Monday, November 22, 2010
From whence I came out into the open this is not what was begot.
All right hears the thing I'm homeless. Its not something that happened all at once. I didn't loose my job my apartment all over night. I usually not this vocal or this direct on my blog but The rules I put in places from the start were vague enough to include this possibility. The thing is theirs not that many people to talk to about this and I don't have much practice talking without my mouth open. This all started back in May. that's when I lost my job. There was two bosses giving me contradictory instructions and ass a power play by one, I was Fired. That was all right id been fired before but for some reason i couldn't get a new job in time. sure the economy was bad but I didn't expect it to hit me. But two months in and nothing and my landlord wanted to be paid. I owe him! He let me go with a lot uncollated. I still will try to make that up to him. I know that sounds like wishful optimism and it probably is but I still want to pay him back. So now i was out of my place but lucky for me I have one of the best grandmothers living rather close to me. The other amazing grandmother lives in west palm. (Miss you Grammy). And from July to November I was praying every morning and looking all day for work. until she got a letter. The letter said that the living facility she was staying in did not allow guests past a week and I would have to go or she would be evicted too. First I don't want anything to happen to happen to my Grandmother so I left to get some temporary assistance from my nearest Department of Social Services. After some exhausting cold nights in various underpasses and the like I was sent to a halfway house with bed bugs no sheets bad heating and one meal a day. It blows chunks and i suspect Ill be here for a while. I hope I'm not hear on my birthday. (Dec 8) but any way that is me for now.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
The Neuropsychopharmacological History of LSD
There is an eight page paper by Dr. Erika Dyck on the pre-war studies of d-lysergic acid diethylamide starts out pretty slow. The beginning is very straightforward stating “The therapeutic uses of psychedelic drugs have recently resurfaced as a topic of debate in neuropsychopharmacology.” After a very brief mention of recent studies in hallucinogenic drugs, such as the drug referred to as ecstasy helping Parkinson’s, and PTSD, the historical overview commences.
As is described “[LSD] first appeared in the scientific literature in 1943.” The study of the drug became very popular in the medical community for its “potential contributions to psychiatric research.” Until the early 1960’s attention was strong. It faded but not before over 500 articles in 15 languages on the subject ware published in scientific journals. In 1962 Timothy Leary was fired for his “indiscriminant promotion” of the substance. The story was big news, so much so that this can be marked as the turning point for the public viewpoint on LSD. It all finally changed in 1966 as everyday news focused on the dangers of LSD and the masses were swayed into agreeing with negative associations. The same year Federal governments in the US, Canada, the Netherlands, France, and the UK banned the use of LSD. Despite this there were still proponents for using LSD in a medical environment.
The first sample synthesized was in 1938 but it was five years till the drug was discovered. The chemist Albert Hofmann did this by accidentally coming in physical contact with his creation and had the first recorded “trip.” The drug was studied, then published, and then embraced over the next few years. The decade 1950 was good for advancements in psychiatry. LSD experimentation coincided with the radical renovation of psychopharmacology, producing two Nobel Prizes. Article after article was published on different experiments involving LSD.
In 1952 two scientists; Humphry Osmond and Abram Hoffer, started “collaborating over their mutual research interests in biochemical experimentation.” Their experimentation found that drugs like LSD could induce schizophrenic like symptoms. This was followed with the deduction that mental illness is biochemical. In other words; “a theory that explained mental illness as the manifestation of metabolic functions. This assertion pointed to the possibility that mental illness was inherently a biological entity.” Both men took psychotropic drugs and reported on their effects so as to placate the populace. “LSD seemed to produce a “model psychosis,” which provided a new method for studying symptoms of mental illness.” Later that year Hoffer and Osmond looked for funding to develop this theory but doctors in Ottawa and Ontario did not provide.
In 1953 Osmond realized he could use LSD to help in the treatment of alcoholism. Using LSD to force the patent to simulate the complete and utter despair of their situation he may find sobriety. The first trial found two alcoholics, one male, one female, and subjected them to an intensive drug therapy combination. After six months the subjects were completely cured of there alcoholism. There was a two year flow up and both subjects were still sober. The second trial included 24 patients and after three years the results were; half unchanged, quarter improved, and one quarter much improved. The third study used a method close to the scientific method. Three groups; one with group therapy, the next with LSD, and the last had individual therapy. The LSD pool of subjects had a success rate of 65.5%, much larger then the others.
