Aaron

TJL you're doing the same thing Joe was doing. Your trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say there shouldn't be some form of order, or means to ensure order is kept, only that each person should ultimately be able to decide how they and their families live. In order to ensure that this can be done one needs to have an organization dedicated to ensuring no one group can enforce their will on another. Also if you wish I could explain how your warring states analogy is completely erroneous, in part because the individual kingdoms of those times were ruled by kings, queens, and emperors, many of whom gained that power through intrigue and not the will of the people. What I am proposing is a society whereby the actual citizens decide how their individual communities should be run. If someone doesn't like it then they can leave, simple as that. No on is elected to decide who should do what and why, nor impose their self imposed "wisdom" on others, rather others are allowed to live as they choose without interference. Also I would love for you to show me how there are millions of animals that join together and enforce their will on others. Natural? Bah! That's just your excuse for imposing your own views on others. People should be able to live as they wish, without interference from others. If a city decides they want to do something that we consider immoral, then why do we have the right to tell them otherwise if it doesn't harm us or our family? You say it's natural, but I don't see how. In fact it seems completely absurd. The problem is that society cannot exist as "whole" because there are so many different ideas and desires and beliefs. The true path to peace, isn't deciding what the "right" beliefs are and enforcing those beliefs on others, which is what was actually happened during the Warring States Period, but rather that each society should exist and live as they see fit. This is exactly what Lao Tzu encouraged as well. I'm surprised you don't know this, I can quote various passages if you need a refresher. The wise rulers weight is never felt, his hand is empty, his desires are for the interests of his people and not his own. These are the kinds of people we need to see actual change, the kind that are there to ensure that their subjects desires are fulfilled, rather than their own. Compassion isn't enforcing your will on others, but reducing suffering by allowing others to live in a way that pleases them. Simple as that. If you have problems with people doing things you think are wrong, then actually that's your problem. Most people fail to see this because they follow some moral code ingrained in them that teaches them that society can decide what's best for them, yet they fail to realize it is society that got this world screwed up in the first place. We really need to rewrite society. Plan and simple. That's the only way we're going to find a time of peace, where people aren't warring with one another, but rather peace and prosperity can reign in the land. Aaron

Well if it helps you feel any better, I could use the definition of ignorant according to the dictionary and explain how you fit that definition. Just keep in mind the root of the word is "ignore" or "ignoring the truth", etc. It doesn't just mean you don't know, but that you are unwilling to know. I just find it funny, none of your answers really disproved anything, they were just classic tea party, conservative dogma. You might find them to be answers, I find them to be the product of the brainwashing of America. Also there is a great deal of debate that the original societies of pre-historic man were anarchistic in nature. Mankind seemed to operate on a less than deadly scale for around 200,000 years or so, in fact it wasn't until we find signs of the beginnings of modern civilization and actual capitalist economies that we see a great impact on the world as a whole. It seems greed, even in our early days as a civilized species, was the cause of much of our grievances. Also, TJL was right, the idea of contracts is essentially a product of indentured servitude. You agree to serve a corporation or person for X amount of time, in exchange for X amount of money or services. How is that different in any way, it's really still slavery. Quick little tidbit of information, did you know that television commercials geared toward children use stimulus that makes them more suggestible? They repeat phrases over and over, have flashing light patterns that lowers inhibitions, essentially they train children to become more suggestible to the media when they grow up... funny factoid... do some research on your own and you'll find out it's true. Now ask yourself, have you ever wondered why there are certain types of music before a news show, or why the cut scene tends to flicker, well they're reminding you to be open to suggestions. This isn't conspiracy nonsense either, it's actually proven and whistle blowers who worked on the projects have come forward regarding these practices, but nothing was ever done to the major corporations. Funny. It seems corporations can get away with everything except murder... oh wait, wasn't there some corporation responsible for murder in Iraq? If I remember correctly the Vice President at the time was a former CEO of the company as well... oh well I guess corporations can get away with everything except cheating the elite 1%. Aaron P.S. Do some google searches, it's not hard to find any of this information online.

