light

in the dark without a spark
the sharks will stalk prey in the park
dogs and trees silently bark
as man tries to make his mark
hark, we hear the man remark,
"it must be real, call it a quark"
these silly concepts are the spark
that release him from stifled stark
they are the words that bring the light
the light that makes all the things bright
the bright light providing man his sight
and with this sight, he sees all's all alright
but both in night and in the light
we can not know just what is right
there's always light that allows fright
light that lets us see the night
see the world as a we might
see our being as a fight
unsure of how light might smite
destruction as an act of spite
light will be just as it will
with no intent to thrill or kill
but certainly not sitting still
it is as it is meant to be
while we think that we can be free
the light is all that lets us see
it's all that shapes what we call we

the soul of my shoe

here is a question that matters:

• do souls exist?

fuck if i know. but i'll take some time to try to establish a concept of the soul that can be used to reasonably accept their existence.

first off, i'd like to say that i don't believe in religion, but how can i not believe in it when it obviously exists..? instead, i'll just say that i don't accept most religious doctrine. there are aspects that i find compelling and especially important for shaping morality, but all in all, religion is founded off of man's thoughts and man's thoughts are always led by impure motivations.

the conception of the soul that seems most mainstream in today's society is one based primarily off of religion and the prospects of an afterlife. people are souls with bodies. the body lives on earth..but when it dies, the soul transcends and continues existence in heaven.

"people are souls with bodies" - this makes me want to figure a distinction between souls and minds. personally,  i hold that the mind is the control unit for the body. is it a distinct entity separate from the brain? that's a silly question whose answer is entirely up to speculation. i speculate that the mind is the nervous system in action with consciousness coming in degrees with respect to the complexity of that nervous system. but is a nervous system necessary? if a being has some sort of control over itself, then it has a mind..it just can vary in complexity and conscious awareness. robots and computer programs can have minds. we just haven't yet seen any that have minds that adequately mimic those of the typical human. can other things have minds? do computers as they currently are have minds? prolly not what i'm tryna get into right now.

the relation of the mind to the soul..?

not the point of this post.

the soul...transcends physical existence free of a body. how can something transcend physical existence? it's not that i can't experience anything other than physical interactions with the world..i can certainly experience my internal mental life. it is that life that we expect to transcend our physical being when life escapes our bodies. we expect our selves to as well. our selves..our souls. but if our minds are simply instantiations of the complexity of our physical structure and the self is seated in the mind, then what are we to think of the soul and its transcendence. the soul must not be the self that arises from the functioning conscious mind.

transcendence happens.

heaven or not..our souls, and even our selves (in a sense), transcend our physical bodies and continue to exist as long as our impact on existence continues to have an impact on existence.

we live to affect the world...and all of existence. the effects that we have on existence do not die with us. the soul of steve jobs will no doubt continue to exist as long as apple and pixar exist. but more than that. the soul of steve jobs will exist eternally. existence will always show traces of the impact left by steve jobs. this is the case for us all.

coming to a point, our souls are immortal in the sense that the impacts of our being in existence are permanent.

be good and your soul will exist in heaven as those who remember you by thinking of your impacts will think of the good you left on earth.

be evil and your soul will still continue to exist, but this heaven/hell concept is nothing other than a subjective mental placement of identity in the minds of vastly different individuals. if you think it's good to kill americans so you act in that direction, then - although americans see you as evil for performing those acts - you will still transcend physical existence and take a seat in heaven in the minds of those that hold the same opinion as you about killing americans. 9/11 terrorists are remembered positively by their al qaeda co-conspirators and have therefore transcended into some heaven for the time being.

heaven is just the idea of ultimate goodness subjective to each individual. hell is the opposite. those who are good go to heaven. those who are not do not. it's all in the mind.

we don't know what happens when we die. i believe we stop existing. our souls live on as i've said. so what about other things that discontinue existence even without ever having life?

this is where we get to the title of this post. and my reason for believing that all that is must have a soul or there is no point in thinking of souls at all.

my shoes, my shirts, my computer, my bed..all objects i interact with must have souls. they impact existence and their impact is permanent. even when they no longer exist, the impact that they've had will continue to exhibit itself in the ripples and waves of existence.

the soul of my shoe is a reflection of the function it served nearly every day i wore it last year. without it, i would be a different person, and this world would be a slightly different place.

if you have a soul, then so does my shoe.

we are all circles

everythings a circle. everythings a cycle. it's all just movement in loops and spirals.

one of my favorite books is titled, "I am a Strange Loop" - it's basic point is that the concept of the self arises from nothing more than our mind's ability to represent itself and continuously update that representation as it is affected by experience. it serves as an argument for the computational nature of the mind and the possibility to computationalize consciousness. The concept comes so naturally that I had no trouble accepting nearly every point as i quickly turned through the pages.

This account of our conscious awareness won't be the focus of this post, but it will be beneficial to understand the foundation off of which i intend to contemplate the nature of interpersonal love.

to distract myself, i often spend my time on tumblr, usually favoriting and reblogging pictures that resonate with my mindset. about a week ago, a picture (accompanied by some text) on my dashboard caught my eye. i was quick to favorite it and after a few days, when i had time to spend updating my personal page, i reblogged the photo and added a caption similar to what is now the title of this post - "we're all just circles"..here is the photo:

for all of my life and, i assume, the lives of everyone living today, homosexuality has been one of the most culturally controversial topics. I have posted once before about the concept of marriage and the inability of many to accept the transformation of the term - and, in turn, our culture - to account for the union of homosexuals, but i have hardly delved into the topic of homosexual love.

to be clear, i've got a strictly hetero-orientation. I'm just nearly obsessed with the concept of love because, in my opinion, it is an all-encompassing notion that can explain all interaction. not only does it impact our interpersonal relationships, but it really is the driving force behind every interaction a being can have with its environment. beings love beings and that love is what guides them in continuing their existence. everything in existence should be thought of as a being. all of existence is the greatest being of all and that is my concept of god. if there is a word denoting a tangible concept, then in my mind, i would consider that concept as a being. say we have concept x, if we can say x is being x, then x is a being. the sweater i am wearing is a being because the sweater is being a sweater and an item of clothing and whatever else you can think of the sweater being (if i wear it as a turban, then it is being a turban). and i am certainly a being - there should be no qualms with that. there is some degree of love between me and my sweater and that love is what has guided me to wear it today. i love existence, so i choose to continue to exist - to interact with the beings of existence.

so..about the picture..

