questions about death

Would you like to know the precise date of your death?

Ooo, I can’t help myself, yes. On the condition no one else knew that I knew, cause that could cause more trouble than necessary.

On the other hand, I might get depressed if it was coming soon, or who knows. I could likely develop trauma from knowing and expecting it. I doubt it’d ever leave my mind.

But, if I was given that piece of information (doesn’t matter how, like from who or where or whatnot, however intense the moment was), in this world, knowing what I know about this world, namely, that this would be nothing more than a prediction. Cause we never can really tell unless we’re the ones going to end someone’s life. The evidence to prove this would have to be an avalanche, able to destroy my preset biases against this kind of knowledge.

But let’s say I’m convinced. Yeah as cool as it would be I think I’d get depressed about it. If it was tomorrow, but I was so depressed I wanted to kill myself today, could I even do it, knowing my death is predetermined? Of course I couldn’t, and that would ruin me further. If it was predetermined and I still tried to end it one day prior, it might just be the injury that took a day to end me. I would not be in control of my life, and I’d likely set myself up for misery. You could be like “yeah but if our days are numbered and you know exactly that number than you could make the best of every day until that day and the quality of your life would increase,” but I’d tell you “nah I have a genetic disposition to get depressed, so that path is simply more likely.

But let’s say you’re right. Let’s say I find the motivation to give every day my all and more, and be happier..

Just kidding, I wouldn’t be motivated. I’d keep it to myself to the next life.

How might knowing when you’ll die help you plan your life?

Oh, I think I already answered this above. I feel like I’d lose control over my life. I mean, whether we knew or not, things would happen as they had to have, and knowing the date would do nothing but prove determinism: the notion that everything in the universe is determined, is set in stone to happen, that we have no way to will ourselves away from our fates. Something like that. There’s something sinister in realizing that everything in the universe other than us is guided by the natural forces of physics. What makes us think we’re special? That’s a debate I barely know anything about, so I’ll keep it there. hah..

Is life enhanced by feeling that death could strike at any time?

That’s the status quo, that’s what we’re living right now. It does motivate me, and it doesn’t drive me crazy not knowing. In fact, it does help not knowing, but we wouldn’t be able to compare right? Only if there were other universes, one in which we knew, and another in which we looked at the other two universes where we knew or not, the universe where we are comparing it might find some differences, but it would’ve help since we’d never know either way, or since we’d know either way.. that’s kinda weird to picture maybe. Let me start over..
Yes, not knowing when I’d die seems better. I could die in one day or in 60 years, and keeping it in mind that it could happen in any moment is definitely a motivation to keep improving in character.

Is life enhanced by not thinking about death at all?

Hell no. I feel like death is a topic lots of us avoid, because of just how yucky it feels to consider our death, or worse yet, a loved one’s death. And then a loved one dies and some people can’t handle it. It just rocks their foundation for months and then a year and they’ll be broken till forever. Therapy is the best solution, but many people don’t consider it.

I’ve thought about loved one’s dying a LOT. About my grandparents, and I know it will shatter my heart when it happens, but when I’ve brought this up before to others they are grossed out by the thought experiment. There’s a fear of not caring enough when it happens, which I think is bogus. The initial impact will be the same in my opinion, but it won’t affect my performance in school or work as much against actually thinking of it. I always come to cherish individuals when I think of losing them; I’m not saying I’m thinking of people dying all the time necessarily, but of more prevalent things like losing friendships to time. Every day we spend unconnected to someone is one more day we teach them to live without us, vice versa. Thinking of the potential lose makes me not want to lose it, cherish it more, ya feel? I hope you feel cause that makes my task here easier.

Think of losing people and voila you’ll be able to handle losing them. Sounds rash, but it works.

If you knew someone was dying, would you tell them the truth or deceive them about it?

Ohmygosh these questions get heavier.

I would deceive them. This is similar to why I wouldn’t want to know for myself. I think it’s a benefit for the agent to cherish their moments. It’s definitely a challenge for us if we see that person not living to their fullest, but who are we to judge? Since I wouldn’t want to know, I wouldn’t let others know. Kill me.

How many more years do you think you’ll live?

