Resisting Existential Nihilism

As someone who has spent most of their life working with computer code, I'd be extremely suspicious of anything that didn't come with bugs! ;p

Yes, I'm an advocate of Darwin theory. But that theory still has a logic to it's function. Guess what a computer program is... yup, logic. And logic can & does embrace randomness*. Anything can theoretically be calculated & predicted - you just need access to all the variables involved... and that's the tricky bit.

*Randomness in computing circles is an interesting side-topic, insomuch as it's (a) very hard to produce a truly random sequence & (b) it's even harder to prove that a given sequence is truly random. Essentially, you're dealing with an infinite string of numbers. Which also means, we have no way to categorically prove that randomness in nature/the universe is truly random...

As for rogue (or benevolent) aliens being the source of life/universe/everything? It's a distinct possibility. But, who/what created those aliens?
Must have been a pan-galactic white mouse called Benji...

Gosh, this is fun!

Amicus, you can't have it both ways. The fact that the galaxies' movement in the universe is increasing is a giant white elephant in the room that scientists are desperate to explain away with "dark matter" and now, the newest buzzword they invented, "dark energy," all because it flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So of course, there must be some mysterious energy or matter at work rather than the scientific community admitting that Einstein got it wrong in that one aspect (which is why he first invented, and then later lamented, the Cosmologic Constant to account for errors in his calculations).

Here's the thing: the De Broglie-Bohm model of physics accounts for literally everything in the universe as entirely deterministic--meaning that if you know the pilot wave function of the particle in question (or the system, in a mathematical sense), you can trace it backwards through time to determine it's origin. The beauty of the De Broglie-Bohm model is that while it looks backwards through time, and can be used to predict future movements, it still allows for "randomness" due to quantum flux at the exact moment that now becomes the past, which is where my theory fits in.

All of this is because our universe is bound between two poles, poles that have many names. This duality is present throughout the entire universe, and is a hallmark of our binary, holographic nature. Bohm proved the "whole in every part" nature of the hologram we live in, which is why Lashley's experiments on rat brains produced the results they did.

I see all of humanity and it's struggles as though from a single organism made of constituent smaller parts--just like everything else in the universe--and each particle contains all the information of the whole--so a single red blood cell contains all the information of the whole via DNA, just as in a holographic photo, one microscopic slice of the film is enough to display the entire hologram.

And under current, Einsteinian physics, the universe's motion, i.e., kinetic energy (remember that one from high school? lol), is increasing and will lead to the stars being too far apart for gravity to affect them any longer, billions and billions and billions of years in the future. Which means everything will go cold and dark unless mankind figures out a way to move whole stars and galaxies and tow them closer together to keep them from flying apart.

But we know that is incorrect, thanks to my application of the Banach-Tarski theorem to four dimensional space-time instead of the surface of a sphere, which the De Broglie-Bohm model predicts is correct. That means that if there becomes a void that is unfillable, energy will quantum tunnel from the underlying layer of reality that we cannot perceive directly to fill it in a never-ending cycle of creation/entropy. And since energy can never be destroyed nor created, merely change phase, that means that the whole in every part aspect of Bohm's work proves that human consciousness is eternal. That energy is unique to each person, who through the office of choice and chance steers the probability cascade of the universe, just as any intelligent force would act upon that system to effect change.

We ride a probability wave-front in the absolute here and now, and every zero space-time interval that goes by gives us new probabilities to choose from.

As the late Douglas Adams once said, Nothing is impossible, only highly improbable.

To me, Amicus, it sounds like your are describing existentialism and not nihilism. You seem to indicate personal responsibility in establishing your own sense of reality and the vigorous challenge of given your life (Life) meaning. This brings to mind Viktor Frankl's work, which could be thought of as existential psychology. I think of nihilism as that which, among other things, became a movement and the cause of a suicidal epidemic in Russia in the decade before its bloody Revolution. Nihilism equaling NO. Your YES reminds me more of the YES of existentialist Paul Sartre. He was extremely engaged with life.


I don't believe I (personally, in this thread) attributed nihilism with fear. I prefer eternalism but frankly eternalism has caused me a lot of problems, and I think may just be camouflaging an adjustment disorder and maybe even an avoidant personality disorder. I may even be a nihilistic at heart! I appear to enjoy religion and other systems more for the factor of community (always chasing that dopamine rush!) than "membership" earned by sharing a common belief. For instance, when I go to a Catholic service I refrain from reciting their belief credo - which is an integral part of the service. I simply choose not to.