I actually disagree. The only reason one should take another life is if it is defending their own. If one does not need to take a life to defend one's own, then they shouldn't do it. I believe that completely and sincerely. I also do not think that a person's job should dictate their social status or wealth. So long as we continue to value certain things over others, then we will continue to use a system that allows some to be poor and others rich. Your system for instance is a prime example, a man suffers from an illness and can't perform anything more than menial tasks, by definition, through no fault of his own, he is going to have less than others. Then what about the man who decides everything, the ruler, well that's an important job indeed, of course he's going to get more than others, even if he doesn't need it. And of course those people with less will resent those with more and the same thing that's going on now will blossom and bloom, because after all that new ruler will need to do something to ensure that those menial laborers who don't know spit, don't try to take over and ruin everything. What we need is not one ruler, but to allow each community to make these decisions on their own, rather than have a government make them for them. I personally lean towards anarchistic socialism, but others may not and they shouldn't be forced to. I think that no country has a right to lay claim to land or resources, that the entire earth is something that should be shared with everyone. There should be no borders, nor should there be any kind of government dictating what others should do. At best there should be an organization that allows each community to function as they wish and prevent one from dictating what happens to another. Will there still be hunger and poverty, yes, but there will also be true freedom. I honestly don't see any system as being able to eliminate man's greed and avarice, the best we can do is have a system in place to diminish man's conflicts with one another. Allow each community to live as they desire, unless it interfere's with another's freedom, simple as that. That's the perfect economical and governmental system, unless of course you feel the need to dictate how others should live, because you know best, then perhaps not. We are at least on the same page regarding capitalism, even if our solutions differ. Aaron

Taooneusa, Don't forget that they're actually trying to institute a bill that would have children implanted with a chip so that they can be tracked at all times. Sounds good, no more kidnappings, etc. but then you have to realize that this chip will last for a person's entire life. So once it's in you, you will never be able to go anywhere without the government knowing. The justification is that they're fighting child abduction. More children die being struck by cars, drowning in pools, getting shot by handguns, and the list goes on, than are abducted each year. It's simply using fear to institute a policy that will allow the government to monitor us for the rest of our lives. I guarantee after they have gotten people comfortable with embedding the chip in their children, the next step will be the adults. We're living in a tricky society. In England all of the cities and most of the towns are under CCTV surveillance. It's been going on for awhile now. From my understanding it hasn't really decreased crime, yet they haven't discontinued it, because it's such a useful tool for the intelligence community. That's what people are missing here, these cameras and tracking devices aren't meant to prevent crime, they're meant to monitor people, plain and simple. Aaron

TzuJanLi, I have some issues with what you've suggested. The strongest has to do with exterminating people. I don't think it's within the jurisdiction of man to determine who should live and die, and for what. Nor do I think it is fair to set up an economy where we give people their share based on their contribution, simply because it's subjective. So you dig ditches, sorry buddy, only one loaf of bread for you. And what about the elderly that can no longer contribute, do we determine whether or not we give them food based on their past contribution or present? If they can't contribute anymore, do we stop feeding them? The problem, in my opinion, is that we need to take subjectivity, moral agendas, and religious agendas out of the equation. (YES I know, I'm sounding like a Marxist.) Until that's done, then you'll always have someone who knows what's best. The idea is that everyone is treated equally, regardless of what they do, at least in my opinion. Aaron

I know most of the quantum physics, quantum mechanics discussions tend to go to the wayside here, but I was thinking lately about whether or not it could be possible to travel between individual multiverses. In other words, if A happens and splits into B and C, could it be possible for the observer who is observing C to somehow also observe B, or become a part of B, without it resulting in the decoherence of C? Anyone have any thoughts or possible suggested reading material? I must say, I wish I had taken physics in College. edit- I should add I'm not trying to contradict the shrodengers cat theory, but rather that I believe that there is the possibility that, even though one cannot change the past because of causality, that they could experience alternate multiverses, simply by becoming disassociated with their own observed universe and thus become associated with another. The question though, is whether the observer would still exist within C without knowing that he also became the observer in B? Aaron

I think ultimately the whole thing comes down to, how would it be possible? That's why I was wondering if anyone actually knew of a religion that professed knowledge of anything like this? I'm wondering if there has been any mention of techniques that could attain this type of thing? Perhaps only the immortals know? Aaron