as you can see, people are represented as circles with protruding shapes representing their gender. sexuality is guided by love. sexual orientation is accounted for by how these different shapes overlap.

while it is important to be aware of the sexual inclinations of others in some instances, for the most sexual orientation should have no bearing on the judgments we make about the people we interact with. i love women..but i also love men..and i love all animals - independent of their gender. it's our expression of love that causes people discomfort.

when in a relationship of mutual love (in an ideal world, this would be a redundant phrase), the best thing to do is learn and be aware of the desires and tendencies of your relationship partner. it's best to express love in such a way that all parties involved are satisfied with the nature of the loving relationship. the only way to have this awareness of desires is to communicate with your partner. it is not enough to signify their sexual orientation with a silly symbol.

we are all just circles. attracted to other circles through our loving tendencies. maybe one day, each person will be expressed by their own unique symbol to allow for computer analysis to determine all orientation and desires of that person - in this hypothetical world, love would not be free. luckily, in this current day, we are all internal. while our bodies are the unique symbols that represent all that we are, there is no computer analysis that can determine exactly what it is that will make us happy. often, not even self-analysis can reveal that.

it takes action and interaction. eventually, through this, we can hopefully find others whose satisfaction and happiness is inversely correlated with our own.

this is easy with simple objects lacking happiness or the ability to feel.. we can project whatever happiness we have held within onto these beings and feel satisfied with the pleasure we receive from these interactions. once the concept of life is introduced, we must have a much more keen awareness of the states of the beings  we interact with. everything that lives has goals. the ability for us to understand those goals and do what we can to assist, or at least not hinder, the being's pursuit of goals is the sole(soul) purpose of love.

man or woman, gay or straight, we should all love each other. we should work to understand where we all stand amongst each other and act accordingly. we love for each other. life would be incomplete without it. we're all circles and none of us wants to be empty.

flushing waste and wasting flushes

so i'm thinking about words again.

I've been in Richmond Hall writing a paper for the past couple of hours. I just made my second trip to the bathroom - didn't wash my hands either time..totally badass. sucks for whoever will be using this keyboard next.

As I approached the door to the bathroom, I could hear water running. First I was surprised at my thought that somebody may be in there, but once I entered, I realized that that really the flush lever was stuck from my previous visit to the urination station. I immediately unstuck it so the water would stop running.

I thought to myself, "what a waste."

why was it a waste?   Because clean water was flowing somewhere only dirty water should go. We missed out on the opportunity to use clean water. The clean water was wasted.

It would not have been wasted had it been dirty water. When we flush normally, it does not seem like a real waste of water (unless it's a really inefficient toilet or something).

Sooo...when the flush contains human waste, we would not say that the flush was a waste of water.

when the flush contains no waste, it is itself a waste.

when what is flushed is waste, the flush is not wasted.

circles.

it's friday night. i should be the only thing getting wasted.

our culture. our technology. our selves.

so i was looking up words added to the english language. i wanted to get like a list of all the words added since the turn of the millennium, but i gave up once i found a list that had sufficient examples to be used in this post. here's the link.*

*you don't have to go to the site cuz i'm going to use the prime examples in this post.**

some time ago, the twitterverse informed me that the words "retweet" and "sexting" were added to the dictionary. i was quick to retweet. i quote this article, "The Concise Oxford English Dictionary has added 400 words to its dictionary, including retweet, woot, sexting and cyberbullying". 400  new words..alright way to go english language. lets keep on naming things. but the point is that there are so many new things to label. this is the 12th edition of that dictionary. just released. the first edition hit the presses in 1911. the 11th had last been revised in 2009. so we're talkin 400 new words sprouted up in 2 measly years. 

i don't really know if that's normal. i put forth a half-assed attempt to compare the original size of the dictionary in 1911 with this most recent version. just judging by the nature of these recent additions, i'm inclined to believe that we have never before seen a time when there was this rate rapid a rate increasing conceptual labels. the words are byproducts. our experiential world is so much larger than ever before. not only has there been an influx of brand new words, our language is also evolving as existing words shift in meaning. the word follower has been defined as "someone who is tracking a particular person, group, etc. on a social networking site" while the meaning of the word friend has also taken on the new dimension of social networking with this addition to the definition, "a contact on a social networking website" (http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/08/century-defining-language/). i'm particularly concerned about the mutation that the word friend has taken on. it doesn't even specify which social network. it's definitely not kosher for me to say that i'm friends with bill gates..or even that mark zuckerburg is my friend. although i would consider them contacts of my socially networked self. there is even a handful..or maybe trashbag full of contacts on facebook that i would never refer to as friends. we need a different word to describe these online relationships. a little out of control...but that's not the point. we sit here facing our screens doing what the internet makes easy.

I am just this fella wearing a hat sitting in the dark thinking things. because the room is dark, there aren't too many products in my field. but there are a few things that catch my eye. obviously this laptop is front and center. i've got the little speakers on either side. my checkbook, fingernail clippers, mouse, headphones, iphone, sunglasses, pens, bottle of wine, and bottle of rum. i don't know much latin, but shot in the dark guess they didn't have words for any of those things other than the last two. and maybe not even rum. these are all just the immediate external artifacts i'm experiencing. not even referring to all of the untold wonders of the internet awaiting me in the 10 tabs i've got pumpin in my chrome browser. where do i sit in all of this..and why am i here writing about it?

let's analyze the self another day. i'm very sleepy. i've decided i'll just keep republishing this till it's done.

**turns out that list sucks.*** 

***and i probably should have deleted everything pertaining to these asterisks.

essentially

how to get at essence..

words have their meaning respective of their uses. the essential meaning behind a word is impossible to ascertain outside of culture. so the essence of a word is completely relative of the circumstance of its use. only the user can understand the essence being expressed, but doesn't understand the full essence behind its use because in communication there is the output and the input. the speaker can only know what's going on with the word on his side of speech. he can only guess how the listener will understand the word. so with words..essence can never be known by an individual.

but can distinct objects be understood essentially?

the essence of a specific dog is different than the essence of the concept of dog. the word dog represents the overall concept of all things in the category of dog - this is the essence described above as being relative to cultural use of the word. but my dog..rex..there's an essence to his being. i can't get at the full essence but I know that there is essential truth to his existence. the only essence i can realize is in my mind with respect to my subjective experiences of his being. nonetheless, outside of human experience, there should be some complete understanding of my dog's being. certainly not solely in Rex's mind..he can hardly form concepts.

are there any concepts that represent things completely essentially? is there a mind that understands all that is as it is?

this is god. this is the goodness that is. essence is goodness and clarity is known only by the whole of existence. the closer we come to understanding existence in essence, the closer we come to knowing goodness and the more suited we are to be good and act as best we can.

acquiring truth and opening the mind to understand multiple viewpoints can prove difficult. every one has only ever known the world from the view of the self..grasping reality from the ultimate perspective of all being requires taking a step back and forgetting about putting the self at the center. we are a part of something bigger and it's important we know our place.

everything has an essence and it can only be understood in its relation to the essence of all other things. to understand the essence of one requires an understanding of the essence of all. we can never attain perfect essential knowledge, but we can realize that there's always more to essence than what meets the eye and that realization can let us always strive to build a more substantial base of knowledge on the essence of reality

i sign my name

we all have our personal expressions of individuality. my signature is mine and represents a pattern only familiar to me. yours is yours and i could never replicate the smooth motion behind your expression.

there are other patterns of expression unique to each of us. our signature is just the most identifiable. it is identified not by the exact image presented, but rather by the method of stroke used to create the signature. it's easy to replicate an image..much more difficult to replicate the activity that went into creating said image.

security relies on expressions unique to individuals in order to keep information safe. signatures are the age-old method of representing individuality through expression to maintain security. recently, as computers have become more prevalent, there has been a revolution in securing information relying on other unique human expression.

some of that expression is purely physical - like face recognition, eye scans, and of course fingerprint scans..i logged in to my computer just now using a fingerprint scanner. you can always think of the movies at top-secret secure facilities where employees of the government or some sinister agency have to go through a series of scans before entering an off-limits room.

but this brings to mind minority report and the black market of eyes. or a number of other films in which people dismember those with access in order to pass an eye or fingerprint scan. this is when the unique motor expression comes into play. we need some expression that shows that the individual was aware that he was approving of some action with his unique personal expression.

signatures are too easily replicable. you can't get at the actual motion and method behind the creation of the image. who's to say it isn't forgery?

recently, there have been new attempts with pattern recognition software that takes a live feed of actual human action to break down the aspects unique to the individual. voice recognition is a prime example. another method still in the test phase uses eye-tracking to recognize unique patterns of eye saccades (the twitchy bounces your eye is constantly making when taking processing the visual field). each person's eye develops its own pattern for breaking down images and sticks to the pattern it's developed for itself. this all happens unconsciously to the individual, so there is no way of mimicking it. personally, i think this is pretty nifty..but isn't so practical in most scenarios where simple security is at stake.

for now, we can stick to signatures. we each have our own and, while they are fairly easy to replicate, it is also relatively easy to dispute the replication. if it's a real official document, you get a notary to witness you in the act of signing. if it's a check, then it's your check and your signature. all is good. as technology becomes ever more present, maybe the little signature screens used at grocery stores will become more popular and will have pattern recognition software to recognize the actual process of signing. who knows if this is even necessary though..things seem to be working fine as they are.

frank abagnale jr tempted us to catch him if we could..and we did. he joined our side in catching crooks like him. now we have computers to scan for slip-ups. my signature is mine because it is an expression unique only to the motions made by my hand. yours is yours. that's something that no other can take from us and make their own.

smiles and laughter

happy happy

hands are clappy

all this love makes me so sappy

funniness and bunniness

bringing nothing else but bliss

playing games and hearing words

for which we relate as they're heard

knowing that we both feel it

not sure what, don't let it quit

eye contact and seeing smiles

lets the feeling last a while

back and forth the laughter goes

building as happiness grows

mirror mirror..seeing your face

express my feelings in this place

you're not me and i'm not you

but at this time it all is true

this is goodness through and through

so let the laughter encompass

mind and being with happiness

share the feeling with a friend

know it will come to an end

and leave the self open to more

always free to laugh galore

smiles never hurt a fly

or any other sort of guy

genuity and realness win

hiding happiness is a sin

just leave your heart out and open

always ready to let love in

happy and good should be akin

smile, laugh, and always grin

boats driftwood and the sea of love

we're all connected through the waters of love. all relationships are governed by our love for each other. this is not only interpersonal, but extends throughout all of existence. i love animals. i love trees. i love nature. i share that love with others and in this, we are related.

we all float in this sea of love - this sea of life - this sea of existence - being drawn to those things that attract us..to those things that harness our hearts and our minds.

we all are born to families so none of us is ever alone. we may feel like driftwood at times, but its always good to remember we never leave the boat on which we were born or the boat in which we were raised. each of us can be thought of as wood and love as the nails that bind us into a substantial floating vessel that can be guided and directed in the vast sea of existence for the good of the boat unit.

what makes this weird is when multiple boats are bound. each boat desires to head in similar yet different directions. when boats are not interested in becoming one, but desire to remain individual. those binding the boats are torn. which direction is best. which provides the most safety and structure.

our love often tears us from the boat in which we are most secure and forces us to embark on our own or with another in hopes of forming a new boat. we must be delicate in breaking the loving ties binding us to the boats that offer security because once the ropes of love are too frayed, it becomes difficult to retie he loving knots that bind.

when a storm comes, we all want to be on the boat most equipped to handle the trouble. i guess its best to set sail in good weather and steer the boat around the storms. sometimes that can't be guaranteed though and nobody wants to be the driftwood getting tossed around and torn apart by the harshness of nature.

basically, we must choose our boats wisely and understand that love is what guides all interaction. we shouldn't take advantage of the love offered, but appreciate it and use it for the good of the boat being bound by it. its necessary to keep in mind the types of love binding the self to other boats and to ensure that your actions are not going to harm your ability to remain on the boats that are important to you. - say you're on a frienship boat with a bunch of pals..a girlfriend is on this boat, tightly bound to one of your friends. you should not make advances on the girlfriend unless you are willing to give up your spot on the boat of friends or at least give up your loving bond with the friend with the girlfriend.

it's important to respect the relationships you establish and to be honest with your desires and actions. if you aren't, you can easily be left as a lonely piece of driftwood being tossed around by the harshness.

rapture

what is hell on earth? - who's to say this isn't it..?

the rapture predicts that today the good will transcend and the rest will remain for hell on earth. i'm still here. i hope this isn't hell.

every day people die and their souls transcend singular human being. they are the good because they are doing god's work on earth. everyone being instantiates god's goodness. those who die will die and leave their mark in the impacts they've had. their soul resides in heaven in terms of the role it played in bringing goodness to their world.

there are none who bring no good. so today is the rapture. sure. people will die and their souls will transcend this earth. this happens every day. no need to label this one especially.

