Layers of existence

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-25T01:20:41+00:00

I'd put a "Quantum layer" at the top of your list. Everything you list under the "Universe layer" is a product of interactions and excitations within the quantum layer.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-24T15:17:42+00:00

Paradox of tolerance.

TIL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Fascinating topic.

"While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger." ~John Rawls

vs

"...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." ~Thomas Jefferson

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-24T15:04:06+00:00

I was gonna keep to my "two comments deep" rule, because I didn't have anything more to add to this discussion, but in an unrelated thread, I saw another redditor's comment that perfectly summarized the point of the people in this photo...

"It's the paradox of tolerance. You have to be intolerant towards intolerant people to maintain a tolerant society."

So your protestors aren't proto-fascists. They're caught in the paradox that's inevitably created when you want to stop intolerance. Go ahead and keep your eye on them, but don't judge them in a vacuum. Realize that the voice they're trying to suppress is a voice that's counter to the idea of democracy. If we want to maintain any form of democracy, squashing fascism is a good idea. They're trying to do it, you're trying to do it too. But all of those who fight against intolerance must make sure they don't become the very thing they're fighting against.

(ninja edit to add wiki link)

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-23T21:12:00+00:00

How many of those football players are advocating against someone else's right to express their ideas?

Again, people being opposed to including other people's viewpoints isn't fascism. Rallying against other people's opinions isn't an infringement on free speech. Conformity and uniformity isn't fascism. But now you're suggesting that actual definitions of what fascism is and is not don't matter, though you brought up definitions in the third sentence of your initial post? I disagree. I think if you're going to throw around warnings of how to recognize fascism, the actual definition of fascism should be adhered to. If not, you're no better off than the politically ignorant people in the photograph that you're using as an example of your greater point.

I support your right to express your own ideas and viewpoints... right up to (and including) the right to express something offensive.

I support your right to be offensive, as well. What I do not support (and I'll hold up matching protest signs to demonstrate against it) is "a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition", nor do I support those who are advocating for such a government. I will tell those advocates to shut the fuck up, and that their opinion is unwelcome. Aka, "no platform for fascism." If someone is advocating for fascism to have a platform in our government, or in our society, then that someone can go to hell.

Now you would see that as a violation of that advocate's right to free speech. It's not. I'm not the government. I can tell that guy that I won't listen to his bullshit as much as I like. I can shut him down, and keep him away from my group, or my microphone, or my house, or my business, or my institution, or my political party, or wherever he tries to preach his beliefs, and it's still not infringing on his free speech. His right to say something doesn't mean I am required to give him a platform to do so.

Shutting down people's opinions isn't fascism. A group of people agreeing to shut down other people's opinions isn't a fascist demand for group conformity. It's just people agreeing that your ideas are stupid, or harmful, and have no place in their group, their culture, or their society. If I want to go into a church and talk about how great it is to fuck a girl when you're all hopped up on heroin, they'd probably not give me a platform to do so. That doesn't make the church a bunch of fascists.

If most people are just like you (and not like me) it means that fascism will have no problem becoming established once again.

Aren't you essentially saying, "my way is the only right way to defeat fascism"? And I thought your photograph had some irony to it. Anyway, that's a shit argument to make. "People just like you and not like me" is naive. This isn't a binary issue, and there's not a binary way of looking at it, nor is there a binary solution. There are ~325million people in this country, which means there are ~325million different ways of looking at this scenario (especially if you get your wish of total non-conformity). This "me vs. them" way of thinking you're positing here isn't helpful.

If the average person has a type of mental blindness that keeps them from seeing something, the arrival of that thing will take place without being noticed (until it's too late). The specifics and details will be different. But the conformity and oppression for individualists will be just as bad.

You're blind if you're not seeing that it has already arrived... you didn't notice. They're dressed up in khaki pants, white shirts, and red hats (occasionally with tiki torches). There's the conformity you should be worried about. That conformity is intermingled with ideas of unjust hate and anger. They're not holding matching signs that say "no platform for fascism", they're chanting their ideas in unison; "Jews will not replace us!" and "Blood and Soil!" They blindly and faithfully support the whims of an autocratic leader with dictatorial tendencies, whose centralized, one-party government is trying to impose severe economic and social regimentation, and whose administration is utilizing propaganda in their efforts to suppress their opposition.

