Is this Sanity

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Is this Sanity

Postby eaglerising » Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:17 am

The finite consciousness of thought is unaware that it is shared by all humans. Thus, we aren’t aware that our consciousness is part of a “universal consciousness.” Thought also unaware of the illusionary concepts it creates and stories which substantiate them. The fragmentation of thought causes part of it to deduce the illusionary concepts created by another part of it to be real and accurate. Consequently, they become part of the universal consciousness. We perceive these illusions are real and accurate because they are in accord or agreement with our perception, which is our authority.

Over seven billion people share a common consciousness. This consciousness contains billions of thoughts, all of which are oblivious of each other. In other words, thought is fragmented. The fragmentation of thought causes it to unknowingly create illusions and stories which substantiate them that in conflict and oppose other illusions it has created. Because thought sees them as being real they become part of whose perception is in accord with them.

We are oblivious of how many illusionary concepts comprise our perception. We become aware of them when we become disturbed, upset, or angry about any concept that conflicts with our perception. That’s because we are emotionally attached to illusionary concepts. Whereas, there is no emotional attachment with real concepts. Every emotional disagreement, debate, or argument we have is counterproductive. It creates conflict, perpetuates thought’s illusionary concepts, and prevents us from examining our perception. And, everyone loses because illusion versus illusion equals illusion.

The debate between atheists and those who believe in God is an example of the two illusions perpetuating what thought created. Human’s perception of atheism and God are creations of thought. Consequently, it is an unsolvable debate because illusion versus illusion equals illusion. The debate between them has been going on for thousands of years and will continue to go on until we realize both are illusions created by thought. The realization of this gives new meaning to the duality of thought.
User avatar
eaglerising
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 12:21 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:35 am

eaglerising wrote:The debate between atheists and those who believe in God is an example of the two illusions perpetuating what thought created. Human’s perception of atheism and God are creations of thought. Consequently, it is an unsolvable debate because illusion versus illusion equals illusion. The debate between them has been going on for thousands of years and will continue to go on until we realize both are illusions created by thought. The realization of this gives new meaning to the duality of thought.
Yes, both are illusions depending on a certain perspective one looks at reality. The screen you are reading from is solid from one perspective but is a an illusion from another.

However from a consequential perspective of reality, we need to assess which is less illusory thus more optimal to the individual[s] and the collective.

The question of which is more illusory is based on which is based on objectivity [more, less or none at all].
Point is there is no objective grounds for theism at all.

As for atheism it is something indifferent and neutral by itself. A non-theist will consider objectivity on a case to case basis for any thing that claims to be objective. Thus for any claim, i.e. "P is true and objective", then prove it.

While theism is at the worst end of being illusory and not-objective [i.e. subjective and faith] it is nevertheless has critical utility for the majority of people since it emerge to the present. In addition theism also has its cons.

In the current increasing trend within reality, the cons of theism is outweighing its pros as reflected in the manifesting terrible evils and violence from one religion, i.e. Islam. It is about time theism human wean off theism [very illusory] and replace it with solutions [less illusory] that are more optimal which are net-positive for humanity.

So illusion is not an issue since everything is illusory to some extent. What matters is the consequences of these illusions and their contribution of the well being of humanity. The basis from consequences of deeds and ideas is not insanity.

p.s. I am in the other forum PCF, will post the same there.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:15 am

Bayes' theorem expresses: With the Bayesian probability interpretation, the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of related evidence.
It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
(Anomaly654 - 2017)

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
- which is to say there is always meaning.

(gib - 2017)

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself - 2017)
______________________
Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby eaglerising » Sun Jun 11, 2017 4:15 am

Prismatic56 – You miss the whole point of this post if you focus your attention on the example, about our perception of atheism and God. Most people don't realize how much of their perception contains illusionary concepts created by thought. You begin to realize the magnitude of this if you pay attention to all the times you become upset, disturbed, or angry over something that conflicts with our perception. Observe all the conflict it creates. Furthermore, your response is an example of how perception justifies or defends itself. Thus nothing new is seen or learned because you don't question and examine your perception.
User avatar
eaglerising
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 12:21 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jun 11, 2017 1:55 pm

Why is atheism an illusion?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby encode_decode » Sun Jun 11, 2017 2:36 pm

Interesting

Magnus Anderson wrote:Why is atheism an illusion?

I think this is a great question Magnus Anderson. Hopefully somebody will attempt an answer.

I am inspired to challenge anyone who wants to try and answer the opposite question:

Why is atheism not an illusion?

:lol:
It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
(Anomaly654 - 2017)

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
- which is to say there is always meaning.

(gib - 2017)

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself - 2017)
______________________
Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:23 pm

Why is the idea that theism and atheism are illusions, not an illusion?
"Who loves not wine, woman and song, remains a fool his whole life long."

"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10105
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun Jun 11, 2017 3:48 pm

How about what is an illusion?
How do you determine whether something is an illusion or not?

