Imagicentre

media type="custom" key="20987484" =**This is the Imagicentre, the core of this wiki, the original piece until it evolved into something bigger.**=
 * A message to Anti-Storks -OR- Warkology for Dummies **
 * ===This is not the page to be edited save for myself [I called dibs]. If y'all want to come up with your own crazy schtick, go to Openbrain, or if you're really feeling edventurous [yes, that e is intentional, don't ask me what it stands for, 'cause I'll remind myself to say "I forgot"], head over to the Renegade Thinker page. Or, if you just want to add random stuff not necessarily related to the home, Openbrain and Renegadethinker pages, you can add your own. It's OK to think outside the bubble, and if you want to make your own super-cool, personalized pages, I welcome that too. I wonder what the Bestower would post; now //that// would be somethin' [no external pressure, Instructors]===



** “The River”/”Ball of Nothing and Everything”/”Venture of the Deep”/”Infinite Reflections” **
 * Day 1 [8/30/12] **

“Despair, for thou are on the precipice of defeat, over the bitter sea of foreboding, that which casts all of Man into the irons of eternal sleep”.
__Why does the hero slay the monster? Only the monster is real, because he is alone, master of his own universe.__ Derivatives-I can think of the word but not the initial calculus term, the word which describes what moves nations and cripples them. Who truly understands physics? It encompasses the ideas of the forces and laws that govern the universe, the complexity of its entirety may be more than any mortal is allowed to comprehend. Creativity is not created-it is a collage of borrowed ideas molded into something else, which causes a new concept to blossom. Great artists had particular events in their pasts that inspired them to do what others could not. Originals and masters of their era, it is not hard to believe that something else besides pure skill and experience explains their genius. Insanity, perhaps?* “Statistics: a Precise and Logical Way of Stating a Half-truth Inaccurately”. Those words ring in my ears. Despite its faults arising from defining parameters and selecting from the least biased group as a representation of a populace, it does say something about everyone in general, but not the whole story. Like calculus, it attempts to tackle the impossible of our time using approximations, a static machine dealing with dynamic input. Perhaps a dynamic engine would be impossible or impractical for our use, as humans can never exceed their limits without first surpassing time and themselves. Nihilism is mainly denial, a Calvin on a bad day. Existentialism is a better path to understanding, yet only a glimpse into the world through the surface. Solipsism may be our best bet to true grasp, for we indeed create our own worlds, what our minds interpret as information passes through our senses, though existentialism is driven more by optimism [hope], and a sense of purpose. Solipsism borders between rationalism and the imagination of Narcissus, which isn’t necessarily inherently bad but is inevitable worse. If Imagination is the savant and the simultaneous useful/useless fun guy, then Reason is the Savior and Ugly Duckling. That is how the world goes. In a speak rife with waffle, anything can be derived from said waffle with the proper perspective. Truth and/or rationality are irrelevant, if the sole purpose is to construe meaning without destination, journey for the sake of travelling. There must be more to it than that. Narcissus gazes into the water and see perfection, a god. I look and see the shadow of things that could be or have been. Am I truly lost? Inspiration doesn’t just come from desperation or some possibly misplaced sense of earnestness/purpose. It can be found in the mines of the subconscious, sometimes without an explanation for its birth. Is such a thing really necessary? Why not creativity for the hell of it, for the sake of creativity? Is it really so hard to admit/believe some inventions don’t have a reason, don’t need a reason, a story behind the finale? It is not hollow or worthless creation if one looks at it in the right way**.** Why do people think we are so special? If a universe within a multiverse happens by chance to harbor a specific set of physics that at some point in time enable the sustainability of life, and intelligent beings evolve, it is just random, not necessarily pre-ordained. It is because we are here we question our existence, especially when we learn more about the universe we live in and uncover ever more mysteries. Of course we would want to think there’s more to this story; we want it to be a universe where we are not alone, more than just a consequence of probability. In a way it’s arrogant to assume we would understand any part of the universe, since there is always the possibility of more than meets the eye, unless there is some external or internal conflict dealing with ourselves, which may be the case. We can only take one peek at a time. Stream of consciousness isn’t a linear chain of action/consequence, it si more of a continuously misguided direction of thought and memory, reaching outwards an inwards simultaneously. But it isn’t in accordance with the current mode of communication, which renders it impractical and is in and of itself a loose cannon. “Why so serious?” Or the creator doesn’t want to delve into the other parts of memory and dream state. He may not choose to divulge all his secrets, which would slay the whole idea of something else, something more, leave a feeling of enigma. Tantalistic. Will be different from the last. Art is a way of communicating, expressing all sorts of ideas. It can also have no inherent meaning, but what the viewer makes of it. ["There is no fate but what we make”]. All sorts of mediums and an infinite number of ways to go about them, a versatile mode of projection of thought and identity. True [relative in this context] art should not be able to be deciphered at first glance, rather, it should require a trained eye to see many things in the layers of form, yet still eave mystery, to be rich in content. A classic is a goal of a multilayered rendering. “Fun is found in the abstract, the weird, the insane. [“..It’s like gravity: All it takes is a little push.”] Does a design need to elicit a referential, or can it be purely imaginative? Does a suggestive theme really give humor to something, like how the Higgs boson endows all particles with mass? Can it feature both related and unrelated themes, or does it have to be conventional and strict? Something that incorporates a principle and something else, an object, should in theory attract an eye, yet at the same time hold so much potential for rejection. I don’t know. A Protean form is raw, simple, reflects initial inspiration. It is only through perspiration that the idea can flower into something more, greater, transition from the subconscious to the higher levels of brain. Life has no “other” purpose, other than to continue its existence. What we do is up to us. Many things are out of our reach, yet the things that aren’t we can deal with. We must handle our lives with what we know and have, to pretend and have this artificial human construct, if we are to obtain the illusion of happiness, or at least be in the constant pursuit of it, for we lose our humanity without some purpose by which to live by. A life is no life without sacrifices of some kind and a specific type of response to certain events. We must find our own purpose, or forge it. We despair without hope and meaning, since we are creatures that evolved with such sentiments in our genes. And despair leads to giving up, depression to loss, fatal inactivity that guarantees some extinction of anything and everything. Why do we create? Is it just Man’s way of overcoming sheer boredom, or is there more to it? Maybe art is a creation and inherent drive in us, not just for communicating but also for establishing a Purpose, which is crucial to the lives of the many. We are not the only organisms that do it, yet we are the ones who seem to do it more profoundly and in excess as compared to so-called “lower” animals. Maybe we are the ignorant beings, wasting precious “time” with this fascination of ours; while the rest of the kingdom goes on with daily struggles fro survival. Then again, such an institution cannot be easily destroyed, so best to take advantage of it for the moment, to indulge in something that may just be a bad joke. I do wonder if the current system of language will inevitably be replaced someday by the language of machines, the binary system. Or maybe will invent something else, more efficient to convey, yet have more nuances and connotations than any modern language. Although we would want to avoid George Orwell’s Newspeak, so we would not be robots at least in communication and in thought. The two must work together: Efficiency/Rationality and Playfulness/Art. Art may be another thing besides language and technology that will evolve, assuming we aren’t extinct in the next millennia by any sort of catastrophe. Or it will be deemed as unnecessary, useless, and stupid. Who am I to criticize, right? Of all people, I should probably be defending the role of art in our microcosm, yet I don’t. Conformity isn’t always good or bad, but this time I stand a neutral role, observing, rationalizing, and looking at multiple perspectives [though I only show one or two in this case for the sake of time]. If we are to examine such deeply rooted [in human nature] subjects, and then we should attempt to take a different outlook, and perhaps try to see it from the opposite nature. It takes outside perspective to shake things up, otherwise things get stagnant fast and there’s no progress. If you see evolution of nature and technology and of other things in that manner, many things at least appear to make sense. Take a look at //Grendel//, a fresh take on the identity of the outsider/monster, and it opens your mind if you’re up to it. This opens up the Dilemma of Conformity: only one may be allowed to stand out in some way, any more and nonconformity is nonexistent. It raises the question of whether true nonconformity exists, or if it is simply an ideal. Then again, any apparent form of nonconformity usually turns out not to be so. Even the simple idea of trying to stand out from the crowd in every way inevitably leads to the logical conclusion that it isn’t nonconformity. It also ties into the subject of identity and our strive to discover/make ourselves, akin to searching for a purpose in life. And no, who I am and what I do are not mainly comprised of a quest to be the anomaly. Rather, it makes up a small part of my so-called identity, but it is by no means defining of me. My way of thinking came about from years of reading and my own mode of reasoning and imagining, both spontaneous and molded by past events. There is always more to the story-more than just one worldview, more than any one of us could fathom, since we are not the individual we are trying to understand. At least, the individual in question should be the one who knows themselves best, otherwise they are lost. Admitting certain things about themselves or not is a related matter but will not be explored…for now. =Day 2 [ 8/31/12] = I am fond of the joke “__In physics, to make life easier, treat everything as a sphere in a vacuum under ideal conditions__”. It seems ironic to me how before we embark to real-life approximations, we first pretend the world is ideal, much to our convenience, until the day we face the truer stuff [the eye of the hurricane, the calm before the storm]. Why go through the trouble now when you could go mad later, right? A reasonable transition from the laughable to the daunting. So fitting for a subject of higher mathematics. Although one must admit it is only logical, to walk before you run, otherwise if the opposite were true things would be very different. Good and evil are meaningless concepts; the reason being that our enemies are often human beings like us, irrational creatures we are. It is the unknown, the different, the new which we fear and so despise because of our fear. Ever-changing morals and ethics that reflect the situation we are dealing with at the present and with conflicts of the past. Arbitrary genetics and evolution, as well as sheer randomness, endowed us with the “programming” full of rational and irrational instincts, such as the fight-or-flight instinct, which have been etched into many kinds of organisms, yet we are supposed to be the higher order of animal [only partly true, but for the sake of counter-argument]. Maybe the generic lunatic or sociopath is more than what we give them credit for. Perhaps they are the ones ahead of the curve. We can never know the whole story anyway, so we can only hypothesize but never fully prove our ideas. After all, jumping to the Isle of Conclusions is never a destination worthy of your precious time on this rock. Not to mention if we are ever to have any hope of surpassing ourselves, we first must know our limits [which may be something we can only approach but never reach]. This invokes memory of a scientist’s proof, one that said any given system with the capability to understand is unable to comprehend everything or even itself to begin with. Only time will tell whether what we think we are doing right will lead to success or failure, and whether we will die off as a species or not. We may be near our full running capacity, in terms of ability and potential. Brain, for example. In order to increase mental capacity, we must increase the number of neurons, which makes the brain larger, slower-processing. To increase the power of learning, more connections must be made between existing brain cells, which delays the speed of thought, yet would probably increase our ability to learn from past events and one’s own thought. If we desire to augment the speed at which our thoughts travel, shorter connections or more dense concentration of neurons must be enabled, which would mean the brain would become smaller and more susceptible to long and short-term damage. All of the options would most likely require more energy to sustain, felling it from its wondrous efficiency, as well as vulnerability to other faults. Who knows? Maybe we will someday evolve into a higher form of existence, and discover a whole new universe within ours [which the term here encompasses all sorts of different yet related connotations], or not. It is a limit we are either waiting for [for it to be reached], or we will work towards it, and live our lives in the meantime, instead of wasting life thinking about the currently impossible/inevitable.

