Gilligan in Purgatory

Yes, I hit the professor's man-made transmitter with my fist just as a plane was about to fly directly overhead. Sure I stuffed my lucky rabbits foot inside the NASA robot, rendering it inert and useless, and I made those other NASA guys think we were Martians after I accidentally spilled glue and feathers all over everybody. And I know it was me who inadvertently moved the stick in the lagoon that the professor was using to measure the water's depth, sending everyone into a doomsday panic.


But really—is this necessary? This ceaseless, open-ended expiation of my guilt? This limbo-like state of godless suffering?


I mean, I don't even think I really believe in this place anyway. Or at the very least, I thought it was for Catholics only. I could see a good Catholic sitting in my place, thinking about the time he handcuffed the briefcase full of important government documents to his wrist, or that time when he backed up over the burning logs that spelled out SOS making them instead spell out SOL, the name of the pilot that was flying his plane directly overhead, and feeling like this might be what he deserved. That maybe through this mandatory time of final purification he may actually gain the grace needed to be worthy of heaven.


But not me. I lean more toward the Scriptural revelation that all the demands of divine justice for things like eating Mary Ann's last coconut cream pie were completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. That time I took over the island and overzealously locked everyone in a bamboo jail just as a plane was flying directly overhead? Totally purchased back by Christ on the tree. Penance? Atonement? Accomplished!


And please don't bother throwing Romans 5:3-5 in my face either. Yes, sanctification involves suffering, but didn't I suffer enough when the professor turned me invisible, or when he hypnotized me into thinking I was Mary Ann, or when Mr. Howell sold me those worthless oil wells, jilting me out of $3 million in well-deserved golf winnings?


And if you want to talk about who deserves forced reparation of wrongs applied, look no further than my boss, his nibs The Skipper, for hitting me on the head with his hat to mark every hour of every day for three years. There's your uncleanness that shall not enter the presence of God in heaven!


Go ahead and jury-rig Hebrews 12:14 into an argument that I have to reclaim a self-lost holiness, a holiness "without which no one will see the Lord." But I would cite the many, many times my unbelievable ineptness was countered by an act of goodness so sheer and selfless that the flames in which I now sit would be quenched forever: like when I fed those cannibalistic headhunters the magic berries I found that made them see upside down, or when I dressed up as a tiki god to lift that evil curse off The Skipper or when I saved us all from certain death at the hands of that crazy Japanese sailor. But all these paled in light of the time I actually crawled up inside a live bomb to defuse it because I was the only one that wasn't fat, self-righteous or vain. Inglorious ingratitude!


I know, I know. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Right. Right. Sanctification's not an option, blah, blah, blah. You know what? I've heard about enough, sir. Now, if you'll excuse me, I guess I've got some evil to purge...

TELEVANGELISTS DECRY LACK OF B-LIST CELEBRITIES

At a recent episode of The 700 Club, a number of televangelists complained publicly over the growing shortage of lower-level show business conversions.


"It used to be back in the 1970s, every week there was a new TV star or Top 40 one-hit-wonder convert," said Jackson "Jack" Hayferd of Clear HDTV Ministry, a television-based outreach. "Now all we can get is real people."


The evangelists, including Paul Crouch, Pat Robertson, and Benny Hinn, in a five-minute segment, showed film clips of famous new Christians from 1970-1988: The Golden Off B-Media Conversions, a documentary that chronicled the fervent—if sometimes brief—Hollywood/recording industry conversions of such accoladed celebrities as Kerry Livgren of the rock group Kansas, Gavin McLeod, captain on The Love Boat, B.J. Thomas, Kirk Cameron, and adult filmmaker Larry Flynt, who, in the words of the soundtrack, "was a Christian for a ten-day period in 1977."


There were also clips of more famous glitteratti like Bob Dylan and Van Morrison, "who may or may not have been converts, since it is difficult to know from the incoherence of their lyrics."


The public statements seem to be related to the appearance in the once-relevant magazine Christianity Today of an article "Do We Need More Celebrity Preaching?", which questioned the utility of celebrity testimony at the present time "because Baby Boomers are aging and other generations may be less susceptible to media-worship." The opinion piece also expressed a wistful yearning "for the days when Paul and Jan Crouch's show was made less tedious and boring by the nostalgic scheduling of an old character from Hogan's Heroes. But whatever the cause, there is undeniably a current lack of B-List celebrities."


