I’m passing on a pearl of wisdom I found very helpful in life. I learned it from Jacque Fresco. He’s an engineer who’s involved in an unorthodox movement, that while I find it fascinating, I don’t think I’d jump on board. It’s in the Futurist, Utopian, Technocrat milieu, but this isn’t about any of that. For whatever reason, in one of his talks he was discussing human interactions. What he said was that we are constantly hurt by those around us because we expect them to act in ways not in line with their past behaviour.

It feels like it’s just too obvious an idea to be useful, but it is (useful I mean). None of us have the same habits and manners. Some see tardiness as terrible, others it’s not responding to a call or ignoring basic hosting etiquette or not sharing food/drink. The list of things that can annoy and disappoint people is long.
Very Long.

Then for some reason people assume we all agree on what is proper. There is absolutely a baseline of mutual understanding people need to get along together. The problems is with the degree of which thing is more important than the others. We all have the friend who’s late, who’s stingy, who’s non-communicative, or who’s just a downer.

You are responsible for who you interact with. It is not their fault you’re friends with them. Accept them for who they are, faults and all. It’s just like with a partner, you can’t go into a relationship trying to change them into the person you want. That’s selfish and almost certainly going to fail. If you can’t deal with their faults, then you shouldn’t continue associating with them. That’s it. It’s simple.

Remember this the next time you’re waiting on that friend who’s always late. Stop stewing and learn to enjoy the time you have.

You’re wasting your life being angry at people for acting exactly as you know they will.


Strange Love

Apparently I haven’t been talking about love enough. Seeing as how often my thoughts drift to it, I need to get this one out. It’s the clearest explanation for how I love. Well the clearest I can put into these pesky words.

When you love someone, you need to love them for who they are. Trying to make them into the person you want to love is a recipe for pain. But we all change. That person you fell in love with will change.

It’s actually worse if they don’t change because stagnancy is the true death of any life.
It’s death by boredom.

So you can’t just love who they are; you need to love them and their potential future. This is what makes the happily-ever-after a rarity. You will change, they will change; and if your relationship is to last, you need to love more of them than who they were.

I consider this to be one of the key points of my rambling mind. It’s a point of confluence between the philosophic and emotional sides of myself. When I wrote about Hofstadter’s view of consciousness, part of my conviction about it is that it’s applicable. It’s not simply a theory that you navel gaze about, it’s a way to help you through life.

The True self is a Strange Loop of self-reflection. To love someone, you need to find that self in them. Really loving someone is to love the idea they have of themselves. You have to crack into their self-reflected self; you have to see them as they see themselves. Their Willpower is a concept that swirls around a core of being, pushing it in new directions. When you see that, you can help them achieve their goals in life.

Being a supportive partner is helping that Will get to where it wants to be.
And loving the result.


Silence. Pure, stark silence.

Sit in a quiet room and what do you hear? The walls might creak, the wind may howl, but even in complete silence you can hear your heartbeat.

I can’t.

Does that mean I’m dead or that I’ve just lost my hearing?

I try to open my eyes. Nothing changes.

I try again. Nothing.

I can’t feel my eyelids. Or my arms. Or my legs. Where my body was, there’s no sensation.

Oh God, I’m in a coma or something. I must be lying on some sterile hospital bed, hooked up to dozens of machines. They breathe for me, beat my heart, keep me alive. Meanwhile, I’m locked in my head; just me and this emptiness.

No, I’m getting ahead of myself. I can’t tell how long it’s been. Maybe this is just a blip. Maybe I fell and hit my head. Maybe it feels like time is passing but it’s really just that moment between the flash of stars and waking up on the ground. Like how you can dream that you have lived for years, yet wake up the next morning. So will I remember this?

What if this happens every time we lose consciousness? You spend an eternity in the darkness and wake up with no memory of it. Your brain suppresses it to keep you from going mad.

And maybe deluding myself into thinking this is normal is the first sign of madness.

Continue reading

The Truth

Syadasti: Everything is true in some sense and false in some sense.

It’s a Discordian tenet that addresses the multiplicity of truth. Given it’s religious nature, it has several meanings and purposes depending on who you’re talking to. I’m going to share my interpretations, with all my personal biases included.

At any given time, things can be seen from multiple scales: molecular, cellular, macro, hardware, software, etc, etc. Nothing makes one view more true or false than another. There are things that are only apparent from certain views. You can’t understand the weather by looking at molecules of air and you can’t see consciousness in a neuron. Those two are examples of the effect being drowned in the details. Conversely we’ve made strides in medicine and physics by analyzing specific cells or particles. Only seeing them macroscopically would obscure the specific particle interactions.

Consciousness is only made sensible when viewed as brain software. Clearly the software exists because of the hardware; it can’t physically function without a medium. To try and analyze it by ‘reading’ the hardware would be like interpreting a novel using facts about letters. The meaning is obviously in the words. I can’t make words without letters, but I read the words to get meaningful information.

Newtonian, Relativistic, Quantum; they’re all just different scales. Use Quantum rules on the scale of a solar system and your results make no sense. Use Newtonian at that scale and you’ll have consistent errors. But it’s the only way predict the path of an electron. All provide meaningful ‘truths’ when used in the correct situations.

True in some sense and false in some sense.