All of existence is non-simultaneously apprehended interacting processing.

All of existence is infinite regression.

All of existence is.

Infinity.

Therefore…
All of non-existence is not? Or is it?

Is it possible to talk about another person without talking about yourself?

I can imagine others’ feelings at times. I can imagine why they act the way they do. I can make judgements on people’s characters, and I can imagine that I know how they can right themselves. But I cannot enter their body and soul and actually know what’s behind the action that I see from my own perspective. In and instant, I make assumptions about the causality of others’ actions that in reality trace back to the moment they were born.
All I know is myself. It’s all I’ve ever known. In fact, it’s all I’ve ever had access to. I can make educated gusses on the causality of things in other people’s lives, but it’s always going to be short sighted. I’m not a business man, so if I see a guy in business lose money on an investment, can I really make any judegment at all on him as a business man? If I judge him and say that he’s a bad business man, aren’t I really saying that if I were in the same position and makes the same mistake that I would judge myself as a bad business man? That same failure can end up making him all the better, or he could have falied on purpose for all I know.
Talking with certain about anyone but myself is certainly the same as talking about myself. It’s unavoidable.
When I say that the world would be a better place if everyone smiled more, exercized more, had an artistic outlet, and led a spiritual lifestlye, I’m really just saying what would make me happier. Judgeing others is only a way to avoid listening and reacting to myself, the only thing I can ever be sure of.

It is a generally accepted fact time seems to get faster as one gets older, perhaps the explanation for this lies in the theory of relativity. According to relativity, nothing is absolute and all judgments of measurement (length etc.) are based upon comparisons (an inch is shorter than a foot, but what’s an inch by itself?). One’s life is all the time one knows and thus is the only basis of comparison for making a judgment on the length of time. So when you’re 1, a month is 8% of your entire life, and hence seems to be a very long period of time. But when you’re 20 a month is only .4% of your life and thus seems much shorter than it did when you were young. This would account for why time seems to get faster as you get older, each individual moment seems less compared to how long you’ve lived.

When you die and your life is complete, you have only lived a lifetime. You have nothing to compare it to so it is simply a lifetime in length. A child who dies, a teenager, an adult, they all lived a lifetime. To each individual the length of existence seems the same, because it is all the time that they’ll ever know. It is total and complete. It is a lifetime.

At the risk of sounding like an anti-semite. Was Hitler really that bad of a guy?
We’ve all heard the stories about concentration camps and mass murders, which are attributed to Hitler’s hatred and bigotry, but could Hitler of been a victim of his envirornment? Shouldn’t we try to avoid demonizing Hitler and really take a look at all the factors that went into his decisions in context?
In “War and Peace”, Tolstoy reveals his theory of history and goes to great lengths to show that Napoleon had no greater of an influence over France’s Empire than anyone else in the entire movement. There were millions of people involved from the homefront to the battle field that seem to play a lesser role than the emperor, but who in Tolstoy’s opinion were just as important to the overall movement as Napoleon himself.
Obviously Napoleon’s role was more notable and well known than any of the other player’s, but he was only at the top because the movement needed him there. A million different circumstances went into his takeover, and Napoleon happened to be at the right time and place for all of them. In other words, he did not independently rise to power and propell the movement, but instead he rose to power because the movement required it of him. The same is true of eveyone else in the movement. They were only in the positions they occupied because they alone were best suited to fill that role. Napolean had the history and background to make him the perfect emperor for the time and place.
Could not the same thing be said about Hitler? There is no doubt that there was evil at the heart of the movement, but should Hitler really be made the scapegoat for what millions of people had a hand in?
I’d love to hear what other people think of this, so don’t be afraid to speak your mind.

Is it really the president’s job to do what he thinks is right?
Or is it his job to do what the majority of the country wants him to do?
A president who doesn’t listen because he’s “doing what’s right” is a bad president.