Serious scholars also have recently questioned the efficacy of "evangelical celebrity-ism."


"Just because someone witnesses about being saved from depression attendant on losing out for a role on his favorite sitcom doesn't mean it will automatically be relevant to the average person's needs," said Lloyd Harold, a Professor of Popular Culture at UCLA's John Wayne College of Movie Star Studies.


No causes were assigned by any of the sources for the lack of these conversions, save for one media-watcher's reference to the "Culture Wars" and to "the fact that the Boomers appear to be moving on to other forms of narcissism, like health-worship and so-called organic foods."

Five People I Would Love to Punch in the Face

Have you ever met someone for the first time and the only thought that pops into your mind is, "I wonder what they would look like with my fist through their head?"

Or maybe watching television on a warm Saturday afternoon when you notice the face of someone who, deep down somewhere in your heart, you feel needs a good fist facial?

My personal favorite is when I am out at a bar trying to drown my sorrows in some quality Jack Daniels, when I hear a voice that makes me want to smash a bottle over my own head. And then smash their head on the bar like Jon Lovitz did to Andy Dick.

Since Andy Dick has already been handled by Jon for me, I began thinking while I was drinking (as many times I do), and in my enlightened state I came up with a list of 5 people who I would love to puch in the face.

It was hard to narrow it down to just 5 because, honestly, there are lots of people who I feel deserve a five fingered sandwich in the kisser, but these top 5 are the only ones I would be willing to do some jail time over. They are in no particular order because when it comes to punishing faces, everyone gets it evenly.


1. Barry Bonds

Did anybody else remember what this guy used to look like? The picture above will help refresh anyone's memory who might have forgotten. Watch me transform as I go from a literal bobble head man body to the Baseball Hulk. GTFOH

Come on Mr. Bonds, you are seriously becoming the poster boy for everything that is wrong with today's new breed of professional athletes. Either they are shooting up (steroids), shooting up (clubs), or shooting up (salary demands).

Bonds is crazy because he still insists that he took no steroids. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS, BARRY!! Oh yeah, just like Vince McMahon isn't running Roid Rage Rehersal Theater (otherwise known as the WWE) every Monday, Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. I am confident that me turning his teeth into bloody Chiclets will help to solve his problem of forgetting what he has stuck in his ass lately.


2. Paris Hilton

Whenever I see Paris, I always want to punch her in her GED having, corrupting young female minds, too much money having mouth.

At the same time I also want to fuck her around my house like a wheelbarrel, and then punch her in the face. I am torn between boning her first and then punching her, or punching her first and then boning her.

After seeing her sex tape, I would probably have to save the punching until after she finished my meat pole, unless she answers the phone in the middle of our encounter, then she gets a quick jab to the nose.

It isn't even that she looks really good or anything like that (Lindsay seems more my style - A let's get drunk and "fool around" kinda girl), it's just she would be the richest pussy that I ever had, and probably ever would have the pleasure to smell. I heard through the grapevine that rich coochie smells like opening a brand new Hermès "Birkin" bag. Sweet.

She gets punched because anyone who is 26 years young, acts like a 13 year old with a driver's license and a credit card, and get paid to teach girls to act like stupid whores, should suck down some teeth - promptly. If public stoning is still banned in America, then this is the best we can do. And she has herpes. Ewwwww!!


3. Dick Cheney

Some people might wonder why President Bush isn't in this position. Well, simply put, our President is not too bright, and punching him in the grill is like punching a retarded person. It's funny at first, but when you are alone at your house a few weeks later, you start to feel really bad about it.

Only in America, (to quote everyone's favorite murderer Don King) can you shoot someone in the face and then claim self defense.

Only in America can you be the Vice President of our country and shoot someone in the face and then claim you thought he was a quail.

Only in America can you tell your co-workers to "Go Fuck Yourself" and know that the next day you will have to face the consequences of your actions.

Only in America can you be the second most powerful man in the world and tell someone you are debating with in an open forum to "Go Fuck Yourself" and know that no matter what, you have the media at your fingertips (who will spin the story into obscurity).

Only in America did I learn that the best way to knock people off of their pedestals is to punch their glasses into the back of their heads so they can see things from a different perspective. Go Liberty!!