Hello Tatsumaru, Don't feel so down. Not everyone has a lot of ambition. Ambition in fact is overrated. I'm assuming you're from Japan and that you feel somehow that you've let your family down because you don't value the same things they do. Honestly, from a cultural point of view, you may have disappointed them, but you have to remember that it's not what your family wants that's ultimately important, but what you want. I would suggest you seriously do some soul searching to find something that you really want to do and can do and do it. You don't have to have a family or make a lot of money, all you have to do is get dressed, eat, and keep yourself clean each day. If you can do that, then you have done everything you NEEDED to do. Anything else is sheer gravy (an American saying that means it's just extra stuff.) Now if you're interested in honoring your family and being a dutiful son, then the best way to go about it is, like I said before, finding something you like to do where you can earn a living. I guarantee you a few things, your parents will not care so much if you're rich, if they know you have something to fall back on to support yourself. Get your priorities straight. Watch "Nabari No Ou" and then get back to me on how you feel. If you finish feeling more like Miharu Rokujo than Yoite, then perhaps things aren't as bleak as they seem. I wish you well. Your English is very good, as you probably know already. I think you understand your capabilities much more than you let on. If you're looking for support, then you can see by the people that have responded that you've gotten it, but keep in mind, none of us know you, so perhaps what you need to do is talk to your mother or father, or someone you trust and let them know how you feel. Aaron

Oh Joeblast. Poor, poor, Joeblast. You fail to see the truth of the matter, nor have you answered my questions. Answer mine and I will gladly answer yours. Question one- Who has given any of us possession of this world? Why do we have the right to exploit and possess things to our hearts content and dictate who gets what based on their military might? Question two- If capitalism is a system intended to help everyone achieve a stable living, provide for everyone, then why must their always be poor in order for it to succeed? If capitalism is truly a godsend, then tell me once in history when it has succeeded in wiping out poverty, even within it's own country? Question three- If capitalism is the best solution, then why doesn't everyone see this? Why are there so many "ignorant" people who seem to view it as a stigma on society? Question four- How is creating an economic system based on sharing the wealth of the world, insuring that everyone has food and shelter, inferior to capitalism? Question five- If we deregulate the economy, allow for this true "capitalist utopia" to thrive, how does it put in check those who claim the earth's resources as their own? Isn't it better to share these resources equally amongst everyone? Does a company really own the oil buried a thousand feet underground? Who said they owned it, the politicians that they pay to support them, or the earth itself? You ignored everyone of these questions and redirected your comments, when I haven't done that, I've actually answered them, you just don't see the answer, because you're incapable of seeing it. You are ignorant, in the sense that you have a vision of things and you are unwilling to change that vision. Also I am not a democrat or republican, I don't agree with the policies of the United States. The United States was set up by those in power to ensure that their power never fell into the hands of the people. The electoral college was intended to prevent people, whom they deemed incapable of making an important decision such as who should be president, from actually having any effect on the election. Read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime and you'd know that. I actually learned about the Constitution while I was in school, in depth, as well as the political history of the USA. I understand what a farse it is. You, instead, have listened to what the corporate owned media and the political parties funded by corporations have told you. Check it out, it's really very enlightening in the governmental sense. If you want I can tell you exactly why we have freedom of speech, it's not to ensure everyone has the right to speak their minds, but that the government couldn't tell the men in power what they could or couldn't say. Did you know that during wartime the Freedom of Speech can be rescinded? Did you know that the US government has used this power to actually arrest people who were a threat to the presidency? I can't remember the name of the person, but in the 1930's they arrested a socialist that had a good chance of winning the presidential election, because he was causing dissension. Freedom is an illusion. Those who oppose the structure of the state are not protected by it, nor are those who accept it. It has been merely a matter of time for it to decay to the point it has. The current system did something wrong though, they pushed their hand too far and now people, the common man and woman, are becoming aware of just what is happening, that's why we see what's going on now. The rich will crush this resistance, but I guarantee it will not die. They will discredit those involved, one way or another, and try to dissolve it, but the fact is that the information age is beyond their control. One person can disseminate every dark secret they have without them being able to stop it. Slowly but surely they are losing, it's just a matter of time. You need to decide whether you are a member of the Tea Party or a member of the human race, and which is more important to you in the end. Make that decision and then come back and tell me that providing shelter to everyone, or at least trying to help everyone we can is somehow silly or foolish. I've got my eyes wide open, so please don't tell me I don't see what's going on, or that I don't understand what you're saying, I just see it for what it is, smoke and mirrors. Aaron edit- Also have you ever wondered why the Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President? It's not to ensure that capable people are elected, but to ensure that they are chosen by those in power to ensure that the power to change the constitution never falls into the hands of the common man.

