Posts Tagged ‘wrong’

From “something is wrong” to “someone is wrong” (Justice!)

September 8, 2014

Robert wrote: “[Is the US on “the right side of justice” in Ukraine?] …I’m more and more convinced that politics is a form of religion. You just get married to a particular religion, and then all the other ones suck. And then you hang onto your own version of the truth as though it gives you some sort of purity….

I know that nations go to war over resources and economic issues, but not over ideology. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because the US was squeezing them on natural resources needed for their adventures in China and elsewhere. But they didn’t attack us over some abstract political idea.”

muddy glasses 2

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn It can be challenging to have a mature conversation with anyone who has strong emotional charges relating to some subject or some idea. Emotional charges are, in many cases, designed and programmed.

    People tend not to understand the origin of the word justice (or be familiar with the goddess Justitia, etc). They do not understand the basics of how the political conquests of the ancient Hebrew tribes (like the slaughter of the Midianites as reported in Numbers 31) are the direct ancestors of many aspects of modern civilization.

    For instance, many people think of western medicine as a discipline within science rather than as a religion. While science is used in western medicine, there has been immense resistance in modern medicine to uncontroversial science at least as old as the 19th century.

    However, when money and politics make a particular scientific principle (or evidence) “incorrect,” then it is marginalized. Further, when hysterical ideas like “cholesterol is dangerous” are recognized as profitable, they are massively publicized without regard for the total lack of science establishing cholesterol as a cause of health issues.

    Cholesterol is sent to repair damage. The correlation between high levels of cholesterol near tissues that are unhealthy is in no way evidence of cholesterol causing illness.

    It is like saying that the presence of firetrucks causes fires. Removing the firetrucks does not reduce the risk of new fires or the severity of old fires. Likewise, impairing the liver’s production of cholesterol is not healthy. That idea is incredible.

    However, the lobbyists for anti-cholesterol medications are not interested in science, but profits. Likewise, when the mainstream media in the US repeatedly asserts that our Nazi enemies committed genocide, but makes no mention of any genocides in Ukraine by our Soviet allies, one might wonder if they are in the business of unbiased reporting or the business of bias.

    There is no such thing as an unbiased media or an unbiased school. The idea that “bias” is somehow “to be avoided” is an indication of a particular religious belief system. The idea of “no bias” is kind of like the idea of “take a picture of your house without facing in any single direction… so you avoid having only a limited point of view in any particular photograph.”

    The reality is that we are in the midst of a religion that systematically excludes certain biases while promoting the idea that “being unbiased” is not only possible but favorable. In a way, it is a genius method of psychological warfare.

  • Robert Q. Riley JR would you mind saying that again, but a little differently? What the hell do firetrucks have to do with justice?
  • Dan Burger I like red firetrucks, I do not like yellow firetrucks. I’m pretty sure the yellow firetrucks start fires, and the red firetrucks put fires out.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn What does justice mean? How can you measure it? What is the “right side” of it?

    Are you asserting, Robert, that it is NOT just “some abstract political slogan?” Why do Republicans and Democrats both scream for justice but [reference] two contradictory [outcomes with] the same word?

    1 hr · Edited · Like

    • J R Fibonacci Hunn Justice has always been a word that refers to the declarations of the ruler (like the officiating warlord of a particular court). Justice is a social construct.

      When Oliver North and Caspar Weinberger and Marc Rich all break a long list of laws in the US, then justice is that there is a US criminal prosecution of them [through the Department of JUSTICE].

      However, it is still “justice” for a US president to reverse or prevent a criminal prosecution. President G.H.W. Bush and President Clinton were not “obstructing justice” when they pardoned the Iran-contra law breakers. Their legal actions were still the legal process called “justice.”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn To me, all the confusion and interest in these kinds of debates (from a mode of antagonistic arguing) is a sign of a kind of immaturity. People begin with an “amygdala reflex” of stress hormones [that I call] a panic of upset, then say fascinating things like “something is wrong here” (a problem) and then “someone is wrong here” (the villain) and it “goes downhill rapidly from there.”
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn  Dan, a great analogy with the LDL and HDL cholesterol is that fire trucks with no water left (“low-density firetrucks / LDFs”) cause fires and “HDFs” (with lots of water) put them out.

    How can anyone who knows what a lipoprotein actually is (whether an LDL or an HDL) seriously suggest that one of those two types “causes health issues?” That just does not happen. Anyone who says that a high concentration of any kind of lipoprotein is a cause of health issues is displaying their lack of comprehension and competence. It is a hysterical hysteria, like saying fire trucks cause fires.

    FYI, there is no structural difference between LDLs and HDLs. All lipoproteins are containers that begin with a high density of nutrients (the state of being an HDL) and then as they go through the bloodstream and distribute those nutrients, they lower the density of nutrients within the lipoprotein and then can be classified as “LDLs.”

    When people ask “which form of cholesterol causes health damage: LDLs or HDLs,” that is a nonsense question. It is exactly like saying “which firetrucks start fires: those full of water or those that have already sprayed out most of their water reserves?”

    “Which form of cholesterol causes illness” is just not an intelligent (logical) question. It is a question concocted by lobbyists to sell damaging medications which interfere with the liver’s essential function of producing cholesterol (as in assembling fire trucks).

    The medications were developed. Their effects were measured. Then, someone had to figure out a way to market the medications and vilifying cholesterol was the ridiculous but successful marketing idea that, like a long list of outright deceptions, became popular.

    Teachers were given curriculum to train students to worship the devil of cholesterol. “These livers are creating compounds that are almost as dangerous as fresh breast milk!”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn People “get married” to the idea of “something is wrong” and then look for which “someone” is to blame. They may look for US president to blame for the 1989 collapse of the Japanese inflationary boom or the 1999 collapse of the European boom. Herds of emotionally-reactive imbeciles on the floor of the NYSE [a reference to a recent comment made elsewhere by Dan B.] do not comprehend the simplicity of reality because they are “married to” a particular set of presumptions that prevent an intelligent exploration of the issues.

