Chaos by James Gleick

This is one of those books...

This book strings together the historical thread that led to what we could call "Chaos Theory." Have you ever seen this...

That is the Mandelbrot Set. Among other things, its a picture of infinity. I am not yet comfortable with numbers and mathematics so the beauty and profundity of the math behind Chaos Theory is lost on me. However, a concrete discovery for me is that there are two main divisions of geometry; Euclid's and Fractal's, and that nature's geometry is not Euclidean but Fractal. 

I'm lacking inspiration. It was an amazing book but it evolved into a chore. I have a neurotic drive where I must finish a book I start. These are some notes I scribbled.

1) Science is increasingly specialized.

2) Language is a powerful barrier between branches of science.

3) Euclidean geometry is a kind of Platonic geometry where Fractal geometry is nature's geometry.

4) Chaos Theory is pattern emerging in, what at first glance, seems to be random systems.

5) Strange Attractors are the separation between randomness and chaos.

6)  An increasing senese to look for the fundamental concepts which science rests on.

7) There is SO MUCH I don't know. So much of it seems like noise, fluffy language not required.

8) In order to keep my sanity, I need to focus on pragmatic science. What will help me? What will help others? What is useful?

Has the question been asked: Is all of fractal's geometry, this natures geometry hidden inside this visual equation?

Don’t date a girl who reads

"Date a girl who doesn’t read. Find her in the weary squalor of a Midwestern bar. Find her in the smoke, drunken sweat, and varicolored light of an upscale nightclub. Wherever you find her, find her smiling. Make sure that it lingers when the people that are talking to her look away. Engage her with unsentimental trivialities. Use pick-up lines and laugh inwardly. Take her outside when the night overstays its welcome. Ignore the palpable weight of fatigue. Kiss her in the rain under the weak glow of a streetlamp because you’ve seen it in a film. Remark at its lack of significance. Take her to your apartment. Dispatch with making love. Fuck her.

Let the anxious contract you’ve unwittingly written evolve slowly and uncomfortably into a relationship. Find shared interests and common ground like sushi and folk music. Build an impenetrable bastion upon that ground. Make it sacred. Retreat into it every time the air gets stale or the evenings too long. Talk about nothing of significance. Do little thinking. Let the months pass unnoticed. Ask her to move in. Let her decorate. Get into fights about inconsequential things like how the fucking shower curtain needs to be closed so that it doesn’t fucking collect mold. Let a year pass unnoticed. Begin to notice.

Figure that you should probably get married because you will have wasted a lot of time otherwise. Take her to dinner on the forty-fifth floor at a restaurant far beyond your means. Make sure there is a beautiful view of the city. Sheepishly ask a waiter to bring her a glass of champagne with a modest ring in it. When she notices, propose to her with all of the enthusiasm and sincerity you can muster. Do not be overly concerned if you feel your heart leap through a pane of sheet glass. For that matter, do not be overly concerned if you cannot feel it at all. If there is applause, let it stagnate. If she cries, smile as if you’ve never been happier. If she doesn’t, smile all the same.

Let the years pass unnoticed. Get a career, not a job. Buy a house. Have two striking children. Try to raise them well. Fail frequently. Lapse into a bored indifference. Lapse into an indifferent sadness. Have a mid-life crisis. Grow old. Wonder at your lack of achievement. Feel sometimes contented, but mostly vacant and ethereal. Feel, during walks, as if you might never return or as if you might blow away on the wind. Contract a terminal illness. Die, but only after you observe that the girl who didn’t read never made your heart oscillate with any significant passion, that no one will write the story of your lives, and that she will die, too, with only a mild and tempered regret that nothing ever came of her capacity to love.

Do those things, god damnit, because nothing sucks worse than a girl who reads. Do it, I say, because a life in purgatory is better than a life in hell. Do it, because a girl who reads possesses a vocabulary that can describe that amorphous discontent of a life unfulfilled—a vocabulary that parses the innate beauty of the world and makes it an accessible necessity instead of an alien wonder. A girl who reads lays claim to a vocabulary that distinguishes between the specious and soulless rhetoric of someone who cannot love her, and the inarticulate desperation of someone who loves her too much. A vocabulary, goddamnit, that makes my vacuous sophistry a cheap trick.

Do it, because a girl who reads understands syntax. Literature has taught her that moments of tenderness come in sporadic but knowable intervals. A girl who reads knows that life is not planar; she knows, and rightly demands, that the ebb comes along with the flow of disappointment. A girl who has read up on her syntax senses the irregular pauses—the hesitation of breath—endemic to a lie. A girl who reads perceives the difference between a parenthetical moment of anger and the entrenched habits of someone whose bitter cynicism will run on, run on well past any point of reason, or purpose, run on far after she has packed a suitcase and said a reluctant goodbye and she has decided that I am an ellipsis and not a period and run on and run on. Syntax that knows the rhythm and cadence of a life well lived.

Date a girl who doesn’t read because the girl who reads knows the importance of plot. She can trace out the demarcations of a prologue and the sharp ridges of a climax. She feels them in her skin. The girl who reads will be patient with an intermission and expedite a denouement. But of all things, the girl who reads knows most the ineluctable significance of an end. She is comfortable with them. She has bid farewell to a thousand heroes with only a twinge of sadness.

Don’t date a girl who reads because girls who read are storytellers. You with the Joyce, you with the Nabokov, you with the Woolf. You there in the library, on the platform of the metro, you in the corner of the café, you in the window of your room. You, who make my life so goddamned difficult. The girl who reads has spun out the account of her life and it is bursting with meaning. She insists that her narratives are rich, her supporting cast colorful, and her typeface bold. You, the girl who reads, make me want to be everything that I am not. But I am weak and I will fail you, because you have dreamed, properly, of someone who is better than I am. You will not accept the life of which I spoke at the beginning of this piece. You will accept nothing less than passion, and perfection, and a life worthy of being told. So out with you, girl who reads. Take the next southbound train and take your Hemingway with you. Or, perhaps, stay and save my life."

-Charles Warnke

Why you'll never be happy, and other sensational headlines to get you to read my shit. (Hedonic Adaptation)

Hedonic Adaptation. Sounds fancy. Sounds like some ivory tower elitist bullshit. Now that I've appealed to my FOX News demographic; on with whatever the fuck this blog is.

Hedonic Adaptation is proposed by some as being the single most important and influential factor fucking with our happiness. If I was scholarly I'd go find some sources, but as a chronic moderate achiever, I'll pass and just assume what I'm saying isn't bullshit. To be fair, I'm being as honest as I am capable but I've had a few drinks.

