On Anarcho-Syndicalism

While Anarchism is widely thought to be a means of achieving a communist society as an alternative to Marxist methods, this is not always nor inherently true. The idea that it can be however certainly is.

Anarchism may also be the ends in of itself. It may also facilitate a capitalist economy (e.g Anarcho-Capitalism), as well as non-communist forms of socialism such as collectivism and syndicalism.

What is Anarcho-Syndicalism though? What makes it any different than other strains of anarchism and socialism? The way I see it, is that it allows for the simultaneous facilitation of both socialist, AND capitalist economic systems in a very interesting way.

An Anarcho-Syndicalist commune is a directly democratic faction with public ownership of the means of production, which generally requires a two thirds consensus for all decision making.

It’s almost as if you were to take a workers union, and a corporation; derive the middle point therefrom, and implement it as an autonomous and collectivized community.

Right about now your probably thinking “Well this sounds very socialist yes, but how would this facilitate capitalism, where’s the economic competition involved here?” Well within the syndicate, none.

The economic competition would result from the competition with other syndicates and or co existing forms of society. Different groups of people would want different rules and would have to split up into different syndicates. The examples are endless.

One might want only the production of necessary goods like food, shelter, clothing, and medicine to be publicly owned with luxury production being privately owned, some might want it all to be owned by the group.. SPLIT!

One might want too allow certain types of drug use, one might not… SPLIT!

One might want religious principals, the other might be inherently atheistic… SPLIT!

One might want principals from X religion, one might want principals from Y religion, some might want religious freedom as long as you have a religion or believe in god, some might want complete autonomy of belief… DOUBLE SPLIT!

I could go on all day, but the idea is that economic competition would likely occur between these different split syndicates, as they would be specializing differently, likely resulting in the production of different types of food, clothing, luxury goods, technologies etc, giving plenty of incentive for inter syndicate trade relations and therefore economic competition.

This would like wise give everyone the ability to choose a community that fits with the way that they wanna live, so long as that way is viable enough to sustain a thriving syndicate. It also preserves the rights of popular sovereignty by requiring the two thirds rule to pass legislature, as well as allowing for the reorganization and correction from the bottom upward if the leadership becomes corrupt and or begins to conflict with the interests of the participants/workers.





Why? Why not? Create.

Why must their always be a point every time we string together our words and ideas into some form of composition or another. Is writing itself not enough of an art that it may not be conducted purely for it’s own sake?

Why must we worry ourselves with developing the purpose prior, when the readers are going to derive their own purposes from it anyways? They don’t care about why we wrote it anyhow. Unless they are trying to understand how you wrote it, than what they truly care about is why they’re reading it. Therefore it is better to say something than to waste your time worrying about what it is you might want to say, and why.

That is not to imply premeditated work is bad; but I’ve never found it particularly sensible to premeditate something which is intended to be original. Rather, I find it best to leave the matter up to unconscious forces. By feeding my brain with masses of whatever stimulus it’s calling for, whether it be visual art, literature, music, social interaction, film etc.

What ensues is a sort of melting pot of creativity; a churning mixture of ideas, sounds, visions, quotes, and words. Than when all is finished, my brain begins to inform me, like my microwave beeping to signal that my peach-hibiscus tea is ready.  If I neglect this task of release, it grows louder and harder to ignore. It does not however signal this verbally. It notifies me in the form of a weird sort of anxiety or pressure.

A pulsing and often painful urgency that grows in intensity the longer I try to fight it off. Never ceasing to torment all levels of my consciousness until I eventually take to pen, keyboard, or instrument. It is the same force that compels me away from mundane and fruitless uses of time. The same that haunts me with every minute I spend working in conventional labor.

It’s as a chain or a rope, always leading me towards the act of creation. Always pulling me through endless acquisition of knowledge and skill building. Persistently dragging me up a hill. A tall mountainous hill that is rocky and often steep. The difficulty of the climb is however irrelevant.