=Day 3 [9/9/12]= Whenever I think back on reports I've read or heard about of the subject of current media and its desensitization of young people 's empathic sides, it reminds me of the book //The Art of Killing// [I think that's what it was killed, I read it freshman year, and I can't remeber the author or the exact title]. The book talked about how many soldiers on the battlefield struggled mentally when it came to eliminating the enemy. It argued that it is not in our nature to kill so readily, and because of that many soldiers often have a difficult time pulling the trigger. When the confrontation is direct and very close to the person, we can't grasp the concept of ending someone else's life. Our enemies are human beings too, and it is a giant division between being unable to kill and being able to do so. Even if we are aware that our own lives our in danger, most of us can't kill another person without battling with their own conscience at the moment and in the aftermath. This phenomenon can at least partly explain why it is easier to be on a plane or in some war-vehicle and being able to kill en masse. It is because we are more removed from the situation, that we can convince ourselves that the figures on the screen aren't real, and that it won't affect us if we push the button. It is a question of distancing ourselves from the dilemma, a dilemma of morals/ethics and brutal reality. There is another article, one from a Scientific American, that talked about the dilemma of choosing to save the many over the sacrifice of the few, and vice versa, that also talked about how distancing oneself from the scenario affects the outcome. How do you judge who to elimiate and who to save, especially when the people involved are either perfect strangers or familiar people? There are many examples, on of them being the war scenario: You and a bunch of refugees are hiding in the midst of a battle, and there are patrols going on and about searching to kill you and your fellows. They are close to your hideout, when suddenly a baby starts to cry. Should you cover its mouth until the patrols go away, and run the risk of suffocating it, or should you leave it alone, at the risk of sacrificing the group? It's a mental dilemma of balancing what is mroe valuable, while at the same time facing the questionable act of killing any one person. In socialistic and evolutionary terms, sacrifing one for the good of many bears more weight than its opposite, but it would be nearly impossible to think in utilatarian terms when you are actually there, and even if you do, there is a very good chance your mind will be in turmoil for a long time afterwards. A similar scenario is this [modified because my memory doesn't have the original version, and the fact that the mind edits certain parts of a memory according to how relevant one thing is over another and how your mind thinks of it]: There is a railroad track, with one part branching into two ends. One end leads to a group of seven, who happen to be helpless and immobile, and the other end to an indivual or smaller group, let's say from 2-5 emebers. There is a train on the way, and you must choose which path the train should take by the push of a lever. Again, it's difiicult to choose who to save, the many or the few. But what about this: the same scenario, except with a twist- There is only one end, with the group of seven. The only way to save them is by pushing somebody into the path of the train, which will stop it. This presents a complication to the dilemma, since you have to directly kill someone, instead of activating a lever. This is the phenomenon of distancing oneself from the dilemma, which causes hesitation and possibly a different outcome. The person with the decision could choose not to push the guy, and end up killing the other seven. If it was with the lever, your mind could deceive itself, and make it less mentally challenging to kill the individual on the other end. Another complication would be the inclusion of someone you know versus strangers. What if the one person you had to push or change the track to was a friend, a family member or mate? A probable outcome would be to choose that individual over the group, since you actually know that person, and it is hard to value strangers over someone you know. In the aftermath, the saved indivual would be with you, happy over the fact that you didn't snuff out their life, which would dampen the effects of sacrificing the group. If you did the reverse, the act of sacrificing the known person would haunt you for the rest of your life, probably more so than the opposite outcome, unless you really believe in the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, regardless of your ties to known persons. Yet another crucial factor to decision-making is the hesitation before the decision. What if you can't decide, and the killing-thing ends up killing the group or individual you didn't want to end up dying? Or even everybody, for that matter?That indecision is fatal to the others, but actually choosing is an equally, if not a scarier proposition, which the Decider has to battle with at the moment. One more factor is whether or not you can walk away from the decision, regardless of what happens to the people on the brink of death? That is a question of cowardice [the fight-or-glight question] and bravery, and which path you choose, that will affect the outcome of the dilemma. You could think of an infinite number of variations of this dilemma, with different variables affecting the decision, but at their core the questionis essentially the same. Now, what does this have to do with the media portrayal of violence, killing and strong imagery? Well, many people have argued violent video games and movies and whatnot have affected young people in a way that hasn't affected young people of past generations, as in deteriorating their sense of empathy [i.e., thinking one is the center of the universes, unfamiliar or other peole are unimportant, and being selfish overall]. While I agree with that, I doubt any one person could just pick up a gun and kill someone, or choose not do anything and having that indirectly kill someone. We're still human, after all. It isn't anybody who can handle such a scenario well, or without self-consequences [in this case, we're not considering external repercussions, for the sake of addressing what's more important to our original query]. It takes a trained, mentally fit person of war or killing, one who could sitll have empathy, or a full-blown sociopath. Most people I don't believe could handle the weight of such an act, even though most people can turn against others if their survival or the survival of something close to them is at stake [fear and misinformation and irrationality are powerful motivators]. The again, it all depends on the situation and what variables are involved and who is the decider. Both arguments over these scenarios are convinving, and it is probably true it could go either way, depending on the circumstances. The world can't be determined by one static system of rules, after all. The world is a dynamic place, where anything is possible, whether events happen by sheer randomness or on purpose [ **Laplace's Demon** comes to mind, butting heads with quantum mechanics, but that will be a story for later].

=Day 4 [9/9/12]= [This was supposed to be written the day before, but since I had a lot of homework, it was to be posted for this day. I will give the title for the subject, for the sake of time, but the expansion will be available on Monday]. The subject matter of the day will be about music, and how it seems to be ingrained in the human species, and how it affects our behavior and mental state. A full dissertation shall be postponed indefinitely, until I have the time and renewed interest to pursue this idea.

=Day 5 [9/11/12]= Due to unforeseen [and yet observed but not necesarily followed] circumstances, I did not continue what I had started the day [or days?] before. For the sake of time, I will discuss something else briefly. The Gate-Keeper inquired as to why I flail my hands around, especially when communicating. Why does this happen? Well...I recall a certain article in **Scientific American**, talking about some of the features in autism, concerning the repetition of behaviours a random observer would denote as rather curious. Why do they do it? I believe [since I don't remeber the actual reason-lie, I don't remember the whole reason, and it is something I have observed myself] it sis because a kinesthetic action is a physical expression of finding something that is reliable, and comforting. For example, using a spoon, any kind of spoon, and multiples of that kind at that, and repeatedly filling them with water is one behaviour of a person with autism. These people usually have something that they do that they like doing, something that is static and not volatile in any way. of course, this isn't just limited to people with autism. It applies to many of us, but in [to us, anyway, maybe we're insane and they're not] less extreme ways. For us and them, it is something we do to occupy ourselves, a hobby of sorts. One common example is foot-tapping. Many of us do this, especially when we're bored, because it is something we can do that is entertaining on a small level. It has some value, and it is easy to do, nearly subconscious. Another reason for its existence is that I believe, as a part of evolution, it is a way of subtly conveying whatstate of mind we are in. It could say "Look! I'm bored! Help" or "I'm off in my own world, and I'm not paying attention", or maybe even"Don't disturb me, I'm occupied", or anything else [could be "i'm not paying attention to whatever my surroundings are telling me" or "I'm in an undesirable position, I'm trying to ease the tension by relying on this habit"].It can also be a way of denoting stress or something else going on through our heads, especially during a speech. Just like hand gestures and facial movements during speeches, where they convey authority, or how you're trying to emphasize a point, repetitive gestures convey some social meaning without the awareness of the executor. It is something in our comfort zone, and some kinds of people practice it more than others [I'm not giving one very exemplary type away jsut yet, hang one, me]. In fact, they are most likely closely related or the same thing [but some specific kind of gesture, I don't know at this moment]. One special example is me and my friend Christopher Wido, who I call Christoffen, Duke of the HIgh Order. When I'm stressed, or fumbling my speaking, or excited about some thing, especially when communicating that something, I twitch my hands together and aorund in the air, a habit that probably doesn't change too much asides from the universal foot-tapping, and when I'm imagining something [I used to anyway, I stopped it because my parents and other people questioned it too much and afterwards I felt very, very uncomfortable], I hold my hands close to my face and make motions in the air, to make it feel as if whatever I'm conjuring inmy mind, be it some character or event is tangible, makes it seem more gorunded. My hands feel sore afterwards, but I remember something more effectively with this method. It is something in mycomfort zone [used to be], and I do it with whatever my mind is thinking of at the moment. Now, the Duke does something similar; what he does, when he's excited or telling me something really coll or playing with Transformers [so do I], he shakes his hands around and makes sound effects [pretty good ones, too, I must admit; I used to do them toountil I realized the ones in my head were of higher-definition and didn't suck like mine], and also starts pacing [I usually stay in one area]. Whenever I'm talking to someone not in the same area, I pace around, something repetitive and in cirlces, for that matter. Other people do it, depending on their mental state and physical setting/physical projection of the state [could be nodding or even msucle-spasms inthe extremities]. Not all inthe same way, but I would be willing to wager on the Foundation Rule and Waffle Supposition and Wack Theorem that it doesn't apply just to a minority, but everyone, for that matter [or maybe not, I've yet to observe many of my acquaintances and friends do something even reminiscent of what Chris or I do]. Musically-inclined pople tap a pen/pencil, or some object, with a distinguishable beat [besides a constant rhythm], and since music has relations to the math parts of our cerebral cortex, mathematically-mided people do it too[I'm not saying this is universal or true, I'm hypothesizing, generalizing to reason with myself]. This subject of repetitive behaviors with social implications can include any kind of physical action, from humming to even talking itself, because that, in and of itself, is something comforting to do fro some people. I digress....