In these studies the doctors were mostly successful in curing the patient’s alcoholism. This shows just one example of positive uses of lysergic acid diethylamide and how people see it can, with further study, be more positive. The trouble with this drug is the stigma behind it. There is this idea that all illegal substances are bad. The only problem is that no good would come with out the research into drugs like fungus derivatives or methamphetamines. With out certain antibiotics or ADHD medication the medical community would be set back. So if no advancements are made than no cures are found. Even LSD has its good side.
This good side is the one that is not known to use completely, but that is because of the negative stigma that plagues the drug and others like it. “LSD is bad. It can make you go insane. It will make you see what’s not there.” These fears are not completely based in falsehoods but there is no real reason that with the proper research this drug could be a very helpful medication in the future. There is no real rationalization, in fact, for the idea that LSD is a hard core psychotropic. The idea that something so powerful is shunned away like bad odor is simply wrong. Not even the mass murdering atom-bomb was discarded, it was developed into energy. LSD has such potential which seems to be squandered for the simple idea that it is to scary.
As is described “[LSD] first appeared in the scientific literature in 1943.” The study of the drug became very popular in the medical community for its “potential contributions to psychiatric research.” Until the early 1960’s attention was strong. It faded but not before over 500 articles in 15 languages on the subject ware published in scientific journals. In 1962 Timothy Leary was fired for his “indiscriminant promotion” of the substance. The story was big news, so much so that this can be marked as the turning point for the public viewpoint on LSD. It all finally changed in 1966 as everyday news focused on the dangers of LSD and the masses were swayed into agreeing with negative associations. The same year Federal governments in the US, Canada, the Netherlands, France, and the UK banned the use of LSD. Despite this there were still proponents for using LSD in a medical environment.
The first sample synthesized was in 1938 but it was five years till the drug was discovered. The chemist Albert Hofmann did this by accidentally coming in physical contact with his creation and had the first recorded “trip.” The drug was studied, then published, and then embraced over the next few years. The decade 1950 was good for advancements in psychiatry. LSD experimentation coincided with the radical renovation of psychopharmacology, producing two Nobel Prizes. Article after article was published on different experiments involving LSD.
In 1952 two scientists; Humphry Osmond and Abram Hoffer, started “collaborating over their mutual research interests in biochemical experimentation.” Their experimentation found that drugs like LSD could induce schizophrenic like symptoms. This was followed with the deduction that mental illness is biochemical. In other words; “a theory that explained mental illness as the manifestation of metabolic functions. This assertion pointed to the possibility that mental illness was inherently a biological entity.” Both men took psychotropic drugs and reported on their effects so as to placate the populace. “LSD seemed to produce a “model psychosis,” which provided a new method for studying symptoms of mental illness.” Later that year Hoffer and Osmond looked for funding to develop this theory but doctors in Ottawa and Ontario did not provide.
In 1953 Osmond realized he could use LSD to help in the treatment of alcoholism. Using LSD to force the patent to simulate the complete and utter despair of their situation he may find sobriety. The first trial found two alcoholics, one male, one female, and subjected them to an intensive drug therapy combination. After six months the subjects were completely cured of there alcoholism. There was a two year flow up and both subjects were still sober. The second trial included 24 patients and after three years the results were; half unchanged, quarter improved, and one quarter much improved. The third study used a method close to the scientific method. Three groups; one with group therapy, the next with LSD, and the last had individual therapy. The LSD pool of subjects had a success rate of 65.5%, much larger then the others.
In these studies the doctors were mostly successful in curing the patient’s alcoholism. This shows just one example of positive uses of lysergic acid diethylamide and how people see it can, with further study, be more positive. The trouble with this drug is the stigma behind it. There is this idea that all illegal substances are bad. The only problem is that no good would come with out the research into drugs like fungus derivatives or methamphetamines. With out certain antibiotics or ADHD medication the medical community would be set back. So if no advancements are made than no cures are found. Even LSD has its good side.