Gotta be careful with my words here.
My life expectancy is what, 86? I’m at least one quarter of my life through. If what the older folk keep saying is true, time is going to fly by. Why knows? I like to stick with base rates, or averages. So I’ll go with mid80s as my expectancy. There’s no reason for me to believe I’ll hit the luck of dying much sooner or much later, because most of that will be down to fortunate/unfortunate luck.

K, j’ai fini ici.


questions on animals

Can animals reason?

I don’t think most animals do. There are definitely species who have more sophisticated methods of communicating with us and themselves, if they can do it with us at all, and I’m thinking of dolphins or chimpanzees. Though there are clear ways to see they can’t reason as much as we can; we can reflect on our desires the way animals cant: Both humans and non human animals can want shelter, food, sex, but animals don’t regret or second-guess or make evaluations on their actions, much less on their desires, as we do. Hell, we even regret things we do as we do them.

Imagine a dog second-guessing himself, or a cat regretting her decisions. That’s not what they do; that’s the job of the cartoonist.

Do animals have rights?

Sure, we grant them their rights, as we do for ourselves. Given, we don’t treat them as we do ourselves, but that’s the resulting attitude of the dominant species. Since we’re above them, and they taste exquisite, we’ll eat them too. My diet has been slowly moving away from meat, it’s considerably less meat in the last six months, and I intend to acquire a vegetarian diet once I have full control over my life (as as full-time student with limited resources and no job, it’s not as easy as I’d like).

We even grant a few animals the privilege of being in our homes as pets, and fewer of those on our beds, heck, even with their own beds, heck, with their own beds on our beds. Some of them gotta be in cages tho, or glass tanks. That’s a privilege. And some we grant the privilege of longevity of life in zoos: larger cages.

I’m not saying it’s all bad, but I’m saying the rights and privileges we give animals are pretty weird. Birds don’t belong in cages. Snakes and fish don’t belong in tanks. Dogs and cats are miniature and less dangerous versions of dinosaurs that have the primary purpose of being pets, so they get the golden ticket. Wild animals being domesticated for showing them off. Sure, if we don’t do this, then I never would have been able to see a lion from 40 feet away; so there’s that edge of the sword.

If we eat chickens, why not dogs, dolphins, or babies?

Because they don’t taste as great.

I’m not sure, maybe it can be that chickens are easier to produce than those other animals. I mean, I understand that it sucks but if we have to have meat eaters then chickens are faster to make. Human babies (assuming the question refers to human babies…) take 9 months, dolphin babies take a year, sooo. And it’s not like other places don’t eat these other things, we just eat chickens in the states more cause we’ve mastered the production of it. My preference is only to eat free range dairy/eggs, though as I’ve said I can’t make that call yet.

If super-intelligent aliens want to eat humans, are they wrong?

Nope. “a chicken eye for a chicken eye” mentality here. We were the dominant species letting it be known, and if they want to eat us, well the least we can do is fight them at first, then be born into the production line. *winky face goes here…*

I can get into a side rant of people being more hypocritical than they think they are. No one wants to focus on the bad side of themselves, they’ll remember the good things others or themselves have to say about them, but quickly reason out of or hide from any criticism that they might fall under.. so of course we won’t admit sometime’s we’re hypocritical, but we are. Always. We like to think we’re the better angels. And then we never change cause there’s nothing to change, or cause change is harder than the norm. But yaaa tangent!

If meat can be grown using stem cells, is there any reason not to eat meat?

People will definitely say YO NAH GET AWAY THAT AIN’T REAL BACON..

But I’m down. As long as it’s regulated and not too tampered with, and the taste made similar to what it’s trying to imitate, then I’ll have no problem with it. I mean, that’s only because the argument I make about not wanting to eat or harm animals is because all beings deserve to flourish on earth in any way we can make it so, they don’t deserve the pain we inflict them. If we can replace having to hurt them and mass produce them, then it’s worth the shot.

If you can be an animal for a day which would you be?

