Title: The Fabric of Illusion

 Title: The Fabric of Illusion

In a world not unlike our own, nestled between the folds of time and space, there existed a city called Veritas. It was a place of shimmering glass towers, swirling nebulae painted across the sky, and streets that seemed to change direction based on the whims of its inhabitants. In Veritas, every morning would greet its citizens with a choice: remain in the confines of perceived reality or step into the unknown and unravel the threads of existence.

Elara, a young woman with wild copper curls and eyes that sparkled with mischief, lived a double life. By day, she was an ordinary librarian, her time spent cataloging ancient tomes and mediating between whispering books. By night, she was an explorer of dreams, diving headfirst into the enigmatic fabric that created their world. The tales of her adventures were whispered in hushed tones among the city's inhabitants, for they knew little of the hidden truths that lay just beyond their reach.

One fateful evening, while browsing through the dusty shelves of the library, Elara stumbled upon a weathered book unlike any she had seen before. Its cover was a deep shade of indigo, embellished with shimmering silver letters that read, “The Truth of Shadows.” Intrigued, she opened it, revealing pages filled with cryptic symbols and sketches of magical landscapes that danced before her eyes. As she flipped through the chapters, a single phrase echoed in her mind: “Reality doesn’t exist.”

The words resonated within Elara, igniting something deep inside her. She closed her eyes, clutching the book tightly, and suddenly felt a pull, as if the fabric of reality was unraveling around her. When she opened them again, she was no longer in the library. Instead, she stood in a vast, vibrant expanse lit by two suns. The sky shifted in hues of lavender and gold, and the ground beneath her trembled gently, alive with energy.

“Welcome, seeker,” said a voice that seemed to emanate from the air itself. A figure materialized before her—a tall being with skin that shimmered like the night sky, swirling with constellations. “I am Kael, Weaver of Realities. You’ve unlocked the doorway to the realm beyond perception.”

“What do you mean? Reality doesn’t exist?” Elara asked, her heart racing.

Kael smiled enigmatically. “What you call reality is but a tapestry woven from the dreams, fears, and desires of countless souls. It is the sum of collective beliefs, a mere reflection in a pool that deepens and shifts with every thought.”

Elara's mind swirled with possibilities as she gazed at the vibrant world around her. It felt more alive than anything she had known. “But how can I reshape it? How can I change what I see, what I feel?”

“The question is not how to change it, beloved seeker, but rather to understand that you are the weaver of your own tapestry. It’s time for you to recognize your power,” Kael instructed, gesturing to the infinite kaleidoscope of realities unfolding before her. “Each thread is a choice, each pattern a belief. Embrace your ability to create.”

With newfound determination, Elara focused her thoughts, envisioning her aspirations, her fears, and her dreams. As she did, she saw radiant threads emerging, intertwining and forming patterns that danced to her desires. The vibrant world pulsed, shifting in response to her energy—the sky darkened, blossoming with galaxies as she began to weave a tapestry of light.

But with every masterpiece comes a shadow. As Elara created, she also unearthed the darker threads—the fears that her mind had hidden, the insecurities that clawed at her spirit. Stumbling upon them, she hesitated, feeling a wave of doubt crash over her. “What if I undo everything?”

Kael appeared beside her, the shimmer of the cosmos swirling around him. “Fear is a part of the weave, just as love is. Acknowledge it, for in acceptance lies your strength. Remember, you are not just the creator; you are also the observer. Allow yourself to experience both the beauty and darkness without judgment.”

Taking a deep breath, Elara embraced her shadows. Instead of flinching, she wove them into her tapestry. As she did, something extraordinary happened—the fears transformed, emerging as lessons learned, illuminating her tapestry with depth and richness. The once dark threads sparkled like constellations, revealing their true nature.

With the completion of her masterpiece, the world around her shimmered and shook. Elara realized she had woven a new reality—one that transcended the limitations of her previous existence. She had unlocked a world where impossibilities danced with possibilities.