I've been saying this for the last 20 pages or so, hopefully with some new voices of reason, someone might get a clue and realize the extent of the problem. We are selling out our children's future for the sake of our greed and avarice today. This isn't entirely the 1%'s fault, in fact they couldn't do this if we didn't get something in return from it. The sad fact is that we don't start complaining until it effects us directly. We can ignore the billion or so children that have died from starvation, war, and disease over the last century, but we can't ignore the fact that we might not be able to afford the creature comforts we've come to expect as entitlements of the first world order. It's sad, the moment the economy begins to recoup, you can be certain that most of this concern about the 1% will go the way of the dodo, at least until there is another economic downturn. Aaron

Hahaha... have you wondered why your comments piss so many people off? Well maybe take a look at this one, it really helps people to see your complete lack of compassion and tact. Now let me ask you, you can have a big screen tv, but you have to kill a child from a third world country to get it? Do you take the big screen TV? Second question, America is out of resources, a small third world country has more than enough to get us through for 50 more years, but they will not voluntarily give it up, so do you A) Attack the country, killing everyone that resists or B ) Admit that you've been irresponsible and used up your own resources and accept responsibility for your own gluttony and greed? I'm thinking, from what I know about you so far, that you might not kill the child, but you would have no problems with A, which is ironic, since it's really the same thing. Aaron edit- And I wonder if that would define your economical and political views as good or evil? I'm certain that this isn't one of those grey areas where people would have a problem deciding, rather it seems very clear cut.

Hi Kate, I think the amazing thing is that we are not taught to perceive something the same, we just do, even though there is oftentimes evidence that we could perceive something entirely different. What causes us to see something as being exactly the same, despite cultural, spiritual, and physiological differences? If I draw a picture of a dog, you'll know what I'm drawing, a tribesman in Africa will know as well, despite the fact that we come from different cultures. Even then, I do believe that our perception on some level is effected by something, that constant equation no one seems to be able to come up with. God? Quantum Consciousness? Enlightened Being? Who knows what it actually is, but I have no doubts that it is, and that we are inexplicably tied to it. Human being are very special in the scheme of things, because we are the only species that can understand time and space on an intellectual level. It is our ability to observe this phenomena that allows all things to exist. If there was not one or the other, then we could not exist, at least not as we do now. Aaron edit- And what you said would only sound weird to someone who might not understand the topic, it made complete sense to me.

I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't matter? Enlightenment is merely a state of awareness, it doesn't change the state of the universe, it only makes you more aware of your place in it. If you believe the whole, one can become omniscient and all knowing, then no it wouldn't matter, but I don't believe in that type of enlightenment, nor has anyone proven to me that it seems to exist. Anyways, why am I interested? Because I think it will help me to understand the nature of the universe better. Causality is the root of suffering, so by default understanding the nature of causality and the repercussions, as well as how one could observe the effects of those repercussions would undoubtedly increase their understanding of the nature of the universe. At least in my opinion. Anyone know if there are any spiritual traditions that have any thoughts regarding this topic? Aaron

