I have been increasingly aware of the practicality behind poly-semantic phrasing. The key, and brilliance, behind this method of phrasing is to somehow conceal multiple meanings behind one line of words. Connected together, words are rather powerful. But apart from pure lexical definitions and sentence connotations, sentences are rather linear. In fact, it is often the case where a single sentence can split only in two directions. This is not exactly a super powerful tool, because the alert reader is often capable of determining the two options rather easily. If not one meaning, than the other.
To make your sentences evolve into poly-semantic phrases, you must add other dimensions of communication. Eye contact, posture and tone of voice are readily available to us for exploitation. With the correct application of these things, you can easily take a simple phrase and make it much more complicated. In fact, it is rather easy to conceal information within this style of phrasing.
For example, if some one tells you something like "i have blah blah blah problem going on, isn't this a problem?" you can easily respond by saying something like "i'm rather certain it is..." The outward affirmation is already a candidate for misinterpretation. Am i being sarcastic? Am i being serious? More than just an understanding of what i mean in a phrase, the other nonverbal communication devices are easy to employ. For example, if i use my eyes in a particular way, i am not only considering the phrase to be sarcastic, but in addition, continuing my phrase. Its often possible to get someone to synthesize your thoughts just based on your communication skills. If i give you all the pieces to a puzzle, you can create it without my help. In this same way, i can make someone understand my thoughts without even needing to say them.
Now, even more interesting is the following. Say that you have synthesized my thoughts, but i actually wanted to say something else, if created 4 meanings of something as simple as "i'm rather certain it is." As to not be called a liar, its often advantageous to phrase things in such a way that the "guessed" meaning of your thoughts by the other individual is actually incorrect. If you organize your communication devices in a particular fashion, people should be able to guess your meaning. But this guess is their error, because you may actually mean something very different from their "guess." But this is not lying. It is merely the result of another person's inability to probe for information more thoroughly and definitively.
A specific, and rather handy tool for the more witty, is the possibility to use communication with one person to actually communicate with someone else irrelevant to the topic. Again, this utilizes assumption and creativity in other members. You can actually use an entire conversation with one person to effectively communicate with someone else! If you are good at this, and your friend is as well, you can use this to your advantage.
Anyways, happy day!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Diet plan
So, i've heard a good deal of chatter over the last month (from various sources) regarding the need to lose weight. I've had this idea for the last several months, so, ill share it with you.
Ive been taking mental notes on coffee drinkers, since i work at a cafe that busts through a decent number of people (of course a "decent number" of people is relative). I have noticed something very astonishing (but not counterintuitive). The fattest people of the coffee drinking world, to no ones surprise, are the frappuccino drinkers. The next in line are latte drinkers. Finally, the thinnest people i serve are hands down the black coffee drinkers. It makes sense though, after all. If it was the reverse i would be quite perplexed.
Anyways, i formed a plan for people to get thin. It requires, as do most effective weight loss plans, some sacrifice. Here is the regiment: wake up, drink a 16 ounce cup of black coffee. no sugar, no cream, just straight black. My motives for this are as follows: black coffee has next to no calories, it speeds up your metabolism, and it suppresses your appetite. Eat something light in the morning, or nothing at all. your choice. Then at lunch drink another 12 ounce cup of coffee, black and eat something that is balanced. The idea is not to drink coffee and take in pure starch, but to pair coffee with low calorie foods. Then, if time permits, exercise for an hour or so. Finally, eat something filling for dinner, but low calorie again. thats the hard version. Im positive if someone could follow this plan, they would easily lose weight fast.
Now, since thats rather difficult, im curious to see what just the black coffee part would do independent of your other attempts. It seems unlikely that there is not some positive correlation between BMI and black coffee. I am rather certain that drinking black coffee in the morning and at lunch will boost metabolism and suppress appetite sufficiently to lose at least some weight. If this turns out to be true, could we possible cure obesity in America with coffee? that would be lolz haha
Ive been taking mental notes on coffee drinkers, since i work at a cafe that busts through a decent number of people (of course a "decent number" of people is relative). I have noticed something very astonishing (but not counterintuitive). The fattest people of the coffee drinking world, to no ones surprise, are the frappuccino drinkers. The next in line are latte drinkers. Finally, the thinnest people i serve are hands down the black coffee drinkers. It makes sense though, after all. If it was the reverse i would be quite perplexed.