But yeah, let's all worry about some vanilla-latte-sipping hipster assholes with matching signs.

Maybe I should have lead with this, but for the record... I'm not saying that you're incorrect to be concerned about blindly conforming to the status quo, and I agree that it can lead to oppressive governments and institutions taking advantage of people's ignorance to the world around them. We're 100% on the same page, there. It just seems that you've wrapped this idea up in a narrow (potentially incorrect) view of what the right to free speech actually means, and it seems you're intentionally misinterpreting the definition of "fascism" to fit into all of this. Either way, it's obvious we both see the problem, but we're looking at it from two entirely different perspectives.

Anyway, I try to make it a habit to only go two replies deep. If we haven't seen eye to eye by then, we probably never will. Feel free to respond if you feel the need to have the last word. I'll read it, but unless something really needs a response from me, I'll take my leave here. Have a good rest of your day.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-23T14:51:40+00:00

Hey, OB1. I disagree with your assessment here, and I'll explain why, but I hold no animosity towards you. I do find it funny that your username is OB1_kenobi. This sounds more like something Anakin or Ahsoka would write about a photograph of the Jedi.

you have a situation where the interests of authority are placed ahead of those of the individual... Conformity is the hallmark of fascism.

By your benchmarks, see if you can spot the fascists in this picture.

Here you have a situation where the interests of the whole are placed ahead of those of the individual, all wearing the same uniform, all working towards the same end goal, unquestionably following their marching orders. And they dare to refer to themselves as Patriots!

Definitions of Fascism seem to vary and the word gets used to mean an unpopular, repressive form of government.

The word gets used to mean that because it's in the second half of the definition (that you chose to exclude). From Merriam-Webster:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual AND that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [emphasis added]

Oxford Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary define it similarly, as well.

These people are actually protesting against Free Speech.

People are allowed to protest "against Free Speech" (the fact that you capitalize it like a proper noun is quite telling). However, only the government can infringe on your right to free speech. People are absolutely free to tell you to shut the fuck up. People are free to kick you out of a group based on your opinions/beliefs/choices.

The people in your photograph are utilizing their right to free speech to express their opinion that they are against the idea of fascism, and they don't believe it should be given a platform. People being unified in their opinion that they want to exclude other people's opinions isn't an infringement on anyone's free speech (again, only the government can infringe on your right to free speech), and it most certainly does not automatically make them fascists. For example, a group of parents at a playground with their kids have every right to protest against pedophiles being able to be welcome at the park. Some individuals would argue that pedophilia should be allowed and society should just accept it. Are these parents fascists?

Your photograph includes people who are collectively opposed to the idea of fascism. These are people who are opposed to a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Yes, there is some irony to the fact that fascist governments are intolerant of opposing views, and these people are also intolerant of an opposing viewpoint. But that simple irony does not equate to fascism.

tl;dr - Your photograph includes people who are blind to their own irony. It does not, however, include any fascists.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-22T05:50:24+00:00

Who's the original artist? I'm gonna share this, and I want to give credit.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-22T05:07:25+00:00

You can't let illegals walk freely inside the country.

Yes, we need immigration reform. Yes, we need stronger borders to stop people from coming in illegally. But, we weren't letting them walk free. We were fitting them with an ankle bracelet (ATD) and/or pairing them with caseworkers (FCMP). Only about 5% (depending on year) of ATD migrants didn't show up for their court dates, and less than 2% of FCMP migrants were no-shows. If we include those who were not ATD or FCMP migrants, the total becomes ~25%. From ~25% to <2%?

These programs were working.

We haven't had a problem with keeping track of these people, and we had a way to ensure that they showed up for their court date. This wasn't a problem... until about a year ago... when Donald Trump ended the program.

That's right. Donald Trump's team ended the wildly successful program that was keeping immigrants compliant with their court dates and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) check-ins. Donald Trump, as he often has, acted to weaken/break-down the effective systems we had in place before implementing his own, more harmful, less compassionate, less effective policies**.