4. Elmo

Of all the Seasame Street characters that became popular over the years, this demon-crazed character deserves to be pummeled until the stuffing pours out of him like white, fluffy blood. If anyone has ever seen a Tickle Me Elmo doll then you know exactly what I am talking about. Please children molest me so I can have an epileptic seizure and giggle. I mean come on, Elmo is ticklish in some very inappropriate areas and honestly acts like he is possessed when he gets touched. The fact that he teaches our children that if anyone ever starts "tickling" them in odd areas, the best thing to do is fall on the floor shaking and laughing psychotically with a maniacal grin on their faces, deserves a beating alone.

To top that though, Elmo talks in fucking third person. If that isn't the creepiest shit I have ever heard from a puppet, I don't know what is. There are only a few people in this world who talk about themselves in third person, and one of them is Mr. Rv"You under the age of 16" Kelly. That is not good company, Elmo. Since you are one of the people responsible for teaching our pre-teens new and exciting things about this crazy thing we call life before they get corrupted by the poisons that are called the Public School system, you get to catch a beat down, Mr. Elmo. Because Morris doesn't like stupid crazy epileptic puppets.


5. Dale Earnhardt Jr

When was it ever cool to drive around in a circle? Oh yeah, it never had been cool. I hate the fact that he makes millions of dollars for driving in a left hand turn. Seriously, thank you confederate states for this homage to the prohibition days. I can think of nothing I would rather do than watch cars drive around. In a circle. For 5 hours. Yippie.

I mean, have we collectively gotten dumber and dumber as the years have gone by? The answer is yes, we have. And Dale Jr is responsible for that. Somebody tell this guy that he can drive around anywhere in a fancy car and attract women like flies. You don't have to take up valuable TV time just so you can get some pussy in every town you stop at.

I have gotten tricked several times (like I know many of you have as well) by turning on FOX thinking I will be getting some refreshingly coarse Simpsons or Family Guy banter, only to be subjected to hours upon hours of the Neverending Circle.

Why can't he do something that helps society, like being a taxi driver in New York or Philly, or maybe being a school bus driver? Because he is a twat, that's why. And I need to show that twat who's boss with a simple 3 hit dark. What is a 3 hit dark, you ask? 1st hit he throws up his arms. 2nd hit he turns his head. 3rd hit the lights go out for Mr. Earnhardt Jr.
Fucking twat.

Honorable Mentions
- Whoever created Pepsi tapwater, AKA Aquafina
- Bill Gates because he is Bill Gates, dammit!
- Jesse Jackson: you went from relevant to Rainbow Coalition...WTF!
- Michael Irving because cocaine is a helluva drug
- NASA...drunk astronauts huh...but no driving drunk? GTFOH

That concludes my list of people who deserve to be punched in the face by me. I know there are a lot of other people who deserve to be on here, but it would take forever to list 'em. There is probably someone who deserves to be hit who is reading over your shoulder right now. So give 'em what they need.

Know and Love Your Asshole

In any group there are three kinds of people: The leader, the follower and the asshole. It never fails and try as you might, no group will be successful without all three elements present.

The leader leads, the follower follows, and the asshole questions the leader and antagonizes the follower. All three factions are crucial to the dynamics of any group. Without the asshole, the leader wouldn't conquer the little challenges such as keeping a group together, while the follower wouldn't learn to stand up and solve an issue on their own. Assholes truly are a needed commodity in the world. Unfortunately for the group, the job of an asshole is to be an asshole. Trust me; it's not as easy as people may think. We've got a tough job despite it being only a single track agenda. I was told as a child that I could be anything I wanted to be when I grew up, so I became an asshole. It's a thankless job, and it's not easy to fill the shoes of a good asshole. We're often ostracized from "normal" social groups for being too ‘verb adjective', but – that's what we do. We are also painfully undervalued. Be that as it may, I feel it is my duty to try and shed light on the two distinct breeds of assholes.

Think of this as my way of saying that your today sucks, but that doesn't mean my tomorrow has to.

A good asshole will always have:

A sense of humor.

A good asshole can make almost anything funny, even jokes about themselves. However, making anything funny isn't enough; they've got to know when it's appropriate to make something funny and when to plain shut up. If someone asks "Do these pants make me look fat?", the good asshole will respond with a light hearted "No.", give a pregnant pause and follow up with "The fat makes you look fat." The bad asshole will simply reply with a "yes." It would have been better to say nothing because "yes" isn't funny.

Someone to kick when they are down.