For example, I say that God does not exist. How can I determine whether that is an illusion or not?

Hmm, I don't know. I think this might be too complicated. Too difficult for our brains. Let's just go back to making assertions and pretending we are justified in our beliefs.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:30 pm

This page was left blank.
Last edited by Meno_ on Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby phyllo » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:05 pm

Simple: Illusions are illusions.
Well, that explains that. :D
"Who loves not wine, woman and song, remains a fool his whole life long."

"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10105
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby Meno_ » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:19 pm

If illusions are only illusions, and nothing but, then it explains it. But illusions are not pure, they are part illusion, part fact, based on evident reality. The difference is hard to tell to the point of incredulity.
Pure, unadulterated illusions are hard to come by, as do absolute verifiable truths.

So reality is cut up, on basis of belief, that belief changing contextually. The unbelievable stuff is separated from the so called obvious and sensible.
That the sensible is also manufactured, often times, doesen't enter most awareness, mostly it's an automatic response.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby WendyDarling » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:50 pm

Eagle wrote
The finite consciousness of thought is unaware that it is shared by all humans. Thus, we aren’t aware that our consciousness is part of a “universal consciousness.”


The whole point of our consciousness becoming separated and placed in a human body was for the purpose of individualism. When our physical human body ceases to function, our consciousnesses may or may not rejoin the universal consciousness however I'm not convinced that thought is fragmented as if that is a bad thing. Separated does not equal fragmented when you think of children born of two beings, are the children fragmented beings or new individuals that share the same thing called life?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby eaglerising » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:39 am

WendyDarlig –
The whole point of our consciousness becoming separated and placed in a human body was for the purpose of individualism. When our physical human body ceases to function, our consciousnesses may or may not rejoin the universal consciousness however I'm not convinced that thought is fragmented as if that is a bad thing. Separated does not equal fragmented when you think of children born of two beings, are the children fragmented beings or new individuals that share the same thing called life?


If you attentively observe thought you can see that it is fragmented. You will also see that thought is incomplete. Because you can experience it, it isn't a matter of belief or disbelief.
User avatar
eaglerising
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue May 30, 2017 12:21 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:30 am

eaglerising wrote:WendyDarlig –
The whole point of our consciousness becoming separated and placed in a human body was for the purpose of individualism. When our physical human body ceases to function, our consciousnesses may or may not rejoin the universal consciousness however I'm not convinced that thought is fragmented as if that is a bad thing. Separated does not equal fragmented when you think of children born of two beings, are the children fragmented beings or new individuals that share the same thing called life?


If you attentively observe thought you can see that it is fragmented. You will also see that thought is incomplete. Because you can experience it, it isn't a matter of belief or disbelief.


See, remember, or compensate? Emotionally incomplete, spiritually devoid, or spun through the rinse cycle repeatedly to no better end? I'm not following so your thought is incomplete? Why is it not a matter of belief or disbelief when memory is involved. Memory causes thought to be lost in translation (between the brain and the soul) but that is not the same as fragmented unless your recollecting a dream, then yes, it's fragmented.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Jun 12, 2017 6:41 am

Is thought a memory as you are having it? Mobius loop deja vu, anyone? Okay, I'm gonna trip out on this possibility for a bit. No, no drugs were involved, well not of the illegal variety. As a thought is echoed back from soul to brain, am I merely remembering myself, the past, too slowly to catch up with my source of being or ...
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:59 pm

What does it mean that thought is fragmented?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby phyllo » Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:13 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:What does it mean that thought is fragmented?
Good question.
"Who loves not wine, woman and song, remains a fool his whole life long."

"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10105
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:37 pm

My guess is that thought is fragmented in the sense that it serves some personal interest rather than universal interest. It divides people instead of uniting them. It is based on fear rather than love.

Your turn.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby encode_decode » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:12 am

WendyDarling

WendyDarling wrote:Is thought a memory as you are having it? Mobius loop deja vu, anyone? Okay, I'm gonna trip out on this possibility for a bit. No, no drugs were involved, well not of the illegal variety. As a thought is echoed back from soul to brain, am I merely remembering myself, the past, too slowly to catch up with my source of being or ...

Actually, that is not a bad analogy. A thought is like a pattern quantification involving analogy and vicinity(time) - the memory is a hierarchical component, temporal in its nature. Each 'quantified thought' is generated by the 'continuous loop' which is in search for analogies from the past that closely fit the present circumstances involved in the thought.

What we refer to as present is close enough to be practical - all thinking is based on the past - we live up to 300 milliseconds in the past - transmission speeds among the neurons vary - synaptic speed in some cases is 1 - 5 milliseconds. When the thought is quantified it has generally taken somewhere between 10 - 300 milliseconds to reach that point.

Memory is accessed as close to now as possible - as long as the analogy found is a really close match it is used - otherwise you would ask a question - or possibly tell a lie. The further up the hierarchy of time the 'loop' has to search the slower the recall. When we are rushed or feel rushed to respond to our circumstance the accuracy of our response is affected.