If you're reading this, you have access to the internet. You have a piece of machinery completely beyond your ability to recreate or fully understand. This machine is capable of sending your thoughts thousands of miles, in seconding, to potentially billions of people. This machine basically allows you to be telepathic. The network this machine is a part of encompasses not only the world, but the air space that coats this rock, even extending into space, where thousands of other machines circle around this planet at hundreds, maybe thousands of miles a second. These machines absorbing, bouncing, and redirecting energy we can't see with our unassisted body. For this connectivity, Kings would have sent tens of thousands of men to their death if even the slightest hope existed that they could obtain it. These machines inspire no awe in us.

Hedonic Adaptation.

We believe we are good at predicting how happy or sad a future event will make us. Science says?!...Nope. (Insert sources I'll give to anyone interested). We're not. Hedonic Adaptation asserts that each person has a unique baseline of happiness. This is influenced by genes and a host of mostly adjustable mental factors. You could win the lottery, in 6 months you'll be back to baseline. You could become paralyzed by a spine crushing car accident, 6 months later--baseline. Therefore happiness will never be achieved by obtaining anything material.

This force drives american culture. Capitalism fucking feasts on the 300 million plus flesh sacs who embody this mentality.

I'm laughing. Its ironic. I decided I'd write on this topic last night. I was excited. I believed it'd be fun and fulfilling  Here I am writing...and its not fun nor fulfilling because I feel like I'm failing to capture the gravitas of the topic and its impact on our happiness. I'm a victim of the fucking thing I'm writing about. I'm not too upset. I seem to have a high positive baseline. I could be completely delusional and be in a state of utter depression with wall after wall of cognitive dissonance and not know it.

Thats the funniest thing, the things I've learned most from college is that we don't know shit. This isn't some high schooler regurgitation of Socrates in an attempt to sound deep. No. Our memories suck. One of my professors makes a living explaining to jurys how eyewitness testimony isn't accurate enough to convict. Scientists have repeatedly put fabricated memories into participants minds, and these people truly believe these stories happened to them. If you let that sink in, a few logical steps and your at a scary place. Then there is the whole philosophical matter on what can you know, how can you know, and how do you know you know. Blah blah blah (this is what I think whenever I bring up philosophy to almost anyone :c )

I'm rambling.

Hemingway said something about drinking and writing.

He's a greater man than I cause I'm butchering this shit.

Stop being uninspired.

Stop watching TV.

Create something.

Thanatos and Eros

There is a theory about reality I'd like to ramble on about. I'm not sure what its called or who wrote it, but I've encountered it enough to know it is not my unique idea. If anyone reading this knows of any antecedental influences, please feed me dem links.

The theory goes a little like this; our global connectiviness, call it consciousness, sociology, or the internet, existes by maintaing a balance between two forces. To borrow Frued's terms but leaving aside the sexual obsession, these two forces can be called Eros and Thanatos. A simpler but much more ambiguous explanation would lend the terms Good and Evil. Eros is the drive to connect, love, nurture, help, and so on, where Thanatos is the drive to destroy, deconstruct, hate, and hurt. The theory asserts that when one force becomes too powerful, thus shifting the balance our existence requires to maintain, a zeitgeist begins to emerge allowing the birth of the opposite force to explode forth which reestablishes balance.

I know little about the history of humanity so I won't pretend to take you on a knowledgable trip through our collective past, however I have been exposed to an interesting supporting claim to the balancing theory. Credit is due to Alexander Shulgin, I am only filter regurgitating his findings, who I'm sure would admit he was another filter of more original idea, and such is the creative process.

In 1942, a group of american scientist discovered they could control nuclear fission, thus the birthing of man's ability to end all life on the planet. Oppenheimer recalls the event as such (1). (The sadness in his eyes eclipses any acting I've ever seen.) The balance between Thanatos and Eros had shifted wildly in the favor of destruction.

A year later, seemingly by accident, Dr. Albert Hofman accidentally assimilated a chemical he had created 5 years ago. What ensued was the introduction of LSD, and as it applies to the theory of Thanatos and Eros, an explosive resurgence of the Eros force. Man believed he had mastered matter, this translucent substance reminded him he had not yet even fully explored himself.

My peers and I struggle to understand the Zeitgeist between the 40s and 70s. We fail to appreciate how close this planet was to total destruction. We can't comprehend the significance and reverberating repercussions of the counter culture. I could and normally do fall into rants lampooning my peers but I should stop. That comes from a place of Thanatos rather than Eros.

Psychedelics are not for all. They are not a panacea. However, they are important. They are powerful. They are useful. If you have the mental durability and conscious curiosity, try them. Be responsible.

A quick rant on drugs and addiction. Coffee and sugar; drugs. Television and texting: addictions. Ultimately the term "drug" and "addiction" are arbitrary symbols we as a group have accepted to have some kind of meaning that was constructed by a group of people other than ourselves. Take a second and stand back for a moment and think about this. You fear these substances. You use excuses like they're illegal or they're bad for your health, but you speed, drank before you were 21, eat and drink absolutely synthetic shit. You're afraid because deep down you know the life you live is not the life you dreamt of, and in order to kill that voice inside of you that cries with agony and regret, you willingly offer your consciousness to noise. Don't be afraid, with a little risk, the rewards are far greater than the monotony you subscribe to everyday. Risk your life, death is guaranteed regardless.

How I learned the Greek alphabet in 10 minutes.

In my attempt to lure you here, the title, like most online titles, is sensational and largely bullshit. I didn't 'learn' the greek alphabet. I did however memorize the upper case letters well enough to regurgitate them correctly and get 24 points added to my New Testament Final. Here is how...

1) Chunking
2) Irrational association (yeah, I made this term up...)
3) Loci castle (for harder projects)


An accepted standard for most of our cognitive abilities is captured in the idea known as "The Magical Number 7." Basically, with some exceptions, most of us can only hold between 5 to 9 "things" in our short term memory. A way to hack this limitation is to "chunk" ideas together. Try to establish connections between objects that lump them together. I personally separated the letters into 5 groups based on there order. The creativity to how you do this is seemingly unlimited. This brings me to the next concept

Irrational Association

Gall founded the pseudoscience of phrenology, the study of the mind based on the shape of one's head. I memorized this instantly by imagining a man on a ball (ball...gall...come on), rolling on people's heads creating depressions and lumps. It may sound odd, but I'll never forget it. The more outlandish, the more likely you are to remember it.

