective interpretation, but working just the way it should. Simulated.

Music is a universal language that combines mathematics, language, imagination, art, discipline, emotion, tools and the human element. There may be something to that. “Sex, drugs and rock and roll” may not be as easily dismissed as some would like believe. The same applies to asceticism and morality. We must question everything to find all of the answers. I would advise against taking the truth and facts from subjective opinions expressed by unenlightened people, and I do mean unenlightened in any capacity. Some people who have had a transcendent experience only have one set of beliefs or one collection of knowledge to compare it to, so it comes through only in those terms and only validates something that may be accurate to a degree, but is not precise, although it seems to be true contextually. It is rare that one meets a fully enlightened person, even more rare that one becomes such a thing. Yin and yang, black and white, synthetic and organic, reality and the void, 1 and 0. Perhaps next time around…

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -Buddha

Think for yourself, question authority. – Timothy Leary

Disclaimer: To be clear, I was lucky to have been properly prepared and to have experienced this in my lifetime, but not special from other people or other things. Anyone could (and some do, sometimes permanently) achieve this state of mind, by many different means and methods. It was by mere chance of interpretation and fate of action that I experienced my revelation, for which there are many different names. In my life, if I must say one truth to be held accountable for by any authority, I swear to all of my experience that I witnessed this rare and mysterious vision. Its nature cannot be explained yet, its instigators many and its existence undeniable only unto itself. The dead need to wake up.

The rules, understand?

When I begin to write, I attempt to create something that is flawless, distinct and substantial. I always find myself rearranging my words, searching for grammatical errors and trying to add meaning and weight to the work as if to hide some underlying hang-up. This is not always the case, but in a large portion of my writing I attempt these very futile things, as if in some clinging hope to please the writing gods so they will smile in my favor. Blasphemy!

The rule set by which my work is to be judged is certainly not known by most people (and for those who do, they are not paying much attention). Life changes, people change, as does language and writing. New forms of communication arise, vernacular goes through metamorphoses and consciousness evolves. With this in mind, I am dismissing the arbitrary, epistemological positions of scholars and educators in favor of a more honest, free-flowing method. I will no longer attempt “perfection”, as nothing I’ve ever written is perfect. My long and drawn out, yet very important segue ensues…

The idea of perfection is as conceivable to the average human mind is the idea of infinity, something to be strived for, but never attained. One can postulate forever on what either concept may be, but until reached in the mind, neither is fully realized. While thinking about how to introduce some of my ideas, I began to make some assumptions about other people. I wondered if they understood some of the words and concepts I had used, or if those fell deaf upon uneducated ears, as if preaching to the choir.

Let’s stop and examine that last paragraph for a moment. I wonder how many people reading know what I mean by that last sentence: “I wondered if they understood some of the words and concepts had I used, or if those fell deaf upon uneducated ears, as if preaching to the choir.”

‘Preaching to the choir’ is a phrase that means that a person is sending their message to others who already agree with their point-of-view instead of sending it to those who do not already agree or who have not heard the message. The ones who do not agree have more to gain from hearing the message and forming their own opinion than those who have already heard it or already share a similar opinion. (Although, it could be argued that a new form of the message heard by someone who already agrees with the principles of the message would be a strong reinforcement of their opinion and would assist in preventing attrition.)

Of course, that’s a fairly simple phrase that most people have undoubtedly heard. I’d like to look at one more of my sentences before we move on: “With this in mind, I am dismissing the arbitrary, epistemological positions of scholars and educators in favor of a more honest, free-flowing method.”

So, this one is a bit more challenging. There are two things to be picked up on here, vocabulary and comprehension. Someone who does not know the definition of “arbitrary” or “epistemological” may either look them up, fail to understand completely and move on (perhaps even not finish reading) or make the best interpretation that they can based on their current knowledge and the context in which I’ve used the words. The way the sentence is arranged and the words I used are saying in simpler terms: “I am going to write any way that I want from now on instead of following the standard rules of writing, because I think the rules are only relatively accurate, depending on who is reading the words.”

What we immediately notice is that the original sentence was short, therefore easier to read, contained more meaning and less confusion. Of course, this is only true if the person reading it has complete comprehension. Knowing this, I cannot continue to write in a way that only satisfies one type of mind. I will be attempting to show as much meaning in as little space as I can, but in a way that relates easily to most people. I will have to avoid perfection to be perfect, if you will. I will not, however, dumb this writing down so much that it is disgusting. There will be “big” words, mentions of people whose names you do not know and concepts which some people will need to look up themselves. I will do my best to be fully scoped, but I cannot write about philosophy and truth if I have to write about everything else, especially if I believe that all things are only relatively true anyway.

Now, onto that segue…

Power

When you have power and control you are made to believe that you do not have either, until you reach a point when have neither power nor control, but are made to believe that you do.

You have power and control right now, but soon you will not.

When you have power you are made to believe that you are powerless, until you become so.

“Well, I stand up next to a mountain… And I chop it down with the edge of my hand.” – Jimi Hendrix

There is dual meaning there…

Today’s lesson: History repeats itself until history ends. Time is driven by history.

They have always separated the people who are willing to take advantage of others from those who are not and called it politics.

We have always separated the people who are willing to help others from those who are not and called it freedom.

Protected: My Opinion? You are an ignorant hypocrite, but “the truth” will set you free!

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

The situation is worse than I had imagined.

If cobblestone roads were not endangered
And blockades for writers would not stand
In the way of  hope resigned for man
Truth might find a friend

Cyclic disappearance never noticed
The plain are too distracted
Baritone’s the focus and leaves the rest behind
A lonely thing, this truth

Copula: Symmetria Spiralis Natura

This post is the tentative preface to the book I am currently writing.