Anyways, i formed a plan for people to get thin. It requires, as do most effective weight loss plans, some sacrifice. Here is the regiment: wake up, drink a 16 ounce cup of black coffee. no sugar, no cream, just straight black. My motives for this are as follows: black coffee has next to no calories, it speeds up your metabolism, and it suppresses your appetite. Eat something light in the morning, or nothing at all. your choice. Then at lunch drink another 12 ounce cup of coffee, black and eat something that is balanced. The idea is not to drink coffee and take in pure starch, but to pair coffee with low calorie foods. Then, if time permits, exercise for an hour or so. Finally, eat something filling for dinner, but low calorie again. thats the hard version. Im positive if someone could follow this plan, they would easily lose weight fast.
Now, since thats rather difficult, im curious to see what just the black coffee part would do independent of your other attempts. It seems unlikely that there is not some positive correlation between BMI and black coffee. I am rather certain that drinking black coffee in the morning and at lunch will boost metabolism and suppress appetite sufficiently to lose at least some weight. If this turns out to be true, could we possible cure obesity in America with coffee? that would be lolz haha
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Emotions
It has been a long-standing interest of mine to understand emotions. They are evident in life; we feel them. Therefore, their conventional existence should be intrinsically implied. In what regard, however, are they felt and or created? There are two major possibilities: emotions are immaterial or they are material. If the reader is a duelist, then it is easy to see that it very well may be a combination of both. But this dualism will be void if it is discovered that either of the two sources contain the full or none of the properties and origination of emotion. It would be wise to exhaust both immaterial and material origins before simply becoming a dualist.
If emotions are immaterially sourced, then they are actually inspired by the soul. Would it be possible for emotions to be non material? It would, as it turns out. If we allow the idea of immaterialism to be plausible, we allow the idea that the soul can interact with the body. Therefore if emotions are like the soul, immaterial by nature, we would expect interaction with the material to be plausible, if not most certain. Consider, for a moment, the basic emotion of anger. A flash of anger seems at times to come out of nowhere, as if it literally inspires itself. As soon as calm returns to your person, you know you experienced a change in mental status. Then could it be that this change in status was brought on by an immaterial vector? Well, if we argue yes, the consequences are rather evident. If emotions are indeed immaterial, we should not be able to accurately predict their onset. Just as much as the idea of the soul is not predicted by science, the idea of anger should not be a measurable quantity. In that same breath, we have a contradiction. Anger can be measured by brain scans, and has a correlation attached to neural activity and anger felt. This seems to be counterintuitive. The soul, for example, may or may not be measured. It is simply and abstract concept to explain higher thought. But anger, given the same initial conditions, should not be measurable either. In fact, it should just be an abstraction we cannot verify. But in our world, we can induce anger with chemical alterations and certain stimuli. In fact, we have sourced the origin of these chemicals to a gland in the brain. More so, all basic emotions can be sourced to this point or similar points. For example, euphoria, sexual attraction, sadness, fear, and anger all have material origins and are measurable there. In this case, it would be foolish to assume that they are immaterial.
So, then basic emotions live within the material realm. But what about more complicated emotions? They do not have chemical components. Love, appreciation, hate, remorse, and things of that nature do not have measurable components. It might be useful to say that these complex emotions are abstractions of simple emotions. Given our memory, it is possible to analyze and draw conclusions on things you must have felt. At this point, emotions switch from the material world to the immaterial world. So in a way, it could be useful to be a dualist. But most importantly, it would be a crime to say that all emotions are pieces of both the material and immaterial. They are distinct, by some measure.