As she stood before the altar of creation, the skies changed, settling into a serene twilight. Kael smiled, pride evident in his gaze. “You have awakened to your truth, Elara. Remember, reality is but a canvas. Forge forward, not only for yourself but for all who dwell in Veritas.”

And so, Elara returned to her city, the book clutched tight to her chest, her heart glowing with newfound wisdom. With each passing day, she shared her journey, awakening others to the illusion of their confines and encouraging them to weave their own tapestries.

Reality didn’t exist; what thrived was the power of creativity, the beauty of belief, and the magic of transformation. Together, they would rewrite the story of Veritas, one thread at a time.

Universe code

 

Protons

 

Nullo

 

Passover songs

 

The Four questions

 How is this night different from all other nights?

On this night, the air whispers secrets to the moon, and the stars gather in solemn assembly. The darkness enfolds the world, cradling both dreams and fears. It is a night pregnant with possibility, where the ordinary becomes extraordinary. Perhaps it is different because you asked the question, and in that inquiry lies the magic of curiosity. 🌙✨

On all other nights, we eat chametz (leavened foods) and matzah. Why on this night, only matzah?

On all other nights, we eat chametz (leavened foods) and matzah. But on this special night, we partake only in matzah. Why? Because it symbolizes the haste with which our ancestors left Egypt during the Exodus. When they fled, there was no time for the bread to rise, so they baked unleavened matzah. It serves as a powerful reminder of their journey to freedom. 🍞🔓

As we gather around the Seder table, the matzah becomes a central element, connecting us to our history and the resilience of our people. Its simplicity carries profound meaning, and its taste echoes the bittersweetness of liberation. So, on this night, let us break the matzah together and share in the story of our shared past. 🌟

On all other nights, we eat all vegetables. Why, on this night, maror (bitter herbs)?

This question echoes through generations, A tale of liberation, of ancient celebrations. When the Israelites fled from Pharaoh’s cruel hand, Their journey to freedom, a story so grand.

On Passover eve, as the matzah we break, We taste the maror, a bitter herb’s wake. Its sharpness reminds us of slavery’s chains, The tears shed in bondage, the hardships and pains.

Why maror? Why this bitterness we embrace? To honor our past, to remember our grace. For in bitterness lies strength, resilience, and might, A reminder that freedom is worth the fight.

So we dip it in charoset, a sweet mixture divine, Balancing the bitter with sweetness, a sign. As we recline at the Seder table, hearts full of pride, Maror connects us to history, our heritage, side by side. 🌿

On all other nights, we don't dip even once. Why on this night do we dip twice?

This question echoes through generations, A Passover tradition, a sacred sensation. As the matzah crumbles and wine is sipped, Why this change? Why this double-dip?

Listen closely, my friend, to the tale I’ll unfold, Of ancient freedom, of miracles untold. In Egypt’s dark grasp, we were slaves, oppressed, Our cries reached the heavens, our hearts sorely stressed.

Moses, our leader, with courage so grand, Demanded our freedom, a bold, righteous stand. Pharaoh resisted, his heart hard as stone, Ten plagues rained down, a power unknown.

And then came that night, the fateful eve, When we prepared to leave, our spirits to relieve. The lamb’s blood on doorposts, a sign so divine, Death passed over our homes, a blessing benign.

We dipped our greens in saltwater tears, Remembering the bitterness of those years. Once, we dipped for slavery’s cruel plight, But now, we dip twice, both day and night.

The first dip, parsley or lettuce in hand, Symbolizes spring, renewal, and the Promised Land. The second, charoset, a sweet mixture we taste, Recalling the mortar that bound us in haste.

So, my friend, on this night, we dip with care, To honor our past, our ancestors’ share. Twice we dip, a reminder profound, Of freedom’s journey, on hallowed ground. 🌟🍷🌿

On all other nights, we eat either sitting upright or reclining. Why on this night do we all recline?