This good side is the one that is not known to use completely, but that is because of the negative stigma that plagues the drug and others like it. “LSD is bad. It can make you go insane. It will make you see what’s not there.” These fears are not completely based in falsehoods but there is no real reason that with the proper research this drug could be a very helpful medication in the future. There is no real rationalization, in fact, for the idea that LSD is a hard core psychotropic. The idea that something so powerful is shunned away like bad odor is simply wrong. Not even the mass murdering atom-bomb was discarded, it was developed into energy. LSD has such potential which seems to be squandered for the simple idea that it is to scary.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Two Ships, Both Not of This Verse
The universe is big. In fact, it is very big. It is so big that we cannot prove there is not other life out there. This other life might be just like our own or there might be four elephants on the back of a turtle. The genre of science fiction has given us ideas of what that life might be like. Two sci-fi television shows, Battlestar Galactica and Firefly are examples of this genre. Through evaluating characters, science, and setting, we will see what that life might be like.
In today’s culture characters that the audience can connect to are vary important. In Battlestar Galactica the characters struggle with being the only survivors from a war that destroyed all of there worlds. Not only are they on overcrowded spaceships, most notably the Galactica, they also do not always get along. The fact that these people cannot get out of their current situation means that they must deal with their feelings for each other or repress them. Conversely in Firefly the characters are part of a larger society that spans many worlds and speaks both English and Chinese. There is a lot more room for the small crew, on their ship Serenity, and there is much camaraderie with little argument. These people chose to live on a firefly class ship and they seem to be happy with their choice.
An enemy helps shape the way we look at our selves. In Battlestar Galactica the enemy, the Cylons, have troops that have infiltrated their military ranks. The Cylons are cybernetic machines that were created by the people of the twelve colonies. The people struggle with the doom their own creation has caused and the burden they must carry. This is the nothing like Firefly which has an enemy that is a major company called Blue Sun. Blue Sun is responsible for the one of the crewmembers to go mad in a facility that tried to tern her into a psychic weapon. The fact that the enemy is so huge makes the crew feel they must make a great impact to show change or else there is no point in fighting.
In Battlestar Galactica, there are many things that they take for granted but we would consider outlandish. Such technologies as faster than light drives, cybernetic-organic hybrids, and transference of consciousness make up these fictional technologies. Firstly the FTL drives are definitely impossible as depicted in the show. To show this ships “jump” or shimmer and disappear than reappear in a deferent location. This is not possible, for the laws of physics state that nothing can go faster than light. Secondly, the concept of integrating electronic hardware into an organic creature, though not new to science fiction, is still not possible by today’s technology though this dose not mean it is impossible all together. There is simply the matter of translating the electronic synapses into comprehensible computer code. Thirdly, transferring the entire memory of someone from one body to the next is still in theoretical stages. Though the process might be possible, having the whole event happen wirelessly across light-years is highly implausible. To summarize, the technologies that help the plot precede are not always in the realm of possibility.
In Firefly, the science is based on real knowledge that is implemented into a futuristic setting. The physics are incredibly real as exemplified in such cases as the sound, culture, or technology. As it was eloquently stated in the move Alien “In space no one can hear you scream.” This phrase has special significance to the science fiction genre because most shows and movies do not hold to this law of physics. In Firefly, they do. This shows up in one particular scene where a space ship is being destroyed, and the explosion is seen but not heard. In other forms of hearing the languages spoken make sense from an anthropological point of view. Chinese and English are the two most spoken languages on Earth so it makes sense that in the future they would be part of every child’s linguistic exposure. The technology of Firefly is advanced but it again stems from real technology of today. Taking the guns as an example, they do not fire special photon thingies. Instead they fire bullets, real mettle bullets. For all the fancy stuff that could have been done to this show it is surprising what was deliberately avoided for quality.
In the two television shows, there are differences in where they take place. Though Battlestar Galactica has a militaristic base there is also a civilization behind it. The main example is “the United Colonies of Kobol,” which serve as a democratic republic but with a president to break ties when voting on legislation. Galactica is a battlestar class ship and it is also a very old one. Despite this show being very futuristic there is also an old-fashioned feel to it. Such as corded phones and worn-down consoles. In Battlestar Galactica the crew, for the most part, stay on the ship for their planets were all nuked. Conversely, in Firefly, the show is more of a western but still has futuristic qualities trademark of the sci-fi genre. This is marked by the end of the opening credits, which show the spaceship Serenity flying over a herd of horses. On Serenity there is use of hovercrafts and medical implements that are definitely futuristic. In Firefly, at least once an episode the crew “goes planet side.” Separating distinguishable characteristics are important, for people, to not make assumptions about all science fiction.