what is life and what is hell..?

we're just living and being..animals seeking individual goodness. the pursuit of the selfish good is at the core of our existence. how else to ensure survival..?

we gotta understand that the self whose existence we should work to preserve is the whole of humanity. the greater soul of human culture only reaches heaven when humanity no longer exists. heaven on earth is unachievable as long as humans exist. this doesn't mean that we need hell on earth.

hell is torture. we can't torture ourselves. we should avoid committing ourselves to hell in life. lets keep working for human goodness and avoid torturing ourselves with thoughts of what could have been. if something would be good and it still can be, then let's make it be.

the rapture is just a label of the day. interpretations of the bible often lead to misunderstanding. but if the misinterpretations bring about better action and greater good, then what are they really misunderstanding. the bible is meant to better human goodness. if it does that, then it is doing its job and it is being interpreted exactly as it should.

to those whose souls will transcend human life today, let you be remembered as good. death on the rapture ensures transcendence in heaven..but so does death any day.

hey dude i like food (rhyme-o)

every time i try to type the word food, i accidentally write the word good. they are so similar to my hands and to my mind. i am ready to write "ood" so i automatically type "g" because that is the pattern my hands expect. and both bring me happiness. it is very infrequent that food is not good..so every time i use the word food, i could more generally use the word good. i'd sound weird though. "ahh well go ahead and eat that good..we can chat after." - that sounds weird.

i like to eat. we all should. it's what keeps us living. we need the vitamins and proteins and just straight energy. energy and substance are behind all of life. we can't pretend like we don't need it. tasty energy is so easy to take and use. just consumption. consume what we need. power is irrelevant. its only purpose is to accelerate success through personal persuasion.

i get what i get because it is presented to me. if it weren't, it wouldn't be on my mind. people in power decide what is presented to the people without. there's really not much choice. just ability to attain awareness. transparency is key. appreciate those who are freely transparent. you can usually trust that there is not much they're trying to hide.

and so when a company is transparent with their dining options, you know what you're getting. there is no reason to be upset or to care. they are freely open with you and let you know what you will be getting for your money. tastiness doesn't conceal unhealthiness. as long as you can look into what is providing the taste..you should be good. most good taste is artificial.

i don't want to eat good creatures. but so many creatures are good and are eaten anyway. what living thing isn't good? everything does what it should. who's to determine those who live and those who die? who's to determine the predators and the prey?

i'll eat meat because meat is there to be eaten. i'm not trying to start a movement. i'm not trying to join a movement. i'm just trying to live. Scientifically engineered meat would be nice because i don't like thinking about ceasing brainlife for my consumption of bodily meat. but for now, livestock is the only choice. i'm no worse than a lion. the lion doesn't care about the conscious life of the zebra and i don't care about the conscious life of the cow. if anything, conscious cowness is extremely less consequential that conscious zebraness.

why not just eat what there is and advocate the better meat options. we need the protein and taste. i'm just here to keep the economy churning. let's eat what we like and pump money into the system that will always be flowing.

who are we but what we be

heyo who's that fella over there? he's being ridiculous - that fella is ridiculous. he's being a champ - that fella is a champ. he's being kinda nerdy - that fella is kind of a nerd.

people can only know each other by what they see and observe. we can't determine who a person is by anything other than how they seem to be. the problem here is that even in our conception of their self as being instantiated by their being, we are still only getting a subjective perspective based on our experiential observations.

so when we conceive of ourselves, we can come to a better understanding of the self because our subjectivity encompasses ourself more objectively than any other individual's subjective experience of us could grasp. we know how we are being and we have a basic understanding of why we are being that way. we realize what we are being from our own perspective and try to realize who we are in the broad spectrum. still, we can only understand ourselves through our own perspective. we can imagine how we seem to be to others but we can never know. and really we can never know who we are in the totality of being because we can't grasp the entire causal network that being consists of.

we are nothing but what we be..but we just can't have a complete conception of what we are being. its good to try to grasp other perspectives, but all perspectives are subjective. we want to be happy and we should want to be good. we should strive to let our being be the best it can so that who we are is the best person possible.

we are being. and our selves are defined by what we be. but whose definition really matters? we want to be happy with who we are and we want to be happy with what we do. we should be who we want to be. and happiness will stem from that.

pets are for petting

take a look outside and notice all the dogs. walk a few blocks in the city and realize the number of signs on telephone poles for lost pets. our grocery stores have pet sections. craigslist has an overwhelming number of lost and found pet ads. how has our society come to this?

when I was younger we got Garvey. he was a rescue. we gave him a home. it took time to acclimate him with our family and structure. he was a good dog. we got him because Bud (my big bro) begged for a dog, but he belonged to the whole family. It's no surprise that Bud loved him most.

Time passed. Garvey got sick. We now have his ashes in a wooden box. there is really no need to keep them because we all will remember him no matter, but now we've got a token to reignite the memory.

Dogs (and all pets) provide company. they are something to love. something that will love you regardless of your personal relations. Why do we always need to feel loved? why must our love be reciprocated?

i love a number of things that will never actively love me back. love strengthens the heart. loving alone can do the trick, but so many of us are not happy with loving and receiving nothing in return. Thats why pets are good. they make us feel needed - because we are. Pet owners are the sole providers for their pets. they are the only source of sustainment.

Pets provide purpose. for those who can't commit to larger purposeful relationships, a relationship with a pet can be necessary. for those who have no trouble committing but have excess love to express - those who want to feel that their purpose is as plentiful as possible, they may also feel that pets are necessary. but there is so much other purpose out there.

our society now needs pet-owners because the pet market is enormous. there is no breaking the cycle and there is no need to break it. there will always be people desiring the unconditional love from their pets.

Bud wanted something that wouldn't judge him but would still actively love him. no books or television shows needed him they way he wanted to be needed. Garvey filled that void.

We now have Rex..a little Jack Russell. he certainly needs us. but nobody really wants to be needed. we already have enough purpose in our lives and Rex just barks incessantly. He needs much more attention than we have to give. He's made me question the worth of pets.

that's why i ramble now. pets are cute things that let you feel needed. it isn't difficult to show them your love and they don't judge you by your interactions. Their thoughts are fleeting and their conceptions are relatively stable. They love those who love them and don't ask questions.

As the owner of a pet, you can be as you like with it. it will appreciate any positive interaction you have with it. play fetch or tug of war. rub their belly or scratch their head. as long as you remain their source of sustenance, they'll keep coming back for more.

it all seems shallow to me..but i guess thats what pets are for. shallow loving interaction. like rubbing bellies and scratching heads..pets are there to be pet.

being good

let's just be honest..

let's just be good..

let's just acknowledge

love understood.

people are being

all that they want.

nothing but selfish

no goodness up front.

goodness is missed

goodness is had

the good are just being

overcome with bad.

now is the time to

look into the sky

to ask in wonderment

but goodness, but why?

how can we ever

know what is the best

if what makes us happy

is worse than the rest?

emotions are fleeting

love's always alive.

living for goodness

means letting love thrive.

it's time we consider

what we're living for.

life is for goodness,

there is nothing more

marriage = unification

Isn't marriage just the unification of a man and a woman in loving bond?

i think about love a lot. there are so many degrees of love..but to me, romantic love is an important aspect of love since it traditionally represents the attractive force that can eventually bond two sets of human genes to produce offspring. Once in love, a man and a woman can marry and commit to each other and to the common good of their relationship.

Gay marriage and the entire concept of homosexual romantic love has always been foreign to me. I can't understand the underlying forces behind romantic attraction to one you can't reproduce with. I used to be against the idea of gay marriage because it does alter the common conception of marriage and romantic love. Now I have accepted that as culture changes so does the meaning behind words. But this also allows that while religious cultures remain relatively static, they can maintain the meaning behind their terms and not recognize same sex marriages. while this can be the case, as a whole, our culture is changing and the powers governing legislature and society shouldn't be influenced by the cultural standards set by religious institutions, but should rather support its people - offering protection and the ability to pursue happiness respective of the rights of others. this means that if two people love each other enough for the commitment that marriage entails, then they should have the right to make that commitment and reap its benefits.

The fact that the concept of marriage has always been defined in a religious context makes me uneasy about calling the committed relationship a marriage, but i know it shouldn't feel that way. All of the benefits and unity should be allowed. A marriage in a synagogue results in the same type of relationship as a marriage in a chapel - this should hold for a marriage in a courthouse. One problem with this idea is that a key tenet of marriage is that the united couple then has the backing of the church and commits to more than just each other, but to an overall ideal. Marriages are becoming more and more flaky and they will continue to as the concept loses its religious connotation unless people find something another common purpose to relate on in forming the terms of their marriage.

There is nothing wrong with homosexual attraction. Each of us expresses homosexual love, but only a minority experience homosexual romantic love and attraction. All people deserve the same rights to happiness. There is no reason to inhibit that happiness because of a persons sexual tendencies (unless their like a pedo or necro or something).

So i guess the answer to my question is, "no..not anymore"

definite love

i think i'm in...definite love

what does that meannn?! i guess i'll have to use my faculties of interpretation....

well i know i'm in definite love. but this definite love is encompassing and comes in degrees. i'm just one fella in a sea of people love. just floating around being attracted to and repelled from others through the force of love. The 'others' i'm connected to through love are not all people - for there are certainly animals and even inanimate objects i love, but the relationship between myself and other people is special because of the ideas of mutual and reciprocal love.

* So I guess relationships with animals could involve the back-and-forth love between people, but it lacks the complexity of 'true love'. *

the true love between people is special though because of our capacity to relate. those we can relate and empathize with best should become most closely connected in this sea of people love.

love is definite, but never can the love in a single relationship ever be definite. it can become seemingly static, but experiences always sway that love in varying degrees of compassion and attraction.

i'm in definite love. and i'm definitely in love. i'm certainly connected in loving relationships with people. and these loving relationships don't just go away. they persist. only when communication ceases for great time does the relationship fade. but definite love requires an ability for the love to be defined. and that the definition hold. i don't see that ever happening.

i am one in love. being and loving. definitely in the great realm of love, just relatively unaware of the definition of this love.

Brain Storm: philosophy of mind term paper

Sent to Dr. G with an apology and excuse for all of the lateness this semester:

I have elliot's book now and have used it to write this paper and may copy pages that I need for my paper. I want to write about the meaning of intelligence, thinking, and consciousness and how to best test for them. I guess I want to use a functionalist approach of defining intelligence as a measure of classifying a being's ability to perform a specified function. This lets us use terms like emotional, social, intellectual, and even physical intelligence. It also lets us test for levels of intelligence like with an IQ test. With this reasoning, it follows that tools can be rated by their instrumental or computational intelligence. We should understand thought as a tool used in conjunction with action by people to express their functional intelligence. I'm not really sure what I have to say about consciousness. Something about awareness. Maybe it should be classified by a being's intelligence factors. Like a being with certain levels of intelligence is conscious. Really consciousness is just awareness and so if a being has any awareness of its self and its action, then it has some level of consciousness. I guess that means that for every category of intelligence, we can make a category of consciousness. An object that is conscious, is consciously intelligent. If it is only somewhat conscious, then we can classify its consciousness accordingly. We can test for different aspects of intelligence and consciousness through a variety of ways. I'd say the turing test is a good way to test for conversational intelligence, but not great for conscious intelligence. I wanna talk about psychometrics and this "anytime universal intelligence" test. So..that's the paper idea. I kinda just made it up and there may be some other term that I should know that already fulfills the role of the word intelligence in my brief explanation. If so, then I may need serious redirection. But if not, and this sounds semi-coherent, I'd appreciate suggestions if you wouldn't mind.

internet and identity: feeding a spider on his web

my application to this: http://2011.northernvoice.ca/

Abstract:

Our identities are understood with respect to interactions and expressions. Access to the internet offers us a plethora of new outlets of expression and interaction. On the variety of sites that allow us to express our selves, how should we conceptualize the identities of those we interact with and how should we best express ourselves? Considering the various online outlets of expression and their impact on interpersonal communication, this talk will establish a reasonable account of how to best interpret online expression in conceptualizing the identity of self and others.