    Why did people like Warren Buffet lose immense amounts of money in recent years? Because they did not forecast the easily predictable shifts and make immense benefits from them. And to this day, they may still be talking about who to blame – “which someone was the someone was who wrong?”

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn What was “wrong” prior to the decline in housing prices and stock prices in the US, EU, and Japan was that those price were way too high. What was wrong prior to the spiking of global fuel prices beginning in 1999 was that those prices were way too low.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn In my 2003 and 2004 publications forecasting those price changes, (and a continuing spike in fuel prices) what kind of conceptual foundation is totally absent? I did not begin with a religious fanaticism about any particular price level being “horrifyingly wrong.”

    Prices can simply temporarily be “at an extreme.” Trends form, then accelerate, then mature (approach reversal), then reverse.

    Who do I “blame” for the huge increase in US stock prices from 1982 to 2000/ 2007 / 2014? Investors who purchased stocks and drove up prices.

    Who do I “blame” for the decline in prices? Everyone who sold those investments, which predictably produces declines in price- sometimes sudden.

    For instance, the “evil” baby boomers in the EU, US, and Japan did some very “evil” things around 2007. They started reaching retirement age and selling their stocks and went to cash or bonds. What a shock, right?!?!

    Why did they sell their summer homes and move in to a smaller place, causing real estate prices to collapse? Because when someone reaches the age of 62 (some would say 58 1/2), then they start investing in “evil and unjust” ways (like selling stocks and buying bonds).

On the hysteria of “what’s wrong with humans these days!?!?!”

June 10, 2014

Natasha Ilieva and 10 others like this.

Natasha Ilieva:

is all over the world …what’s wrong with humans
June 6 at 7:26pm · Like · 3


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Apparently Elizabeth is ignorant of the history of governments and their fundamental nature. That would be very frustrating for her! (She might even be saying frustrated things like “what’s wrong with humans!?!?!”)
June 7 at 2:05pm · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

fundamental nature of governments is mirror of human’s awareness dear J R Fibonacci Hunn lol…so “whats wrong with humans” is right question hehehhe
June 8 at 12:22am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Governments regulate human interactions. That comes in many forms- including organized coercion. Technology changes methods.

The awareness of the human witness does not alter what an instance of capital punishment is. It is still cold-blooded ritual human sacrifice. However, most “liberals” will say “that is horrifying!”

Maybe it is. That may even be the point: to terrify others. I am simply saying that government rituals of public execution are for the purpose of influencing the behavior of groups of humans.
June 8 at 1:14am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

no dear u will be surprised to know that governments are society mirror …reflection of our interests state of mind and awareness…if not revolution will be only possible way of living …there are powers which work in collective consciousness…if we don’t agree brainwashed by leaders we will not accept their decisions and silly laws …is right first time for everything to happen …for Hitler Stalin Bush and everybody to come and rule…sheep’s accept… they need this lesson and teacher is ready hehehe
June 8 at 1:47am · Edited · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Silly laws huh? I should post my recent article on a new perspective that I got on forgiveness from a Tibetan monk who was tortured by the Chinese government. When you or your family member is jailed or tortured or bombed, I wonder if you would still be so dismissive of government violence….

I consider your perspective idealistic and guilt-centered. If Alaska’s government budget benefits from huge revenues from the oil industry while other US states approach bankruptcy, are the geological facts “just reflections of the people’s state?”

I understand that you may be terrified and cling to your ideology. Great. That is what ideological delusions are for- to pacify the sheep.

How about the province of Alberta- way more oil than any other province in Canada! Way more wealthy, more stable government, etc….That’s just the superior consciousness of the people there, right?
June 8 at 2:06am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

yes government reflect collective consciousnesses of people…Canada has nothing to do with some other country or race..evolution is going on personal level race nation country and world…government violence is lesson not punishment ..we both with u h…See More
June 8 at 3:39am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

To me, your presentation is without peace. It is violent in a way subtle way- with passive aggression.

A hurricane violently rips apart the garden you planted, when you violently dragged a rake across the soil and violently ripped weeds out and violently made holes in the mud. The whole orientation of “it is this but not that” is “violent” and argumentative.

What if violence can be a lesson and a punishment? I even said that a well-publicized capital punishment is publicized so as to be a lesson, right?

“My goal is to get free of mind.” Then you claim that are not free of it. Who are you that has been making such presumptions?
June 8 at 3:20pm · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Here is my latest audio in which I clarify the confusions that people encounter in regard to “getting free of the mind”:

a new perspective
June 8 at 3:19pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Here is a much shorter piece focusing on the mind’s tendency to condemn and the withdrawing of such hysterical panics of condemnation:

Is forgiveness about what someone else did or about self-respect?
June 8 at 3:23pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview


Natasha Ilieva:

yes forgiveness serves ur soul not others…is important to delete records of ur mind do not suffer …if God let children to be abused and killed being innocent will u change ur perspective on humans acts..we are souls in body and mind …all what happens is important for the soul not body and mind …they make only to look real but is not …pain is still our teacher …making soul wake up…change the perspective dear go above all mess we do on earth and see the whole plan of creation heheh
Yesterday at 12:07am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Your comment, Natasha, looks incomplete. (ok, I see you finished it now.)
Yesterday at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

i love ur restless soul ehhehe
Yesterday at 12:12am · Edited · Unlike · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn: In the “new perspective” audio (and article), I present an unusual relationship between body, soul, and mind. It is not mysterious or conflicted. However, it does not fit with the common idealisms of “the evolution of the soul.” The soul is a “higher self” that does not have fantasies of “personal evolution” and is indeed already operating in the mode that many minds worship as “the ultimate goal.”
Yesterday at 12:14am · Edited · Like · 1

J R Fibonacci Hunn:

“The plan of creation” is already here, right? When the soul witnesses the mind and the personas of the mind, there can be an identifying with some persona as if the persona is the fundamental reality rather than just the temporary branch of an eternal tree.
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

no dear u are wrong …see children how different they are since coming in body…souls have their evolution like planets of our solar system…tehre are 7 cycles of transformation we all get trough…
Yesterday at 12:16am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