Alternately the shows are not completely alien to one another, bizarrely enough they do share similar points. In the case of the crew, the people on board a ship, whether it be a spaceship or otherwise, have got to get along. They do, for the most part. There are arguments on both ships but the cooperation, whether it is due to a military hierarchy or just plain respect, these people know how to make a ship function. In the case of the technology and setting, it is obvious where the similarities are. Both shows center around space and crafts that fly through it. Though there is much to contrast the comparisons are not to be overlooked.
If you want to know all the pretty little details that make these two shows special than there is more that can be read. But this is a good beginning for any new fan. To recommend one show over the other would make no sense. They both have there qualities and the viewer deserves the right to make up their own mind. All the time that is put into a show is not always seen by the viewers. Despite this there are great people making shows like Battlestar Galactica and Firefly possible. Without TV like this I would have nothing to geek out about.
In today’s culture characters that the audience can connect to are vary important. In Battlestar Galactica the characters struggle with being the only survivors from a war that destroyed all of there worlds. Not only are they on overcrowded spaceships, most notably the Galactica, they also do not always get along. The fact that these people cannot get out of their current situation means that they must deal with their feelings for each other or repress them. Conversely in Firefly the characters are part of a larger society that spans many worlds and speaks both English and Chinese. There is a lot more room for the small crew, on their ship Serenity, and there is much camaraderie with little argument. These people chose to live on a firefly class ship and they seem to be happy with their choice.
An enemy helps shape the way we look at our selves. In Battlestar Galactica the enemy, the Cylons, have troops that have infiltrated their military ranks. The Cylons are cybernetic machines that were created by the people of the twelve colonies. The people struggle with the doom their own creation has caused and the burden they must carry. This is the nothing like Firefly which has an enemy that is a major company called Blue Sun. Blue Sun is responsible for the one of the crewmembers to go mad in a facility that tried to tern her into a psychic weapon. The fact that the enemy is so huge makes the crew feel they must make a great impact to show change or else there is no point in fighting.
In Battlestar Galactica, there are many things that they take for granted but we would consider outlandish. Such technologies as faster than light drives, cybernetic-organic hybrids, and transference of consciousness make up these fictional technologies. Firstly the FTL drives are definitely impossible as depicted in the show. To show this ships “jump” or shimmer and disappear than reappear in a deferent location. This is not possible, for the laws of physics state that nothing can go faster than light. Secondly, the concept of integrating electronic hardware into an organic creature, though not new to science fiction, is still not possible by today’s technology though this dose not mean it is impossible all together. There is simply the matter of translating the electronic synapses into comprehensible computer code. Thirdly, transferring the entire memory of someone from one body to the next is still in theoretical stages. Though the process might be possible, having the whole event happen wirelessly across light-years is highly implausible. To summarize, the technologies that help the plot precede are not always in the realm of possibility.
In Firefly, the science is based on real knowledge that is implemented into a futuristic setting. The physics are incredibly real as exemplified in such cases as the sound, culture, or technology. As it was eloquently stated in the move Alien “In space no one can hear you scream.” This phrase has special significance to the science fiction genre because most shows and movies do not hold to this law of physics. In Firefly, they do. This shows up in one particular scene where a space ship is being destroyed, and the explosion is seen but not heard. In other forms of hearing the languages spoken make sense from an anthropological point of view. Chinese and English are the two most spoken languages on Earth so it makes sense that in the future they would be part of every child’s linguistic exposure. The technology of Firefly is advanced but it again stems from real technology of today. Taking the guns as an example, they do not fire special photon thingies. Instead they fire bullets, real mettle bullets. For all the fancy stuff that could have been done to this show it is surprising what was deliberately avoided for quality.