Resistance as well as inaction prove futile,  countless attempts at both have shown  no end save for agony and despair.  If one ignores this calling, they may as well be digging their own grave with their bare hands, only to cowardly crawl inside and await in patient sorrow for starvation and the elements to gradually overcome them.

If one answers the call, they may or may not find success. Whether they do or not is irrelevant; what follows after will be identical either way: building upon what they’ve already created, and striving to out due their current and previous accomplishments with something new. A cycle that will persist for the entirety of their existences.

There may be brief moments of self appreciation upon fulfilling tasks, completing projects and reaching milestones, but that is a light refreshment rather than the true reward. The real enjoyment comes from the process of creation in of itself. The reward is the experience. When you listen to a song, you are not listening merely to have heard it, and likewise when you sing a song you are not singing merely to have sung it.

If you have done something a thousand times, is it because you wanted to perfect it? Or is it because you enjoy doing it so much that you are compelled to do it a thousand times? I don’t believe I could will myself to do something a thousand times if I did not enjoy it or the outcome.

This shows us obsession is no less a source of mastery than dedication. After all what is obsession? You could label obsession a negative trait or a defect and perhaps in extreme instances, or those where the obsession involves detriment to others it is.  However in it’s milder, and more benign or controlled forms is a sort of voluntary dedication. That is to say a peculiar type of dedication that does not seem to require effort, and if it does, it does not feel like it does.

For example someone who is obsessed with a particular author may read all of their books back to back and learn everything that author had to teach, something which for others may feel treacherously boring. They may practice an instrument arduously for hours a day and not for a single minute feel that they are obligated to do so.

We are thus propelled both forward and upward, not by financial necessity nor material enticement, but by spiritual necessity and an insatiable lust for the labors of life in and of themselves. We create not to have created or to be creators but simply for the pleasure to create again.

The sun does not rise to give the energy of light that allows our crops to photosynthesize. It rises because of the earth’s tendencies to rotate and revolve around it. Likewise if someone derives enjoyment or utility from something I wrote, as great as that is, would not make it the reason why I wrote it.

It may be the reason why I choose to distribute some of my work, but I was writing long before that. Just as most painters were like busying themselves with brush in hand long before anybody genuinely enjoyed their work. Ergo if one is going to pursue something anyways, they may as well attempt to make the most out of it.

If you take the time to craft or create your going to get better over time. Similarly if you do something consistently, why not put in the effort of doing it well? Arduous practice aside, this may consist of studying the deeper logic behind it,  acquiring related skills and sub skills that directly or indirectly lend support to the primary, and finding new ways to adapt and apply these skills to different areas and patterns of creation in order to manifest innovative ideas and solve new types of problems.

If we take the time to develop a craft which could lend to the entertainment and utility of others, why not distribute it? If your gonna work on something regardless of weather or not it earns you wealth, why not do so in a way that opens up the potential to earn wealth with it?

I  like many creative types, started writing without any purpose beyond feeling a sort of internal need to write. As we continue however, we create new opportunities for additional purposes. In a similar sense you could call this article is a microcosm of that phenomena

Furthermore if you do the right thing for the right reasons, does that permit one the right to expect the right results? Maybe not, but it ought too. To some of you this article may not have said a word. Some of you might be a little more adept at reading between the lines. If a picture tells a thousand words than certainly a thousand words must paint a picture. What kind of picture did this paint for you?




Existence vs. Reality

What’s the difference between that which exists and that which is Real?

Can some(one)thing exist without being real?

Can some(one)thing be real without existing?

Where do we draw the line between Reality and existence?

Do we exist?

Are we Real?

Does God exist?

Is God Real?

oxforddictionaries.com defines reality as:
The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.” (Oxford Dictionary: Reality)

From this we may surmise that existence is a pre-requisite for reality. Since Reality is the ‘state of things as they actually exist’ which blatantly ascribes existence as a requirement.

This also posits that god exists though he is not real. This is evident whether you believe in god or not because it exists as an idea in our minds and religious texts.