If you are not open to alternative ideas or understandings, that is okay. You can keep an antagonistic “I’m right and you’re wrong” identity in the mind. That stage of experience is also important, so that you can repel alternatives and explore undistracted one particular ideology or idealism and learn all that it has to offer.
Yesterday at 12:18am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

i respect all ur ideas they are cosmic mind also but i am interested in pure consciousnesses do u feel the difference lol…not interpretations of truth but truth itself …creation happens every minute …billion realities all are GOD
Yesterday at 12:21am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Ah, well thank you for loving my “restless” soul.
Yesterday at 12:21am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

soul is just an atom of light and consciousness…is a bridge between mind and higher self God in us …is limited and slowly transforming in pure light disappears and u are God itself hehehe
Yesterday at 12:22am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

“Soul” is to me a word that can mean “pure consciousness.” Within the field or theatre of consciousness, mind can set up plays and dramas and then personas can take the stage and argue and agree and so on.
Yesterday at 12:23am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

no soul is teh micro chip of ur computer called JR hehehe
Yesterday at 12:24am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Mind can ask “silly” questions like “how can I re-unite my soul with pure consciousness?” That could a hysterical (hilarious, delusional) question.

Those kinds of jokes are important in comedies. A good joke can show us the silliness and foolishness of common patterns of thinking and experience.
Yesterday at 12:25am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

ok dear ur soul is the cloves God puts coming in astral levels…ur body is teh machine and mind is the motor is it clear now…when u speak about God divine Universal consciousness see only light like 1000 suns
Yesterday at 12:28am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am clear. There is a congruence and consistency apparent within my articles and audios if you care to explore.

However, I do not recognize clarity in your comments about “cloves.” Maybe “auto-correct” jarbled your typing. I am okay with other people using words in other ways than I use them. That is simply an inevitability.
Yesterday at 12:33am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Maybe you meant “soul is the clothes….”
Yesterday at 12:40am · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn: Personas (personalities, identities) are like characters in a play that one actor can “adopt” briefly. They are like costumes or clothes. That is how I use the term “persona.”
Yesterday at 12:42am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Per-sona actually comes from a Greek word for the mask worn by an actor in a theatrical performance. The wooden masks had different “sound-holes” built in to the masks, so the voice of the actor would be different as they put on the different masks or “per-sonas.”
Yesterday at 12:43am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The saint, the villain, the hero, the victim, etc….
Yesterday at 12:44am · Like


Natasha Ilieva:

u can call them anyway…u are better in words i in love…so u will explain i will love…we both go in parallel hope to cross in one moment hehehe
Yesterday at 12:44am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The soul can only love. What the personas do may be of no great importance to the soul.
Yesterday at 12:45am · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

it is important if u kill in this life u will be killed in next …for the spirit is not important pure consciousnesses is there
Yesterday at 12:47am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Bodies may be mortal. What if the soul is immortal?

If one identifies with the body, so be it. What if the body is simply respected as a useful branch of a sacred tree?
Yesterday at 12:49am · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

The one who fears hell may be only a persona. The persona may suffer from guilt and shame and so on. That may be an important learning process.
Yesterday at 12:51am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:
The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception, by Max Heindel
God-sent are all religions blest; And Christ, the Way, the Truth, the Life, To give the heavy laden rest And peace from sorrow, sin, and strife.
Yesterday at 12:55am · Like


Natasha Ilieva:

read that they are close to truth…
Yesterday at 12:55am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am clear. I do not seek clarification on these subjects through reading. Thank you for the sentiment.

I shared the article and audio for you to enjoy. The audio contains many silly amusements as well as precise clarity in regard to several issues mentioned in this thread that often people may find confusing.
Yesterday at 1:20am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

go on if this is ur mission do it …everybody seeds on his field don’t judge others job…let them work …God is the judge we are the servants…never forget all roads lead to same not better road is just TAO…THE PATH
Yesterday at 1:36am · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Some believe that is some distance between them and the destination. Could that be an optional presumption?

“My judgement is that you should not judge me.” Ah, yes, more jokes. I get it!
Yesterday at 1:49am · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

see the difference between judge and response …i can be not agree with u coz my level of awareness is different we project our mind on others so many people and opinions…i accept ur opinion don’t judge it just say let it be …in position of “all is God” judgement is useless…all ur videos are good for mind people …so i say seed ur field but don’t judge my seeding hehehe
Yesterday at 2:04am · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

You seem arrogant to me, rather than curious. You present things like “other people are just projecting opinions, but not me.” HA!
19 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

ok i give up…let it be ur will not mine…u are right i am wrong hehehhe
14 hours ago · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Your comments can be valid and mine can be different but still valid. Also, I did not mean to imply that you “should” be curious about anything or that you should not be what I call arrogant. I’m just offering you some alternative to the idea that “there must be SOMETHING that is fundamentally wrong!!!” (referencing Elizabeth Warren’s quotation)

Really? What if everything was fundamentally just exactly what it is?
11 hrs · Edited · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

all what is wrong is in mind dear not in consciousness…wake up people make them curious to know truth but don’t fall in the trap of interpretations…mind can bring u to nowhere is very limited and works with known information…my goal is unknown …love u
11 hrs · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Yes, when the mind is programmed to make certain unexamined presumptions (like those of Senator Warren) that leads to a hysteria of heroic perfectionism, and then the natural result of the inevitable encounter with reality is self-righteous frustration.

Then she says ignorant things like “the only people who go to jail TODAY are….” What is revealed? Her idealism that in prior times or other places, court systems were much different.

The nature of court systems is organized coercion. That is another word for extortion. Or we can call it taxation. The label “that the mind uses” does not alter the pattern of behavior any more than labeling it in another language like German or Japanese or Arabic.
29 mins · Edited · Like · 1


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Why does she deperately say that they should be different? Her pretense is crumbling. Her denial is crumbling.