The storylines I refer to are not simply religious or philosophical beliefs...but much more...all the continuous experiences that make up one's life. "Stories" about love, friendship, ownership, work, sex, humor etc. etc. etc. Life. For instance, there is my story of parenting. This story creates a tapestry of beliefs simply by existing.

My adult child is a source of great pleasure. He has always been a person I find to be extremely interesting, creative, productive, and loving. It seems like a "happy coincidence" that he was born to me. This "storyline" is that I had this marvelous human being who has kept me amused, astonished, and inspired since the moment of his birth. I never had a storyline about legacy or a heavy-handedness about being a parent or anything like that. My child represents pure joy. Not that I didn't have the usual parenting challenges,but all in all, just that this person came into my life...well, it is my amazing story. The down side is he is incredibly independent and doesn't live or work even remotely geographically near me...and this contributes to my depression.


Marriage was a storyline, and so was divorce, and also dealing with depression, which now I have come to believe I have suffered from since adolescence. Creativity is an ongoing storyline...which is my own rebirth myth. Nothing to do with religion.

I also watched that film The End of The Tour. Marvelous. I have not read DFW's books (I mean to) but I did read a piece he wrote on depression for a magazine (Esquire?) and it was so spot-on and brilliant I have reread it several times. It is sad he committed suicide when his medication stopped working for him. It makes me really question (as always) the role medication therapy has in perpetuating depression over a lifetime. But that's another thread.

I am not presently medicated for depression. I originally came onto this forum because after a lifetime of being freely prescribed diazepam (Valium) I could no longer get the script, and was confused as to the reason. I suppose I WAS addicted to Valium as it damped down my anxiety - which I consider the core of my depression. I did not have withdrawal symtoms -- but my anxiety escalated and quitting smoking and drinking probably also heightened my anxiety -- all of which I got help with on this forum and for which I am grateful.

I learned about all the medications people are prescribed - from this forum...but I have taken a pretty strong stance on holistic healing modalities, although since I keep going through pretty severe depression, is a challenge.

I am sorry is I am misinterpreting how you are using the work nihilism. But maybe I am not.


I am even beginning to think I may be an existential nihilist. I am certainly a skeptic. And many people have described me as stoic. In fact, I have had a very difficult time getting any kind of help because I seem to be viewed by others as extremely self-contained. I have become socially isolated and squirrely! So what better place to seek solace than Psych Central!!!

I have not been silent by choice. It was an out-crop of the social isolation...which I have been unable to make sense of.


I will continue to follow this thread because I am interested in how people are using the terms nihilism and existentialism. But why I keep jumping in the pond and swimming with the big daddies is a mystery!!!

PS I didn't mean to cut off your James Joyce quote...it just happened.

Haha, I ALSO misspelled altar boy although now I think "alter boy" might be more apt!

I already apologized, too, for misspelling altar boy! Crazy, but I think the mind works differently when pouring out posts...it doesn't care about correctness...just wants to get the message down.

I read elsewhere about you and your '68 Mustang. One of the hottest guys I ever dated had a vintage white Mustang with a red interior. It seems silly, in retrospect, to be ashamed of any sensual experience, unless it caused harm to someone. I was recently going through a shoe box of old photos and was pretty amazed I had so many boyfriends. It made me think, "Did I ever go through life as an individual?" -- but I do not, in any way, regret the boyfriends. They are all amazing in their own ways.


In terms of world history I consider that everyone is my contemporary NOW...so I don't really get into "back them" and "now," - and anyway, some things are better. Take off those nostalgic rose colored glasses, Amicus. Be hopeful NOW.

Come to my house for pink champagne. I love how you write even when I don't understand all of it. Your message is inherently positive. There is a positive under-current. Cause for celebration.

You want to know something really off the wall, bat-**** crazy, that proves we are evolving specifically to recognize patterns?

Scientists have found cave paintings in caves that have never seen any light whatsoever. Not even by fire. Only way to get to them is to swim a long distance underwater. These paintings are always of geometric lines and patterns. Anthropologists and psychologists have theorized that in pitch blackness like that, it acts as a sensory deprivation tank and causes auras, or "hallucinatory" geometric swirls and waves to appear (though I now begin to wonder if it's not more the pineal gland--the third eye--opening a bit when the noisy consciousness quiets down, allowing us to perceive deeper into reality?) in our visual cortex area. This has also been reproduced in said deprivation tanks under controlled conditions. This is not a new phenomenon.