Preface

Time is the most commonly observable and influential concept affecting the human experience and interpretation of reality. This predication is one on which all of mankind can agree.

This common ground is most often not a spoken acknowledgment or even commonly held knowledge or something as blatant as a learned concept from discussion, but rather because it is something to which we are subjected, directly experience, and therefore are in absolute awareness of, we must admit its existence and therefore admit the truth of this as a predication for future discussions, whether or not we agree on the nature of the forces and components of reality.

In 1637 A.D. the French philosopher known as René Descartes published his Discourse on the Method. This publication included the precursor to the modern philosophical concept known as Cogito ergo sum, or ‘I think, therefore, I am’, later revised by Descartes to simply ‘I am, I exist’ to avoid confusion. With a moment’s consideration, we are forced to accept this assertion as true, because we are undoubtedly thinking at this moment, which provides for a valid observation… that must then exist, we could not be thinking otherwise. Since we do exist, we can also firmly base all future arguments upon this premise, that our arguments are had by beings that do exist. Recently some philosophical detractors have tried to atrophy Descartes’ foundation by way of a misinterpretation. Rather than interpreting the cogito as intended and accepting that Descartes was stating that thought is evidence of existence, they have applied a context that implies that he was trying to say that for something to exist it must think. This is an error in comprehension rather than weakness in the concept, Descartes was correct. As a side, Descartes’ distinction of human consciousness from animals and other living things was premature. His focus was on the human experience, and while most of his assumptive and overly dismissive philosophy is questionable, perhaps even misconstrued, his basis for the cogito is valid, as we may directly observe it.

Insofar, as budding philosophers together, we have two solid facts to base arguments upon: that we do exist and that we are consciously affected by and notice the effects of time a great deal more than other concepts (such as distance, gravity and mass, etc…).

Philosophy deals mostly with the discussion or reality, ethics and reason, not so coincidentally, three major components of the human experience. Most often the endpoint of philosophical discussions is the pursuit of enlightenment, a multi-faceted white stag. With countless, intense dissections of various philosophies happening constantly throughout the world, reason would lend us to believe that we’d eventually have found an answer by now that everyone could agree on. This is obviously not the case. Most concepts and questions have been exhausted over and over throughout history, leaving no stone unturned. Because of this curiosity there isn’t much room to breath for new ideas. The only actionable progression in our collective understanding of reality in this 21st century A.D. is fueled by technological breakthroughs and applied technology engineering. We are approaching an age of new answers and most likely many new questions, but in the interim our current struggles are threatening our enlightenment, both as individuals and as a whole. As a stereotype, philosophy poses questions, so I have a few rhetorical ones to pose: Can one philosophy be quantified in terms of other philosophies? Is such circularity reasonable? And by what philosophy can we define reason?

Our subjectivism is natural entertainment, but most often as individuals we choose submission rather than admission to this fulcrum. This oversight is the discontent at the heart of man and the condition that plagues us.

The Tin-Man or The Piano man? Relevance is… arbitrary.

The blue man shouted this:

“I am frozen here, as a djinn in a lamp, angered and pacified by its condition. My face pressed against the virtual crystal column that contains me. A column well-formed and solid in appearance, with a rough surface reminiscent of sandpaper, yet showing gloss and transparency in mystical fashion. The form is edgy and sharp, with protruding points at random distribution near the top of the column, converging to a single point, in all of the geometric glory of a pencil actively engaged with a sharpener. Inside the mislabeled sanctuary is the prismatic, multi-faceted and necessarily contained light of earned wisdom. However, my perspective being finally free of the confines of time, is still subject to its devious flow. One wave, traveling below the emotional radar, takes me by the legs while another wave, above it all, bowls me over, traveling in the opposite direction and with as much purpose as the first. The rocks never stop waiting and the sirens never stop crooning. I am not aware of any cessation of these waves to be expected, other than the perception of their interfered cancellation, which only results in more waves of less distinction to my instincts than the originals. Those waves are the gray areas, and not always welcome. Time maintains urgency, urgency maintains choice. My urgency has dissipated beyond reasonable consideration, and so with it, my desire for choice. Submittal is my only means of survival now.”

Submittal to what, though? That’s the real contingency. And who is this blue man?

I am quantum, you are nought.

I cannot lose this or any other argument and you cannot argue against me, because I have already submitted. You are right and I am wrong, I have arrived at this conclusion through my own logic and reason, proving myself both correct and incorrect simultaneously. The only argument you can provide to prove that I am not correct would be to prove that you are incorrect, which negates itself because an incorrect argument cannot justify itself, therefore invalidating your conclusion that I am wrong due to your own, self-administered state of incorrectness. This paradox leaves me in a constant state of correctness. I am right, you are wrong. Educate yourself.

Buffalo?

BISON

Basic
Input
System
Operations
Negotiator

Rules
1.) Interrupts process and may optionally accept and pass data
2.) Junctions accept data and determine options and may optionally pass data
3.) Outputs pass data
4.) Inputs accept data
5.) Continues act as data structuring nodes

… = may contain or process multiple / recursive / pseudo-infinite functions
:: = break to and return from data handling
| = must choose between the options before continuing
|| = options may be performed in loose order or alone before continuing
||| = options must be performed in strict order or alone before continuing
— = following option is of equal consideration as option preceeding it
> = static step
(), [] = hierarchical contrast option containers
N = infinite possible options
[<] = continue flow

Language Flow:

But, grammar ain’t no good.