So then, what is the most useful application of this theory? Careful differentiation of these emotion categories can be effective in separating your material self from your immaterial self. More importantly, you can learn to control your emotions. For example, by this definition of emotion, you must expect that you will undergo the feeling of anger, or sadness or attraction. With this expectation, you feel less vulnerable, and thus in more control. You cannot, by definition, eliminate emotions. But, you can control the immaterial emotions. For example (i find this most relevant to certain audiences), love. Starting with biochemical attraction, your mind will be plagued with desire, lust, attraction, and feelings of that nature. interestingly, euphoria can come into play. These are basic emotions that cannot be controlled. But after these initial feelings, your mind is left to process them. Many people make the foolish error of assuming that these emotions are directly proportional to love. Indeed they can be catalysts for such emotions, but they are not immediately proportional. Love is simply an abstract concept meant to denote a particular trust, interest and agreement with another person. It may, as it often turns out, be created based on simple attraction. In simple attraction, the desire to be near another person might drive a trusting bond to be formed, thus starting the possibility to define the new connection as love. Given this level of technicality and detail, it is easy to see how you can actually fall out of love with someone! Love, contrary to popular belief, does not last forever. Nor does it actually exist in reality! Love is merely an abstraction. With this noted, you can see how your most recent attractions are not so severe or life altering. If, for example, you cannot break your "crush" on someone, i implore you to attempt the following: imagine a chart. In this chart sits you, your crush and a line connecting you. This line is your attraction, defined by your chemical status of your mind. if you were to remove that attraction, pretend it did not exist, what are you left with? If you lack trust, interest and agreement, you are not in "love" as defined by a set of conditions. Therefore you are undergoing simple chemical manipulation, not worthy of your time. You are simply wanting procreation, or the euphoric feeling of being in that persons presence. In this regard, you are actually using that person for yourself, a property completely anti-love by definition.
Food for thought. have a good day ;)
If emotions are immaterially sourced, then they are actually inspired by the soul. Would it be possible for emotions to be non material? It would, as it turns out. If we allow the idea of immaterialism to be plausible, we allow the idea that the soul can interact with the body. Therefore if emotions are like the soul, immaterial by nature, we would expect interaction with the material to be plausible, if not most certain. Consider, for a moment, the basic emotion of anger. A flash of anger seems at times to come out of nowhere, as if it literally inspires itself. As soon as calm returns to your person, you know you experienced a change in mental status. Then could it be that this change in status was brought on by an immaterial vector? Well, if we argue yes, the consequences are rather evident. If emotions are indeed immaterial, we should not be able to accurately predict their onset. Just as much as the idea of the soul is not predicted by science, the idea of anger should not be a measurable quantity. In that same breath, we have a contradiction. Anger can be measured by brain scans, and has a correlation attached to neural activity and anger felt. This seems to be counterintuitive. The soul, for example, may or may not be measured. It is simply and abstract concept to explain higher thought. But anger, given the same initial conditions, should not be measurable either. In fact, it should just be an abstraction we cannot verify. But in our world, we can induce anger with chemical alterations and certain stimuli. In fact, we have sourced the origin of these chemicals to a gland in the brain. More so, all basic emotions can be sourced to this point or similar points. For example, euphoria, sexual attraction, sadness, fear, and anger all have material origins and are measurable there. In this case, it would be foolish to assume that they are immaterial.
So, then basic emotions live within the material realm. But what about more complicated emotions? They do not have chemical components. Love, appreciation, hate, remorse, and things of that nature do not have measurable components. It might be useful to say that these complex emotions are abstractions of simple emotions. Given our memory, it is possible to analyze and draw conclusions on things you must have felt. At this point, emotions switch from the material world to the immaterial world. So in a way, it could be useful to be a dualist. But most importantly, it would be a crime to say that all emotions are pieces of both the material and immaterial. They are distinct, by some measure.