=Day 6 [9/13/12]= What is sound? Sound is the transfer of kinetic energy through a medium in a sinusoidal pattern. That means that sound is simply interaction between atoms/molecules, and the pattern that results we interpret as sound, a very special kind of noise, the noise of noise. We humans have a threshold of hearing, so any sound that has a small enough frequency/wavelength is imperceptible to our pitiful noise-detection devices. If so, can sound be considered sound at the atomic level? That is, between atwo or a few more atoms? Or would it be considered just insignificant elastic collisions? If we could "hear" attosound, how would we describe it? After all, since an atom is vibrating/resonating billions of times a second [actually thousands of times more than that, I think, probably inthe quadrillions] [Brownian motion], it could be graphed as a function resonating at mintute time intervals, with such small units that would be worthless to us otherwise, would we interpret it as just a very fast tone? If it were possible to observe it in real-time through some sort of optical enhancement, would it still be considered a variation of what is familiar to us? Or would it take on a whole other meaning, definition? I ask, since I would like to see the eventual contruction of a true sound generator. On my terms, a sound generator could make any sort of sound by calculating all the collisions between atoms in a set of atoms, predicting the propagation of waves throught the set [accounting constructive and destructive interference] and then into some medium, presumably a standard atmosphere. for instance, certain materials transfer sound differently, because of their atomic physical and chemical properties. Atomic weight/mass, size, reactivity [and many other properties] and influence on other atoms must be factored into this sound generator in order to ensure accurate production of sounds. At the larger level, the amount and arrangement/structure of atoms in the set would also be taken into account, as they have a heavy influence on the emittance of sound waves [not to mention the shape of the set, its ambient and physical state, and any foreign particles passing through that would interfere with waves travelling]. Here are the steps thought of to begin the operation of such a generator. Why do I ask? It all started when I wondered superficially-consciously how they determine what sounds to use in media when depicting CGI subject matter. How do they know something sounds like //this//? What if it sounds more realistic like //that//? To my disappointment yet meeting-of-realistic-expectations, sounds are used to portray subject matter in a certain way. Whether or not something sounds cooler this way, or will attract hearers' attention in a specific way, are usually the primary reasons why developers choose some sounds over others. The objective is to maximize appeal, of course. To exaggerate whatever theme desired, or to achieve some sort of milestone. One such instance is the sounds they come up with for sci-fi weapons. For the iconic Star Wars standard blaster, people would strike hammers on telephone cables, creating curious sounds, that would later be digitally modified for use in films. As the years pass by and preferences change, as well as content and expectation of the media by a culture, sounds are thought of and pursued in a different manner. Now, sci-fi weapons aren't necesarily high-pitched sharp tones, they try to make them sound more local, caused by some sequence of mechanics. The best example I can think of is The Transformers. Back during the Golden Age of Generation 1 [1985-1986ish], the transformers were given a novel arrangement of sounds, to make them seem futuristic, with noise that most observers would never think about or recognize. When they walked or were in hand-to-hand combat, a few sounds were given to mimic the interactions of metal with other solids, but were obviously made using small to medium size objects. In the live action films, more consideration was given to more accurate sound-representations, since the goal was to make them as realistic-looking and sounding as possible. In the first film, many differnet, and many repeated, sounds were employed, using contact between all osrts of metal surfaces and objects, to try to recreate what we would imagine of metal parts in dynamic onctact with eachother, as well as some electronic sounds. Of course, at the moment there's no feasible way of determining what they would actually sound like [for many reasons that will be discussed on a later date], but we give them credit for effort and presentation. Many real and proabably made up sounds are used, some better-sounding than others, some not. Some sounds were fairly popular, since they were repeated various times throughout the films [though not all at the smae pitch, one sound or sequence of sounds was most likely slightly altered every time it was used]. In the third film, the amount of sounds proably humbled the previouos films, as more characters and batlles were added, but many more sounds were cloned or repeated, as I'm aware that they are expensive to produce or alter, and they gave a certain association with certain characters and moments in the plot. I personally am enamored with the special effects in the films, and would liek to do something in respect to that someday. That is why I wondered if one could go about designing and using a sound-generator, in order to achieve maximum realism with a CGI concept. Sure, the iconic oldie transforming sound is nostalgic, which they began to incorporate in the second and thid films with more realistic sounds, but one has a thirst for more, a hunger for evermore realism [since graphics are ahead fo the sound department]. And the applicaiton may not be just for video games and movies, but according to the Foundation Rule and Inevitability Axiom, there are other useful applications, from technology to maybe even medical applications-who knows, there may be something like sound-therapy [if there isn;t already, forgive my ignorance], just like there is light, shock, physical and so many other kinds of therapy. I doth desire the utmost mind-chase with such trivial matters. Something similar could be used for a light-replicator, but that will be for a later playdate. =Day 7 [10/7/12]= A set of dialogues between the Free Man and the Walden Warden W-I had a thought. We really don't need be conscious of our sight. Our bodied act on things out of instinct [e.g. flinching] so why do we need cognitively ["see" something when we could sense things in a different way?]. A hormonal shift of some sort [could be a possible replacement]. F-I sugest mass-sensitive organs, versus the light ones we currently posess [eyes]. F-I fear the realization of an empty existence, because then everything is nothing, and we lose motivation, purpose, identity, life. W-The empty existence is a blank canvas with which one can paint his own purpose, motive and life. F-yes, but all for naught, merely expressing life's worthless struggle ti hang on a little longer. Insignificant specks in the cosmos, all part of a pitiful and pitiless existence. We persevere, even if we know true death to be inevitable, all because we believe we're here and [that] we make a true difference. All roads of realism [rational thought in the ultimate] lead to this inevitability, my dear friend. Not impossible, inevitable. F-If there's anyone who can fill any void, it's you [sticking out tongue] W-If you can find truth in anything, why should you let an inevitability to find the purpose of life stop you? F-Because we see what isn't there-whatever is there or what we create won't stand against Time, and that defeats any significant purpose [no matter the degree of truth it has], regardless of the magnitude it affects the cosmos. If we create the universe, we both die eventually. What is created must also be destroyed [if not, everything is even stranger to us than it already is, and we are even more lost and pathetic]. W-Not true. With Time we can find a way to defeat time and destruction. We've come so far in just 100 years. We're making strides towards inhabiting or controlling the rest of the multiverse. With our unmatched collective knowledge of existence, we will win. I'm sure of it, because if no one has hope for the future nothing will be accomplished. A negative outlook on existence is the reason why destruction dictates us. Right now you are only taking us deeper towards defeat. Hold your chin up high and walk fearlessly towards your enemy. Spit in his face, grab him by the throat, and stand up for yourself. We are not existence's victim. It is ours. [F-Relative to what we consider progress, victory, causation. All seem to be true, yet it can not possibly so, as our perspectives are limited to the capacity our brains can handle information and interpret it. We can only ever see one face of something at a time, which disheartens me. I refuse to have my observable universe be limited to only one viewpoint-I think a positive and negative approach to not cancel eachother, but create something better.] F-So have past fools said. Regardless of any power we may wield against Time, there will always be others who stand against us. The darkness is the only thing that could ever win, or at our best, a stalemate. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" and "...Fools are so ingenious" come to mind. These are my more brooding, if not more intelligent, musings. You must expand your horizon in order to "hope" to "understand" the nature of existence, my dear Waldo. F-I keep thinking back to last night's dream. It is by far, one of the most vivid and darkest dreams I've had to date-I will tell you it [all] someday, but I will tell you this-at the end, I was lost in some artic wasteland, in a storage area of some grounded spaceship, surrounded by dormant clones of an insane captain I was forced to help by some entity that had taken something very precious from me. In that moment, I gave up, something I don't remember doing in any of my other dreams. A complete level of brokenness as I realized I was [permanently] marooned, but could not diea, leave, [and now that I think of it, the captain was I ] and that the other was my future. W- So from what you are saying, are you sggesting that you should give up trying to fight and live? If so I disagree. We are lucky to be who we are and as smart and rational as we are [ I of course mean relative to other life; relative to our human standards, may of our race do not make the cut], and that should not be taken for granted. If we throw it away now it may never come back. That is why suicide is pointless. It is literally a waste of time. F-I never advocatedfor suiced, sir-I used to think that suicide is a coward's act, the ultimate expression of the flight instinct. I am wrestling with multiple realities [doomed as it may be] a simple being trying to "rationalize" something he probably can never [truly] fathom. W-Good. These thought processes are one of many roads to fleeing [okay, that is not necessarily true, that's jumping to the Isle of Conclusions-F]. I'm glad you have the strength to fight through. Have you ever tried to imagine what it would be like if...well...existence never existed? F-The attempt to imagine what us mortals are unable to comprehend is pointless in several ways, yet I commend your efforts to do so, as my [Inevitability Axiom and Foundation Rule] theorems predict the chance of you making something out of nothing inevitable. W-It is something yet nothing all at the same time. It occurs for an infinte length of time yet occurs never. It is small, but expansive. It contains nothing yet everything. It cannot be observed, so essentially does not exist. At the same time, it may exist since it cannot be observed. It could be there, just not visible. Or tangible. yet here I am describing it. Then is it tangible or not? It is both. [F-More or less. You have reached the halfway point which I described in my works, yet let open.] W-Oh and do you mean I will make something out of nothing as a good thing or a bad thing? F-It doesn't matter-it is like "...science: it is not good or bad, but it can be used either way". Just doing something that is in a different direction is more than nothing, regardless of the outcome. An infinitesimal point in which everything matters, no matter what happens before and after that [particular] point. W-Freddie Mercury,. when he said nothing really matters, I think he meant that as nothing [the object] is very important. Not that no thing matters, but that emptiness matters as much as matter matters. [F-Because emptiness is never truly empty, nor nonmatter indifferent to our reality]. F-I can but describe only the shadows of the picture I am painting- I wish I could share my mind, so you could see why I am in a thought-chain-loop. F-But of course! If anything can matter, then nothing matters as much as its opposite/conjugate, everything. What I'm pondering is the nature of opposites, and it has everything to do with purpose, and syncfining existence. [W lols]. F-Yet an idea is nothing without its complement/supplement- a person besides the thinker who understands it. It takes the collective to make the idea more than itself, rather than the individual. And personal is rendered worthless by my own chimpostulate, at least when concerning me, so do not worry. Besides, I'm not ashamed to say half of what I think [W asked if F was uncomfortable with this idea-chain, but that possibility was destroyed by F]
 * For a precise base, a sampling of precisely-analyzed atoms would have to be taken many times over, in order to calculate a mean summation of coefficients [standing for properties of an individual atom]. Measured by some sort of laser interferometer.
 * With that data, an average particle would be used for large sets of particles [an ideal approach], with isotopes and allotropes considered [as well as impurities within an element and incoming/outgoing radiation/energy].
 * Every element would have some sort of index of properties and level of interaction between atoms, as well as every foundation molecule. Any compound, with all properties considered, should be predicted [its sound activity] by its components' behavior.
 * Determine how arrangements of atoms interefere with sound propagation [crystallline to fluid, ordered to chaotic structures]. Physical states [be it solid, liquid, gas or plasma] of the set of atoms also matter [are as a result of structure but in the larger perspective].
 * Calculate all the possible features to an atom and its interaction with others with ideal data, to create an ideal model, to compare with actual observations, so that a combination can be formed from the two to be used in the generator. Deviation, distributions, particle and quantum physics, all that fun stuff.
 * Record the effect of temperature and time on the set of atoms, since temperature is merely a measure of the kinetic energy of atoms-molecules. Time because behavior is never perfect, always differs at an infinite amount of points on any given interval of time. Averages will be recorded, calculated, and then used with more approximate measures of particle behavior in order for the most sppropriate sound-making.
 * To be determined....
 * After the sound waves have been determined travelling through the set, the ambient surrounding will be acknowledged, since sound travels through something and then through air until our detectors perceive it and interpret it as something else for the mind to understand what is happening. Sound does travel differently through air as opposed to say, water, or at least at a faster rate [not necessarily affecting the original nature, but just affecting its time of origin and departure past a dtermined point]. Then we determine whether or not it all mattered, since it may be outside of our hearing range.