Bio:

I'm a junior at the University of Richmond double majoring in Cognitive Science and Philosophy. I play club lacrosse here and am on the cabinet for the class of 2012. This semester I started a student organization called the UR SERVANTS - University of Richmond Students Establishing Reasonable and Visionary Advancements Necessary for Technological Societies. We think about society's dependence on technology and consider future implications of current and past technological progress. We also volunteer in the community. I do research in a cognitive science lab studying how our perceptual systems tend to learn patterns for attending to math problems. I also do research in a cognitive neuroscience lab using an electroencephalogram to study the neural correlates of object recognition. What I most care about is how people use technology and learn to rely on it over time and especially how this affects the way they think.

time

i see you

you see me

what you see is what will be

your view on my identity

one encounter leaves a mark

it could even light a spark

to learn a face

a simple task

but to learn a name

and make it last

to know someone

their personhood

represented by a word

what's a name do

on this earth

in the mind it represents

a being's being

not their worth

just what it has been

ever since birth

or since creation

coming to be

names hold the place

of concepts formed

experientally

over time we learn to know

not things in essence

but things indeed

their impact on our sensory

perceptual facilities

only knowing what we see

what we feel and what we be

what we hear and what we fear

time allows concepts to form

given a name we know a storm

katrina first was impending

days later the storm ended

but weeks and months and even years

passed with many many tears

and now katrina represents

more than just the coming storm

concepts form and concepts change

in a day a name can range

meaning can become quite strange

what is time to a mind

never able to rewind

the force that lies behind

all we know of any kind

this is cheating

i wrote this for two amazing people over a month ago, but it's stuff that's been on my mind and i thought it'd probably be better to post up here so as to keep it with all of my thoughts. so really just thanks r & s for being my inspiration : )

God is the ultimate force behind all existence. I feel like living a life for God..for Goodness..for Truth..will bring fulfillment and happiness in life. I can't imagine afterlife. My conception of myself is reliant on my body..my physical existence. It would be nice if there were some explanation for how a soul could transcend its body and instantiate itself free of neural organization. I don't see how I would be the same individual in death as I am in life. I am my brain and body so i feel like I will be no more once my brain and body are no longer functioning. Maybe there is some sort of bliss in death that comes as a reward for living a fulfilling life. Maybe somehow our individuality perpetuates in death and we still have memories from life on earth. I just don't know enough. I feel God does have a goal though. In my opinion, God is purposeful existence. What is the purpose? I guess that is yet unknown.. I feel that God is guiding the collective knowledge of man to a point of complete understanding of Nature. Every physical interaction has a purpose and plays a role in shaping humanity and the future of the natural universe. I feel like the only way that we can really think of our identities being eternalized is by leaving a substantial footprint on the progress of humanity and society. As long as there is an existing conception of your identity in some mind, you exist in some shape or form even if you die. the essential youness won't exist (at least like physically) without your brain and body, but like Jesus and Socrates, if you have a significant impact on humanity, your life will not be forgotten and the concept of you will live on. This is kind of depressing though because so many people have significant impacts on the immediate lives of many, but their memory doesn't survive through multiple generations. I want to believe that there is a heaven, but I can't imagine the reality of it other than just pure bliss free of all worldly cares. I look to God for guidance almost daily. I respect the fact that I am a part of God's existence and that he is the causal force behind all interaction. i hope that by following signs and instincts, i will be led down the path that God finds best suited. Love is key and I am not stingy with sharing mine. I think that reciprocal emotion and communication through emotional expression are both major factors in establishing true comfortable relationships in which both parties understand each others' perspective. that's why holding back emotions when with friends or family is counterproductive. If you want to have a comfortable understanding relationship with someone you've obviously got to open up. I like to call this sharing my God-love. It's like the emotional connection between people..or more that people have with one another and with other physical objects.

So basically that's where i'm at. I don't go to church or read the bible. I have one good friend - my suitemate from first semester last year who got arrested for multiple drug felonies last winter - who has found God and had an experience that he can't put into words. He is now clean as a whistle and living his life for God. He's invited me to Gospel and bible study a few times, but I'm just so busy that I can't make it. I went once just to support him as he told his story of finding God and turning his life around. It's apparent that God is making moves in the lives of those I love and if I really consider my life, I'd say that he is speaking to me through myself and my experiences as well.

my christianity

i'm all about family. the best way for me to think of spirituality is in the context of family.

we are all the children of god. i like to think of god as the father and nature as the mother..mother nature. the analogy works out fine. Although normally..when not thinking religiously, i think of god and nature as synonymous. which is cool because in christianity, marriage unites two beings into one. But in this relationship, as sometimes we might think of the mother providing the order around the house and the father provides the means of life support for the family, i think of god as being the energy and substance that interacts with the order of the laws of nature bringing about existence of the family of beings. i use this analogy only because it is the type of structure that i am most familiar with. plus i sort of feel that god gives us new opportunities for religious thinking in order for us to relate with him best in contexts that we're familiar with. and that's why there are so many different religions. God wants all of his people to live for him and understand his plan to work for the ultimate good. so in different cultures there are different religions because god interacted with people of those cultures to establish structure to lead to the ultimate good of that culture. problems have arisen now as the world has become smaller and religious beliefs (which have taken on meanings god never intended) interfere with one another. The point of god is goodness and the point of religions is to help us understand what goodness is and how we should act in order to achieve it.

so god's family and christianity.. Jesus was real. He is the ultimate big brother. While you all reading this are my brothers and sister (some big and some little), jesus was the perfect brother who did exactly as god would do. he was abel and the jews who couldn't stand him in his life were cain. ah biblical reference. he was just too perfect for them to tolerate.

in a family, there is this idea of unconditional love. you love your family just because..independent of their actions. sometimes actions stand in the way of a good relationship between family members, but in a loving family, familial love is stronger than any disruptive actions. the love remains. we have got to think of existence as familial. and god and nature as the single parent soul leading this family in love. so although we may not have good relationships with people, we should still love them. there are different levels of love, but among all things there should be the essential familial love of ultimate existence in god's family.

jesus loved all. in families, some members get along better with others because their personalities are more in tune. all the members love each other, but some people have more similar views and interests than others. the great thing about families is that everyone accepts one another for who they are. Unless one attribute or tendency of a member is extremely detrimental to the well-being of the family as a whole, members of a family are going to let each other be as they are. It's all about respect for the personhood of one another.

this is how we should love here on earth today. wwjd. jesus loves. we should too. who cares about difference of opinion. we don't have to get along to get along. as long as we all are working for the greatest good love should guide us to happiness.

containers

in my room once again..messiness everywhere. i just reached down to pick up a water bottle and two little sunnyd bottles. then i wondered. holding the bottles, i asked spiro, "how many containers do you think are in this room?"

there were boxes, bottles, cans, and bags popping up everywhere i looked. i said, "250?"

he stared blankly at me.
"600?" i followed up.

again..blank stare
"hmm..like 450? i have no idea what the best guess would be" - my last bait for response

gave it a few seconds and spiro said, "well what are containers? i mean my books contain pages."

perfectttt!

so what counts as a container?
depends on your definition..