Tell me, what evolutionary purpose is there in the amygdala being able to take over the visual cortex in the absolute absence of light to force such hallucinations to occur? Interestingly enough, the KGB and CIA have been able to demonstrate that the eyes can become accustomed to perceive near-infrared and near-ultraviolet radiation at the edges of the visual spectrum. Nature does everything for a reason, ladies and gentlemen. Nothing in evolution is done willy-nilly; when a new pattern emerges, there was a reason for it, and a purpose.

And Einstein's spooky action at a distance, i.e., quantum entanglement, has been proven so conclusively that there is no debate anymore. I begin to wonder if these oddities of reality aren't deliberate, almost like a cookie crumb trail for an intelligence to follow...? If the universe really was designed by some outside force, then surely it's a test for us to see who can figure it out first? If not, the coincidences are piling up higher and higher.

I think by directly harnessing that through quantum computing, we are going to take a dramatic step forward in technological progress because a quantum computer could be programmed with every mathematical and physical law of the universe that we know of, and easily figure out the unified field theory. The problem will be whether or not we can handle that knowledge? Do we have the wisdom to handle knowing all the answers? Make no mistake, quantum computing will allow us to tinker with the base code of the universe. In twenty years or less, quantum computing will become reality, and we will quadruple our scientific progress from the last five hundred years in the span of single lifetime. These computers are able to sift patterns from chaos because they see all probabilities--simultaneously--due to the nature how quantum entanglement works in a holographic/fractal universe.

Which means...I was right??!

Marvin,

Who-wee! Where to start?

I was a very occasional Basic coder in the early 1980’s and a C+(+) coder in the mid-late 1980’s (exchanging code, always crashing, with the Knoll boys — stunned that they were able to separate and display individual RGB channels — long story) so I’ve a very limited experience with programming.

You’re right — I’ve yet to find a program without an enormous number of bugs! I would say that bugs defy logic when even the very best debugger returns clean coding — but the debugger is always wrong, too, defying logic, errant tasks being the result. (Yes, I recognize that we’re speaking of two distinct types of ‘logic’ — just play along and humor me?)

In re Darwinian evolution: Because we’re unable to predict mutation, we see logic in the process only after evolution has occurred. If there were any logic in evolutionary biology, we’d be able to predict logical outcomes… but we can’t. Evolution occurs in the minute mutations of a species, in a randomness inherent in each individual creature, dependent upon variables rather than consistencies. Even at a distance, we’re flummoxed when we find feathers upon dinosaur remnants and we’re forced to reevaluate forgone conclusions that defy the logical inferences of 10-minutes-past.

So I’ll leave programming logic in the dust for the moment and focus upon the reasoning beyond reason that are so crazily random in maths and sciences.

Does that make sense?

You have to remember that debuggers were usually written by the bugge... er... highly qualified professionals responsible for the bugs to be debugged by the buggy debugger.

Another interpretation of this is that the reason we are unable to predict these mutations is because we do not know the pilot wave function because we are not looking at evolution from a De Broglie-Bohm standpoint, which renders everything in the universe as deterministic; if you know the pilot wave function, you know the exact position and velocity of any particle not being observed.

So it is in nature; just because we cannot see the Pattern, doesn't mean that nature acts randomly. Rather, it means that nature is operating according to as-yet-unknown principles, following a pattern beyond our comprehension.

This is what I must cling to as the pillars of reality and existence; without it, everything is relegated to chaos and nothing we do matters whatsoever beyond what it means to us on a selfish level. Perhaps the greatest clue to the fact that there is something beyond this universe is simply the fact that it follows such a complex tapestry of physical laws--in a logical progression.

Order does not rise from entropy. Heat does not rise from a cold universe. These are the universal truths I have to believe to resist that despondent fear called existential nihilism.

While I agree that black is by definition a color, science deems it to be otherwise: Black, technically, is the absence of color. I still find this a strange concept because growing up I did a lot of painting plaster and the more colors I added to a paint mixture, the more like black it became.

As far as thinking of void in such 'stringent' terms, that's my OCPD for you. Rules are rules, logic is logic, and that is all. (Honestly, though, I should reconsider things because my reliance upon rules and logic is getting worse and worse the more I try to better my psych symptoms.)

And don't think you're so alone with the odd word associations. My entire life is an amalgamation of odd word associations. The first thing that comes to my mind when I hear the word 'void' is a voided check. (I can never keep straight in my head the numbers on a check that are the routing vs. account numbers... Thus I have a check in my wallet that has VOID written on it and then color-coordinated brackets labeling which set of number is which.)