Often times we come across someone who is having a bad day. The good asshole will remind their victim that certain aspects of their life sucks or that, despite various other achievements, there is one irritating challenge not yet met.

This can be best seen in the "Do these pants make me look fat?" question where their victim obviously has concern about their weight and it is likely that this is the unmet challenge.

A bad asshole will devalue the achievements already attained by their victim or make a general statement about the status of various elements in their victim's life to a degree of being downright ugly (which, from a 3rd person perspective, is funny to a good asshole).

Someone to remind them that they are an asshole.

All assholes know they are an asshole. They're told this religiously, but a good asshole needs to be encouraged to continue to be a good asshole, or they go bad very quickly. Good assholes love to make someone laugh (though often it is themselves who laugh). As such, assholes are in their own rights attention whores – narcissistic attention whores, but attention whores nonetheless. It is important to note that the reminders given to assholes must be gentle.

Assholes can take being treated accordingly, but nagging an asshole about being an asshole does one of two things: Makes them a bad asshole or makes them a follower. On the same token, forgetting to remind the asshole that they are about to miss a perfect moment to be an asshole will confuse and dilute the asshole into becoming a mindless drone.

Trust me when I say this – the only thing worse than a bad asshole is an ex-asshole. They're unfunny with horrible timing and really bad taste. They strive for a level of excellence that they'll never achieve – like the 70-year old grandma who still lives in her whoring glory days by wearing a Limited Too ensemble to the grocery store. You know the deal - sports bra that supports... nothing, "hooker red" lipstick that serves to only accentuate the unique hue of antique yellow her teeth have become, 6 months overdue for a re-dye red hair in an 80's coiffe/bouffant thing, a tattoo of what I'm guessing was a baby that now looks like a tattoo of Edvard Munch's "The Scream," spray tanned leather covering she calls "skin," and booty shorts that say "juicy" which are loosely draped over the ass yet is somehow shoved up it as if to indicate that her ass was eating the shorts.

Intelligence and Self Control.

A good asshole has some degree of intelligence. People love to hate the smart asses, but their points are generally well founded. It happens to be that their means of delivery can seem sophomoric and infantile with respect to the topic. People will laugh with the good asshole or smart ass, whereas they'll laugh at the dumbass bad asshole or not at all. Thus, the dumbass counters the point of pimping themselves out for the laugh of the crowd.

I have never heard anyone say, "What's this guy doing here, he's such a smartass."

I have heard people say, "What's this guy doing here, he's such a dumbass."

Furthermore, a good asshole won't be too much of an asshole with the wrong issues or will refrain from being an asshole altogether. Good assholes know when it's time to be an asshole. Bad assholes do not.

A sense of self worth.

This can be best summed up as "Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on mine." One might also infer that when comparing the good and bad asshole, it is akin to the comparison of a geisha and a butterfly girl; the geisha gets respect although she in essence is a whore, while the other gets no respect and is also a whore.

A good asshole will know when it is inappropriate to whore themselves out for the laugh. An ugly baby is funny, while a dead baby isn't.

The bad asshole will try to make them both funny at exactly the wrong time, while the good asshole will make only the former funny at the right time.

Effective time management

Assholes, good and bad alike, know the value of their time and in general are great people to go to when you have time management issues. This isn't to say that the price of consultation isn't light, or that you'll like their solution, but it is to say that the good asshole will manage your time effectively to get the most from and for you. While the bad asshole also manages time effectively, they'll simply tell you to go away as a form of better managing their own time by not wasting it on you. In short, at least the good asshole will help you.

So, next time you run into a good asshole, be sure to let them know that they're doing a good job of being an asshole by calling them an asshole. They'll be an asshole to you for it, but you deserve it.

Safety in Satanism

In the interest of safety for myself and others, I think I'm going to become a Satanist.

Think about it: In this day and age of Jews killing Muslims, Muslims killing Jews, abortion clinics bombed by Christians, and Christians being arrested in China, it seems that the safest faith to have is in the Dark Deceiver himself.

When was the last time you heard about a group of Satanists kidnapping people or strapping bombs to themselves? I mean, once in a while you'll hear about a misguided teen with an unhealthy interest in occult practices who becomes involved in a serious graffiti incident, but for the most part, Satanists are just keeping to themselves and keeping out of trouble.

Considering the significant trouble caused by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, it's odd that schools and communities always label the Satanist kids as at risk teens. You'd think it would be the other way around. Sure, the kid with the pentagram necklace may draw on the cafeteria table with a sharpie, but he's not going to grow up to wear dynamite leg-warmers on a bus full of people.