This is the toughest question yet. After many a thought I think I’ll go with being a bird. A pigeon. In downtown LA. See the city from above. I’d spend the day looking for abandoned buildings or rooms and getting meals in grand central market. I’d go with the wind from high spaces and fly with the crowd to figure out what all that fuss really feels like. I’ll ask around for places where the peopleeee feed, then get beaten up for asking so openly (there’s pigeon gangs ya know). No no I’ll look for photographers and get in their way for some spectacular shots of myself. Then I’ll start a jazz band and call it The Pigeons and our first record album will be called “Here We Come” and I’ll know just the guy to reach for a cover idea. Yup.

So to recap on these animal thoughts:

  • We’re better than them cause they can’t do stuff like regret their actions.
  • We’re better then them cause we can eat them in so many ways.
  • We’re better than them cause we have the capacity to recreate their meat.
  • I’ll be a pigeon for a day. I’ll be in a band called The Pigeons.

Here’s a picture I made 5 years ago:

The Pigeons - Here We Come.jpg

I’ve been feeling really anxious lately. Hopefully it didn’t translate in this post as seemingly condescending. I think I did. *winky face goes here…

thought experiment: best friend’s funeral

I have a problem of being too quiet during class discussions. I can’t ever find my break into one, though I’m aware all I need to do is raise my hand. A year ago in community college I told myself to not be so quiet during discussions, because I know I always have something to say, but I’ve convinced myself by now it’s all the cause of thinking I’ve had no worth in my opinion, or wanting to be too much of a sponge absorbing what all my peers want to say, thinking of myself as being in some sort of outside perspective, simply watching, and not being a quick enough thinker. I’ve been having some ideas as to what I can do about this, but those ideas I still need to flesh out internally.

In my ethics class there was a thought experiment that came up, in a lecture promoting virtue ethics, that went something like this:

  • Imagine your best friend has just died, you’re at their  funeral with two friends, a utilitarian and a kantian. You’re grief stricken, crying, inconsolable.
  • Utilitarian friend offers a pill that promises to wipe out the grief. You’ll still remember the friend, but you won’t feel any pain at their death ever again.
  • Kantian friend considers the categorical imperative and gives a thumbs up. Taking the pill doesn’t use anyone as a mere means and can be universalized.
  • Would you take the pill?

I know this would require a lot of supplementary info for one who doesn’t know much about these ideas, but cutting that out would still show the basic problem, and I’m not  knowledgeable in all this to try, so on to the question..

There were a lot of people in the discussion that brought up interesting points to the question, like they’d be considerate of their friend in various ways, like maybe they had a feeling their friend would or would not have wanted people to grieve for them at their funeral, maybe there was some kind of will they wanted respected, maybe the manner in which they died would point to the appropriateness of the mourning.

People were looking for external factors to base their grief upon, but after thinking it through I’ve found out my response, much thanks to the discussion. The focus on whether we grieve or not is not dependent on the outside factors, but rather on the inside factors.

I don’t think any of those things matter, in whether or not I should grieve for my best friend at their funeral. We have to consider what kind of person we would be to our best friend if we did grieve for them, if we didn’t grieve for them. A  person would grieve as much as they need to for their best friend; to erase the grief would erase a part of what the best friend meant to us. That reflection would show to those other two friends at the funeral, though I know their interpretation of the grief would be different. I think of how this could build us as a character to mourn for our best friends. Hopefully it wouldn’t need to last long once we’re allowed to let the rest of the factors, the external ones, come into play.

So I wouldn’t take the pill. I’d want myself and the world to know how much it meant to me to lose someone I love as much as the grief can show.

One of my core beliefs is the idea that the love we are willing to share with the world can be a direct reflection of the pain we went through. The pain could be devastating experiences, and/or simply the realization that at face value there’s a lot of shitty things going on in the world, and those shitty things want precedence. An openly loving person knows what is at stake, puts much of their love on the line, knowing it can all go to waste. The risk is worth it, more than keeping what love one has to themselves, hiding it, reserving it for a limited amount of people. As valuable as that love can be, it can be more easily robbed. It would serve them well for it to be robbed, to feel that pain, and then we would notice how much love they really had. I think my flowery language might seem too flowery for people, and I notice that, but oh well it’s just my belief.