=Day 8 [10/8/12]= Evermore Dialogues between the Wally and I F-man, I feel inspired, yet unsure W-Inspired about what? F-a lot of things F-do you really want to know W-Of course I do. Spill dem beans. F-what if told you it concerns what I would want to see of myself in the near future W-Wouldn't change my desire to hear about it. So cough it up! F-Not too long ago [okay, Friday night] I was thinking about how meaningless my efforts were to try to change things, to do something other than live and die. And I was wondering-how would I ever try and make something actually noteworthy, a masterpiece, something I could die satisfied about? I've imagined dying alone before, knowing that nothing I did ever had value, but I wish to avoid that fate. I won't settle for just passing on my genes or having a "fulfilling" career, no sir. I pictured myself working tirelessly 24/7 to create a product that would truly be beautiful, a sum of my thinking that would result into something greater. Even if I were to die shortly afterward, I would feel better about doing my opus magnus, something I imagine to be of real value [whatever that means]. I long for a major creative streak, and not the piecewise stuff I've been doing. I lust after a stroke of brilliance, something that I would want to share with the rest of the world, but I do not know If I can self-inspire myself for something of that magnitude. I've done it with other things, but I fear I may never be able to pull off such a feat. Do you not ever have a dream of creating something grander than yourself, something that is true art, and not silly drawings or little speeches but something that would forver be superexistent? That is why I am a t a mental loop like I previously syncscribed, and why I am trying to search for a novel Idea, like with Warblers and stork thms, but of a far greater order. W-Very profound. I'd say your dreams are a great place to start. Definitely shouldn't be your main source (I had a dream last night that I painted a horse bucking in the air that was ejaculating fire. I was afraid it was inappropriate to submit for school [it is...], but I did and still do argue that it is a display of immense passion and in that way is beautiful), but follow your dreams. Ignore none of them, but choose wisely which to follow. I say follow your dreams because dreams seem to be random, but true and vivid and meaningful. They will take you to tangible places you'd never imagine going to. And if you feel that this is where you want to go, never forget it. When you see or hear anything, think of it in terms of your goal. Something will come up in that way. And remember. I will be there for you as long as you have my contact information. But make sure you balance things. You will need to have a career, of course. And family and friends to keep you sane. :) F-Yes, dreams are the subconscious preparing for tomorrow, and yet-precocious things, things that can be mean and fun at the same time. I know I must have real-world things, such as a job and earthbound purpose, yet I worry about wasted potential. As for family, I don't relate to any of my relatives, a fact that most people would call questionable. But it is true. It is why I treasure more friends like Manny or you or any of the others I have, since we share and make ideas that lead to fun new things. That is something I cannot do with others, as they drive me insane faster than my own ideas, something I don't like. And I keep going back to the same line of reasoning, but also a new one-if I do go insane, by then I hope to have made something more of what we've started. As long as that happens. I could care less about most other things [not my friends, but in general, everything else] F-This may be a syncfining moment for me, where everything could go right, or all be lost. At the very least, that is something I truly fear-not mere physical things such as heights or "scary" animals, but the possibilty of losing a great idea. Even if it turns out that by searching for the idea, it inhibits true inspiration, I could never hope to feel better if I wasn't trying. All of this has been set into motion by recent dreams and thoughts I've had, accelerated by the looming college deadlines and the knowledge that my life will be metaphorically over if I don't wrack my brain for something real F-one of my dilemmas is suspecting that ignorance may be bliss, but I will forever be at consternation if I don't pursue my true interests, and then I will have been right about meaningless existence, something I'm not sure that I want to know the answer to F-Then again, I have argued that I must approach something with as many dimensions as possible, and I cannot ignore any one, even if it goes against me, so long as I wish to follow my own schtick to the end. And yes, inevitability, no matter how much I may iterate it, means that eventually something will come along and destroy all that I stand for, including the axiom itself. Yes, I shall expand on this particular idea. "Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost"-Optimus Prime, Transformers the Movie 1986 W-Actually the remarks you tell me your dad makes reminds me of you. F-What? F-Maybe so, but does that mean that we think alike? Only in the way that we search for the facts and explanatinos, nothing more. Everything else, we differ by more than you realize. F-do elaborate on exactly what you mean, I'm curious W-His comments about your monkey noises, for one. Also, what does he call the food particles in your water? F-fishes, why? W-Family and friends aren't there to relate to necessarily. Just for love that you won't get from a piece of paper or an idea. Key to a happy life is love, laughter, and success. Don't focus so much on the success that you forget about the other two. F-Well, I must be off. Tomorrow night I cannot go to bed too late, and I guess I shall have to sleep soon tonight. Maybe I shall have another inspiring dream. 'Night, Waldo W-Nigh tea knight! W-You can't just question what things mean all the time! That's the point of family and friends and laughter and such! When you devote all of your time to questioning reality (and in a way escaping what is commonly defined as reality), you'll eventually begin to float away from it. You read the bio on Hugh Everett. He was barely a man by the end of it. You must take time out of your life to forget your musings or they will defeat you. I've had days where I don't really talk to anyone. I just think. By the end of it, I feel awful, and lonely. That's no way to live. The family unit is a keystone in our evolutionary struggle, and so you must use it to keep yourself on earth. No matter how much you deny it, the family is important. A denial of that is in a way selfish. Your family and friends need you just as much, if not more than you. That's one of the reasons why I despise suicide. You leave those who love you, and force them to grieve. In a way your idea is a suicide mission. You take absolutely no precautions, and run straight towards the goal, willing to throw everything away. Maybe your whole life could be devoted to your project, but you can't forget about the necessities, and your chores. You may be able to handle the loss of your friends and family, and the worthlessness of existence, but odds are no one else can. F-But, my thoughts call to me...I must answer them...there must be something else than living like how my genes want me to...maybe the only thing we can absolutely have faith in is the mission...maybe the only ones who had the last laugh are those who died on the battlefield, faithful to the mission. Why should we be confined by oursleves? I suppose the only way to find out would be to pursue immortality, so that we would have enough time to seek an understanding of everything, the one thing, the only thing that may actually matter beyond our lives, so that then afterwards you could think and say, "So that is what was happening all the time...that is the reason..." then maybe should stop and look at everything else. People like Everett and others are in a way, pitied, since they devoted themselves to their work, their mission, but in a way, you could say that they are heroes of another time and place. There must be ways of transcending our mortality which limits our evolution, and then come back and take care of everything else. A devotion to that field of biology, and then after the goal is reached, dog everything else. I think of that possibility, and it seems tantalizing, surreal, yet somehow possible. And I come back to what I said earllier-in order to find out if we are right about anything, we must emrace all perspectives, live multiple lives. Then, I think we could have the right to say anything about everything and nothing, and until then, I guess I will be completely wrong, and that won't be escaping reality, but rather taking it all on. To test the limits is to know, to seek wisdom. That is one of my predominant paths of thought. Yes, I have another major one at the moment, to prove storks and warblers to be more "real" than we know, to establish a school of thought higher than some others. I also wish to become a physicist and help in the quest of creating a GUT, lest I fail along the way. I also am thinking about what could be my sincfining moment, idea that will live long past I am dead, until it too falls. I wonder if maybe materialism is the only tangible thing, compared to other trains of precious, and if they too are dead. And I fall back onto an earlier musing: what if the only thing we can be sure of is to prove our nonexistence, to know that we can only approximate why we cannot and aren'te here, rather than prove the opposite? In that case, all my thoughts go back to the idea that nothing matters, or that everything is on big joke. YOu cannot deny that possibility. I also acknowledege your advice, but the other path seems to be a lot surer and concrete. I wonder what else constitutes as a waste of time, and how our own mixed emotions and hardwiring affects our perceptions of what is a waste of time and isn't, and if there's any way to prove or disprove it, all things considered. I dunno... =Day 9 [10/9/12]= For a thought-provoking entertainment session, go watch Ghost in the Shell, anime, available on Netflix. Very interesting piece, a masterpiece of a dystopia, the future, the meaning and existence of life and other provocative themes. If you want a mere taste, click the link provided just to hear the intro music, and it'll give you a reasonable feel for the tone and mood of the piece: []
 * "The age of heroes is dead, Wiglaf"-Beowulf**

Or []

“Does nothing exist?”
Why nothing exists – the only thing we can be sure of is our nonexistence. Since our bodies are flawed, and the senses manipulated by some intellect, shall we say Descartes’ demon, we can only begin to assume that we trust our minds to perceive “reality” and that we therefore exist. Yet, the mind is a physical arrangement of atoms, a special configuration that allows us to think and experience what we call reality. In that way, the mind is like the body-easily manipulated by information which can be made to act in certain manners, just like the body. Our minds are then susceptible to the influence of the aforementioned demon, which implies that we can never know whether or not we are right or wrong about anything. How then, do we propose, may we know if we are ever “free”, in the mental sense? We are slaves to perceptions, to time [if that means anything], and what we think is ours to believe and know and think may be pre-ordained by some intellect, presumably the demon. We can be led to believe our freedom to be true, when it is not. We believe we are masters of our universe, that we can “understand” things. We think we are the animal s of a higher order than the rest, yet are ourselves at the mercy of the demon. This leads to the idea that anything, everything that we experience may in fact be unreal, fabrications of our feeble intellects and thus the consequences of the demon’s. Nothing matters, and no thing matters, all an empty “existence” [sounds contradictory, given that we have established there is no “existence”, and yet we do have an arbitrary existence, more on this later]. Why does this seem to be true? Because if we consider anything to be real, then they must withstand the test of time, as the length of time approaches an infinite length, an endless interval. Anything in this span of “time” is created, decays and is ultimately destroyed. Nothing can last forever, which is proposed by the laws of thermodynamics. In order for something to last even an unimaginable duration, it would have to be in an extremely stable state, perhaps impossibly so. This means that it would have to have a kinetic energy of zero, all energies zero, a temperature of absolute zero. As far as we know, absolute zero is practically impossible, and it follows that time would have to be at a standstill in order for something to be completely inert, without anything changing. This seems to violate the concept of time, as time is something we do not really comprehend, cannot predict whether it could ever reverse direction or stop, in the sense of a time arrow, entropy. Assuming we can reason out anything at all, regardless of the demon’s manipulations, we shall hold these thoughts as those with meaning. Time, if it is more than a manmade construct, may not even be infinite in and of itself, if that can be rationalized. Any effort to change the system cannot be permanent, as the system is one of change, and something that does not change violates the system, and breaks down attempts to change this. You may ask, “Well, doesn’t this violate the system anyway? Any such attempt to prevent a change to the established system is itself contradicting the law of change.” Maybe, but we have to consider that overall, the system has to be changing. It may instantaneously change to a state of nothing, but at the next instant moment it has to change in order not to break down by its own laws of change. That would be the only feasible way of taking advantage of the system’s virtual loopholes, without violating anything else. Change is integral to the “existence” of anything, at least to the system in which existence is real. Eventually, whatever existed in a certain x interval of time will be written over, as time continues. In this way, the sum of whatever happened is zero, as it happened, and it unhappened, which would look like nothing happened in the first place from the perspective of an observer with a large enough amount of time on his hands. The only rational method syncscribing such a happening would be to syncfine it in a given interval, such that its occurrence is not negated by its unocurrence. In effect, an infinitesimal length of time in which this thing happens, something even smaller than a Planck Length. In considering all of this, most notably infinity, which is an abstract concept, [assuming we can possibly consider such a thing] this more or less proves that existence is fleeting, such that it can be considered meaningless, nonexistent. We can also conclude that nothing matters, or more appropriately, nothing does not matter, as nothing exists because we, as humans, are trying to associate meanings to things that may ultimately be nonreal, with what we call reality. Limited beings trying to prove that their little associations and attaching values to intangible things in order to try to reason out something that probably cannot be reasoned by us. There is no inherent value to everything; we can only “attach” these arbitrary, relative values to things in order for things to make “sense” to us, in order to further the purpose of evolution and life. Our instantaneous realizations are empty, subject to the whims of the demon. Even if we continue to evolve, we can never go past our limits, so in effect we are doomed to fail to grasp what cannot be grasped by us, confined by our own mentalities. Trapped to the least of dimensions, the intangible and the tangible. It is, and is not, since we can never comprehend the whole of our reality, if it is possible for our minds to fathom, if these “truths” still retain meaning, true substance. If some intellects of a higher order were not subject to the musings of the demon, perhaps they could truly be existent, or shall we say, superexistent, and rationalize what we cannot, if we are allowed to make any guesses as to what something of a higher dimension would “do” in respect to their existence. Can we even begin to understand the implications, given that we cannot understand anything about ourselves, if we do not exist? With each new line of thought, the mysteries only deepen, our knowledge consumed by the knowing of our nonexistence and inability to understand. This essay attempts to explore the realm of the surreal, the inescapable and yet so real, exposing hidden “realities”, creating states of contradictions. It is not even complete without the relation to Waffle, the waffle that is inextricably tied to everything else related to what us humans “understand” as reality. Of course, this demon we speak of is a fabrication of ours, something we came up with to support our little thought-experiment, to try to understand reality and the way we try to understand things and all that it may imply. Yet, as we delve deeper into things, we find that this demon may be more real than anything else, as it seems to be the one thing that is central to any notion we try to conceive pertaining to existence and meaning. Now, this brings up a very interesting scenario-that the demon is merely a product of our own consternation, fallible, then that means that the demon does not exist. This is why waffle is thrown in the mix- an observer could say, “Well, then your hypothesis has no value as it slays the demon by its own system, and yet that only strengthens the system, assuming we are using the best approach for Syncfining nonexistence”. This states that if the demon doesn’t exist [at least in the way we can “understand”], then the hypothesis is wrong, and then the system collapses. But-there is one thing we absolutely [relative in this context, in respect to waffle] have to consider, how our perspective is limited, and that we cannot possibly understand everything, let alone any one thing. If we hold this to be true, then it follows such that the demon is allowed to live, and thus keeping order and disorder maintained in the system. Rationality is conserved, at least for one instantaneous moment. By saying that we “understand” that the demon does not exist is a contradictory statement, so then the demon must “exist”. But that apparently violates the proposal that nothing exists, due to the hypothesis that we are always at the mercy of the demon. It is because we cannot comprehend everything that brings up the existence paradox, and its derivatives. We may be sure that we are unsure, which contradicts itself. If we are to be unsure, then how can we be sure of even unsureness? This supports the nonexistence notion, since it validates our understanding of not understanding, and yet destroys the understanding of everything along with it [including nothing, our attempts hold no water over that which is an eternal sea of the irrational]. This begs for forgiveness of the demon, to our simple logic, which is: How can we know if we are right, knowing that there is always the possibility that we are wrong, about everything, nothing? There seems to be no straightforward answer to this conundrum, if there is one at all to begin with. However we phrase it brings up a lot of waffle, and affects an number of other things, more as we try to answer any specific dilemma brought up by the original. Even if we try to rid ourselves of the waffle, we still have to deal with the nothing, the observed “truths”, that we may be dealing with a problem only the demon itself may be privy the knowledge to opening the lock of existence, if that means anything. The more we try to answer, the less certain we are except that of are uncertainty, some truths rendered naught but ash, other reinforced, more realized and negated. It keeps reinforcing the reality of that which questions reality itself, the original enigma. More questions are raised, and more connections between idea-chains grow at an exponential rate. The more logic loops that are created, and dissolve our notion of rationality and thus existence. Something comes up, an is then invalidated, yet still validating the original question which invalidates all. These loops don’t actually cancel each other, as we hold each to have it sown “truths”, and thus they can only compound each other. Ultimately, all we may ever hope to achieve, if anything, is to approximate what we deem as truths and realities in respect to what we perceive-perhaps not real or certain, but enough that we have an idea of what may never be understood, something that as humans we have already done, live with day to day. We may know that we may never be able to prove anything, as it has to do with the original problem, that which validates and invalidates existence in terms of whatever is pertinent to the situation, and yet universal, all having to do with waffle. Reality is very, very grey indeed, blurred between our thoughts and what may be. We try to syncfine the latter, and yet acknowledge it does not matter, exist. Considering our limitations, perhaps we are doing much ado about nothing, but there may still be purpose to it, so long as we wish to remain human. Perhaps this is the wrong methodology by its own nature, unnecessary, futile. Or perhaps it is wrong because it tries to involve everything that we have ideas of, and the resultant mess is something humanity cannot comprehend by its own set of rules. A system that cannot be rationalized by its creators, or rather, by its realizers. These loops of chained thoughts may be something that is itself not real, but that poses contradictions which null everything and yet keep its existence. It appears to be related to everything we can possibly conceive, all that we think there is and will be and have been, and it is where the waffle supposition plays a pivotal role in attempting to determine anything out of everything and nothing. In an ideal universe, one where intellects are not bound by themselves, this problem would stand a greater chance for solving itself, be realized, and cease the existence of that which violates everything we think we know. Perhaps it is a limit of itself, create by its own set of logic, something we may be allowed to detect, and yet never reach. Why, may the observer ask? Not because it is made to do so, but because we are seeing a facet of a multi-faceted thing. It is not designed to have everything else fail right before our eyes, but to help us “realize” the nature of our existence and nonexistence. And so, we come back to the original query, which asks, “Does nothing exist?” And there you see why logic-loops exist in the context of the problem, still relative to the question which poses conflicting realities and dual natures. “What merry fools we are, puppets of our own design, gifted with the certainty of uncertainty”.

=Day 10 [10/10/12]=

The Super-Uncertainty Principle:
What things can you not know simultaneously about anything? Perhaps the reality of existence and our ability to understand the idea of it. When we think we “understand” an idea, it is only because we are certain that we comprehend it, that it is in our field of vision, and that means that we cannot be sure it exists*. If we think something may exist, as opposed to our nonexistence, then it is beyond our comprehension, as beings that are confined to their own dimensions cannot interact with something of a higher order.* Therefore, we cannot be certain of one and the other. It is due to the omnipotent demon* and our own limits, that we do not exist, and thus cannot understand anything that does exist. What we may be allowed to understand by the demon means that whatever we think may exist may not be so, and that whatever we think we understand may be limited to other nonexistent things, and thus the super-uncertainty principle is established. The more certain you are of one, the less certain you are of the other, and vice-versa. This considers the demon, and all that it implies, including the logic-loops of the Nonexistence Theory* and Waffle*. **If we are certain about the existence of something, then it is probable that we cannot understand it because of the divide between different-order existences [in this case, nonexistence vs. existence, and nonreality vs. reality]. As we begin to ascertain our certainty about existence, we ensure that the uncertainty of our understanding of said existence, since we always have to acknowledge the possibility that we do not exist and that we are subject to the demon. Similarly, if we are certain that we can understand something, we become less certain that it exists, as whatever we may be able to comprehend may be bound to the same level of existence as us, which is to say, nonexistent.** In fact, we may not be able to understand anything, as to understand something would imply that it exists on some order of reality, and that would nullify our understanding of it, all the while leaving the question of whether it was real in the first place. The more the dilemma is probed, the less certain we become, and the more certain we are of our uncertainty, which brings forth paradoxes in the theory and invalidates everything we think we understand is real or not. Unfortunately, we are simultaneously establishing a possibility of our understanding of this phenomenon, which seemingly contradicts itself. How can we be certain that we are uncertain about one or the other [existence and our understanding of it], if we think that just the idea behind it exists or is comprehensible by us? It only serves to reinforce the Nonexistence Theory, which is problematic for us, as we wish to slay the demon once and for all and discover the truths, if any, to our failed understandings of understanding and reality. The uncertainty principle syncscribes a set of possibilities and certainty balances. Funnily enough, just by stating the possibility of the uncertainty principle being real or understandable, it becomes a member of itself. How? Since the uncertainty principle discusses the certainty concerning understanding things and the existence of things, it is logical that by proposing the principle itself, it itself is under the question of certainty concerning the possibility of the principle being uncertain about being certain of uncertainty. This only complicates things further, but is something to be taken into account, all having to do with waffle and the limits of Man's intellect. The demon described, although relating to Descartes' Demon, is not completely so, and incorporates my own "understandings", my own hypothesizations, and thus shall be discreetly referred to as my own demon. It was suggested that it be Cisco's Demon, or even Freeman's Demon, until it was realized that initial reactions pertainng to the hearing of Freeman's Demon would evoke imagery involving Morgan Freeman, and it is not wished that it may be so. Thus, the demon I have described we shall deem **The Daemon**, for various reasons.

=Day 11 [10/27/12]=

Dialogues between the Titan and the Freeman:
Concerning the pointlessness of existence, the stupidity of many, the lost potential of this world, and how it concerns very much our generation, and the next's. Also dealing with ourselves, our futures, and the games of life. Having to do with such whimsical things such as "p.s.o.o.m.a", and "m.m." Involvingthe future beyond ourselves-our dreams, our pent-up frustrations to overcome our humanity. Much consternation hidden under the surface, the joke of "reality", the morose musings betweeen us, sharing, generating, dying. Why? Why? Why? No, the wrong question, irrelevant, the blunt realization of many, the outward projection of bitterness well-founded, the promise shattered by our limitations. The Free Man, as of tonight, has vowed, however insignificant, to pursue this line of thinking when the Titan goes, even if he is to come again, the Freeman shall continue what the Wood-God dares not to do-Nothing is lost if there is but one fool left to fight for the cause. When the time comes, I shall give it my all, and then I shall be at peace, knowing I had the last laugh, the full summation of I, open at last to the chosen few-how I shall be when the time comes, I do not know, but know this: It will not have been in vain, if only in my most deceptive imagination. Musings for the ages, until all else falls. When the first secondary time arrives, I shall reveal the dream of dreams, the Dark One that opened my eyes, made me less of a Man, whatever that is, the Dream that I wish to see once more, no matter the cost.

=Day 12 [11/3/12]=

Events of the day the Freeman, the Wood-God and the Dragonslayer all went to a bar...
Expansion I had been wondering how things would go. Would it be bad, as in uncomfortable, silent, nerve-racking? Things were in the doldrums, until I started conversing [the other were not silent, but I was]. I found myself trying to be spontaneous for the sole reason of not letting things stagnate in respect to me-and because it is the outlet for my apprehension, it escapes in the way of artificial small talk, as I do not know what it is really supposed to be, and I seem to find things funnier when I feel I am under pressure. I felt that things in general were going well, and the train ride was fun. At first, there was much talking, but as time passed, we all sort of disbanded, even though we were physically together. She read, I drew, and Waldo did something until I forced him to partake in my suffering. I realized that I was being a potential button-pusher, and I was marveling at things on half the daily basis would not normally find entertaining-but again, I was attempting to make light of the situation. You see, I always see potential for things going very, very wrong indeed, and if it will happen, then I try to mentally block certain sentiments and reasoning in an effort to distance myself away from the main event if it will happen. Yes, I have had bad experiences. After the first few, I find them tolerable for a time if I mentally detach myself from the physical world. It is a good ability to be able to ignore that which bothers you, and I heartily follow that approach, even if I am doomed to fail. Wanted to prance about, and be a bit more like my past child self, not that he is abandoned, but rather, caged up by the times. There was frequent discussion of the times, and then some extraneous material disclosed, mainly on the part of Nicole. Her father seems interesting-physically reminiscent of her-or is the really the other way around? He gives the impression of seriousness, or at least one of a quiet disposition, which is where presumably she has inherited such a trait. She pulled a book out of seemingly nowhere, and Waldo and I were dumbfounded as to how, until she mentioned a spontaneous bag. I rendered Josh Stevens in a whimsical ay, and there was much laughter-especially with Waldo’s depiction. The time seemed to flutter by, and I realized that I was probably enjoying myself. It is difficult to do when you anticipate many probabilities of souring events. At any rate, she was playing nice, and he was available for emergency interaction. The hour and a half was over, and we departed from the train. It was rather cold-but I insisted on pacing around. It is fun to surrender to your inner self, and humor yourself. We shuffled around, waited for the bus. I am not conformable in the city. Something I have known for years. Or comfortable. I suggested that it would be most amusing if we were to go our won ways, and fumble our ways through the day trying to find one another. That motion was not moved. I sped, and then we were on the bus. We headed over to the plaza, and then there was consternation as to my bladder and what we were to eat. I accidentally kept speeding, and I entertained the notion that I would lose the others. We settled for pizza, and then we were off. At the exposition, there was a great number of sculptures, many of glass, all shiny, all eye-catching. Now, I cannot remember but one of the pieces. I saw the Wild Spirit, and the Froman, for once in many a month. It was brief, and felt…forced. We moved on. She pointed out stuff, I did, he did. The glass-blowing demonstration was weird-all was waiting for the other to say to leave. I could not understand anything the demonstrators were saying, and the motions were repetitive and I felt that the actual product was not very interesting, as it seemed to change nary a bit, and it wasn’t very attractive or anything. Moving on-things were hurrying along, as we had to hurry to eventually catch the bus. Some talking along the way. When we boarded the train, things intellectually gained momentum. On the bus, I had noticed that she was there-she was present, there was time, and I had wanted to inform her of the many wonders in our wiki. I started off badly, as I felt slushed with the desire to explain, yet so apprehensive of fouling it up-and I succumbed to the unfortunate self-deception/inevitability of the mind. We began with the Stork Hypothesis, and then touched on a few of the main proofs. Explained the subtleties of Waffle, and illuminated the nature of flawed humanity. Then, he acted up, and began to introduce his own views. He discussed things such as the people he does not tolerate, and we went over religious views as well. They are agnostic, and Waldo is an optimist. I think that she is probably neutral, but more optimist-leaning. I of course have been an atheist since I was 6, so there was not much that I could say in respect to current views [if they were to be dynamic]. She mentioned hers relative to Waldo’s too. Had difficulty explaining my views in respect to Storks. And he kept getting confused as to what I meant-he kept bringing up his U of C essay of time and his hypothetically Omniverse Computer. Not exactly the point I was trying to get across, but I digress. The discussions kept revolving around him-not that I mind, it just interesting to note that he took the floor, which is good. It is a shame that she is not terribly outspoken-silence aside, [physically] she does feel strongly about some things, and she plays nice. I found myself looking more at her, since I know that I never feel comfortable around unknown people, even familiar strangers. She mentioned about some stranger waiting for an opportunity to rape her and a friend [the way she was syncscribing the situation seemed to point to this concept], and it was hard not to laugh. Then again, I am not a woman, so I am rather biased. Although men get raped too, it is prevalently women. I shudder to think of that particular line of direction. And I explained mental masturbation to her-I think she will from now on look at us funny in our mind. Oh well-‘tis but a mere trifle. I find myself amused by how much I was playing with my hands-just venting anxiety in that way, multitasking with different forms of entertainment. And I was excited, and was offsetting frustration over earlier lack of sleep. Also noticed that I felt more comfortable about both of them within my bubble-I don’t like most people within many feet of a radius to me, but I have made progress in acceptance of them. Not because despise them, but rather because I have subconsciously made it a policy to distance oneself from potential problems. That is why I initially favor electronic media-distancing from others is nice, but after a while, just like most humans, I crave physical, direct interaction. Things turn out much differently, and shake things up, whether in the positive or negative direction. Fun! Let us mess with the games. We discussed the relevance of Richard, and how I would like them to meet him. So different from I, and yet we are one on certain things. I feel that he would accelerate things. Yes, I am most pleased when we join, and yet it is never what I expect-and that makes things all the more interesting. I think that he would not agree with Richard on some accounts, nor her, but they would on others, and they would grow leaps and bounds once they are introduced-if not growth, then reinforcement of the established. He does what I cannot-and he picks up the pace. It is funny when I am with him-since we already have reached many of the same conclusions, the intellectual conversation stagnates, which is both bad and good. Some concepts are revisited, and how things have changes in respect to them we go over, then the generic catch-up, and then the miscellaneous follows. When we were conversing, we broke off tangent multiple times-each one of us dazed off, and some topics were abandoned unwittingly. As time progressed, he and I got more excited, but the conversing was getting rocky, and I feared for its life. The mental barriers went up when we departed from the train and into the car-I tried to keep the machine going, and tried to explain Warblers, but to no avail. At the very least, she doesn’t seem to condescend at the moment, if fleeting, and then I guess I shall enjoy the instant. I look forward to meeting again-the Creativity Engine must not be stopped, it shall only grow aggressively, but never be too big to fail. He ran off, she before, and I am left to my own means to waldewallow through my musings.

I would like to note that my taking the floor was not grounded in narcissism, but in a desire for answers. I am pained by the religious limbo I described, and I want very much to find a place to put myself. That's why I came up often. And I was just excited when things I said in my essays became applicable. Yours are applicable more often than mine are. And I left because I cherished that day almost more than any previous, and I didn't want any of the memories to be lost to time, so I wrote down every minute detail that stood out to me. 1352051827

Waldo's Version of the Schtick:
SOFA with Francisco Zafra Gomez and Nicole Arnold - The Grand Day of Enlightenment and Provocative Thought The day began for me right at 6. My goal for the morning was to learn the ins and outs of the Chicago transit system which we were about to use that day. I attempted to print the bus and train schedules but it failed, so I just downloaded them to iBooks on my iPod Touch. "Promptly" at 8:40 my family and I left the house for St. Anne's Catholic Church, at which my sister was going to be Confirmed. I drove with weak attention as always, but we made it there safely (*snicker*). When I parked, my dad asked me if I noticed something about the car next to which I parked. (I always park quite far away from the entrance to make leaving the parking lot much easier.) It was parked crooked, so I parked crooked. So he gave me a schpiel about how I should have seen that and either compensated for their poor parking or parked somewhere else, during which time I attempted to give a greeting to my aunt, my sister's confirmation sponsor. The church was crowded and confusing, as usual, but only more so, given the current event. My dad and I lingered for a while, but walked on into the chapel after poor direction from my mother. On the way I waved to a fellow Jazz 1 member, Tom Mereness. The procession was as boring as most any mass. But I made it exciting in my mind. I thought more about how the day was going to go, since I was going to roam Chicago with friends unsupervised for the first time. At one point I sneezed, and needed to leave to clean up after my nasal explosion. I tripped on my own feet and made a loud squeak with my shoes. Quite embarrassing, but simultaneously amusing. I got stuck in confirmed traffic on the way, and saw my aunt and sister. My aunt facetiously pushed me around, telling me to get to my seat. When homilies began, I listened intently. I questioned everything he said and it frustrated me, and I vowed yet again to record my religious frustrations and attempt to find someone who could answer to them. I considered Mr. Pelzer as a possibility, but even he would be a biased source. When I weaved through the crowds after mass to head to the reception (cookies and brownies!), my aunt saw me and gave me a crazy, energetic, facetious hug, congratulating me as though I was the newly confirmed. The cookies were okay, but there were certain brownies that were delicious. I had some coffee, listened in on my parents' conversations, and pushed to leave at 11:10, as Nicole's dad was going to drive up at 11:30. My aunt gave my sister a Chick-Fil-A Cow Calendar (titled "Royal-T-Bone", themed as cows as famous royalty). It was read aloud on the way home. Made for good laughs. At my home, my dog Maggie was intensely focused on our living room window. There was a squirrel climbing in the tree directly outside our house. It was trying to climb onto the roof. I changed quickly into my normal apparel and waited for Nicole's dad. He came a little past 11:30, but he picked up Cisco first. So that was forgivable... On the drive up, I believe we discussed the surrounding landscapes rather than our usual profound ideas. It was quite a change. We hadn't gotten the ball rolling yet. One thing mentioned was our hatred for Driver's Ed, brought up when passing the Waubonsee satellite college in Aurora (?). My mom texted me (probably by my father's instruction) to send Cisco's and Nicole's phone numbers in case my phone died (which it almost did). She said I should have brought my external charger. I regretted not doing so. The train ride up was long and boring, and I didn't want to drain my iPod batter playing games. I had flipped through Cisco's Scientific American, noticing an article about an eye, the commonly used names of Alice and Bob (I think I have that right), and some pretty graphs on the last page discussing diseases caught in a hospital by direct contact with nurses and others. I had thought we were going to the Naperville train station (farther away, been to it twice), but we went to the Aurora train station instead, which is the first stop on the train to Union Station, and last on the way from. It's right next to the Roundhouse restaurant. It seems kind of old. As we went to pay for our tickets, we saw a black guy with a really really nice hat on trying to convert some teenagers who were sitting on a bench. It annoyed me. Francisco brought up the fact that the station had a very distinct smell. I agreed. The idea of distinct smells recurred as we were leaving Navy Pier, Cisco saying that cigarette smoke clouded (hehe) the good smells of the city, such as fried food and maybe exhaust?. The pay window had one of those indents where you put your money to transfer through a window, like at box offices. I thought it was cool. Pretty much right after we paid we had to leave to the platform. We all questioned the necessity of a barber shop in a train station. The train as it stopped made the loud squeaking noise. Cisco wanted it to spark. It didn't. I think we were all disappointed. We boarded the train and took a seat up above. It was exciting at first. We considered using the luggage racks as monkey bars and jumping across to grab a pencil that was on the other side. A couple later sat on the spot the pencil was in. They picked up the pencil, which said "ELECT THE SULLIVAN TEAM" on it. The couple had food from McDonald's. It permeated through the car. I was extremely jealous. One of the interesting features of the train was the flippiness of the seats. The backs of the seats could move forward or backward so people could face each other (or not) in the seats. Something else we explored was a ledge up above that looked like it could hold things. It actually was the air conditioner. Cisco rubbed his hands along the ledge and got his fingers all dirty. It was extremely humorous. He pointed out a vent above that could be used as an escape route (for an infant, maybe). I strummed its grates like a guitar. It rang for a bit. The windows were tinted green. I later hypothesized (when leaving Union Station) that the windows glowed in the dark just like the emergency exit sign and emergency exit instructions sign did, but I'm still not sure. Cisco suggested as we were moving that it was interesting to move with the car, when it swayed back and forth on the track. It kind of was. We stopped many times, but never saw anyone we recognized (in the Naperville station). We saw a kid running alongside the train. He ran slower than the train even when it was slowing down itself. Below us was a family (a mom, a son, and a grandma) wearing Bulls shirts. They were clearly going to a Bulls game, as they had a stadium map. The grandma had a very nice phone (long smart phone, large screen), and the son had some sort of DS. They took pictures. The son was in the middle, the grandma on the left, and the mom on the right. The son held the camera (poor choice, his arm was in the way of the grandma). The grandma seemed to think that she could ride for free, but she was discounted, not free. There was a whole fiasco about this. Cisco didn't like that there was a cornucopia on the tickets. I said that it was because Thanksgiving is in November, but he said that there certainly was a better day to put on the ticket. Nicole brought up Guy Fawkes Day, and we chuckled yet joyed at the thought of the mask on the ticket instead. We got pink slips if we had a ticket that would let the ticket lady know that she had checked us already. I moved from the seat directly next to the bench seat in the very back to another couple of seats where I could recline. I eventually condensed to one seat so more people could sit, but it was nice while it lasted. I watched Cisco draw Josh Stevens. He asked me if I could draw girls well, and I said no, and he said Josh wanted him to draw him as a French Girl ("Draw me like one of your French girls", perhaps?). His drawing ended up looking like a grandma. So we affectionately titled the drawing "Grandma Josh". The original image was of him smiling, holding a large black novelty knight chess piece. In the drawing this was replaced by a nice round double chocolate chip cookie, and his shirt replaced by a dollied apron. The subtitle was "Grandma Josh's World Renowned French Chocolate Chip Cookies", I think. Cisco also asked me if I could draw smiles. I said I could, but not well. We chuckled lightly. He had me draw Josh as well. I decided to, instead of attempting to draw a real drawing, caricaturize him. He had large everything, even a large smile and a large hairdo, but a very small body. He ended up looking an awful lot like Ringo Star, so I named him "Josh Star or Ringo Stevens". I said he looked like Ringo Star because he looked like he could be the drummer, and that he would stand behind Paul and George and John playing the drums, not even showing up in the music videos. He's the Beatle no one liked (except Marge Simpson). I also thought of the press release for Beatles Rock Band... I beat Don't Look Back again, while listening to the McDonald's couple talk about trick-or-treaters. A dad and his two kids also sat across the car, and the kids were quite crazy, like kids should be. A smoker sat behind me. He smelled like smoke. A pair of Asian dudes sat farther up, and they watched videos together on a phone. When we arrived at Union Station, I stepped out of the car and waited for Cisco and Nicole, but they ended up going a little bit ahead of me, so I had to catch up. We walked a bit rapidly, to try to catch the bus. We were more than early. We sat on a ledge at the bus stop (Canal and Adams), and watched people go by. One lady with a stroller and a child kept dropping a child. It was quite humorous. But it's okay because it was a toy baby. Hehe... Got ya... We needed bus route 124, and bus route 151 kept passing by. There seemed to be a surplus of bus routes 151 hanging out down a block or so. There was construction up another block, which may have caused it. Cisco kept walking around on the ledge, fidgeting like he normally does. He said he should have worn pants (one of my pet peeves... Referring to long pants as just "pants"), rather than shorts. I laughed, and said, well, yeah. King of Queens and Seinfeld were advertised on the front of two buses. I noticed the massiveness of the Chicago buildings. At the bus stop a digital sign told us when the bus was projected to arrive. It arrived about on time, right behind bus route 60. I didn't know that buses require exact change, so I paid for both Cisco and I, as suggested by Nicole (she seemed to know what she was doing...). That only lost us both 25 cents. He returned 2.50 to me, and I paid exact change later on the way to Union Station from Navy Pier. The bus ride was interesting. We sat in the back. I noticed that my feet hardly touched the ground. We also noticed that if we were to fly forward, I would hit a pole, Nicole would get squished behind a seat (MUCH better than hitting a pole...), but Cisco would just fly forward, maybe even through the front window. We saw a university (can't remember the name) underneath an overpass. It seemed prestigious... *cough* I saw that you can request to stop by pulling on a string. When we arrived in Navy Pier, we kind of sighed in relief. Police guards waved us on. Some car stopped right in the middle of the crosswalk while we were crossing. Stupid. We passed Bubba Gump (a consideration for lupper, but at the same time, not really. It's expensive). We went to the restrooms first (there was a line in the men's, but not in the women's, for once). I went, but Cisco refused with so many people. After that we walked around the Navy Pier food court searching for a place to eat. We were very indecisive. We chose pizza, and Cisco and I got the same thing: Meat lovers. It had bacon, sausage, and pepperoni, but I was too hungry to notice any more than that. We both got Mountain Dew, but I got a small and he got a large. Nicole bought Orange Chicken, beef and noodles from a Chinese restaurant. We sat down in a booth (very long booth with one auxiliary chair). I walked on the booth to get into the seat, and struggled to get into a sitting position as the seat and the table were quite close. The pizza box was like a puzzle. I was careful to open it, but Cisco was not. He ripped it open. It literally ripped. It made me laugh. He finished his food first, but couldn't find the trash cans, which were right next to him. Oh, Cisco... :) Nicole ended up not liking her Orange chicken and offered it up to us. I finished my own meal, and then went on a search for a fork with which to eat the chicken. I found one at some restaurant. I didn't pay attention to which one it was, but they had forks and spoons and knives in individual bins by the salt and pepper. The fork was black, if it means anything to the imagery. I was full, but I kept eating the chicken to prevent future hunger. I succeeded. I wasn't hungry until 8:30 pm. Cisco had some as well. He had left to use the restroom, but when he returned in his usual semi-delusional fashion, he left again to pick up a fork to finish off some of the chicken. He examined his chicken for quite a while, spinning the fork to see it at different angles. I criticized him for it, but I do understand. I always smell my food before I eat it, at least if it's foreign to me. When we finished, Nicole stood up to imply we were going to make our way towards SOFA. Cisco of course missed the hint, and stayed sitting down, but stood up when I pointed it out to him. We walked towards SOFA. It took us all the way through the inside of Navy Pier. We ended up seeing my family on the way! They were knocking on the windows as we passed them. My dad kindly and formally introduced himself to Cisco, and said hello to Nicole, who he had already met on the Europe trip. They had some roasted nuts. (giggle, if you must). My sister thought it was "awkward", and covered her face... awkwardly... My dad said SOFA was strange, and that we would like it. We walked through a stained glass exhibit to get to the ticket check, before which Cisco asked me to open his accordion folder to pull out his printed ticket. The ticket checkers took his printed ticket, but just ripped mine and Nicole's official physical tickets. Cisco and I skipped steps and raced up the stairs, but Nicole could not follow, as she cannot skip stairs like we can. I commented that she should practice her stair climbing, as it is a useful skill. SOFA was in a very large hall (reminded me of the rec center at North Central). It was art wall to wall, and the art was mainly sculpture and glass. We saw the few two dimensional pieces right away. One was of some business men with undistinguishable faces. They sat in a very nice lounge area. There was a laptop on the coffee table. One of the men was faded. It was very provocative. We then leaped from exhibit to exhibit, marveling at the abstractions that laid before us. There were some metallic sculptures that looked like dogs. One seemed to be "pooping out another of itself", as worded by Cisco. There were a lot of pieces that seemed to pop out at you. One was a large star like object that was all white and spiky. There were smaller glass pieces that seemed to do the same. There were a few gross nude sculptures, and one other nasty piece that said "RIBBED FOR YOUR PLEASURE". Some girls giggled and took a picture in front of it. I pretended to analyze the use of certain colors and fonts, and pretended to truly admire it. Another piece that stood out to me was a small sculpture depicting the short film made by the film artist described in the movie Hugo, with the moon with the rocket in its eye. There was a projection of the film in the tiny sculpture, and I discussed it shortly with Cisco and Nicole. There was another projection based piece where it showed a face talking and moving on small white petal-like objects. Everyone around seemed to be very artsy, and everything they said seemed to be profound, or at least they seemed to think what they were saying was profound. I thought that it couldn't ever compare to what Cisco and I talk about with the wiki and such. We pointed out birds whenever we saw them, and were elated when they looked like Storks or Warblers. Another significant one was a sculpture of two rhinos chained to a large rocky object. Cisco said that was like him and Nate, how they pull against each other, but at the same time for each other. I feel that with these perspectives that we have with friends and our ideas, we could understand the pieces much more easily than anyone else in the room. One cool exhibit was one by Philip Soosloff, which were wall sculptures of various buildings, with some odd perspectives. One was entitled "Sex Drugs and Rock 'N' Roll" or something like that. It had an adult store. We joked that it looked familiar, and pretended to "peek in through the windows". There were a few cafes and bars where you could buy drinks and such. We never did. There was a glass blowing demonstration. We sat and watched it for a bit, mainly to rest our feet. We didn't watch it for long, as in our certain spot and with the demonstrators accent, we couldn't understand anything he was saying. As I mentioned in the chat, he said a lot about his father and this urn he had (beautiful, apparently), and I thought about my own father. We found Savannah and the Renees and those people and they mentioned some "glass wheat" that was apparently really cool. We tried to find it, but couldn't. We asked them later where it was, and Josh sent us that way (hehe... "What sense does that make?"). We wandered some more, and finally found it. It was cool, but not really worth all the wandering. It was just tall thin wheat made of glass. Which is an understatement... So I guess it was pretty cool. We left SOFA after we found the glass wheat. Our goal was to grab a treat and stroll around Navy Pier, but upon examining the train and bus times, we decided it would be best to take the express train that only makes 6 stops. To make it we would have to get to the bus at 5:00. That gave us only 15 minutes to grab our treats. Cisco ended up dragging us into a news stand type store so he could buy gum. He bought two packs. Again I criticized him for purchasing two packs of gum at Navy Pier, when he could buy only one pack of gum, or better yet, wait until some other time to purchase another pack of gum. He said "Why not buy two when you can?", and I didn't have a good answer. So I facetiously asked if we needed duct tape, as there was duct tape at this store. We then, as we were leaving, wondered if anyone might do their grocery shopping at one of those stores. I guess duct tape is a necessity, and you never know when you'll need it. We stopped at the Haagen Dasz on the way there. I saw Emily Latsky in the line. Nicole got a large milkshake, and Cisco got a large ice cream. Cisco was very indecisive. He didn't stay in the line for more than 5 seconds. Nicole was very decisive. She had her drink by the time I had mine. I went off to this bar nearby that was selling coffee and liquor, and combinations of the two (bad idea, IMO). I got a regular coffee. I was very glad I did. It kept me from falling asleep on the train and bus, and kept the conversation flowing. When we came to the bus stop, the bus was already there. At the crosswalk before, Nicole had me hold her drink so she could grab her money. We had to run across the street to catch the bus. Inside I had to weave around Cisco to set my coffee down so I could get my own money. We struggled to juggle our treats and our money, but we paid the right amount, as opposed to before. The bus ride began our conversation. At one point Cisco wondered what the "STOP" button did. Nicole said it would stop EVERYTHING. We found humor in this, and then considered that if everything were to stop, we wouldn't be able to tell because we would stop perceiving, if only for a relatively nonexistent amount of time. But Cisco said that unless something starts everything again, everything would cease to exist because nothing would ever happen. Cisco and I alluded to "MM", and confused Nicole. We tried to figure out what the literary term would be for it, since we never said the actual words, but just talked about them, walked around them. Now that I think about it, it may be allusion. We were talking so much that we almost stopped paying attention to the stops. A group behind us (Asian) was trying to get to Navy Pier, but the bus we were on was coming FROM Navy Pier, so I'm not quite sure how that happened. But then everyone else on the bus came to the consensus that we were going to Union Station, which comforted us. I think this old guy was listening to our conversation. He probably figured out what we were saying and was chuckling about it. Cisco was freaking out because Nicole was there. He was really looking forward to torturing her with our ideas but he hadn't realized we could do so until then. At Union Station, we tried to find our train. We ended up on the wrong side of the building at first. Some guy directed us there, and we looked at the arrival and departure times, and saw that the 5:35 to Aurora was on Track 2. We headed that way. For a second, Cisco and Nicole doubted me, but I reassured them that I had us on the right train. But even then I was worried myself. But the PA system confirmed it. Our conversation got so deep that I lost track of the stops. But we didn't worry because our stop was the last one. The conversation started with Stork. I often brought up my U of Chicago extended essay because it was fitting with the subject. It went off on tangents, which brought us back to Cisco's ideas, with Waffle and such. Then we started talking about religion. By this time my face was warm and the caffeine was kicking in. I expressed my frustrations with religion, and Cisco discussed certain things about religion as well. It made me feel better about myself. We also talked about Richard. Cisco likes talking about him. I explained to him what kind of people I dislike, and he said I might dislike him just a little bit. I noticed that during our conversation, as some kids were getting off, they were looking at us. I think they were laughing at our conversation. Well, I don't care. It probably blew their minds and they didn't know what to do. When we got to Aurora, we got ready to get off of the train. I purposely "crushed" myself between the sliding door. A lady nearby probably thought I was childish. She probably thought right. We kept talking as we searched for Cisco's dad. He said he didn't know what car his dad drove, and I said that sometimes he amazes me, and he said Manny said that a long time before me, and I said I wasn't surprised. He called his dad, who ended up being inside. He came out of the door when we were about to go in. At this time I noticed some kid who looked familiar. He was wearing a camouflage jacket. I thought he might be in the military, by the way he was standing, as well as with the camouflage. Cisco's dad asked if he went to our school, and I said I wasn't sure... On the car ride, Cisco talked about Warblers. It was fascinating. Nicole actually got it, also. He also brought up Richard some more. AP Lit came up a couple of times, when we were talking about how we have trouble expressing our ideas, whereas Richard doesn't. I believe that was where the conversation ended, but it began again when I got home. We chatted on Gmail. Cisco has that up somewhere. It was a great feeling. A feeling of warmth and excitement and inspiration. I fogged the car windows with my energy. It was grand.