I'm surprised no one replied to this. I actually missed it because I was working for a few days and wasn't able to get on the forum except to answer a few discussions I was already a part of. I think that this evidence, even though circumstantial is immensely important to those who study spiritual paths, if for no other reason than it actually gives credence to the notion of consciousness. My own belief has been for some time that we have an awareness that ties us to our bodies, the notion of self, but that it does not necessarily mean that our consciousness is entirely tied to the body. In fact the idea that people could retain their own self identity for a period after death makes sense, since the part that is self that is housed in the body, may be able to retain it for awhile, at least until those parts begin to decay, then the self would obviously no longer have an anchor within this world. The consciousness that makes us so, is not made up of individual souls however, but rather a singular consciousness, so in that sense we never die. I actually really fear the idea of heaven or hell or any kind of after life, I think it would be immensely cruel to force someone to maintain the same existence for eternity. It is this idea that leads me to believe that the consciousness that we are splits itself into various consciousness, gives them only a limited time on this earth, simply because it is the most compassionate way for these other selves to experience reality. In that sense who's to say that the reality we witness, the reality that we see as a group, isn't really the reality that this whole consciousness has designated to exist. Remember everything in existence is nothing more than solid light, despite the fact that it may be seen as mineral, vegetable, liquids, etc. This light may very well be the (un-)conscious thoughts of the collective conscious. Anyways very interesting. Since my own experience with the higher conscious experiences, in particular with the source of energy that permeates everything yet is invisible to our own physical eye, I've begun to wonder about the nature of perception, how our perceptions play a part in reality. I'm not quite naive enough to believe that something merely exists because I think it is so, but I do think it exists because "I" want it to be so. Perhaps I will only be able to know "I" again when everyone that is I understands that they are "I" on an intimate level and that the need to continue to become I's is not needed. Then maybe we'll exist as an "I" for a few millennia before it all starts over again out of boredom. Nice article Leon. Thanks for posting it. Aaron

Blah, blah, blah, blah, Sarah Palin is cute... blah, blah, blah, blah, Rush Limbuagh has pretty eyes... That's all I hear from you. Give it up. Even if a few of the people on this website are stupid enough to fall for this republican-tea party-faux-libertarian BS, it's only because they think it's going to somehow save them from the state of the nation, a state that was caused by the republicans in the first place. Really you're comments are so demented and deluded, you've fully bought into everything Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, and Glen Beck have told you. Anyways, I would happily leave America if I thought it was different elsewhere, but it isn't. The world is slowly being corrupted and dominated by the corporations. That's why the Occupy Wall Street movement is a global movement, because most people understand the depths to which the 1% have gone to control the world markets. Look at Bloomberg, he's donated a good deal of money to politicians in England that were against market reform. Now the market has crashed as a result, but it really didn't influence his own wealth that much, rather it helped clean out some of the undesirables that were making money but weren't in the big boys clubs. Sigh... you are so blind it's like someone is flicking you in the eyeball and you still don't understand that you can't see what's really going on. Aaron

What interests me in this study is how it seems to support some of the claims regarding the holographic universe theory. Interesting stuff indeed. Aaron

Hello Joe, You know what really pisses me off about you, is that you're so intolerant. You use your smiley faces like what you're talking about is funny or the idea of being compassionate and caring for others is laughable. What's laughable to me is that you can come here and spout this absolute garbage. You are worse than most here, the ones people try to chase off because of their spiritual convictions, because your convictions in the end bring about harm to everyone involved. Your ideas cause poverty, prevent the world from finding peace, and destine the next generation to more suffering than this one. You're not advocating any change, rather your saying "the system works because I sleep in a nice warm bed and have a meal at every meal time" meanwhile if someone doesn't then they're obviously lazy or haven't tried to succeed. My own success, financially speaking, came doing jobs that I absolutely hated. I used to sell time share vacations and earned a lot of money doing it, but in the end I saw how I was talking people into purchasing something they didn't need, and that many spent money that they did need purchasing something they didn't, simply because I was able to convince them that they did. The sad thing is you're doing the same thing now and you don't realize it. You still have failed to tell me how my suggestions for change would harm the world, simply because it wouldn't. Rather you stick to your old tired routine. I'm done trying to convince you of anything. In 20 years, when you have no social security to fall back on, when the majority of industrial jobs are pushed over seas, and even the majority of service jobs are as well, when most people will only be able to work minimum wage jobs and poverty is rampant, then come to me and tell me how blessed and wonderful capitalism is. The fact is capitalism allows the rich to circle the economy like sharks, picking off any fish that starts to get big enough to challenge them, keeping themselves full and fat on the prey they fatten up. We're nothing more than food for them, in a food chain that is meant to keep them in places of power. These are facts too, not theories. The democrats are just as bad as the republicans, so are the libertarians. All the parties are paying homage to power and prestige. The concern is for wealth at the expense of others. Why do I laugh at what you say, because even in if the changes you suggest are made, there will still be hungry people, there will still be children dying of disease, and there will still be people living in poverty, here in the blessed USA. Again, you want to do what's easily conceivable, rather than lend your support to an idea that could prevent suffering and pain, that could solve it, simply because you lack faith in the human race. I am certainly glad that I have reached middle age and not lost my "idealism", that I can still wake up every day and see the chance for change. I do think that change will occur, that we are reaching a point where people will be too tired to remain puppets to the 1%. I hope that time come quickly, but I feel it will most likely take decades, and I have no doubt when it occurs that those who do request change will be more violently suppressed than the Occupy Wall Street people are. Nothing you say changes any of this. There are those who are opposed to change, simply because they are attached to their material goods, their iPods, laptops, big screen tvs, etc. The fact of the matter is that we've taught our children to believe these things are needed. The Leap Pad, a tablet PC made for young children, in their advertisement tells children "I need this"... it's actually repeated in the add several times. Children do not need a leap pad do they? So tell me how is this a fair economy, when we're brainwashing our children to believe they need things like that? I'm done talking with you. You haven't ever known poverty, you cannot talk about poverty, you can only talk about what's made you a happy self indulgent man, and those things you believe will help you to remain that way. You don't care for the poor, you've stated that in so many words, rather you believe they're poor because they choose to be. You're really just ignorant, incapable of understanding a spiritual principle even the youngest novitiate of any religion seems to grasp and that is very sad. Aaron edit- Also isn't it ironic that Mayor Boomberg, the 12th richest man in the united states, a man who's entire wealth is based on the stock exchange, was the one that gave the order to drive the protesters from their camp on private property? Really makes you proud to be an American. Obviously capitalism is working for someone.