In the two television shows, there are differences in where they take place. Though Battlestar Galactica has a militaristic base there is also a civilization behind it. The main example is “the United Colonies of Kobol,” which serve as a democratic republic but with a president to break ties when voting on legislation. Galactica is a battlestar class ship and it is also a very old one. Despite this show being very futuristic there is also an old-fashioned feel to it. Such as corded phones and worn-down consoles. In Battlestar Galactica the crew, for the most part, stay on the ship for their planets were all nuked. Conversely, in Firefly, the show is more of a western but still has futuristic qualities trademark of the sci-fi genre. This is marked by the end of the opening credits, which show the spaceship Serenity flying over a herd of horses. On Serenity there is use of hovercrafts and medical implements that are definitely futuristic. In Firefly, at least once an episode the crew “goes planet side.” Separating distinguishable characteristics are important, for people, to not make assumptions about all science fiction.
Alternately the shows are not completely alien to one another, bizarrely enough they do share similar points. In the case of the crew, the people on board a ship, whether it be a spaceship or otherwise, have got to get along. They do, for the most part. There are arguments on both ships but the cooperation, whether it is due to a military hierarchy or just plain respect, these people know how to make a ship function. In the case of the technology and setting, it is obvious where the similarities are. Both shows center around space and crafts that fly through it. Though there is much to contrast the comparisons are not to be overlooked.
If you want to know all the pretty little details that make these two shows special than there is more that can be read. But this is a good beginning for any new fan. To recommend one show over the other would make no sense. They both have there qualities and the viewer deserves the right to make up their own mind. All the time that is put into a show is not always seen by the viewers. Despite this there are great people making shows like Battlestar Galactica and Firefly possible. Without TV like this I would have nothing to geek out about.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Relative Jenorosety
This past weekend I witnessed my grandfathers headstone unavailing. This was the reason for the family reunion that led to my getting a new computer and blogging again. My cousin had an old spare from ten years ago and now I can has intertubes. I'm so happy for the random coincidences I've received and humbly except it's irrationality. With this old beast I have planes for many new things one includes a new 'old beast'. Less old. In the interim I have to thank J. D. Sawyer for his antithesis feed it saved my boredom! That podcast is so intense and I love how there's such a back log so I don't have to wait! Side note; iTunes U is full of teh awesome! Oh and enjoy the new format and contact page. I made them just for you.
A nother shout out to Pip for kiwis there just such adorable birds. If you have no idea why your reading this just remember it's all relative like Einstein or Dad. But don't go out in the woods because there are tigers lions and bears uh-oh. I lost my track of...
So thank you John for the computer.
A nother shout out to Pip for kiwis there just such adorable birds. If you have no idea why your reading this just remember it's all relative like Einstein or Dad. But don't go out in the woods because there are tigers lions and bears uh-oh. I lost my track of...
So thank you John for the computer.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Geekatude
I am just enough of a geek that when all the web 2.0 social networking technologies got started I was there, not at first but in the beginning, and when these were new there was the usual hodgepodge of fear and excitement. But I am not enough of a geek that when it comes time to for me to stand up and be counted as an yearly contributor my voice was not among the throng. Podcasts where my first. They where brought to me by the glorious iTunes 4 update and than there came Twitter which thanks to good old J.C. I was there in that beginning, relatively. Randomly I found Wave but this has yet to catch on [:-(]. Facebook which I only use passively I don't count for that reason. And the one I found last and still can't seem to get is the blog, or bLog, or web log. Eh what yu' gunna do? Well that's it exactly I don't know. So when I proudly proclaim my geekdom is it justified? Or am I a geek poser...
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Can you see me?
If your reading this then I have found life and am now living. Please do not morn my existance it is a good one. Dispite all the attractions death brings I did not fall into the brink. So now I continue on this path where ever it takes me. Hope all is well with you. What ever choice you make I hope you make peace with it. This may be our last communication but do not fear life can be good dispite the well known to the contrary.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
If its good enough for Neilson...
I just watched the latest episode of House M.D. and it was realy good. I've said in the past that I would talk about tv if I felt it worthy. I don't have a tv so hulu is my sorce of media. This episode was great not for the acting which was as good as any other episode but the dercting and writing was amazing. There was a point when the camera panned with Chase and Formen as they made a remark in refrence to a sceen earlyer then the camera changed derctions and focused on the pationt. This was when I thought 'huh mabye somebody new is derecting this' I should have got the clue with the opening shot of the first act (right after opening credits) but the qualety dosent stop there the choice of music for this episode is brileant. It is barly notesable and most of the time it's barly obove silence. This under-use of the score realy drives home the on screen profomences and helps the story feal vary realistic. The story itself is quite good with notesable use of b-plots that tie in to the main nicely. They leed tence moments into funny ones and make great speculation to the open ended questions left. Not to mention how one Leeds into another is incredably smooth and there is a defanit flow to this episode that was perfected in edeting. I should mention the irony of the fact that the pationt in this episode is a carear bloger. If it is for this reason that i type this then may the gods have mercy on my… well enyway. All in all somthing worth talking about.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Actually Art?