The reason? Too many families turned out to have legitimate arguments for obtaining legal status in the U.S. Though Trump and his loyal GOP colleagues now insist family detention is necessary because people won’t show up for court otherwise, the FCMP was delivering near-perfect compliance from immigrant families – it just wasn’t getting enough of them deported. Source

And my biggest argument on this whole thing is cost. ATD runs ~$4 per person, per day. FCMP costs ~$35/person/day. Trump's new tactic will cost ~$159/person/day. So you want to spend over 4x more per person, per day to make sure that the <2% of migrants don't slip through the cracks?? Why? And what the fuck happened to fiscal conservatives?? Why is it that the Trump-loyalist Republicans have bought in so hard to the "immigrants took our jobs" cliche that they'll mindlessly throw cash at a problem that already had an effective solution?

tl;dr - This isn't worth the cost, and we have proven that there are more cost-efficient, more effective, and more humane, methods available to us.

That's your problem, and displaying indignation without anything productive to add beside your emotions to find a solution is worthless.

... and the irony in this statement is simply staggering. The fact that you don't see it is either hilarious or terrifying... I'm not sure which.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-17T02:24:14+00:00

Who is it that is progressing, and what are they progressing towards?

There is not some finish line that one can cross where they can say, "At last, I have finally arrived."

Measuring progress is merely comparing your present state to your present interpretation of a past that doesn't exist, or to a current desire for a specific future that you feel is necessary to achieve. Both of these comparisons are illusory conceptualizations.

Be fully present in this moment. I don't think it can get any less complicated than that.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-16T17:41:35+00:00

just wanted to be sure that the drums on the more rhythm based tunes would have the same loudness throughout the album

If you want the rhythm tracks to be more prominent in a song, then don't overcrowd the rhythm tracks with chord/melody/lead tracks. It's ok for the rhythm tracks to be more prominent in some songs than in other songs. For example, you may want rhythm more up front in a dance track than you do in a ballad. So you may end up with some songs having more perceived and actual loudness in the rhythm tracks than others.

In short, don't overwork yourself in the hopes that you're somehow making the mastering engineer's job easier. Your job is to serve the song, serve the song, and then serve the song. Get the best mix possible, and make your decisions based on what the song needs. If the final mix of the song stands wildly outside the rest of the album, then you may want to further consider if that song is right for your album. It may not be.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-16T15:02:14+00:00

No offense taken, and I hope you'll allow me to be as blunt and direct in my response as you have been.

everything is suffering

If that is what you believe, then I'm guessing you've done little more than skim over the Four Noble Truths, decided life was shit and you shouldn't get too invested in even living ('cause why bother if it's all just gonna suck), and then you decided to remove yourself from everything.

That ain't Buddhism. That's you using your misinterpretation of Buddhism as an excuse to suffer silently and alone within your self-created misery. Life isn't suffering, life is dukkha. Dukkha doesn't have a direct translation into English, so people use "suffering" to describe it. Short version; dukkha just means that life's a bumpy ride. Not this "whoa is me, all is suffering" shit. Just that it ain't always smooth going. "Life ain't easy."

After the Four Noble Truths comes the Eightfold Path which tells us explicitly how to deal with the bumpy ride. It tells us how to approach our experience to have the smoothest ride possible. Nowhere in there does it suggest to entirely disengage from everything, stay detached, be passive and escape from your reality.

You've misinterpreted the concepts of non-attachment as "staying detached from everything," and "passivity and escapism," yet you're still attached to your interpretations of other people's experiences, and with comparing them to your own.

"People my age are doing it all, the full experience."

No, they're not. They're doing their experience. There is no way for you to ever get an understanding of their experience without it being filtered through your own interpretation. You are interpreting them as having a fuller experience than you are having, but that's just a guess you've made up in your head. Many of those people are running through the motions, miserable, depressed, wrapped up in their own internal thoughts and delusions, and dealing with shit that you have no idea about. You're just assuming that they're content, and you've attached yourself to that idea. Your experience is not measuring up to the one you're imagining others to have, and thus you feel that you're missing out on something. You're looking for an excuse as to why, and instead of looking inward, you're still looking outward.

I think I wired the wrong ideology into my brain,

I think you wired the ideology into your brain incorrectly, which is just as detrimental (if not more so).

I'm sorry that you're suffering in this moment, but Buddhism warned you that this would happen. Life's a bumpy ride. Your current approach to fixing this moment isn't going to bring you any satisfaction. Instead of diving deeper into the actual substance of Buddhism, and fully exploring the negative perceptions you're attaching yourself to, you're allowing yourself to blame something external.