However this also tells us that god is not real because he does not exist tangibly, as it said in the definition ‘as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea’.

Even though I myself believe in god among many other things which exist but aren’t tangibly real, It is evident that he does not exist within our tangible reality.

Perhaps he exists within a higher dimension or outside of dimensions entirely, I do not know for sure though as we can only make guesses and assumptions as to the nature of gods existence.

Let me know what you think in the comments section!

Do religions & philosophies = operating systems for our brains?

I recall as a young elementary student, being told that brains are essentially computers. This made sense to me at a young age, but it wasn’t until way later that I began to abstract from the cross reference of cognition and computation.

This perhaps may be the most obvious parallel, but programming languages are inherently languages. Whilst one could argue that they work differently from a functional perspective as well as in the types of problems they’re intended to solve, when one begins to expand and broaden their understanding of language as a tool the differences seem to become increasingly arbitrary.

One begins to wonder, how does one written doctrine or collection of doctrines, dictate the way in which people live and organize for centuries to come; as is seen of successful religious, political, and philosophical systems.

In a sense these things exist as a set of instructions for a (group of) human(s) to follow, much like a program acts as a set of instructions to be followed by Computer processing units.

Let’s take operating systems for example. Most operating systems are created by various programming languages; as a parallel. Most belief systems, regardless of whether they exist as political, religious, spiritual, or philosophical; are conveyed through either written text or word of mouth, both of which require some level of articulated language.

Much like an operating system, the purpose which belief systems serve; is to increase, expand and or simplify the functionality of the core machinery. If one ascribes to belief system, than ideally most of their interactions with the world around them will be internalized and understood in accordance with and through that perceived medium.

Similarly most interfacing that we do with our computers is done through the medium of our operating system or tools for expanding upon our system aka languages/programming languages, and by extension schools of thought which may correlate to libraries, frameworks, and APIs for programming languages.

This can in both instances incite compatibility issues. For example if you are a believer in a creationist system like most form of Christianity than their system is in its default state incompatible with the Big Bang theory ‘thoughtware package’. Among many others. On the contrary if your an atheist, than the belief in god is incompatible.

I personally believe the world would be a far better place if more people realized they could believe in god and develop their spiritual lives and connections to the divine without ascribing to beliefs which inherently contradict scientific data, logic, reason, or common decency, but hey to each their own.

I also posit that by extension this would make Scientology the spiritual equivalent to temple OS. Both impressive systems invented under highly questionable pretenses. Both seemingly exist purely because they can, rather than arriving out of any real necessity, and both did a great job of attracting the public eye in spite of high degrees of obscurity within their respective domains.

On a similar note Since Jewish people have to be born Jewish to be accepted within the religion, doesn’t that make it kinda like Mac OS which under general circumstances is only intended to work on Apple hardware?

And what about Linux? They make it really easy for anyone to create their own version. Does Hinduism not allow for anyone to make their own derivation from its ideological kernel?

This could be argued as being true for Christianity as well, however Christianity is more often innovated by its own elected clerical leaders, rather than followers and layman. On the contrary, while existing Linux versions are often up-kept by their respective developers, new ones are being created all the time by anyone who wishes.

Technically someone could write their own version of the Bible (or windows.) But one would likely face religious and or corporate prosecution for doing so, in regards to either heresy or plagiarism respectably.

Note: This should go without saying but I will anyways: this is not to be interpreted as perfect comparison, but rather a broad theoretical framework for comparison. If my article offends you please do both of us a favor and unsubscribe. With all due to respect if philosophizing about the interconnectedness of all forms of knowledge plays on your emotions, you are without a doubt in the wrong place. However If you disagree and wanna talk about it from a level headed perspective that’s awesome, please disagree as actively as you’d like as long as your format is coherent with reason.

Now back to my train of thought. This could be a far fetched claim, but one could also correlate the innovation of blockchain technology, with Anarchist philosophy finally nearing full circular functionality.