Going the Satanist route honestly seems pretty harmless. Besides needing to sacrifice a baby goat once in a while or organize an occasional Black Mass Orgy, the expectations are relatively low and the rewards are plenty. Check it out-- as a Satanist, I:

Get to sleep in on Saturday and Sunday mornings
Don't have to involve myself in a physical or spiritual jihad
Don't have to proselytize and stir the turd with everyone
Can eat bacon and put cheese on my burger
Can listen to all the Rock N' Roll I want
Don't have to be terrified of sex or disgusted with my body


I could go on, but you get the idea. Who's with me on this? Maybe we could give Anton LeVey a call and see if there's a nice local SatanistChurch in the area. If not, we could meet at my house. Or we could just take a Ouija board over to the bar and grab a beer or something. Whatever.

Pace Yourself

Today, my good friend CNN tells me that people over seventy who consume one to seven alcoholic beverages a week have a "significantly lower risk of heart problems or death than those who didn't imbibe.???

Read it again -- Lower risk of DEATH. My first thought is to ask the question, "Does this mean they maybe won't die, ever? As in their risk for overall death -- impending, no-way-around-it death -- is lessened???? But I know that isn't what they mean, exactly. They mean a "lower risk of death, tomorrow.??? Which is fine. I'm guessing that's a risk you want to manage when you're over seventy.

Hell, it's a risk I want to manage NOW, so I'm thinking I should get a jump start on managing my death-risk. You can bet those older folks clinking glasses seven times a week didn't start knockin 'em back on their sixty-eighth birthday. They've had to be in training longer than that.

These are the health articles I love. As soon as I get so discouraged about trans-fats and pesticides and frankenfoods and the price of organics and poorly tested drugs and impure water and cleaning product residues and fiber intake and processed, white devil-flour that I'm certain I'll poison and pickle myself into an early grave, the media kicks me something like this. Something that says "Yeah, we said all that other stuff, but who are we kidding? Drink up!??? Like at camp when you hear that chilling story about the guy with the hook for an arm, running around these very woods, killing people, and just when you're all scared and ready to call your mom, somebody asks the camp counselor if it's true, and he says "Naw, none of that's true.??? Sweet relief!

So good news, folks! Clean livin' isn't all it's cracked up to be. Besides encouraging me to continue with the cocktails, this story cements my plan to tie it all back on when I start my coast down the slope. And you can bet I'll start up again with the smokes, too, because who can enjoy her nice, old-lady-brandy-drunk without a cigarette between her wrinkled fingers?

Abstinence Only

I bet you've been wondering about my under-informed opinion on sex education. You're in luck, reader, because you're about to get it. (The opinion, not the education... or the sex.)

Okay, here we go. On the one side, we have Abstinence-Only programs. These programs teach that the only safe way to express sexuality is within the bounds of marriage. Specific information about disease and pregnancy prevention is not included. The reasoning for this: if you teach kids about sex, they will be more likely to have it.

On the other side, we have Comprehensive sex education programs. Most of you probably had this growing up. Remember the day you walked in late to health class and the teacher was putting a condom on a banana? Of course you do -- the memory arouses you to this day. That's what we're talking about here. These programs teach kids about contraception and disease prevention. The reasoning behind this method: kids are curious and talkative; better for them to get helpful, accurate information from a teacher than be dangerously misinformed by a friend.

Abstinence-Only programs are normally supported by religious conservatives, while Comprehensive programs are favored by every prominent American health organization. Which one do you think received $170 million in federal funding in 2005? Ostensibly, both programs have the same goal -- keeping teenage bodies STD-less and-baby-free -- so you'd think that federal funding would go to the one that DOCTORS approve of. You'd be wrong, though. The money goes to the Abstinence-Only programs.

You've probably noticed the slight bitterness in my tone, so I'll just go ahead and voice a few of my problems with the Abstinence-Only programs.

1) Statistics show that kids are going to explore their sexuality no matter what adults tell them. Virginity pledges may delay intercourse, but usually do not prevent it. We should give kids the information they need to keep themselves safe and knowledgeable.

2) Promoting abstinence-until-marriage is a slap to the face of homosexuals in the U.S., seeing as how, in most states, they are prevented from being married.

3) Keeping children from learning about their sexuality propagates the taboo on human sexuality. Our sexuality is a powerful, meaningful part of our identities; it seems to me to be a huge disservice to teens to attempt to keep them in the dark about such matters.

Teaching kids about the wonders and dangers of sexuality will not turn them into raging nymphomaniacs. Using Abstinence-Only programs to avoid teen pregnancy and STDs is the rough equivalent of teaching kids that the only appropriate way to avoid a broken leg is to avoid any activity that involves walking and running... until marriage.

Jesus, once again, tries to kill Halloween buzz

The time of year has come once again for many Christian parents to debate whether it's okay to have fun on Halloween or if they should, instead, make their children wait an extra day to celebrate the much lamer All Saints Day.

For the most part, the controversy surrounding Halloween has little to do with practical matters -- say, your child ingesting a razor blade hidden in a candy apple -- and is more focused on the pagan roots of the Holiday. Originally celebrated as a part of a Celtic harvest festival, Halloween marks the time when Samhain, Celtic Lord of Death, sent evil spirits out to attack humans; the logical recourse of humans being to dress up like evil spirits themselves in attempts to fool the demons and avoid harm.

Today, Wiccans still recognize the holiday as a sacred and powerful time, but most everyone else simply finds it to be a good excuse to suit up and gorge themselves on wacky taffy and mini Mr. Goodbars. Is that really so wrong?

Apparently it is. An article I just read suggests that "those who celebrate Halloween either are unaware of its roots, or are intentionally promoting a world where evil is lauded and viewed as an ultimate power??? It is not considered an option, apparently, to be aware of the roots and realize that your kids just want some freakin' candy. The article went on to say that "to counter the evil influence of Halloween, we need to join together and celebrate the reality of the heroic efforts of Christian saints over the evil in their day???

Do I get candy on All Saints Day? Can I dress up like Frankenstein’s monster? Do I get to TP the trees outside Old Man Montgomery's house? If the answer to these questions is no, you can stuff that lame ass holiday up your ass.

11 Things Women Won't Tell You (and probably why I am divorced)

Editor's note: Some personal thoughts will slip into this list so rants are impossible to avoid.

1. Everything a woman buys for herself – from shoes to skirts and even shampoo – really costs 20 percent more than she tells you. (Nice to know "trust" is doomed in every relationship.)

2. She actually thinks about sex -- with you -- a lot. It's just that by the end of the day she's too tired to do anything about it. (Then just lay there. Not like you do much during anyway!!!)

3. She is just as nervous about commitment as you are. (Why? I'm the one who is going to suffer.)

4. She may be modern and independent, but she still wants you to be "the man." (Proof all women are schizophrenic.)

5. Her ex-boyfriends were not completely terrible in bed. (Are you saying she wasn't a virgin? That lying c**t!!!)

6. She is scared she will turn into her mother. So the worst insult you can throw at a woman you love is, “You’re acting just like your mother.” (Insult? It was the truth!!! Only difference was her mother loved me.)

7. She wants you to be jealous – but just a little bit. (Make up your mind! Do I punch the guy out or tell him to have you home by midnight?)

8. Yes, she fantasizes about hot celebrity guys, but that doesn’t mean she wants you to be one of them. (Is that why we had sex with the lights out?)

9. She tells her girlfriends more than she will ever admit to you but less than you fear. (I have video to the contrary.)

10. She really does notice and appreciate all the chores you do though she won't admit it. (No sex. No thank you. And men are the savages in a relationship? Bull shit! Take out your own trash till you throw a pity fuck my way.)

11. She loves you with all her heart, but she still gets wistful about the fact that she'll never feel that falling-in-love sizzle and spark again. (Blame #2 for the lack of sizzle and spark.)

Pondering Reality...

I know this site is notorious for its comedic/satirical, rather than overtly intellectual, content. Over the past month I've been mulling around numerous thoughts which have sprung up from my Psychology and Philosophy classes.

First and foremost, the human body is an amazing creation. How it came to be has been endlessly debated for well over a century and a half. Was it evolution? Was it the hand of God? Well, I'm not here to enter the fray of life's origin. I'm just here to posit some of my thoughts for you to chew on. Whether you swallow or spit is really your choice.

My studies have revealed how the human body is constantly evolving. I do not mean over periods of centuries or millennia, I mean during one's lifetime. The human brain is an excellent example with how it rewires and alters its shape and functionality based on stimuli. In effect, our thoughts control and affect us. We are the products of reason, thinking, and reaction.