What? Am I not allowed to say that? Oh my, I started a sentence with the word “but”! Are you wondering why I underlined the word “say” and put quotation marks around it just now in this very sentence? What grammatical rule in the English language allows me to do so? Well, save for some obscure, ridiculous situations… none! Of course, this may be an obscure, ridiculous situation indeed. I underlined “say” because I didn’t actually say those words, I wrote them. At first, that’s trivial, but imagine… [insert dreamy fading, wavy-line sequence that drifts off into an alternate reality]

An underline is as arbitrary as any other decoration of words, the only important part is the concept for which the underline needs to exist, albeit an impermanent existence if you can find the will to temporarily submit to my thinking. Doubtful. The underline is there to make sure that you know that “say” means more than the action of saying the words in this context, but obviously writing them as well. In the alternate reality here into which we have drifted, I may be speaking this message to you rather than you reading it and thus I could have left out all of this explanation. If I had chosen the word “write” instead of “say” then I would have read “write” out loud to you instead of “say”. Now, of course it is true that I did write these words, but I am also saying them currently instead of writing them… maybe. I suppose I could have arranged the sentence in a fashion similar to the following: “Am I not allowed to say or write that?”, and while a much more precise statement, not quite as efficient as it could be. We should spend more time thinking about what we are saying rather than how to say it. We should not have to do more work to make sure that the person receiving the question fully comprehended the context of what we want to communicate. There are many ways to communicate and we should not have to formulate the message for each of them. A much shorter question could be asked and it could be asked the same way in both speech and writing as well as other mediums. This would create a situation where we did not need to recreate the message to fit the appropriate format, most likely with much loss of information and context in the translation, but could focus more on the content of the communication. The concept here is a redefinition of the comprehension and semantics of everything that we are. This lends itself very heavily to influencing out modern day life, as you will soon discover. If I could say such a thing as: “Is that thought inappropriate?” and probably be much more on the spot, I would. You might be wondering why I didn’t start with that phrasing. Well, the explanation is simple. The word “inappropriate” in modern language does not express a sense of urgency nor absolution, it only is an indicator of a mismatch of context that may have an undesired effect on others not in agreeance of the context. The word “allowed”, however, does. The same goes for “thought” and “say”. Thoughts seem personal and not as relevant to others, actions, however, are more ulterior. The problem arises here. While the concept is that I should be allowed to say or think or write anything that I want, the word “say” is taken literally by some people. This means that they assume it ONLY means the action of being allowed to “say” what you want, for example, instead of write it. Of course, in historical account, it would be held that I wrote these words instead of typed them because of my phrasing, a painfully simple thing, but in the context of greater things… very important. Someone may insist that I literally wrote these words instead of typed them and attach zealotry to that position. While that may seem hard to believe, trust me, they are out there and they are in positions of (unnecessary) power. However, back to the subject at hand… for now. There are many concepts, messages and opinions to be expressed in this universe and it would take an awful lot of time to put them all into every language, every medium and every perspective. No, I think it would be much easier to have everyone just find common ground and vocabulary (be it words, actions or thoughts) to communicate and avoid the confusion. The “rules” say I should have broken that “paragraph” up and not used so many “quotes”. What do you think?

You’ll find, quickly, that I know all of the rules of grammar, punctuation, etc… I just choose not to use them sometimes as they were intended, as I do not believe that they are perfect. Do you even have ANY idea what a preposition is? How about a linking verb?

So, seeing as our “rules” for grammar are even slightly incomplete, we need some reconsiderations. This entire statement has been full of holes, “errors” and incomplete scenarios (such as me discussing underlines at all since there is no underlining in speech, but only ways to emphasize and affect spoken words to represent the same concept).

Here’s the kicker though… did those “mistakes” prevent this message’s context from coming through? Did my “mistakes” prevent the desired effect?

1.) What makes a writer?

2.) What makes an artist?

3.) What makes an editor?

A.) What makes a reader?

B.) What makes a listener?

C.) What makes a prisoner?

What are you?

Gardeners carry pitchforks… remember that

I recently participated in an interesting conversation about frame rates of the human eye, processing and interpretation and the illusion of a tire spinning backwards on a car that is moving forward. The most interesting point here being, do we see most of the world that way already? Do we see everything only at the speed at which we can process it? I don’t have these kinds of questions, I just have to pretend to so that you’ll listen to me. Odd, isn’t it?

So with that, I’d like you to watch a short animation. The image ares are identical and continuous. At first, perceive the direction the woman is spinning. Got it?

spin1.gifspin1.gif

Now, focus on her raised foot, moving only left and right instead of “around” her body. Watch it closely until something changes. After you achieve this change, try to make each of the images react differently. Remember, this is purely your perception, the image isn’t actually changing…

Don’t be discouraged if you can’t do it immediately, just try for a few minutes and you should see some results.

Life’s a joke and you’re the punchline

When someone is on their deathbed and will surely be dead in an hour, we tell them to forget their worries (mostly obligations, grudges and guilt) as they are insignificant since that person will be gone soon. We tell them that they should focus on the more important things. I assume that we would tell a dying person who will be gone in two weeks the same thing, as well as someone with a month, two months, two months and two days… but, what about two months and three days? What about three months? Six months? Exactly how long before we are to die should we forget our worries as insignificant and stop focusing on them? You are dying from the moment you are born, so I have to ask… are you worrying about anything insignificant now? If so, why haven’t you stopped yet?

Of Socrates…

He reminds me of Santa Claus. Beyond that, does social contract (particularly the Crito dialog) remind anyone else of game theory? Supplement: Take a look into Traveler’s Dilemma. It’s vicariously about being honest with yourself.

On that note: Clint Eastwood’s full name is Clinton Eastwood. I find two anagrams:

Clint Eastwood = Old West Action
Clinton Eastwood = No Old West Action

I suppose you have to play the part you choose, acting must have been both in his destiny and his decision. All we need to see are the options sometimes. Dichotomy is funny like that.

I wonder what he’d grown up to be if he’d went by Clinton instead of Clint.