Love reflects inner pain, pain reflects inner love. It’s equally reciprocal. That’s the point I’m trying to make.. sheesh that did a better job than the previous paragraph hah..

questions: happiness, refusal, punishment

Is happiness the most important purpose in life?

Let’s think of the things I want. I want to own a grand piano, I want to travel, I want to have political power in my local city or school districts, have a family well down the road, be a teacher, maintain my friendships, attend river clean-ups, donate money to a charity, etc. List some of your own things. If we ask the grand proverbial question of “why” we want these things, you can answer as many times as you want, just keep asking why and why and why. I want all those things because I believe it would bring me happiness to have these things, and you want what you want because it would do the same. We all try to be happy. It doesn’t get more basic than that.

This question is relevant given that I had just written an essay in defense of Utilitarianism, the moral theory that states we must asses what is write or wrong by looking at the consequences of our actions, what makes something right is what will promote the most amount of happiness and well-being for the most amount of people and by extension other beings and things. The right thing to do is what will benefit everyone and everything involved in the action. We do a cost-benefit analysis in our head, sort of: What is the best choice given the circumstances? My mom is vegan, I’m not, but if she asks me what I want to eat I deffer to her diet, because my diet includes all of hers, and that way she doesn’t have to prepare two kinds of meals and we can both equally enjoy the meal. All because it would bring more happiness, less pain, in the long run. High standard applied to a not tooo moral situation, until we start bringing up the cost for maintaining the kinds of mainstream diets and those effects, as we know.

I’ve been a utilitarian until recently, right now I’m in a grey area on morality. I’m in an ethics class, learning so many perspectives. I feel like virtue ethics might be the new direction I come to agree more with and adopt, but we haven’t covered that yet.

Is it wrong to spend money on expensive food when people are dying of hunger?

Under Utilitarian thought one can say that it is, though my gut reaction says no. I wouldn’t fault anyone for doing that, unless they did it in spite. But the standard I place on myself is different. I’m not willing to buy something too expensive when I know I can buy a cheaper version of it, as long as the quality doesn’t drop dramatically more than the price. Whether one contributes to helping world hunger doesn’t matter on my stance, though I hope people are always doing everything in their power to help others. I ration my money because I know I want to have enough available to contribute to some kind of charity or expense. The little I can do I do, but I’m not looking for any recognition for it so I’ll leave it at that. So my answer is a little grey, but push me on it and I’ll say yes.

If someone is drowning and you refuse to help, are you responsible for his death?

This one challenges the answer I just gave on the previous question. I was so passive about that, but here my attitude changes. I answer with my gut and try not to overthink when I do this, but anyways…

Well, there do exist laws that would make it so you’d have some grain of responsibility, at least where you were able to prevent such a death. And to some good extent; I would want someone to help me if I were drowning, and not stand by, if they could definitely help it. I would want to help someone drowning if I could definitely act. There’s always the risk of not succeeding, but that risk stays at 0 when I do nothing. This is all assuming one could do it. If one can’t or is too afraid of losing their own life in the process then I wouldn’t fault them, but there is knowing refusal to help. That complicates it certainly, by how much will depend on the person.

This raises my concern with my previous answer, as I said. But the difference here is willingly not helping a drowning person, versus knowing that there are starving people. One can argue that I might not be responsible for the starving people, or that I’m responsible for helping them, and I’d agree to the latter idea to some extent. In the drowning scenario, I mean I’m not directly responsible for the drowning, but as with the starving people I can take responsibility and at least try to save the drowning person to the best of my ability. I’m not sure I cleared anything up with this.

Btw I’ve drowned three times in my life, was resuscitated two times, at childhood. That last day it happened was the last day I’ve ever felt confident I could swim in any depth. It doesn’t stop me from trying, or keep me from getting in swimming pools or rivers. I’ve done both, and I’ve still swum in deep parts since; Where the trouble comes is the constant reminder of it when I do try swimming, and it panics me within 5 seconds. So I have trouble enjoying it. This is probably something I need to address in therapy.

Why do we punish people?

Because we want justice. I’ve used the term deservance, but it’s the same thing. Punishment is a great deterrent of doing some pretty bad stuff. Louis CK put it best when he said “the law against murder is the number one thing preventing murder.”