When there are illusions or delusions, then there is the potential for disillusionment or waking up. That can be disorienting.
27 mins · Edited · Like


Natasha Ilieva:

good ring the bell just don’t become dog barking only…hope all what u discus will have response in ursociety…they need clearance about many points in “american dream” lol
24 mins · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

So, we can recognize that there is a pattern of “suffering mind” (or we could even say “border-line” mental illness) that we may perceive with that Senator. Further, there is something we can call mindfulness or enlightenment. That does not cancel the mind or prevent the use of language. That just implies an orderly mind.
22 mins · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

I am not interested in “them” (or in Senator Warren). I am just offering you an example of mindfulness or an awakened mind. You can resist it or argue with it. That is up to you.
23 mins · Like · 1


Natasha Ilieva:

babe i just shared others post “what is wrong in American society and see how many words u wrote on my wall hehehehe
22 mins · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Yes, I see how many words we wrote. You can continue to relate to “American society” as a target of condemnation for what is wrong with it (like Senator Warren has done). I am just presenting you the option of respecting it as it is without showing your disdain for it to attract interaction from others (approval or discussion).

Senator Warren is actually a very clever person. I like her research very much in regard to economic analysis and forecasting. I also understand her panicked retreat in to idealism. When I first began publishing commentaries on the future of US and global economics in 2003, it was quite a challenging emotional transition for me as well.
16 mins · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

From the beginning, government has been a system of inequity. When in the 1980s high-ranking US leaders like Caspar Weinberger or Oliver North were involved in smuggling weapons illegally, trafficking cocaine illegally, and money-laundering of their drug proifts, the extremely unusual thing about that is that the public became aware of it. Next, the “justice system” started it’s process and convicted North, but then people like Bush and his drug-smuggling partner Clinton “pardoned” the “criminals.”

What is new about presidential pardons and all the rest? Nothing. This is business as usual. From the 19th century opium trafficking of the British Empire to the CIA’s cocaine operations, governments make certain actions illegal for the public. That helps to reduce competition and raise profit-margins.

The US (with grandpa Prescott Bush) was a source of major support for both Nazi Germany as well as the communist revolution leading to the formation of the USSR. The media and schools may say “those are our enemies,” but what the word “enemy” really means is that the masses are prohibited from being involved in the extremely profitable operations of the Free Masons and Jesuits and so on.

What “those are our enemies” really means is “those are *your* enemies.” The method of “divide & conquer” is not new.

Senator Warren is allowed to speak to a big audience because she is what is called a “useful idiot.” She helps to distract people like you from the simple realities. With the modern internet, hiding history is a new challenge for the elite, so lots of high-intensity political “controversy” is essential.
2 mins · Edited · Like


J R Fibonacci Hunn:

Natasha Ilieva wrote: “is all over the world …what’s wrong with humans”

Yes, down with those shameful creatures! Send them to an eternity in hell for their sins.

Regret and the condemning of the past

September 5, 2013

“Wait a minute- hold on- maybe I should not have eaten that. Okay, wow- yep that was not a good thing. Yeah, I really do regret eating that. Anyway, what kind of person would feed a baby a jalapeno pepper? That is just plain wrong!”

As long as there is a sense of repulsion from suffering as something that “should not be,” then regret remains. Regret is the belief in the idea of “something wrong.” It is optional.


“VD CAN BE CURED BUT THERE’S NO MEDICINE FOR REGRET” – NARA – 515957 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, saying “there should be no regret” is not the same as withdrawing condemnation of the past. The only way to end the experience of regret is to stop condemning the past as *inherently* wrong. So, there is “forgiving” others of doing wrong and then there is being accepting or even thankful for challenging experiences with no sense of *inherent* condemnation.

Without Regret

Without Regret (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We can condemn things, but if the condemning is a reaction, that is distinct from *creating* a particular pattern as “the problem” or “what is wrong.” We can make up two exclusive categories of “right” and “wrong,” but until we are the ones creating those categories, then we are subject to regret and suffering, as well as grief and grievance (blaming someone else for the past that we have condemned as wrong).

The wrong way to be right

May 10, 2013
The wrong way to be right

Using language, we can isolate two categorical groupings consisting of different formations in language. We can call one category “accurate” and the other category “inaccurate.” For instance, we could list a few statements and sort them for logical “accuracy:”



Representation of high precision and low accuracy.

Representation of high precision and low accuracy. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“The letters of these words are black.”
“The letters of these words are green.”
“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the English language.” 
“These words are in the specific pattern of language called the Northwestern European language.”
So, we can check for consistently between the symbolic representations (the meanings) of a sequence of words and then familiar, expected definitions of the individual word labels. Does the meaning of the grouping of words fit logically with the meanings of the individual words? Is there total logical consistency, or is there some obvious contradiction of logic (or, is that not clear, such as if you are only literate in the Chinese language and then you try to read these strange shapes, then you would not be able to identify whether these words are logically accurate or not).
We can say “either accurate or inaccurate,” “either true or false,” and “either right or wrong.” Those are each “binary” pairs or two exclusive contrasting categorical labels. Logically, wrong simply means “not totally right.” Like on a test in school, an answer that is partially right may receive no credit. It is not right. Something is wrong- maybe 100% inaccurate and maybe only some tiny detail, but if it is not 100% right, then it is not right, not correct, not accurate.
Representation of high accuracy and low precision.

Representation of high accuracy and low precision. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In some tests, we also recognize distinctions in precision. If I say that the temperature is 0 degrees fahrenheit, that is distinct from 0.214 or -0.08.
Further, we can categorize something as “too precise.” If I want a haircut, 3 minutes may not be enough time for a reasonably precise cutting of hairs, but 30 minutes of haircutting may be “more then enough precision.”
So, what does “wrong” really mean? It could simply mean unexpected or unrecognized. If I ask you what 2 plus 4 equals, and you say “half a dozen,” I may say “wrong!” Why? Because I expected the answer to be “6.” Maybe I do not know what a dozen is (or a half). If someone does not answer as I expect them to (or something I recognize as being accurate), then that is what I call “wrong.”
Now, if I think that I know the answer to a question but I actually do not, that can be even more intriguing. I may sincerely insist that what I expect is right and anything else is wrong.
English: "Space" in the Chinese lang...

