Try this on......
The latest concensus on the age of our earth is roughly 4 billion years, yes? How, I ask, have they come to this approximation?
Surely, it is based soley on the carbon dating, soil analyzing and rock over-turning of our greatest scientists. They dig up the oldest shit they can find, run it through thier spectro-phallacto-gram (or some-such-shit,) and "whalla!" Four Billion years!!!
The earth has it's obvious defenses, ie. weather, earthquakes, volcanoes and temperature changes. This takes care of most verminion threats. Every eon or so, it needs to go to "Def-Con 3," upping the verocity of it's methods. Here comes the ice-ages and worldwide floods and magnetic pole shifts. Now this proves to ward off most any threat.....but.
Let's say that when a truly threatening adversary graces the shores of mother earth and wreaks a new kind of havok, and her solutions of lore prove inefficient, she breaks out the big gun....
Through heat exclusively her own, via atomic or molecular core reactions, the crust of the entire sphere begins to warm rapidly. In just one year the animals vanish and the vegetation is soon to follow. Two years, and there is no life left on the surface of any kind, and half of the planet's water is in the atmosphere. Three years and there is not a drop of h2o on the surface, for it is all in gasious form, and the sky is too hot to allow condensation; thus, no precipitation. Another year, the crust begins to melt around the now highly active volcanoes. And finally, after the last year of it's final defense, the earth is a swirling mass of molten lava; still composing it's orbit, it's relation to other celestial bodies and it's gravitational pull.
After any and all possibility of threat has been eliminated, it reverses the interior process, slowly returning back to it's happy-place. New crust hardens, leaving new mountains and valleys. This in turn allows water to condense in the now-cooling atmosphere, and it rains down, filling the low spots with a different system of oceans, rivers and lakes. Eventually, the good old primordial ooze emerges from within once again, spewing forth the next stew of possibilities, and life is given another shot.
How many times could this have happened? Now.......... once again, we may allow our feeble minds to settle into the warm, fuzzy notion of infinity, disavowing any possibility of limitation.
When our scientists dig for the clues to the age of our mother's formation, they really only pinpoint the last time the earth's crust re-hardened from it's most recent melt.
Since our estimation of the entire universe's age is based on calculations based on our earthly discovery and realization, and our mother has made it impossible to determine it's age, then we really have NO FUCKING CLUE do we?
I find comfort in these ideas because I find promise in infinity. No biggest or smallest; only bigger or smaller. Only longer or shorter. Only higher or lower. Only nearer or farther......all in relation to ground zero:........ME, YOU, HERE, NOW........... And we, in the endless arms of this infinite embrace, have the wonderous uncertainty of what lies ahead, while we relish in the memories aquired behind, free of worrying ourselves with the beginning or the end, for they do............. not............. exist.
So let us ask ourselves; what are WE gonna do HERE and NOW?
So... by here now, do you mean that we should forget what we have learned?
Does it not seem reasonable to remember what has happened for its practical application? Indeed, won't we need to remember our conclusion to fulfill it's promise? And in so doing are we not living as much in the past as in the future or the here and now?
What if infinity is not simply an endless chain of events, but is rather no events. A state of uncertainty. Here there are no finite things in space-time, in-fact its not appropriate to even say "here" as if this were a place. It is no place and not no place. Contrary to that is certainty, our reality. We perceive according to such laws. That we logically conclude an infinite causal chain. But there is no-thing outside of that, it's inescapable. We just bite our own tails trying to escape certainty. Chasing our reason and intellect, trying to understand reality. We fell from grace by virtue of our reason, that we would try to conquer reality for our gain and ignore its totality.
Who among us has not said "Had I known better I would have chosen better."?
It seems appropriate to exercise our dilemma as much as possible, so as to discover a cause and use the knowledge for the All. To live a true life.
__________________ "Belief is an obligatory position" - AronRa
Yes, and I mentioned relishing in past experiences. "Here" is definately a finite term, as is "now." Also a keen observation. But there is a paradox that talks of an arrow flying through the air. If you were to freeze time mid-flight, the arrow is in a fixed location. Unfreeze and instantly freeze again, over and over, and the arrow's path is merely a series of fixed positions. I use the terms here and now as our fixed point in the infinite arc of our reality. Just a focal point to concentrate our energy onto. If we have never began, and thus will never end, there is no burden of past or future tribulation, but only the ambition to secure positive pleasures now, and ultimately positive memories to come.