People don’t want to be punished for it. I know I don’t. And I feel like he’s talking about me when CK mentions the quiet people.. cause I’m so quiet. :E

I’m reminded of the golden rule. it’s the most popular rule, and it’s a good one too. Don’t wrong me cause you wouldn’t wanna be wronged. Punishment is the idea of people wronging others and not getting away with at least some inconvenience, right? And it’s reciprocal on the judges as well. Since I can agree that I’d need some time away from society from hurting people, then I’d put others away. Where the we cross the line for me is the death penalty. I’d accept being killed as punishment for killing others. But we know that innocent people have been sentenced to the death penalty. I wouldn’t want to be send to my death if I was falsely convicted into the death penalty. I also wouldn’t want to send an innocent person to such fate. That’s why I’m completely opposed, because I won’t risk an innocent life if I can help it. At least maybe we can agree that a truly guilty person who merits such a punishment deserves to be away from the rest of society forever.

Is it alright to torture terrorists to extract information?

“They know what they’re signing themselves up for,” is my gut reaction. Or maybe they didn’t, either way my answer is simple. Violence is generally not my method of getting anything done; the only exception is violence in self defense. I know most people in the US don’t agree with me on not torturing them, but I guess that’s that.

When is it ok, if ever, to disobey the law?

I understand evil as how a professor of mine pinned it: unjustified suffering. Ya know, doing unreasonable things to otherwise innocent people, or beings. Innocence I understand it as not being guilty or not having responsibility for a given action.

If a law is being applied unfairly, biased against one particular group for no logically reasonable purpose, maybe disobedience has merit.

I’m not sure how else to put it. Interesting how just yesterday I was thinking of such exact question, and I kept breaking stuff down and putting it back together to end up with that answer, or something very similar.

Anyways, that’s enough questions.. now on to the more important stuff.


reflecting on a group discussion on God’s existence

It was a group of seven of us, and I was one of the quietest ones in the discussion. It wasn’t until the last part of the discussion, where we opened up to the others in class who had watched the discussion, that I was able to speak. It was only because someone specifically wanted my opinion on a question I don’t remember anymore. My answer had something to do with rationalizing against a response to the problem of evil (an argument against the existence of God). I’m not going to raise my response here because I don’t remember the whole context of the moment, and it would be wrong to assume I could give it without any other given person not in the event being able to grasp what I’m saying.

But to be more clear, I’m an atheist. I was one of the two in the group, and the quieter one, so I guess it was expected that someone would be singling me out for an opinion, because one really didn’t come from me until then.

I can only reason my inability to participate equally in the discussion was due to a few reasons:

  • I have no, or rather little, value on my opinion on anything. I place more value on others’ opinions; I want to listen to the conversation, not exactly be a part of it.
  • I was raised to speak only when spoken to, as I did in this case of being singled out.
  • I’m not strong on coming up with any kind of quick reply. I don’t like having impulse opinions, I usually enjoy watching others go at it, especially when they’re good at responding.

Someone had a specific question to the theists: did the discussion change your views in any way. None were swayed much. I mean, my response that first time was well received (understood) and conceded. My favorite part was others outside of the group trying to grasp what I was saying.

One question within the group was “how to find morality without God,” and my response was the use of rationality, coming to some sort of code that would work with that little we knew we had: ourselves and this earth we seem to be alone in; I became a consequentialist, and argued that we should do our best to further humanity in a way that served the most possible people (utilitarianism) usually at my own expense (moral altruism). That is my specific moral code.

A response was an example of being completely alone in a place where no one could ever know I could do something immoral, but then the question used the specific example of finding a wallet on the floor with money and an address and phone number etc… The obvious thing for me is to simply ration “if that were my wallet I’d want it return, therefore I would do everything I can to return the wallet. Similarly I do what I can to not unjustly hurt people because I wouldn’t want to be hurt unjustly.” Something like that.. which led to a final discussion of the golden rule, something that was fairly acceptable for everyone. We ended on that positive note.

To add more context: Tat was about 5 minutes of my responses, in a one our session. The discussion started with the philosophers we had read about, what we agreed with from them and disagreed with, then talking about the validity of a holy scripture over time.