English: “Space” in the Chinese language (as in definition 5 at Wiktionary. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, two people with slightly different perspectives can sit together and list out 100 issues, like 100 political controversies. They might find 97 issues in which they both agree that they are both “right.” They might also find 3 issues on which they both agree that “the other one is wrong, but I am right of course.”
What do they do about the 3 disagreements? They could ignore those 3 items and perhaps talk about the other 97. They could get in to an argument or a physical conflict about one or more of the 3 issues. They could discuss how they reached their different conclusions (and risk learning something new). Finally, they could notice the differences of opinion as mere differences of opinion and do nothing at all further.
A thumbnail produced for usage in some templat...

A thumbnail produced for usage in some template about articles having grammatical errors and/or wrong words. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But what is the right way for people to handle a disagreement? That may depend on who you ask.
Is someone afraid of disagreements, afraid of arguing, afraid of the risk of learning something new? Is someone eager to learn new things, either to argue, eager to debate and start a yelling match or a war? Are people looking for excuses to cultivate a conflict or looking for excuses to start a conversation or discussion?
Is it wrong for people to ever cultivate a conflict? Is it right for people to always generously offer themselves to a conversation about anything at all with anyone at all?
Realistically, right and wrong are just two categories in language. They may be very useful, as well as categorical pairs like “either familiar or unfamiliar” or “either exactly as expected or not exactly as expected.”
The idea that “right and wrong” exist independently of language may be entirely imprecise, completely inaccurate, absolutely ridiculous… and yet quite familiar and even exactly what is expected. Is there a wrong way to be right? Is it wrong to use any discrepancy between the perspectives of two people or two groups to create a conflict and drama and tantrum? To be precise, that is just one alternative. It is not inherently wrong to cultivate conflict. The only thing that cultivating conflict is inherently is cultivating conflict.
How can anything be wrong without someone labeling it as wrong? Is there something inherently wrong with “2 +4 = 5?”
What about when two highways intersect: one with four lanes and one with two lanes, and then they merge in to five lanes? Didn’t think of that, did you!?!?
Montage of languages. Prototype header for the...

Montage of languages. Prototype header for the language portal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

All of those shapes are symbolic codes. Symbolic codes are inherently codes that symbolize something else.
There is no inherently right way to spell the words color and colour (the British variation) because words do not inherently have any independent existence. Words only exist within the context of a language. Spelling only exists within the context of an alphabet.
Familiar spellings are just familiar. Familiar alphabets are just familiar. There is no font that is more inherently a font than any other font. There is no inherently right font and no inherently wrong font.
Fonts are all made up. Words are all made up. Languages are all made up.
Within language, we can create two isolated, contrasting categories such as right and wrong. Those categories, like all of the others in language are inherently just a bunch of made up categories in language. All categories are made up.
Other people may disagree with what I just stated. They may say “that is wrong.” They may find it unfamiliar. They may seek to argue with anyone who says such things. They may say “that is the wrong way to be right.” I might even say that I agree with them.
Stating agreement has a social function. Claiming disagreement (and focusing on that) also has a social function.
I may go out of my way to tell people when I disagree with them (but generally ignore it if they agree). Or, I may go out of my way to tell people when I agree with them.
Then again, if “my way” is to ignore disagreements and focus on agreements, then to behave that way is not “going out of my way.” That is claiming a particular way as mine and sticking with it.
If you want to have a lot of conversations with people, then claim a particular way as yours and tell everyone every chance you get. If you want to have fewer conversations, then do not claim a particular way as yours or at least do not make a point of telling people that your way is “not to claim any particular way as mine.” That is clearly the wrong way to be right!
When will people know to disagree or agree with you? When will people know to invest a lot of energy in creating a huge momentum of interaction with you? Don’t you owe it to people to clearly in advance let them know how you FEEL and what you think and so on? Exactly how much warning should you give to other people when are you about to eventually feel something new soon? Shouldn’t you always feel something and think something and need to tell everyone about all of that?
Well, look here and listen up… if that’s the best you can do as far as claiming to know the right way, then you might as well not even bother. Everyone should know the right way. Everyone should agree. 
That is what is inherently right. That is what I expect. Maybe it is not familiar, but it simply should be that everyone already has the same subjective opinion as to some exclusive, inherent set of things that are inherently right (in contrast to another very specific set of things that are inherently wrong). Specifically, people should always agree with me.
People basically should be more like I expect them to be. All other people should be much more like me- in fact exactly like me. All of these other people that are different from me in at least one way are ruining my life!
They are causing me tremendous frustration and confusion. Day after day, someone eventually does something that is not precisely what I presumptively expected. When are these people going to stop this? It’s so annoying!
I need to know what to expect. I need to know what I think. I need to know who I agree with passionately and who I disagree with completely (in regard to at least one detail). I need to know when to argue and have a tantrum or glorify any people who are inherently right because of their total agreement with my way, which not only should never change, but cannot. If I ever say anything inconsistent with something that I ever said in the past, that would be horrible. 
Learning is one of the very worst things that can happen to someone. Trust me because I say that from experience. You don’t want to have to learn that lesson for yourself like I did. It was truly horrible. Once I found out that learning new things was ruining my life, I simply stopped.
If you want to do what is inherently right and avoid learning new things, the key is to avoid interacting with other people, especially strangers. In particular, please do not have casual conversations with people who have not been carefully screened by a registered personality profiling agency as being so similar to you that your conversations will be refreshingly dull- kind of like the familiar conversations that you used to have, you know, back before you were ashamed of being so shy. 
Be proud that you are ashamed of being shy. Be ashamed that you are proud of being shy. Be shy about how you are ashamed of being proud. Be shy about how you are proud of being ashamed. 
But please, for God’s sake, do not over-do it. If there is one thing that throws me directly in to a jealous rage, it is those pests who are too undramatic and pretend that they do not know it. You know who I am talking about: dead people. They are ruining my life. 
Also, I cannot conclude without passionately condemning very small children who have not learned language yet and thus are unable to agree with me about how my point of view is inherently superior to all other points of view. They totally suck… nipples. They should be applauding me for my intelligence, which does not require talking- they could just clap, like while they are sucking out mother’s milk from the breasts of human mammary glands.
Why aren’t they clapping? Why aren’t they worshiping my inherently right way of being a narcissistic perfectionist? Why do they just keep laying there and totally suck at sucking? 
What the hell is wrong with young people nowadays? Back when I was a youngster, we had morals. We had values. We had sincerity. We had arrogance. We knew what was inherently right. We were superior to everyone else who did not do what we had learned to expect as what is familiar to us. 
And then something horrible happened. I kept learning so long that eventually I discovered that my way of being right was neither inherently right not inherently wrong. It was just one way of being right among many. 
Furthermore, “my way” was not even really mine. Dozens- perhaps even hundreds of young people in my midst had more or less the exact same set of familiar expectations as I did (in contrast to the unfamiliar expectations of people who did not expect what I expected them to expect). 
Who is going to fix this terribly terrifying terror? How can I make everyone else agree with me like I need them to? How can I prevent anyone from ever doing anything unexpected? How I can I figure out the right way to agonize so that once I have it mastered, then I can stop practicing the behavior of agonizing?
I’m about to give up here, folks. I am about to resign myself to always being resigned. I am about to accept that one way of relating to reality is to simply accept it as it is. 
But I just FEEL like I shouldn’t be so accepting (so resigned!). Shouldn’t I condemn anything that is inherently wrong- to prevent it from ever frightening me in the future? Shouldn’t I glorify everything that is inherently right because it is what I personally prefer and expect? 
Like I said, this is horrible. I am so depressed about me being totally okay with everything however it is. I really need something to reject (or else I simply will not able to live with myself). I need an excuse to reject myself, to condemn myself for being inherently not what I expected, or else… I might break down and openly accept how I already am. If I ever did that, then, well, then what would I struggle to become instead of what I am already?
Here I am, tormented by my complete freedom from ideals and idolatries. Who can rescue me from this humble, innocent dignity? What ritual can save me from heaven? What can I condemn? What can I reject? What can I protest as insulting to what is inherently decent? 
First of all, infants should not suck. We need to properly raise them so that they realize that breast milk is extremely dangerous. Once, I was walking down a street and I slipped in a puddle of breast milk and fell hopelessly in love, drowning in my own words, and then suddenly died. My life was totally ruined. 
I only wish that my life had not been ruined by what ruined my life. Please, if you learn nothing else for the rest of your life, I insist that you learn from my mistakes, well, unless you are being a jerk again like you used to always do. Stop doing things that are inherently wrong. Stop totally sucking. Only suck in moderation. 
Be more like I expect you to be, like for instance stop acting like I somehow owe it to you to inform you in advance of what I expect. The arrogance of some people never ceases to amaze me. Stop that. Stop that right now. Thank you. Do not make me come over there and repeat myself and come over there, you worthless sack of sucking sucks (not to be confused with sacking sacks, which by the way are NOT worthless).