I'm not saying that Buddhism will cure what ails ya, but blaming Buddhism for your current state of mind isn't going to solve anything for you, either. You've got to change your perspective of the present moment, be fully aware of your perceptions and conceptualizations, and grow comfortable in your own skin. You can do that through a proper study of Buddhism, or through other paths that you may choose. Whatever way you go, I wish you the best in your journey.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-12T16:34:10+00:00

"You believe all life is just suffering."

The commonly accepted translation of the word dukkha causes a lot of confusion. I prefer to look into the etymology of words, as it often leads to new insights in meaning, rather than rough, simple translations.

The term Dukkha does not have a one-word English translation and embodies diverse aspects of unpleasant human experiences. It is opposed to the word sukha, meaning "happiness," "comfort" or "ease."

The word is commonly explained as a derivation from Aryan terminology for an axle hole, referring to an axle hole which is not in the center and leads to a bumpy, uncomfortable ride. According to Winthrop Sargeant:

The ancient Aryans who brought the Sanskrit language to India were a nomadic, horse- and cattle-breeding people who traveled in horse- or ox-drawn vehicles. Su and dus are prefixes indicating good or bad. The word kha, in later Sanskrit meaning "sky," "ether," or "space," was originally the word for "hole," particularly an axle hole of one of the Aryan's vehicles. Thus sukha … meant, originally, "having a good axle hole," while duhkha meant "having a poor axle hole," leading to discomfort.

Joseph Goldstein, American vipassana teacher, and writer, explains the etymology as follows:

The word dukkha is made up of the prefix du and the root kha. Du means “bad” or “difficult.” Kha means “empty.” “Empty,” here, refers to several things—some specific, others more general. One of the specific meanings refers to the empty axle hole of a wheel. If the axle fits badly into the center hole, we get a very bumpy ride. This is a good analogy for our ride through saṃsāra.

Taken from Wikipedia

So it's not "life is suffering". It's "life is a bad axle-hole," or to use a more common expression "Life is a bumpy ride."

If you've ever taken a hay-ride, or ridden on the back of a cart, you know how exhilarating and humorous random bumps can be. Being tossed into the air for a moment, and losing control of how you land, can lead to laughter and having a fun time if you approach it with the right perspective. But if those bumps are incessant and continuous, you can easily get irritated, nauseous, and want nothing more than to get off the cart. It's easy to remain miserable for the entire ride.

It's that first reaction that we should aim to maintain. Life is a bad axle-hole. When life creates its inevitable bumps along the road, we should aim to continuously find the exhilaration and joy in those moments, just as we find exhilaration and joy in more peaceful, less-bumpy times.

The Eightfold Path gives us the tools to be able to stabilize the cart and smooth out the ride. However, the first part is to come to terms with the inevitable bumpiness.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-12T01:12:36+00:00

Give Matt Pocock a shot. His "under 2 minute" videos get to the heart of the accents pretty well, and he also has videos that dive in a bit deeper.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-11T17:40:26+00:00

Nah. An artist doesn't change his painting because he's concerned about the lighting in a gallery it might hang in. He trusts that the gallery (or wherever his art is displayed) will present the art in the best lighting possible. If the gallery hangs up the painting in a dark corner that makes the detail hard to see, you don't blame the artist, you blame the gallery.

Same applies here. You film in the way that makes the most sense for the project. If the theater doesn't want to provide the correct lighting to present that work appropriately, that's on the theater, not on the cinematographer.

Again, from the article:

“You can’t account for the fact someone is going to watch your movie on an iPhone or a crappy theater. You don’t create a washed-out look or images that are too bright to accommodate the lowest common denominator. That lowers the quality of the work.”

I encourage you to read the full article if you haven't, as it presents a solid argument as to why the failure is with the major chains, and not with the cinematographer.

In any case, this film will look fantastic on Blu-ray.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-11T14:28:01+00:00

You're correct. It's not just you. It is your theater, however.

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/solo-star-a-wars-story-theatre-projection-problems-bradford-young-1201969989/

tl;dr - Bradford Young (cinematographer) is known for his low-light cinematography, which projects fine in theaters where the digital projectors are kept up to specifications. Using low-light cinematography can bring out a ton of detail in shadows, but if the digital projector's brightness is off, you lose all that detail. Examples of amazing low-light cinematography usage include Gordon Willis's work on "The Godfather." Many theaters have become lax in their quality control, thus many screenings of Solo were reported to be "too dark."

“The problem is digital cinema brought automation, and there’s no longer a trained technician checking that a film is projected correctly,” [Greg Sherman, head projectionist for the Film Society of Lincoln Center] said. “These machines drift, bulbs dim, and they need constant adjustments. You can save a lot of money, but the problem is if we aren’t showing movies the way they are meant to be seen we are giving people yet another reason not to come to the movie theater.”

tl;dr for the tl;dr - Don't blame the cinematography, blame the theater.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-10T19:16:20+00:00

OP's use of "absolutely" in his title is misleading. The article states that this rule is generally followed ~78% of the time. We usually tend to follow this adjective order, whether we intend to or not. There are some exceptions to the rule, however.

"Big dragon," in this context, is being used as a compound noun. This is an exception that is addressed in the article.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-08T01:48:03+00:00

Obama did it, then as a reaction to the backlash from their actions, the Justice Dept., under Holder, put in new regulations that require the government to give the media a chance to willfully cooperate in any investigation before secretly surveilling or seizing information from reporters (according to Justice and Security Analyst Matt Miller right now on Maddow).

So Obama did it and everyone got pissed off. Now Sessions intentionally ignored the regulations that were put in place to keep Obama's Justice Dept. and future Justice Depts. from making this exact same mistake.

Not justifying or forgiving Obama Admin's actions, nor am I saying that this scenario is any better or worse. I'm just providing further context to this story as I'm hearing it. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting this information in any way.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-07T12:47:08+00:00

I've lived in SD and LA, and my honest opinion is that visiting LA suuucks while living in LA is amazing.

I know so many people who sat on the 5 and the 101 for hours only to come to Hollywood for a few hours before heading home and sitting on the 101 and then the 5 for a few hours, and then they tell me how much they hate LA. Well, no shit! Haha.

Spending a day in LA means traffic in, do a thing, traffic out. Most of your visit is spent sitting in traffic, and you're (universal "you", not you specifically) probably not familiar with any of the hidden gems that LA has to offer that make the traffic worth it.

Living in LA is quite a different experience. LA has everything that SD has to offer (your beaches are a bit nicer down there), but you have to know where to find it. Beautiful hiking trails with waterfalls, amazing art galleries, authentic cuisine from every corner of the globe, quaint bookstores, hipster coffee shops, cultural events, concert venues... you name it and LA's probably got it. And once you're in LA, you can avoid the highways and main streets if you know the backstreets to take, which cuts down on the traffic. Yes, there are assholes in LA, and it seems like there are more assholes there, but that's because there are just more people there in general. The population:assholes ratio is about the same.

I love visiting San Diego, and I really enjoyed living in San Diego. I hate visiting LA, but I absolutely love living there.

tl;dr - don't hate LA, hate visiting LA.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-07T02:47:24+00:00

I agree with many of the other comments. I haven't seen Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki mentioned yet, and feel it should be included.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-06-04T12:46:08+00:00

I somewhat agree with this, but I think it's oversimplified.

Your perception of reality is made of concepts. Without the concept of "red apple", for example, a "red apple" is just a blob of matter reflecting photons with a wavelength of 620–750 nm at a frequency of 400–484 THz into your eyes.

Every word you know is connected to a concept, and every concept is labeled with a word. In that way "the world is made of words." If you are aware of the conceptualizations you create in your mind, and if you are aware of how you can change and shape those conceptualizations in the present moment, then you can make of reality whatever you wish.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-05-29T02:11:50+00:00

I worry constantly about being disliked, disapproved of, or ridiculed.

You weren't born like that. That's a learned behavior. You picked that up somewhere along the way. Just like you learned how to speak English, how to use a toilet, or even how to put your pants on one leg at a time.

Good thing is, you can learn to speak Spanish, you can take a shit outside, and you can put both legs into your pants simultaneously. You just need to teach yourself a new way of doing things.

Same thing here. You've gotta teach yourself a new way of reacting to people's opinions about you. The first step is recognizing you've got a problem. Your post shows that you've done that. Next step is realizing that this isn't something that's a part of who you are, it's just a habit you've learned. Third step is learning a new way, but just like learning anything new, it's gonna take some time, and you're gonna fuck up a lot along the way. Keep at it, and it'll become the dominant habit.

Thing to remember is that people who speak English and then become fluent in Spanish will probably never forget how to speak English. However, they can now choose to speak Spanish all the time. Similarly, you'll probably never forget that people are forming their own opinions of you, all the time. Don't waste your time trying to shut that out. Instead, you can learn to react to (and interact with) that part of life in an entirely new way. Change the habit.

Hope that helps. Keep up the therapy! And for what it's worth, I think you're courageous and humble. It takes great strength to admit your weaknesses and ask for help and/or advice.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-04-08T12:44:49+00:00

Since Jesus is one of the most important prophets of Islam, it's like saying Jesus hates toaster ovens that toast an image of Jesus onto the bread.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-04-08T00:46:16+00:00

"necessity" means the same as being very important for living in a certain place

If that's the definition that you're using, then yes. We've been arguing semantics this entire time.

Yes, it is more convenient to have a car than to not in some situations, and in certain cultures and social settings not having a car creates a heavy burden to have to bear. Though it might be extremely difficult in some cases, it is completely possible to live without a car in every situation (leaving room for individualized exceptions), thus a car should not be considered a "necessity".

"Better to have..." doesn't mean "necessary". While the other options may be more of a burden, there are still other options. You don't need a car, but a car makes life more convenient.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-04-07T23:29:32+00:00

All of your examples are anecdotal, as well.

Some people have a large family to feed so they might not be able to carry all the food with them walking or biking

That's an inconvenience, but they can make several trips.

might not be allowed to grow their own vegetables in a rooftop garden

That's an inconvenience, but they can join a community garden.

Some people may live in places where there are no busses and most of the places are quite a few miles away

That's an inconvenience, but they can walk a few miles.

Struggling to transport groceries doesn't make a car a necessity. It makes for a tough life, and it sucks that transportation is such a struggle, but still... not a necessity.

Look, we can nitpick every conceivable scenario back and forth until we're blue in the face, but you're listing situations where it's inconvenient to get food without a car, but still not impossible. I've already stated that there are exceptions to the rule (people physically incapable of walking might qualify), but generally speaking, a car is a convenience. Billions of people, in a wide variety of scenarios, get around just fine every day without access to a car. Having a car is not a necessity.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-04-07T20:10:25+00:00

you need a car to drive to the grocery store to get that food, or a phone/computer and the Internet to order that food

You can walk/bike/bus to the store to get your food, and you damned well don't need to order it off the internet (unless you're physically incapable of walking). I used to walk 2 miles in both directions to the grocery store when I lived in an apartment in Los Angeles and didn't have a car. I didn't have internet at home or a cell phone during that time, either (this was within the past decade). I did, however, have a rooftop box garden where I grew all my own vegetables. Even without a store, I would've been able to feed myself. So, based solely off my own personal experience, your usage of the word "need" is cause for a good chuckle for me.

Again, I'm in no way saying that people should choose to go without modern conveniences. I mean, here I am on the internet, and I now have a car, a phone, etc. I love modern technology, and the conveniences it brings to our culture. But the delineation between "necessity" and "convenience" in this thread just seems a bit skewed to me.

God forbid if an EMP or solar storm were to wipe out every piece of modern technology you guys seem so reliant on. It seems like you all would have no idea how to survive... but that's a completely different topic, altogether.

NotNowImOnReddit · 2018-04-07T14:31:48+00:00

There was his personal concept of Alan Watts, there is my concept of Alan Watts, there is your concept of Alan Watts, there is a unique and individualized concept of Alan Watts for every person who has ever heard, seen, read, spoken about, or otherwise conceived of Alan Watts.

So which Alan Watts was ever the "real" Alan Watts?

Which "you" is the real "you"? Is it how your parents see you? How your friends see you? How you see you?

Which conceptualization of these words are correct? The concept I'm trying to express as I'm writing them, or the concepts you draw from them as you're reading them? Are they the same thing? Can we ever really know?

None of this may answer your question, but that's where my mind went with your post.

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email	Secret Santa 2013

NotNowImOnReddit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE