Dear Michelle Princer,

It was suggested to me on Avvo.com that I report you to authorities for “illegal” activity in relation to the place of employment that I worked for you at. I, however, am wise enough to be aware that the current mobocratic system is corrupt and for the most part not worth my while to deal with. It’s extremely inefficient, in my experience.

However, it would appear that I’m the, if not only, person on Earth who can walk about 9.9 miles along some piece of Earth, Terra, what-have-you. As such, I am considering walking to Toni’s of Winnebago and paying you a visit in a manner that I hope will not cause me to use a 2-dimensional nature of adversarial conflict toward you.

I believe I am reasonable in what I do and that you’re schizoaffective behavior is unacceptable. As such, I believe it’s reasonable to suggest to people close to you that you’re thrown in a white-padded cell for quite a while.

Yes, I could write a letter. However, I am under the interpretation that you will not respond. However, I am extremely curious as to how you will behave after I personally walk there and pay you a visit.


On employers and their websites

*shake my head*

Ok, here is something that annoys me about employer’s and their websites.

This is from pci pharma services:

“How did you hear about this position?
Please tell us how you heard about this position by selecting a source from this list.”

Ok…. uhhhhhh. Subvocalization aside, I don’t think I “heard” about the position. I mean, I was on indeed.com, saw an ad for on pci pharma job (packer), went to the pci (I think) website and saw that it wasn’t being listed. I went to look around at the pci website for other jobs, found something of interested, and “decided” to apply. Now, did I “hear” about it?

I mean, you’re asking me to apply for a job that involves analysis, right?

Business Development Estimation Manager

So, I’ve got a bachelor’s degree. And you’re a pharma company. I find me degree reasonably relative to what you’re hustling, as I’m a scientist with a bachelor’s in science. I also have experience running my own business.

But, wow… just, “How did you hear about this job?”

Know what I think? I think I ought to short your website, your company, and etc.. for just negligence. In other words, I ought to ignore you and have your assets and company diffuse to me rather than deal with your ignorance.

What? You think I’m a paranoid schizophrenic and “hear” voices?

*roll my eyes*

Uptight? No, I’m a hustler, baby. Yeeahhhh.


I’m a male, but I like this song, so I’mma push it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5kHpmXOoc8

Silent Auction – Good Girl

Antibacterial activity of NESCAFÉ instant coffee beverages and pharyngitis-causing Streptococcus species

Antibacterial activity of NESCAFÉ instant coffee beverages and pharyngitis-causing Streptococcus species

Nurul Adhwa Abdul Rahman, Siti Hanna Muharram, Oduola Abiola*

Pengiran Anak Puteri Rashidah Sa’adatul Bolkiah Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.



On Illusion and Negligence

Let’s say that there are a bunch of people around pushing illusion/negligence.

I reason with something like the Bitcoin project, the SHA-2 protocol (as an auditor) would eventually lay the smackdown on them. So, I find it interesting and odd that I come across erroneous and contradicting information, such as what I experienced on Thermo Fisher. I have issues recalling how to spell the company name at times.


A weblink about a guy named Cyberman


I’ve used the alias Cyberman, this is something different.

That darn website *smh*

For some odd reason, the website I’m dealing with keeps giving me crap. No, I don’t think I forgot the password. No, because to forget the password would mean forgetting an alias I’ve used for a long time since about… ohhh… the year 2001 or 2002, which I think is total bullshit of the Thermo Fischer website.

Funny enough, the website even said that it forgot my e-mail address login information. And I’m all like, “Alright, I’ll play your bullshit game.”

Then it spits out that somehow I’m in the system. Obscure, really.

A lot of this bullshit reminds me of some guy from MIT that I read/learned about that was calling himself Cyberman. The dude would document stuff with camera’s, etc… People did not like him. As I’m on a library computer, as an individual with the first name “Michael” supposedly tossed my laptop due to an alleged bedbug infestation, I am lacking in the whole documentation aspect of things and telling Thermo Fisher that they suck. Otherwise, I reason I’ll just hack and crack into the website.


No, I don’t think I forgot my password. Actually, I’d like to see the damn website tell me what it thinks my password is rather than allege that I’ve typed the incorrect password. Some website actually give you the option of showing the password you’ve typed in. AKA, I’m think for some obscure reason the Thermo Fisher website is engaged in illusion/negligence.


Applied for a job with the Thermo Fisher (sp?) company today. Gave me crap about password and login information. It wasn’t recognizing passwords I gave it. So, I used the forgot password aspect of the website. Perhaps the website was full of it. Regardless, I used the forgot password aspect to get a new password. Then oddly enough, it wouldn’t recognize the login information. Then the thing locked me out after enough “attempts.” Garbage. Anyway, something like that is the story.

On reforming the legal system

I have been studying law the past couple of years, and I have come to the belief that the legal system needs to rewind itself. I think, or at least feel, that a lot of the legal system is based on the neuroscience of emotion and a “feeling” of justice rather than really examining the concept of justice. But a lot of philosophical discourse gets invovle with talking about justice and what it is.

The endgame is that nobody really knows what they are doing. Nobody really knows how to judge a case, but there are rules and procedures. But I want to talk into consideration something of the utmost importance that’s found in just about any legal case: The concept of blame.

The concept of blame can be taken a few ways:

  1. It’s about free-will
  2. It’s about determinism, but we’ll treat it like free-will
  3. There is neither determinism nor free-will

I’d like to take stance three with this whole issue. Thus, I post that people should “blame God” or simply not blame, as the universe simply works out the way it does. It reasoning appears circular, but the universe appears to be circular itself. But what I want to get at is this: Stop blaming people. It doesn’t make any sense. No one has any control over their actions. Furthermore, believing that anyone can affect the outcome of any behavior through any judicial technique or methodology (therapeutic justice, restorative justice, etc..) is a delusion. So, the endgame is to get people to stop blaming people.

And I think society is the way it is right now with a lot of people not understanding much law, science, and philosophy. So, my proposal is this: Stop making new laws. That’s right. Immediately, stop making new laws. And from there, start creating more lenient sentencing guidelines.

One issue with laws is that the creation of laws really outpace how fast people can understand them, know about them, read them, and adapt to them in society. And if we want to consider the learning process and adaption an illusion, then fine. You might say that I’m engaging in similar behavior as the judges might in case 2, which is saying there is determinism and treating it like free-will. However, I have not stated that I believe anyone can actually implement this system, “cause” it to be implemented,” or “willed” into existence. I’m suggesting that it occur. That’s all I’m doing: Suggesting.

What do I think would be the “effect” or ideal “effect” from this situation?

People stop blaming other people. Easy. The world starts to release itself from a schizoaffective mindframe about reality. The world becomes more realistic. The fabric of society becomes realized for the laws that are and are not in place. Things become what I call an “anarchic adventure,” whereby individuals have to “accept” there is a “risk” that shit can hit the fan from their “actions.”

I mean, the Internet is a great example. Pre- year 2000, it was anarcho-commnuist. It was decent. People just did whatever based on their views. There wasn’t government control so much. It was communities going about their own business. There wasn’t “harssment” law and the such. If someone thought you were pestering another, you could get banned without the potential of legal ramification. And if you were using the Internet, you had an understanding that people might start crap with you on the Internet without legal ramifications, so you “took that risk” of having a bad day from someone talking shit to you.

No new laws.

Genecks for President.

On the acausal principle

I’ve been thinking about the acausal principle as of late, and I think it has merit. If we consider the acausal principle to be an absolute, then yes, there is something “holding together” the universe. It’s the connecting principle. It’s an absolute. The idea of cause-and-effect is an illusory one, as there are correlations. Cause-and-effect is an correlary argument from data, but it’s not necessary a true thing that occurs. I don’t believe it actually occurs, and I believe people argue “cause” and mean “high correlation.” Thus, the language issue becomes obvious.

Does “meaning” exist

here’s an article to read: http://nvate.com/7163/universe-alive/

I think Carl Jung is dismissed too much.

I think there are two pivotal point in human history:

  1. When Plato and others encounter the sophists
  2. When Carl Jung and Albert Einstein meet

With #1, it has to do with this issue: Is there a truth or (T)ruth worth pursuing?

With #2, it has to do with this issue: Is there a truth or (T)ruth worth pursuing?

And you could say it boils down to the following: Is there an “intent” behind all of reality?

Now, culpability is a pain in the ass. I think deterministic beings are incapable of intent, because intent is something that requires free-will. It’s a philosophical notion. Wants, desires, etc.. They’re illusions.

I’d like to think, however, if there is some being that had or has free-will, then it was or is culpable, thus had intent. With that said, everything occurring around us has a “reason” for occurring.

Philosophers of old wanted to know if there was a Truth to be known, much like saying there is a God to be known. Carl Jung was touching on whether or not there is meaning to anything in reality, whether or not there is intent behind space-time events and their occurrence.

And I’d like to bring up the simulation argument, whereby reality is a virtual simulation. Under that premise, you can start arguing there is intent.

