Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

—————————————————————

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

—————————————————————

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

chhhheeennnnn      chhhheeennnnnnnnnnnn

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

chhhheeennnnn      chhennn     chen          chen

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

chhhheeennnnn      chhhheeennnnnnnnnnnn

—————————————————————

 Buh    duh    duh   dump         duh    duh  dump

(click) (click) (click) (click)       (click) (click) (click)

       (vvvvvuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmm)

                 (hhhheeeeeeeeeemmmm)

chhhheeennnnn     chhennn      chen         chen

Are we to start with the examination of the external, or the internal?

Now, I suppose that depends on what you’re aiming to think about.

Does thinking require a pen and paper?

How far can one go relying on their own memory as an encyclopedia of thoughts already thought? Those thoughts must remain accurate as well, for they must be built upon to develop any sort of stature.

But there lies the problem of the segregation of science and soul: one demands its vigorous recording for the sake of becoming more than a mere recognition, and the other is so difficult to record and even observe, recognition can be an enormous step.

And then soul becomes science.

If soul is anything but expressed - as in expression is recorded and later examined - it has become science.

Does soul demand thinking?

Is there merely an immediate knowledge, when questions are posed inward, that can only be called for at a precise moment which involves the soul and its existence?

Can pondering truly bring forth a deeper understanding of self?

Will you ever better know your own desires?

For that is all we are, is it not?

What more than desire is there?

All emotion, after all, is merely the result of the gratification, or lack there of, of previously or still held desires.

So why do we write the matters concerning the heart’s desires?

It must simply be to express and be understood, there must be a desire to be understood.

Perhaps better, to be heard.

And now is when the soul has become science.

But I literally just said the soul is hard to observe.

So how could I question whether pondering it lacks benefit?

But how could we not know what we want?

Where is the confusion?

The confusion is in the existence of others.

We work to please the world.

It cannot be helped, as pleasing the world is also pleasing our selves.

But your interests are not mine, yet so horrible I would feel to deny you of your satisfaction.

So I stand at a cross-road.

I could make him, her , them, him, her, them, him, her, or me happy.

And theoretically by choosing any which one of them, all would gain a little happiness, for after dealing with the realization that my choice wasn’t the one they wished for me, they would recognize the choice made another they knew and therefore desired happiness for happy.

So based on that, I should make me happy, should I not?

Then everyone will be happy, and I will be happy with myself.

Unless of course I wasn’t.

But why wouldn’t I be?

Because despite your claims that you are happy for and proud of and love me, I can’t bring myself to fully believe you, because I know you aren’t fully telling the truth.

Because if the choice was yours, you would have made it differently, which means if you could go back in time and change the choice I’ve made to the match your desires, you would.

So I let you down.

Even though I didn’t.

Cause I never could.

But I did.

And science exists to distract us from ourselves.

Why should I fear writing what I feel to be true?

Because I would accuse myself of feeling a paradox.

Because I want it both ways.

No.

I don’t feel things to be true.

I feel my feelings to be true.

I don’t fear writing what I feel to be true.

That is self-gratifying.

And oh how I love gratifying my self.

I fear writing what I rationalize to be true.

And I fear it because it accuses my feelings of being impure.

Writing is synonymous with expressing.

Wait, what the hell.

I can reason any direction for any argument.

Well, most arguments.

So, feelings do not demand to be written.

Thoughts demand to be written.

With the organizations of thoughts, and further recognition of rational truth which can stand behind the answers to the questions the heart demands be answered, whether they be the answers desired or not, a framework for the obedience of the desires can be constructed.

It’s amazing how weak the sense of taste is.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo

English is crazy.

And I thought to myself, “I can be pretty sure that one day in my future I will be tormented by that instant flash of light that signifies I’ll be receiving a notice from the G-Man to inform me that I broke one of their laws.”

What a horrible feeling.

But that’s not the point.

After that thought, I immediately followed it with a, “and what sucks is that at that moment in time I won’t be expecting it at all.” Which led to a, “it’s always when you least expect it…” Which led to a, “that’s a retarded statement. If you were expecting to get flashed you would simply stop speeding, just as if you were expecting anything bad to happen (as the phrase is generally applied) you would be prepared and much more capable of deterring the potential badness that approaches.”