Okay now slow down what are you getting at?

Well before blockchain technology it was kinda impossible to imagine an economic society functioning without an inherent leader. However I theorize that decentralized blockchain ledgers are the or at least one of the missing piece(s) that anarchist philosophy has been missing the whole time.

That is a way to deal with the transferring of resources without any central form of imposed government. With every end user hosting a copy of the block chain acting as a node for the server, every participating member thus holds an equal and identical representation and record.

If you really think about it, isn’t an economy where every participating member gets an equal amount of leadership; essentially the same as saying their are no true leaders?

To myself this whole thing sounds very much reflective of the systems detailed in theories which stemmed from primitive-anarchism such as mutualism, syndicalism and collectivism. I believe it indirectly speaks from all three, while still being compatible with the core fundamentals of Capitalism and thus retaining our ideological fertilizer for innovation.

There are many other places I could take this, such as the comparison of servers to real life hosts of business, services and knowledge. Or how computer networks resemble the flow of resources and information through various economic, academic, religious, political and social systems serving as network mediums.

After all networks existed before the computers we know today, postal systems a telegraph systems and telephone are all fully functioning networks. Albeit less efficient yet equally plausible methods of communicating and transmitting information even in the modern age.

I could go on much longer But I think I’ll cut this one short, as I feel I’ve painted enough of a general picture for readers to take this thought and run with it, expand on it, etc.

Actually quite literally, if a pictures worth a thousand words than this article is roughly equivalent to an entire picture. Regardless of that sentiment I hope anyone who took the time to read this article got something out of it, regardless of the how or the why. Well readers; I hope you all have a great day, thanks for taking the time to read as always!

Das Ende.

The most Lit phone call that probably never happened.

It was about 4 in the morning. Nothing was out of the ordinary besides myself. After smoking my 7th off brand cigarette in a row, I made the critical decision to light an eighth one. I would probably be worried about cancer if I were a real person.

By now it was about 4:05 and I heard a phone ringing. Now normally this wouldn’t be too weird, except that I did not own a phone. I looked around for the source of the ringing only to discover a payphone had sprouted out of my basement floor. It was at that same moment I recognized the phones ringtone: It had been set too the tune of Rappers Delight by the Sugar hill gang.

“Well that’s nifty” I thought. Doing my best not to get caught up in the songs rhythm, yet very clearly struggling; I walked over and picked up the phone,. I was presented with a dial tone that informed me I was being called collect.  I was than prompted to insert two quarters, a cigarette, and half a quart of motor oil, In order to receive this call.

Having just spent every last cent I had on bottom shelf whiskey, I knew exactly what must be done. Sprinting full force to the gas station across the street I quickly acquired two quarters from the take a penny thing (without buying anything of course.)

Many nasty looks were given. No cares however could be found. I ran back into my abode to insert the two quarters before the phone stopped ringing. After that I inserted the motor oil followed by the cigerette, which was spit back out at me with a note: I only smoke Menthol’s.

I contemplated returning to the store but I really didn’t want to waste $10 on a pack of Newport Greens. I ran to my bathroom, and soaked a cigarette in mint flavored mouth wash before drying it with a hair dryer. I was quite confident this would fool the machine. I returned and reinserted, hoping for the results like a hopeless gambler watching the contents of his welfare check being eaten up by a shiny red slot machine at some shady casino.

It spit the cigarette out. “Well shit it must be one smart payphone.” I began to think too myself. My assumption was wrong, however because the note this time read “Break the filter off and light it you fool!” I did as instructed and proceeded to pick up the phone.

Apparently it was god. Which sorry to tell all you Christians out there, but the voice on the phone was a female. Apparently I was elected to become our generations Devil. I asked why? I was not particularly evil. This was when she explained to me that the devil wasn’t actually evil. But more like the actor who plays the villain in a movie. Except that unlike most movies the true distinction of who’s right and who’s wrong isn’t so clear.

He explained to me that the counter culture needs prophets too, and that I was in line for the lineage. Unconvinced I wanted to see some proof that I was talking too god and not an Imposter. The voice informed me it could be verified. When I asked how: the phone booth dissipated, sinking into the ground. I suppose that was all the proof I needed.

If there is anything I took from this meta-fictional experience it’s

  1. God smokes menthols.
  2. I need to lay off the drugs.

People We may (not) be.

This is a scripture of several individuals who I may or may not have been. While I can say with absolute earnestly that I never have been, let alone could have dreamed of possessing the capabilities of such persons. I will leave the distinction open toward and welcoming of all conspiring and doubt. It is not within me to welcome my detractors in any way other than with arms widely open. After all without them too whom would we respond?

It is to your interpretation alone reader, and no one else’s (and at the same time everyone else’s) where you fit as well as myself in this depicted development of anybody who would be anyone. I leave my position open to questioning and conspiracy not only as a challenge of perception, but as a challenge to the overall certainty of ones place within the not so grand playing field of existence.

Existence being little more than ones aspiration to play a role in the most immaculate of all comedies. A self contrived definition reflective of the understanding of all existing conflict as little if anything more than mere irony. With all due reason, could one define any idea for themselves without extracting a self contrived nature in the same action?

Only if they are the first to do so, or if they are so uncertain that they opt not to align themselves with the defense of their own declarations. I’ve never seen any point in aligning with ones own ideals, in fact I argue against my own beliefs more than anyone I know. By what other means (if any) could self depreciation be found profitable?

Suppose We may be correct in this assumption of the universe existing as a joke played upon itself. A joke who’s punchline we may or May not be reconciled with in the after life. A prank which may or may not exist at all. Knowing all well that if it should choose to exist that I must and will do so for no reason other than to have existed.

Not vanity but Beauty. For true beauty and irony really are no different. An observation that sets the dividing line between itself and vanity. Vanity being understood as a spiteful interpretation of perceived novelty. When the interpreter is for some reason or another unable to measure that which is novel he is lead to flip the coin onto its side and perceive it as a disgusting establishment of vanity even if and not surprisingly most often when the novelty is unaware of Its potential to be taken as a vanity.

All these premises are mischievously declared directly in spite of certainty. A self assuming depiction of How I dubiously enjoy spitting on those who cling to such a morally intangible form of (sub)conscious satisfaction. As if permanently silencing the mind entirely lent any advantage beyond numbing oneself from their own experience.

For the degenerate, the intellectual, the artist, inventor and philosopher alike (assuming one can be any of these things without being all) certainty and all Unipolar forms of reason for that matter are little more than a road block in the way of creativity, innovation, or all expansion of existing ironies along with all ability to deliver it.

This speaks to the deficit one acquires through blind faith in theology or the scientific method. However if one is to ascribe to both a spiritual and a scientific worldview simultaneously. Or neither. Than the contradictions of this dualism or the theoretical pot holes left by inaction will give way to the delight of inspirational fervor toward some sort of reconciliation of the two.

And what a delight it is gentleman to be inspired to the unification of seemingly contradictory ideals. This delight may seem naive, and while it certainly is naively perhaps even idiotically optimistic as is true to the nature of all joys and delights. Despite all posits of idiocy this sort of naivety is not only profitable but necessary as our would be fictional narrator will now demonstrate. How should we be expected to retain any genuine integrity throughout the course of our lifespan without an equivalent level of humility? The answer? We shouldn’t.

It is for this same reason gentleman that nobody may hold themself in a heightened regard without immediately looking down on themselves for doing so. The only way around this being self deception, which as we’re already so meticulously aware goes to show that ignorance is the only true bliss. This leaves us with the decision to choose between the blissful advantage of ignorance and the joyous excitement of perception.

Likewise no one may truly humble themselves to the point where they do not at any level of their consciousness take pride in being humble. Perhaps in spite of its disadvantage, this path of excitement may be preferable to some, and worthy of inspiring malice in those who did not choose it. Those who walk such a path become well aware of the malice it inspires in their counterpart, even if their counterpart does not let an ounce of spite through to the surface.

It is for this reason alone that we may not walk the path less traveled by without succumbing to a varying degree of superiority for doing so. Be there many a trickster who denounce any superiority in their individuality but these self-embracing fools are merely taking that superiority to an entire new level.

Humorous it is gentleman that in an attempt to denounce ones own authority that they merely extend the range of targets to which it is applicable. Thi s is because they are now attempting to posit their status as above both those who walk the path less traveled as well as those who don’t.

What we have as this product gentleman is a true blooded narcissist’s narcissist. The type who could kill a man and in the same breath strike his wife to the ground and be fully confident in the morality of it. That he not only considers this an advantage above the men he perceives to be of lesser importance, but as a primary virtue.

While living in stark contrast to a self deprecating and self defeating naive optimist such as myself they somehow spiritually resemble an almost disturbing likeness to one another. Perhaps the one thing these two have in common is their distance from those who walk the common path. Is it possible gentleman, that the anti-hero and the anti-villain are in fact equal opposites?

Certainly one could not exist without the other but does this make them tantamount? By all means it may and it may not, I am not the decider of this quandary. If you believe the world to be the perfect macrocosm of the conceptual zero sum game I suppose they would be perfectly tantamount.

However if you do not believe the net energy of the universe to be zero (as most men of direct action who have not yet been acquainted with any ageless wisdom do, along with the most positive and disgustingly naive of all optimists) than they could not be any more different.

While displaying a seemingly pessimistic view of things, it is precisely why I opt not to ascribe myself too it. Some would point to such a discrepancy and shout insanity. He should think himself perfectly justified as such a worldview is in direct opposition of sanity. It should seem as if all who opposed are condemning themselves to rot in a stalemate of their own construction, though this could not be further from the truth.

What has not been accounted for but many times assumed is that genius, like insanity is also in direct contrast of sanity. Genius and insanity are certainly not mutually exclusive but they are not equivalent either. what difference than stands between them? A genius uses madness as a tool to discover what reason has overlooked, to expand understanding to new lengths and to connect them and reconcile them with what was prior understood.

Insanity on the other hand uses madness as an ethical basis to argue against that which complies with reason. No one asks this of the madman, he is merely asserting his desire to comply with his own maddened perspective rather than reason. An agenda no different than he who sets out to start a bar fight with the laws of gravity.

Lord knows The genius has his fare share of these bar fights as well, the only difference being that one truly believes in its merit. The other merely seeking to ascertain what stake of new knowledge and experience may be claimed as a result. this is not to say that there is nobody standing in between these two positions, in fact most do. It is obscenely difficult to ascertain which one may be inhabiting or afflicting a persons consciousness, even more so for the one standing there.

In spite of all differences they are both certainly artists in the most genuine sense of the word. Albeit in their own respects. In spite of all implications one may be above above the other, we cannot be quick to overlook the madman’s place as perhaps the greatest inspiration of all genius. Not only inspiration but also its primary defense against the eyes and arms lined up in their fear inspired defense of all that is conventional and assumed to be understood prior.

I DARE any audacious outspoken readers to comment.

If you do not press subscribe as promptly as possible I swear by all that is vested within me that I will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT IT!

My take on Cartesian Skepticism.

The path of thought followed by Renee Descartes never failed to lead me to a state of uneasiness and excitement and leave me full of new questions. The deeper I considered and explored these ideas the more I was instilled with a deep conflicting sense of fear and curiosity.

Who is Descartes?

For readers who don’t study philosophy, Renee Descartes was an enlightened despot of the French enlightenment era that took place through the early to mid 1500s Descartes was and is very well known among intelligentsia. This notoriety is granted on behalf of his advancements in philosophy as well as science and mathematics. Despite his other achievements my intellectual relationship with this player is based purely on his philosophical innovations and for the purposes of this article that’s all that need brought up.

What is Cartesian Skepticism?

Descartes originally formed his World view or interlocking set of beliefs on that which we derive from our sense perceptionsm also known as empirical observation. This would however change drastically as Descartes began his philosophical journey to the absurd and back. The ideas to be analyzing pertain to his epistemological beliefs and attitude.


According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the term epistemology denotes “a theory or the study of knowledge especially with reference to it’s limits of validity.”

Descartes was well known for his radically skeptic epistemological position, meaning he constantly doubted and questioned the integrity of his worldview. However his skepticism would not end at the scrutiny of his belief systems. Rather he took it a step further. He didn’t just scrap all his beliefs and stop there; he now began to doubt the very methods used to obtain knowledge and reason with it in the first place.

How could this be so, seeing is believing isn’t it?

Well that seems to be the case for the majority throughout history (with exceptions like god and aliens) , as the old saying goes ignorance is bliss. Yet for some of us the profound excitement of curiosity is and will always be far more appealing than the comfort of familiarity.

Descartes didn’t care for comfort, he plunged deep into the unknown depths of theoretical possibility and absurdity. As he ought, After all pushing the possibility of thought to its limits is what philosophers do best.

He grew so affixed upon this notion that he even began to wonder if his perceived reality was real at all, positing the theoretical idea that our reality may be an artificial illusion. An idea thought to stem from profound experiences regarding dreams.

However Descartes (like myself) was a devout believer in a higher power, that he might know as god. I on the other hand have no specific word to denote such a force I would merely describe it as the grand harmony of Kindness , Karma , Chaos , Beauty and Irony.

Due to his devout faith he did not believe god would do such a thing like trap us in a false reality, so he posited that If we were living in a simulated reality it would have to be the work of an evil genius attempting to keep us away from the land ruled by god and trapped within this illusion.

Excuse me?

At first I found it hard to swallow myself. But alas as I began to venture further along my own philosophical journey I too began too notice odd coincidences that lead me into the direction of such a belief, which continues to be something I ponder and speculate upon quite regularly.

I advise those not philosophically, religiously, or psychologically inclines to not think too deeply into this for the sake of their own sanity. This is not the kind of information one can internalize and work through without a concrete system to guide the way.

So are you saying this belief is dangerous?

yes I definitely believe it has the potential to exacerbate or even induce symptoms of serious mental illness. Such a belief could easily inspire someone to end their life another’s on behalf of believing that existence is only a game or simulation, which is obviously completely irrational regardless of your beliefs.

In general I’ve devised three mental safeguards while in pursuit of this line of thinking, which act as a fail safe in case one finds themself in a position where it becomes difficult to differentiate what is fake from reality in the layman’s eyes.

Nah your exaggerating, how could books be dangerous?

To share a personal story on the subject, I once was laying in bed unable to sleep, focusing on inducing visionary fractals within my closed eye vision field when I started to feel a little tingly. At the time I was starting new s medication, as well as consuming herbal sleep aids with mild psychoactive properties. (Article about my favorite medicinal herbs coming soon.) so I didn’t really think anything of it.

At least until I began hearing noises. They began while drifting into a state of half awake half unconscious. But not just any noises, Hospital noises: beeping of a heart monitor, water pumping through an IV bag, footsteps echoing from a desolate hallway, people talking inaudible English, and the vague image and scent of a hospital room began to vivify, after this i sprang up out of bed and did not sleep again for the rest of the night, I spent the following two months in half belief that I was stuck in a coma.

Eventually I chalked it off to my brain

attempting to recreate conceptual phenomenon to attain a better understanding or just a really strange case of sleep paralysis, but this example shows how easy it is to be caught up in Cartesian skepticism.

And those would be?

>Three tips for exploring Cartesian skepticism

1. Understand that it doesn’t matter.

• in retrospect finding out we lived in a simulation or a dream would not inherently change anything in of itself. Provided there’s no way to leave, what difference could it possibly make?

2. Remember that it’s imgpossible to prove.

Just like the concepts of an omniscient god or a spiritual afterlife there is no concrete definitive way to prove reality is or is not a dream like simulation, no matter how much coincidental or subjective empirical claims stack up on either side.

3. Interpret the idea through an analytic lens

looking at it from various applicable perspectives such as theological, political, psychological or sociological through use analysis and identification of potential allegorical/symbolic links, the ideas of Descartes can be applied to common reality. Examples:

Analytic lenses: Political

Could be looked at as the wool thrown over the eyes of the masses by corrupt leaders, exploiting their power through lies and secret affairs kept from the general public for personal and gain. (think sheep mentality/herd mentality etc)

Analytic lenses: Theological

One could argue the illusion vs reality corresponds to ones spiritual life or connected with god, this is especially true in a modern era where egotism, idol worship and material obsession come between the population and developing a spiritual life or as some would call it a connection with god.

Analytic Lenses: Psychological

The false reality could refer to how perception of the world around us is subjectively altered in correspondence based to what we believe.

For example: let’s say jack is walking down the street in a coat and he notices Jane in her dress. (And me I’m in a rock and roll band HA.) Maybe jack never thought Jane was pretty before, but since he’s running 30 minutes early he decides to have a chat with the young clerk. After getting to know each other they hit it off big time, find out they have all the same life dreams, interests and tastes. Suddenly our once homely miss Jane is the sweetest looking thing he has ever laid his eyes.

I would like to extend a warm welcoming thank you to anyone who took the time to read this or any of our articles. Do your part to help build this community by subscribing, sharing, commenting, liking, and emailing us, we absolutely love support, feedback, criticism, dialectics and all non-toxic interactions with our readers.

If you would like to learn more about the French enlightenment thinker Renee Descartes more info can be found in the links below:


>https://www.storyofmathematics.com/17th_descartes.html -Renee Descartes on mathematics.

>https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biography.com/.amp/people/ren-descartes-37613 -biographical summary

>https://www.famousscientists.org/rene-descartes/ Renee Descartes on Science


The Philosophy of everything part 1.

Why is everything so different from anything? If one could be anything than couldn’t they just opt to be everything? Is anything a thing? I suppose it could be closer to an idea, but even than surely an idea is a thing.

What about nothing? If one could choose to be anything surely they could choose to be nothing since anything consists of any possible thing. but this would imply nothing is a thing which is quite contradictory to its blatant meaning of not being a thing.

If nothing is not a thing than how could it be accessible within the parameters of anything? I suppose it could be an anti-thing.

If an antihero is a hero with non heroic qualities could an anti thing be a thing which lacks the qualities of a thing?

Well by this technicality nothing would be a place holder for the absence of a thing, and a place holder is a thing so surely it must be an anti-thing because while it lacks the qualities of a thing it somehow marginalizes itself into the category.

Alright enough of my nonsense, peace out

Half-Argument for relevance of abstract thinkers.

Why have academic intellectuals of our day deemed abstract thinkers worthy of a lesser merit? Is it because we’re more fun at parties? Or merely the jealousy over the modern academics inability to create anything profoundly original? Or most likely of the three: that I myself have grown bitter over my current favorite writers (Dostoevsky and Bakunin) being labeled as too abstract for relevance.

In spite of criticism I find them to be more relevant in a manner so practically profound yet dualistically simple that what is to be gained from reading such a variety is often overlooked. Let’s look at Dostoevsky for example, any one of his works that I have thus far picked up, has contained so much information that I could read the same passages for weeks on end and get new and unique lessons (not unlike reading a religious work) picking up informational tidbits about everything from the art of literature, psychology, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, Russian history sociology, and above all ethics.

Likewise with Bakunin, I first took to him for his rants about anarchism and radical political philosophy, but found myself being schooled on almost everything else under the sun in the process, as a result I see it more due to call these abstract thinkers vastly paradigmatic rather than irrelevant to their respective fields, and that again their is much more to learn from these types of thinkers than first meets the eye.