I WOULD LOVE TO GO TO CHICAGO AGAIN, SAME WAY. IT WAS RIDICULOUSLY FUN.

=Day 13 [11/4/2012]=

What I ponder, before walking into the Night's closed embrace.
I'm thinking about the concept of a near-death experience-would I see something else beside by brain's reaction[i.e., the light, a transcending experience], would I convert [may the non-gods forbid] to some religion? Would I see what I have suspected I will see? Will I be inspired, and witness a revelation during the event? Will I be the Laughing Man? Or the Man of Sorrow? If I am on my deathbed, ... I know that I will have finished my opus magnum, but will I have one last view past myself? Or will I die another doofus ignoramus, "fated" to have lived an empty life, void of everything? Will the event be witnessed in a series of frames, nothing and everything before me, and all gone in an instant? I wish that death was reversible, so that if brains are splattered all over the wall behind me, my super-consciousness can will itself back together, and start again, one frame more knowledgeable. I need a simulator, one that may truly inspire me in any which way. Someday,I may freeze my head, in the false hopes of the future reviving me, and presenting me forth into an unknown world, whatever that may be. And when that happens, I shall look to the wind, and breath.

I hope that I will have the Dream of Dreams once more-not one but I am aware of it, and its intoxicating foreboding and sense of enslavement beckon to me. With arms outstreched, I yearn to join It once more, and experience the Death of All, so that I may see but one more Thing, a Thing that escapes my feeble intellect, a Thing that maddeningly escapes my grasp whenever I willingly look for it...I miss being hunted in my dreams.

Someday, the Day I learn how to control my brain, I shall destroy it, and make something better fromt he ashes. That will be the day we are no longer human, the day of Earth ending or us Leaving. I wait fro such a Day. Why be human, when your destiny is to live amongst the stars? Why be you, when the collective awaits, in all its glory? Let us hope, that my neurons coalesce, and produce Something that is beyond me-such a Thing, I feel ,would be truly beautiful, that which I cannnot see or taste or touch or smell or feel, but know that it exists. Just once more I wish to see That which I am blind to To let my soul rest in peace

= Day 14 [11/5/2012] =

A Reaction to a Facebook statement-the nullfication, and perhaps validification, of such a statement, one that reinforces the Inevitability Axiom, the Foundation Rule, and Insanity and Perturbations...It was a response to the the premise of "Ideas are Bulletproof". Such things bring laughter to mine eyes...

Nevermore... [|Francisco Zafra] 'Cause I'm pretty sure that brains are bulletproof, and since ideas are nothing but electrical signaling between physical brain cells and axons, then when they are destroyed, ideas are as well. [|Francisco Zafra] And if you say, "Well, in principle, they can never die, so long as someone knows of them", then you are partially right-in a way, ideas die if no one knows of them, but at the same time, since somoeone else intercepts an idea, that original idea dies because the person's interpretation will be different, no matter how much they try to see it from the original creator's perspective. [|Francisco Zafra] And any idea can be challenegd, and killed, provided we take it to be true that an idea can be anything, become anything, and can contradict and kill some other idea. [|Francisco Zafra] And even that idea, the idea of ideas being limitless, leads to the revelation that the idea of limited ideas must be true because of the former, which is a direct contradiction. Which one is true? Which precedes the other? Maybe one is more true than the other, depending on the observer/thinker/timeframe. Maybe the realm of ideas is dynamic, variable, quantum in a sense. We shall have to think some more to explore these mystical lands, and see what we discover along the way.

