Search this site...


---



• Recently Written

  • 100 Essential and Obvious Marketing Tips
  • The Blog Carnival of no Categories
  • Clear Proof that Past Lives Exist
  • The Japanese Tourist v. the Turkish Ice Cream Vendor
  • A Guy’s Real Fairy Tale
  • DaVinci’s Really Early Works
  • Hell – exothermic, or endothermic?
  • NSU Prinz 4 – My First Car
  • Your Tax-Dollar at Work – Bureaucrats
  • A Gotcha of the Canonical Tag

  Blog Carnival

• Categories

  • Activities
  • Art
  • Audio
  • Blog Carnival
  • Browsing
  • Computer
  • Creativity
  • Culture
  • Diary
  • Educational
  • Emotional
  • Fun Stuff
  • History
  • Ideas
  • Inspiration
  • Internet
  • Larken Rose
  • Marketing
  • Music
  • Philosophical
  • Politics
  • Reminiscence
  • Science
  • Snippets
  • Stories
  • Thoughts
  • Video
  • Weird
  • Wellness

• Blogroll

  • Charles Stross
  • Dictionary Evangelist
  • Engadget
  • Instructables
  • L – Studio
  • Ming the Mechanic
  • Onion News Network
  • Rick Mercer
  • TED
  • The Guild
  • The Sandorian Grove
  • Tom’s Hardware
  • Ysabella Brave

• Admin

  • Log in
  • RSS
  • Comments RSS

  Subscribe to

  

Don’t we sometimes (sometimes!) love these unsolicited e-mails we battle in our inbox every day?
This is one of them…

MEN RULES: Now here are the rules from the male side.
These are our rules!

Please note… these are all numbered “1″ ON PURPOSE!

1. Men are NOT mind readers.

1. Learn to work the toilet seat.
You’re a big girl. If it’s up, put it down.
We need it up, you need it down.
You don’t hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

1. Sunday sports. It’s like the full moon or the changing of the tides.
Let it be.

1. Shopping is NOT a sport.
And no, we are never going to think of it that way.

1. Crying is blackmail.

1. Ask for what you want.
Let us be clear on this one:
Subtle hints do not work!
Strong hints do not work!
Obvious hints do not work!
Just say it!

1. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

1. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That’s what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

1. A headache that lasts for 17 months is a Problem. See a doctor.

1. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 Days.

1. If you won’t dress like the Victoria’s Secret girls, don’t expect us to act like soap opera guys.

1. If you think you’re fat, you probably are. Don’t ask us.

1. If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of them makes you sad or angry, then we meant the “other one “

1. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

1. Whenever possible, Please say whatever you have to say during commercials.

1. Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.

1. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not A color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.

1. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.

1. If we ask what is wrong and you say “nothing,” we will act like nothing’s wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle, besides we know you will bring it up again later.

1. If you ask a question you don’t want an answer to, expect an answer you don’t want to hear.

1. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine…really.

1. Don’t ask us what we’re thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, the shotgun formation, or golf.

1. You have enough clothes.

1. You have too many shoes.

1. I am in shape. Round IS a shape!

Thank you for reading this. Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight; but did you know men really don’t mind that? It’s like camping.

Gurus are everywhere. We seem to need them, we seem to want them, they help us so much.

I could not help wondering – who makes all those gurus and do we really need them, or do they need us?

My first conscious encounter with a guru was a non-event. It was not somebody with a long white beard, like we usually depict GOD. He did not have these loving eyes that you want to sink into and give yourself up, and he did not even talk in a calm voice that soothes your soul. His name was Tom Thouw and he was the assistant at the chair of physics where I had just started my thesis.

He was such a non-guru but I surely believed the story he told me. He had been the heir of his uncle who was a master of Kung Fu. The real stuff, with philosophy and all, you know? After a difficult escape from Indonesia he ended up in Heidelberg, Germany where he studied physics and decided to put his heritage to good use. He founded a group to teach the real Kung Fu. It did not last long because he found that his students were not ready for it. How did he decide that? By the simple fact that they started to mold him into a guru.

Interesting viewpoint, isn’t it?

Compare that to many of the gurus you know around you in your life.

The phenomenon of guru-ism has always fascinated me and the field of study for me has always been very wide. There are so many gurus and followers around! Often in areas where we usually don’t call them gurus – medicine, politics, psychiatry – you name it.