On this special night, we recline because it symbolizes freedom and liberation. The act of reclining during the Passover Seder represents our transition from slavery to freedom. It’s a powerful reminder of our ancestors’ journey from bondage in Egypt to redemption. So, as we lean back, we connect with their story and celebrate our own liberation. 🌟🍷🌙

Galileo

 

orgy fiction

from physics by aristotle

Part 1

When the objects of an inquiry, in any department, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these that knowledge, that is to say scientific knowledge, is attained. For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Nature, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles.

The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature; for the same things are not 'knowable relatively to us' and 'knowable' without qualification. So in the present inquiry we must follow this method and advance from what is more obscure by nature, but clearer to us, towards what is more clear and more knowable by nature.

Now what is to us plain and obvious at first is rather confused masses, the elements and principles of which become known to us later by analysis. Thus we must advance from generalities to particulars; for it is a whole that is best known to sense-perception, and a generality is a kind of whole, comprehending many things within it, like parts. Much the same thing happens in the relation of the name to the formula. A name, e.g. 'round', means vaguely a sort of whole: its definition analyses this into its particular senses. Similarly a child begins by calling all men 'father', and all women 'mother', but later on distinguishes each of them.

Part 2

The principles in question must be either (a) one or (b) more than one. If (a) one, it must be either (i) motionless, as Parmenides and Melissus assert, or (ii) in motion, as the physicists hold, some declaring air to be the first principle, others water. If (b) more than one, then either (i) a finite or (ii) an infinite plurality. If (i) finite (but more than one), then either two or three or four or some other number. If (ii) infinite, then either as Democritus believed one in kind, but differing in shape or form; or different in kind and even contrary.

A similar inquiry is made by those who inquire into the number of existents: for they inquire whether the ultimate constituents of existing things are one or many, and if many, whether a finite or an infinite plurality. So they too are inquiring whether the principle or element is one or many.

Now to investigate whether Being is one and motionless is not a contribution to the science of Nature. For just as the geometer has nothing more to say to one who denies the principles of his science-this being a question for a different science or for or common to all-so a man investigating principles cannot argue with one who denies their existence. For if Being is just one, and one in the way mentioned, there is a principle no longer, since a principle must be the principle of some thing or things.

To inquire therefore whether Being is one in this sense would be like arguing against any other position maintained for the sake of argument (such as the Heraclitean thesis, or such a thesis as that Being is one man) or like refuting a merely contentious argument-a description which applies to the arguments both of Melissus and of Parmenides: their premisses are false and their conclusions do not follow. Or rather the argument of Melissus is gross and palpable and offers no difficulty at all: accept one ridiculous proposition and the rest follows-a simple enough proceeding.

We physicists, on the other hand, must take for granted that the things that exist by nature are, either all or some of them, in motion which is indeed made plain by induction. Moreover, no man of science is bound to solve every kind of difficulty that may be raised, but only as many as are drawn falsely from the principles of the science: it is not our business to refute those that do not arise in this way: just as it is the duty of the geometer to refute the squaring of the circle by means of segments, but it is not his duty to refute Antiphon's proof. At the same time the holders of the theory of which we are speaking do incidentally raise physical questions, though Nature is not their subject: so it will perhaps be as well to spend a few words on them, especially as the inquiry is not without scientific interest.

The most pertinent question with which to begin will be this: In what sense is it asserted that all things are one? For 'is' is used in many senses. Do they mean that all things 'are' substance or quantities or qualities? And, further, are all things one substance-one man, one horse, or one soul-or quality and that one and the same-white or hot or something of the kind? These are all very different doctrines and all impossible to maintain.

For if both substance and quantity and quality are, then, whether these exist independently of each other or not, Being will be many.

If on the other hand it is asserted that all things are quality or quantity, then, whether substance exists or not, an absurdity results, if the impossible can properly be called absurd. For none of the others can exist independently: substance alone is independent: for everything is predicated of substance as subject. Now Melissus says that Being is infinite. It is then a quantity. For the infinite is in the category of quantity, whereas substance or quality or affection cannot be infinite except through a concomitant attribute, that is, if at the same time they are also quantities. For to define the infinite you must use quantity in your formula, but not substance or quality. If then Being is both substance and quantity, it is two, not one: if only substance, it is not infinite and has no magnitude; for to have that it will have to be a quantity.