I apologize for the following and you can stop now for time saving.
In a picture that is vary common in college dormitories there are two women kissing. Appropriately the title of this peace is called “Kiss”. Though the image is of a provocative nature I still contend that it, and others like it, are of the same intellectual value as, say, the “V–J day in Times Square”. The photo though of a more tame nature than others I am putting in this category should still be on par with other works of the time period.
Firstly the picture is a black and white, with two women, one brunet and one dark blond, on a bed in white underwear. The two models are embracing each other in a very loving fashion and are lip-locked with there eyes closed. All the attention is in there faces and that’s were the eye drifts. Evan though the models are working they seem to be vary comfortable and relaxed which helps the captured moment look more intimate. The picture as a whole seems to bring out a feeling of sexuality. Though the two subjects are female there short hair and slim futures do not suggest an extreme femininity but merely the relationship of two people in an intimate act.
Conversely the war photo has a very notable image. The two subjects being of opposite genders make this picture more conventional. With a New York background there is more for the eye to process but one finally rests on the two kissers. In contrast the sailor is wearing dark clothing while the nurse is wearing a white uniform. This takes the attention away from the faces, which are hidden, and brings it to the couple as a whole. The two parties involved are in a more forceful kiss than the other picture, this seems to lessen the sexual nature and instead it has a more romantic feel.
The question that seems to come up is if a picture has a more evocative, provocative, or erotic nature than is it as good as a bowl of fruit? I contend yes. Though the pictures provide different reactions, they still have one and that is the point of art is it not? Over the centuries there have been many styles of art and this modern version is simply a representation of our time, specifically our relationship with sex. Though some people might have trouble dealing with this relationship there is one in all of us. Over the past few decades the general populous has accepted a more liberal view on pornography. This has caused some more extreme peaces to be labeled as art that in the past would not be seen as such.
Art in all its glory is a great representation of the prosperity of the culture. From the Greek vases to the Indian religious figures there has always been an element of sex. Through time how explicit the art has been has changed but it is has always there. So therefore no matter how erotic an image can get there is still a possibility that it has an artistic value.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
You can help
This is cindof last minute but I didn't realy get it till now that one of the real powerful things a blog could do was actuly link to others and give them more traffic as aposed to trying to get all the atention. So in this weard idea I say go to theboomeffect.org it's a great couse and I'll be there all day today. My suport for Tee is rather short but only becuse of my abilety to give. I figure if I'm broke I shouldent give money so everything I can think of I'll do. Again this is cindof last minute but still go and make the effect boom. (bad pun, very nesesary) All the best to evreone realy doing something for the Morris family.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Life is like...
I got a text from an ex-girlfriend this morning. It was at about 4:00 am it said something like 'are you alive'? And so started, before the sun and lasting for about two hours, a talk. It was interesting because we got onto this strange tangent of fate and causality. The topic was so interesting I am still thinking about it now 14 hours later.
There is this conflict in me regarding fate. Since I do know a thing or two about science this is where my reasoning comes from. But my conclusions are all fate based.
Fate; the idea that all events past and future are predetermined, makes vary much sense to my reasoning as well as my beliefs. The summary goes like this; if one can see all the atoms in all of existence then one can determine where they will go. So if one knows where every atom is going to be at one time then they know where every atom is at all times. This thereby brakes down on the quantum level but it might be possible to predict all forms of matter all that is needed is to be able to observe them in all their existence, not being limited to three dimensions for one. So the possibility of the original theory still being valid holds.
On the other hand my feeling about this idea only holds water in the past or the future. As far as decisions I make in the present are concerned all I can say with confidence is there is a probability of action not A certainty no matter how much is understood. So if there are an infinite number of parallel universes then which one are we in. Whoops jumped a thought. All possible outcomes to any event not only can happen to a certain probability but they do happen it's only us that experience one of the possible outcomes. So back to it. Which one are we in!?