Accuracy and precision example

Accuracy and precision example (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

song recording: “if it’s all right with you”

July 21, 2012
Wrong (Depeche Mode song)

Wrong (Depeche Mode song) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

if it’s all right with you

So many lonely people wishing to be saved

I’m trying to avoid them, to finally escape

I saw some in a line today, so much different than me

There’s no way to connect with them. I don’t know how to be

Please show me how to get back to the root

of the problem I have with the way that I am

It’s wrong, all wrong, and there’s nothing I can do

about my resignation, at least if it’s all right with you

So many naive people wishing to be wise

I’m trying to correct them, to keep their arrogance in line

I saw some out of line today, so much different than me

They’re just a bunch of rebels who don’t know how to be

Please show us how to get back to the root

of the problems we create as the way that we relate to life

It’s wrong, all wrong, and there’s nothing we can do

about our resignation, at least if it’s all right with you

“that map is wrong and this plan is holy”

March 27, 2012

Here is a parable, then a commentary.

Now, a child was holding in her hand a map. She looked closely at the map and moved her finger across it.

The map showed some paths that went through a big forest park. The paths on the map sometimes crossed.

The child hit the map against her hand and then, in a big forest park in the middle of a path, she threw the map down on the
ground. As she stood, she began to cry.

Soon, a blind man and his dog found her right here. He asked her if she was hurt. She stopped crying and said no.

Then, he asked her if she liked dogs. She said yes and came closer to pet his dog.

Before she got to the dog, the blind man told her to wait. The man also said that there is a certain way of doing things that works.

Then, he said something to the dog quickly and then he told the child to make a fist and to hold it still in front of her for the dog to smell. She did. The dog walked near to her, smelled briefly, then licked her wrist.

The man said that the dog was ready for her to pet now. So, she pet the dog for a while. Then she looked at the man and said that her map “must be wrong.”

He slowly repeated what she said and then asked if she was sure that it is really a map? She said yes.

Then, he asked how she was sure that the map was wrong. She told him that she could not be lost, so her map must be wrong.

Next, he asked if she was sure that this map was a map of this park? She said yes and offered to show it to him.

Then, he asked her to first tell him where she was going. She did.

Next, he asked her to show that place to him on the map. She did.

Then, he asked her to show him their current position on the map. She did.

He said, “Aha, can you see the problem here?” She said, “yes, like I already told you: that map is wrong!”

Then, he turned his head to the left and turned it to the right as he said to her “when you look around here, do you see anything in this part of the forest that looks like that place on the map?” She said “no, and that’s the problem.”

He said “Well, I don’t see a match between this part of the forest and that place on the map. So, are you absolutely sure that this map is a map of this forest?”

She rolled her eyes and then nodded her head. He turned the map upside down and said “Okay then, how about this: are you absolutely sure that this place on the map is where we are in this forest?”

“I already told you that I am not lost,” she said. “Oh, clearly, I can see that,” he said, then asked, “I wonder: have you heard about a blind man that often walks through this park?”

She said “oh, yes. I heard that the park is named after him, right?”

“Yes, that’s exactly the man I mean,” he said. “Anyway, once he was walking through this park when he suddenly realized that he had been lost since before he knew that he was lost! Can you imagine that?”

She said “Well, that does not make any sense! Why didn’t he just use a map?”