Now I've believed as far back as I can remember that we create our own realities. There is no real right or wrong. It is what we instill faith in which makes something real. Examples are God creating the universe versus the entire process coming about from a raw, untamed force of energy exploding outward in a "Big Bang". For some the former is real. For others it is the latter. We build our lives around beliefs, create realities from thought.

Where does thought come from? Perception. But what we perceive is governed by the flesh we find ourselves in. What we see, hear, taste, smell, and feel is radically different from other species and thus not real to them. Our reality is not their reality. It is solely ours. Does that make it more important? Does that humble us in knowing there are shared realities? In fact, how would our realities look should our eyes be capable of seeing beyond the limited spectral plain we now perceive or if we were unable to taste.

Philosophy and science can be difficult subjects to bring together. Science requires true quantifiable evidence leading to a single answer for phenomena whereas philosophy is open to interpretation. What philosophy has shown me is how we structure our conscious realities around us, try to explain the reasons we act. Yet science would say we do not act but simply react. We have been reacting since the "Big Bang", or God's shove (whichever you prefer). Every action has been the result of a prior action, known in philosophy as Determinism. Without a prior act a future act cannot be. If one were to follow this theory to its end, then all action began from one single action yet if action cannot happen without prior action then how can action be at all? Surely everything has a beginning and end. But what if that is merely our view of reality corrupting what it truth? We measure time, action, and event based on temporal structure: past, present, future. Does time really function that way or is it merely a construct of our reality based on limited perception? What if life is truly a circle, constant renewal, growth, collapse, etc. What if there is no beginning, no end, but a constant. Science says energy can neither be created nor destroyed. How did this all arise? Is growth impossible? Collapse as well?

In fact, what if our lifetime is the equivalent of a small town nestled in a valley upon the whole of the Earth. All we see and know is what happens in and around us yet we are part of something larger despite not perceiving it. We cannot see what we believe to be tomorrow over the ridge nor yesterday because of a shroud of mist. Yet it is there just as we are. What if every point functions at the same time yet we cannot perceive it. What if time really is more frequency than passing, layers rather a one way road. What if all were now and as easy to touch as the screen you read this upon.

What interests me most about the human form is its ability to manipulate energy, mostly at the subconscious or unconscious level. Thoughts, sensations, sight, etc. are all nothing more than the body converting energy into electrical, chemical, or some other form which is then deciphered and translated by the brain. Our bodies are repositories of energy. Our souls, that initial spark struck by the union of sperm and egg, flares in our flesh. Thus our soul is really manipulated energy. That force out there in space which governs gravity, light, and so much more at the macro level is within us at a sort of micro level. Yet our manipulation of energy is more than the simple process of chemical reaction, kinetic power, or electrical discharge. We manipulate energy into sentience; consciousness. What does that truly mean? In manipulating energy into creating our personalities what does that say about our flesh? What does that say about death? If energy cannot be destroyed do we dissipate into all things? Do we rejoin some lost galactic whole? Or does our energy signature somehow hold? Do we become a packet of energy, like a transmission, which holds together and continues to survive beyond the flesh? If we were to continue beyond physical death what would that type of existence be like?

Science has shown energy is useless without the physical. The physical manipulates energy, turning into a thing of creation. Could life be the evolution of energy? Could we be giving thought to that once raw, unbridled force? From destruction comes construction.

And what does this say concerning the prior subject of Determinism? If everything can only happen due to a prior act, then do we really have choice? Are we bound by some fate instigated eons ago which continues to play on through us? And if we have no choice then are our thoughts really illusions? If we cannot change things, if we have no control over events, then our thoughts can't truly be unique but the combination of prior events, actions, and material. Thus we serve no purpose for ourselves but only for whatever began the process yet if the process began blindly then we are all struggling forward blindly. Is the individual really real or does it exist simply because that is how we perceive the process of existence?

Energy has evolved and continues to do so through the physical world, but if we truly do have some control over it through our bodies then imagine when we are able to consciously manipulate it. I do not mean through machines but by thought. If all began because of some prior event, mindlessly started perhaps, what if our will became powerful enough to break the onward cycle and we became strong enough to alter our reality beyond perception.

So many large ideas. So much muddling and meandering. What do I truly believe? All I can say is I believe in the right to discover. That is the only way to learn.