But I take much of Freud's beliefs figuratively or downcast them outright.  Empathy is a hell of a drug.  I have learned how to naturally spit out some really mean- and really funny- jokes, but I still feel guilty on the in side when I do so.  It's refreshing to be the leader of a face to face organization again.  I am super excited about getting my home work done before the week's end this week.  I found the courage to play a single player video game alone for the first time since November, and have good reason to deem that an accomplishment.  Today I just might open Fruity Loops or Open Office for the sake of creative expression.  I cast away my old routine only to accidentally adopt a new, less dignified one.  True, it builds great character and knowledge, but it is more difficult to justify.  Through social interaction and academia I have finally learned the key differences between morality and ethics.  I am fighting to compromise my old routine with my new one.  I have never before wished for school to remain in session so that I can avoid my art responsibilities.  Instant-gratification habits are hard to break, even new ones, and empathy is a hell of a drug.

'I don't like you.  I just like the way that I interact with you.  You assist in my self-amusement.'

Pick your literal poison or otherwise and get addicted, because no thing says, 'Purpose,' like a wreckless, base desire.  No.  That was sarcasm.  How is it that sarcastic individuals can get confused by a sarcastic response to a sarcastic statement or question?  Willful ignorance runs deep, and so do the tunnels a certain some one gently carved through my very being and then suddenly left vacant and cold.  These tunnels were not without their grand adornments, how ever, and many others have been attracted and now fill these tunnels nearly to the brim.  The tunnels all stem from a special room, though, and no one seems to be able to fit in to it- not without trying.  I can only assume that dat shit be custom, yo.  The tunnels may collapse in time, and those that occupy them may have to bunk up or dig their own, but that room isn't going away.  I keep the light off and only rarely dust it, often wishing I will simply forget that it is there.

'It's easy to fall in love.  Remaining there is the hard part.'

It's strange.  Hardly any situation makes me feel embarrassed or guilty any longer, and yet I still suffer from performance anxiety.  When the performance begins, I am comforted and can even run it on autopilot.  I hate surprises, but, if I do not know what is expected of me, the anxiety is less.  On the one hand, on the other.  Duality.  I almost succumbed to the Feynd not long ago.  Beauty is every where, you bastard.  The music will always be there to remind me.  Your path is now for ever more treacherous.  Mine is mostly clear.  I focus on changing habits to suit my desires.  There are few questions left to answer during this chapter, and they are not frightening ones.

'Stop saying, 'I know how you feel.'  How could any one know how an other feels?'

We can try, we can try.  It is empathy that brings about social anxiety, and at the very least we will always have that challenge to overcome.  It is a blessing, to love and hate others, to be able to easily tell our stories as meaningful ones.  This brings forth a question of relativity: If we can't know peace without suffering, is it also true that we can't know love without hate?  Common sense may say, 'No,' but why not?  Is it because love and hate are only opposites as responses, not as feelings?  In that case, it may be imagined that the opposite of love is 'without love'.  To crave love without knowing what it is is possible.  Per haps that is the balance.  You can't feel in love without the desire.  The opposite then is to be in that state of loneliness where you feel completely misunderstood, with no meaningful foundation of social comfort.  That is far worse than hatred, and in this way it is fitting again.

I hadn't expected this post to contain much substance without, so I began with questions from philosophy and social psychology courses and my answers to them.  Don't worry, I'm still a philosopher psychoanalyst, and I'll show you...

While philosophers like Parfit and Dennett raise some serious issues concerning the independent existence of the mind, soul or ego, it would seem, at least on a common sense level, that we mostly accept the independent existence of these entities. In our ordinary language, we talk sensibly about “changing our minds,” which has a meaning, which is quite distinct from “changing our brains.” If these philosophers were right, going to a psychotherapist would make as much sense as going to a fortuneteller. Do you believe that there is such a thing as spirituality? If so, how do you explain it? If not, do you believe that a purely physical description of humanity could give us a complete explanation of human behavior?

The psychotherapist/fortuneteller bit doesn't make much sense to me.  In many ways, psychotherapy generates positive results based on causality of facts.  This can be true regardless of whether there is an ego, soul, or any sort of distinct identity.  Saying that psychotherapy is a sham if you can't apply it to a network of neurons as opposed to a singular ego is like saying that psychotherapy is a sham if you try to apply it to a group of people in stead of just one person.  Regardless of target, you are still working with real brain functions.  Per haps I missed the point, because the rest of the concepts were very clear to me!