I think the past, present, and future are equally important. I tend to see things a bit differently though -- I'm a historian at my core, my OCPD + anxiety are obsessed with the future, and my psych therapy is all about the here and now.

The past is important because we wouldn't be the people we are now without our past experiences. Also, consider that every other country in the world finds history an important school subject to study, whereas the USA deems it almost unnecessary. (This is why I hate American history, because we NEVER learn our lesson and just make the same stupid mistakes that others have made in the past.) Other countries are right, though: If you learn from the past, you can avoid making the same mistakes and learn better approaches/ways to deal with events.

The future is important because we need to plan for it and set certain things in motion in order to have a good future. A simplistic example would be going to school. You know you need at least some sort of academic instruction (minimally learning to read and write) in order to succeed later in life. Much of what we do is in consideration of the future. Even buying groceries or working a job are done in advance of having food to eat and having money to pay bills.

What therapy is trying to teach me -- and I'm not so good with learning -- that you have to live in the present otherwise you'll never be happy. If you don't live in the here and now, you'll never reach a single goal because it'll just be a stepping stone for the next goal. You'll never win, you'll never succeed at anything, and you'll never be happy. Honestly, I've been living for the future for so long that I've truly forgotten what it feels like to be happy so now I'm having to re-learn that. For example: I didn't even realize watching my adorable cat sleep contently with her tongue sticking out (which she does when she's happy because she lost some of her teeth from malnutrition before I got her) made me feel happy until my therapist pointed it out.

So all 3 are really important.


I think both you, Michael2Wolves and marvin_pa, are a bit off on their perspective on this one and the reason is straight out of a therapy session: The world isn't black/white, right/wrong, good/bad; the world is full of shades of gray. People are not entirely good or bad, people don't always make the right choices or the wrong choices. I'm saying this but I'm still trying to learn it myself -- and maybe by saying it here I'll help reinforce the idea in my head -- but it is true. I think I'm a good person but some of my decisions/actions in my life haven't been the best (most notably trusting a family member who embezzled from me and keeping them in my life after finding out about it). So am I a bad person for this? I don't think so.


Fear may be proof that you're alive but it is no less exhausting.

Then isn't this your answer to the question What is the purpose of life?


My mind is constantly either spiraling or playing connect the dots so it's kind of nice to know that it happens to other people too.

While I understand the concept of a moral compass, the uber literal-ness in me hates the term because it makes no sense in my mind. What I'm finding, though, is the concept that EVERYTHING exists on a spectrum of one thing or another. So yes, I agree that in order to define what is 'good' you must also define what is 'bad' (as much as it sucks). But I'll say again, as I have in other posts, things aren't simply black/white, right/wrong, or good/bad; the world is full of grey, hence my insistence of good vs. bad on a spectrum.

And you're not alone in feeling stupid with amidst some of these posts. I'm still putting my two cents in even though a fair bit of the science and math is over my head.... That's why most of my posts are more based on history and psych therapy.

It's not that I feel that black/white, positive/negative, etc., are choices within us, I'm saying that at a fundamental layer of reality, there is a binary nature of positive/negative, and those two poles define our reality in that we exist in a spectrum between the two.

It's the same thing with gravity. Whether I believe gravity is caused by quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space-time, or whether I believe it is caused by gremlins, the result is still the same--it exists outside of my human interpretation. Nature indicates this binary quality is present throughout the universe; I am merely trying to interpret it so I can properly judge my position within the cosmos.

The fact that this binary nature has come out in human expression is no surprise. Humans reflect the ineffable qualities of nature on a grand scale; thus, we need those polar opposites on a purely psychological level because without them, we have nothing to give reference to our existence, and that leads to chaos and despair.

I take a Strong Anthropomorphic Principle position as defined by Barrow and Tippler, where, "The Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in its history." This consists of three core tenets:

1. There exists one possible Universe 'designed' with the goal of generating and sustaining 'observers'.
2. Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being.
3. An ensemble of other different universes is necessary for the existence of our Universe.