Loci Castle

This technique is for the badasses only. The principle is that we can vastly improve our memory if we create mental structures, such as houses, castles, or routes we take to work, and create an image of the thing we wish to remember and place it somewhere in our mental structures. At the moment, I only have one and its the house I grew up in. I start at the drive way, if I want to remember Gall, I'd place his head-mauling activity where my mail box would be. If I established a path I take through my house that is consistent, I can place the letters of the Greek alphabet along the way in places that were important to me as a child. I could put Beta in the driveway, or Omega on my bed.

This loci idea can become the most powerful memory device you ever acquire if you work on it. I haven't.

If this kind of stuff intrigues you, check out "Moonwalking with Einstein."

What would you choose?

This rant is inspired by the beauty of a forgotten friend sharing sensitive secrets. Thank you.

What if what you believe happens to you after death is exactly what happens to you after death? What if your belief determined your afterlife? But what if you really had to know it would happen, that if even the slightest doubt was held in the mind at the moment of death, you would leave the dying flesh tomb to only enter another one, repeating until you came to this realization? Do any of us have this sense of doubtless belief in what happens after this fleshy bag runs out of matter to metabolize?

Would you want to be a Christian? Would you want to be an Atheist or Buddhist or Jew or Muslim? Would you create your own belief? What would you do with that kind of mind melting power and responsibility? Would you be able to maintain your self-created beliefs in the face of persecution  resentment, mockery, or violence?

What kind of peace would a person with this kind of confidence live with? How enjoyable and entertaining would the struggles of life be? Would a person even want to live in this world after this realization?

Were would the limits be drawn? Would there be any limits? What if we are sleeping gods waiting to realize the awesome power we have?

What if we have already made this choice? What if our choice is this life we are living now? What if this life, at this point in time, is the life we have been working towards? Have we forgot? Are we squandering our gift to ourselves? What are we doing?

If you had the power to chose your existence after death...would you chose or accept another's? If only your own imagination limited the potentially eternal existence you would be greeted with after physical death, what would you choose?

Stoned Ape Theory

So there was this fool named Terrence Mckenna. And by fool I mean one of the most linguistically gifted, psychedelically brave, fringe-creative, and enduring intellectuals I have came across. He's an idol. Anyways, amongst many theories he proposed in his short life, one is known as "The Stoned Ape Theory."

This is only going to be an introduction. To look at this with scientific scrutiny will require more effort than frankly I feel like asserting. His basic assertions are eloquent. They make intuitive sense. I see it more as a creative proposal to a still unanswered problem as oppose to a dissertation with a long and dry name that maybe nine people will ever read. He brought life and energy to science were most of his peers offered black boards and overhead projectors.

The setting is Northern Africa. An ice age has just ended causing global climate change. One of these changes effect our red-assed primitive ancestors. We go from tree swinging to flat plain waddling. As we try to find food in this new environment we see vegetation growing up under the shit piles of certain four legged beasts (1). Amongst other shrubbies, one of these plants are an ancestor of the magic mushroom. Yeah, you know were we're going.

We started nibbling on that shit. Here are where his three main assertions come into play. The first one is that at low level doses, much before any psychoactive effects takes place, there is an increase in visual acuity. As a barely evolved primate who has nibbled on the plants that spring forth from shit piles, I can confirm this phenomena. So applying some basic darwinian principles, we can see how this would benefit foragers.

The second principle is that at slightly higher doses, mushrooms will provide a substantial energy boost.  Imagine an environment as stimulatingly dull as a grass plain...a boost in energy for a male ape is going to lead to erections (men will understand). That hairy, unbathed female thats been eyeing us since we brought the last shit-pile harvest isn't looking too bad. Basically, these apes eating the higher doses will be better food gathers and will have more offspring.

His third assertion is that at the really trippy levels, five grams or higher, a phenomnona known as glossolalia occurs. I've never experienced this but I'll take the shaman's word. This is basically is answer to the unanswered question. Were did language come from? How did our creativity spike so rapidly?

He proposed the apes who started eating a little, ate more because they could hunt better. They then began reproducing more frequently than the sober apes. As generations grew up on these plants, some arrogent bastards would eat too much and start shouting nonsense. It extrapolates from there.

Take nine minutes and hear it from the mans mouth. (Check out his hip wardrobe--trailblazer)

1) Ever wonder why ancient civilizations worshipped cows? Me too! Could it be because their shits seemed to produce these magical plants that allowed you to talk to God. mhmmm.

Some sources for you curious readers whom do not exist but I delude myself into believing in...


A little psychological advice

From a moderately intelligent (very moderate), highly skeptical, psychology undergrad.

Psychology is not a hard science. At least not the psychology 95% of the population is aware of; not the psychology that you read in bestselling magazines or in ad-cluttered blogs. The hard science behind psychology is slim and uninteresting to the laymen. What the sheeple love are the sensationalized headline studies claiming women are sexually attracted to knee pads or short men are more likely to fuck horses than tall men.

These studies are largely bullshit (1) --along with personality disorders, Freudian psychoanalysis, ADHD, and most other theoretical psychological work. Okay, maybe bullshit isn't the right word. These are unprovable suggestions. Interestingly, the steaming pile of shit these structures create reveals a little true. We are susceptible to suggestion.

We live lives of noise and confusion. We stumble from one objective to the next, just hoping we keep our lives together. Few of us have the time to do the research required to become an authority on matters of the mind, so we accept the "truth" proclaimed by "experts."

Most of these experts are just like you. They are stumbling as you are, only near a deeper chasm. Most of this shit produced is not science.


I've got a lifetime of learning still to do, but let me assure you; DO NOT ASSUME ANY NEGATIVE  PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES ABOUT YOURSELF UNLESS YOU HAVE SOUGHT AND RECEIVED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Chances are, you never will. Assume the best about yourself among that which you can not prove. You're mind is suggestible. Suggest the best. You will reap the benefits. Do not seek the haven these sensational headlines and money following studies claim about that which is unprovable.

Ultimately, this is just my suggestion. Although it has as much objective truth as any of the headlines, it does not have the stamp of authority our intellectually reluctent society craves...maybe one day, but if I keep these posts up I'm not sure that'll happen lol.

Assume the most useful about that which can not be proven. 

Now I don't feel like I need to explain this but the inner philosopher sees holes in logic that I should address. Don't over assume into a life of obliviousness and stupidity. Balance assumptions with some basic reasoning skills. Psychology has a long fucking way to go. Thats good for an undergraduate but bad for you. Believe in the most useful metaphysics. Guide your suggestibility.


1) Statistics is malnipuable in so many fucking ways in staggers the mind, and this is the ground the mass of psychology rests upon. More on that as I feel more confident my elaborating won't make me look like a total ass.