I believe that spirituality is subjective and manmade.  It is an art, very real, useful, and inspiring, but not necessary or concrete.  I do believe that a purely physical description of humanity could give us a complete explanation of human behavior, though there are many details that we have yet to plot out and fully understand.  I for a long time have agreed with the Bundle Theory's understanding of what the mind is, but I treat the information a little differently, I think.  It is said that words like 'mind', 'ego', or 'soul' are used for the sake of our language, as if convenience of communication is the only reason for these titles.  The concept of ethics collapses under this pretense, how ever.  If there is no true concept of mind, who dies when we murder?  How can one steal from an other or lie to an other, if there is no distinction between people?  There are distinctions between minds; there are separate and personal desires.  They might become a little confused in such situations as the computer that mirrored the human brain, but an understanding can still me met.  Ethics requires a concept of specific minds, and intelligent life requires ethics.  It may still just be a shorthand, but with a far greater purpose than for the sake of conversation.

Most of us would agree that animals have minds simply because they display intelligent behavior. At the same time, most of us utilize an array of machines, which also exhibit intelligent behavior. A GPS receiver, for example, can direct us precisely to our destination with a soothing and intelligent sounding voice. Does this mean that it has a mind? Why should we not apply the same sort of reasoning that we use to posit a mind to our pet dog, to our GPS receiver, and come to the same conclusion, that it too has a mind or even a soul?

Debates can be had of free will, level of intelligence, the definition of intelligence, and ease of information processing.  I imagine that an easy angle to this issue is that of motivation.  Computers do not have a sense of self preservation.  Computers do not react to outside stimulus for the sake of their own survival.  That makes an easy distinction between, say, a dog and a GPS.  The wonder returns when we compare modern robotics, such as light-weight, group operating flyers that are mindful of their environment to insects.  Do insects have minds?  Are robots that can avoid obstacles, maintaining zero contact with objects that could damage them, actually mindful?  These robots are programmable, but so are insects (links below to both concepts).  Now the concept of self preservation needs to be broken down, per haps.  Can simply avoiding obstacles be considered self preservation?  It can be said that the robots only avoid contact with obstacles because they are programmed to do so, while insects avoid crashing in to objects while in flight to stay alive.  Do insects understand and appreciate the concept of life, though?  Can all insects solve problems through cognition, or trial and error?  From this perspective it is more difficult for me to form a conclusion.  If I had to make a decision, I would decide that insects do not have minds simply because their brains are not complex enough to support them.  Key elements of mind seem to be missing, and so robots comparable to insects do not have minds, either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCK-mNqhx44

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate.html

Activity Description Please discuss either: --whether you think religion has a positive or negative effect on morality or --whether you think whether the project of proving the existence of God is important.

I believe that religious dogma has a severely negative effect on morality and ethics when it outlines religious laws.  Ethics are meant to be universal, not bound to one being's opinion, no matter how mighty.  Morality is personal, and the same conflict arises when morals are not grounded on a personal level.  When people are raised to take morality and ethics from a set of unquestionable laws, they do not understand the philosophy behind right and wrong.  Concepts of right and wrong are most crucial in times of great anxiety and depression, and if some one's troubles cause some one to lose their faith, all hope of discerning right from wrong is lost.  In secular society we have laws to prevent those who do not understand ethics from harming others.  I feel that religious rules of morality are the same.  Doing what is right out of fear or obedience or loyalty is not being righteous at all.  It is simply following orders.  While law may bring order, it does not raise good people, and I find that a society of good people is more valuable than an orderly one.

I don't think that it's an important endeavor to prove the existence of God.  It's a matter of faith.  The subject does interest me, and I pay attention to proofs for and against gods.  I have yet to hear or read one that doesn't make me roll my eyes or laugh a little, and I was rather disappointed by the ones in the reading this week.  I have heard more thoughtful ones from kids just entering college.  I don't care how knowledgeable or powerful any being is, though.  Whether or not any sort of god exists, I'm still going to live my life the way that I do.  Any thing less would simply be being untruthful and unfaithful to my self.  I don't respond well to threats from people who claim to have moral authority.

We distinguish between our dreams and reality, between our avatars and our personal identity and between what we watch on TV and how we respond to our "real" environment. How do you make these distinctions in our day-to-day lives? Why is it important for us to make these distinctions?

I, like most people, generally make these distinctions automatically based on old habits.  It may seem a little backwards, in that case, to imagine that when I was younger it was much easier for me to 'lose my self' in fiction and my own imagination.  Especially during my teenage years, when my emotions in dreams were far more intense than in my waking life.  Lucidity and attachment were out of the question for me as qualifiers of what is real.  My distinction between reality and dreams was challenged greatly during that time, and per haps consequentially that was when I developed a taste for metaphysical philosophy.  Basically, I consider reality to be not the one with the most intense emotional stimulus and sense of adventure, but in stead what I perceive to be the most consistent and enduring.  There are other methods which I use to distinguish fiction literature and film from reality, but this method even applies to those things.  I can experience books and films ending; the real world doesn't just end without you.  So far no avatar can compete with the sensory receptors of our brain, so I can safely assume that I am what is behind my vision and hearing etcetera.

It is important to make these distinctions for the sake of our identity and therefore sanity.  I have been there, and being in a position in which you feel pressured to question your reality is highly detrimental to your self image and can distract from even the simplest tasks.  In order to have a meaningful, goal oriented life, one needs to establish a sense of reality.

2. In your opinion, what are the most harmful social influences in America today? Why? be specific.

        Decisive spirituality, such as religious rules, and any other strong emotional dogma that may keep us ignorant, intolerant of novelty, and divided.  These things include any thing from racism, bad parenting, pseudoscience, and consumerism to most pop music and loads of Internet memes.  Spirituality as a general concept is not necessarily bad, but no one should ever deny knowledge and accept conflicts of interest as eternal.  The day one denies his or her ability to be wrong is the day he or she loses his or her humanity.  Hatred should never be a rule, and neither should be condescension.  Much of popular culture thrives on, reinforces, and creates stereotypes, and by definition stereotyping is a bad thing.

In response to an other's post on the subject of social influence:

Media was the first thing that came to mind as an answer to the second question for me, too.  Much of popular culture is simply abhorrent and downright embarrassing.  From discouraging critical thinking to encouraging prejudice, it's often a mess of all of our worst potential with none of our good.  If aliens came to our country and analyzed and understood what our scholars provide for us separately from what our popular media provides for us, it would be like they were viewing two completely different societies, one searching for wisdom and the other throwing it away.

Ah, it's finally autumn again.  I mean- it came out of no where and I am suddenly lethargic and lazy as hell.  But when that's over, I'll be happy autumn is here- or it'll be winter.  Heavy clothes, hot cider and chocolate, German, Spanish, and Russian folk music, and a pulsating sense of nostalgia.  Reevaluation.  Weird dreams.  Tis the season to be Shyft!

This week's end I master a remix that DJ Istapp/Vanr did of a song off of the BlazBlue sound track and start a remix for DJ Counterforce's new release.  ...And write an essay about how little I have learned about linguistics over the past month...  Should be fun!

I can't for the life of me spill words upon the keys to express my self any more, but I'm sure that I'm only mildly less self-obsessed than I once was...  I considered sharing some dreams here, but they are too personal- not too personal to comfortably share, but too personal to make sense to just about any one but my self.  What's there to say?  I like to love and I love to fight.  I'm extremely sensitive and exceptionally resilient.  I trust others based on consistency of their actions, not by how attractive any bit of their mind or body might be.  I might be far more wild and spontaneous, if I am not aware that this matters.  I tend to hold grudges until redemption or a change of consistency which reflects the issue of conflict.  If you lie to me once, I will be offended.  If you lie to me many times, I will have simply learned to disbelieve you- no hard feelings.  I have trouble balancing my moods.  My passions are strong but conflicting.  I wish that I could simply pick one or two and go with them for a few years, but they have thus far failed to be inspired consistently for so long.  Some times I feel like there's no point in trying to contribute to some thing novel and just want to go back to sleep.  Some times I force my self to get out of bed, because my dreams are doing absolutely no thing for my sentimentality.  There.  I tried really hard.  Now for a rant, an observation, and some crude advice!

On language:

I find the in-between stage where children are using known words in strings that can be interpreted, but in an improper fashion, to be rather interesting. The meaning of their speech can be understood, but it is incorrect. This lack of rules is similar to some acceptable dialects of languages that are essentially the foundation language with broken grammar rules. Of course the lack of vocabulary is a factor, as well, but I wonder about how easy it is to distinguish children's English from simply a very lax English. How different is the grammar of the child spoken phrase 'mommy go', to mean 'my mother is leaving', from the grammar of the adult spoken phrase 'she fine' to mean 'She is attractive'? If we didn't know the context and the speaker, the distinction between 'stage of development' and 'dialect' might fade away.