Now, I take this to mean that the 5th dimension required by the Kaluza-Klein theory is a scalar field of potentiality, and as soon as that potential becomes solidified into either a yes or a no (or 1 or 2, is or isn't, etc.) at the zero space-time interval point, it transforms by some as-yet unknown function into reality of the four dimensions. Moreover, the KK Theory supports a quantum scalar field through the entire universe, and when viewed in the light of the De Broglie-Bohm theory, proves that while the universe is binary, existing between the past and the future, humans are unique in that we ride a sort of wave front of probability in the here and now, existing between the two poles on a spectrum. This exists at the quantum "froth" level, which is actually the hyperplane of the present in the form of an eternal sine wave fractal. This probability cascade has been occurring since the big bang, and will compress and turn into a singularity and become the big bang of the next universe, per the Conformal Cyclic Model of Roger Penrose.

Either that, or my cheese has slid completely off the cracker and I'm out of my mind. lol

I agree... for the most part... ish. I think there are a few types of depression: There is a type of depression based on sadness, such as a reaction to someone's death, albeit this type is temporary. Then there's the depression that is straight out of the DSM -- it's this type of depression that I agree 100% with you about. Another type, which seems to be disregarded by doctors, is existential depression. I've been struggling with this one for the last year and I guess I haven't explained it sufficiently to my doctors. It's probably tied to one of the Borderline Personality Disorder-esque symptoms I have but my identity as a person has always been tied to my job... So last September, when I came to the conclusion that I was done being a teacher, I realized that I didn't know who I was if not a teacher. It's not sadness, a lack of enthusiasm, or apathy... It's more like I'm a puzzle with half of the pieces missing. I feel like I don't know who I am.

I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with the idea that depression is self-centered. Depression is a perspective on life. I've equated it -- accurately so, according to doctors and others suffering from it -- with looking at the world through rose-colored glasses, only instead of it being rose-colored the glasses are darkened. Rather than label it with a specific color, since it varies from day to day and from person to person, I refer to it as looking at the world through depression glasses.

I've been dealing with depression for a good 18 years and it was created by the combination of the situations in my life -- I was parentified after my father's death (which in itself set me up for failure); my mother was so focused on my brother that nothing I did was ever good enough to get her attention; and I was suffering with recurring painful migraines, often accompanied by vertigo, that I could only get relief from by sleeping.

The above colored the way I look at life, it changed my perspective on things, but in no which way do I see me being self-centered in any of that. In reality, I'm as far from self-centered as can be. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to put myself first, even to my own detriment. It's very OCPD of me, since I saw it as a rule and no one ever told me the rule no longer applied until it was too ingrained in my personality, but I took on my role as a parentified child and extended it from caring for my brother to caring for others. I didn't even realize it wasn't normal to put others' needs so far before my own until I was in college, when my RA found out about my living situation and forced me to change dorms because my "living situation [was] a hazard to [my] health." (I was caring for a mentally ill roommate by locking up sharp objects, doling out her medication, hiding the alcohol, and following her around when I was told {i.e., lied to} that she was released from being Baker Acted into my care).

So again, I cannot disagree strongly enough with the idea that depression is a self-centered disease.

Necessity certainly is the mother of invention! The Ancient Egyptians are credited with creating geometry (which I abhor) to create their pyramids, which had to be done precisely. But even then, the very first Egyptian "pyramid" was actually a mastaba (think of the bottom layer of a step pyramid):



The Egyptians got the idea from the Ancient Mesopotamian's ziggurat (a shrine). After the mastaba came the step pyramids and then the smooth-sided ones we typically think of as a pyramid.

And you mentioned the Romans and resurfacing, which reminds me of the fact that the Ancient Romans were the first to create an underground plumbing system. Their plumbing helped their society avoid a lot of a dysentery problems that -- because their invention was ignored/unknown for a LONG time -- caused innumerable deaths over the centuries.

Umm, not quite, although the general ideas are right. The pharaohs and royals of Egypt, along with their priests, were treated as gods among men because they were the only ones who were believed to be able to communicate (rather, get answers from) with their gods. (Side note: It doesn't always make sense to me because often the royals turned to the priests to better interpret the signs from their gods.) The royals stayed in power because it was passed down from father to son and a royal could only marry another royal to keep the bloodline pure... And, disturbingly, that often meant siblings marrying one another. (Example: Cleopatra married both of her younger brothers, killing each one when their decisions differed from her own.) After the Alexander the Great's reign, during which time there were no royal families, the last dynasty was established because when he died, his territory was divided amongst his trusted generals and Ptolemy, a general who claimed some blood relation to Alexander the Great, was given Egypt (including current day Sudan). As the Egyptians loved Alexander the Great, they accepted the Ptolemy dynasty... And so they reigned until Cleopatra's death, which, because she was married to a Roman, made the Romans think they were entitled to take control over Egypt.

Anyway.... Knowledge was very much considered power, which is why mundane people were strongly discouraged from becoming literate. Very few people were actually literate in Ancient Egypt: Scholars, scribes, and priests, obviously, but not all royals were literate. (Actually, if I remember right, very few royals were literate, hence the need for scribes.) Scribes were looked up to by the masses but not really given the full credit they deserved by the people dictating what to write. Scholars were seen as all-knowing and revered even by the royals. The Egyptians were seen as the hub of all knowledge as they had a university and the Library of Alexandria. When the Romans took control, they took away the Egyptians' knowledge/power by destroying the Library of Alexandria. So much knowledge was lost when they burned down the library; all historians agree the library's destruction was a tragedy.

As far as predicting floods, the scholars did the best that they could and they generally did a good job predicting the Nile's flooding but... Well, the closest equivalent I can think of is a meteorologist's prediction of the hourly weather in Florida. (We get a lot of comments like "It's raining? Give it 5 minutes and it'll stop.") Like I said, the scholars did the best they could and were pretty good with when the Nile would flood but predicting how much it would flood was a totally different question.



100% true. We are affected and/or limited by our language. I believe it's the Japanese and Swedish who have words for colors that we English speakers can't equate. I remember reading a news article (actually, I've read a few) about words in other languages that don't equate in English, single words that take multiple English sentences to explain.

Also, I'm fluent in American Sign Language (and quite familiar with Deaf culture) plus I have some hearing loss so the concept of language affecting our perception of reality has a whole different meaning for me. Talking and explaining things in 3D, sometimes drawing pictures in the air... When I'm signing, it's like it completely changes everything around me, I see things so differently. One technique I've learned to use when my mind is running 1000mph in all sorts of directions is to start signing what I'm thinking. I may look like a crazy person to people who don't recognize it as sign language but it helps a LOT. I'm forced to slow the thoughts and really be able to explain them. It's amazing how changing languages and perspectives (from a spoken to a visual language) affects you.



I know you meant this in a mathematical sense but I believe this is also true of human behavior.

People argue that there is no such thing as "normal" -- and if this assumes that there is one baseline that is considered "normal" then I agree. However! I know I'm guilty of this, and I know a lot of other people are too, but I use the word "normal" to mean typical or common. Regardless, it goes to show that there is a pattern, a commonality, amongst peoples' behavior.

I'm told I'm good at finding patterns and connections between things so I'm actually trying to use this pattern finding to help me improve my psychological issues. Heck, just the other day I flat out asked someone what their typical reaction to stress was so that I may be able to modify their coping skill to become useful for me.

So, yeah... Finding behavior patterns to figure out how "normal" people act... Maybe it'll allow me to blend in a bit better.

All units of measurement -- be it time, space, mass, whatever -- are all man-made constructs and affect our perception. Pretty much every country in the world except the US uses the metric system... We use our own measurement system. Calendars -- you have the Julian and the Gregorian calendars plus other religious ones. I'm not too familiar with religions but I know that the calendars used by Jewish people and Muslims cause their holidays to fall on different days every year. (When I was growing up, it drove me crazy that Hanukkah would sometimes overlap with Thanksgiving and sometimes with Christmas. As I got older and my mother adhered to her faith less, there were times where we wouldn't even realize it was Hanukkah until the 2nd day.) Anyway, all forms of measurement are human constructs and therefore variable.

I think that one thing that also defines depression, is the susceptibility of those individuals that it affects, to being affected - not only the way/type of effect that is caused. Whether it's chemical, environmental, genetic, something else, or a combination - there must be factors that determine why depression manifests itself in different ways, in different people.

By self-centered, I took amicus' comment to mean influenced by factors within the self (individual susceptibility again), rather than any implication of conscious choice - those depression glasses are unique to each, because of that influence.

Auras... Please don't laud them because experiencing them SUCKS! (I get migraines with auras... As did Lewis Carroll, who, as commonly suggested, wrote "Alice in Wonderland" based off the auras he experienced.) Auras aren't just visual -- they can affect any of your senses. The worst aura I experienced involved losing half of my field of vision to sun spots (you know, like if you stare at the sun too long and then look down) and half of my fingers on one hand going numb.... I was in the middle of teaching a lesson but I somehow managed to completely hide from my kids that anything was wrong.

While there are different causes for auras, I can promise you that in the case of a migraine with aura, it does NOT allow you to see deeper into your consciousness. Mine are triggered by stress so it's definitely NOT my consciousness quieting down. It's more like it's overwhelmed and it becomes the blue computer screen of death in need of rebooting.