I wanted to bring a question into the discussion, but as I reasoned above why I couldn’t, I didn’t bring it up: can we separate God from religion? This question I am truly confused about. I try to answer it but I get confused quickly, because I don’t know what answer I’m looking for, but I guess one idea I can try is to pick a side and try to argue against it. I mean, that’s how most philosophers go about proving their ideas, right? I’ll try in a later post, eventually. And I’ll clean up any grammatical errors I made on here.. eventually.


The question goes: Are emotions irrational?

Well, I understand emotions as feelings, and feelings are brought upon us by outside stimuli, be it through literal perceiving with our eyes or touch or taste, or with abstract concepts that may come our way, like hearing someone’s ideas. And to me, what’s more real than the things we perceive in our day to day lives, in our adventure of life?  I understand rationality as the ability to use logic, to think, to analyse the world for understanding. It’s my inclination that the more we do, the more we are. And we can’t do if we don’t perceive, they might as well be the same thing. We can not reason if we don’t have the ability to know our surroundings. Of course our feelings will deceive our judgement, but if that didn’t happen how boring would it be understanding the world so simply.

How irrational is it to have my intense feelings with my dogs and my cat and my family and my friends (precisely in that order how dare you)? I think it makes too much sense that I love these individuals, because I experienced the world with them more often than other individual dogs or cats or families or friends. I shared more similar moments with them, perceiving like things more than with strangers, to be exact. The more time we spent together, the stronger the bond got. That seems rational to me.

I’m not saying emotions are never irrational though, how many times have we known of a person who made so many wrong turns over another they loved dearly but didn’t love them back? From the outside perspective, it seems irrational because we have more analytic eyes for the story, but to them, or hell forgive, if we were in that position we’d be calling it a rational thing to go the extra mile for someone who isn’t seemingly responsive.

Our emotions can drive us to a certain level of reason, let’s say, though to see the world and understand it using reason is preferable. In either case, that’s how I finish my understanding, thinking how does this makes sense?

I love a well expressed emotion. I enjoy wondering how it made sense.

If any of this made sense….


We ended up spending three more days at Yosemite. I didn’t enjoy the second half as much though because we didn’t have much planned as compared to the first half.

Some pictures from Yosemite taken on my camera before it died:


Crossing the river through this tree was a little riskier than last time, given how the water was running up to the bottom of the trunk; last time the stream was calmer and not touching the trunk. The water isn’t deep though, maybe up to my waist, though ya know, depth perception..IMG_0775I don’t have many more to show, so I’ll hold on to them like I’ve held on to so many other pictures. Now I have three batteries and two chargers. I will try adding more pictures to these posts. Let’s say at least 5. Of course all being pictures I’ve taken.


I’m moving way from the Book of Questions in favor of a different list of questions. These questions are less trivial, more philosophical. I’ll still put trivial questions on, and those will come from me, just to satisfy my own ego.. :F

A simple question asks: What is the meaning of life?

Life is what you make of it. All the things you do, experience, refine who you are. Note: Not Define – defining yourself puts you in a corner you’re expected to live by (The expectations coming from others and yourself). You don’t need to have a definition the way words do. That’s what separates you from just a word. The more you experience things, the harder it will be for you to be defined. Call yourself a lump of clay. Let yourself be picked up, let yourself be dropped. Picked up again. Punched into, sat on the shelf, kicked, caressed, lifted into the sky, forgotten and remembered, hated and loved. Do the same to the rest. The more the clay gets handled the more refined it becomes. Life doesn’t have to look like a perfect sphere, it can be just a lump of clay. Of course we want more though.

Some though will search for meaning, like if it’s something not inherent, something you gotta work to achieve, rather than the work itself. The pursuit of happiness is the same. We search for things that might make us happier; things that can be taken away from us. Babies don’t need much, or anything really, to be happy. Maybe they know that’s up…

Some will look to religion for help in meaning. Organised religion will claim to have the right answers and guidance for finding the worth in life. It will always go too far though. To me going too far would be a disregard for science or logic, an obligation to pay materials, or indoctrination of young. I wanted to find meaning on my own, so I rejected faiths, I rejected gods. Even if I came up with similar ethics like the golden rule of respect, at least I was able to come to it on my own using logic, not writing it down on paper over and over again.. that’s what it felt like before.

