Your Voice Running Through My Veins

I wanted to post something today, but couldn't decide what. I finally decided I would leave it and try again tomorrow, but then something really sad happened. I thought I'd indulge in the spirit of the internet and share.

So, some random guy texted me today. "Hey bro it's lucas"

I go, "wrong number"

He replies, "really?"

I'm like LOL if you don't trust your friends why the hell do you have them? So I reply, "first off, I'm not a dude, secondly, I don't know anyone by your name lol sorry"

He goes, "O cool sorry do you know baileys number" 

I'm like DUDE WTF I DONT KNOW YOU HOW THE HELL WOULD I KNOW SOME CHICKS NUMBER...and BAILEY WHO?!

So I say, "no idea who that is"

He says, "Oh sorry ill delet this contact"

I'm like, NO SHIT. So I say, "k thanks"

I didn't get a reply. But, really dude get the point I DONT FRACKIN KNOW YOU STOP SPAMMING ME. I have to admit this is probably the best example of how stupid people are. If I'm not who you think I am then why should I know the people you know? And if you don't know who I am, why would you even bother asking (especially without a last name)? Like, come on people turn on the room upstairs and see what happens! It'll be a whole new world!

Okay, but seriously, have people really gotten that stupid? I mean, I'm telling you it's not the right number, I AM NOT the person you're looking for. Why would you ask "really?" No, I'm just trying to be funny. I thought I'd play with you a bit. Okay, fine, so you're testing the waters. But when I reconfirm that what I said was true, let it go! Stop wracking up my cellphone bill. You may have unlimited texts but some people work for a living and cannot afford that. So, stop wasting my time, money, and energy and get on with your life. Someone obviously either changed their number a long time ago and didn't tell you (maybe that's your hint that you need better friends), or they gave you the wrong number ON PURPOSE. Either way, you obviously need to surround yourself with better people.

The state of the human mind is so unfortunate. Punctuation, grammar, spelling, and real communication has become obsolete. For someone such as myself, I find it difficult to bring my thoughts down to 140 characters, but it certainly doesn't help that I use full-length, proper words and sentences. If I could feel comfortable using "hey bro cu @ b's 2nite 4 prty" it would likely be easier to fit my words into short sentences. But you know what, it took a lot of focus and thought just to write that example, much longer then it takes to write a full sentence. Is it worth it? I don't think so. 

Here's to hoping that the stupidity will stop, and quick. My phone bill doesn't like it, and neither does my brain. We are better than this, people!

u·ni·ty
noun, plural -ties.

1. the state of being one; oneness.

2. a whole or totality as combining all its parts into one.

3. the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification.

4. absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character.

5. oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number ofpersons; concord, harmony, or agreement.

On one hand unity seems to be something that people invent as a convention by which they do politics and overcome antagonism, but on the other hand the imposing of unity on people seems to produce a new antagonism between those that are united (citizens) and those who don’t fit in the unity (criminals/discontents). So on one hand the idea of unity seems like a communist idea, radically inclusive and caring for everyone according to their needs, but on the other hand the idea of unity seems like an authoritarian idea, radically totalizing and granting exception to the ruling class.

-4inquiries (4inquiries) wrote in philosophy, 2012-01-21 21:47:00

“There are ages in which the rational man and the intuitive man stand side by side, the one in fear of intuition, the other with scorn for abstraction. The latter is just as irrational as the former is inartistic.”

I don't think either of us realized how long moving in would take, or how hard it would be on us. But we are most of the way to having all the boxes that aren't ours out of the room (with minimal confrontations). Tomorrow we plan to putty, buy paint and tools (and maybe carpet) and then maybe it'll feel like we've accomplished something. That's all I have for today, because I'm exhausted. More later.

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPhone.

The world is a funny place. It's interesting how fast change comes about. I remember in grade-school my teacher told me that by the time I was in high school all students would have their own computers (laptops) and would use them for the entirety of their education. There would be no more writing. He was half right. 

People also said, often, that China would take-over and become the world superpower, America having fallen. Now we can see that change happening. I was taught practically nothing about world economics, Asian influences, what Asia has to offer politically, economically, socially. Other than: "communism is bad". Looking back on the education I got, it really did me no good now that I'm out in the world. I'm sure many other people are feeling the same way. We are taught about what is, not what could or will be. Now that I have some life experience, I'd have to say communism is all that bad. Sure, dictators suck, but as a political structure communism often does better for it's people than capitalism. Who wouldn't want free healthcare, education, daycare, etc.?

I also remember how ridiculous the idea of having a female president was. No one ever considered it. I remember, while watching TV with my parents one day, turning and saying "has a woman ever been president?" and they furrowed their brows and looked at me funny, wondering what the heck I was talking about. Now, Mauritius has a "...[n]ew gender law [that] specifies that at least one-third of candidates in local elections must be women." (Not counting the accident that tried to run with Obama, women are capable)

We see all these changes happening, at an increasing rate due to technology and interconnectedness. Yet, we still teach our children little about what they should expect, about different types of political and economic systems and their potential benefits, NOT their downsides and how they've destroyed entire countries. We are all* brought up to believe that capitalism and a mixed-economy is the way to go. I truly hope that this isn't the case in the future, that we can escape biases in teaching and just present the facts.