Going Home

"My interest and attention in this subject was first enlisted by several of my subjects who described their sexual orgasms in vaguely familiar terms which later I remembered had been used by various writers to describe what they called the mystic experience. There were the same feelings of limitless horizons opening up to the vision, the feeling of being simultaneously more powerful and also more helpless than one ever was before, the feeling of great ecstasy and wonder and awe, the loss of placing in time and space with, finally, the conviction that something extremely importent and valuable had happened, so that the subject is to some extent transformed and strengthened even in his daily life by such experiences."
-Maslow "The Peak (Mystic) Experience" (1970)

I'm listening to the song right now. The ten minute and twenty four second blessing that was the chorus to the most beautiful experience I can ever remember experiencing. I quietly hope it helps me recall accurately. The substance induces a dream like state. It's like fish in a way. The harder I try to clutch the memory, the easier it slips through. I write this with an intent to net the experience. Pretend this sentence is witty and funny; this will be long and I'm hoping to keep your attention.

My first attempt was unsuccessful. We used "The Machine." Its a 2 liter bottle with the bottom cut out and tin foil placed where the bottom once was. The intention is to seal the bottle. We placed the crystals in the center, brought a flame to the foil, and allowed the bottle to become milky. I had put more than 100mg. This should have been more than enough. For reasons unknown, I didn't "break through"-- the common expression used to describe the feeling of complete disconnect with reality.

We had a rotation. As my friends each attempted and succeeded, it was my turn again. I had used all I had on my first endeavor. With little hesitation my friend offered me his. I told him I'd be more comfortable him picking the amount we'd use considering my appetite. Too little would be more wasted, so he decided on using almost 200mg. If this wouldn't do it, the claim people cannot build a tolerance to this drug would need revising.

I chose "What do you go home to (Mountains Mix)" as my muse for the trip. Its a long song and a trip usually lasts around five minutes. The bottle began to fill. As transparency became opaqueness, I started inhaling. One, two, three hits. Still conscious. He started torching the tin foil for more smoke. Four, five, six--she brought me water for my throat. I began laughing silently. I felt such a sense of collective and cooperative urgency to get me to break through. It was loving.

I was altered. But still conscious. I remember taking turns between swigs of water and inhalations of hot smoke. I imagine there are less harsh ways. The smoke screams of synthetic compounds. It numbs the mouth and dries the throat. I don't think I could have managed the pain if it weren't for the fact that the substance was kicking in. Perception was getting weird.

They tell me I took ten or eleven hits. Around eight I was starting to detach. For me, when I'm about to leave this reality on this chemical, my vision looks like its peering through stained glass like you see in churches. Light starts refracting differently. Its beauty.

Before I lost attachment, I saw something that I don't think I'll ever forget. I looked down at my right forearm. What I saw I can't explain by what I know about cognitive psychology. Hell, I can't explain most of this. It was almost X-ray like. I saw what looked like the inner workings of my arm. I saw movement. I was dark blue and purple. There was energy. Nothing like shroom waves or LSD distortion. This was something else. It shocked the fuck right out of me. I knew it was time to close my eyes.

As I closed my eyes, I felt a profound emptiness around the right back part of my perception. I could hear the music. It was rich and deep and tactile. But I felt like something was wrong. I felt around my head and realized my right headphone wasn't in. Once I fixed that tragedy, the trip began.

It was not like my first experience a couple weeks ago. That trip was high speed, intense if the word has any meaning at all, and seemingly incoherent. This (I think music plays a massive part in how the experience goes. My first time was accompanied by Bassnectar, this time by Explosions in the Sky.)

I remember there being visuals. This is weird to articulate, but at the beginning of the real ride, I felt as if the base of my seeing self was inside my brain. From this perspective I could see the back of my eyeballs. It was not cartoony, it was anatomically correct like you'd find in an anatomy book. I saw the nerves that attach to them and bring information to the brain. If I had to pick a location I'd say I was peering from the pineal gland. (It should be noted that my experience is surely influenced by all that I have read of other's adventures into this realm. The pinel gland is frequently referenced. I wonder how much of other's reports acts as echo chambers for first time explores.) As fantastic as the visuals were, the real depth of the trip was the feelings, emotions, and sensations.

My attention is always inwards when I do psychedelics. I remember seeing images and patterns and movement. Those didn't compare. What I felt was beyond what I'm capable to tell. I will try.

We all can subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, feel where "we end." Its normally a few inches to a foor past our skin. Our bubble. I felt this dissolving. I felt the base of my spine open outwards as if my legs were being splayed apart at a physiologically impossible angle. I felt warmth. I felt another. I felt a sensual femaleness as I did the first time. Where I felt as if we were making love the first time, this time it still felt sexual, but it felt as if she were just smiling at me, as if to say, "Its nice here, huh?"

Then this sense of peace came over me. A peace so deep, so penetrating,  I tear up thinking about it. I felt like I was "home" in a sense foreign to anything I've ever experienced in reality. To say I felt like I was in heaven would almost capture the feeling. Damn. I lack the ability to articulate the serenity. It seemed as if I was pressed up in this femaleness, like she was hugging me, like my entire self was cocooned in this love. Haha, descriptively I'm really veering of track. Its hard to explain. Its was the greatest positive feeling I've ever experienced.

The entire trip I felt a female essence. Interestingly, every man I've talked to has also told me he's felt this femaleness and its sensualness. I've only met two females who have ventured into this chemical and they both say they have felt a femaleness and that she feels motherly. This really intrigues me. I wonder what it says about psychology, consciousness, and about the collective unconscious.

The entire trip lasted only a minute and fifty seconds. It took five minutes to get me under and I was back within two. As I came back, my friends anticipating my story, I just sat with my eyes closed, desperately savoring the feeling. I knew it'd escape. It did. I got emotional. I kept my eyes closed until I got some composure and said "I felt like I went home."


Random Notes

I read reports of people talking about rich images, seeing entites, and hearing voices. This has not been my experience. Maybe our minds differ. I fear I have a weak imagination. I feel these things. 

As I was about to go under, I had a weird feeling I can't articulate. It was a feeling that the core of my being was being altered by the chemical. The feeling was so foreign I didn't feel fear at the moment, but if definitely scared me. I think it may have been the very beginning of an ego death. If so, fuck I'm terrified  I've done a decent amount of psychoactive and I have yet to experience ego death. My first DMT trip was close, and it may have been, but it was so aggressive I don't recall experiencing it. This time was slower, and I remember it.

