Alter-ego here. Sittin' at the computer as those fucking car alarms go off outside and knowing that somewhere out there, someone is killing someone else and really enjoying it. Sick, sick world we live in and if we went around giving a damn and dealing with the reality of that, we'd self-destruct from an overdose of empathy. In truth, no one CAN care that much about you. Because they've gotta look out for themselves to survive. Even the nicest, most giving people in the world need to make sure they're still gonna be alive the next day. And you know what? There really aren't that many of those kind of people in the world. So what does this mean? We live in a world of selfish pricks who do hurtful things to each other that may or may not lead to the other person's death but sure make living their own lives more miserable. There is such a huge cycle of pain out there. People stabbing each other emotionally, psychically, and walking away so they don't have to admit that other people bleed and are vulnerable, therefore, perhaps, you may be, too. And that's too scary of a realization to deal with. Even I do it sometimes and don't realize it. The guy in the car I cut off may have gotten into a near accident himself. Someone that I was cold to because I didn't feel like being a cheerful person that day could be angry or hurt because they took my actions personally. And it could be someone I have a very small interaction with, like the clerk at a store, or someone I pass in the street and give a look to, but nevertheless, I darkened their day. And these are the most miniscule examples. On the bigger scale are the people who I know I've consciously hurt, but am too proud to admit that I know. What is so scary about admitting you did something wrong? What is so scary about admitting to someone that you've hurt them? It hurts so goddam much, to know that your hands have the power to, and did, hurt someone. I know for me, it is easier to be hurt by someone else than to admit that I've hurt someone. Because I can't even describe how terrible of a feeling it is to hurt someone you really love, and the shame that comes with it. I know we have all experienced it. And it is not the fear of getting hurt, but of hurting someone you love, someone whom you may actually love more than yourself, that creates the greatest terror within human experience. I think few people can look deep enough within the roots of their actions and attitudes to realize that. I wonder, if we all could and did, if we would put down a lot of our walls and really be able to interact on the most basic and rewarding level.

I've always said, it's all about relationships. How one object can't exist or be identified/created without the presence of another object and what that relationship is with this other object. Therefore, neither the chicken nor the egg came first. In order for either to exist, there must be two things which have a relationship, such as a rooster and a chicken, or a chicken to be present to provide the circumstances which allow the egg to hatch. First of all, the cycle is not defined. If the egg came first, a chicken would hatch. In this scenario, the egg came first. If a chicken came first, it would not even HAVE an egg without the presence of a rooster. So a chicken cannot come first because then there would be no egg. Unless, the chicken that first existed was pregnant with the egg, but again, that would mean that the two co-existed and it was their relationship that allowed for a cycle. If we're assuming that this is an infinite cycle in which chicken begat egg begat chicken begat egg or vice versa with these two items being creationist metaphors, again, the chicken cannot have an egg without a rooster, but an egg cannot be hatched without a chicken. Both items are integral in each other's survival. A becomes B. B creates A. A Becomes B. B creates A. But B can not create A without an outside force, meaning the rooster (C). Therefore, it can't be B creates A. A becomes B. B cannot create A because it needs C to create A. B+C=A. With this formula, a cycle can only go one step, or can't even go one step at all. (1. A exists first, then becomes B, B can't create A 2. B exists first but can't even create A). Problems...assuming we accept that only B + C = A. But only A+B=C or B. So immediately, both possibilities, need some sort of relationship in order for there to be a cycle created. A needs B to become B (or C), meaning the egg needs a chicken to keep it warm and allow it to hatch into a chicken or a rooster, or a chicken needs the presence of a rooster in order to create an egg (B needs C to create A).That cycle being a metaphor for creation. It's useless to think what force placed either one into existence first. We may as well be useless thinking about the fact that the relationship had to be in place in order for either to exist. As parodoxical as that may seem, the relationship between two objects exists before those two objects can exist. The relationship must exist IN ORDER for those two objects to exist. It is not about one object leading to another. That's a linear process that can not encompass the idea of existence. The relationship must first exist that allows the creation of objects. That idea should be the basis for understanding certain scientific laws. We try to compartmentalize everything into linear cause/effect relationships but don't think outside of the box.

Does anyone know the science behind why they test people with analogies on the SAT? What type of perception they believed that would be measuring? Because even math is relationships (the relationships between numbers. Numbers were really only created to serve as symbols. Isn't it incredible how abstract mathematics is the art of "reading into" these symbols as symbols (negating their nature by affirming their nature) by analyzing and dissecting them in a way to understand the SAME EXACT thing all the philosophers and spiritualists have been seeking to understand? The answer is both so basic and so complex. Like I've always said, at some point, polar opposites equal the same thing. Something possesses both a negative and a positive value. Not just two sides of a coin, but exist as the exact same thing. What is infinitely large (a specific point) will be equal to what is infinitely small (another specific point). At some point, they must CO-EXIST and have qualities of both opposites. Because, at what point can you say, "This is the BIGGEST thing in the world?" At what point can you say, "This is the SMALLEST thing in the world?" Because it's impossible to measure. And we keep finding examples of things that are bigger or things that are smaller (discovering planets, then solar systems, etc., or finding cells, molecules, quarks, etc....forgive me, I don't know my science terms very well). Gradations going in opposite directions between two whole integers (representing states) will also be infinite. So it comes down to, INFINITY=the point in which polar opposites equal the exact same thing. Maybe it doesn't even have to be a point. It can also be a state, or even dimension/plane of existence. (haha, I've been preaching about this since college! About a dimension where everything in existence exists at 1 precise point.). There. I finally defined it for myself after having this idea rattle around in my head for years. I hope that means that tonight I can sleep.

We're all just trying to put it together...the ideas of how things relate to each other.

Something I really like is how I have friends or know people who are so different. People who spend time with me will meet all kinds of different people, with different histories and different perceptions of the world and different projections of reality. Even to define them in archetypes as the artists, the writers, the professionals, the people who are a little bit off, the people whose life stories are entire dramas of tragedy and pain, And in seeing all these differences sometimes gives you renewed faith in humanity. There's something really beautiful about the different slices of the world, the different sides of people, just how unique every single person or group soul is, yet how universal our experience of the world is. Again, this is the same paradox at work. We are each unique (quantified by a decreasing order when measuring extent in which one is apart from the mass) and we are each universal (quantified by an increasing order when measuring extent in which one is a part of the mass). We incorporate both sets of values within us, two polar opposites that go in opposite directions when measuring extent, yet exist because we are a value that is both positive and negative. Each human being is the precise point of where these principles meet. We are the value of infinity, and that is the plane of existence that we live in, the dimension in which we exist exhibiting itself as the exact balance of opposites. It's the perfect tension. Where black equals white, large equals small, positive equals negative. People need to understand that it is contradiction and paradox that creates the fabric of our existence. Stop searching for unity and consistency! It will only come with the realization of this paradox about us, which in itself, illustrates this paradox.

Okay, I have a feeling I'm going to regret everything I just wrote in this half-asleep stupor.