This then led to a tug-of-war match within my mind, the opposing sides being: A. One should always be prepared and solve the problem of ever least-expecting anything. and B. Having your guard up 24/7 is a waste of energy and really doesn’t help you make any new friends; not that you’d want to make new friends with your guard up 24/7 for fear that they’d bum all your cigs off you and when you realize you didn’t save one for yourself they’d refuse to even drive you to the gas station so you could buy more. Damn new friends.

Now, after having typed that I realize that the best answer is a simple compromise: When driving, pay fucking attention and save yourself some cash; when living, I don’t even know what to say here. Just be smart, but play it cool; make sure you have direction, but don’t be obsessed with your destination. Cause being obsessed with a destination keeps your eyes from even glancing at your surroundings; and in life your surroundings are people, not trees. Well, some peoples surroundings are people smoking trees; but that’s a different story.

Speaking of not-trees.

This whole thought process culminated with the development of a little theory I’ve got going on. It relates to a lot of people who seem to hate this state.

I was once walking through a field in Michigan with my cousins. We came to a section of the field where the grass was pretty tall, like knee height I guess. I watched them walk into the grass without a care, but as I got to the edge of it I stopped in my tracks and just stared at it. I couldn’t help but think, “that shit’s sketch.” It seems as though, all this time I’ve spent in the desert has essentially caused me to not trust walking through a place where I can’t see my feet. Which is certainly wise in a land full of rattlesnakes and scorpions, but think about it - would you not say that pretty much is Scottsdale in a nut-shell: If you can’t foresee the outcome, it’s not worth the risk?

And then I think of all my friends who want to get out of here, who might deny that being their reasoning, but it doesn’t matter, it’s bigger than that statement - it’s a mentality. It’s a mentality that shuts doors and closes minds; it’s a shame. Of course, if you choose to have no doors, it’s not really a problem.

absolutely hilarious

Wuddup

I think about writing, compose a piece in my head, and then see no point in writing what I already know. The reason being that I generally do not want to be read; and I suppose the easy solution is getting paper and a pen, but that seems more like a chore. (insert comment mocking society’s technology addiction). Or not. It’s really more than lethargy; it’s this idea that anyone could be impacted by a statement you make. I’m not wearing pants. Case in point. The real killer for me though, in the instance of tumblr, is that I could name the only people that might actually read what I write, and then go to their facebook and ask if they read what I wrote. I might as well write a letter, right? It’d be far more interesting if there were no following capabilities; if people either read or they wrote. Now, I fully realize that site might exist and I’m just not on it; but I’m not on it. It’s weird to think about how people with poor eye sight are less in-tune with the physical world, but still every bit as mentally active. I say this because when I think deeply, my eyes cease to focus and everything gets blurry and double and whatever, but some people see blurry and double and whatever all the time; does that mean they always think deeply? Not in the literal/figurative/what’sthedifference sense of having some profound philosophical inquiry flowing through their mind, but in the sense of their thought being more pure and focused at all times due to relatively limited distraction. I feel like I have to explain the “literal/figurative/what’sthedifference” because as I typed it, Liz and I had an imaginary mental conversation about whether or not that made sense (she frequently challenges me (in my head) and wins (in my head) to check my logic with concern to abstract linguistic concept, this time she lost (in my head) though). Why is it necessary that I dub my “Prototype Voicing: Liz” over what are obviously my own words? I’m not sure, I feel like it helps me stay honest. Funny thing, if I were to have a conversation with myself and write it up, the two characters would probably be “me” and “Steve.” If I plotted this conversation before writing it, I would make “me” out to be the hero, and “Steve” the villain (if the circumstance allowed or required it).  The only reasoning I can supply to my favoritism of “me” over “Steve” is that I’ve known other Steve’s, but never another me. This is very ironic, and a testament to the limited and close minded perspective I have as a human, because quite contrary to this idea I have of being the only me, everyone is me; in fact, the me’s in this world probably outnumber the Steve’s at least 500 to 1; therefore, the title “Steve” is far more me specific than is “me” and should in theory be my mental conception of the most me-y thing there is, leading me to desire others to see it in the best light possible, in turn making “Steve” the hero, and “me” the villain. But this time Liz and I duked it out, and I won; or, Liz didn’t win. Yay… me? The conversation went a bit like this:

Me: does that mean they always think deeply? Not in the literal/figurative/what’sthedifference sense of having some profound philosophical inquiry flowing through their mind, but in the sense of their thought being more pure and focused at all times due to relatively limited distraction.