DMT was not outlawed on an individual bases or for any reason attributed to the drug. It was outlawed under a sweeping bill passed in the 60's to cripple of counter culture movement. It is not toxic. It is not addictive  It is not hazardous  Save your judgments unless you've tried the substance or are an expert in neurochemistry  biology, and psychology. 

The pervading feeling through the trip was a sense of being home. The song I was listening too... "What do you go home too." I didn't make the connection until almost 30 minutes after the trip. Make of that what you will.

Why my Generation has it the Hardest...

Also known as--How I console myself for being on the verge of graduation and having no fucking idea what I'm going to do with the rest of my life.

1) Technology
2) Finance
3) Privacy


Okay, so follow my rambling for a minute. More then ten thousand years ago we realized we could plant food. We began manipulating the physical world. This changed shit. The course of humankind changed. This was our first paradigm shifting revolution.

About nine thousands years after that, we started manipulating our senses. We started shaping glass to see further and see smaller. This spurred the scientific revolution. This is the second paradigm shifting revolution.

Instead of waiting another nine thousand years for a revolution, we had one in a couple hundred. The Industrial Revolution. Instead of waiting a couple hundred years for the following paradigm shift, we had the information revolution 150 years later.

Here we are, a decade or so since the explosion of the information revolution. Looking back in the cultural wake, we see the exponential turnover rate of these paradigm shifts. They are coming faster, faster.

My generation will be the first generation in the fucking history of humankind to experience multiple paradigm shifts. I say multiple because two seem certain, but if the exponential turnover continues...10 years, 1 year, 1 month, 1 day...this train of thought creates a strong urge for me to roll into the fetal position.

Why this is such a pain in the ass is that even if I had a goddamn team of data gatherers to plot and predict future trends, we would still have little to no idea what the fucking world will look like in 10 years. How am I supposed to pick a career? What industries will exist in 5, 10, 20 years?

I'm hoping we don't reverse engineer the brain for a couple decades but that hope lingers bleakly.


Okay, where the fuck do I start? I live in a country where my government buys its 'money' from a private institution at an interest rate. At an interest rate. If all dollars ever issued are done so at interest, there can never be enough money to pay said interest than interest owed (I desperately feel like I'm understanding this wrong, so if anyone can clarify for me, please help me). These debt notes are backed by nothing of material value. It's value solely exists due to the collective social opinion that these slips of paper mean anything. A currency value hinging on the mobs opinion...what can go wrong.

We have banks that have created an artificial branch of investing where they invest in the likelihood of an investment failing. These investment's return value is affected by the rating agency's judgment of the likelihood of these investments failing. These rating agencies who determine the return rate of these bank's investments are employed by who...uh, the same finical institutions making the bets...the fuck? Oh, and the banks in charge of issuing the world wide interest rate at which banks loan to each other ...yeah, they've found fraud happening there too.

The bottom line is we, as a collective, have the resources, technology, and ingenuity to feed the world. We could give all people shelter, clean water, heat, and medicine. Yet we don't. Why? Money. Capitalism. The fuckery is wide in scope and sick in nature.

Work hard for 30 years. Retire and relax. Oh, but the company I work for can take my savings, huh? Oh, due to inflation I better not live more than 10 or 15 years after I retire. Why would my generation want to continue this cycle? I have no urge to do so.


Facebook, Twitter, texting, sexting...No one in my generation can run for public office.


What worries me the most is that despite these new and overwhelming obstacles, I am surrounded by apathetic peers. I've met two people my age who I think have a better grasp on this chaos than I do. One teeters the verge of alcoholism and the other has the social skills of an aspergers patient. I truly hope my experience is the exception rather than the norm.

It isn't so bleek though. For those without the personality quirks that cause a nearly neurotic motivation to improve and contribute to society, life has never been better. Entertainment is cheap, abundant, and in HD. Taco's come in Doritos. There is a new Call of Duty every year. Your pictures can be filtered automatically. We have the drugs to fix your discontent. We got da Soma. Welcome to our Brave Present World. 

Idols (Mentors)


"To follow the path, look to the master, follow the master, walk with the master, see through the master, become the master." -Zen Proverb

A quote who I cannot source and cannot forget goes as follows: "A man is not free till his father dies."

There is a tragedy in parenting. You're expected to sacrifice your life, your goals, your dreams, for your children. You teach all you have ever found useful. You share warnings and wisdom. You hope to equip them for life.

The tragedy is succeeding.

The child consumes your sacrifices, assimilates your goals, and creates their own dreams. They quickly learn all you have to teach. They forgo your warnings and wisdom to experience hardships first hand. If you have properly equipped them, they will leave you.

So too does the aspiring individual experience this cycle with the greatest idols history has remembered.  Seek the greatest characters history can offer you. Choose to learn from their sacrifices, goals, and dreams. Assimilate what of their work is useful to you. Integrate their wisdom and warnings. Allow their struggles and life works to equip you further for the life you hope to live.

And like you did with your parents, let them go when you have finished. Allow yourself to become an individual that maybe a child from a coming generation will discover on day. Live a life worth learning about.


There is a cycle beginning here. Growth for the youth is best propelled forward by the seeking of great idols, learning about these idols with a worshippers ferver, and than the killing of these idols.

As we assimilate these idols intellectually, they add to us consciously.

There are those who seek no growth, and to them, these ideas need not apply. To those who seek growth, beware; the failure to kill off idols once they have been assimilated is to stunt one's growth.

Psychological Presuppositions

(This was an assignment for one of my psych classes. It's long but as brief as I could be. I'm sure I'll hate it in a year or two, but at this juncture, its my longest work...)

All systems of knowledge rest on assumptions. My philosophy, as presented in this paper, rests on the assumption of radical skepticism. I proceed from this base to argue that reality is subjective and that the individual has the freedom to choose their perspective of reality, subsequently their “truth.” This freedom is limited by many factors, but one liberating factor is free will, or at least, the illusion of free will.

         There are more effective ways to spread an idea than this medium—words, APA format, written language. With that in mind, this is the medium that has been issued and I will play by its rules. For clarity, in each section I will begin with defining the terms and offering a little background. In the second half of each section, I will provide my opinion on the matter. As I have understood it, this paper is to gauge my personal view on these issues. I hope that my ideas will not offend, or to be more honest, I hope possible offensive will not cause a lower grade as compared to a paper of equal quality but one that is more conventional and sympathetic to this university’s principles. I also would like to thank my instructor. I have been playing with philosophical ideas for the longer part of 5 years now and I have never written more than a page or two. So, thank you.