“That is really a great question,” he said. “If you ever find the answer, be sure to let me know. Anyway, didn’t you say that you were going back to the entrance of the park?”

“That’s right,” she said. Then, she reached out her hand, fingers outstretched this time, for the dog to lick.

“Well, fortunately for me, that is also where I am going, so we could go together,” he said. “Fortunately for you, I already know how to get there from here. Follow me.”

Then, the blind man with his dog and the child all walked directly to the entrance of the park. She told him all about the right way to make maps and he always found a way to find every moment fascinating right now.

Illustration of interference of light coming f...

Illustration of interference of light coming from two in-phase point sources. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


If a map stops working for you, stop using it. Do not rely on a map. Always rely on the ground, even if you use a map. Sometimes maps are no longer accurate. By the way, an accurate map is most effective when you know the place on the map that corresponds to your actual position.

Commentary (which goes beyond the lesson of the parable):

You are made through a plan. As this plan is followed, you develop and prosper. If this plan were ever neglected, your development would have slowed or stopped and then you may have even experienced a loss of curiosity and clarity as well as a cycle of resistance and confusion.

Resistance is the natural result whenever anything else interferes with this plan. Resistance blocks the interference. Remember, when interacting with others, that this plan is for you personally to discover and follow, not for others to learn from you or for you to learn from them. Reject those who interfere with this plan. If others resist you, stop interfering.

If you ever resist this plan, this plan interferes with the resisting. Confusion is the natural result whenever you interfere with this plan. If you have been confused, you can stop moving forward and then return to clarity now.

How does one return to clarity? Study this plan which makes you. Every instinct is part of this plan. Every intuition is part of this plan.

Any plan that is written or spoken is not this plan. Those are only words or symbols. Words can remind you of this plan, but this plan is not made from words.

This plan makes all the creatures, each according to the specific plan for that creature. According to this plan, some creatures make symbols and words, which are like the features of a map. The map is made according to the ground, but making a map does not influence the ground. This plan is like the ground.

Words and symbols may or may not accurately describe certain features of the ground or this plan. However, do not rely on the words and symbols. Rely on this plan. This plan guides you. This holy plan is how your life works.

This holy plan guides all of my life. This holy plan guides how to breathe, how to eat, how to see, how to move, how to crawl, walk, or run, and how to think, plus how to do everything else from interacting with other people directly to how to adjust to the weather to how to prosper in all seasons of economic flow.

When I study this holy plan and practice what this holy plan guides me to practice, I develop according to this holy plan. Only I can fulfill this holy plan and I am.



Published on: Apr 11, 2009


“Life is not what it’s supposed to be. Its what it is. The way you cope with it is what makes the difference.” Virginia Satir(1916-1988)

Virgina Satir
Image via Wikipedia-                    Virginia Satyr
Related articles

parody on the language of propaganda: “that should be different, too!”

March 3, 2012

“that should be different, too”

A Grateful Tirade: ”that should be different, too”

NO NO NO! All of you are totally wrong, especially you, you, and definitely you and, last but certainly not least, me.

Nothing is as it should be. Everything is all wrong. I should know.

Wrong Is Right

Wrong Is Right (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Now, given that we all now agree that everything is totally wrong, it is absolutely, desperately imperative that we fix EVERYTHING, and right away, so that each thing can be some different form of how it should not be, entirely accidentally, and with no particular importance to anything that we have ever said or done….

Some of us may wish to start by changing the government or the financial system into ANYTHING other than how it should not be how it currently is. It still may not be how it obviously should be, of course, but at least it won’t be like THIS. EGAD!

That whole stupid idea of stupidity, of course, is totally stupid, but go for it if you like. Personally, I’ll leave all that to you and I’m going to go around trying to change the way that my ex spells the word should.

That’s right. She is spelling it totally wrong. It’s a scandal.

Listen closely: “shood.” Clearly, it was only some idiot that wood spell shood with an L! (She knowls who she is!)

We shood have nolticed this from the start, but, loolk, there is alsolulely nolthing about any of us that is how we shood be. Everything is exactly howl it shood not be, even the shape of the letter L… ESPECIALLY thalt! EGALD!

So, for VERY good reasons, I am very disappointed. I’m angry at how angry my ex was pretending not to be. I shood have saved her, but maybe it’s not too late… not yet, right?

I can wait. How soon is it until it’s too late to save the world from being exactly how it shood not be?

I’m only asking because I really shood get back to doing a few things around the little box in which I live. I’ve only got so much time, you know!

Anyway, after I fix the way that my ex spells shood uncorrectly and then almost make a sincere effort to attempt to try to save the world from the world real quick, I’d like to have a word with myself for a moment, young man:

I am very disappointed about how you have been pretending that the world should not be how it may actually be. It’s not the basic idea that it should not be how it should not be, because obviously it should not be how it obviously should not be.

It’s the WAY that you have been pretending that it should not be like this. I know that you know that I know what you are talking about, so do Anger Management

not go trying to play stupid with me, buddy, okay? I know ALL your tricks. I invented them ourselves.

So, we agree now that you should not be pretending in that particular WAY. It’s VERY disappointing… obviously!

Anyway, I’m sure you can fix it. You’ll probably do it wrong, of course, but I am sure that you COULD fix it.

You just won’t. You always refuse. You’re so stubborn sometimes, like especially about not agreeing with me about my particular way of seeing how the world should not be like it is. Then again, I suppose that is only to be expected… from someone like you!

published: Nov 26, 2009

Related articles

A life without problems & the language of relating to life as a problem

February 29, 2012
Published on Aug 14, 2009. Re-published as a page on February 28, 2012.