The idea that we are chasing our tails puts us into a "mobius strip" matrix of infinity, whereas we are on a set path, that although never begins or ends, still repeats. Round and round we go? Waiting for our own personal stars to someday finally allign for us, so that we may someday escape the cycle? That is just too damn certain for me.
i am a big believer in the notion that no human ever has, does now, or ever will have the foggiest fucking clue what is really goin' on. If we were supposed to know, or were able, I surely would've attained all answers by now. Fact is, I don't (no shit), and that is okay with me. That is my enlightenment. That is my spirituality.......Tool is my church.
It is awesome to come across an intelligent person again on this site. Though we may not agree, we are still both close to, well, whatever is next!(46 and 2?)
codyc@myspace
codyc32@blogger/sinsanity
A lot of my perspective is influenced by an infusion of science, philosophy and theology. So my vernacular can sway quite a lot and I apologize in advance for lack of clarity.
In Buddhism, and here I refer to my interpretation of the teachings of Gautam, the Atman or Soul/Self/Ego/Identity is an illusion. It is the source of suffering by virtue of attachment. It projects its need for fulfillment on external elements. Or even on the delusions it constructs to rationalize it's worth. The Buddhist doctrine of Anatta refers to non-selfhood, to the disillusionment of self-hood. This is supposed to be part of a path to attaining unconditional love for the All, or everything and the cessation of egotism.
In Abrahamic tradition the state of unconditional love is called "Agape" and is attained similarly through disillusionment of the self. God represents the totality which determines all that happens independent of human wills. In-fact determining of human wills. God is synonymous with reality, necessity, causation and the inexplicable nature of it.
The purpose of these teachings, in my interpretation is the disillusionment of self-hood and the self-interest inherent in it. So in effect, we aren't waiting for anything to come our way. I have seen individuals get riled up over these issues, but I myself was fortunate enough to have my self-hood adequately trampled by society. It is in my view a fulfillment of the parable of the Rich Man. A man burdened by attachment might cling too tightly to his own delusion.
I'm not sure how to escape this. Jesus says, in my interpretation, that the entrance to the kingdom is narrow. Many will try, but few will enter.
Either way, I see determinism in everything and it is the only thing that cannot be explained in itself, because doing so would presuppose an internal determinacy leading to an infinite causal regress. So.. despite what might be said, or the temptations which present themselves. I cannot see clearly any other way.
Maybe that means I don't 'know'. However knowing is a designation, something which is asserted by a person and in that sense alone is dependent on the person. Perhaps then to rightly call anything knowledge it should obey this basic law.
__________________ "Belief is an obligatory position" - AronRa
For the first post: it's an interesting conception and kind of sparked a little idea in my head. What if the other planets in our solar system are just in this transition from naked lands to something much more advanced; such as life or the beginning foundations for life. As scientists study planets they constantly change knowledge they had prior stated as fact and much of this happens when studying planets. To get a good sense of this, just look at Pluto. It has lost its full planet status and now scientists are pondering whether or not the dwarf-planet actually has a radioactive core that is covered with an ocean, capable of living under such a frozen planet due to the high ammonia content in the water.
I do believe in your post that you've taken a Descartes approach to life and have begun to question the knowledge fed to us, instead of just consuming it without questioning its origins or its truth. And it makes quite an interesting read, and also can spark some good conversations.
Also since someone mentioned Jesus in here, wouldn't it be funny if in the end it's exposed that Jesus was actually the Anti-Christ who came to cover up the teachings of someone before him? A lot of people fall for the guy and I just don't see why. He's like the pedophile luring children to his van; his victims have good intentions but don't have properly developed brains to assess what they are doing.
For the first post: it's an interesting conception and kind of sparked a little idea in my head. What if the other planets in our solar system are just in this transition from naked lands to something much more advanced; such as life or the beginning foundations for life. As scientists study planets they constantly change knowledge they had prior stated as fact and much of this happens when studying planets. To get a good sense of this, just look at Pluto. It has lost its full planet status and now scientists are pondering whether or not the dwarf-planet actually has a radioactive core that is covered with an ocean, capable of living under such a frozen planet due to the high ammonia content in the water.