So then, what is the most useful application of this theory? Careful differentiation of these emotion categories can be effective in separating your material self from your immaterial self. More importantly, you can learn to control your emotions. For example, by this definition of emotion, you must expect that you will undergo the feeling of anger, or sadness or attraction. With this expectation, you feel less vulnerable, and thus in more control. You cannot, by definition, eliminate emotions. But, you can control the immaterial emotions. For example (i find this most relevant to certain audiences), love. Starting with biochemical attraction, your mind will be plagued with desire, lust, attraction, and feelings of that nature. interestingly, euphoria can come into play. These are basic emotions that cannot be controlled. But after these initial feelings, your mind is left to process them. Many people make the foolish error of assuming that these emotions are directly proportional to love. Indeed they can be catalysts for such emotions, but they are not immediately proportional. Love is simply an abstract concept meant to denote a particular trust, interest and agreement with another person. It may, as it often turns out, be created based on simple attraction. In simple attraction, the desire to be near another person might drive a trusting bond to be formed, thus starting the possibility to define the new connection as love. Given this level of technicality and detail, it is easy to see how you can actually fall out of love with someone! Love, contrary to popular belief, does not last forever. Nor does it actually exist in reality! Love is merely an abstraction. With this noted, you can see how your most recent attractions are not so severe or life altering. If, for example, you cannot break your "crush" on someone, i implore you to attempt the following: imagine a chart. In this chart sits you, your crush and a line connecting you. This line is your attraction, defined by your chemical status of your mind. if you were to remove that attraction, pretend it did not exist, what are you left with? If you lack trust, interest and agreement, you are not in "love" as defined by a set of conditions. Therefore you are undergoing simple chemical manipulation, not worthy of your time. You are simply wanting procreation, or the euphoric feeling of being in that persons presence. In this regard, you are actually using that person for yourself, a property completely anti-love by definition.
Food for thought. have a good day ;)
Friday, February 11, 2011
Music
Well, after reading Kenny's thing on music and after a lengthy discussion on music with my mom, ive decided to write a blog on music.
Music is a form of expression via sound. It can be pleasant, beautiful, sad, angry, soulless, and many more things. I find it fascinating that certain arrangements of frequency can alter the mood of a piece so drastically. why is that a major scale sounds happy? Why is that if you alter the components by just a half-step you get a dark sad sound? Music is rather remarkable in this respect. There are so many sounds to be had, and with such little effort.
As a musician, it is ever evident that sound manipulation is your greatest tool. You dont need formal education in music theory or anything like that, you just need to know what you are trying to convey. Writing music, especially is almost like playing God for a moment. You get to create the listener's mood, you get to control their response. If i want someone to feel happy when they listen to my music, i know what it needs to sound like. If i want someone to feel anger, i can write accordingly. Whats even more remarkable is that you can get music to convey complex abstractions, above the basic emotions. For example, with the right combination of notes, you can make someone feel empty, or bitter. Imagine for a moment, that you are standing in the middle of a street, long ago. There are dark clouds above you, churning with rain and thunder, and the wind throws the Autumn leaves about you. You walk forward, alone. because thats what you have always been, no one but you. And you are about to get destroyed in the storm. This image can be painted in musical notes. Interesting property of pitch is it not? More importantly, given this image, can you think of notes that would accompany this image?
My favorite scale, for the most part, is the diminished scale. Its a scale that doesnt sound happy or sad. It has pretty much no place of its own, except that it sounds wrong. It sounds like it is lacking feel, or comfort. No one can relate to the diminished scale, cause it doesnt mean anything. But that makes it so intriguing. In a way, this scale feels empty. I love how it means literally nothing in a song besides a technical nightmare (if played quickly). It feels like nothing. But, interestingly, if used as a chordal entity, it has the most particularly unsettling, angry vibe. It carries no tangible emotion besides anger. And for this reason, i think i like it the most. Even harmonic minor, which has a very dark sound to it, does not represent the pure rage that diminished can. To me, diminished scales can turn your pure frustration with life into music. No wonder this scale was called the Devils Triad by monks.
