Information Content

Why don't most people like movies where they can predict what will happen next? How can talking to some people seem so boring? How are these related?

Information Content is what makes things exciting. Meeting someone for the first time, if the two of you share a common language and use it, is exciting! Why? Because there is a high rate of information content and transfer when you meet this new person. After a while, you kind of know the person, so the information content of dialog is lower, and therefore much less interesting.

Applying the same principle to movies and works of fiction, we see that it is when the movie presents a new idea that it is interesting. If we know what will happen in the movie based on the previews, the information content of 2 hours of the actual movie will be really low. But movies with a lot of interesting dialog or a lot of explosions have a much higher content.

Why did I hate "Lady in the Water" so much? Very little information content for the time spent. But I love Grosse Pointe Blank, why? Lots of things happening in the background. You know what I mean - think back to a movie you've seen a few times. Notice in those movies how you find something new about them each time you see them?

Apply this to relationships over time and it brings us back to my Lies post. People you have a connection with, there should be a constant high level of information content. If it gets boring, then this is probably the cause of the problem. This is why some people have kids, take a vacation, spent time apart, etc. Things to artificially generate this content to make their relationship more interesting.

This, I believe, is why they claim sociopaths and psychopaths are supposed to have this weird aura or attractiveness about them. Things they say and do are unexpected to most people they meet, so they become fascinating to these other people. Charisma, that was the word I was looking for, these people radiate a kind of charisma.

But remember, if something is too far outside of the range of the person to be communicated with, it all breaks down. Movies can be too weird, TV shows too smart, books to technical (or dry), people too crazy, for a general audience - there has to be enough common language or this appeal via information content breaks down.

And this is the line I try to walk when creating blog entries.

The Edward

Modern Porn

Well, with a title like that, I could talk about most anything. I could take the essence of what we consider to be pornographic and ask the question "What aspects of our modern life contain this same essence? What do we lust after as much as seeing pictures of other people having sex? Maybe we can apply this in some unique way and discover an interesting truth about modern society?" Or I could just talk about how porn, defined as seeing pictures of people doing it, has changed over the years. Sure, not as deep (ba-da-bing) but easy to ramble about at this late hour. So, let's dive in.

Porn sure has changed over the years. In used to be cave drawings, then... well, maybe too far back. I think the 70s porn everyone had Afros, but I do not know for sure - movie theatre only, and I was "too young".

In the 80's, porn videos had women with big hair everywhere and the movies were movies (ie plot, dialog, etc). Something like "Pizza delivery. You can't pay for it? Maybe we can work something out..." or "Plumber, I'm here to fix the sink. It is in your bedroom? And you can not pay for it? I'm sure we can work something out..." then the sex begins.

That was kind of nice, there was a context. But, with the advent of video, people realized that they could fast forward over the dialog and skip right to the sex. The movie production companies (ie two guys with a camera and some bucks to hire "actress wannabees") realized they didn't need to hire a writer! (kind of like what Hollywood realized around then too) People just want to see the sex, so they created sex only movies. The movies start out with the guy balls deep in the women and they just go from there. Or if it is a lesbian movie, four fingers in and ready for more. Or if it is a gay movie... well, I can not speak to that, sorry. Oh, and both men and women were shaven in the 90s.

Once the internet came around, I must admit I lost track of my good friend Video Porn. A few years ago, I decided to catch up with my old friend, see what he was up to. Anal, that is what he was doing now. I do not remember any 80s or 90s movies with this, but now it seems that it is not a movie unless all of the women in the movie get it in the ass. I found this kind of shocking, so I wrote my congressmen and asked them to ban these new types of movies because they offended my sensibilities. What, is good old fashion vaginal sex just not good enough to get this current generation off? Somethings should just not be put on film - some lines should not be crossed, so I ask that you join me, and together we can help stamp out this anal sex perversion before it corrupts the very moral fiber of this great nation.