            As defined by Webster’s Dictionary, Epistemology is “the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity” (Webster, 2012). There is a lengthy game that could be played if I wished to be as philosophically rigorous as I’d like to. I would define every term used in the definition of epistemology, then define all major terms in all terms previously defined, ad continuum until we have established the meaning of all major English words; but I don’t think such an endeavor would be necessary or even appreciated for this assignment, thus I will refrain. However, I do think it critical to define “knowledge.” If I refer back to Webster for a definition of knowledge, within its description is the word “experience.” Within the very definition of knowledge, we have been shown our culture’s answer to the sweet dance A priori and A Posteriori have been entangled in the last few thousands years.
            My approach to epistemology, which I’d like to think is unique, but could be reasonably captured by the term “Epistemological Nihilism.” This stance is an extreme skepticism that denies all knowledge. I do not deny all knowledge. I believe no absolute knowledge or truth can be known. Now, a paradox arises here. If I am to claim that there is no absolute truth, that claim is itself attempting to assert an absolute truth. Here, I concede. It is my subjective view that there is no absolute truth.
            This view of Epistemology appeals to me because of its implication. Before I explain why, keep in mind all systems rest upon assumptions. Even systems of logic rest on the assumption that logic is an ideal, useful, or valid way to understand or know reality. I assume no absolute knowledge or truth exists. This, in my mind, dispels the existence of a God as accepted by the majority of religious people, that is to say, a God who exists objectively from humans, a God who is all-knowing/all-powerful/all-existing. Such a God, as known as Jesus, Yahweh, or Allah, provides a source of absolute truth. Without digressing into religious debates, I choose my approach because it allows me--the individual--freedom. I am free to choose.

A Priori and A Posteriori
            As it was briefly touched on in the last paragraph, the most referenced authority in the English language on defining terms has a description of knowledge that leans in A Posteriori’s favor. A Priori and A Posteriori are the conflicting ideas on where knowledge comes from. A priori argues that knowledge exists before birth while A Posteriori argues that knowledge comes from experience, thus post birth.
            To claim either is true in isolation of the other is comical to the extent I would wonder if the assertion was meant as satire. Logically, one could create a definition of knowledge that would allow them to remain logically consistent while claiming either A priori or A Posteriori is true is isolation of the other, but this would be just a semantic and logic game as oppose to some kind of objective truth. I believe that information resides in the organism before birth, thus laying the foundation for experience to add to the organism’s information total as a whole.

Nativism versus Empiricism
As a rock causes ripples, the A Priori and A Posteriori argument reverberates and gives rise to the battle between Nativism and Empiricism. Nativism claims, “perceptions are operational from birth” while Empiricism holds “all perceptions are learned or developed from experience” (King et al, 2009).
Again, any who claim either is true in isolation of the other is simply being naïve. If one so chose, they could define perception in a way that would allow them to argue either side, and again, this would be a game of semantics. If Nativism were true, why live at all? If Empiricism were true, how does one learn to learn?
For my personal philosophy, I believe one should understand their genetics (Nativism) but not let their genetics imprison them. As for experience, it gets much more lengthy. To be concise, experience is one of our closest sources for objective truth. One should learn the sciences that seek to understand the experiences we all perceive as the same, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and other “hard sciences.” This is a limit to my philosophy, which emphasizes subjectivity. However, my perception of this limit is not a rigid wall but more a gravitational pull. If one so chooses, it is yet unknown how different they can experience an “objective” truth of reality, but it is known that they can experience it differently.

Instinct versus Learning
            What does one do with the assertion that it is an instinct of humans to learn? Instinct is, “a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity” (Webster, 2012). Learning is defined as, “knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study” (Webster, 2012). Are instinct and learning divisible? Again, it depends on who is defining these terms, what their purpose is for defining, and how they define said terms.
I believe learning is instinctual. Learning for me is a kind of cognitive evolution. I believe it is an instinct of humans to evolve, thus my claim that learning is an instinct of man. The speed and velocity of the individual to learn and subsequently evolve is powered by subjective philosophical assumptions and genetics, both conscious and unconscious. Simple belief in oneself, in either a negative or positive direction, has been demonstrated to have scientifically significant impacts on recalling learned material. Knowledge is subjective. One should choose beliefs that best explain their reality while providing the greatest possible happiness for the greatest number of people.
I think a mastery of learning is one, if not the most, valuable concept to learn. One should continue to learn throughout life. Dogma should always be challenged…including the dogmatic statement that dogma should always be challenged.

Criteria for Claiming to Know Truth
            My personal view on human’s criteria for claiming truth rests with the concept of power. The human race has found many ways to divide itself; language, religion, nationality, even what sport team one is a fan of. These divisions are a cause of groups to form. Truth is best described as the beliefs and assumptions more powerful groups accept and convey in spite or directly at, less powerful groups. It is because of this power play that the vast majority of humans succumb to the appeal to truth by means of authority.
            An authority is any person or group that claims knowledge of truth (King et al, 2009). My interpretation of authority is an individual or group that is believed to have power in some realm of knowledge.
This is the most common appeal to truth because it is the first we are exposed too as a conscious organism and it is also the one that expends the least energy and resource to assimilate. Due to our inability to care for ourselves at the onset of life, humans are exposed to authority figures from the moment one becomes conscious. These authority figures are our parents or care takers. Many children idolize and even deitize their parents.  Parents are humans, mortal, and fallible. Children who are reluctant or incapable of seeing their parents as equals, thus seeing their parents faults and learning from their parent’s mistakes become ideal fodder for culture. Culture does not want dissent. It is a social organism that wants its occupants to follow the established order.
Authority, for me, is the least viable appeal to truth of the ones I will cover mostly due to its potentiality for corruption, and also the lazy nature it encourages. One must take it upon oneself to evaluate these authorities and determine for oneself if these group’s versions of truth is an accurate representation of reality. One must also determine if these groups truth claims that cannot be verified by observation, lets call all claims beyond observation and experimentation metaphysics from here on, promote the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. The wise will let you know how little they know. The fools are often the loudest and most confident. One should beware any who claim to know. Ultimately, truth is subjective.

            Proceeding from my base of epistemological nihilism, empiricism can survive. Empiricism is an appeal to truth through observation. This idea has been synthesized through many great minds and is now the major mechanism that fuels science. The Nihilist can proclaim that logically there can be no absolute truth to gravity, but he will fall and die just the same as anyone else if he proceeds off the edge of a cliff.  This is the beginning of the hazy line where my philosophy’s freedom to choose any meaning he or she may please meets with the closest thing to objective truth.  In my opinion, the reason this appeal to truth cannot be absolute is because I claim human’s are the measure of things. If one does not believe in external deties, than in the absent of all humans, there resides no meaning.

            Rationalism is the appeal to truth through the use of innate ideas. Without my conscious awareness, rationalism seems to be a prominent factor in support of my subjectively based philosophy. There is no absolute/objective rational perspective, from my point of view. Each individual will have a unique genetic makeup mixing with a unique collection of experiences which creates a unique rationale.  The weak, lazy, or manipulated accept other’s rationale. Cultures and institutions provide these rationales for the meek minded. I believe if the individual who attempts to learn their own rationale and live accordingly, will be happy. The tragedy is that humans have given so much power to non-human power entities like governments, cooperation’s, political ideologies, laws, and media, that many persons are physically not allowed to live in harmony with their nature. I understand this line of logic opens all kinds of nasty hypothetical “what-ifs”, and ones I would love to engage, but for this paper, I believe this is an adequate introduction to the interchange of my philosophy and rationalism. Rationalism is subjective yet malleable by influence of power.

            Aestheticism is a doctrine that principles of beauty apply to other arenas of thought (King et al, 2009). While I find this appeal to truth less convincing than an appeal to authority, I respect it more because of the implications it has on followers of this kind of thinking. Beauty is a hallmark in mathematics. It is generally accepted that a simple equation is “beautiful” and therefore considered more likely true than a longer and less simple equation that may offer the same answer. I know so little about math that it would be an insult for me to comment on the validity of this approach, however I do have a reservation. I believe this appeal to truth rests on an assumption of a God or creator or some kind of driving divine force behind reality. If one does not sympathize with this perspective, it easy to ask why should reality’s “truth” be beautiful? Why not chaos? Why not ugly?
            I find tremendous benefit in this appeal to truth for the individual to integrate into their subjective understanding of reality. To be frank, it is an aspect of my philosophy, I have yet to be able to deconstruct or organize without falling into all kinds of loops and paradoxes.

            Until this assignment, I had no idea how pervasive pragmatism was in my personal philosophy, but now that I have been exposed to it, it is maybe a deeper foundation to my philosophy than any other assumption. The philosophical kind of pragmatism I mean is closely related to William James’s, that theories, definitions, ideas, and concepts should have practical use (King et al, 2009).
            I thought epistemological nihilism was my foundation, allowing for freedom to choose ideal truths for the individual, but why did I believe this was the ideal route to go? Well, because I believe it to be the most useful. It is the most pragmatic. I believe a great deal of suffering has been caused by the belief that there are objective truths, and that humans seem to fail at living in accordance with many of these principles. To be specific, I think this is best represented in religion. Again, without digressing into topics I fear might impact my grade, I ask only the reader to think about the psychological impact on the individual who believes they are born sinners, who must suppress biological drives because of religious doctrine, and who fear that there is an all knowing judge listening to their every thought. While this may be an ideal situation for employing psychiatrists, I do not believe it is an ideal and pragmatic metaphysics for the individual who wishes to be happy.

            Skepticism is defined as the stance that all claims are suspect and must be questioned (King et al, 2009). Thus, one is compelled to question the claim that all claims are suspect and must be questioned. Without losing focus on the strange loops logic can take us, I believe this is a valuable appeal to truth.
            In an age with an exponential explosion of available data, skepticism seems to be a valiant defense against the onslaught of propaganda. It is my opinion that my skepticism arose due to my culture in the same way the body inflames in response to a disease.

Other Ways of Knowing
            The handout instructs that I should discuss Descartes’ method of trusting only that which he could not doubt. I have been exposed to this particular piece of Descartes’ work over and over, year after year. At first, I was enchanted by it, as I feel any should be. But as I became familiar with it, and learned where he took this line of logic, I fell from my enchanted trance. Descartes claims the only thing he cannot doubt is the fact that he is thinking. He introduces the idea of a mad scientist or a Demon who has the power to deceive him and all of his senses. Since he has already proposed this situation as a reason to doubt all his sensory experience, why would he not doubt that his very thoughts are being manipulated? His solution to this problem was to introduce a caring God. He claims a caring god would not allow for his thoughts to be manipulated. Without examining the weakness and uncharacteristic intellectual laziness of this solution, lets focus on implications his severe skepticism would have on a non-believer. Without belief in a caring god to rescue me from my doubt, I can doubt my own thinking. Thus, we have the kind of skepticism found in my philosophy. My ego would like to think that if Descartes was not fearful of religious persecution, he too would have found himself able to doubt even his thoughts, as I do.  
            Now, simply because I can doubt my own thoughts does not mean I should, to constantly do so would not only be unpragmatic but would surely lead to insanity. What one would do well to take from this line of thought is to understand and accept the responsibility and freedom one has on determining what they believe.

Relevance of Epistemology to Psychology
            Epistemology is relevant to psychology because it creates an implicit and maybe explicit reason on what psychology should use as measurements to make truth claims. The handout indicates that I should show how people could improve their reasoning by relying on statistical predictions. I believe humans would do well to use statistics as a tool to reason but Noble Prize winning economist Kahneman has done extensive researcher that indicates that not only is the average person very poor at using statistics when reasoning, but even the leading statisticians in the country are poor at using statistical knowledge in everyday reasoning (Kahneman, 2012).
            It seems that the current psychological zeitgeist is comfortable using statistical data as a tool to make truth claims. At this point in my life I do not know enough about the science of statistics to question it, but I have a feeling that there are holes in this tool that have yet been indentified, or if so, not properly disseminated amongst soon-to-be psychologists.

The Problem of Causality
            Webster’s Dictionary defines it as, “the relation between a cause and its effect or between regularly correlated events or phenomena” (Webster, 2012). The problem I most encounter concerning causality is what was the first cause? My answer to this will win me no fame, but I think it is the answer, and any other answer is at worst a lie and at best a creative person’s attempt at showcasing their creativity. The answer is that one, at this point in time, cannot know the first cause. Without lampooning the apparent holes in both The Big Bang and God as answers to this, I think a more productive endeavor is to examine the limits of our language and our understanding of time. The implicit assumption of causality is that reality progresses in a linear fashion and that A affects B within this linear space/time perception. With my barely child like understanding of quantum physics and the physics of time, I can grasp that both these assumptions underlying causality are not true.
            My personal disposition towards causality will be more fully addressed in the Free Will and Determinism section. A brief explanation of it would be that I believe the individual can influence cause.