After the storm…

Once mankind (or an AI system) understands all of the esoteric world, what will we do? In layman’s terms: Once we figure everything out and there are no secrets, mysteries or problems… what will we do? The only thing left to do will be try to enjoy life, be creative and find love. Of course, once we reach these heights it is much easier to fall. Assuming we still have bodies when this is all over. After all, we only operate a few dimensions at this point… give it time.

With this in mind, I must present a question: If after all of this struggle, we will end up only trying to have fun… why are we doing anything else? Why are we creating problems? Why are we worrying?

Everyone would be the same with a dictator, with a religion, with a government, with a belief, without a belief or with complete enlightenment. After any of them has their way, after those goals succeed and there are no more problems or obstacles… they will operate, like a machine. If we all left each other alone and held our own beliefs true, we’d all end up doing exactly the same as each other… enjoying life, being creative and finding love. We’d all operate ourselves in this condition, the human condition. Why can’t we all just do that now? Why must we know and own everything? (both as a social group and as individuals) Why aren’t we satisfied?

Rage against the machine, please.

Baron Von Pot

I did a little checking online to see if anyone else had arrived at the assumption/conclusion (polarity in motion) that the lyrics in the song “The Pot” by Tool saying:

Eye balls deep in muddy waters

are a reference to Baron Von Münchhausen pulling himself up out of the swamp by his own hair. I believe that I am the first. For those of you unaware, Münchhausen was known for his amazing accomplishments (riding cannonballs, traveling to the moon and so on) as documented by others. There is a condition known as Münchhausen syndrome which causes people to feign illness (or subject others to intentional discomfort) to gain sympathy or attention. This fits well with Maynard, as Tool had previous songs such as “Swamp Song” and there is a constant dissection of sanity and reality in Tool lyrics. Of course, double entendres are consistently present in Tool lyrics, so alternate interpretations could apply the idea of the lotus floating in muddy waters, having grown up through the mud, been purified and appears clean on the outside and then flowers into enlightenment. This is part of Buddhist / Eastern philosophy, a quote: “the spirit of the best of men is spotless, like the lotus in the muddy water which does not adhere to it.”

Of course, I could be completely wrong and he could be talking about a Jazz Musician or a complete state of depravity that includes someone injecting “mud” into their eyeballs. There are a few “obvious” interpretations, the rest are subjective.

I have, however, noticed that this song has double-entendres everywhere:

Liar, lawyer, mirror, show me. What’s the difference?
Kangaroo done hung the guilty with the innocent.
Now you’re weeping shades of cozened indigo
(Musta) got lemon juice up in your eye
When you pissed all over my black kettle.

Obviously, the cozened indigo is falsely projecting enlightenment (pretending to be an “Indigo child” so to speak, or to have a viewpoint that is not fully-realized, although pretending that it is or being unaware that it is not or not having went “far enough” with experimentation, hint hint) while the lemon juice both represents a figurative urine stream of hypocrisy and bitterness, but also lemon juice is used to keep the throat prepared for singing. There are signs of jealousy, anger, bitterness hypocrisy about someone (maybe a singer) here that Maynard notices as a hypocrite, most likely himself, perhaps in the past. In general, the lyrics are very broad and meant for anyone to interpret in their own way. As far as Kangaroo, well, we all know what a Kangaroo court is.

This has been my interpretation of the song for quite some time now.

FYI, for those of you who are crazy like me, the good Baron Von Münchhausen died on 2/22 in 1797. Ramesses II (Ramesses the Great) was born on this date around 1302 B.C. Another name for Ramesses II is Ozymandias, which coincidentally is the name of a poem (Shelley) that is a perfect representation of a double entendre.

p.s. Did you ever notice that Indigo is an anagram of “God in I”?

To be… what?

Science leads to weaponry, law leads to oppression, politics leads to war, medicine leads to loneliness, business leads to evil and education leads to either poverty or suffocation. No, certainly there is no position for an educated man in this modern world to exercise his mind in a respectable way; save for artists, musicians and the like. I do suppose I would have rather been a base-baller.

If I were asked to sum up all of the world’s problems into a single word, hypocrisy is definitely in the running. Our current political (and as a result, social) process is under constant strain and suffers a ridiculous number of unnecessary complications due to the influence of selfish idealism and the siren-like draw of society’s punitive distractions. To put it simply: Most people are not paying attention to what is truly important because they are overly concerned with superficial concepts and burdened by foolish and unnecessary rules and obligations.

My favorite hobby is insanity…

and I’m very passionate about it.

All Apologies or I’ll Apollo, Geez?

You’ll find a new page on this site, “Reverb”.

People ask a lot of questions, but do they ask the same kind that I do?

Are we allowed to ask the state to address, with a thorough examination and a fair and open mind, certain concerns and requests from citizens that arise when a citizen feels that some part of the entirety of the law or a specific prescription of it prevents an action, both non-threatening to the immediate safety, provided liberty and physical livelihood of others or to that of the state, that he or she may wish to participate in, regardless of his or her station in life, be it outlaw, prisoner or politician, to be considered with special circumstance in regards to the common or prescribed law, in the face of full public disclosure of the intention of the requisite concern and of the heights and limits of the threat that this request or concern poses to the immediate safety, provided liberty and physical livelihood of others? Where is the court of special circumstance for all inhabitants of a state? Where is the court that considers nature, intention, subjection, personal history & future and circumstance over the guidelines of law and agreed facts? Where is the court of freedom and justice for all here on Earth? Where is the benevolence and benevolentness of law? If I am not to expect these questions of law to be answered in a court of law by men who are proclaimed to be experts of law and who control the will of the masses and individuals such as myself, then to where would I send these questions regarding law to which we are all subject?

U.S. flag on the Moon

Is freedom for sale? Do you think that anyone will ever trademark the United States flag? Have they already?

Is exile (or banishment) still an option on the table, which may be opted for in exchange for any punishment or imprisonment by state, for an individual in a circumstance subject to the state’s authority? Where would an exile go in a modern world? Where is the place for temporary exile?

We face the great moral and ethical question of a free state approaching a control state: Do we level the playing field through reducing everyone to a comfortable and safe, yet controlled level of existence, or do we raise everyone to a free and safe, but instead of controlled, enlightened, level of existence. To educate or punish is the great question, and it is a personal one, not one of the state. A state should provide support and necessity at the request of any person who wishes to do no harm to others. A state should obey the will of the people, not direct it.

Intelligent People Having Stupid Conversations Part I: The “Smarticle”

Have you ever seen brilliance fail?

Sample IQ Test Question

It is my belief that before someone voices their opinion, forms a conclusion or acts in a way that may be influential in any significant way upon the lives others, that they be educated about what they are discussing, familiar with the circumstances of who they are discussing it with, truthful about the facts and evidence surrounding the arguments and open-minded enough to examine and consider all alternatives. It is also my belief that intelligence is not simply measured in facts, equations, memory, grades, puzzles and tests, but also in ways that other people have a hard time understanding or relating to due to the abstract nature of the root of that intelligence. With that said, being someone who has a lot on the mind, plenty of opinions and a desire to share what I know for the benefit of others, I wanted to qualify myself before I began dispensing my “wisdom”. I’m not doing that out of any need to justify myself or validate the substance of my thoughts, but rather to give you enough confidence in what I have to say that you may actually take it to heart and let it do some good.

I suppose you may be wondering what the graphical puzzle that kicks off this little adventure is all about. Point blank, it’s an IQ test question. I designed it myself, based on the properties of a commonly-used IQ test question “template” of sorts. It’s your typical “Which choice below correctly fills in the empty space?” question, designed for you to examine the 8 provided choices and decide which of them best fits into the empty space.

This decision (and sometimes the speed with which it is made) is supposed to provide some insight into your pattern recognition skills and other related brain functionality pertaining to your general intelligence. The credibility of this insight is based on the premise that most of the time your choice was based on some type of logic and reason, rather than a random guess (a situation for which exists a statistical compensation in the calculation of the results). The result of this calculation is an approximate determination of your intelligence and is usually measured on a scale that people refer to as IQ. IQ stands for “intelligence quotient” and is represented as a number. IQ is commonly explained as the ratio of the intelligence of one subject to that of the general population.

The commonly recognized average IQ is 100, as the average person learns at the rate of everyone else, 1:1. When you are younger, your IQ is a measurement of the rate that you learn in relation to your age. For example, consider two children, both 8 years old:

  • The first child learns at the rate of an average 8 year old, his or her IQ is represented as: 8:8 or 1.00 or 100 IQ
  • The second child learns at the rate of an average 10 year old, his or her IQ is represented as: 10:8 or 1.25 or 125 IQ.

As a child becomes an adult, this comparison begins to lose significance as IQ begins to be measured in relation to the intelligence of the general adult population, rather than to a specific age difference. This is due to the leveling off of intelligence at an adult level, resulting in all adults being generally “the same age”, mentally. This works out logically, as a 40 year old with an IQ of 160 would be represented to have the intelligence of an average 64 year old. This is a negligible difference because the average 40 year old and average 64 year old are of the same intelligence. Being a 40 year old who learns at the rate of a 64 year old (excluding any deterioration or illness that detracts from their mental capacity) is no different than being a 64 year old who learns at the rate of a 40 year old. Both learn at the rate of “adult”. Instead, a 40 year old with an IQ of 125 is considered to learn at 125% the rate of an average adult. This is as opposed to comparing the intelligence of an average 3 year old to an average 5 year old. An average 3 year old with an IQ of 160 learns at the rate of a child that is at least 5 years old, this is a significant difference in intelligence and development. The mental development, skill sets and behavior of a 3 year old and that of a 5 year old are quite different, resulting in age comparison in correlation to IQ as valid when examining the intelligence of children. For adults we examine their intelligence in relation to all other adults, as the intelligence and learning capacity of most adults peaks at a certain age, making comparisons between adults of different ages irrelevant.

I’m sure that the puzzle I’ve created would provide insight into more specific areas of intelligence if it asked the test taker to provide the missing arrangement in the diagram themselves, in full, rather than providing them with a selection of possible answers, one of which being the correct answer. It’s a little easier when you know that the answer is right in front of you. Some people would never be able to draw the answer because they simply have no idea what would fill in the space and recognize no patterns. Others would have many ideas of possible solutions, but will instead focus on minutia and get hung up trying to determine if there is an absolutely specific arrangement to each piece of the puzzle (color, rows, columns, numbers, position of elements in relation to one another, etc…) and never be able to actually make a decision on which to choose, and in the end either leaving the answer blank or guessing. Still others would draw something in hopes that they “get it right”, this is the same as a multiple choice guess, but with less chance for luck. Finally, some of you would draw the correct answer. You would do this after either having made the realization that there may be multiple ways to configure the pattern (there are not multiple valid answers in the multiple choice) and decided on one that fits the bill, by drawing the first correct response that assembles itself in the mind, by pure luck or you were able to trial and error different patterns and stumbled across one that works, which you verified. Yes, asking you to provide the answer from scratch would have been much more telling, but we’ll focus on what we’ve got… for now

So… have you chosen an answer yet? Did you try to figure out the puzzle before you started reading? How long did you work on the puzzle before beginning to read the text? If you haven’t taken the time (at least a minute) to look over the problem at the top of this page and honestly tried to find the correct answer, please do so now.

So, assuming that you have actually examined the puzzle, I’d like to discuss it for just a second

There are 4 situations regarding this problem that you you may be privy to right now:

  1. You are absolutely certain of the answer, including the reason why you arrived at that conclusion.
  2. You have eliminated some choices and may have partiality towards one or more remaining choices, your logic works but you just can’t seem to pinpoint the answer this time, sometimes you can solve this type of problem, sometimes you cannot
  3. You have tried a few different substitutions and some trial and error and perhaps (most likely) with a little more time and some dedication and focus you could solve the problem
  4. You have absolutely no idea

There are variations and mutations of those situations, but for those most part, these are the different stages of progress when it comes to the status of having solved this problem. Now, depending on how long you worked on the problem you may be at a very different stage than someone else. Some people were able to instantly realize the pattern, it’s the first thing that they saw, they answered and they moved on, dismissing the question as somewhat simple (at least to them). That does not, however, mean that the next question would be equally as easy for them, the same as it does not mean that if this question presented a challenge that the next question would be at all challenging for you. The situation may very well be reversed for next question, as you may breeze through it and the person who answered the last question so quickly may get hung up and may not even be able to answer the new question at all.

So, for most people, they will be able to answer some questions and will not be able to answer others. Some questions will seem easy to a person but impossible to others and vice-versa. They will move throughout the test, slightly unsure of some of their answers, but feeling a sense of some ability. This is what we call average. You will score relatively on par with everyone else.

The above average person can quickly assess the answer and move onto the next question and most likely do the same each time. They will quickly progress through the test, missing a few questions, but answering enough correctly to score highly. The questions they do not answer correctly are mostly those which either take too long to determine the answer, they do not engage the test taker in a way that stimulates that part of the brain or they test an area in which the test taker is not particularly strong. This person’s score may vary from high average to medium-gifted, depending on the test.

The high-gifted and genius scorers answer each question with some quickness, are sure to explore each question as much as time allows and miss only a few questions, if any. The questions they do not answer correctly may be questions that the average test taker answers immediately, then again, they may be advanced questions that hardly anyone gets. Again, these tests provide a subjective evaluation which is highly subject to the outside conditions affecting the test taker at the time of evaluation. This test taker will score reliably high each time, regardless of the test. Any low scores are probably flukes and any stumbling blocks with particular questions could be easily eliminated with a little discipline and some effort, or maybe the test taker just needs to be having a better day next time. Case in point, this person will repeatedly display their intelligence when tested.

Now that we have identified a few staple points about the different levels of progress when it comes to determining the answer to a question, introduced a few profiles of test takers and have defined what it is that these types of tests are supposed to tell us, let’s move on to the good stuff!

There is a significant amount of ground to cover, so I’ll give you a sneak peek at some of the exciting topics we’re going to be exploring together! (Try to understand that the last half of that sentence was written with some very dry humor, something along the lines of me over-sensationalizing a simple thing, then try to imagine the slow-morning, nice-day voice of a game show announcer to explain the details of a “fabulous prize” to the contestant) Please, also keep in mind that this writing is in no way intended to be a comprehensive explanation of the various fields and extensions of learning and intelligence, but rather a concise and honest explanation of our understanding, implementation and recognition of intelligence (of course, there’s also a point and some finger-waving coming), that provides (when needed) the necessary background, explanations and small explorations into the some specific concepts that are imperative to the integrity of this writing and your understanding of it. (Slow down there elitists, I know you don’t need any help understanding this, you’re “intelligent”, and don’t be offended by the quotation marks, I am dissecting our definition of intelligence here, so bare with the rest of the class while they catch up.) I understand that there are many micro-focused areas of study involving deep concepts, research, creative problem-solving, theory and interpretation and you can trust that they are held in the utmost esteem in my favor. Unfortunately, this isn’t my manifesto on reality and “all that is (or isn’t)”, but rather my experience-driven “quick” opinion on being “smart” and what that means in our world. However, I am constantly reading, studying, writing, drawing and creating, so expect some type of ridiculously long and mind-bogglingly enlightening media project from me sometime in the semi-near future. So, without further delay, I present to you, a partially complete bullet-point list

I’ll be discussing topics such as:

  • Repetitive learning
  • Math, logic and reasoning
  • Vocabulary
  • Verbal comprehension
  • Verbal appreciation
  • Art
  • Music
  • Reading
  • Writing
  • History, media and information
  • Programming
  • Conversation, language and communication
  • Memory
  • Social interaction
  • Morality and ethics
  • Comedy
  • Research, facts and proof
  • Science
  • Religion
  • Philosophy
  • College, degrees and labels
  • Emotions
  • Common sense

I know, it seems like a lot of topics to cover. Some early-warning “really long read” indicator has probably gone off in your head by now, your face is most-likely red and steam may be rushing out of your ears while a high-pitched whistle lets everyone know that there’s a problem. I picture this scene much like a cartoon where the character has eaten something far too spicy. Fortunately for you, I’ve got a cartoon bucket of water right here to cool you down. You can hoist it up above your head with both hands, pour it on your face with a big splash and drink down the contents with one giant gulp. Afterwards, you can sit there with a huge smile of relief on your face and billowing remnants of smoke coming out of your ears. OK, so maybe it’s not a lot of comfort, but each of those topics is only relatively lightly touched on, as they are being discussed for what they represent and the role that they play in intelligence, rather than to educate you on the intricacies of so many specific topics.

Alright, so let’s take a quick glance at our checklist and see if we’re prepared to move forward. (“checklist” being a comedic device which I just introduced for the purpose of providing a light-hearted, mildly imaginative way to review and summarize what I’ve written up until this point) This checklist is to assure that what comes next (which includes some very interesting material) is taken in the proper context, comprehended properly, related to other concepts in a manageable way that minimizes confusion.

Alright, so back to the IQ test question. To be clear about my explanation, I want to define the components of the problem.