I do believe in your post that you've taken a Descartes approach to life and have begun to question the knowledge fed to us, instead of just consuming it without questioning its origins or its truth. And it makes quite an interesting read, and also can spark some good conversations.
Also since someone mentioned Jesus in here, wouldn't it be funny if in the end it's exposed that Jesus was actually the Anti-Christ who came to cover up the teachings of someone before him? A lot of people fall for the guy and I just don't see why. He's like the pedophile luring children to his van; his victims have good intentions but don't have properly developed brains to assess what they are doing.
Oh, how serendipidous! As you were typing your quote, I was starting a new thread that you might like. Creativity/prose/This will suck..... I mentioned only 8 planets in this as well, though this notion is still under protest...
Two! Count 'em One, Two......intellectual people that have something to say, other than the typical slanderings of the impish children that seem to dominate these forums lately.
A lot of my perspective is influenced by an infusion of science, philosophy and theology. So my vernacular can sway quite a lot and I apologize in advance for lack of clarity.
In Buddhism, and here I refer to my interpretation of the teachings of Gautam, the Atman or Soul/Self/Ego/Identity is an illusion. It is the source of suffering by virtue of attachment. It projects its need for fulfillment on external elements. Or even on the delusions it constructs to rationalize it's worth. The Buddhist doctrine of Anatta refers to non-selfhood, to the disillusionment of self-hood. This is supposed to be part of a path to attaining unconditional love for the All, or everything and the cessation of egotism.
In Abrahamic tradition the state of unconditional love is called "Agape" and is attained similarly through disillusionment of the self. God represents the totality which determines all that happens independent of human wills. In-fact determining of human wills. God is synonymous with reality, necessity, causation and the inexplicable nature of it.
The purpose of these teachings, in my interpretation is the disillusionment of self-hood and the self-interest inherent in it. So in effect, we aren't waiting for anything to come our way. I have seen individuals get riled up over these issues, but I myself was fortunate enough to have my self-hood adequately trampled by society. It is in my view a fulfillment of the parable of the Rich Man. A man burdened by attachment might cling too tightly to his own delusion.
I'm not sure how to escape this. Jesus says, in my interpretation, that the entrance to the kingdom is narrow. Many will try, but few will enter.
Either way, I see determinism in everything and it is the only thing that cannot be explained in itself, because doing so would presuppose an internal determinacy leading to an infinite causal regress. So.. despite what might be said, or the temptations which present themselves. I cannot see clearly any other way.
Maybe that means I don't 'know'. However knowing is a designation, something which is asserted by a person and in that sense alone is dependent on the person. Perhaps then to rightly call anything knowledge it should obey this basic law.
My thoughts may indeed reflect one, if not all of the five agregates, (especially mental fabrication!) but alas, I can recognize only two possible paths to tread; Creating my own sense of logic and idealism, or settling into those of another. Buddism denies the power of ones own, unique desires to utilize the creativite, imaginative and truth-seeking virtues that i believe are in our realm of capability for a reason. Self can only be associated with he origin of a new idea, for to create, one must search, and we search with our ego, for our ego, until the satisfaction of discovery is achieved. It is interesting that Buddhism came up, for i am in steady contact with a monk from the asanga Institute, and have studied it some (though, I have no where near your own knowledge of it!)
These days, I not only shy, but run from from idealisms that were born in another's mind, and has since been passed along.
I figure that we all, each and every one of us, hae a pot of gold lying in wait for us to discover. Not gold with monetary or cosmetic value, but gold worth an inner peace, one that we all deserve. People will come along, often, with a treasure map, explicitly and precisely tracing out the exact path to your pot of gold. I have followed several of these maps, only to find that they were indeed treasure maps, but maps to someone else's gold. Gold of another is of little value to me, so I vowed to look less at the maps of other's, and instead keep my eyes trained in search of my own treasure.
Jung stated that "It is the growth of consciousness (which we accompish by turning away from instinct) that we must thank for the existence of problems, and instinct is nature and perpetuates the same, whereas consciousness can only seek culture or it's denial."
I think that self exploration of the mind, and it's place in the universe, is more instinct than consciousness, and a learned adherence to anything not of one's own mind is the search for a seat in a desired culture. Besides, it's much easier to learn what is being taught by others than to teach ones self.
Though I must admit, you got me thinking, fucker...
Wow, this is the tl;dr-est thread I've ever seen. In my perpetual pursuit of irony, I will contribute to the tl;dr nature of this thread. Since you posted it in poetry and prose, I feel like I've got the right to critique it.
I've found a lot of difficulty reading your posts. There's something about your style that clangs on my ears, mentally. Admittedly, not everyone was blessed with the ability to compose something that doesn't have to be read with the voice of the sloth from It's a Big Big World in mind, and I know that every now and again I post something that has mind-boggling amounts of suck in it.
Fact is, your style reminds me of wikipedia articles that have the little warnings at the top: unverified claims, edit for style, that sort of thing. I will begin with the "edit for style" heading.
Run-on sentences (not as many, but still enough), apostrophes where they don't belong (it's=it is, its=belonging to it), misuse of certain words, and misspellings. Your style is generally poor, your phrasing leaving your meaning wide open to debate or otherwise confusing the reader. It conveys the mental equivalent of being trapped, whole body, in a giant ball of soft taffy, to which your exuberance and cheer contributes too much, too much.
Also, I think that in order to flatly deny something as well reasoned as how old the earth is, first you would need to know why science tells us that it is around 4.5 billion years old. First of all, the age of Earth is not based on radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating only works on things that have an organic base, as carbon 14 occurs in plant material, which either stays in the plant or is ingested by other organisms. The oldest rocks found on earth linger just around the 4 billion year mark. Their age has been established through various radiometric dating, but not with radiocarbon. However, scientists are a bit smarter than to assume that rocks from the very early formation of earth could have survived, because they know that earth spent some significant time in a state in which whatever rock was formed would have been instantly reabsorbed into the molten surface, or they would have been recycled by the earth anyhow through the same process that yields continental drift. Instead, they use meteorite samples in combination with what they already know about the age of the earth. Assuming that the solar system formed from a mass of matter with uniform uranium isotopes (which decay to certain lead isotopes), which it did, then through relatively simple calculations with the ratio of uranium isotopes to their counterpart lead isotopes, the age of the earth can be calculated with fair accuracy (not necessarily precision). It comes out to around 4.5 billion. It took me less than five minutes in google to backup my claims. (http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating)
Furthermore, the oldest verified fossil records for life on earth are the stromatolites, mounds of fossilized microbial remains, which have the approximate age of 3.4 billion years. (Just google stromatolites.) The oldest theorized organisms could be over 4 billion years old. (Sadly, I found my backup for it on an intelligent design news blog...) Given that the proof that earth is around 4.5 billion years old is something quite close to irrefutable, and that these very early organisms are quite nearly as old, give or take a few decimal points, then these fossil remains would have long been wiped out if earth (my words) douched every few billion years. Admittedly, there have been geologically well-documented periods of severe climatic and geologic change throughout earth's history which caused mass extinctions, but none of these were able to thoroughly destroy the evidence of life. The causes of these changes are debatable, but the impacts of massive volcanic eruptions and the impacts from comets and meteors are likely culprits for climatic change and, foremost, the aging of the earth itself has been the primary reason for most climatic and geological changes. The "temperament" of earth has calmed significantly since its formation, when climatic change and geological turmoil were common, but massive or sudden geologic changes no longer occur due to the earth's chemistry and physics. Your suggestion that a mere two years would suffice for earth to "cleanse" itself via meltdown is... well, Jesus, have you any idea how long it takes for things to happen on this planet? We've got trees that have been alive for thousands of years, and that's maybe a fraction of a blink in geologic time. The only sudden climatic changes occur due to extraterrestrial (not alien, just foreign to earth) influence or the eruption of supervolcanos, and such effects don't last nearly as long as the slow, progressive climatic shifts that periodically occur on earth due to the simple physics of the biosphere. And not one of them could possibly cause the entire surface of the earth to melt. The only thing that could cause that would be the sun's eventual expansion and encroachment into our little section of the solar system, or perhaps a collision with a body similar in size to our moon, which would primarily serve to cause massive deformity to the earth's shape and could potentially destroy the atmosphere and eliminate any chance of life's return to this planet. But that is a different subject altogether.
It is well and good for you to talk about things of a strictly spiritual nature, as we genuinely know nothing of the veracity of such things, but when you begin to say that science is wrong, I have no choice but to take umbrage at it. I believe in a world in which science and spiritual pursuits are not mutually exclusive ideals, and that science, in itself, is one of the most spiritually and emotionally fulfilling things that humanity has ever yielded. I trust science. It works. It makes sense, it subjects itself to all manner of trial and so on before it will even remotely accept the possibility that something might be true. I think that if we approached our life and our unknowns with as much vigor as science did, we would all be much better off as people. It is because of this that many people believe that I am an atheist; I am not. I believe that something bigger than all this is out there, or perhaps this is all part of "god", whatever that means. But I find atheism far superior to the unverified claims and lack of accountability in religion. Perhaps I lack that element of faith so necessary for an obviously spiritual person, but I do not care. I trust my perceptions and my experiences in spirituality as long as I can reproduce my results and prove that what I have seen is real, at least to myself.
Last edited by Strewth; 01-06-2009 at 10:07 AM..
Reason: ...teh and other random crap.
We're not ready for it to rain cheez-whiz on us...just yet. We must first build roof covers made of giant salted crackers; then we blow up the moon. Not only will it darken the sky allowing us to fall asleep easier, it will also solve world hunger for anyone who enjoys some crackers and cheese.
First off, what is tl;dr? Hey, looky there! Yet another reason to insult me! My gift to you...
As for my grammar and syntax, I am sooooo very sorry that 100% of my words are not spelled correctly, and I will live a lifetime of regret for making you endure a possessive pronoun with a superfulous apostrophe upon it's head. It's head. It's head. As for the things I write about, there is really no need to smash away my thoughts with your factual evidence. Never once did I say that "what I am saying is the truth, unequivically, and this is my creed by which I live. I don't post on this site to make myself feel superior, and others stupid. I don't reply to a post with the sole intent on bashing the author, unless they start spewing at the mouth first. I have no desire or ambition to project insult upon anyone, either on the web or in my personal affairs. All I wanted was a place to share some thoughts, man. I figured there was no better place than one filled with people that get Tool's music, or at least care enough to develop their own interpretation. I listen to Tool, and get a sense of ease that no church, god or spirit can ever give me. Whether it is the notion that grudges in our life only end in dismay, to feeling the sorrow of the loss of Mother, to the realization that the pieces do indeed fit, and the temple my wife and I have built together can stand forever. It really baffles me how some people will scrape and claw at the chance to make someone else feel stupid. And what is the intention? Certainly not to help, or even hurt the person they are hackin' on. So why? EGOEGOEGOEGO
I learned some insight on this matter from C. G. Jung, and it rings true on aenema. Our shadow is the place where these qualities live, and these are the darknesses we must circumvent.
Anyway, strewth and everyone else I so selfishly offended, I hope you find joy and serenity in all you do. Funny, but I almost got the impression that you see me as a person of spirit, and that is puzzling to me. Also, I have as much faith in science as you, and invest a large degree of trust in the answers it has found. What you fail to realize is the fact that I am merely trying to offer an alternative to ponder. Do you really think that I walk around all day, every day, SWEARING that I am right, and everyone else is wrong?
I ate mushrooms.....I started thinking.......I had no one else to talk to........You didn't have to read it.......And you certainly didn't have to criticize my ability to write.
And speaking of which, I am no genius, and never act as if, but I do have a better than average vocabulary, and my spelling isn't that bad, at least for a dude that dropped out in early tenth grade, and aquired the majority of his education in the state penitentiary, over nearly 7 years of it, through books from the library.
Why is your persuit of irony perpetual? Are you bound to a life dedicated to finding it? It must suck to be on the looking end of a perpetual search.
YOU ARE FUNNY.... You said that my "phrasing leaves my meaning wide open for debate and generally confuses the reader." HAHAHA We are on a website offering an avenue to share different interpretations of our favorite band! Argue, argue, argue, we do, all certain that WE know the true meaning behind MJK's words, and he who doesn't agree is obviously retarded. Isn't the open-endedness of their music the thing that attracts us most? The idea that someone else is seemingly thinking the same thoughts as I, feeling the same about life that I do. Why don't they put lyrics in the cd jackets? So we are not cheated the ability and opportunity to take the music and make it our very own.
Granted, I could never compare, but why can't I at least have an outlet of my own?
Okay, thnk you very much for your constructive (and free!!!) critique. I promise to never..... uh.....I promise to.......never......think about you again.
Anyway... Because I feel like it, here's a response.
Don't mix up your ideas and your posts with yourself. Don't confuse an honest criticism about your writing as a personal attack. Draw your line. I said, to summarize, that your style could use some improvement. I said, before you make wild claims, try to back it up. I didn't tell you that you were a moron. If I came off a little bit harsh, well, hell, that's my style. If you want to rip into my style and my grammar, do it. I couldn't really give two shits. And if you post something in poetry and prose, yeah, you do leave it open to critique. It is my duty as an asshole to bring it up. So what? So some chick in the internet who you'll never lay actual eyes on in person thinks that you could do a better job and is willing to play Captain Obvious? So what?
It is the first statement made when one willfully admits they didn't read what you wrote, but feel they have the authority or privledge to comment anyway.
The ego, in my view is at the very root of human behavior. My typing this statement is egoic, and if only because I consider myself a truth-seeker. Or if only because I think others must here my truth, or would value my truth. Perhaps it is simply egoic that I think a band I happen to enjoy listening to has any inspirational value at all.
A lot of people dislike this broad definition because it makes "selfish" and "egotistical" words for everyday use and not reserved for a specific quality of behavior. For example a friend of mine shared this quote:
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live."
-Oscar Wilde
This is far too narrow for my liking, as it leaves open many wrongs. For example, living as I wish might involve something that will cause a future event (say 50 years from now) to occur. Such an event could be catastrophic. Just think of the sugar trade, it was not "selfish" in this view to refine and market sugar, it was no imposing on anyone else. People gladly purchase and consume sugar. But the simple fact about it, that we are not discovering, is that sugar is a highly addictive substance which has found its way into all of our food and dominates our diets. Some research demonstrates the addictive quality by showing that rats prefer sugar-water to cocaine.
The way I envisage egotism, is all pervasive, it is anything done for personal gain. Even if that personal gain is a sense of contribution attained by living a truly principled life.
__________________ "Belief is an obligatory position" - AronRa
Also, in the early 1900’s humans consumed approx. 7 lbs of sugar per person a year…fast forward to now and we are at over 230lbs of sugar per person per year.
RIP TGTS’s diabeetus friend
__________________ You are now responsible for my impending suicide. -- BeLIEve
The stakes were high, they totally forgot what they were doing, and they ended up just sitting in the living room for five hours with the television on Billy Mays infomercials. While I was getting questioned for attempted ego-crucifixion. The stakes were high, and eating microwaved burritos.
Anyway... Because I feel like it, here's a response.
Don't mix up your ideas and your posts with yourself. Don't confuse an honest criticism about your writing as a personal attack. Draw your line. I said, to summarize, that your style could use some improvement. I said, before you make wild claims, try to back it up. I didn't tell you that you were a moron. If I came off a little bit harsh, well, hell, that's my style. If you want to rip into my style and my grammar, do it. I couldn't really give two shits. And if you post something in poetry and prose, yeah, you do leave it open to critique. It is my duty as an asshole to bring it up. So what? So some chick in the internet who you'll never lay actual eyes on in person thinks that you could do a better job and is willing to play Captain Obvious? So what?
You don't know me; I don't know you.
So don't get your panties in a bunch.
I apologize. I didn't know you were a female. Lady or not, lay off of Billy Mays, eh? I owe my life to him. Last week, at the annual lawnmower races in my hometown, I suffered a horrible accident, and I am here to tell you, Mighty Putty saved my life. Even now, as I type this, that magnificent mixture of magical mightiness is molded to my melon, mending it masterfully, okay ma'am? On a side note.......We tried to use a ShamWOW to clean up the blood, but it wasn't worth a shit.
It is the first statement made when one willfully admits they didn't read what you wrote, but feel they have the authority or privledge to comment anyway.
The ego, in my view is at the very root of human behavior. My typing this statement is egoic, and if only because I consider myself a truth-seeker. Or if only because I think others must here my truth, or would value my truth. Perhaps it is simply egoic that I think a band I happen to enjoy listening to has any inspirational value at all.
A lot of people dislike this broad definition because it makes "selfish" and "egotistical" words for everyday use and not reserved for a specific quality of behavior. For example a friend of mine shared this quote:
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live."