Liz: No Steve, that’s definitely figurative.

Me: No Liz, a thought has no depth.

Liz: Exactly.

Me: Shit, what am I trying to say…

Liz: It doesn’t make sense, Steve.

Me: Ah! I mean to say but this deep has no depth.

Liz: Still doesn’t make sense, Steve. (She trusts me to work things out eventually, so she’s very patient with me)

Actually she was pretty peeved in this conversation, but my tangent made me forget all the hate, so I’ll just leave it out.

Me: Yes Liz, it does make sense, because deep and deep don’t have to be the same word.

Liz: I don’t think they’re different words Steve.

Me: You’re probably literally right, as per Webster, but what I’m saying is that deep is a word used to describe another word, and usually those words are concrete, but thought in itself is already not concrete, so no word describing thought is literal in the material sense. That leads me to believe that there are material forms of words and immaterial forms of words, or at least of adjectives, and their im/materialism is derived from the word they describe.

Liz: That makes sense, but if that’s the case, how would you know what the literal immaterial meaning of deep thought is?

Me: I let deep mean what it means and from there it depends on context. If you think deeply, your thought is deep, and the closest immaterial way to connect deep in that context to its material brother is by saying the thought has a good amount of figurative substance.

But really, using think (verb) instead of thought (can be verb but I mean noun) just throws a big ol’ stick in my spokes on my theory bicycle because I really can’t figure out if think deeply should refer to being deep in thought or a thought being deep. It’s probably more closely related to being deep in thought. As I said, depending on the context, deep’s literal meaning might change. With being deep in thought, literal deep refers to a person’s full submersion in a thought, meaning he is focused, which is what I was getting at with the people who are hard of seeing. I got confused, but now it’s all straightened out. And maybe someone else can see my difficulty in picking which word, literal or figurative, to use in describing depth of thought.

kinseyallyn

all needed.

Today I tried to imagine a scenario where a group of humans could traverse all of life with no authoritative body presiding over them; though now that I write that I wonder if authority would automatically be granted to he with the biggest “guns.”

To more accurately depict my thought I would say I was questioning the presence of an evil nature within humans; but I suppose the violent nature that’s potentially indicated above would immediately castrate my thought male (consider the productive natures (natures used as a broad reference to everything pertaining to the processes, and to a certain extent parts, involved in the entire reproductive and gestation sequence) of creatures and the plunging of thought into reality to create an idea and potentially a solid theory). But, accept that the idea above has yet to be “scientifically proven,” and further imagine the societal interactions of 5 infants who have all they need to survive provided for them, and no other creatures but themselves. Immediately this situation becomes questionable because the fate of a toddler with no mother figure appears grim, no care-taking figure I should say. Of course, one could create a mechanical system of raising a child; and I suppose a machine makes no moral demands on a its beneficiary, so subservience may not be an issue in that circumstance. Play with that, 5 toddlers who grow up together and know nothing of anything but each other, and some machines that somehow give them the necessities of life. You’d have to clean up their shit too. Shit. I didn’t think about that. Well, you could find a way; I don’t care. Anyways, what if you could even disguise these machines into discoverable pieces of nature. And everyone has infantile amnesia, so it wouldn’t matter that they would be incapable of discovery at that point because the life goods could be placed right in front of their face. Do you think they would be incapable of walking? Is learning a piece of human nature? I don’t know! It’s such a strange concoction. And I’m tired.

Oh, get this: Man ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so he wrote it down.

You forgot your God silly girl. At least, by whatever strange twisting of language, I hope you forgot your God.

cultivatethehabit:

I got my

paige

nelson

natalie

amy

liz

nothing else really

Summary:

I’ve come to see

that I am not

the worst of these.

Brakes!

Reverse -

The worst of those?

Refers to foes?

If so I chose.