Is black English or 'ebonics' a dialect?  Dialect can be used to point out very subtle differences, so, in that sense, sure.  'Dialect' can also refer to a group of similar languages that share the same ancestor (which is the definition to be used during the rest of this segment), and some people who think that the poor black masses need pity have elected this definition for black English.  In this same sense, is American English a legitimate dialect which contrasts United Kingdom English?  Some moron Americans who can't understand the British and Irish for what ever embarrassing reason seem to cast that implication.  Last year the DEA was apparently seeking out 'ebonics translators'.  If you need a translator, a means of speaking might be legitimately separate on these terms.  If you need a translator to communicate with black Americans speaking English, how ever, you are simply lacking in the problem solving department.  Is English Netspeak a dialect?  No.  It's just slang.  Would you snicker at a college class that teaches ebonics or Netspeak?  Yes.  You would.  If ebonics is a dialect, then every method of filling in the gaps of broken English used by those trying to learn a new language in a foreign land under a heavy accent from their native tongue is forming a new dialect.  I can understand every thing those ganstas in the ghetto are saying, and it's not because I have rigorously studied hip hop.

Let's consider the implications.  Shall we?  Black English is a acknowledged and respected as a dialect of American English.  You try to write a scholarly article using it.  It gets rejected outright from every relevant scientific institution.  Why?  Because its grammar and use of slang are outrageous.  A submission of this nature tends to have a very strict policy for the sake of understanding.  Most institutions relying on English as their primary vehicle of communication will only accept a very strict usage of English.  So this first example might be unfair, but it brings to mind a second example: if this is the case, and people who speak black English as a first language are incapable of writing scholarly articles, should we then be expected to offer college level classes that teach 'professional English' to black English speakers?  You might suggest the ordinary English courses available today, but- oh no!  They might not understand what is expected of them, because you're speaking a different language!  There are just as many white people in the United States who can't express their selves on a professional level of English, either.  It is not because they are speaking a different kind of English, it is because they are ignorant of many aspects of English.

Let's consider the history.  Shall we?  English has been growing and changing since its beginning.  Ye olde English from the bygone tymes is nearly impossible for most modern speakers to understand all of the way through.  One English has survived.  Black English words will never be immortalized in historical documents as a significant phase of the language.  It will not contribute to the future of the language.  Neither will 1337.  Do you want to know why?  No one has ever said any thing of any long term cultural significance using either of them to their fullest degree.  Black English and Netspeak are practically synonymous with ignorance and foolishness, regardless of out side bias.  It is a self inflicted association with a purpose of being so.  No matter how loosely you choose to use the word dialect, labeling black English in this way is only serving to segregate uneducated, black Americans farther from the rest of us.  Next you'll want to send them to their own schools, and eventually lock them away in caves under the ground.  We are all Americans and we share the same language, just like we share every thing else.  If there was some biological programming that forced every black person to speak a specific brand of English which was unaffected by regional terminology, and every other subtle change in speaking across the country was likewise set in stone for every one else, that might make a difference, but it's really not that hard to adapt to an accent and a few odd terms here and there.

A revised claim on being picky:

I have come to believe that there are three things that might keep some one from liking a song that they would otherwise enjoy: genre/style bias, familiarity, and mood. Since I am biased against hip hop and country, and generally any thing with an exceptionally whiny, nasal sounding vocalist, I tend to measure songs fitted to those categories and with that trait with great prejudice. If I am hearing a cool song for the first time, my mind is gauging it against cool songs that I have memorized and have a deeper appreciation for simply because I know the notes and words and can recall good times while listening to them. Finally, if I am in the mood for some thing energetic and violent, a soft, soothing ballad will lose its subtle intensity as it is taken up by my ears. Who knew enjoying a good tune could be so complicated? The 'six listens rule' ('you don't like it?  You'll never like it until after you've listened to it six times, any way'- it's sort of a joke trend that my brother and I devised) helps with familiarity and increases the chances that during at least one of those listens you will be in the appropriate mood to receive the song's emotion.

This can be applied to many things. Let's briefly take film, for example. I usually wish that they would leave sex scenes out of action movies, because a three minute sex scene is too brief for my mind to get out of 'I WANNA SEE SHIT EXPLODE AND GUNS GO BOOM' mode (disregard assignable innuendo to that phrase in quotes). It is possible for one mood to flow flawlessly in to the next, but all too often sensual nudity is just thrown in there with no regard to this matter, and I'm left almost feeling as though sex is a waste of my time, which isn't true at all! Thankfully, it is often easier to become attached to a film or a book than to a song, because I'll be damned, if I have to watch a movie or read a book six times before I am sure if I enjoy it or not.

On depression:

You look sad.  Kill your self}:

Been putting a shit ton of hours in to redesigning the Shyfted Minds site, what ever that means.  It should be ready by the end of the week.  Mainly lots of internal linking left to do.  I know that it's just a modified template on some one else's domain with a tk mask, and I know that it's not for profit, any way, so in the eyes of the kings of the scene I'm just an awkward kid with no real vision.  Jesus, man, have some empathy!  That makes you sound like a total cockass!

I want no thing more these days than to work my ass off on the "O" sound track and chill the fuck out in good company, but the battle rages on and on...  I rarely find my self with time to get a full work out in since I returned from vacation, and yet my muscle definition has continued to increase.  Not complaining.  Just confused.  Going to be making a new gabber album with K.H.D..  It's going to rock, but damn, I need to stop adding things to my list of things to do- or stop sleeping.  The remainder of this post is going to be rather lengthy and comprised of material that I typed else where and then edited to make sense in this context.  It's thoughtful.  You'll hate it.

On music classification:

Genre (of music, literature, film...), I think, was an idea simply to help people describe a thing that they liked. It is easier than explaining all of the details of any one song, and most people don't understand technical music lingo, any way. Now there are two problems with genre: many people act like they think that genre names are meant to describe how good the music is (for example, 'gabber is awesome but dub step sucks'), and people act like they need to create a new genre for every little innovation or cross over. Hey, have you heard that new female fronted melodic symphonic blackened deathcore/doom metallic neofolk band!? 

Nah, man. They sound too much like female fronted melodic symphonic blackened deathcore/doom metallic classical to me.

On 'futuristic' technology:

My greatest concern involving artificial intellegence, advanced robotics, and nanotechnology is that humans might not be mentally prepared for it.  The same goes for genetic engineering.  Humans have been trying to be their own masters for generations.  Humanity has been pretending to write its own destiny since it learned to write, and now that the means to actually begin to do it are in sight, millions are claiming that they would rather pussy out?  This is why the government is fucking us.  No sense of adventure!  More seriously, jobs are always erased and new ones are created as technology advances. Many rich individuals have always gotten a certain satisfaction from being distanced from the general public. That's no thing new. What else can be observed from history is that culture usually lags significantly behind technology. If people won't know how to appropriately react to practical human augmentation through the use of robotics and nanotechnology, if people are going to respond to artificial intelligence with anger and terror, there will be huge problems. The culture shock of revolutionary technology will be the worst during a time when all of the greatest acheivements will be morally and religiously charged, and these technologies will be, if the thinking of the general public does not change away from how it is now. Refusing to accept these new technologies will only have a more drastic distancing effect between those with and those without than we have ever seen before due to technology in any one nation.

On the subject of overpopulation, while on the one hand it seems cruel to prohibit breeding to any degree, that is the mentality that we have adopted from a time when overpopulation was not a considerable danger to our survival as a species. It probably seemed absurd to some people when we first imployed the use of traffic lights and speed limits, but as the streets became more and more populated with automobiles, regulations had to be put in place to prevent disasters. Some thing that should be rather obvious is that, in the past, we needed to produce many offspring because none of them had a very likely chance of survivial. Our system of breeding, if it could be personified for a moment, expected most of our children to die. Now overpopulation threatens the lives of our children again, leaving oversized but poor families to starve as the world's resources are drained too quickly. How can a state in which children are being born in to starvation and scarcity be better than one in which population is regulated to prevent such a catastrophe? Human beings have demanded more from their health, wealth, and ability to control the Universe around them since they first started to use tools and wear clothes. Human rights are a far newer concept. Either we have to curb our innovation, leading to disease running rampant and mass starvation leading to a sort of survival of the fittest among our selves that will keep our race going but on a much smaller scale, or we have to curb what we declare to be our rights. It sounds horrible when phrased that way, but, if we do no thing, the first scenario will inevitably occur, any way, when we run out of resources.

As George Carlin once pointed out, we have no rights.  There are no such thing as rights.  We invented them along with gods to make our selves feel better about the cold, uncaring nature of our unconscious Universe.  We make up rights to get things done, and we break down rights to get things done.  That's all.

As far as cybernetics and human bioengineering goes, the biggest problem in my mind is a similar old fashioned thinking. We have lost our humanity dozens of times in the past. Every time we simply adopt a new humanity. Humanity is a relative term and is meaning has changed with the adoption of new standards. Using it carelessly in ethics is foolish.

On 'big words':

I love a good thesaurus, but there's no thing that bothers me
more (you know, while I am observing it) than an inappropriately used
'big word'.  Many scholarly articles drive me to a ridiculous level of
frustration when they constantly over word things.  I keep telling my
self that I am probably too much of a simpleton to really appreciate
and understand their scholarly wisdom, but I certainly feel like they
are being pretentious on purpose just to flaunt their scholarly-ness.
When some one begins two sentences in a row with 'in other words' they
are officially a bag of douche.  If you are not locked in
conversation, limited by the other party's attention span, and you are
being paid by the thousands to write this damned article, you better
fucking put the effort in to it to say it right the first time.
Conversely, many large, uncommon words are not simply synonyms of
smaller words.  They are specific, and when I can find a use for them
it is usually after toiling over how to express an idea that has me
stuttering.  To find the right word in that situation gives me a silly
amount of satisfaction.

On choices:

The following rant is in response to a response to this article: http://www.giftedbooks.com/authorarticles.asp?id=7 .  The article has a silly looking title, but details a very interesting phenomenon that I am personally tormented by.  Basically, being aware of the reality of infinite choice is rather daunting.  I typed this one out with little thought, but, if you've read this far, you probably don't care.  Thanks for that.

The feeling of 'this is the right choice; there is no other' is one of
the best feelings I have experienced.  For many, I am sure, this
happens to them as a result of every damned decision they make, but
for /me/...  I am aware that there are limitless choices.  I know that
there is always a better choice.  I also know that refraining from
action until the best choice is plain to me is a colossal waste of
time.  The dangers of dedicating one's life to planning!  The man who
plans with care and precision at every turn does no thing.
Spontaneity can accomplish zero long term goals!

'Any learning is better than none.'  This is true, but hard to stick
to.  If I know that I can learn any thing (if I know that I can do any
thing), then the /best/ is included therein!  If I can come by the
best, then I /should/ come by the best.  Right?  And before I obtain
the best, I should obtain the knowledge to recognize the best.  In
order to do that, I first have to learn to recognize the study
required to recognize the best.  How do I do /that/, if I am now twice
removed from what I am really after!?  Even while I was reading this
email, I was wondering in the back of my mind how I might better spend
my time.  'Mike and I are very similar.  Why do I need to read his
ideas?  I probably already know them.'  And that brings me to a
related, but far more frightening question:

Why waste time surrounded by people that I can truly relate to, if I
may risk only simulating conversations with my self?  So, okay, that's
easy- I'll surround my self with people who /don't/ agree with me.
Wait, but- /what/?  Those people are WRONG!

It seems too black and white, but that's how it feels to me some
times.  I know that we're all just a bunch of complex machines- what
could we conceivably be, if not?  There is no magic in people.  There
are wonders only so long as there is misunderstanding.  My intellect
is teetering on the edge of my instinct.  My intellect does not
understand the benefit from using copious amounts of time trying to
make new friends, when all signs point to new friends being highly
unlikely to promote any sort of intellectual stimulation.  My
intellect does not understand using the presence of others as a form
of meditation, soothing that need to be social.  It just seems like a
waste of time.  I'm one year in to college and I already owe sixty
times the amount of money that I have ever held in cash.  Chilling
with friends doesn't pay back the government, nor does it help me
ensure that the money was well spent.  But what would I be doing, if I
didn't have to worry about money, didn't have to work, and didn't have
to go to school?  I would probably want to spend most of it with
friends- but after telling my self to curb my social needs for so
long...?  I would probably be seeking out even more impossible feats,
for fear that I am squandering my freedom.  The only thing keeping me
from getting too bent out of shape about the horrendous state of the
general public and its governments is the fact that I can tell my self
that I'm too busy to make a difference.  This is good, because /I can
not make a difference/.  I might kill my self trying, other wise.

I think that I'll just keep going, if I don't choose a place to stop.
I'm not going to proof read this, because I'll just find mistakes that
I'll feel the need to correct for paragraph after paragraph.  One last
point: I can't stand the idea of making money just to survive.  I want
to make money enough to do that and feel like I'm many more than one
step ahead of my dues.  You can't really know that you're going to
make that happen until you've gotten there, though, and I can only
imagine how horrible it would feel to wait it out only to die having
just barely survived all of your life.  If we may never get to truly
live, but can't know if we're going to fail until it's too late, how
can we be expected to logically go about making the best choices?

KABOOM FULL CIRCLE