  • Configuration: a collection of nine circles of varying colors. For example, each answer (A, B, C, etc…) represents a complete configuration.
  • Main Row: Each main row consists of three configurations; the left, center and right. There are three main rows; top, middle and bottom.
  • Main Column: Each main column consists of three configurations; top, middle and bottom. There are three main columns; left, center and right.
  • Row: Each configuration has three rows; top, middle and bottom. Each row consists of three circles; left, center and right.
  • Column: Each configuration has three columns; left, middle and right. Each column consists of three circles; top, middle and bottom.

While there exists more than one possible configuration that would qualify as a correct solution, only one of those configurations is provided as a choice. There also exist many ways to examine the problem. I suffer from the lingering condition of being able to answer these types of questions relatively quickly and accurately.

At this point, I’d like to discuss the problem-solving process for this puzzle. I will try to explain it in a clear way, but it is a complicated analysis and needs to be paid close attention to.

A person may look at the diagram and waste a little time trying to figure out if any of the colors have specific pattern throughout the puzzle. Next, they may get the idea to count the total number of each color and come up with: 15 red, 17 blue and 16 green. An assumption may come to mind, that perhaps the solution is to find the configuration which balances the values of all of the colors. Knowing that the maximum you can add to the total of any color is 3, because any configuration that is provided as a solution contains a maximum of 3 of any given color and you may choose only one configuration, a person knows that the most of any color they can have is 20 blue, as blue already has 17 circles represented. However, no configuration would be able to balance the count of the colors, because to match red and green to the total of 20 blue, you would have to add 5 red and 4 green, which of course, no configuration provided as a solution can do. This concludes that our answer cannot have 3 blue. While this only eliminates A, we also know that we cannot have 2 blue in our configuration because it would still be impossible to match a 19 count of blue. Our answer must have only 1 blue circle representation. This limits our choices to configurations C, G and D. Now, a person may do some trial and error and find that a configuration containing 3 red, 2 green and 1 blue circles would balance the color count. That reduces the options to C and D, but this color route isn’t going to determine, for sure, the answer. We are left with C and D as possible solutions. At this point, the person may examine other properties of the problem and the solutions and try to supplement their previous deductions. Once in a while, a person will use another method to verify their logic or to try and solve the problem and may find that their logic in this process eliminates all choices except A and G. This is usually directly contradictory to the previous conclusion that the answer must be C or D, and will confuse the test taker and make them reconsider their logic and examine other aspects of the problem. Others will simply guess based on their best instincts. If they correctly answer the question, their score is increased even though they do not have a clear understanding of the solution. However, some tests weight each answer, depending on the typical amount of logic required to reach the solution that the test taker chose to give them credit for the abilities that they do have.

So, what is the solution? Well, either immediately or after exhausting other methods, a person may realize that each main row contains two configurations with one row made up of circles, all of the same color as well as one configuration with one column made up of circles, all of the same color. The top two main rows are both made up of configurations that fit this “2 horizontal, 1 vertical” (2H, 1V) pattern. The bottom main row of the problem is (1H, 1V), so it needs another horizontal row of circles, all of the same color. That reduces our choices to A, B, D, E and F. Not a final answer, but it’s a start. At this point, a person may be inclined to decided if the location of this solid row is top, middle or bottom is relevant to the answer. They may examine the puzzle and put this on hold for later while they pay more attention to the colors. Perhaps the color of this row could be important? In the problem, we see 2 green rows, 2 blue rows, but only 1 red row. Our configuration must contain a red row. We are left with E, B and D. We could have also used the main columns to come to this conclusion, as their pattern is (1H, 2V) and is just as useful in determining the type and color of the row contained in the correct solution as the rows. Now, depending on if we’d done that previous color count logical elimination, our next step could very simple or very complex. If we have not done the color count logical elimination, then we have to figure out how to decide between E, B and D without it.

Choices B and D both have the red row as the bottom, some people may get stuck wondering if this is significant. In this puzzle, it is not, but it may be in others! Perhaps some of you may be able to determine some patterns of significance in various parts of the puzzle that could be used for logical eliminations, however since I designed this problem… I know which answer I designed to be correct and applied no other intentional patterns. If there are any patterns (say a naturally occurring, Fibonacci-type of phenomenon) buried in my work, go ahead and attribute it to my brain being some amazing device that can form complex patterns in everything that it creates. (Can you smell the sarcasm?) God forbid that the white squares had anything to do with this!

So, how do we figure this thing out? Well, using the same elimination technique as we previously did, we can see that each main row (and again, this would work for columns as well) contains a pair of 2 circles of the same color, side by side, in a (2H, 1V) pattern. A quick look tells us that the third row is missing a configuration that contains a horizontal row. This leaves us at: A, B, D, E and F. Of course, we know that E, B and D are the only valid choices, due to our previous elimination, so this logic hasn’t helped us much yet. So, we will look at the color of the 2 circles needs to be. Again, we see that we have 3 sets of blue, 3 sets of red and only 2 sets of green, so our solution configuration must contain two green circles. This leaves only C and D. Knowing that C is not a valid choice, D is the only option left that satisfies all of our elimination conditions and is almost certain to be the correct answer. We can answer D and move on.

Now, if we had already done our examination of the count of each color in the problem, we could have skipped the second elimination based on the 2 circle sets, because we know that E and B are both eliminated because they both contain 2 blue circles, which violates our previous “balance of color” rule. This leaves only D. Notice that while color count examination alone reduced our answers to C and D, C is missing from our colored row logical elimination. Leaving only D as the answer that exists in both of our logical eliminations and we would need to go no further, we could say, with much certainty, that D is the correct configuration to satisfy the solution.

Oh, and to qualify with some of you, yes, there are other ways to arrive at the correct answer.

Those people who can answer these types of questions correctly and with justification in a short amount of time do all of these tests in their head very quickly, while others visually recognize the answer without needing any logic process at all. It is subjective to each person.