IF YOU FIGURE OUT THE EVOLUTIONARY PURPOSE OF AURAS, PLEASE SHARE. Regardless of whether the aura is caused by an absence of light or as it relates to migraines, please share. I absolutely ABHOR these wretched things and I'd give my left leg to stop these freaking auras.

Disregard I'm just a ghost, I was in the process of extracting information from this user's ancient posts this place gives me the creeps with predictable posts relating to to New age spirituality/mystictism or the "I believe in evolution you know the THEORY of the survival of the fittest. However I believe humans are all equal. We cannot breed better or worse humans, only animals can do that!" type of nonsense.

As imagine that half the people here are psycharists and social workers emulating patients while the other half are actual victims of expolitation some type of social engineering experiment designed to justify a soft science which has it's principles based derived from ancient occultism.

First to answer the question of getting out of nihilistic mindset,
action is needed on your part, shed confirmation bais.
Secondly as you shed this look into a opposing view point,
careful not to read deeply as it will lead into a dogma use your
instincts in determining right and wrong based from your soul searching. Also when you prove yourself wrong don't lose you mind.

The best place is to look up philosphies of topics that they in academdia has made it taboo to look into. One such philsophy is hidden with this post.

Anyways time to kick the tires and light the fires!

Hmm...



First, let's start with My Paper Heart. Also, this reminds me, does anyone know how to properly tag people in forums? But I digress.

The ancient Egyptians. Their priests held the purse strings. Read Colleen McCullough's excellent series, The Masters of Rome. Pure history, filled in with daily drama to make it come alive. The priests controlled the kingdom through the Pharaohs. They built nothing without the blessing of the priests. The pharaohs knew they needed the priests to back up their claims that they were gods among men, and the priests controlled mathematics to predict all sorts of crazy crap, which is how they ruled the commoners with cheap subterfuge. They also controlled the lineage of the Egyptian dynasties, as well, all while avoiding the same in-breeding habits themselves. You see what I'm getting at...? They had a very primitive knowledge of selective genetics, too, enough to know that in-breeding bred retardation, intellectual impairment...stuff that made people easier to control. Why rule Egypt as pharaohs when you can rule the treasury instead and thereby control Egypt from the shadows? This is why when Akhenaten established Amun Re as the monotheistic deity, he ran afoul of the priests and *ffffffffff!* That was the end of Akhenaten and his dynasty.

Not only human behavior, but it's true in every sense. There exist patterns in Nature for a reason. The only way to grow out of bad probability branches is to selectively prune out bad choices. There's your karma in action, as explained by physics. lol Since every zero space-time interval is a completely new jump off point for new fractalized probability branches to grow from (because of Banach-Tarski's theorem), that means that every moment of every day is a chance to do something different.

My problem with my pattern is thus; I have a strained inkling that it ends very poor and alone. I can't seem to grow new branches out of this **** because I'm stuck in it. It's the same thing, over and over and over. It's like an emotional Groundhog's Day. I rage and rage against it, and it's like...quicksand. The more I fight it, the deeper I sink.

That is why I obsess over this Pattern, looking for a way out.

And the thing I said about auras was this: in those caves, it's like a sensory deprivation tank. If you want to experience extremely lucid visual auras and other weird hallucinations, go sit in a SD tank for a few hours. Migraine auras are something I understand, though, because my mom says she gets them. There might not be an evolutionary cause for auras, per se, but they could be the result of some hitherto unknown process in the brain. They just recently discovered a new type of cell in the brain called a rosehip cell.

And as for you, "Mr.Arch-Vile," I thought long and hard about how I was going to repsond to you, and I decided candor is best. I found your post rather offensive. If you'd actually read through my posts as you have claimed to have done, you would see that everything I have said on this site about this theory of mine is mathematically based in advanced physics. Moreover, I've said time and again that I use math as the key--if the equations don't balance out and I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I did this purposely for one reason--to rule out bias from within. I have been very explicit in stating that I don't want to debate metaphysics, I want to prove things with hard numbers. In mathematics we will find the answers to the universe.

For your second paragraph's critique, I will say this. What are your qualifications? I figured you'd have posted them since you seem so well versed in neurolinguistic programming. I don't care if they use this theory--I have proof it is mine. I don't care if they use what I talk about--so what? I have no therapists around me to go to, so unless you're offering a better solution (and I don't see you holding open your wallet for me so I can afford a psychologist), I don't see how you are fit to judge that. Some of us have no choice.