Okay, I didn't write my congressmen - too much of a hassle. Where I would like to see porn go is: positions. Throughout all of the years of porn, there are maybe 5 positions. I personally own a book with 365 positions! (Guess why there are 365 of them...) I keep thinking I need to send a copy of this book (which I purchased at Good Vibrations) to some porn studios in the hopes that it helps them get over this creative block. I want to see movies that contain such classics as: Crew Practice, The Mighty Wind, The Doctor Is In, "Are Those Lee Press-Ons", The Edward Scissorlegs, and of course The Steam Cleaner.

-Edward

Week without power

Sorry, I haven't had much power this week. The lights came on a few times, but I guess the infrastructure couldn't handle 100 degree temperatures. Very odd, since I know it has been hotter at times in the past. And since we get our power from boiling water, you would think it would be easier to boil that water when it is hotter outside. Unless of course they have the air conditioner running inside the boiler room.

With five days of darkness, it gave me a lot of time to think of new blog posts! And to realize how far away we really are from being a pan-galactic civilization. Or even a pan-Earth one. If we can not get power, water, and food to anyone on the planet, we really are not too far along on the scale of civilization.

To advance, we need better power technology, because with limitless power (and the means of moving it around a bit) there would be no end to what we could accomplish! "With great power comes great stuff", I believe is how the quote goes. And I am all for stuff!

So, let's all chip in to make this happen! The only way to do this is to use as much power as you can. Increased demand will require increased research on how to fulfill that demand. That is how business and the free market work: there is a need to be filled, someone will come up with a way to fill it. If we cut back usage of anything, then there will be no incentive for someone to work to fill a decreasing need, and we will stumble back into the Dark Ages. Only by pushing the limits forward will we advance as a civilization. So, go out and buy a new AC and set it 65 degrees or lower, and know that you are helping humanity by doing so. Buy the biggest car you can afford - it is the only way.

Consume as much as you can and the future generations will thank you for your foresight!

-Edward

General Semantics, Part 1

What is General Semantics? Funny question, that.

Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics by Alfred Korzybski first published in 1933, with a few updates over the years. I first read it back in the 80's. Then again in the 90's. I have another copy on the way so I can read it again (or at least have it as a reference). This book probably influenced the way I think, talk, and view the world more than any other book that I can think of right now. I've learned to modify my speech a bit since I first read the book, but it still comes through, I believe.

Enough of that personal crap for a bit, on to the Arcane stuff. If I had to summarize the general ideas behind GS, I would say this: It presents a system by which one can learn to realize what is abstract and what is concrete. It describes how language influences our thoughts, and how we are bound by abstractions. It tells us that the world we think we know doesn't really exist, but that we have models of it, and these models have limitations. Models are useful, but so is the knowledge that we only have models and that we know what the limitations of those models are. And that our nervous system has limits as well, which further influence our views. And then there are all of the interactions between all of the levels of abstractions. And then there are multivalued words, which turn out to be pretty much useless. And then there are words that can create shocks to ones nervous system and therefore prevent correct processing. It is a long book, so there are many more Ands than I can do in what I am calling Part 1.

Probably the most important phrase, one that I believe sums up GS: The map is not the territory. Alfred Korzybski coined this one and I think it works well.

Another important point, there is no "is" of equality. A is not A - another great GS quote (sometimes called Null-A). And the basis of what I consider to be funny about the first line of this blog. When you see a truck on the road, it is important not to say "That is a truck", but rather "That is called a truck" or "That is being used as a truck". It might sound odd, but it really can open doors to thoughts not otherwise experienced. I read an article claiming that raising ones child this way from the start can be one of the best ways to get these GS ideas ingrain in one. I don't know, I think I adapted to it fairly well.

My view of the world, my view of what people say to me, and my view of what I think of the world, are all based on what I learned from GS. Most of my humor comes from GS-based observations. If you know me in the real world, you probably notice some GS in me. And you might now notice some in my posts.

I was going to try and make this a funny post, but it turned out mostly to be an explanation - laying down the ground work for future conversations, and showing how the past posts tie together.

What's a 4 letter word for a woman that ends in "unt"? You probably say it a lot more than you think... And it really does describe some women very well. Why, I do not believe our society would be what it is today with this word and concept.

The Edward

PS aunt

Immortal

I am immortal. I've known this for some time now. "Sure," you say, "how do you know you are immortal unless you have died." Well, more accurate, until you haven't died. And since I haven't died yet, as far as I can tell, this matches the definition of immortal.

Say there is some person out there who dies. You might say, "Ha, look, that person thought his was immortal, and now look at him!" So, he was wrong. How does someone else being wrong make me wrong?

"Everyone else has died." Really, what about all of those people alive right now. How many dead people do you personally know? A handful maybe. Yet you probably know a lot more people who have resisted dead, ie still alive. Just because other people say that everyone is doing it, does that mean that you have to as well? Sure, inductive reason is the basis of all science, but does that mean it is correct? Just because every tree I see has a bird in it, does that mean all trees have birds, or that I just haven't seen enough trees? Maybe there are people who haven't died, just like the billions we have on hand right now.

Something else to consider. Say you think you are immortal as well. But let's also say that you die one day. After you are dead, are you going to know it? Will you be saying, "Gosh. I'm dead. Man alive, I am not. I guess I wasn't immortal." Probably not. So, as long as you are alive, as far as you know, you are immortal. And if you do die, you will not know it. Therefore, to think of yourself as immortal is the only logical choice, since as long as you are thinking, you are immortal.

Live long and prosper.

The Edward

To Your Health!

I'm a health nut. As I see it, if you do not have your health, you don't have anything. I care about my health and the health of others, and so I'll pass the savings on to you.

Chocolate. 10 years ago, I remember reading that one chocolate bar had as much fat as a few pieces of bacon. Being a doubter, and by good the fortune of having plenty of both in the frig, I looked at the packaging. Alas, it was true! But luck was on my side yet again, because it really doesn't matter how much fat is in something! If eating fat made you fat, where does fat come from? We eat vegetarians (or more correctly herbivores), and yet they have fat in their bodies... Grass must be very fatty indeed. But I digress. Chocolate has major health benefits! Antioxidants! (so be sure to eat some before you go to one of those Oxygen Bars at the Mall) Well, many other benefits as well, so no need to rehash them here - use the web, Luke.

Orgasms. Lots of information online about this, including the latest research claiming at least one orgasm a day has many, many health benefits to both sexes. The didn't distinguish how one achieves these orgasms, either by self, partner, group, flock of geese, etc. The only important point is that doing this greatly reduces heart disease and increases mental health, among its many other benefits.

Cold. Reducing the average room temperature by a few degrees doubles the lifespan of rats. Does this have the same affect on humans? I aim to find out by living in a comfortably cool house of 65 degrees. That is how much I care.

Well, there are 3 major things you can do to improve your health! And I know many more too, so this just might be the beginning. Some people, I believe of Puritan descent, believe that true happiness only comes from punishment and pain. So, they restrict themselves from things that they enjoy, even though enjoyment is a great stress reducer. The abuse their bodies, and not in the positive wholesome masturbation-type way, but by running many miles, swimming many laps, biking, rowing, flogging, dripping water on their foreheads, slowly destroying their bodies... sorry, I had to stop, it was becoming too painful to think about, and I believe in avoiding all pain. As the saying goes, "No pain, no pain."

I hope you will follow my tips to a healthy, happy life. Indulge in these things to excess! And anything else that feels good. If we did evolve, we would have evolved to get positive sensations from things that help us survive, so if it feels good, do it! If we were created, why would a creator surround us with pleasurable things unless it is for us to experience them! (unless he or she or it is a cruel god that likes to wave tasty donuts in the faces of very hungry people. if I believed in a god, I would believe in a loving, caring creator, someone who would only want the best for his or her or its children. us.) As I always say: there is no way to lose by being healthy.

Excuse me for a minute, I need to go take care of my health.

-Edward

PS Avoid doctors. They are not in the business of keeping you healthy, but treating the sick and getting people hooked on drugs. No doctor has ever healed anyone. The human body heals itself. If you break a bone, a doctor would set it in place, but your body then does all of the work. You did build your entire body from a single cell, right?

Super Hero

While unpacking a few boxes last week, I found one of my favorite short stories: One of the Boys by Lawerence Watt-Evans. It is a classic story of a superhero. He has a secret identity. At night he runs around in tights while helping people. He fights scary alien monsters bent on destroying the world. Etc. But, one of the women he saved decides that she wants him in a romantic way, so she follows him and learns his secret identity and confronts him. What was interesting in this story is that he was from another world, but raised by humans. Sure, sounds familiar, but the twist here is that he was an alien, unlike other superheros that fit this description.

Being an alien, he didn't understand humans at all. After years of studying and practicing, he could fit into the role of superhero. As long as the conversations stayed to this topic, he seemed like he was one of the boys. But, when this women tried to talk with him, she found out his true alieness. He couldn't read tone of voice or facial expressions, so he could tell if someone was lying. He kept vats of cleaning chemicals in his apartment because the smells seemed more homey. He kept his place at 90 degrees. And after years of being sick, found out which "foods" he could eat.

This all shocked the woman, because she thought he was a strong handsome man under his costume - one who would sweep her off of her feet and do her right there, but what she found was too revolting for words. She even asked him why he protected earthlings from alien monsters when he was one. And that was the classic part, it was only because he was raised to be human and he was trying to fit in, but if anyone found out his secret, the humans would hunt him down as an alien monster.

So, what is so appealing about this story? We may have an internal nature, but we can not be more than the sum of our experiences. Everything you believe to be true is based on something you heard from someone else. Well, okay, I didn't really get that from the story, that is just my own internal perspective. What I liked about the story was the sense of his being trapped on a planet with a people that he could comprehend. What if you were on a planet where nothing made sense to you? The next level of human is coming, will it be like that for them?

-Edward

For Whom the Word is Written

People often ask me "Are you insane, man?!", but what I think they really are asking is "Your writing style is very you, how do you write like that? Teach me, oh master." Well, who am I to deny anyone who calls me master, even if it is with a lower case m.

Since I believe that everyone has his or her own language and I need to translate my thoughts into some language, I pick someone I know and write to that person. I've never told anyone this, but I think some people suspect. I have heard a few people tell me that when they read something I wrote here or on the movie club site, it felt like I was talking to them. I probably was. Why even this post is for someone... or some group of people... or...

So as not to exclude everyone else, there are always hidden messages for everyone.

-Edward

PS ,it is written for thee.

Self-Taught

What is it with teaching? What is it really to teach? Can not everything that the teacher says be written down and handed to someone enabling people not in the classroom to learn the material in the same time-frame? Or with the modern age, use video? Reading books on a topic makes one self-taught, but can someone who learned from a video say the same thing?

There seems to be something special about being self-taught. Newton was mostly self-taught, and that makes it more impressive. When someone says they taught themselves to play piano, some people seem to think that is more impressive than taking classes and learning. Self-taught is harder, but why? All of the information that the teacher is giving out is available in a book - they are not making it up on the spot.

I believe it is a translation problem. Every person has their own internal language. A teacher is someone who has learned a subject very well and can translate it into the students' languages. The teacher had to learn the subject matter and put it into his own language first. There are a lot of people who know things but can not teach, and I think this explains it. They are not good at translating their thoughts into the words of the students. It also makes sense to have smaller classrooms, because this allows the teacher to focus translating to a smaller group of individuals' languages.

Teaching oneself something requires that they be the translator as well as the student, but if they do not know the material to begin with, translation errors will occur. So, as much as fun teaching oneself something from other people words is, the coverage can not be the same as with a good teacher. Then again, the student who is self-taught is not bound by the limits of the teacher's knowledge. So, there are trade-offs.

-Edward

Boxers

I still remember the first time I heard "tighty-whities" - it was on an episode of Scrubs. They said it in such a way that I knew they were making fun of the wearer of white briefs. But does this extend to colorful briefs? They were not clear on this point, quickly moving on in the episode.

Go to the Men's Department and you will see a lot of colorful boxers. After reading Socks, you must know that I enjoy lots of color. But the odd thing about boxers is that they do not need to exist. Say you wear shorts with boxers, then the boxer is probably around the same size as the shorts. What you are getting are double thick shorts. You could just sew the boxer into the shorts, and it would be the same effect in most cases. (Though, if the shorts are thin enough to see through, it allows one to make a fashion statement by wearing differently colored ones with each wearing of those shorts.)

The oddest thing about boxers and shorts is that you are more exposed than a woman in a short dress and panties. Panties get right in there and cover that which needs to be covered. With briefs on men, the same thing is true. And probably the same with thongs on either sex. With boxers there are direct lines from the outside world where people with the correct angle could get a direct view of Mr. Johnson and his two friends. No real difference from Commando Style or Free-balling. Topologically speaking, you are naked. A kilt with the middle connected.

The most interesting thing about boxers for me is: a woman in boxers. There is something too sexy about that to even think about right now.

-Edward

Lies

Applying my Models Theory to people: you can not model more than yourself. The people in your life are represented in your mind at some abstraction level. What does this mean in the practical sense? Many things, but the most important for today is this: If the people in your life do not shock you with their ideas or deeds on a regular basis, then your relationship is a lie. (ie something is being hidden from you)

If you are in a long term relationship with someone, you should be learning more about that person every day. Some of the things you learn will shock you, because some of these things should be outside of the model in your mind of that person. If the other person totally fits the model in your mind, then they are not being themselves around you. That is okay in some relationships (like with your plumber), but the longer you want the relationship to last, the large this area has to be and the more shocks you will get along the way.

How does someone in a couple know the other person is cheating on them? Everything is too normal. Why? Because to make sure that that other area of one's life is kept secret, one is forced to act within the confines of what one believes the other person's model of them is? How do people get caught? Because people do not always know what someones model of them is.

How shocked have you been by people in your life that you care about? How much have you shocked them? You know you have secrets from everyone and you know those secrets would shock people if they knew. Based on this, you know that you are keeping a part of your life from those you care about. Why?

Just remember, I am here for you, and everything you say or do shocks me. But in a good way.

-Edward

PS I'm trying something different in my writing style today. Though, I am still writing late at night when it is hard to focus. And then again, adding this PS probably changes the tone of the above message, so don't read this PS. And never refer to a sentence or paragraph within itself, like I'm doing here - it is considered bad style. (unless you make a movie Adaptation)

Shaven

I haven't touched on pussy in a while, so maybe it is time to take another look at this topic. In past entries, I claimed I would come back to pussy, so let's dive in.

From talking to my male friends, it seems that most women do not really talk pussy with them, which is contrary to my experience. Most of my women friends have told me something about their pussies: something they've done with it for fun, things they have placed inside for pleasure, sensitivity of certain spots, etc. All topics that I gladly engage in. The one that stands out in my mind is tonight's topic: hair.

As I've said before, I am quite an admirer of pussy, so the more of it I can see the better. Beyond the visual, a woman's skin is so soft to the touch that it is a thrill to experience. I've found the skin of the thigh to be particularly exciting. The outer thigh to the hip area seems to have the correct ratio of subcutaneous fat to surface that it is hard to just think about it. Then we have the inner thigh, even more protected from the elements, making it even better to the senses. This leads to the pussy. The feeling of a freshly shaven pussy is just mind blowing. Well, at least the thought of the feeling...

Some women friends of mine have had all of their hair there permanently removed because they are aware of this effect on men, which then enhances their own experience. (someone told me it is more likely that her man would go down on her when she was hairless, and some women like this down going to happen to them) Some women have said to me that they think it is perverted to remove the hair there, that it makes them feel like little girls all naked and exposed therefore making them uncomfortable and think less of their men who enjoy it. To each their own. I just say, if you knew that your lover would find your pussy without (or with) hair to be much more exciting in some way, wouldn't the extra attention this person would be will to pay to your pussy be worth it?