It seems as though all I was taught is no longer in effect, and if it is it's quickly declining. By the way, I graduated high-school in 2010.

*"All" being Americans and Canadians.

First off, I have to say that I don't disagree with anarchy. In fact, I support anarchy in the strictly political sense and idealism. My problem with it is that I don't trust people. Especially individuals with power. If every individual had "power", the world would be much more interesting. But it's not about the individual having power, the way I see it. I see it as an individual not having power. That the world gets to make decisions on whats best in their communities. I've always said that communism would work if there wasn't a single person running it. Which, in essence, is anarchism. Don't believe me? Watch this video. Don't worry, I'll wait.

Welcome back. So the issue today is this article by James Morton. I agree with everything he says. But even the title: "The Liberals and the primary option: Open nominations, open society", made me think anarchism. As I already said, I support anarchism. Most people, especially in this day and age, do not. They see it as a "rebellious" act that is reflected by teenagers, goths, etc. The idea of anarchism is so far flung from what it really means that people see is as anarchy, or "political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control" (Dictionary). Anarchism isn't disorder, it is merely a different kind of order, an order of the people. We've always known that liberalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, etc. are all on the left of the political scale. Generally, as mentioned in Morton's article, the left is frowned upon. They've been made into 'sinners'; 'crazies'; people that are unable to get anything done, that will ruin the society. But, that's not really true. Look at Michael Ignatieff. He was liberal. In fact, he was a very great man who was respected and loved by "all" who knew him personally. It's been said that "you didn't have to agree with his political views to like him as a man." (Year-end Panel on Politics, The Current, CBC Radio, Dec 29, 2011) So my problem is the obvious backlash I see from the title alone, let alone the contents of this article, calling this man an anarchist and this idea of the primary system anarchism. Which, in a sense it is, in the way that it gives the people more say. But, they're giving say to who runs the party. Which is a completely democratic, un-anarchist system. Do not mix up the two, people. Don't blur those lines and try to read into it. A primary system to elect the party leader is a fantastic idea, and is in fact being considered by the public as a powerful way to vote on all forms of politics, including bills. Personally, I think that if the system can monitor this type of voting process efficiently it is a great idea. If they cannot, it's not worth it. But this is merely a step towards the left, not a jump or a leap and it would provide more access of the public to having a political say, which everyone complains they don't have enough of.

Let evolution happen, people. It's time to let technology serve us in something more important. Embrace it.

In her book, Punk Science: Inside the Mind of God, Dr Manjir Samantha-Laughton explains particle entanglement as a connection of two particles that will cause them to have "equal and opposite spin" (pg. 73). But she goes on to state that you can't know which state the particle is in until you measure it. Einstein recognized that determining the spin of the "first particle determines the spin of the second" (pg. 73). He recognized that this meant that the particles are communicating instantaneously, no matter the distance, likely faster than the speed of light. If this is true, then it completely violates his theory of relativity. Later on John Bell and Alain Aspect and team proved that "entangled particles do display these spooky non-local connections" (pg. 74).

Two things bother me about this, first of all, it seems as though someone or something is mocking us. That they are making things appear to be relatively "easy" to figure out, and that we are able to find the answers, only to prove them wrong by saying "Haha, it's actually WAY more complex than that."

Secondly, if this is true, it could prove Singularity, among other things. I don't like the idea that I could 'upload' my thoughts to the "consciousness" and someone else could read it, or "like" it. Let alone have the ability to do that to everyone else. The human mind is meant to be a private thing. We aren't mean to be able to express what we are actually feeling, or have people really understand the truth of what we are saying (or lack of). Non-local connections are exactly as Einstein said: "spooky". Only, we are just coming to realize the they are much spookier than we could expect.

Imagine trying to go out on a first date. All your anxiety and nerves would be passed on to the person you're meeting with (or at least have the ability to be). So not only would you have your own anxiety to worry about you have the other persons as well, which would make things twice as awkward. Plus, how could you possibly prevent "hacking", or mind control, or "false advertising" ("Come join us, we know how to make you a stronger, better, person."). I don't want the contents of my mind pouring out to the rest of the world any more than they already do in the collective unconscious. I mean, it's weird enough to have the same topic come up with completely separate individuals in a day let alone have them "tap in" to your every thought and feeling. Imagine the overload we'd have.

Of course, all that is dependant on the fact that our brains couldn't handle it. But, we can't possibly know that. If the most basic of particles is able to communicate non-locally, the human brain should definitely have the capability. Perhaps it's only a matter of getting the brain able to use more than 10% at any given time. Maybe then it could handle a whole ton of things that we can't even imagine.

We know so little. About our world, ourselves, and everything we're made of. Let alone everything else. It's scary, spooky even.