Experience (Photo credit: djniks)

I have been having very serious problems with reality. Isn’t that awesome?
A problem is a belief that God (i.e. you, I) has failed definitively and is incapable of miraculously resolving some allegedly unresolved and perhaps unresolvable situation. At root, a problem is a way of relating with reality that identifies some situation as wrong ( as a problem, as what should not be). Along with that often goes this: relating to some other situation as the cause of the problem- an excuse for one’s own results, experiences, actions or inactions. Making a problem out of life  basically identifies the one with the problem as the victim isolated from an all-powerful, evil, villainous reality (AKA “the victim mentality“). At least, that is one way of making a problem out of life. There are other ways that are not so dramatic, but making life in to a problem in this particular way is, frankly, quite an interesting way to draw attention to one’s self.
The big problem was a reflection (or projection) of my belief in what is wrong with my life (i.e. with me) and of my worshipping of my own insistence that something is wrong. The experience of “problem” is the resulting evidence- which I present as obvious, incontrovertible proof that reality should not be how it is and then I make friends with anyone who agrees with me and deem everyone else as obviously “part of the problem.” The problem thus justifies my worship of the belief that something is wrong with my life (i.e. with me): “see, here is the proof: just look at this problem!”
By the way, problems are always presumed to be more important than the rest of reality. Did I mention that people who agree with me on how important my problems are (on how important I am through them) may be who I identify as my friends (oh, and did I also mention how insightful they are)? People who erroneously think that other things are “the problem” are wrong… obviously. 😉
So, in cooperation with our alleged enemies, we may come together like magnets, each arguing for how we are repulsed by each other. We join together, facing each other with angry tears and surging adrenalin- and chant this mantra in harmony like the sopranos and tenors of a choir: “you are so wrong. You are so wrong. You are so wrong. How can you be so wrong? I can’t believe that you could actually be so wrong. How much wronger could anyone be? You may be the wrongest person to ever live! God really must be ashamed of creating someone as wrong as you.”
However, at least we can still agree with them that any people who question the existence of problems must be insane. Here’s proof: none of any of our friends (none of the friends of my enemies and none of my own friends- you remember- the insightful ones) question the existence of problems, do they?
Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred II

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred II (Photo credit: Nick in exsilio)

At root, problems are hatred. “You are so wrong” (or even “this is so wrong”) is a mantra of hatred, and when I say “you are so wrong,” who hears it most? Who hears me say “you?” Which “you” hears it every single time I say (or even think) it?

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred I

Religion overthrowing Heresy and Hatred I (Photo credit: Nick in exsilio)

I hear it everytime I say it. I hear it every time one of my friends say it. When the people that I call my enemies say it, I probably don’t bother listening to them really because they are obviously wrong anyway. So, if my distant enemies have only been listening to me as little as I have been listening to them (if at all), then to whom are they really saying their mantras (whether in Russian or Arabic or Hebrew or English): to themselves (and perhaps also to their friends- and even their children- who will listen to my latest hypnotic mantras of hatred)?
“But stop trying to change the subject, buddy. Let’s get back to the specifics of my very special and important problem. You know the one. Don’t act like I need to tell you what the real problem is here…. You KNOW the one!”
So, if I have been attached to a certain specific method or specific outcome which does not fit present reality, could the source of the problem be not reality but my insistence on a method or outcome which may not fit with reality? Insisting that reality adhere to my presumptions is rebellion against reality. That could be a problem, huh?
Insisting that my life (I) should not be how it is (how I am) is not partnering with reality. Rebelling against reality first isolates me from reality (implicitly denying that I am real) and then implies that reality is the source of my rebellion- you know- because something obviously is fundamentally wrong with reality, you know- the distant reality way over there, so far away from me, the innocent victim, who is so unlike all-powerful reality. On the other hand, I may have been attributing a lot of power to reality. What if at least some of the power that any alleged reality may have is actually power that came from me and my attention? That would have been ironic, wasn’t it?
English: The mantra of Padmasambhava (Guru Rin...

Image via Wikipedia

The experience of problem was my insisting that something is fundamentally wrong with reality. The experience of problem was the insistence that reality is fundamentally wrong. By the way, people who did not agree with me not just on exactly how reality is wrong but even on the basic premise that reality is wrong… are people that I deemed to be insane. Again: ironic, wasn’t it?
“By the way, do you know what your problem is? You do, huh? Well, in that case, let me tell you what your problem is….”
Consider that in order to partner with reality, first we might question what reality actually is. We might even question how reality comes to be and even the seemingly absurd question of whether reality even exists.
Who would I be if I questioned the existence of reality? That would imply that I stop separating myself from any particular something. Hating is rooted in the belief that I am not the object of the hatred. Fearing, hoping, and even loving may be rooted in the belief that I am not the object of the experience. Or, perhaps loving is the direct experiencing of life as living- without separating life into you and me, good and eve, villain and victim, subject and object, cause and effect, alive and dead, into two.
What if what I have been calling reality was only a specific, limited way of experiencing living? What if I relax my objectifying of reality as “the way it is” and experience living curiously as “what could be?”
Reality is just something that could be. Insist, then suffering may result.
Insist on how reality should be, and am I not the one who suffers? Insist on how I should be, and am I the one who suffers- or, by focusing on my own way of being, isn’t my experience of life by which I mean my experience of my life by which I mean my experience of me living my life… responding precisely to my evolving attention? What if that has always been all that has ever been?
Does reality mechanically produce an experience which I then call me? Does life live me living my life? Is my life the dead product of a remote God-reality- an impersonal, all-powerful and yet possibly judgmental, insecure, jealous, and vengeful God-reality- or am I this very God-realizing attention which gives form to experience?
On the seventh day, God said to herself: “Hey, do you know what your problem is? You are so wrong! By the way, stop trying to change the object!”
And so God, who had been having a very bad hair day, removed her comb from the surface of the obviously uncooperative mirror- where she had been trying so earnestly to get the mother-flipping reflection to part right there- no, not here (AAAARRRGH). Instead, she then, perhaps by a divinely accidental coincidence of synchronicitous grace, casually placed the comb on her head all the way over here and indeed relaxed her hand, sliding this comb gently through her hair just like that. Suddenly, just as she felt the comb gently moving across her scalp, something truly miraculous happened….
God just woke up from the dream that there was ever a mirror out there at all. A mirror that did not ever exist could not have always been a problem, shouldn’t you?


We do not have to sail in the direction of the wind, but if we ever sail off course, is it easier to change the direction of the wind or the direction of the sail?

Related articles

%d bloggers like this: