Comments (0)

By ZenMaintenance, 2 Jan 10 23:43

MY MENTAL SUBWAY TRAIN
…………

==THERE MUST BE SOME SORT OF MAJOR LINK BETWEEN THE MENTAL AND PHYSICAL REALITIES==

We can make a general assumption about this or that, but whatever the assumption is, we must then take time to prove that the assumption is totally correct. This is an assumption some would make:

–There is a finite amount of any sort of empirical data in the Universe.–

Now, I would have to differ. You see, there and all sorts of scientific fields; biology, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biophysics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, ethnology, cultural studies, archaeology, paleontology, geology, immuno-biology, molecular biology, cellular biology, quantum physics, relativity, engineering (chemical), and so on and so on.

All of these scientific fields pervades some sort of physical space, and seeks to explain it as fully and entirely as it can. This is done through the scientific method:

1. Make sure you are aware of the problem at hand that you are seeking the answer to.
2. Research/discover the topic searched for.
3. Make a hypothesis.
4. Test this hypothesis and make the attempt to see if it is accurate.
5. Analyze the data compiled and check it to find whether the hypothesis was correct or ill founded. If ill founded, then the process must be restarted with a different theory and (possibly) different tests.

So, as you can see, this is a very rough outline of the general scientific method. There may be some small discrepancies found among different doctors and scientists, but this is the general idea.

So, as Robert M. Pirsig, in his philosophical doctrine, Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, pointed out, there can be an infinite number of hypotheses in any situation, and they must all be tested to find out whether they are correct or not, in order to balance both sides of the process. He talks about, in his book, how he had cracked the egg and how the scientific method was flawed. But I don’t believe it is.

You see, the information which some would argue is finite cannot truly be finite. Simply because, as time wears on and more is discovered, the ideas become more and more exact and smaller and smaller. What this then does is simply opens up more and more holes for knowledge, this knowledge being more and more exact to a specific point of reference.

And with that comes a better understanding of the ideas provoked in sciences. But, these ideas do not have to be the end goal using the scientific method.

As Pirsig pointed out, there are an infinite number of hypotheses. If there are ways to document more and more information, then the information, base empirical data, can always be recorded and recorded and recorded. And if this happens, then the sciences would eventually melt down into a mess of steaming crap and ridiculous data collecting, even if the data means nothing toward the sciences’ end goal.

Now, we must then ask why we use it then, why we can possibly stand to have a method, which, under any circumstances, is flawed to begin with, as our main way of obtaining data? Especially if the data in the universe is infinite anyway?

Well, no offense to Pirsig, but his idea was slightly flawed. You see, he was examining something in the scientific method that may have been overlooked. He seemed to assume that the method was there to obtain the information of the “what” parts of science. He thought that the scientific method would be used to ask “Does an apple fall onto the ground if I throw it up into the air?”

But what scientific method would be asking, instead of the “what”, would be the “why”. It would be asking “Why does the apple fall to the ground when I throw it up into the air?” “Why do human beings create group and predominance in society?” and so on. This is the major classifications of knowledge found by epistemologists; the difference between those two. I would like to make a more specific derivation of the what’s and why’s.

So, when looking at the scientific method, we obviously now see that it was there to explain why things are, not the fact that they are. And the infinite knowledge we found? It is simply a byproduct, something to be written in science textbooks for the reasoning to begin again through fresh minds and new students of whichever science is being studied.

The differentiation I would like to make between these two different forms of knowledge is this:

1. In sciences, we have a bit of knowledge, the knowledge that must come first, that says “what” something is, or “what” something does. This is usually referred to by the term “scientific fact”. It is a fact that, generally associated with the sciences, seeks to tell people what something does or what something is.

2. Also, in the sciences, there is a form of “why” knowledge. I would hereby like to call this branch of scientific knowledge “scientific truth”. It seeks to truthfully and fully explain why things are there or why they do what they do. This is what the scientific method seeks to explain; the scientific fact is simply a byproduct of this search, and is not to be sought after by the scientific method.

This sought after scientific truth, this ultimate goal of the sciences, is a product of two things: The scientific fact and human understanding. The human understanding interprets any facts found through the method and analyzes them and finds the hypotheses to be true or untrue; this becomes a small piece of scientific truth, and brings the researcher one step closer to finding the true answer, if they have not already, to the main question.

Then, there is one more inference to make toward an end conclusion:
That sciences, physical, hard sciences, are here to try and explain the universe to us, and that this explanation comes through a mixture of human understanding or interpretation and hard fact.

I would like, now, to divert the readers’ attention to the speculative sciences, ones that have no tie to the physical world.

There are many different philosophies and religions to choose from; existentialism, Christianity, absurdism, objectivism, Hinduism, Catholicism, atheism, agnosticism, Gnosticism, hermetic, Wicca, Buddhism, and so on and so on and so on.

There is one not thought of very often as an abstract science: Mathematics.

Now, mathematics would have first come about to find out certain things, such as how many elks Shu Shu needs to survive the winter, all the way to the fact that F=MA, and so on, and will be an explanation for many things to come and go.

But, quite often, mathematics is used as an abstract philosophy, with no physical bearing. I would like to use this as a speculative science for now, so as to avoid any sort of clash with the faith of major religions, or to cause any upheaval among different interpretations of philosophies, or anything like that.

But, there are many speculations that have to be made in order to try and make the entirety of mathematics sound. Pirsig, again, used a similar argument with mathematics:

He had found a philosopher who tried to let every theory have room.

Early in the course of geometry, Euclid became the top dog of the mathematic. He founded, in fact, Euclidean geometry, the style that is the most commonly used today in highs schools around the world, because of the way it explains and creates ideas. But, among several centuries, mathematical philosophers were able to find that there were different ways to practice geometry, and that these ideas, when put in contact with Euclid’s, ideas, were conflicting with his ideas and thus were not compatible, although they came to the same conclusion.

A philosopher named Jules Henri Von Poincare thought that two conflicting ideas could be present and equally powerful, so long as they are not used interchangeably. He said that as long as you don’t mix Bob’ s geometry form down the street with Jill’s form up the street, but used one or the other in every situation, and they both came to what is generally regarded as the correct conclusion, that these two different types were totally okay, but incompatible.

This was not enough for me, though. I had to try and find exactly why these abstract philosophies can be totally correct, even within the same field of study, and why they can still contradict each other. But I couldn’t, until I thought of this:

That the scientific method constitutes a serious connection between the mental and physical worlds, a connection that needs to be there for any sort of knowledge to exist.

Without the method, any abstract philosophy had no two feet to stand on. Even through sound logic and universal truth, one could not prove abstract or speculative philosophies. Without the physical world and the physical bodies to find the answers, the answers did not exist in the universe.

This sounds a bit solipsist, but it seems to hold water. So, then, it comes time to classify the sciences:

1. Political
2. Physical
3. Mental
4. Speculative

A short list, I know. The political sciences and mental sciences still have to be covered.

Political: These require a very short explanation. These are the studies that are only there to try and create a way to live. In the evolution of any civilization, these must come first. These include basic language skill, legal studies, and politics, all involved in the creation and basic ordering of society. I put these first, because, in the long run, these sciences are the first to emerge.

Mental: These science include the likes of psychology, cultural studies, and sociology, and are here to try and find why the human brain is the way it is and why humans act the way they do. I put these second to last on the list because they always seem to be halfway between the physical and speculative sciences. If we take, for example, psychology, it seems like many philosophers in this area are always disagreeing on ways to treat a patient, and even treat them different ways, and some ways seem to work but others work also. Yet, there is still some hard fact present in these sciences, and this hard fact presents itself on a point of view through the physical sciences.

It was here I encountered a bit more trouble.

You see, I decided, then, to try and reason what might have come first, in the case of any of the above sections of study. There was one that every subject of physical science has always needed, one that every speculative and mental science needs: Communication. So, I reasoned that language, a political science, must have come first.

With this idea would have come the thoughts about religion and the structure of society; thus, religion and legal sciences would have been practiced secondly; this was also political.

But.. Wait. Religion isn’t political. It’s speculative. You have to speculate about whether God is there, whether he created us and interferes. So, it’s obviously speculative.

But religion created order and stability. It even led to the first understanding of the Universe. And it was here that I understood.

Ideas in speculation, theories made in the sciences, weren’t always theories. And so, every science made an evolution through two stages.

First, they always were speculative and always came out in theory. But, as this theory was proved to be correct, then, they settled into either mental or physical or political sciences. And, thusly, sciences would always be changing slightly, because of more and more specific information.

And these speculative sciences were the last link I needed. The last piece to the puzzle.

The subtitle explains that this began as a quest to try and find a single strong link between the mental and physical worlds, in order to try and understand why there are two different pervading realities. I believe I have found it.

The physical reality is present in the first three listed sciences; political, physical, and mental. They are truths found all in the physical world, all around the world in which we live. They explain the reasons why something falls when it hits the ground, or why something falls faster. They explains why each frog has eyes this far apart or doesn’t. They explain the reason why some children develop more quickly than others. They create a method of explanation and explain why order is needed or why it is not.

There are also speculative sciences; basically, anything that is not yet proven or holds water only in a strictly logical sense. This is the mental reality, the reality that holds water in our minds, but has been yet disproved or is not totally accurate within the boundaries of the physical sciences. This is, generally speaking, the spirit of reason within human beings.

And there is one link between these two, one very small link that connects the two through paths of study. The scientific method takes the speculation and shows what it truly is.

This is not to say that all speculations will be found to be true or false, or that any more will in the future. This is simply to show how the connection is and why it exists.

Comments (0)

By ZenMaintenance, 12 Nov 09 21:37

There are many, many ideas in the realm of metaphysical reality and/or unreality (Depending on your views past physics).

And if we take any of these ideas, there are many which are seemingly interpreted past their original meaning, or seem to be misinterpreted, even to extremes. Some such arguments are: Capitalism versus socialism (And Communism), abortion versus choice, atheism versus Christianity, evolution versus God, etc.

Now, this is the one thing I hate about metaphysics: That two contradictory ideas can come to the exactly same conclusion through contradictory methods. I hate it because this means that there are several ways to reach the same conclusion. And they don’t make sense within the same universe.

Upon reading Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, I was able to sorely relate to a French philosopher by the name of Henry Poincare. He, according to the nonfiction account, believed that two ideas can be present as a means toward one end, as long as they are not used interchangeably. Here, I thought that, maybe, these ideas may work; they ma be able to be used in order to find a certain means.

But a balanced world would not be able to find this as a solution; crossed ideas would mean a forced compromise. But, as we know, there are always crossed ideas, and not always a possible solution to compromise, but oftentimes there isn’t even a practical one that is possible. So, I have come to the conclusion, for now, that Earth is chaotic in the realm of ideas. I’m really tired. Tell me what you’re thinking on this.
~ZM~

Comments (0)

By ZenMaintenance, 12 Nov 09 21:01

There have been many literary phenomena; people learning to write, for example. It has become a way to express simple thoughts, then more and more serious and more complicated ones, until, at last, literacy had evolved to be something more than a couple of sentences or a reason to stay inside and have a quiet afternoon. After thousands of years of evolution, literature became a reason to think; to believe; to wonder. At the forefront of this thinking mass have been two very deep novel genres: Transcendentalism and Existentialism.

Transcendentalism, the first to appear, was really less of a genre but a branch of thought in itself. German transcendentalism was one of the more prominent types of transcendence; made famous by novelists such as Herman Hesse. It then went on to form a new idea in New England, appropriately called New England Transcendentalism. This variation of it, being one of the more prevalent, thought that the way to transcend one’s environment was to move closer to the natural world and slowly make your way to God, through this method. This style has been around for hundreds of years, in one form or another, and was commonly linked to Eastern Spirituality. Another write who was not necessarily considered Transcendental, but can easily be oinked to this style, was Jack Kerouac. One of the leaders of the Beat Generation, Kerouac’s novel On The Road was a loud, ringing voice calling people to trace their roots and find the nature within themselves, in order to truly transcend and find a God in everyday life.

Existentialism was like transcendentalism, but it explored, in a meaningful mixture of humanity and unsolvable problems, the inability for humans to truly transcend while living in an absurd world. It is closely linked to a separate philosophy, called absurdism, which pulls around the idea that the universe, and, ultimately, humanity’s attempts to understand it, is completely absurd in actions and does not follow a specific idea. Fyodor Dostoevsky is commonly linked to thsi philosophy, as a founding father, with such novels as Crime And Punishment (A novel in which the protagonist tries to justify an entirely pointless crime, but cannot). This type of inquiry stretched through the decades, and was used, most prominently, by Jean Paul Sartre, Franz Kafka, and Albert Camus, respectively. Albert Camus helped to truly expand existentialist ideals; he threw out inquiry after inquiry, while still staying entirely closed off, within the realm of a specific philosophy. Kafka was also a very important literary figure in this aspect; his novels expressed a hope that humanity could overcome its problems, but showed that, oftentimes, he cannot, and must simply look forward to survival, because this is his ultimate goal, until death.

Existentialism and Transcendentalism are two very important types of literature. They are inquisitive, daring, and, most of all, truly familiar with the ideals that make us human. The fact that it took us thousands of years to reach this point of writing only goes to help prove the level of inquisition that this type of thinking has brought about.

~ZM~

Comments (0)

By ZenMaintenance, 27 Oct 09 19:19

Okay, so I know that Albert Einstein already used the title. But I really didn’t have any other thing by which to call it without using a three mile title.

So, anyway, this is a very metaphysical observation of different physical forces corresponding with a mental force. It was some off site pondering between Malice and I which led to the conclusion.

So, my information on the general formations of gravity and friction may be a little off balance, and I would appreciate it if you would correct me if it is, but I do believe I have most of it down correctly.

Gravity is a necessity. We are surrounded by it all of our lives on Earth. Yet, it is a force we cannot directly feel; we don’t feel gravity, but its effect upon our bodies. We can tell that we are not about to suddenly float away from the Earth, because it has a gravitational pull toward us and us a gravitational pull toward it.
Yet, it is possible for a world to not have gravity. If a world were composed of a single unit, a single item of space, and no boundaries, this item would have no gravitational pull, having no opposite mass by which to create the force. And, this object could have no different pieces. It could not be a molecule, for an atom would have gravity toward another atom. It would have to be the smallest possible denomination of anything in an infinite space; thus, nothing by which to pull itself.

Friction is, nearly, the same idea. In a frictionful world, we do not feel friction. We may feel heat because of friction or have a scrape and pain because of it, but the force of friction is not able to be sensed by a human because it is an invisible, inexhaustible force (While friction may only hold a certain amount of force in the opposite direction, it is termed “inexhaustible” because it is always acting upon that object with some amount of force). And, friction only exists in a world in which two objects, touching, can rub against each other; thus, a frictionless universe could only have the smallest denomination of one object.

So, by these two arguments, it is impossible to have gravity without friction, and friction without gravity, simply because they follow the same basic rules of existence and are both created by interactions between objects.

There is one more force I would like to talk about; the aforementioned metaphysical force. It is the force of remembrance, and the ability to locate places, items, etc. through their relative distance between each other. So, let us think about this for a second.
I consider it a metaphysical force only because it cannot be measured as a physical force, yet it still exists.

So, what I am talking about has to do with this: Let’s say that you live three blocks away from… How about, the Statue of Liberty. It’s a big tall statue,; you can obviously recognize it. And since you know where you live according to the position of that statue, you don’t even have to be within eye distance of your house, you can use the statue to find your way home.

So, imagine the statue was not there, but a large black hole of nothingness in the shape of a rectangle. And all the similarities are gone from the area. Could you find your way home then? I would think not; you could eventually, through the trial and error system of checking houses, but you would not be able to use the landmark anymore to find your house. Lastly, this is comparable to the other two forces in this way: That we do not feel our relation of one object to the next, but rather we experience the knowledge that comes to us through this process of the brain.

Using this method and comparing it to the above stated forces, I have come up with two laws I believe are followed by both the conscious and the subconscious,

First:
Any object one is looking for has to be either in eyesight or must be able to be found through the use of a landmark. If it can be found through the use of another object, this means that there must be, in this universe, more than one object; one to find and one by which to find the wanted object.

Two:
The object used as a landmark cannot be moving. If there are more than one object being used to look for the destination object, then there must be two still objects; one by which you are able to judge the distance from your destination, and another by which you can determine your landmark object to be still (For if your landmark object were constantly moving, then it would be impossible to determine how far away from the destination you are).

Now, the Metaphysics of Relativity are just that: Relative. Friction and gravity relate to each other through the rules applied to them, and the world in which one cannot exist also cannot have the other.
In the same way, if there is friction and gravity, then you can have ideas of relativity in your mind. If there is no gravity or friction, and you were a single observer looking into the infinite universe, it would be impossible to determine what was what; not only because there would be infinite space, but also because there would be no way by which you could determine where you are in relation to what you are looking for.
This shows (If my logic is correct, which I do believe it is), then, that gravity cannot exist without friction, friction cannot exist without gravity, and humans, without either of these forces, cannot relate separate objects to each other.
I hope you enjoyed my attempt at useless logic.

~ZM~

Comments (7)

By ZenMaintenance, 22 Oct 09 19:39

So, really, I believe that this country needs to get its epistemological roots back. There are people upon people upon people who get a free education and a home for the first eighteen years of their lives, and these people hate school.

I’m not saying that every person hates school, but that people need to learn that their education, while it may not be extremely important to them, expands the brain. It helps them to contemplate things which may be of a help to them; and even gives them better employment opportunities. So, why wouldn’t people just learn for the crapping of it, since they have to anyway? Boring stuff, maybe?

Hmmm… Interesting thought, ZenMaintenance. Very interesting, and I have to say that that is a problem among some.
So, let’s address another point: To those of you who have read the Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World. I remember, form this novel, a specific point, in which the main characters are meeting with the World Controller, Mustafa Mond. In this meeting, the characters are told that modern humans are treated to have a predetermined intelligence for one reason: That if everybody were geniuses (Paraphrased, obviously), then there would be disaster.

I do not agree with this. I believe there would be arguments, but not disaster. Especially not if people were reasonable and logical enough to use the Socratic Method or to listen to each other reasonably, like humans begins should.

Ahhhhhhhhh……. Socrates. I knew nothing about him until last summer, when I was reading the nonfiction book Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig. He told us (The readers) that nobody had really tested the formerly accepted ideas of society and religion/metaphysical ideas before the Sophists. He said that these people were, basically, the first organized school of thought. Then, the Socratic and post-Socratic philosophers began to use thought. I really think that the most important influence on our government should be considered Socrates, not John Locke. Simply because of the Declaration of Independence. It states that we are all created equal, and he government is there to provide for use the freedoms we need and want, and that if the government becomes destructive to the aforesaid means, that we are to abolish it and start again. Socrates demonstrated this tenfold; he tried to have every person believe in equality, and, when persecuted for his beliefs, kept his stance, doing everything he could to change the government so that it wasn’t destructive to these means, and, when he failed, he accepted death. Although it is true that because he didn’t have a ridiculously large following, he wasn’t able to do a very large amount of persuasion, and he, being a peace monger, would not want to try and revolt.

Also by way of argument comes a piece of literature known as Catch 22, written by Joseph Heller. It’s a good book, according to most people, but some people don’t understand the humor, don’t like the humor, etc. I think people have to be able to understand the book more to be able to really enjoy it. The book, obviously anti war, was truly about the government’s conquest into different people, and the craziness of the subordination of some of those people, and the beliefs of those who, although they are not truly crazy, are labeled crazy by the government and treated as such. It uses humor (a lot of it pretty dark) in order to show the ridiculousness of the System. And, although it becomes gravely serious at different points, it really holds true to its comedy almost the entire time. But the reason it uses comedy is that the author is writing it so that he expresses the craziness not only in its characters and its form of logic, but also in the writing. The insanity of the whole situation is shown simply through the use of a cut storyline, jumping back and forth, with no real logical order to follow, until the storyline has been pieced together.

Another interesting work of political fiction is Orwell’s 1984. Very good. It’s a classic, well known piece about an oppressive government. It was written in 1948, and uses a very closed in mood and personality to achieve its main message: The impossibility of truly functioning in such a government. The governmental entity, known simply as Big Brother, is not even truly existing within the story. We never learn if he’s real. It’s a pretty good concept, though, the idea of only hearing the story through one point of view.

Solipsism- that’s one of the philosophies mentioned when the government is being explained. It is the idea that nothing exists outside the mind of every person. And it’s a very personal idea; if I can’t see you, you do not exist at the moment. This is close to subjective philosophy. It has the same basic idea, except that it was never developed metaphysically. It’s also close to existentialism; the study of the existence of man and his place within his universe. Most existentialists would argue that man is in charge of his own destiny and that the only thing he is sure to do on earth is to exist; whether it be one day or three hundred years. A good book on this is L’Etranger (The Stranger in English), about a man who commits a pointless murder and is condemned to death. The man believes throughout the novel that there is no force bringing humans together, and that it is absurd to even believe that. This branches out into absurdism; the very belief described in the last sentence through the idea of existentialism.

Another philosophy-Objectivism-was brought out through Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead. It shows the idea that things exist outside of the realm of thought.

Metaphysics. Can’t get enough.

So, if you were to ask me, people should remain to follow school, if only epistemologically, for the sake of learning,, through earlier years. I think that people should contemplate the metaphysics that they are aware of, in order to breach their understanding of the relam outside our own.

~ZM~

Comments (0)

By anomaly, 7 Jan 09 21:10

As one travels through the ether of life, knowledge of the universe and its contents is gained. Sometimes, it is learned through experimentation; sometimes, it is learned through situations that we experience; sometimes, it is learned through our teachers and mentors passing on their knowlede. The real world has much more to show us, and much we have been shown. There is one piece of the puzzle that holds the rest together. A keystone, if you will. That keystone is our ability to agree on whatever is processed through our minds. What if that was taken away? Everyone would disagree about what they see, and nothing would be definite. If every human had his or her own definition of reality, how would ‘we’ know which one it is? The simple answer: we wouldn’t. Everyone would be living in their own reality, governed by there own laws. To make this easier to understand, we will use our reality as the ‘official’ reality, to compare to. While one person sees and does one thing, another person believes their own reality happened. Even when, according to our current reality, neither happened. That does not matter, of course, to these people, for they in fact have no knowledge of any other reality. Their’s is reality. Does this mean that there is no reality that is concrete? Maybe someone a long time ago got through to another person and at that point, two people believed that reality. Then another. There is power in numbers, and eventually, those numbers grow by their own nature. (According to our reality.) Sanity means, in effect, that you agree with the masses. It means that you ‘go with the flow’ and believe in whatever the masses decide. I am part of it. I believe in what I have deemed the ‘official’ reality. I cannot change that. It won’t happen under my own power. I wish I could, believe me, but I cannot. I can only attempt to change the ‘official’ reality to better fit my wants and needs. The only thing that has proven again and again to help someone change their reality is a truly disturbing event, or careful manipulation of the mind. Something that one cannot handle, or something that conditions the mind to a change in what was reality, and therefor their mind escapes to a different reality. They are considered ‘insane’ by those of us in our reality. They are completely sane to themselves, of course. Now I ask, is it right to call them insane? Are they really? What if something happened, something big, that literally split the populations agreement on what is reality? What if there was a new ‘masses’ and so a new ‘official’ reality? Anyone who didn’t come to agree with the new one would be insane and have to be harbored in an asylum. So who is correct? Here is an example: Old Catholicism. Anyone who didn’t believe the way they determined was insane, or, to use the time’s terminology, a devil worshiper. A demon. An enemy. How is that right? You know what? Those devil worshipers convinced a lot of people of a different ‘reality’ that was better, and more believable to some. So reality changed a bit for some, while for others, it stayed the same, while everyone else was lost to them. This is not right at all. Just because more people agree with it than any other does not mean it is right. How do we know it is real? The answer: We can’t. That is the simple truth to our existance. We cannot determine what is real except by what enters our mind, and therefor reality is tainted. Sanity is not statistical (George Orwell, 1984). There is no way to determine reality for sure. The saying “the world has gone insane” is one-hundred percent true. By the same reasoning, the world has gone sane. Each and every person is sane. Depending, of course, on what perspective you view from. People have the tendancy to reject anything that is different, which includes someone believing in something that people believe not to exist. I must ask once more: What happens when a particular piece of reality grows large enough that it can be considered reality, yet not quite everyone agrees with it? Enough so that niether side is powerful enough to consider the rest of them insane? That piece of reality gains a name that the world knows all too well. Religion. No one person can say for the rest whether a particular religion is truth or not. If one were to ever be proven, then anyone still believing in the rest would probably be considered insane. That is our reality. It is a sketchy one, continuously being rewritten by new beliefs that come from diverse minds. I personally envy the one who has his or her own reality. They might have the ability to change it themselves, depending on how it is set up. We can’t change ours. There are too many people participating in this one reality to change it. The only thing is to change the people so it isn’t so bad here. Sanity, my friends, depends on those who believe it the most. Who can prove it. Who can convince the populace of it. Who know it. There lies only one more question in need of asking…What do you believe?