Let’s look what the make-up of a guru is. Does he need to be wise and benevolent? Nope, look at George W. Does he need to be just and compassionate? No, look at Mr. Lafayette Ron Hubbards quote “If you worry about people, you never climb a steeple.” Does he need to have something to give?

Maybe here we have something. Stability seems to be a common gift of the guru to his following. It does not have to be correct or good stability, it just have to be stable.

And it has to be a stability that the followers still can understand, so it can not be too far away from what those followers consider obtainable. Like my friend Tom Thouw – he tried to give the stability of self-reliance. That must have been so far away from the reality of his followers that they just could not even grasp the concept. They fell back onto something they wanted to have – somebody who told them what to do and think – and this was just something this guru was not willing to give. I can only assume because he knew that this was not in either parties best interest.

All this is nice and dandy, but what can we learn from that and apply and use for our current condition?

I would say that, should we ever feel the urge to follow a guru, we look at the offerings of that guru, so attractive to us, and know what our next level of development (spiritual or otherwise) will be – or could – should we choose to go there. The guru shows us an obtainable goal as it is real to us in this situation.

Isn’t that neat?

It will be nice to know for the 55 million that were attracted by George W’s unwaivering stance that they will be able to reach this same ability to an unwaivering stance if they just work on it, and that they then will not need a George W. any more.

Or the person praying to his physician to heal him – he shows that he has the ability to do it himself because healing is real to him – he can understand that, it’s just that he does not trust himself enough to just do it alone.

Especially encouraging all the followers of spiritual guides – they all can not be too far away from obtaining what their guru is.

Imagine this!

In conclusion here the little information that there is a site that  collects all the data on guru’s and other spiritual and new-age subjects in a form of an online encyclopedia – it’s called the New-age Wiki, and can be – as we would expect from a wiki – edited by all it’s users and visitors.

Larken Rose again delivers a very clean view of the validity of laws and the need to follow them. We are talking here pretty much about laws against mala prohibita (according to Black’s law dictionary: Prohibited wrongs or offense; acts which are made offences by positive law and prohibited as such) in contrast to laws against mala in se (Wrongs in themselves; acts morally wrong; offenses against conscience.)

I could try to out-do Larken by giving my two cents but I think I would only distract from what Larken says so eloquently.

The only problem I have with Larken’s writing is its clarity and precision which is so far out of the reach of the regular – confused – person that it simply can not be understood. The problem of a huge gap between communicator and communicatee is easier to understand if we consider a difference in emotion.

A person in deepest grief can not relate and understand a person in the deepest state of bliss and vice versa – there just is no basis of common reality. This holds true as well for clarity. A person who is permanently confused will simply not be able to grasp a clear thought, just as the clean thinker has no reality about a deep state of confusion.

But then, we don’t need too many clear thinker to bring about change. In principle, if there is any validity to many of the great new (and old) philosophers, it is only necessary to change my own view of a subject or area. My view will determine its condition. So, yes Larken, you are definitely succeeding in helping me to change my view.

Now – without further ado – please welcome to the stage – Larken Rose!

Dear Subscriber,

Is it bad to break the law? Without thinking, almost everyone would say “yes.” (However, almost everyone could think of exceptions as well.) Note that the question doesn’t say what the “law” is–a “law” against murder or a “law” requiring you to have that little sticker on your license plate. The question is about “law” in general: is it bad to disobey the official commands of “government”?

The terms “law-abiding citizen” and “lawbreaker”–the first with a positive connotation and the second with a negative one–show how much we revere “law,” in and of itself. But what are we talking about when we speak of obeying the “law”? In short, we’re talking about politician scribbles.

A bunch of politicians got together, wrote down some command — either requiring us to do something or prohibiting us from doing something–and threatened some punishment for failure to obey. Every such “law” is a threat of violence: if you don’t do as you’re told, your property will be taken, or you’ll be locked up. It’s not a suggestion or a request; it’s a command backed by a threat of force.

Whether we call something “law” does NOT depend upon the nature of the command, or what it’s about. As long as it was created via the “legislative” process, we call it “law,” and we treat is as something which–except in rare situations–should be obeyed.