could be anything that participates in the act of containing..and to contain is to either "have or hold within" or consist of/be made up of. this pretty much labels all of existence as containers of one thing or other. maybe we should turn to a more modest use of the term.

well i turned to the trusty wolframalpha search engine to give me a concise and understandable definition of container. and boy was it concise and unambiguous:

now that definition is different than the other and it should be more in line with what you'd think of upon hearing the word - container (except the bit in parenthesis..that is awfully specific referring to the act of containerization - learned that word just now..it's like the standardized method of transporting large quantities of stuff like on trains and boats and shit).

so we know bottles and bags and the like are containers according to both definitions, but what about the book? well, because people are clever, books can be used to hold things physically, but that is not their purpose. what they are meant to hold are ideas. They are receptacles for storing and retrieving ideas, but they differ from other containers in that when we retrieve the object being stored - the ideas - they are not removed. Once stored, they seem to have some sort of permanence to the nature of the book. This permanence can be surpassed with a simple tear though. Pages can always be torn out and shared the way a mirror can be pulled from a purse and passed around a group of friends. In virtue of that, I'd have to consent with spiro and say that books do seem to be containers for their containment of pages. They also seem to contain ideas, but that is probably only due to my assumption that pages can contain ideas. Pages hold ideas or parts of ideas and when put together in a book, the collective ideas held by the pages are then held by the book. So, the book then contains the ideas. But pages and books both hold words. Do ideas hold words or do words hold ideas?

so the word is container. one who writes is a writer. one who sings is a singer. the actor performing the verb is understood as the doer of the verb and to abbreviate, we can just label the actor as the verb + "er" - one who contains is a container. using the words one and actor probably signify some sort of sentience or aware identity but i just mean one being of existence. there is no reason to think that the actor must be aware of its action. broilers broil. recorders record. and aircraft carriers carry aircraft. Containers contain.

i'm being impractical right now, but every object of existence should be called a container since, in order for us to have any understanding of it, we must recognize the characteristics contained or held by its identity. practically, we will label things for their functionality as containers - like bottles, boxes, and bags - but we should be aware that containment is an essential aspect of existence and that all things are containers because, in some sense, they can always be considered to contain some other thing.

"who are you being right now?"

-i'm being me. myself..who are you being?

-"i'm being a-dot."

-well i guess i'd say i'm being stevie.

is stevie the same as steve..as steven..as smdaniel?

simply, yes. but only to me. how about to you? if you know stevie, then you know stevie. if you know steve, then you know steve. if you know steven..then guess what..you know steven. you all know me. but none of you know me.

what's in a person's name?

to me, my name represents how other people know me and can refer to me. just a silly label like every other word. and like every other word, ever person forms their own concept over time depending on exposure.

i'm never being anyone. i'm always being me. it just depends on who you're perceiving me to be.

but i guess the question now is, "does me being me involve me acting differently when being referred to as different names?"..like does my being consist of my tendency to come off as different characters under different names? acting as would be expected of me depending on the name i'm being referred to as..

i'd say yes. people who know me as stevie are my close friends. they expect personal interaction. when i'm interacting with people who refer to me as stevie, i'm more comfortable with myself and relaxed in my environment. steven is who i am in half my classes and labs..the other half refer to me as steve. plus i only ever introduce myself as steve, so when people are conceptualizing my identity under the name steve i'm more apt to experience discomfort and seem more uptight.

i only ever be me. but in being me, i'm being whatever i'm being conceptualized as - stevie, steve, steven, or whatever people think of me as. so often i'm just a face with no name. who remembers names at parties. i sure don't. can't expect other people to.

so who am i being? i'm being whoever you see me as..whoever you know me to be

clutter

sitting at my desk i can't help but be slightly overwhelmed by the disorganization and messiness. There seems to be no order. Beer cans, water bottles, deodorant, toothbrush and two tubes of toothpaste. there's gum and there's candy. notebooks and notecards. philosophy theses and research papers. i even have an underarmour shirt on top of a pile of who-knows-what. This is how i live..i don't even want to guess at what's going on under the desk. - definitely plenty of laundry and trash.

so this is clutter.

the word brings to mind (1) an old saying, (2)a famous Einstein quote, and (3) a response my brother once said after hearing the quote.

1. a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind
2. if a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, then what are we to think of an empty desk?
3. what about an organized desk?

My brother keeps his desk (and entire room) pretty neat and tidy. I, on the other hand, am king of clutter. So what does this tell us about the differences between my brother and i? is his mind organized and mine cluttered? possibly..but what on earth does that mean..?

we each have things that we need and use. it's a matter of how much effort we want to put into retrieving these things versus how much effort we want to put into creating order in the arrangement of these things. My room is small and there are only so many things that I need to have easy access to..and for these things, i'd say that i have a pretty efficient method of organization. Mostly, these things are applications on my phone or computer. Other things would be my hygiene-maintenance tools which have their respective areas in my desk-vicinity and papers, books, and notebooks which too have their respective homes on the bookshelf or in my backpack..or temporarily on the desk. The rest of the stuff just comes and goes. When i sum up enough energy, I rid my desk of the excess stuff by disposing of it or moving it to a new home depending on its use to me. This is the order behind my clutter.

Organized people, including my lil bro, put the time into keeping their objects arranged orderly. This guarantees easy access to anything needed any time..that is as long as the organizer remembers where he keeps the needed item.

Order keeps things simple. It guarantees predictability. We all order the world uniquely to our own tastes and tasks. One man's clutter is another's organization. no need to judge.

the words

words words words
heard by herds
nerds herd birds
nerds don't herd
words aren't heard
softly speaking
hardly listening
hardly speaking
oftly listening
Identity
I dent a tree
The time to be
Truth you will see
With words like these
spread consciously
By you and me
Knowledge is free
Let us be we
We are indeed
Living to learn
Sharing our know
Kindly concede
To error's burn
Don't let it go.
Build the base
Of all that's true
Make it known
Free to face
The mind of you
Not yours alone
Face the mass
The massive mind
Of humankind
And it will find
truth is not blind

miPhone

I sit and think. What to do? I'd like to write. But what to write about..? And how to write with my computer screen no longer in commish..?

The answer to all of Life's problems: my iPhone.

So here I am now holding this thing between my two hands letting my thumbs bounce around this little horizontally-oriented keyboard. I've become a pretty quick typist with this thing over the years. My hands have really learned how to handle it. Kinda like learning to type on the keyboard (thank you aim). The iPhone has not only altered my motor skills. It has fundamentally changed who I am.