For me, I say, shave it off and I will make it worth your effort. Think of it as just another place that humans shave. If you disagree, then I guess that is why I sleep alone tonight.

Thoughts or opinions you are willing to express in this public forum? I've showed you mine...

-Edward

PS Here's an old one that gets me every time: What's the definition of a vagina? It's the box a penis comes in.

Why Models Don't Work

To model something requires defining the most important parts of the thing to be modeled, finding or creating something that has those same important parts, then declaring that these objects will behave in the same way. This can not work. Say you want to model something as complex as a human being - what kind of processing power would it take? Why, something at least as complex as a human of course. Could I make a human model in clay? If I handed you a clay model of a human and a real human, do you think you could tell the difference? Probably. What about a computer model of human thought? Could you talk with a computer program and know that it wasn't a human? Probably. And to model an entire human, can you image what it would take to do that from the ground up?

How much more complex is the Earth? What does it take to model the Earth? How about the Earth's Climate? Do you think a computer model can accurately model the Earth's future weather? A computer that fits under your desk or in a very large room is still way to small and way to simple to model something as large as this planet.

"Sure," you say, "you could model those things that are important and forget about things that are not. As long as you model the important stuff, you can model anything! Anything!" No, sorry, the words I am putting in your mouth are wrong. That is the whole point of chaotic systems - variances too small to predict lead to changes too large to compensate for. I believe Wolfram addresses all of these concerns in A New Kind of Science.

So, in my own rambling way, what am I trying to say? All models are flawed. Knowing the flaws doesn't help you. You can get some sort of rough estimates of how something might work (ie about how much pressure to snap a human rib bone) but the only way to have an exact number is to measure it after the fact. The more dynamic the system, the more exact your estimate has to be, or else you will be chaotically off. The Butterfly Effect.

-Edward

PS And most models are too thin - they real should eat something and look more like real people do. Do they really look like most people do? And that answers the larger question on models...

Teach...

I have many thoughts on teaching. But, since I wrote these recent three posts all on the same day (I thought about them before, but I just didn't post them, so Altered Time to put them on the "correct" date), I will post Teaching some other day. Until then, here are some thoughts on teaching:

Teach a man to build a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Okay, so could only think of one right now. I did a search online, but couldn't find any of the classics that I remember. Too much crap to find the gems.

Remember, laughing 15 minutes a day is the best medicine!

-Edward

New God(dess)

We have a new religion in town, and there is a goddess that we worship in association with it. We call her by many names, here are but a few: Mother Earth, Mother Nature. (okay, two is not always a few, but I think the cold medicine is kicking in now)

How did gods come into being? Way back when, when someone who was obsessive-compulsive did something wrong (slept with one's sister, cheated on one's husband, etc) and something bad happened (ie a drought, a plague, indigestion, etc), it was obviously some force external to the person who was doing this to him. But who? Obviously someone who has the same motivations as him, since he was being punished for what he considered wrong. Obviously someone with more power than he, since this being could inflict damage on him without being seen. This damage inflicter, lets call him god, obviously was upset but really didn't know the language of the land very well, so he hurt a lot of people for the transgressions of a few people rather than just saying "Stop it". This was god's will.

Now that we are becoming enlightened in this country and this modern age, we know such things are foolish! How could such a god exist and science not be able to prove it? Obviously, there is no god. But, how about a vengeful goddess, who is upset with our wicked way?!

Gods are the height of human arrogance. There are these beings out there who are so powerful, that we cannot even begin to comprehend their powers! They encompass large parts of the universe! And yet they have nothing better to do than watch you as you pleasure yourself when no one is looking? And then cause a massive heatwave killing millions just to show you what you did was wrong? To watch you when you are sleeping? To watch your every thought to know if they are bad or good? Kind of like some jolly old man in a red suit? You know, your perverted Uncle Gary?

But, with a goddess, she is saddened because we are hurting her. sniffle. She just wants us to stop it. Sure, she could wipe us off of her face, but she doesn't want to. So, every time we commit a sin against her, she will give us hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, grass fires, volcanoes, etc. Human arrogance. We think that we can affect something as large as the Earth? Do you know how big it really is? Do you know how much non-human biomass there is? Do you know that our kind is only here because the true rulers of this planet were killing themselves with their own toxic waste?

Plants thrive on C02. Can't get enough of it. But they produce a nasty corrosive gas as a byproduct, Oxygen. We had to come along in order to save the plants, or else they would have all died off. We are here to take plant waste and turn it into plant food.

There is no goddess of earth whom we can hurt. We are nothing to this universe, and nothing to this planet. Do not pollute - it is impossible. The planet releases more substances that are toxic to us than we do. But it also releases when we need, and we release what it needs.

Stop worshipping the planet - it is a very arrogant thing to do. One little shrug and we are all gone, and there isn't anything we can currently do about it.

-Edward

We are god

There is no denying it. When someone describes their god to me, it is always in terms of human emotions and experiences. "God was pissed that so and so slept with his sister. And that so and so cheated on her husband." "God was amused." "God was angry." "God was vengeful." You've heard them and many more.

When monkeys or chimps look at us, do they understand our world? Could you drop them in a meeting room full of people and think that they understand the interplay between everyone there? Or do they map the experience to their own? So many of the things that happen there would seem random to them, because they couldn't understand most of us.

If there was god who existed outside of who we are, that being's motives would be well beyond what we could comprehend. Yet, the gods humans worship are just humans with more power. They have the same drivers, but more intense. Most gods seem to want to have sex with human women (and who wouldn't) and crossbreed in some way. How is Jesus different from the Greek and Roman son's of gods? Gods don't just eat, they have feasts of human food. Gods don't get angry, they have Righteous Indignation. Gods don't just go to the bathroom, they take monster craps.

Maybe god created man in his own image, just weaker version of his divine self, and that is why we can understand his motives. So, I guess he hated all of his other creations since they do not have the same feelings/motives as he does. Wouldn't the god of ants be kind of like the ants, but more powerful? He probably wouldn't match any of our gods. So, which god is the real one?...

-Edward

PS You can also substitute goddess where the word god appears above. It is the bias of the English language that the masculine gender of words is also the neutral gender. And remember: words have gender, people have sex. And so do gods and goddesses. Monster sex.

Another Dream

I had another very intense and realistic dream last night (though I will not mention the part about this being the one day a year were Standford replaces all of their statues with live elephants wearing blond toupees). Well, two dreams, but they were linked in such a way that I just have to tell someone, so I am telling you, for a reason...

In the first, there was this woman with short dark-ish hair. Not someone I can match up with in my "real life." I hadn't seen her in 3 years. She told me that 3 years ago she had fallen in love with me, but didn't say anything. Something about her dropping hints but I am kind of clueless about this in real life, so I figure the dream person was the same. So, 3 years later, she has been married for a while, but she was sad that we never had a go at it back then.

In the second, there was this woman whom I didn't see, supposedly someone I met 10 days ago. We both seemed to think that there was some sort of common interest/connection, but neither of us said anything way back then. So, some 3rd person told me what she thought of me (and I was surprised, because I guess my cluelessness is the constant in all of the Universes). I believe she met someone 9 days ago, but I think she either left him or was thinking of leaving him or was sad that we never had a go at it back then.

How are these connected and why am I wasting your time on these stories? Well, I have mentioned some small part of my dream theory before, so now that I am awake, I have formulated a plan! If someone reading this blog met me either 3 years ago or 10 days ago, and you had had some sort of deep (or shallow) lust/love type emotion for me, I probably totally missed it at the conscious level. So, just come on out and say what you feel! You'll be glad you did!

Or, I met these 2 women and had some sort of positive reaction but suppressed it until it came out in my dreams. If this is the case, and you think you were either of these people, let me know! You'll be glad you did!

If dreams are just dreams, and I am not as clueless as I think, then I expect not to hear anything from anyone and continue down my solitary path for now. But, at least I will have the Stanford elephants in my mind.

-Edward

PS Or if you have a better interpretation of my dreams, I'd enjoy hearing them!

And the Driver.

Two random members of some Royal Family died in the Bay Area this past week. And the driver. They mentioned the Royal Family by name. And even though it wasn't news worth repeating every half hour, it probably was very sad for their families. But, they never said their driver's name.

Same thing last year when a corporate jet full of Nike executives had issues, the press was telling us how it would probably crash and kill all of those execs. Oh, and there was a large crew of people as well.

Who was Princess Di's driver?

Which will you be? Which would you rather be? The one who makes things happen, or the one who wonders what happened. Only one of their loses is considered a tragedy.

-Edward

PS If you look for "Princess Di driver" you will find out that he actually was someone. He was employed by French Intelligence. But what if instead it had been found that he was also employed as a chicken sexer?

Vacation Message

While I am still on vacation, here is something to ponder:

How can you tell when a man is well hung?

When you can just barely slip your finger in between his neck and the noose.

-Edward

Both Sides

Be sure to understand both sides of any argument! Looking at the two sides on the DHMO question, we can see that they are diametrically opposed. The side wanting to ban this substance (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html) and the side that says it is your friend (http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/). But which side is right?

Well, the first site really looks to have their act together. Do we really want to take a chance with all of this DHMO around? Shouldn't we do something, just in case they are correct? Can we really take the chance that the tree-hugging sponsors of the second website might be wrong? I'm sure that they have their heart in the right place, but is that enough to protect our children (ie our future!)! We need action! It is probably causing the death of someone right now even as you read this!

I hope you read the facts on both sites, then decide for yourself. I think reading those two sites will lead to a greater understanding of all arguments.

-Edward

"Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities."

Got to get me some of that...

Something I never understood: Why do people say that they got some when talking about sex? If I went to the store for bread every day of my life, ie I got some bread, at the end of my life, the store would be down many loaves and I would have a huge warehouse full of rotting bread. I gain, they lose. With sex, there is no getting, since there should be no one losing. If I got sex every day for the rest of my life, what would I have at the end? I would have a lot of sex, but so would someone else (or a select group of women). Something created from nothing. Something shared.

So, don't give it up and don't go get some, instead share some. It will increase happiness the world round.

-Edward

PS What is the definition of making love? It is what the woman is doing while the guy is f*cking her.

Consumer vs Creator

When I look at things that I am doing or plan on doing, I ask myself if I will be a consumer or creator. I realized a few years ago that my life changed over from a creator of ideas to a consumer of ideas. TV shows are a good example - they are pure consumer. A group of people get together and create the show (making them creators), but on the receiving end, I am a consumer. After an episode of a show like Buffy or Angel ended, I couldn't wait to see what happened next. The problem is, there is no "happened next" since it is all in the minds of the creators. Why care what these other people think should happen next? Do I not think my own ideas are better for me than theirs? Can I not take the ideas they created and create my own "Next week on" in my own mind?

"Man as the creator" was a philosophy that someone told me about a few years ago. People like to create. People are happier when they create. It is a driving force within us. But consuming is so much easier!

The one that has caused me problems, and maybe a lot of others, is MMORPGs. In these online games, they have a system they have created, a system where there is progress and rewards for doing stuff in the game. They give they illusion of creating something within the gameworld, but really, one is bound by the rules of the creators. So, by playing these games, am I creating or consuming?

This leads to This World. The rules here are not set by me, the Universe does things whether I like it or not. So, anything I create within this world is actually bound by some other creator (possibilities include: society, the earth, the universe, a higher being, etc), which by the MMORPG argument makes me a consumer. So, is it possible to really be a creator? Does this not make all things equal, in a game, in a mind, in a "real world"?

-Edward