I'm not seeking a religious philosophy, so your proselytizing is wasted upon me. I do not discuss my religion with anyone, period. It's none of anyone's business what I believe; I don't understand why people feel the need to always go around wearing it like a badge to show everyone.

If God exists, He is most certainly a mathematician.

I sort of bowed out of this thread as I thought, with good reason, that I was becoming aggressive, argumentative and, really, went on a personal attack mode: not pretty.

And I’m simply too stupid to argue quantum-stuff newer than the early 1990’s, I suppose. I learned what little I know from post-grad physicists at Kings (Isaac Newton’s hang-out) and I sent some of the text here to my physicist friends but with a new term beginning, I felt as if I was bothering them.

I believe that you’re right — further evidence that this is not a binary Universe. Certainly, I believe that some behaviors are evil, but there are degrees of evil and degrees of good.

You’re right — I can only respond historically via the manner that I learned (largely argumentative!) to respond. We, all of us, can only plan future behaviors and that planning is based upon what we’ve — hopefully — learned from our past and our behaviors in the present.

(Call me Mr. Guilty, Mr. Guilty is my name.)

Because I don’t — I can’t — grasp an either/or ‘moral compass,’ I think that failure to grasp destroys any idea of a binary Universe and reeks havoc with any notion of of predictable ‘patterns.’ Like evolution, we can only say that there is a pattern that we’re desperate to find; it sounds as if we’ve found an intelligence that designed this Universe — which, to me, is rubbish.

I keep repeating the tale of the millions of gall wasps collected by Alfred Kinsey and the hundreds of thousands that he actually researched: Kinsey found that there were such differences amongst the gall wasps from wing shape and span, etc., while positing that each individual would be the same.

Every person who has lived, who lives currently, and who will be born in the future is a singular mutation, for better or worse. We pass along portions of our mutations to our progeny. We, each individual born, is an evolutionary mutant and bright as we are we cannot predict the nature of our mutation/evolution, but only observe it (when it comes) after the fact.

Yes, my 2-cents.

Michael,

In re message #90:

I don’t understand your binary theory of ‘everything;’ (or anything for that matter). Having only my mind and my behaviors as references, I don’t see anything but confusion and that confusion has never, never been confronted with binary decisions; if I must choose between chocolate or vanilla ice cream I choose what I want in that moment — it’s not a predictable binary choice... it’s based on which flavor I prefer on that particular day.

I understand gravity somewhat. But it has such odd behavior that I don’t see it as binary — off/on — at all.

I’m reacting, now, without understanding the raw physics behind your statements, but I feel as if I must respond to your numbered items.

1. I don’t believe in a designed Universe, nor a self-aware Universe, and the idea that our Universe has some sort of ‘special purpose’ to ‘generate and sustain observers,’ gives a kind of creepy thoughts concerning Universe designers and the idea that the Universe has some sort of consciousness. As unlikely as it is, we Homo sapiens may be the only cogent living beings in the whole of the Universe — the odds are against that, of course. We, the ‘observers,’ are nothing but a series of accidents and ever-evolving.

2. The argument that observers are needed to precede the existence of the Universe, doesn’t make sense? This Universe was here long, long before our galaxy, our Sun, and any planets. Are you suggesting that these observers were outside of the Universe? Surely our puny ancestors lacked any Universal observations beyond food and sex? Who are these observers?

3. I don’t think that there’s any credible science that presents the need for multiverses in order to sustain belief in our Universe. I haven’t seen a rush to embrace the beliefs that black holes are simply dead universes come through the Universal curtain to bond with other black holes creating a Universe of one giant black hole. We still don’t know the function or composition of black holes.

I’m enjoying a small bit of Stilton. It isn’t on a cracker but it can crumble and die if one isn’t careful.

Is the point here to find the right answers to make oneself less unhappy? Sometimes that seems the whole point of therapy/philosophy/religion...but math and science, I don't think so.

If depression is self-centered then happiness seems...narcissistic, as well.

I think it is good to research various survivors and listen to what they have to say. To be wounded and depressed is no less meaningful than anything else.

Sadness and depression are stigmatized. I don't wholly agree that the depressed state is more selfish than other states...and, in fact, it has been my experience that those with the greatest luck and good fortune seem the most self-absorbed, while not even realizing it. They also seem to generally lack empathy.

If depression becomes self-centered perhaps it is because one so often has to keep it hidden and secret. It hurts to always have to hide a wounded heart.