I am always becoming myself. Before I got my first iPhone in 2008 I had been living my life relatively content and satisfied with a computer at home and a motorola krzr in my pocket. I did not feel like there was anything missing or lacking. Nonetheless, I was ecstatic to get my first iPhone. I'd grown envious of the powers provided to my friends by their smartphones. So what was I to do with this new piece of equipment? Of course..go to the app store and get games!

There was a slew of free games that took advantage of a variety of the phone's capabilities downloaded and deleted on this phone. Only a few remained for more than a month. Now I'm left with the ones I liked most. It was a matter of time before I realized how extensive the app store really is with it's offerings. My favorite and most used apps are no longer the games. The best apps for me are those that have a function that benefits my doing and being. So my favorite apps vary functionally.

Pandora provides me with music.
Maps navigates for me.
Feedler brings me news.
Craigsphone connects me to goods and services.
Facebook is my most substantial online identity.
Mail is essential.
USAA let's me do all of my banking anywhere.
Calendar organizes the aspects of my life needing organization.
Clock keeps me tickin.
Camera captures moments and images.
Dictionary defines words.

I am me because of the things that I do. A person doesnt form a judgment of me based on my thoughts. We only know eachother through our action. This phone has changed my outlets of action and thus changed the way I act and live my life.

This raises some concerns for me. But I'm tired.
Let the dreams roll.

i facebook messaged mark zuckerberg just now..

..and this is what i said:

I don't know how to address this. I'm not really the most formal of people..especially on facebook. But I wanted to contact you and this is definitely the most simple form of communication for me. i am a student now. I like to think about thinking and how the nature of our environment impacts who we are. soo i'm doing a philosophy thesis on identity..how we conceptualize the identities of others and ourselves. I'm trying to lay out a more contemporary conceptualization of identity and facebook lies at the center of this for my peers at least. I'll be examining a number of facets of expression available on the internet.

The reason i'm messaging you:
you created this. i want to know the thoughts that drive the changes to the site. Facebook is an outlet of expression. It is constantly being redesigned to more naturally suit the users' interaction. if you'd be interested, i'd like to get some sort of interview with you. I haven't put anything together yet, but i wanted to just get on your radar by contacting you now - i don't even know if this is really you i guess. I'd really appreciate a response though.

alright so now a little more about me..
i'm 20. double major with cognitive science and philosophy. what i really care about is technology. i'll be going to grad school to do some sort of human-computer interaction or human factor and ergonomics or something. i'd like to make money working with mobile interface. the mobile computer has a variety of potential directions it could take in design. I want to have an impact on the direction. While i'm in college i am just trying to build my resume..starting a technology acknowledgment sorta club. totally a nerd, but not brilliant with computer code..never learned anythin except a lil java in intro computing. i am just trying to live life happily and do what's best for all. I think this thesis will definitely serve a purpose and i was hoping you'd like to share some of your thoughts with me.

thanks for taking the time to read this.

increase of action

here i go. posting for nobody. I'm finally trying to get involved with this blog. I'm not ready to share it though, so I don't have any visitors. I need this to have substance because I gave out my about.me to a summer internship i've applied for and am now susceptible to a background check. So i gotta up my internet image. I guess this post will give me a chance to think about internet identity...

I sit here procrastinating with this blog instead of writing my paper. I will be going to play pong relatively soon so I should not be doing this. But that doesn't matter. you won't be reading this tonight. There is no hurry for online static communication like this. I am a person leaving a footprint on the web of human communication (not to be confused with the recently declared web of robot communication). My identity is not anonymous but it isn't personal either. This is me expressing myself through my true internet self. This isn't the only outlet for me to express my true internet self..facebook, linkedin, tumblr, and youtube are all other sites that i use to represent myself truly - free of anonymity that the internet can sometimes offer. There are many other blogs and sites that I use solely to express myself anonymously. Those words may never ever be connected with my name.

synchronicity

coincidence with meaning. ever since i learned the term (coined by Carl Jung), examples have been popping up like zits on an 8th grader's forehead. it's strange that the meaning behind most of these coincidences has involved spirituality or religion. it is nice how we can attribute the causal force behind such coincidences to our God. this lets us refer to a structured account of how we should interpret these coincidental interactions to give them meaning - an account we find in the Bible. and what's most interesting about the Bible is that it is a key source of synchronistic experience. how often do people find the perfect verse to help them get through the tough time they've been having? sadly, because my devotion has never been too significant, i've never experienced any synchronicity with the Bible, despite my countless efforts closing my eyes opening the book and pointing to a random place on the page.

I'm not so familiar with the Bible, so i've just been relying on my own reasoning and experiences to determine what the synchronistic events should mean. Using my knowledge of God and the order of Nature and what ought to be, i can usually come to an interpretation that lets me act appropriately. Most times, i'm good to go and my decision was beneficial to the overall well-being of myself and others. There are other times when I fail though and am left with regret and disappointment. I guess I've moved past simply talking about reacting to synchronistic interactions and am now just talking about acting in general. I should write this paper that was due last wednesday. goodnight nobody

ignorance is bliss

Kendall asked me to write a poem with the first line "dread the wisdom" so i did:

dread the wisdom
bring the words
knowledge cometh
the soul is heard
information organized
with rationale in the mind
beginning to collect the truth
analyzing like a sleuth
once we know we don't forget
knowledge shapes the way we think
consciousness will never shrink
and wisdom uses reasoning
to structure concepts contently
so do the wise live happily?
does having knowledge make us free?
the wise seem to be aware
of truths that stimulate our care
for concepts that a wise man knows
burden his mind as it grows
worries come and worries go
it all depends on what we know
before thought we're all fearless
don't realize how life is amiss
there are no cares to be dismissed
so ignorance just must be bliss

smiles and eye contact

as i walk through campus i can't help but appreciate the beauty and magnificence of nature and my environment. the realization of how lucky i am always leaves me with a smile on my face. i smile as i walk and sometimes even whistle..just lovin life. most people i pass don't seem to be lovin life so much and i never know how to handle the minor interactions. should i hide my smile? avert my eyes to avoid contact?

usually, i'll subtle my smile and avert my eyes for a bit then go back for eye contact right about passing time - if their eyes are on mine, i'll do a little head nod and sorta smirk/smile or whatever - more on the right side of my face than the left. it's always nice when they smile back

my favorite is when i pass another appreciating the environment. it's like we have a little connection sharin the god-love. it's like "yes..this is awesome. good to see you're lovin it too"

life is amazing