Meaning in life is not easy, it shouldn’t be. It should be a constant struggle to become more of who we are right now, to be more of who we were yesterday. We get there by having new experiences, of any kind, of any weight. The world is going and going and it it gets heavier, or it feels heavier, once we start slacking off, once we feel the pressure and it takes its toll on us. Losing something precious can challenge our meaning, and more our perspective. The world will suddenly get heavier. The world will seemingly slow down, but it never does. We’re simply falling behind. And that’s okay. Because we get to struggle, and then we keep up.

Reminds me of these messages I found a couple years ago:

I’m not sure where I’m going with this anymore. It would have been nice to work on this during the day and not the middle of the night. But I found out yesterday that I’m both a morning and night person now. I take naps throughout the day if I can, and I usually can.

You don’t give up on yourself, EVER. You find self-rules to live by an guide you to the next step, even if it all just for that literal next step. As long as what you do is doing right by the social contract, I’ll be fine with what you become. Okay future me?

We are judged by our actions. Others will judge us, help us find ourselves through their perspectives. You can say you’re a nice person all you want, but that takes away time being a nice person. If others call you a nice person, then there’s no need take time analyzing yourself.. unless you don’t wanna be a nice person, by which I’d say you’re breaking the social contract and being in the wrong. Because if someone were to call me a jerk, then I’d need time to analyze what I’ve done to get me there. And hopefully I can find a way to correct that wrong. This world doesn’t need more jerks. Being a jerk violates my standard of keeping the social contract healthy. And the point is to live in a way that maintains or can further benefit society.

Another question asks: Can food be art?

Gut reaction: Hell no! Food’s purpose in the world is to be eaten! How about make food in a way that I’m not distracted and hesitant to eat it just because of its beauty..

Yeah. Food can be art. Some food takes forever to make, and I value effort in art. So if that food can make its mark in my mouth, who am I to say it wasn’t art. Art is perceived. Food is perceived. Food can be art. Not brand cereal, because of the effort it takes to prepare. But if I were to pick a beautiful ripe posque off a posque tree (posque is my made up fruit/vegetable), and it looked so good, and tasted so good, then I guess it can be art. It takes time for these edibles to grow, and care from mother nature.

The last question asks: One million dollars you can only spend on yourself, GO..

Pianos. Upright pianos, grand pianos, not so grand pianos, and another piano

Oh yeah that reminds of a song I recorded a while back. I was bored and stressed that I hadn’t recorded anything yet at that point, so I worked this song and recorded it and it took the whole day. It’s supposed to be a response to entitled individualism, but it’s really just me poking fun at life. This is is how i have funnnn.

I thought it was already online, but it wasn’t, so I reuploaded it.

Here is the song: “They’re All Crazy”

Here are the lyrics:

For differences in views
I don’t wanna meet you
I just wanna choose
According to my own news
There goes everyone I met
They’re all crazy
It’s not the other way around
That’s just lazy

But get away from me
Or I’ll just look, so much dumb
Please go away
I don’t want to be upset

I could have spoken sooner
I didn’t wanna ruin her
She’s walking through the walls
The pretty one inside my mind
The animals we slaughter
To mainting our guts
Things don’t seem to matter
Until they happen to us

Stay away from me
Or I won’t stop, you don’t want that
Please go away
I don’t want to be upset

Effort, as in, apparent effort. Break a sweat getting things done. Have emotion in your reactions to others’ hard work, or in how you describe the work you went through. If it didn’t look like I went through hell and back to make an epic food art, a painting, or piano song, then it ain’t worth the praise it can get on display.

posque (pronounced posk, o as in Oh), as I can see it, is a fruit-vegetable that can be picked from trees. It ranges in size, from that of an apple to that of a mango. It has a skin thickness like that of a banana, so no as rough as an orange. BUT, as soon as you try to peel it (oh yeah it has a wobbly form, like that of another posque), the posque can spill out quickly. The insides of a posque is liquid form. No kind of soft body like a banana or slices like an orange.. it’s just liquid. The good part is it doesn’t stain, magically.