I agree completely. Very well said. Aaron

Hmm... I see what you're saying, but I still like the term nothing, but I see it more as a neutral quality, one that denotes that you are not choosing to be what others see you as, but rather you are simply what you are. When you can perceive yourself as nothing, then you can begin to attain all things, but so long as you align yourself to one thing or another, then you have locked your perception of who and what you are to that paradigm. My views on reality are different than most, I know there is something more, infinite energy without form, that I believe all things spring from. This infinite form is very much empty, but I choose to think of it as nothing, because even emptiness is something, nothing is without form or value, it is completely neutral. So you are not saying "I am without this" but rather that you are neither without or with, you are in between, nothing. When one sees they are nothing, not in the sense of worthless, but rather without an inherent tendency towards one or another, then one can begin to see the world in a new way. I think that we do not create reality through our perceptions, but rather we choose to view reality as we experience it, and sometimes that's not necessarily the actuality of reality. When one is empty, then they are saying they are not full and that is linked to fullness or filling, but when one says they are nothing, then they can neither be empty or full, but rather they have decided to step outside that paradigm and begin to participate in reality's actuality. At least that's how I view it. Aaron

Yes, but it's not true, just theoretical republican tea party BS. If we want to discuss how we can make a fair market economy I think we also need to look at other factors involved, in particular regarding loans and incentives to start businesses, the ability to compete against large corporations and succeed. If you think that there doesn't need to be some sort of regulations remember that there was a time when every convenience store out there was a mom and pop store, now less than a quarter of them are, you can't really make a living unless you accept the patronage of a major corporation and agree to give them a portion of your profits in exchange for their goods (i.e. you can't just purchase their goods, you actually have to accept them as your sole provider and give them a percentage of the overall profits, if fact you don't even actually own the fuel or pumps, at least not in many cases.) Also lets look at bank fees and the costs of doing business, where they are charged exorbitant fees for processing credit card transactions and debit transactions. This is just one type of industry, there are numerous others that are having just as many problems. (Guess who was opposed to reducing or capping fees on debit and credit card transactions that banks and credit card companies charge businesses? Give up? Here's a clue it starts with republic--.) I get the strong feeling that Joe's a Tea Party-Repubican-Rush Limbaugh-adoring-wannabe libertarian. I say wannabe because most people that call themselves libertarians today don't even know what one actually is (or was before it was bastardized by conservative republican's disillusioned with their own party.) Anyways, I'm glad you got something nice from his speech, but keep in mind the whole 2-5% profit margin is one of the reasons small businesses are failing... large companies like walmart and BP can afford to operate at such a low margin, small businesses in most cases can't. Hence the republican model is better suited to ensuring the success of the large company owned by the 1% than the small business owned by the 99%. Aaron

Thank you Straw. I hope you're doing well. Aaron

First I'm willing to bet the only one that liked this comment was you. I do understand what you're talking about, I can even understand the rationale of it, but I do not, for even the slightest second agree with it. It's a greed and fear motivated philosophy, and as I said, it does more harm than good. You are far to intelligent for your own good, and what I mean by that, isn't that you're actually smart, but that you think you're so smart no one can teach you anything new. Look at my experiences in the last few years exploring the internet... I came here a strict "Taoist" believing in only Taoism, but I opened my mind to the new, sometimes even stubbornly, and came away understanding there was so much more to everything than merely Taoism, that within Buddhism there were gems, and within Vedanta there were gems, that to deny them, was denying a wisdom simply because it was contrary to what I had believed. Why do I not agree with what you advocate? Because there is no compassion in it, even though you try very hard to say there is. There is no concern for others, rather it is the idea that one looks out for themselves first and others second. That isn't necessarily an evil way to think, but you take it one step further (IMO- anyone besides Vortex and Joe that think differently feel free to enlighten me) in that it is perfectly okay for one to satisfy all of their own desires at the expense of someone else. Tell me, when did the earth give you the land you claim as your own? How do you own that land other than within the constructs of the intellectual theocracy of Capitalism... after all Capitalism is a religion, it just happens to worship wealth. You don't own that land, nor do any of us, we simply lay claim to it. This is done out of greed, a need to take something that we want and not let others partake in it. Anyways, you can't be blamed, the problem with most people is that they've stopped thinking for themselves and let the media and authorities think for them. Hopefully one day something will shake that impression from you. Aaron

Hello Marblehead, I'm not sure what you mean by belittling yourself? I didn't want to comment on the poem, because I think that's tacky, but I did want to respond to the idea of being nothing being somehow belittling. In my eyes it's the exact opposite, you belittle yourself when you begin to identify yourself with how others view you, true freedom is only gained when one can be nothing, empty, from this emptiness there springs an infinite number of possibilities. Aaron edit- I should also note that I understand it's not an extraordinary poem. I wrote it while I was thinking of how to express my ideas about how we perceive ourselves (i.e. right then and there). Call it spontaneous free-verse. In that light, expect it to about the same quality as most free-verse.

Hi guys and gals, I start this a little tongue in cheek, because I would like to have a discussion where people can discuss what they think reality is, without having to prove that they're right and someone else is wrong. For the sake of this thread, I'd like to start off with people explaining how they see or understand reality, and let it go from there. First off, I've been thinking about the nature of reality for awhile now, and although I could grasp the fundamentals of a lot of what people were saying about the Holographic Universe, Quantum Mechanics, and even the Buddhist view on reality, it was still a bit confusing when I tried to understand these things in a practical sense, in fact it was overwhelming, so I decided the effort wasn't really worth the time it took to study them. Recently, with my new anime craze, I started watching a show called "Noein" which goes very in depth into the quantum mechanics view of reality, causality, and the phenomena of dreaming and such. It got me thinking about these topics again and I really wanted to have the chance to talk to others, who might be interested in these topics, that could also possibly explain their own views regarding these things. My recent interest in Lucid Dreaming was influenced by "Noein" indirectly, because after watching the show and listening to their explanation of the theories of causality, string theory, and the multiverse, I wondered, could lucid dreaming be evidence that the Holographic Universe is in fact real? Could our consciousness, while we're asleep, be creating different dimensions that are only real for as long as we are there to perceive them? I know that's kind of weird to wonder, but after you start getting into the idea of quantum consciousness and mechanics, it isn't as weird as it sounds. Anyways, that's enough out of me, just wanted to give you guys an idea of why I got interested all of sudden and open it up to others who might have something to say about the topic. The more specific and boring in detail you can be, the happier I'll be. I'm very interested in the nitty gritty of it all. Aaron edit- One thing I was thinking about was the notion of time following a wave pattern. My question was, if it is following a wave/spiral pattern, why? Wouldn't a wave pattern indicate that time is meeting some kind of resistance that's forcing it to follow a wave/spiral pattern? Perhaps it's space that's causing the resistance? Hence when we are examining those things that exist within space, we can only fully understand them within the confines of time, because the two need to interact for whatever is observed to exist? I know... another crazy question, but once you start thinking about these things, the crazy questions don't stop. I just hope someone can answer them.