-Oscar Wilde
This is far too narrow for my liking, as it leaves open many wrongs. For example, living as I wish might involve something that will cause a future event (say 50 years from now) to occur. Such an event could be catastrophic. Just think of the sugar trade, it was not "selfish" in this view to refine and market sugar, it was no imposing on anyone else. People gladly purchase and consume sugar. But the simple fact about it, that we are not discovering, is that sugar is a highly addictive substance which has found its way into all of our food and dominates our diets. Some research demonstrates the addictive quality by showing that rats prefer sugar-water to cocaine.
The way I envisage egotism, is all pervasive, it is anything done for personal gain. Even if that personal gain is a sense of contribution attained by living a truly principled life.
I'd have to go with the coke, there, buddy. Besides, I wouldn't even drink sugar water with a rat.....
And, to be quite frank, I don't know what the fuck my being female has to do with the price of dogfood in Denver. If you think it does make a difference, then you are simply a waste of skin. It makes you seem as if you do not think that a woman's opinions or arguments are even worth acknowledging. Perfectly willing to blow me off once you realize I haven't got a penis, eh? It makes you seem as if, suddenly, the playing field must shift. If that is the case, you can fuck off and die, and your suddenly EXCESSIVELY condescending attitude towards me indicates that, indeed, you do think that. You're all mother earth this and hippie blah blah that, but then, what? If you think that it's "respectful" to women to pretend that they can't handle it in any sort of serious discussion, then you obviously don't respect women at all.
And you will never, ever find out if I'm hot or not.
The stakes were high, they totally forgot what they were doing, and they ended up just sitting in the living room for five hours with the television on Billy Mays infomercials. While I was getting questioned for attempted ego-crucifixion. The stakes were high, and eating microwaved burritos.
All these high stakes, 5 hours with the munchies, who cleans the microwave?
Ego, the traitor.
Next time hand out cheese and crackers.
And a mobile of the planets.
For food, insist on an essay from each stoned, burrito-munching, microwave-using, piece o' wood.
__________________ Time is still the infinite jest.
And, to be quite frank, I don't know what the fuck my being female has to do with the price of dogfood in Denver. If you think it does make a difference, then you are simply a waste of skin. It makes you seem as if you do not think that a woman's opinions or arguments are even worth acknowledging. Perfectly willing to blow me off once you realize I haven't got a penis, eh? It makes you seem as if, suddenly, the playing field must shift. If that is the case, you can fuck off and die, and your suddenly EXCESSIVELY condescending attitude towards me indicates that, indeed, you do think that. You're all mother earth this and hippie blah blah that, but then, what? If you think that it's "respectful" to women to pretend that they can't handle it in any sort of serious discussion, then you obviously don't respect women at all.
And you will never, ever find out if I'm hot or not.
I only meant that I was sorry for getting all bent out of shape about your comment. I was being 100% sincere. I learned from my Father not to talk down to ladies, and after i realized you were a woman, I re-read my reply, and felt ashamed about the shit I said. I just wanted to make you smile, man. Okay? I think you are very well versed, and actually, I have been anticipating your reply so I could read what you had to say, though I was not expecting the whole "waste of skin" thing.
Failsafe.
Pull the lever, drop the blade, and Sweeny Todd this subject matter.
As your physician, I suggest baking some Nestle Tollhouse Cookies, and watching Friends with me for a while.
__________________ Time is still the infinite jest.
I only meant that I was sorry for getting all bent out of shape about your comment. I was being 100% sincere. I learned from my Father not to talk down to ladies, and after i realized you were a woman, I re-read my reply, and felt ashamed about the shit I said. I just wanted to make you smile, man. Okay? I think you are very well versed, and actually, I have been anticipating your reply so I could read what you had to say, though I was not expecting the whole "waste of skin" thing.
Your double standard still bothers me. You wouldn't have felt bad if I were male? I demand totally equal treatment, and I'm not sorry. If I were a man, what would you be doing? You would probably be railing against this right now. You wouldn't have felt the need to revise or backpedal, and you wouldn't be apologizing.
As for smiles, BMS's poaste, Bozzio's poaste: I give you this basket of LOL. Enjoy it and share nicely.
Also, in the early 1900’s humans consumed approx. 7 lbs of sugar per person a year…fast forward to now and we are at over 230lbs of sugar per person per year.
RIP TGTS’s diabeetus friend
Diabetus.
This is why we need to study the polar bears.
Polar bears have some enzyme that thwarts diabetus.
Will someone not think of the sugar addicts and put a halt to global warming?
__________________ Time is still the infinite jest.