A video game designer often has various intents with designing a game. In general, with modern society the way it is, the “intent” is to entertain, thus make money for the company by getting people to buy something entertaining. But I like to take things a little further and look at the details of the game, what was behind each of the aspects in the game.

And I like to look at things in the game, such as when people question if there is a God. Because it’s not people questioning if there is a God: It’s “God” having programmed them to question if there is a “God,” which seems kind of like a silly thing to do.

Imagine a game programmer making an NPC question in the game, upon approaching and interacting with the NPC, if there is a programmer. So, let’s saying I’m playing a game and I come across an NPC. I press “X” or whatever controller button and it says, “I wonder if there is a programmer that created me.”

Well, certainly there was. And it was the programmer that “caused” the NPC to state such. And if you look around the “real” world, there is a lot of the same going on. People question if there is a God.

I take it in two possible ways:

  1. God’s harassing us
  2. It’s a fluke from a completely, purely random universe having been designed with no “chance” involved

Now, of curious note is whether or not I can engage in “self-reflection” in order to say, “That’s not funny.”

Self-reflection could just as well be an illusion. Thus, any chance of self-reflection being a delusion of my mind. But in my believed self-awareness, I look at a person questioning God’s existence as something pre-planned since the dawn of existence. And my own observation of this individual as also pre-planned since the beginning of time. Thus, I even further question, “What’s the point?”

There are a lot of arguments against the existence of God, but if I just label all of reality as a superorganism, thus God, I think I define God quite adequately. But then we get into an issue of “part vs. whole.”
Regardless, I still look at how the questioning of God’s existence was pre-destined, since the beginning of time. The universal soup has it encoded in it. It was there, as the universe existed in a pkzip archive format. Had the universe been different at the beginning, the question would not be the same. So, as the whole, the part was included. Since all that existed in the beginning was the whole via all the laws of physics, the question was necessarily pre-planned to occur.
So, the question becomes, “What’s the meaning of this? Is there a reason for this? For it to be part of reality for an individual to ask if God exists?”
I guess that’s like going into a courtroom with a dictionary definition of God, and claiming that God exists because the dictionary says so. However, you can argue against that and call it hearsay. If you spend enough time studying law, that makes sense. Unless you were born in court, were born the court, etc.. anything and everything that exists outside of you is hearsay. So, you’re left with hearsay.
It’s very possible, then, that what’s occurring is God is asking if there is a God. This relates to a hypothesis I have that God is “insane” or in an R-complex state and currently undergoing a learning curve, which explains why the universe is not stable. But I want to stay on track: Meaning.
I think there is meaning, but it requires “acausal” thinking. An individual might say, “That doesn’t make sense.” I think it does, and it requires the ability to look at things symbolically. And then using the interpretation of the symbolic language and testing it to see if it can have any influence on reality.
If we look at dead cultures, they used symbolic language to encapsulate meaning. We have the Japanese language moving around that uses symbols to represent ideas and concepts. So, symbolic language does exist. And if you analyze it more, I don’t have to agree that a certain thing means what you want it to mean. Granted, I’m not a philosopher of language, but that something “means” something depends upon agreeability.
What tends to be fascinating if not questionable is if I can ever agree on what someone means by something. Deconstructive nihilism is a bitch. I love I’m not posting on the forum, atm.
However, with this, I’d like to posit the idea of a signal-to-noise ratio. A signal is the absolute form, the obtaining of meaning. Noise is a meaning “attempting” to be sent but failing. Imagine going through an Egyptian pyramid for the first time. You see all these hieroglyphs and they mean nothing. However, as you study it more, you start to see a pattern. And eventually, you get the signal: You distill out the message.
So, there is “meaning” behind them. But that’s also subjective. When I’m talking about “meaning,” I mean something that had intent, which is an absolute. With deconstructive nihilism, we take language and put a stake through its heart, relying on agreeability to make things move through the mud.
So, let’s go back to Jung.
Jung is talking to someone about their dream of a beetle. The person doesn’t believe in Jung’s bullshit. Something rattles at the window. Amazingly, it’s a beetle.
Was communication occurring?
If the universe is a superorganism, thus God, it would simplify to God talking to itself, so that’s not much use. But if there is some act to influence part of the whole in order to amplify its existence to “evolve” or “better” it, the act may have been to inspire an individual to engage in pattern-recognition behavior.
I think the issue goes into something called “the culpability problem.”
Resolution of the culpability problem equates to resolution of whether or not there is intent behind the existence of the universe. But I think a lot of people asking “Does God exist?” when many think “God made us” creates a situation where God is questioning “Is there more than I,” thus positing the same questions we posit. That then simplifies to the response “You exist.”