But why? How did I acquire an obligation to obey whatever command a bunch of slimy politicians might happen to come up with this week? How on earth can one say that it is good to obey the “law,” without knowing WHAT the “law” in question is? How can it be inherently good to obey a command, ONLY BECAUSE OF WHO GAVE IT, and not because the command itself is justified?

I’ve talked before about justified defensive force and the unjustified initiation of violence. So-called “laws” are ALWAYS threats of force, but they can be in either category: justified or unjustified. For example, I consider a threat like “If you try to steal my car, I’ll punch you in the nose,” to be justified. On the other hand, “Give me your car or I’ll punch you in the nose” is unjustified. But either one can just as easily be “legislated” into being “law.”

Again, the simple truth makes people uncomfortable: either politicians somehow have the ability to ALERT morality, or their so-called “laws” deserve no respect at all. Either they can, by legislation, make an inherently unjustified threat into a justified threat, or their “legislation” makes no difference to what is the right thing to do. (In most religions, even God doesn’t claim the ability to CHANGE what is good and what is bad from day to day, so apparently politicians outrank God.)

In short, respecting “law” is utterly insane. The fact that a threat went through the “legislative” process has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER upon whether the threat is justified, or whether anyone has an obligation to comply with the command. None. Zero. Nada.

The morality of murder does not change depending upon whether it’s “legal” or not. The morality of theft does not change depending upon whether it’s “legal” or not. The morality of hiring a kid to mow your lawn does not change depending upon whether it’s “legal” or not. The morality of having a beer, smoking a joint, eating a cheeseburger, driving a car, opening a restaurant, singing a song, building a deck, shooting a rabbit, buying a gun, selling someone a hat, or killing and eating your neighbors, does not change depending upon whether it’s “legal” or not.

In other words, what almost everyone calls “law” deserves NO respect at all. You should fear those commands, as they are backed by the very real threat of violence, which will be carried out by people who will “just follow orders” because of their belief in “authority,” but you have no MORAL obligation to obey. (Your moral obligation to refrain from murder comes, NOT from the fact that some “law” forbids it, but from such an act being an infringement upon the rights of someone else.) In other words, breaking the law is not bad (in and of itself), and obeying the law is not good (in and of itself).

Such concepts, though based upon very simple, basic, self-evidence lines of reasoning, make most peoples’ heads explode. We are so trained to bow to “authority” that when someone says we don’t have to, most of the indoctrinated peasants reflexively react with shock and horror at the suggestion. Why, there would be CHAOS if we didn’t respect “law”! Why? If people respected individual rights, but had no respect for politician scribbles, what would happen? Think about it, and see if you can come up with a rational justification for humanity’s authority-worship and fear of freedom.

Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com

(Whether a threat via “law” is justified or not is also NOT determined by whether the “law” is constitutional. Two pieces of paper–a constitution and a piece of legislation–cannot make immoral violence into justified force any more than ONE piece of paper can.)

A friend just told me about his trip to San Francisco. He mentioned that he went over the Golden Gate bridge twice and this reminded me of my first trip to SF.

Many many years ago I had been somewhere at the beach north of Santa Monica to enjoy the sunset. The night before I had had a conversation with my then room mate regarding spontaneous and unplanned actions, and so, when it was time to head back from the beach I remembered that conversation and just went the other way…

… and was in SF at one am. Had some food at a Dennis – Always Open, you know – talked to a Texan, was very proud that I understood what he said and then drove over the golden gate bridge before dawn, looked over the bay from Sausalito, drove once more over the bridge during sunrise and headed back to LA.

Was an interesting trip back because my good old ’79 Ford LTD Station Wagon (white) started to make trouble, used a lot of gas and I finally found some little leak of fuel at the gas pump. looked like I had lost a little screw there and so I just put a little plug in there and got home OK.

Found out the day after that I had been very lucky – there was no screw missing, but instead it was a safety hole to drain the gas in case the membrane of the gas pump was broken. By plugging that whole I had flooded the crank case with gas – oops! Could have easily blown up the whole engine – but then again, guess I had decided not to do that, didn’t I?

Funny how these little, insignificant events can come alive again.

Initially, when I saw these three images, I thought something like ‘COOL’ but when I thought again a bit later – like 10 seconds – I realized how weird this is.

There they are, soldiers in Afghanistan, nothing to do and getting bored. What do they do? That what they like best if possible. But I guess there are restrictions on what you can do when you are stationed in enemy land. You probably can’t really find a Michael’s to buy your art supplies even if you are an artist in urgent need for self-expression.