Free Will and Determinism
            To define, Free Will is the idea that one has control of how one’s life is lived while determinism claims that one’s life is fixed and choice does not play a part. This is a huge philosophical subject with many implications. Where does one begin? I suppose I’ll start with implications of free will, then implications of determinism, and then what my personal opinion on the matter is.
            Free Will seems to obviously be true when we think about our lives. If we assume free will is true, what does that imply? The first and largest complication I see is that of an all-knowing/all-powerful/all-existing God. If God is all knowing, he knows how your life will unfold, so do you have a choice in how you live it? I have heard many religious people claim this poses no problems. Since logic can be doubted, these people do not seem to care about logical consistency and so this paradox between an all knowing god and their free will causes little concern.  Did Judas have the free will to not betray Jesus? It would appear he didn’t. Another concern is neurochemistry and psychology. It is already a precedent in the judicial system that there are exceptions for people deemed crazy, that they did not control over their actions. Can there be a continuum between free will and determinism?
            What if we assume determinism is true? I would have no choice as to what I write about on this subject. The teacher would have no choice in how she grades my paper. Fate could logically exist. God’s all-knowingness could logically exist. My responsibility would not exist. The implications kind of boggle my mind.
            Since I believe there is no objective truth, I am free to choose which I want to believe as long as my rational self and experiencing self can coexist with these beliefs. My opinion is that our lives are determined if we believe them to be. If you do not believe life is determined, it is not. This belief may or may not be an illusion, but what is an illusion that hasn’t been disproven? It is a truth. There are many details that I think would be excessive for this paper, but I believe in my illusion of free will and I respect that much of my life is determined by factors beyond my awareness and control.  

The Mind-Body Problem
            The Mind-Body problem can be defined as the study of nature of being (King et al, 2009). Before doing this assignment, I had been exposed to very little of these subdivisions of the mind-body problem. Subsequently, I’ve learned more about the nature of my philosophy. My approach to the mind-body problem is a rejection of the long held assumption that the mind and body are separate. As will show in the explanations of the subdivisions to come, this alternate perspective has interesting implications.

            Monism is the belief that there is one undivided reality. This is the view I most sympathize with. This stance is entirely metaphysical, that is to say, unprovable. The individual who rejects absolute objective truths as I do is free to construct any metaphysics the individual chooses too. My metaphysics is monistic. I believe all divisions of whatever reality really is, are created by humans. Humans are the measure of things. I like to believe that there is a universal consciousness that closely but not identically resembles Jung’s. I believe this consciousness can be glimpsed inside every person, and those who do glimpse it tend to call it God. I like to imagine that all conscious beings of varying complexity are all parts of this singular consciousness. In the same way the body has different sense organs, this universal consciousness has varying complexities of sensing beings, and as far as humans are concerned, we are the greatest evolution of these sensing beings at the present moment.  

            Dualism asserts there are two distinct realities, that of the mind and that of the body (King et al, 2009). I don’t understand how this idea of reality still lives. The connection between our body and mind is buried beneath a mountain of evidence.  We know that if a part of the brain is destroyed, the individual’s personality can be changed forever. King and company claim that a problem with this “common sense” approach is that we do not know how an immaterial system affects a material system. The underlying assumption here is that we have discovered all the physical components involved in this interaction. This is quite an assumption and one that I do not agree with. I believe there is still more to be discovered about neurochemistry, biology, and neuropsychology. Dualism reeks of a time before the severe humbling astronomy and physics provided humankind. We are not the center of the objective universe.

            Pluralism is the view that there are multiple realities and that we have yet to discover the others. I believe this and monism can be the same. Any barrier we would define would be an artificial barrier created by us. One with an eastern philosophical predisposition could easily define this multiple divisions as a whole, all-encompassing reality, thus and multiverse theory could be a monistic reality, and vise versa. This is all a matter of perspective.

            Psychogeny may be defined as the study of the origin of psuche or the study of theories of the origin of psuche (King et al, 2009). Sadly, the term psuche is not defined by Webster’s dictionary. As I could gather from the handout, this is the study of when the individual’s psyche or personality arises. There are distinct subdivisions of this school of that as represented in the hand out; Identity Theory and Psychogenic Emergentism.
            Identity Theory as presented by the handout seems weak. The field of thought rests on the assumption that the psyche is some separate entity from the body and that it merges with the body at some point. If the individual does not see these entities as separate than the Identity theory perspective seems lacking and non-applicable.
            Of the two theories offered, I am more willing to accept Psychogenic Emergentism. I like this perspective for a few reasons. The first is it assumes that the psyche and body are not separate and that the psyche arises from the complexity of the body. This explains the many observations science as accumulated between physical damage to the brain and apparent shifts or entire destruction of personalities.  It also offers experimental research to be conducted in the future, in regards to just how much complexity is required for consciousness to arise. A hallmark of a good theory, from a scientific perspective, is one that is falsifiable. This theory is.
            King and company claim a problem with this theory is the “fact” that we as individuals do not change. I disagree. I’d like to start slinging some sarcasm to make my point, but to be moderate, any who believe they do not change are slaves to cognitive dissonance and surely have a bleak outlook on life and maybe not a successful one.

The Problem Of Explanation
            The problem of explanation stems from the limits of language.  One could very quickly fall into pages of digressions of the philosophy of language. As to not loose the attention of the reader and also my will power to write, I will keep it brief. The possible amount of explanations for any phenomena is seemingly infinite. As soon as an explanation is offered, the language has put the phenomena into a finite box that could never hope to capture the entirety of said phenomena. This is a fact we live with, and for some, the challenge motivates the writer wishing to describe. 
            Some of the techniques human’s use language to explain phenomena are analogies, models, and physical explanations. All three can be useful as long as both provider and receiver of information understands the finiteness of words and the ever changing nature of reality and that no finite explanation will remain true for all times. 

            To condense, what I have presented is a pragmatically based philosophy that starts at the assumption that there is no absolute knowledge. This assumption kills of an objective god and leaves the individual free to choose his or her own truths. These truths are limited by the individual’s rationale and how they experience reality. The individual’s rational and experiencing self is heavily influenced by genetics, subconscious processes, and randomness. Amongst these deterministic variables, the individual has a sliver of control and freedom but only if they believe they do. This freedom, if they choose to believe in it, allows them to effect and direct their life enough to attain their goals and dreams. With practice, one can exert this sliver of control to reach a transcendental state of consciousness. This philosophy will be void as science and technology reach a ”singularity” like peak.

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2012). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved by
King, D.B., Viney, W. & Woody, W. D. (2009). A history of psychology: Ideas and
 content, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Kahneman, Daniel. (2012). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York. Allen Lane.