Now, sometimes when a person guesses, they may be very close to finding the answer, but feel that a different question needs attention and decides to move on without being sure of their answer. Other times, they will perform quick logic in the correct order, by chance, and be sure of their solution. Still other times, a person may immediately make those connections one after another, not having to sub-vocalize the process (in this context, meaning to have to “speak” out the process in their head), but rather being able to instantly recognize patterns. This can happen for anyone, especially when a problem is presented that fits into a category for which that person has a propensity. A person may be very quick with pattern recognition, slow with number sequences and fast with word analogies. This just happens more often and more consistently in all areas for people with a higher general IQ. A person with an average IQ may be average in all areas, or below average in some and above in others. A person with a slightly higher-than-normal IQ may be average in most areas and above average in a few. A person with a high general IQ typically is far above average in most or all areas.

So, what does all of this tell us? Well, not a whole lot. If a generic sampling of the population were to take an IQ test alongside me, I would most likely score far above the average person. Of course, that’s not said to be arrogant, I’ve just taken enough tests in my time (between Stanford-Binet, Wechsler and various other tests) to have a fairly accurate prediction of my IQ. (For those of you curious, I can safely say that a prediction between 155 – 165 isn’t very far off, not that this result makes me any more intelligent than you) Now, if I sat down one-on-one with someone and we both took an IQ test together, I may score a 160 once and a 129 another time, depending on the test, what’s on my mind and how patient I’m feeling. They may score a 134 the time that I score a 129 and consider themselves more intelligent than me. Is this a valid assumption? Perhaps I missed the question I just explained to you. Not out of lack of ability, but out of stress or pure accident. Perhaps this happens on a few questions that day. I’ve taken IQ tests where I received a 104 IQ rating and I’ve taken others where I’ve been rated at 167. So, where’s the middle ground? Does the result of any number of IQ tests tell us how “smart” we are? Does the speed at which we can solve these types of problems determine our intelligence? Am I any less intelligent for being able to determine the correct answer after an hour vs. being able to determine the answer within a minute? If I were to gather together a few of my friends, some “average”, some “smart” and a few members of my family and we each take the same IQ test, I would say that most of the time I would have a score near the top, and with a little more discipline, always at the top. Does that make me smarter than them? If two or three of them outscore me, does that make them smarter than me? I can imagine what it would be like to be “the smart one” and then get outscored on an IQ test by someone else. There would be an immediate assumption that the person with the higher score is the more intelligent. Is this true? Would “the smart one” be able to consistently score higher if they studied and worked their mind more? Is an IQ test score also a measure of determination and discipline? Does a high IQ automatically mean that someone’s opinion is more valid or more trustworthy? I know plenty of people with a 120 IQ whom I consider more intelligent than some people I know with a 145 IQ and plenty with a 100 IQ who are far more intelligent than some that I know with a 125 IQ. A person with a high IQ may not be able to understand or do everything that a person with a lower IQ is able to, but that again, is subjective. There are people with an IQ of 110 that can do calculus and become an engineer and there are people with an IQ of 145 who cannot do those mathematics, but may apply their genius to another field such as philosophy or art, although more often than not, the higher-level IQ holders can do high level work in most any field.

Finally, we get to the meat of the post: What is intelligence and can we increase it?

After all of this, I’ll ask again, which configuration is the correct answer to the problem? I know that I explained logically that the answer is D, do you agree? Did I go far enough in my examination? I know that’s cheap, since I created the problem, so perhaps I should ask… did you go far enough in your examination? Or did you just trust that there was nothing more to it and that my explanation was correct?

Sample IQ Test Question Alternate

There. Does that change things? The circles are squares, the helpful colors are gone, but the same question remains. Welcome to… the matrix. No, not that matrix, the other kind. The math kind. Sorry to get you all excited. Now, without this becoming a course on matrices and their manipulation, I will say that there is a mathematical way to solve this involving matrices, as well as a substitutive method for assigning point values to different elements of the configurations. In short, there are many completely obscure, esoteric and brutally self-supporting ways of justifying your answer. What matters on a test, though, is that you arrive at the intended “correct answer”. So, will this fancy matrix stuff also result in the same answer as the other logical eliminations did? Or will we find a completely different, yet valid, solution? How does it go again? Oh, that’s right… artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use lies to cover it up. Mathematician vs. Musician anyone?

More to come soon… I’ll be finishing this post in segments.

It’s time to start writing songs.

This post will be expanded upon in much more detail later, I just wanted to drop the thought in here to stir for a while. You’ll find that I will do that often… drop in a thought randomly out of nowhere. It may be obscure and seemingly trivial, but it may contain something very interesting if I ever get around to exploring it.

This is one of those thoughts.

It’s time to start writing songs. We all know it was coming, we were just waiting for something to trigger it. This most recent violent attack at an educational institution (being touted by the media as “the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. History” – CNN.com, as if it were some prized buck that they’d shot themselves) will surely reach down into the deepest rights issues. Lawyers are going to have a field day, reformists are going to be out in full force and our rights are going to be further atrophied from their original image. Freedom is at stake, here in America, every single day. I don’t want to choose one event and call it the spark that became a flame, but if you get enough sparks going at the same time… a fire is bound to start.

We need some serious reconsiderations in this country (and this world). Folk musicians ignited a generation with honest, strong and foreshadowing lyrics. This music brought to the surface a wanderlust in millions of people and inspired a generation to create more music. Music of change, power and freedom intertwined with cosmic interpretations furthered (furthur, for you hippies) that mindset and manifested itself into reality. I have yet to identify modern day equivalents of these musical genres, movements and their icons. These days it’s all just a bunch of sugar-coated ear dope (and not the good kind!)

Did passion die?

Sapere aude

Do you?