=Day 15 [1/10/13]= = = If we could control every neuron, and its respective axon, why, we have won the Game of Life. How so? Well, we have opened the Floodgates of Potential. At that moment, the advacement of the human race will have progressed much [to a degree]. However, because we are limited beings, we will have not only raised more questions, but left some unanswered. Once we know how the mind truly works, and we can get to the point of manipulating every possible interaction between neural networks, then we could manipulate ourselves into experiencing different realities fromthe one we already know and share. Even though it is true each person experiences a different reality due to our differing perspectives, we do have something in common, what we syncfine as the world. And this world is merely how our brains process information input from whatever we are in, or think we are in. The brain is merely a set of chemical reactions. Reality is syncfined only by the specific actions and reactions from our neural networks. Thus, nothing is truly real, at least in the way we are familiar with it. Nothing is really objective, so in practice we are justified in saying that what we normally think of as controversial is not really so. I remember past thoughts, on how there is no true truth, no real right or wrong, as they can change, and differ depending on whose perspective is being taken into account. Artitificial is a word that starts to lose meaning here, but we shall use it anyway if only for the sake of communication. What of artificial realities? Take into consideration, say, a hallucinogen, and a man, or woman. Now, they may take it, and his or her mind may be subject to some experience based on how their brains respond to that certain drug. They experience an altered reality [yes, that is an iffy word as well, but for now, let us focus on the more pressing matters at hand]. What they feel, with all five senses, they believe is real. This is because our brains are merely physical things funcitoning in certain ways. When the drug is done affecting them, they return to the shared reality, but their minds have been altered. Due to the newfound dependence on said drug, now they crave it, they begin to doubt or reject the shared reality prior to their new experience. We criticize them for using the drug, being dependent on them, because we believe them to be fleeing from reality, unable to cope, being weak. But what if we are wrong? Although right and wrong are only subjective, and we should try to treat is as only is, it can never really be so because we are human, and we are to used to thinking in that manner. Perhaps we can never escape that kind of mental confinement. But for now, we shall stick to the norm. Perhaps we are more wrong than they are, for not embracing the idea of multiple realities, or at least, no one reality being more real than another. We think we are the strong ones, the ones who are more justified in sticking with what we know, because we have been taught to cast aside the possibility of embracing such things. This can be seen as a form of weakness. Perhaps we would be more knowledgeable, be able to manipulate our physicalities, be in control of our minds ina way. Affectations that are self-induced. It could be said then that we are ona higher plane, physical feelings aside. The willingness to delve into the unknown may make or break us, and could be worth the conflict before, during, or after the event. It could be said that taking sucha a leap is damaging, that it is the corruption of the original, or the innocent. But that is naive. Things change. And what we may think to be our own, free, pure mentality-why, that is subject to all sorts of phenomena that make it change. Differentiating one thing from another in one way may not stay that way forever. We adapt to new circumstances, even if the change is infinitesimal. And originality-how can we be sure of it? As with ideas, which are not entirely new, only derived from other things, usually something old that was rewrapped, we could consider mentalities in a related manner. Before I do, let me go back and amend an apparent contradiction. An idea could be made, new, and then presented. But it is highly unlikely that the person who thought of it is the only one. After all, we must take diversity into account. There is bound to be at least one other who has thought of the same, or similar. And though we may say that the idea is still the first person's, because each person sees one thing differently. We like to believe that true individuality exists, but that is dependent on our existence [and all that is implied]. A mentality may seem destroyed or anew, depending on the observer, when it fact, all that seems to have happened is a significant change. And depending on how we see that change, we can agree or disagree with it. Or be indifferent to it. Is as is. In that case, let us consider a destroyed mentality. It seems destroyed to us, because we have been instructed as much, and we recoognize it as incompatible with something -be it society, nature, or itself. In our world, that is highly significant-something has to function in a given environment, otherwise it is weeded out in the face of evolution.Anything that doesn't, is seen as weak, or wrong, corrupted. But imagine a world, in which that did not matter. Ideally, these broken mentalities would be able to survive somewhere. Now, I think of this-what if it does not matter that these mentalities survive in our shared reality? Asides from the fact that nothing really matters, it is also that we would like to think of existence as mattering, that we would like to see other things survive, or adapt. We think that the death of something may be regrettable, when in fact it may just be plain silly to think of it that way. Perhaps this "broken" mentality, is fixed, shall we say, from the perspective of that mentality. This brings up an interesting point, one in which I revisit time and again, each time realizing something new, something stranger and stranger, and sometimes I rewrite my perspective on it, asides from the obvious changes that occur due to said revisiting. The quesiton of sanity-what is sane, and what isn't? I say that I am sane, but I only say that, because I seem to be sure of my existence and that my mentality is fit for it, when in fact, the opposite could be true. If I am insane, how do I prove it? I am only full of uncertainty. Everyone else could be the same, or different. IN the mind of an insane person, the way they behave and think may seem sane to them, but to the outsiders, it is entirely different. Maybe the sane people are the insane. IN an insane world, the only sane thing to do is to be insane. Only in the context of adapting to the circumstances, of being fit for survival though. What if we need not be concerned with fitness, only with the answering to our other problems, or carrying out some purpose, or even having no purpose, but to be without being? Who is more likely to be sane-the person who thinks he is sane, or the person who doesn't? Or even the person who is indifferent, does not consider the possibility? It is uncertain, expecially in light of the fact that you feel something is wrong, something has changed, but you don't know what or who or why or when or how. Self-deception is crucial in the attempt to solve this dilemma. Sort of like self-inception, whatever the reason, if there is one behind it, may be. Perhaps even considering the quesiton itself is a mark of something, or even pointless. Think of the Joker-"I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve". When one thinks of the insane, what seems shocking to us based on what we syncfine as ethical or merited, one has to consider this-from the perspective of the different, everything changes. Perhaps they are the true progression of humanity, an inevitable outcome. We resist because we only know to resist, and we cannot know otherwise until we take the plunge we fear. Which relates back to the aritificial reality-if we were to creat our own memories, and emotions, fabricate everything for ourselves, why, that could be considered as no less real or original than what we already know. It seems intelligent, or perhaps what will be inevitable, but accelerated. Happiness, state of being, is relative. So there is no right in saying that it is unacceptable in some way, because that is just naivete, or sheltered thinking. If anything, one day it may be the only humane thing left to do to those who need it, if one wants to think that way. Big Brother may be here one day, or something reminiscent of Total Rekall. The choice to accept or deny it is up to the observer-there is no indifference here, as it is just the same two choices, but the denial of, or ignorance of, eiher by choice, or not. Now, this mentality I spoke of-I think of the "fixed" mentalities. Perhaps by altering the mentality to conform with what is established as functional, it is destroying its chances to change into something else, for apparent better or for apparent worse. And speaking of mentalities, why, when we can manipulate anything, we manipulate everything, ethics be damned. By being able to do that, we could configure the mind in a near infinite amount of ways, and in that, we have discovered the key to our lock of reality. We could surpass our limits in all lkinds of ways. Every possible permutation and or combination, could result ina mind that solves one more question that we know is pertinent to our reality and lives in whatever which way, and with that we have accelerate our evolution. Discover what we really want and what we need, and if even those concepts are meaningless from the mentality of something superior. We could also find out what to avoid, if we wish to control something in our future existence, and in that, combined with our icreased capacity for intelligence and application of, we not only further control our future, we live it, because we lose the meaning of what used to confine us. As I said, we could evolve into higher forms of existence, however we are allowed to think of them, and take it as it goes. It seems a far better alternative than to let things continue as they are, me being the biased mentality as I am. Time restricts and gives us freedom, the Creator and Destroyer. New Toys in the Games we play, and changing everything, or changing nothing. It remains to be seen what will happen, only that we are certain Something will happen.

=Day 16 [1/10/13]= = =

What was it now? I remember that it had something to do with self-deception...that I was certain I was uncertain, that I was discovering the Lie, what I had known to be familiar, that I was seeing Stranger again once more. And the more I thought, the more I was figuring the Others out, and how they were relevant to me, all the while posing the question time and again of how uncertain I was about my reality, and was not sure what I needed or wanted to know or think about. I was realizing what before I had denied. And I was not only accepting somethings as truths, or anything close to it, but I was also denying others I had previously thought of as existent. The disturbance of the circadian rhythm, as well as being subject to pain, both mental and physical, has shed some light on the darkness. Unintentional, but not unwelcome any more. 'twas the distraction, the seeking of, which has inspired me, and now I have risen from the Pit. Change, oh change, you are not ambigous at all-you carry something of significance every time you plague me. And yet, perhaps it is for the best. Only Time will tell, as he does not like to reveal secrets so willingly.

=Day 17 [1/13/11]=

What if we were not aboe to feel pain? Would we be able to accomplish much more physically, and surpass the bodies of our limits? Or, due to no pain, we would not be alert, and allows our bodies to degrade, suffer to the point of death? Perhaps not feeling pain doesn't mean that we cannot feel at all, and for that purpose, we could still functon and avoid unnecessary damage. Although pain can be a learning expereience, perhaps it is not so important to life as we think it to be, or how we have grown used to it. Perhapds desensitization would ont lead us to be fearless, but also less empathic-because we could not feel pain, at least the physical kind, we would be less compassionate to others damaged, or we would not care sending off people to get damaged, because no physical pain is felt. Many fears would be lost, because physical pain, the avoidance of, is behind many fears of the world and its phenomena. The fear of physical pain, brings us to anguish, and we act irrational because of it. Progress would accelerate, both technological, and mental. Would it have a negative effect on politics though? Without empathy of the physical kind, we would certainly be more hasty when making decisions that affect many. Perhaps wewould be avoiding necessary lessons in life that arise from pain, the physical kind. Suffering builds character, but it can also destroy it. Or merely change it into something undesirable by someone, or something. What if we can learn those valuable realities, without the pain otherwise needed to enable the initial viewpoint to see said realities? That is where biases, where established sentiments, are worthless. Is there really a need to feel pain, at least the physical kind? I am not so sure-I think a change, a revolution to that reality we know, would bring about a very different wolrd, perhaps a more advanced one, or at least, something that humanity would accept more willingly, or even adapt to quickly and painlessly. Cast off our chains, and be freer, whatever that is. A new Man, which has risen from the darkness all too familiar to him.

=Day 18 [7/21/13]= = = = = A little boy is out for a walk. Playing in the shadows. The Night asks, "Why aren't you inside? Aren't you scared of me?" The little boy replies, "I used to be, but that was because of the monsters you hide". The Night says, "That hasn't changed. What's to stop them from coming after you now?" The little boy stops, and looks up at the moon. He then answers with, "Me. Because if they don't leave me alone, I will eat them". The Night is silent, and the little boy moves on. The little boy meets a Wolf. The Wolf challenges him~"Why don't I chase you before I kill you?" The little boy answers with, "I bet you won't", and looks at the Wolf. The Wolf runs away. The little boy goes on, and starts going through a jungle gym. A Snake is there~he coils around the little boy, and whispers, "Do you think you can escape death?" The little boy simply looks down on the Snake, and calmly states, "Yes, I can", and proceeds to snap the Snake's spine. Soon after, the little boy goes to wet his feet in a nearby river. A Shark approaches, and grins, "I'm hungry. And you're right there". The little boy yawns, and the Shark leaps towards him. The little boy grabs its jaws, and breaks them. "I'm bored", exclaims the little boy. he climbs out of the water, and heads over to a forest. he climbs a tree. A Bear follows him. The Bear sniffs, and wheezes, "I don't like you". The little boy pays no mind, and the Bear huffs and puffs. "You know what? Get off", the Bear roars. The little boy sticks his tongue out, and the Bear, enraged, follows him. As he closes in, the little boy jumps off, and lands on the Bear's head. He bites the nose, and the Bear falls off, and dies. The little boy decides to go into an abandoned house. A Crocodile sneaks up, and laughs, "You're careless". The little boy smiles, "Yes I am", and ruins the Crocodile's eyes and nose. He leaves, and starts going back. A Bird of prey flies onto his back, and tries to claw at him, peck at him. "Why aren't you doing anything?" cries the Bird, as it slows, the cold of the little boys body affecting him so. The little boy then grabs the bird, and throws it away. He steps into a field, and as he goes through it, a Big Cat is by his side. The Cat purrs, "You're stupid. Now, you are mine", as his tail swishes back and forth. The little boy shrugs, and the Cat growls. The Cat pounces, but the little boy reaches up and strikes the underside. The Cat, beaten, lays there. The little boy starts humming. He comes out, and starts walking through a mud patch. There is Rat and a Worm. Both try and bite him. They are stunned to find that the blood they draw, apart from broken teeth and claws, is poisonous. The little boy gets close to his home. A Man appears. "Well, well, well. What do we have here?" The little boy remarks flatly, "A toy". The Man disregards this, and reaches for the little boy. The little boy twitches, then ducks and comes up behind the Man. He ahold of the Man's face, and rips it apart. The Man screams, and the little boy, expressionless, finally returns home. The Moon comments, "My, what a brave child. So strong and smart. It's too bad that doesn't make a difference". The little boy looks back, and reflects, "Maybe, but I'm still not going to let that get in my way", and goes to bed. The little boy sleeps, dreaming things no one can ever know. = =