Thats all i got for you on this topic. Go pick up an instrument, and learn some basic notes, and see if you can translate your emotions into sound. if you can, you have just unlocked the secret into music. ;)
Music is a form of expression via sound. It can be pleasant, beautiful, sad, angry, soulless, and many more things. I find it fascinating that certain arrangements of frequency can alter the mood of a piece so drastically. why is that a major scale sounds happy? Why is that if you alter the components by just a half-step you get a dark sad sound? Music is rather remarkable in this respect. There are so many sounds to be had, and with such little effort.
As a musician, it is ever evident that sound manipulation is your greatest tool. You dont need formal education in music theory or anything like that, you just need to know what you are trying to convey. Writing music, especially is almost like playing God for a moment. You get to create the listener's mood, you get to control their response. If i want someone to feel happy when they listen to my music, i know what it needs to sound like. If i want someone to feel anger, i can write accordingly. Whats even more remarkable is that you can get music to convey complex abstractions, above the basic emotions. For example, with the right combination of notes, you can make someone feel empty, or bitter. Imagine for a moment, that you are standing in the middle of a street, long ago. There are dark clouds above you, churning with rain and thunder, and the wind throws the Autumn leaves about you. You walk forward, alone. because thats what you have always been, no one but you. And you are about to get destroyed in the storm. This image can be painted in musical notes. Interesting property of pitch is it not? More importantly, given this image, can you think of notes that would accompany this image?
My favorite scale, for the most part, is the diminished scale. Its a scale that doesnt sound happy or sad. It has pretty much no place of its own, except that it sounds wrong. It sounds like it is lacking feel, or comfort. No one can relate to the diminished scale, cause it doesnt mean anything. But that makes it so intriguing. In a way, this scale feels empty. I love how it means literally nothing in a song besides a technical nightmare (if played quickly). It feels like nothing. But, interestingly, if used as a chordal entity, it has the most particularly unsettling, angry vibe. It carries no tangible emotion besides anger. And for this reason, i think i like it the most. Even harmonic minor, which has a very dark sound to it, does not represent the pure rage that diminished can. To me, diminished scales can turn your pure frustration with life into music. No wonder this scale was called the Devils Triad by monks.
Thats all i got for you on this topic. Go pick up an instrument, and learn some basic notes, and see if you can translate your emotions into sound. if you can, you have just unlocked the secret into music. ;)
I love my 1911
Its hard to believe that 100 years ago, one of my favorite semi-auto 45ACP pistols was created. The 1911 is a wonderful single-action, 5" barrel handgun. My favorite thing about this weapon is the single action combined with the full metal construction. This handgun is rather heavy, but in return, eats a lot of the recoil. The trigger pull is minimal, and allows for quick shots with relatively no wrist rotation. The major down side to this handgun, in my opinion, is the safety. As far as a conceal and carry weapon is concerned, the 1911 is not the best option. The hammer is pulled back for each shot, and thus in order to keep from blowing your nuts off, you have to keep it in safety mode. But in the even of a dangerous environment, it is ever complicated to add the safety removal step in your firing drill. And to be honest, in a dangerous environment, id likely forget to do so. In fact, many police officers were getting killed because of it. So, this weapon, to me, is the ideal indoors defense. Easy to operate, the 1911 is a great alternative to some of the shorter/lighter firearms. i know that if i had to shoot someone, id much prefer to use my 1911 over another handgun. The only other "down side" to this weapon is the small capacity magazines. even with and extended magazine, this pistol can only hold about 10 rounds (which isnt much when you compare it to a Springfield XD, or similar Glock models capable of handling some 16+ rounds). Though in my opinion, this isnt a down side. If it takes you 16 shots to hit a guy, you deserve to get killed. More importantly, thats 16, 230 grain pieces of metal flying recklessly in the air, capable of massive collateral damage. Train better, use a smaller mag, and you should easily be able to handle an armed assailant in under 7 rounds (the normal capacity of the 1911).
And now, with that said, i really wanna go shooting.... time to make some veggies pay!
And now, with that said, i really wanna go shooting.... time to make some veggies pay!
Saturday, February 5, 2011
My Thoughts on the Month of Love
Well, it's that time of year again, where love and relationships become the focus of the average mind. So, I figured I'd write a few things regarding relationships and love.
First thing is for you guys out there. I can't tell you how many young men I who seem to be ultra sensitive and expressive about their emotions. News flash, most girls do not like ultra effeminate men. Sorry to break it to you. Girls are emotional reactors, and you have no idea when they may go off. Last thing they need is a bf who is the same way. See what I'm saying? Girls need guys who are stable, strong, and confident. Now, that is not to say that they need arrogant men or douche bags who are emotionally callused, extremes are never good. Balance is of the essence. All I am saying is that too many of you guys wear your hearts on your chest, and that, though immediately attractive to some women, will not yield long lasting relationships. Look around if you need proof.
Second thing for guys, talk less. Girls are not actually interested in your thoughts nearly as much as you think they are. Girls by nature have a lot to say at all times, and generally nothing will make them happier than for you to just listen and be engaged. If you do that, then at some point or another, they will want to talk with you about your stuff. So you will get your chance to say what you want, but its all in good time. Let her talk first, be interested, listen well, and you will grow with her. Now, on that note, i've seen a lot of guys do this, myself included, don't try to force conversations with girls. If a girl is not interested in talking to you, don't push it. Girls get very nervous and uncomfortable if they suspect your intent, and instead of confronting you about it, they will likely just try to ignore you. Take that as a hint and back off. Your lack of aggression will be far more attractive than they whole "talk to me dammit" thing will.
Now, first thing for girls, do not blame guys for your issues. Nothing will cause a fight faster than to blame your bf or any guy friends for not taking care of your insecurities. Guys need a lot of autonomy, and i can speak from experience, nothing on this planet was more irritating than to have a girl bitch at you for 4 hours because you were not making senseless, illogical decisions to cure loneliness. Seriously, we are here to support you and all, dont get me wrong, but you have to pick and choose your moments of most need wisely. Having a total breakdown every week, for example, is gunna get tiring for a guy. Eventually, he is not going to move hell and earth for you. Once this happens, the blaming thing kicks in, and then the boat will sink. So girls, moral of the story, as guys, we know you will become emotional and whatnot, and thats cool, but if we cant be there all the time, dont blame us or hold us on the phone for 4 hours. thanks
Next thing for girls, love is not what you think it is. Drawing hearts is cute and all, dont get me wrong, but real love is not nearly as cute. Girls, by and large, need to lower their expectations on love. Its not a fairy tale, no guy out there is prince charming, and you will not live happily ever after. You might live comfortably, even content, but the butterflies in your stomach will fade a lot faster than you might expect. Then you are left with whatever bozo you chose. Now, words of wisdom here. For one, you need to be pursued, never be the one doing the pursuing. If you girls let yourselves be pursued, look for the right things in a guy. Marrying for love is like entering a mine field while blindfolded. Marry smart, attract guys who have money. Im not saying that you should go out and marry a doctor (they often times are total assholes, fyi my mom has to work with them), but marry a guy with a solid career or capacity to have one. Love is secondary, and actually, as you may find, if you change your perspective on guys and what's important to you, you might find that its easier to "fall in love" with those kinds of people. You will be more like minded, credit goes to that. And lastly, if every worth-while girl out there raises their expectations in men, men will (due to their competitive nature) rise to the challenge and become much more money oriented because they know that how to start pursuing the right women.
Other then that, its a damn toss up. There is no formula for success in this field. In fact, its doing rather terrible. With a soaring divorce-rate, broken families, and multiple marriages, its rather foreboding. But, guys and girls, if you play your cards right, marry smart, change your habits a little bit, you may beat the odds and actually stand a chance at having that future you always wanted.
Happy Valentines day bitchez!
First thing is for you guys out there. I can't tell you how many young men I who seem to be ultra sensitive and expressive about their emotions. News flash, most girls do not like ultra effeminate men. Sorry to break it to you. Girls are emotional reactors, and you have no idea when they may go off. Last thing they need is a bf who is the same way. See what I'm saying? Girls need guys who are stable, strong, and confident. Now, that is not to say that they need arrogant men or douche bags who are emotionally callused, extremes are never good. Balance is of the essence. All I am saying is that too many of you guys wear your hearts on your chest, and that, though immediately attractive to some women, will not yield long lasting relationships. Look around if you need proof.
Second thing for guys, talk less. Girls are not actually interested in your thoughts nearly as much as you think they are. Girls by nature have a lot to say at all times, and generally nothing will make them happier than for you to just listen and be engaged. If you do that, then at some point or another, they will want to talk with you about your stuff. So you will get your chance to say what you want, but its all in good time. Let her talk first, be interested, listen well, and you will grow with her. Now, on that note, i've seen a lot of guys do this, myself included, don't try to force conversations with girls. If a girl is not interested in talking to you, don't push it. Girls get very nervous and uncomfortable if they suspect your intent, and instead of confronting you about it, they will likely just try to ignore you. Take that as a hint and back off. Your lack of aggression will be far more attractive than they whole "talk to me dammit" thing will.
Now, first thing for girls, do not blame guys for your issues. Nothing will cause a fight faster than to blame your bf or any guy friends for not taking care of your insecurities. Guys need a lot of autonomy, and i can speak from experience, nothing on this planet was more irritating than to have a girl bitch at you for 4 hours because you were not making senseless, illogical decisions to cure loneliness. Seriously, we are here to support you and all, dont get me wrong, but you have to pick and choose your moments of most need wisely. Having a total breakdown every week, for example, is gunna get tiring for a guy. Eventually, he is not going to move hell and earth for you. Once this happens, the blaming thing kicks in, and then the boat will sink. So girls, moral of the story, as guys, we know you will become emotional and whatnot, and thats cool, but if we cant be there all the time, dont blame us or hold us on the phone for 4 hours. thanks
Next thing for girls, love is not what you think it is. Drawing hearts is cute and all, dont get me wrong, but real love is not nearly as cute. Girls, by and large, need to lower their expectations on love. Its not a fairy tale, no guy out there is prince charming, and you will not live happily ever after. You might live comfortably, even content, but the butterflies in your stomach will fade a lot faster than you might expect. Then you are left with whatever bozo you chose. Now, words of wisdom here. For one, you need to be pursued, never be the one doing the pursuing. If you girls let yourselves be pursued, look for the right things in a guy. Marrying for love is like entering a mine field while blindfolded. Marry smart, attract guys who have money. Im not saying that you should go out and marry a doctor (they often times are total assholes, fyi my mom has to work with them), but marry a guy with a solid career or capacity to have one. Love is secondary, and actually, as you may find, if you change your perspective on guys and what's important to you, you might find that its easier to "fall in love" with those kinds of people. You will be more like minded, credit goes to that. And lastly, if every worth-while girl out there raises their expectations in men, men will (due to their competitive nature) rise to the challenge and become much more money oriented because they know that how to start pursuing the right women.
Other then that, its a damn toss up. There is no formula for success in this field. In fact, its doing rather terrible. With a soaring divorce-rate, broken families, and multiple marriages, its rather foreboding. But, guys and girls, if you play your cards right, marry smart, change your habits a little bit, you may beat the odds and actually stand a chance at having that future you always wanted.
Happy Valentines day bitchez!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Using Math to explain God
So, I recently made a discovery about how one can apply mathematical concepts in order to understand some of the dynamics with respect to God. I have believed without doubt for many years that truth is locked in math. All things around us are perceived, and as such are contingent on our sensory organs ability to accurately convey information. Truth is, therefore, relative to us. If, for example, there are other real things in our world that we have no sensory organs for, do they still exist? Well, if told that they exist, one is compelled to answer yes. But this is a problem with regards to finding truth. Truth should be immediately obvious and accessible. Math, as many of you know, fits this perfectly. In a system, if certain things are "given", you can reach definitive conclusions. That is something that absolutely cannot be done in the real world. We can make correlations, guesses and theories about the world around us, but the truth is questionable.
So, here is my argument. I remember thinking about this as a kid, how does God occupy all locations at once? How can something infinite be turned quantum and then independently inhabit each of us? This seems illogical, and most people like to answer this problem by just saying "well God can do anything." No matter how correct this answer may seem, it should not be satisfactory. Human kind has developed of thousands of years, bringing to light some of the perils of dogmatic belief. In addition, we have, as a species, made it ever evident that scientific thought allows us to make actual sense out of our world. So, on the topic of quantifying God I will try to present a concept.
Take for example a point P in space. This belongs to 3 dimensions, and for the sake of simplicity, we will remove the motion of this particle and eliminate time as a 4th dimension. Then we have a separate point entirely in space Q. P and Q are unique points, and therefore are not touching and have a real distance between them in R3. Now, if say i grant you just even another dimension, you can make it such that those two points actually touch, in say, R4. Then in fact, if say God is unlimited, ie has an infinite number of dimensions to operate in, then he can influence all points at once! In fact, in this same breath then, all points can be viewed as the same point! Planes, dimensions, space, can all be viewed as bendable. The conclusion i came up with about God applies to modern astrophysics. Wormholes, by theory, are interdimensional shortcuts to given distances in space. this is known as faster than light travel. though just a theory, scientists have found that we exist under more conditions than we originally thought. For example, space itself is stretching at a rate faster than light! But math can describe this phenomena perfectly. Therefore, in my case, the reason God can be everywhere at once and Quantified in each point is because of His universal command of dimensional permeation.
Just a thought. I could be totally wrong, and likely am. ;)
So, here is my argument. I remember thinking about this as a kid, how does God occupy all locations at once? How can something infinite be turned quantum and then independently inhabit each of us? This seems illogical, and most people like to answer this problem by just saying "well God can do anything." No matter how correct this answer may seem, it should not be satisfactory. Human kind has developed of thousands of years, bringing to light some of the perils of dogmatic belief. In addition, we have, as a species, made it ever evident that scientific thought allows us to make actual sense out of our world. So, on the topic of quantifying God I will try to present a concept.
Take for example a point P in space. This belongs to 3 dimensions, and for the sake of simplicity, we will remove the motion of this particle and eliminate time as a 4th dimension. Then we have a separate point entirely in space Q. P and Q are unique points, and therefore are not touching and have a real distance between them in R3. Now, if say i grant you just even another dimension, you can make it such that those two points actually touch, in say, R4. Then in fact, if say God is unlimited, ie has an infinite number of dimensions to operate in, then he can influence all points at once! In fact, in this same breath then, all points can be viewed as the same point! Planes, dimensions, space, can all be viewed as bendable. The conclusion i came up with about God applies to modern astrophysics. Wormholes, by theory, are interdimensional shortcuts to given distances in space. this is known as faster than light travel. though just a theory, scientists have found that we exist under more conditions than we originally thought. For example, space itself is stretching at a rate faster than light! But math can describe this phenomena perfectly. Therefore, in my case, the reason God can be everywhere at once and Quantified in each point is because of His universal command of dimensional permeation.
Just a thought. I could be totally wrong, and likely am. ;)
Monday, January 24, 2011
Beer
I love beer. All i really want in life is a 12 pack of Sam Adams, good music, a few cool people to chill with and maybe a pack of cloves. The winter lager was really good :) Actually, pretty much all of Sam's stuff is really good. Best one yet was the Octoberfest. Fortunately for me, Octoberfest comes out in September, and i turn 21 in August. cant lie, im rather stoked :)
thats all i got for you. Go listen to Electric Red by Meshuggah. :)