So, what do you do? – You use what’s available!

And what’s available to a soldier overseas in enemy country? Obviously things like planes and helicopters and paint and …

I guess this is how these birds were created.

I would prefer if they would come back home and do this on their own time and money, but then again, as long as they think they can not come home it might be better to waste some of my money than having them go insane over there.

The title of this post is supposed to create opposition – and I hope it does.

But unfortunately there seem to be quite some people who actually think so. Hearing his agenda you just have to agree that he would be a president with an agenda that could restore the US to its former freedom. The question is if the Wizards of Oz behind the  scenes will allow such a renegade to succeed or if they are actually so powerful that they can stop him.

I have always been wondering how all this works in politics with the obvious politicians and the hidden puppet-masters. I thought that once you get to a position of senator or even president you should be able to get an inner workings of politics. That for example that newly elected politician get a visit from some gentlemen to offer a good deal on his or her soul. In most cases it sure looks like that has happened.

But then there is somebody like Ron Paul who is in congress for many years, being re-elected so often and this guy does does not seem to get it how politics work.

One of the wildest things he did was his participation of Aaron Russo’s film “America, Freedom to Fascism” which must be really annoying to the slave masters. I really wonder why he doesn’t just have an accident or some unexpected and unexplainable heart failure?

Now back to voting: I sure hope that the idea of wasting a vote by selecting just the lesser of two evils instead of the voting for the idea we do like is on the way out.

Could not imagine anything better happening in America than Ron Paul as president.

Here’s a great example showing that school kids can be fast with lots of wits:

Teacher:	Why are you late?
Webster:	Because of the sign.
Teacher:	What sign
Webster:	The one that says, “School Ahead, Go Slow.”
-	-
Teacher:	Cindy, why are you doing your math multiplication on the floor?
Cindy:	You told me to do it without using tables!
-	-
Teacher:	Jo, how do you spell “crocodile?”
John:	K-R-O-K-O-D-A-I-L”
Teacher:	No, that’s wrong
John:	Maybe it’s wrong, but you asked me how I spell it!
-	-
Teacher:	What is the chemical formula for water?
Sarah:	H I J K L M N O!!
Teacher:	What are you talking about?
Sarah:	Yesterday you said it’s H to O!
-	-
Teacher:	George, go to the map and find North America.
George:	Here it is!
Teacher:	Correct. Now class, who discovered America ?
Class:	George!
-	-
Teacher:	Willie, name one important thing we have today that we didn’t have ten years ago.
Willie:	Me!
-	-
Teacher:	Tommy, why do you always get so dirty?
Tommy:	Well, I’m a lot closer to the ground than you are.
-	-
Teacher:	Ellen, give me a sentence starting with “I.”
Ellen:	I is…
Teacher:	No, Ellen….. Always say, “I am.”
Ellen:	All right… “I am the ninth letter of the alphabet.”
-	-
Teacher:	“Can anybody give an example of COINCIDENCE?”
Johnny:	“Sir, my Mother and Father got married on the same day, same time.”
-	-
Teacher:	“George Washington not only chopped down his father’s cherry tree, but also admitted doing it. Now do you know why his father didn’t punish him?”
Johnny:	“Because George still had the ax in his hand.”
-	-
Teacher:	Now, ! Sam, tell me frankly, do you say prayers before eating?
Sam:	No sir, I don’t have to, my Mom is a good cook.
-	-
Teacher:	Desmond, your composition on “My Dog” is exactly the same as brother’s. Did you copy his?
Desmond:	No, teacher, it’s the same dog!
-	-
Teacher:	What do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?
Pupil:	A teacher.

Hot topic on the blog-sphere is that incident where the BBC reporter yelled at a scientology interviewee and church of scientology publishes that video widely to show the world how bad an enemy that person is. Boing-boing reports that as Crybaby Scientologists call reporter a “terrorist”.

I mean I read about that last night – and cost me some hours because I got sucked into this YouTube vortex of interconnections – and watching the scene in question I did not really have the impression that Mr. Sweeney really lost it. Just watch the clip and look at the intermission where he calmly asks “Do you understand?” and then continues yelling.

Notice that the sound was muted just before he did this? I wonder what he might have said there. Maybe something like: “OK, now let’s see how yelling would work between two people – what effect that might have. If that would really increase understanding. But let’s not be so theoretical, I will demonstrate and you will tell me, if my yelling really increased your understanding – OK?”

In this context the yelling and the calm intermission would make a lot more sense. alledgedly

Something stung me…

The US house of representatives today passed a bill outlawing illegal domestic wiretapping by the government. Now government agencies are only allowed to access your private communications under terms of FISA.

This nearly blew my mind!

A bill to outlaw something illegal – how much weirder can it get with our government? I feel I want to say something and I stand here with my mouth open, something tries to come out (I mean word-kinda-stuff) but it just remains stuck in my throat. Becaue? I think there is nothing more to say.

Except maybe a reference to one of my very early posts on this blog -something about …. Government Employees.

Sometimes I run into old blog entries that are lost somewhere in some long forgotten blogs (even by Google) – and if they are still able to tell something, I take them an re-publish them here. This is one of them, originally written 7 Nov 2004 – and yes, it was I who photoshopped that image …

If this sounds offensive, please consider. From my point of view I only know that I exist and that is the only thing I can be sure of. OK, there are people out there that are not so sure about that but we are not going into that. Beside me I see a lot of people out there – from Osama bin Laden to George Bush (maybe that difference is not that wide but again this is not something I will get into here).

Now that person I am talking to – you – might just be a figment of my imagination – sorry if you indeed exist and if that is important to you.

That’s why in the beginning I suggested to assume that you exist. Starting from this premise you are now reading this blog and you might ask yourself if in fact the writer of this blog exist or if he is just a figment of your imagination.

Let’s now take the attention away from this writer of the blog and concentrate on you. You have lots of people in your world ranging from Mother Theresa to George Bush (now we finally have a bigger range).

Some of these people we love, some others we would prefer to not have in our world, but why are these undesired people there in the first place? If they are a figment of our imagination then we must have put them there. Just like the dream where the boogy man chases us – nobody but we ourselves put this boogy man there. For the dream we usually accept that premise, but often not so for what’s called the real life.

Now let’s look at the teachings all these gurus try to instill in you – you know this thing about the glass half full or half empty – the world-is-as-we-see-it thing. I know all these guys can be just figments of your imagination (possibly), but then it is you who try to teach yourself something. Why not listen to that – it might be right.

When you wake up and see the boogey man as what he is, I guess you usually forget about it within minutes and maybe laugh about it, but you will not get worried about him. Only if you don’t put him away, forget or laugh about him, he will get and stay important. You might even be afraid to go to bed the next night because he might come back.

Looks like you would create him by giving him importance, isn’t it?

So – why do you give the external boogey man any importance? Is he really that important to you? What do you need him for anyways? But I will not step on your toes, you will have your reasons, I suppose.

But now, let’s roll this back – what if you don’t exist? Don’t I have to ask myself all these questions?

Like …

Why do I have Bush in my life, and the IRS and crooked cops, and corrupt politicians? What the heck do I need them for?

PS: I found proof that all this is a figment of my imagination – Bush even teaches a foreign language to children, and that where others try to tell he can’t even read.

And here are the collected comments for that post (don’t want to loose those!)

9 comments

10 Nov 2004 @ 03:18 by Kathie Lynch @68.101.175.211 : Imagination?
I know we create alot of this ‘stuff’ cause we need a game. I was just pondering the ‘Bush’ win in the election today. I was thinking about why a dumb bunch of Americans would elect that yahoo into office again after what he’s done to make the world distrust us. And that’s putting it mildly. But instead of making it SO serious, which would make me the effect, I decided to actually feel some affinity for the guy. We created him in our lives, so why not look at the good points. He makes it a real challenge to unite the world, so we should thank him for making a real challenging game. After all, a thetan in good shape likes a good fight, right? A pusillanimous wimp is easy to beat, and who likes winning an easy game? The more challenging the game, the sweeter the victory. And if he’s just a figment of my imagination, boy, am I screwed!!:-)))

10 Nov 2004 @ 03:34 by ov : Bush met the challenge
met the challenge with flying colours. In just three short years he has united 5.5 billion people with his “with us or against us” speech. 5,500,000,000 people, that is a historical record. There has never ever been a single person that has come close to uniting that many people before.

11 Nov 2004 @ 22:58 by Dennis Dragomani @68.111.136.45 : I assume I exist as much as Santa does
It’s a lot of fun to witness the excited anticipation a child experiences when waiting for Santa. To the child, Santa is real. But this is merely a minor myth-within-a-dream. The big dream I wish to highlight here is the one that we call “the universe”. Do “I” exist? Heck, no. Do “you” exist, Gunter? Sorry,
but once again, the answer is no. The house you live in seems quite nice,
but “it” doesn’t exist. Please excuse “my” use of quotes around pronouns,
but pronouns by their nature denote separateness, and separateness is what the dream is all about. And it all seems quite real. Am I certain of these assertions? Of course not. The nature of the dream is such that certainty is but an illusion, until the moment we awaken ourselves, and now no longer subject to time, know that You/I/Everyone is God.

12 Nov 2004 @ 04:27 by Ge Zi @24.127.146.67 : I knew there was something wrong with me
… but now I at least know what it is – “I” don’t exist – darn!
But – Dennis – well said – thanks.

12 Nov 2004 @ 21:41 by ming : To Exist or Not Exist
Yeah, I suspected there was something wrong with you, Gunter. Now it is clear: You don’t exist. I thought something was missing.

But, seriously, yes, me too, the only thing I can be sure of is that I exist. Others are not so lucky.

And if we play with the interesting thought experiment that others don’t really exist, or rather that their temporary roles don’t, then it makes things have different meanings. Like, if we pretended that it was all just characters in a movie. We laughed, we cried. There were good guys and bad guys, and good&bad guys. Things get blown up, people die, etc. But we know it is just a movie and just good effects and good or bad acting. We know that nobody really got hurt and it was all just an act. So we’re not seriously dismayed about the bad stuff that happened, and we take the good things with a grain of salt too. What matters then is not any irreversible events in the movie itself, but what it makes us feel like afterwards. What are we taking with us?

So, we might look at life in a similar way. It is not the events themselves that are terribly serious, but what is important is what it does for us, what process it takes us through, and what we take with us.

For that matter, if we assume that all the actors are basically immortal, even if their roles aren’t, then the only stuff in the long view that is really important is the stuff we take with us and how we have evolved from it. The props and the roles and the studios don’t last for more than a blink of an eye anyway.

12 Nov 2004 @ 22:14 by ov : To influence or simply observe
now that is the question. If one is to simply witness then why incarnate, why not watch from the box seats with the unobstructed view, wouldn’t feel the grief, couldn’t be controlled, the ultimate lurker. So what is the point of playing the game? To engage in a bit of sex. To influence the outcome. Can’t see the former being worth the grief that goes along with it, and the latter seems too futile to be worth the frustration. But heh, I wouldn’t have known for sure unless I incarnated at least once.

I liked that part in Vanilla Sky where Kurt Russel is protesting that he is real when everybody in the audience knows he’s not.

www.simulation-argument.com is just as valid as any argument given for the existence of god, and in a simulation you can be God. If you were given the option of being god, and living forever, with the only catch being that you would have to download to silicon, would you take it?

12 Nov 2004 @ 23:48 by hgoodgame : Kurt Russell, Vanilla Sky?
Sorry ov, but I believe that was Tom Cruise unless you’re referring to a different movie?
By the way, he was real, it’s the audience that’s an illusion.

12 Nov 2004 @ 23:58 by ov : Yup
In the Vanilla Sky movie Kurt Russell played the psychiatrist Dr. Curtis McCabe. The audience I was referring to were those in the theatre watching the movie, or those sitting at home on their coach watching the VCR; I was one person in the audience and whether or not I’m an illusion is kind of what this thread is all about now isn’t it.

13 Nov 2004 @ 00:58 by ming : Why am I here
Yeah, I’m just here for the sex. Well, no, I don’t think it makes the game not worth playing just because it isn’t really, really real. Because it IS really real, for one thing. The effects are amazing. It is just that we might end up taking it all a little too damn serious. And we might forget who we really are. Watching TV isn’t as good as actually taking the ride, with all the sensations and adventure that goes along with it. This stuff has to be experienced. But it only becomes better by still remembering who we actually are. At least occasionally. Yes, I think I already have taken the option of living forever. Or, for that matter, it was never really an option. It was an option to occasionally forget about it, in order to experience the thrill of life on the edge.

keep looking »