There is this conflict in me regarding fate. Since I do know a thing or two about science this is where my reasoning comes from. But my conclusions are all fate based.
Fate; the idea that all events past and future are predetermined, makes vary much sense to my reasoning as well as my beliefs. The summary goes like this; if one can see all the atoms in all of existence then one can determine where they will go. So if one knows where every atom is going to be at one time then they know where every atom is at all times. This thereby brakes down on the quantum level but it might be possible to predict all forms of matter all that is needed is to be able to observe them in all their existence, not being limited to three dimensions for one. So the possibility of the original theory still being valid holds.
On the other hand my feeling about this idea only holds water in the past or the future. As far as decisions I make in the present are concerned all I can say with confidence is there is a probability of action not A certainty no matter how much is understood. So if there are an infinite number of parallel universes then which one are we in. Whoops jumped a thought. All possible outcomes to any event not only can happen to a certain probability but they do happen it's only us that experience one of the possible outcomes. So back to it. Which one are we in!?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
An excerpt on my thoughts
I've been thinking about fashin lately. On and off every time I see a comercial or something the idea hits me; why do people like this. It's not like I don't care about what I whare. Some days I look like shit and some days I dress to the nines. But for me there are simple rules for good fashin if it makes you feel how you want to then it's good and all men can pull off pink. But for these high type disigners that insist on over the top consepts and clothing that's so panful the models need drugs to not let the pane show then why do we see it as fashin? The epiphony I had wich prompted this as a subject for my blog was maybe it's nesessary. Maybe we need these over the top ideas to creat the practical ones. If the consept of good fashin was soly created by popular demand then it would not get any new idias to change it. If infact we don't let the fashin world go willed like the art world then we might be stuck with the same dreck that's time tested to sell and any posebilety for faliar would be discurejed. Sound fumiliar. It's just like Hollywood produssers and other indesties we've come to take for granted won't surprise us. This sence of security is not what we need we have politics for that. So in the real world we can look at what's on the run way as a vage idea of what's going to be in the closet a vary vage idea.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Nasrudin Judge
This is an old story, its origins date back to ancient Persia. I was taught this and many others in the oral traditions of pre-written society. As an experiment i wrote it dawn to see if the qualities of oration could be transcribed on to paper. after many years i feel that some of the feeling of the oration translates.
There was a great chef that was famous in all the land. He made food that even rajahs and kings sought after and paid immense sums to enjoy. Now in his hometown he hade a wonderful restaurant which obviously brought many costumers. One particular man that adored the chef more then anyone else was a poor homeless beggar. Obviously this beggar did not have enough money even to venture into the restaurant but every day he would sit out side smelling the delicious cuisines that were served inside. This minuscule pleaser alone was the only thing he had to sustain his willingness to live. Though he was only able to smell the food he gratefully enjoyed every bit of it. Now the news of this ragged poor-man eventually reached the chef. Furious at hearing this he immediately confronted the beggar demanding that he pay for the food he had smelled. The beggar pleaded with the chef begging him to let him stay even though he had not enough to pay. Even more enraged the chef insisted this be taken up with the Mullah. Mullah Nasrudin was heed of the town and was in charge of resolving all conflicts. As the chef and beggar come before the mullah the chef explained the predicament to the mullah and stated his confidence that the mullah would favor the chef. Mullah Nasrudin slowly pondered the situation. After a while he asked the beggar to give him all the money the beggar owned. Heartbroken the beggar slowly reached into the inner folds of his ragged robes. With great care and sadness he handed the mullah the treasured and nearly empty moneybag. Calmly Nasrudin held the bag up to the chef’s face and shook it. Mullah Nasrudin then said “the sound of money for the smell of food.”
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
lay out
This is a general description of the types of posts I will be spouting to the overall cacophony that is the internet:
*even though I am incredibly new at this I do include myself in the great ranks of the blogosphere.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Episode 0
this is going to be difficult because i'm using the on screen keyboard. mine wont work proper. is is an example of wen i pe w m acual kebord. see to many buttons don't work. but never the less i'd say its apt that i cant type properly because it wouldn't help my spelling otherwise. who knows maybe ill be more consuse of my self this way. guess not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)