Again, 'one' itself, no less than 'being', is used in many senses, so we must consider in what sense the word is used when it is said that the All is one.

Now we say that (a) the continuous is one or that (b) the indivisible is one, or (c) things are said to be 'one', when their essence is one and the same, as 'liquor' and 'drink'.

If (a) their One is one in the sense of continuous, it is many, for the continuous is divisible ad infinitum.

There is, indeed, a difficulty about part and whole, perhaps not relevant to the present argument, yet deserving consideration on its own account-namely, whether the part and the whole are one or more than one, and how they can be one or many, and, if they are more than one, in what sense they are more than one. (Similarly with the parts of wholes which are not continuous.) Further, if each of the two parts is indivisibly one with the whole, the difficulty arises that they will be indivisibly one with each other also.

But to proceed: If (b) their One is one as indivisible, nothing will have quantity or quality, and so the one will not be infinite, as Melissus says-nor, indeed, limited, as Parmenides says, for though the limit is indivisible, the limited is not.

But if (c) all things are one in the sense of having the same definition, like 'raiment' and 'dress', then it turns out that they are maintaining the Heraclitean doctrine, for it will be the same thing 'to be good' and 'to be bad', and 'to be good' and 'to be not good', and so the same thing will be 'good' and 'not good', and man and horse; in fact, their view will be, not that all things are one, but that they are nothing; and that 'to be of such-and-such a quality' is the same as 'to be of such-and-such a size'.

Even the more recent of the ancient thinkers were in a pother lest the same thing should turn out in their hands both one and many. So some, like Lycophron, were led to omit 'is', others to change the mode of expression and say 'the man has been whitened' instead of 'is white', and 'walks' instead of 'is walking', for fear that if they added the word 'is' they should be making the one to be many-as if 'one' and 'being' were always used in one and the same sense. What 'is' may be many either in definition (for example 'to be white' is one thing, 'to be musical' another, yet the same thing be both, so the one is many) or by division, as the whole and its parts. On this point, indeed, they were already getting into difficulties and admitted that the one was many-as if there was any difficulty about the same thing being both one and many, provided that these are not opposites; for 'one' may mean either 'potentially one' or 'actually one'.

fractal

quantum

отказник

Review of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler by George Orwell

It is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurst and Blackett's unexpurgated edition of Mein Kampf, published only a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obvious intention of the translator's preface and notes is to tone down the book's ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. For at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism.

Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all. As one result of this, Hurst and Blackett's edition was reissued in a new jacket explaining that all profits would be devoted to the Red Cross. Nevertheless, simply on the internal evidence of Mein Kampf, it is difficult to believe that any real change has taken place in Hitler's aims and opinions. When one compares his utterances of a year or so ago with those made fifteen years earlier, a thing that strikes one is the rigidity of his mind, the way in which his world-view doesn't develop. It is the fixed vision of a monomaniac and not likely to be much affected by the temporary manoeuvres of power politics. Probably, in Hitler's own mind, the Russo-German Pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table. The plan laid down in Mein Kampf was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got to be dealt with first, because Russia was the more easily bribed of the two. But Russia's turn will come when England is out of the picture—that, no doubt, is how Hitler sees it. Whether it will turn out that way is of course a different question.

Suppose that Hitler's programme could be put into effect. What he envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of "living room" (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless breeding of fresh cannon-fodder. How was it that he was able to put this monstrous vision across? It is easy to say that at one stage of his career he was financed by the heavy industrialists, who saw in him the man who would smash the Socialists and Communists. They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeeded against his many rivals if it had not been for the attraction of his own personality, which one can feel even in the clumsy writing of Mein Kampf, and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches...The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs—and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett's edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, dog-like face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The initial, personal cause of his grievance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance is here. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rock, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can't win, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one sees turn upon some such theme.

nabokov

beasts of England from animal farm

All the animals were now present except Moses, the tame raven, who slept
on a perch behind the back door. When Major saw that they had all made
themselves comfortable and were waiting attentively, he cleared his throat
and began:

"Comrades, you have heard already about the strange dream that I had last
night. But I will come to the dream later. I have something else to say
first. I do not think, comrades, that I shall be with you for many months
longer, and before I die, I feel it my duty to pass on to you such wisdom
as I have acquired. I have had a long life, I have had much time for
thought as I lay alone in my stall, and I think I may say that I
understand the nature of life on this earth as well as any animal now
living. It is about this that I wish to speak to you.

"Now, comrades, what is the nature of this life of ours? Let us face it:
our lives are miserable, laborious, and short. We are born, we are given
just so much food as will keep the breath in our bodies, and those of us
who are capable of it are forced to work to the last atom of our strength;
and the very instant that our usefulness has come to an end we are
slaughtered with hideous cruelty. No animal in England knows the meaning
of happiness or leisure after he is a year old. No animal in England is
free. The life of an animal is misery and slavery: that is the plain truth.

"But is this simply part of the order of nature? Is it because this land
of ours is so poor that it cannot afford a decent life to those who dwell
upon it? No, comrades, a thousand times no! The soil of England is
fertile, its climate is good, it is capable of affording food in abundance
to an enormously greater number of animals than now inhabit it. This
single farm of ours would support a dozen horses, twenty cows, hundreds of
sheep--and all of them living in a comfort and a dignity that are now
almost beyond our imagining. Why then do we continue in this miserable
condition? Because nearly the whole of the produce of our labour is stolen
from us by human beings. There, comrades, is the answer to all our
problems. It is summed up in a single word--Man. Man is the only real
enemy we have. Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and
overwork is abolished for ever.

"Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not
give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, he
cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he is lord of all the
animals. He sets them to work, he gives back to them the bare minimum that
will prevent them from starving, and the rest he keeps for himself. Our
labour tills the soil, our dung fertilises it, and yet there is not one of
us that owns more than his bare skin. You cows that I see before me, how
many thousands of gallons of milk have you given during this last year?
And what has happened to that milk which should have been breeding up
sturdy calves? Every drop of it has gone down the throats of our enemies.
And you hens, how many eggs have you laid in this last year, and how many
of those eggs ever hatched into chickens? The rest have all gone to market
to bring in money for Jones and his men. And you, Clover, where are those
four foals you bore, who should have been the support and pleasure of your
old age? Each was sold at a year old--you will never see one of them
again. In return for your four confinements and all your labour in the
fields, what have you ever had except your bare rations and a stall?

"And even the miserable lives we lead are not allowed to reach their
natural span. For myself I do not grumble, for I am one of the lucky ones.
I am twelve years old and have had over four hundred children. Such is the
natural life of a pig. But no animal escapes the cruel knife in the end.
You young porkers who are sitting in front of me, every one of you will
scream your lives out at the block within a year. To that horror we all
must come--cows, pigs, hens, sheep, everyone. Even the horses and the dogs
have no better fate. You, Boxer, the very day that those great muscles of
yours lose their power, Jones will sell you to the knacker, who will cut
your throat and boil you down for the foxhounds. As for the dogs, when
they grow old and toothless, Jones ties a brick round their necks and
drowns them in the nearest pond.

"Is it not crystal clear, then, comrades, that all the evils of this life
of ours spring from the tyranny of human beings? Only get rid of Man, and
the produce of our labour would be our own. Almost overnight we could
become rich and free. What then must we do? Why, work night and day, body
and soul, for the overthrow of the human race! That is my message to you,
comrades: Rebellion! I do not know when that Rebellion will come, it might
be in a week or in a hundred years, but I know, as surely as I see this
straw beneath my feet, that sooner or later justice will be done. Fix your
eyes on that, comrades, throughout the short remainder of your lives! And
above all, pass on this message of mine to those who come after you, so
that future generations shall carry on the struggle until it is victorious.

"And remember, comrades, your resolution must never falter. No argument
must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that Man and the
animals have a common interest, that the prosperity of the one is the
prosperity of the others. It is all lies. Man serves the interests of no
creature except himself. And among us animals let there be perfect unity,
perfect comradeship in the struggle. All men are enemies. All animals are
comrades."

At this moment there was a tremendous uproar. While Major was speaking
four large rats had crept out of their holes and were sitting on their
hindquarters, listening to him. The dogs had suddenly caught sight of
them, and it was only by a swift dash for their holes that the rats saved
their lives. Major raised his trotter for silence.

"Comrades," he said, "here is a point that must be settled. The wild
creatures, such as rats and rabbits--are they our friends or our enemies?
Let us put it to the vote. I propose this question to the meeting: Are
rats comrades?"

The vote was taken at once, and it was agreed by an overwhelming majority
that rats were comrades. There were only four dissentients, the three dogs
and the cat, who was afterwards discovered to have voted on both sides.
Major continued:

"I have little more to say. I merely repeat, remember always your duty of
enmity towards Man and all his ways. Whatever goes upon two legs is an
enemy. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. And
remember also that in fighting against Man, we must not come to resemble
him. Even when you have conquered him, do not adopt his vices. No animal
must ever live in a house, or sleep in a bed, or wear clothes, or drink
alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or touch money, or engage in trade. All the
habits of Man are evil. And, above all, no animal must ever tyrannise over
his own kind. Weak or strong, clever or simple, we are all brothers. No
animal must ever kill any other animal. All animals are equal.

"And now, comrades, I will tell you about my dream of last night. I cannot
describe that dream to you. It was a dream of the earth as it will be when
Man has vanished. But it reminded me of something that I had long
forgotten. Many years ago, when I was a little pig, my mother and the
other sows used to sing an old song of which they knew only the tune and
the first three words. I had known that tune in my infancy, but it had
long since passed out of my mind. Last night, however, it came back to me
in my dream. And what is more, the words of the song also came back-words,
I am certain, which were sung by the animals of long ago and have been
lost to memory for generations. I will sing you that song now, comrades.
I am old and my voice is hoarse, but when I have taught you the tune, you
can sing it better for yourselves. It is called 'Beasts of England'."

Old Major cleared his throat and began to sing. As he had said, his voice
was hoarse, but he sang well enough, and it was a stirring tune, something
between 'Clementine' and 'La Cucaracha'. The words ran:

Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken to my joyful tidings
Of the golden future time.

Soon or late the day is coming,
Tyrant Man shall be o'erthrown,
And the fruitful fields of England
Shall be trod by beasts alone.

Rings shall vanish from our noses,
And the harness from our back,
Bit and spur shall rust forever,
Cruel whips no more shall crack.

Riches more than mind can picture,
Wheat and barley, oats and hay,
Clover, beans, and mangel-wurzels
Shall be ours upon that day.

Bright will shine the fields of England,
Purer shall its waters be,
Sweeter yet shall blow its breezes
On the day that sets us free.

For that day we all must labour,
Though we die before it break;
Cows and horses, geese and turkeys,
All must toil for freedom's sake.

Beasts of England, beasts of Ireland,
Beasts of every land and clime,
Hearken well and spread my tidings
Of the golden future time.

Is everybody created equal?

Is everybody created equal? Yes, there are no master races, and there is nobody any better than anybody else. No, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. what should we wish for? should we wish for parity? should we wish for socialism and upheaval? should we look to dialectical materialism? should we look to religion? who can help here? certainly adults and children are not equal. children seem to have more life, more joy, more inspiration than we do. Are males and females equal? what would that even mean? are they the same as each other? certainly not. are boys and girls the same? by no means! even a baby boy can be told apart from a girl, by character and looks. but what does equality mean? what can equality mean? trump, who is filthy rich got in power, and not merely by being President. what are we looking at here? what has happened to our country? so is everybody equal? who knows?

Friedrich engels Karl marx

Is consciousness fractal?

Bees and tangential thinking

Neuroquantology