- Now go.

Cause friends tend to bend your trends

And enemies replenish the memory of what’s heavenly.

So pretend for me to defend the plea that those who send a friendly

Vibe defend your life when under the eye of He who men defy.

Suspend my cries, I despise this potential lie.

Commend the wise, this is why I won’t end this right -

Here.

No, I have a fear, that Misery lurks behind this mirror

(As the picture is clear, like a lens, but where I steer, so do my friends),

Queer.

With the lie dealt, etching a craze, I find myself, catching my gaze.

I was left to write what is right, try my best, with might I will fight,

this evil being, and his ambitions; if eye-all-seeing eye is deaf it can’t listen.

I mean to say to use the senses, plunge for the depths of every intention.

A few times I’ve been wooed into thinking it’s true what is only new,

I heard a whisper of something absurd and sinister,

It was so fresh I had to put to the test this concept that there is no one left to direct

A soul.

But there is goodness, there is light - which I would kiss, at its sight.

Though it may be hard to find, I’d say we should start in the mind.

For my God dwells in the hearts of men, so here’s to the Truth that a friend’s a friend.

GOOD THING THAT KINSEY IS MY BESTFRIEND…

God’s recognition of your desire to meet His Will.

You want to be on that eternal line, but with so many options available, and the nature of sin within, you are bound to fail.

If this earth is a test, that is the cause of the options.

In heaven there will be no options, but that, for the properly set God-follower, is perfection. Why would I want options when all I want is to follow the one and only Will of God?

All that is created was already created, or so the story goes. Where does freewill fall into that? How can we possibly be making our own decisions if God has already made everything that is to be made, essentially causing now to be the past, and even the future to be the same?

I’m probably gonna need some help in saying this right, so tell me what I have to fix, Kins.

Scientists theorize the existence of parallel universes, meaning we exist in and alongside other universes just like ours, but we cannot see or effect them because they move parallel with us. Make sense?

Now, imagine the problems that computer programmers have, specifically video game designers, when they are trying to create the most “sandbox like” world possible. Sandbox means that you can shape the world how you please, your actions make lasting impressions on the virtual universe. Further, imagine the near impossibility implied in a sandbox for the masses. Trying to create a program that can allow everyone to simultaneously do anything they can possibly dream of is a daunting task. How loosely this ties in with what I’m talking about, I’m not sure, but there’s a connection, I simply can’t verbalize it right now. I need time.

But, back to the issue.

What if, God, at the forefront of creation, knew, based on the options that would be presented them, the decisions each human would make throughout their entire life. Everything you do is the result of a choice, is it not?

That’s hardly a what if, God is omniscient.

In the beginning there was Adam, Eve, and the rest of creation. He and She were the only ones with the potential to make a decision. What decision was placed before them? Whether or not they would munch on the goodness of wisdom fibers.

Two necessary universes.

Two necessary “paths” if you will.

The first is God’s, and the only one that was intended to exist.

But because He gave us choice, He had no choice but to make more paths.

The two in the beginning are described merely for simplicity’s sake.

All creation occurred in the beginning, all potential paths were laid before their travelers had been birthed.

Imagine a horizontal line stretching to the depths of infinity in each direction.

This line is God’s Will.

Due to His omniscience however, this is not the only line He created. No, He created a line for every possible scenario of our movement through “time.”

With the first choice outside of His, we take a step down onto the next potential plateau of reality, eternally a minute distance below the intent, until another mistake is made.

Mind you the first is still existent, and after the second mistake, as is the second line, but we are on the third from the top plateau. Does that make sense?

But grasp this gravity: Each line is REAL.

These are universes, all as tangible as the next.

However, despite their reality, only God’s was intended for eternity; in other words, only His line stretches to the depths of infinity.

There is so much this explains, such as people being so convinced of their own mindsets. We all live in our own universe, the one we chose. Only with God’s guidance can we reach any sort of alignment (massive alignment at least, households and couples and friends generally follow similar lines).

It could also be used to explain the disconnect beings feel when they make relative mistakes, they have slipped into alternate, but parallel universes.

I’m not so sure parallel implies the incapability of interaction anymore, but I need to stop writing cause I’m losing track of myself.