Now as for the source of being, I believe this would be a separate conversation . . . I could possibly take a guess at it. I know the source of being is related to socializing. The seed of the source however would be what would constitutes a conversation by itself.

Just saying.

:-k
It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
(Anomaly654 - 2017)

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
- which is to say there is always meaning.

(gib - 2017)

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself - 2017)
______________________
Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:38 am

Aaron,

The seed of the source however would be what would constitutes a conversation by itself.


I like this phrase "the seed of the source," where can we go with it? :mrgreen: If you can come up with any alternative angles in which to corral this concept, I'm all eyes. :shock:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby encode_decode » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:15 pm

WendyDarling

Keep in mind this is but one persons thoughts on the matter(namely mine).

:lol:

The story does not end here . . .

WendyDarling wrote:Aaron,

The seed of the source however would be what would constitutes a conversation by itself.


I like this phrase "the seed of the source," where can we go with it? :mrgreen: If you can come up with any alternative angles in which to corral this concept, I'm all eyes. :shock:

Where can we go with it indeed? My guess would be just as confined as every other theory I am afraid. I guess we would have to start with the idea of "get real".

So how do we get real? That in itself is a big question with a simple answer. People have a tendency to confound themselves with many different notions leading to over complicating the matter of what is real and what is not real.

So the following is an example of how I choose to get real:

    I do not know "nothing" and I do not know "everything". All I understand is somewhere in between.

All I understand would constitute my version of reality - so do I believe in the concept of an atom? Kind of. I understand that atomic physics gets results so the physicist is obviously on to something. But you do not need to understand electricity to use it. I do not believe you need to get physics and chemistry one hundred percent right to exploit these disciplines either. So how do we understand things that are too small for the human eye to see? We don't really. We have a level of precision that works - enough to be practical - in the early days we did not even understand the consequences of playing in these disciplines and still today we are paying for our misunderstanding.

So now we can say:

    We do not know "nothing" and we do not know "everything". All we understand is somewhere in between.

I am certain this is something that is permanent.

The seed of the source - gets viewed in many ways as is evident in historical contexts.

If we take two definitions from google for the word source:

    General definition
    1. a place, person, or thing from which something originates or can be obtained.

    Technical definition
    2. a body or process by which energy or a particular component enters a system.

And use the following definition for the word seed:

    cause (something) to begin to develop or grow

You could surmise that my definition for seed of the source is as follows:

    cause a place, process, body, person or thing to originate, enter, develop or grow

We are fundamentally talking about causation - cause and effect. To some it would be GOD, to others the Big Bang. To me all theories are illusions of some kind because of what each person should probably admit to themselves:

    We do not know "nothing" and we do not know "everything". All we understand is somewhere in between.

And it is still only probability because of something similar to what I said earlier:

    A subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of related evidence.

:-k

But what would I know? I am just as lost as everyone else . . . People claim they have proofs for this, that and the other but as I said in another thread:

    How do we know when to accept objective reality established and accepted through science and philosophy?

None of this is to say that we can not keep increasing our understanding of reality - just that life itself and its raison d'être might remain a mystery to us.

#-o

So the seed of the source could also be - the seed(author) of the source(theory)

. . . or as today shows us . . . the seeds(authors) of the sources(theories)

I could of course explain the seed of the source in a much "prettier" way - a way that is more comfortable for a person to read and maybe accept.
To me reading what other people write is another form of socializing - we read many things that point at the truth even though they may differ.

[-o<

In the end - acceptance is belief.
It’s not that truth itself is being eroded per se, it’s that fragmental falsification appears to be increasing.
(Anomaly654 - 2017)

But the point remains that you can't get at that meaning before grasping the surface meaning
- which is to say there is always meaning.

(gib - 2017)

Mind is an ever changing dimension that is bound to reality, logic and emotion.
(Myself - 2017)
______________________
Neosophi | οἶκος | ἀγορά
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Metaspace

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:06 pm

In the end - acceptance is belief.


Belief in oneself requires that acceptance without which does any other acceptance stand unwavering? Is acceptance an absolute or a contingent? Does truth exist?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby pilgrim-seeker_tom » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:18 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:My guess is that thought is fragmented in the sense that it serves some personal interest rather than universal interest. It divides people instead of uniting them. It is based on fear rather than love.

Your turn.


MA ... hope you don't mind me jumping in ... your post feels unusually positive ... and truthful/accurate. Let me propose a frame for the picture you painted.

1) Consciousness ... big "C" ... -----> pure intelligence ... pure energy ... infinite ... eternal ... and so on and so on. In a word ... "ineffable".

2) Big "C" Consciousness wants to See Itself ... Know Itself ... Understand Itself ... as in a mirror image of Itself. How?

3) Create an illusion ... put a 'veil' between 'I'-tself' and 'i'-tself' ... an illusion of separation.

4) Premature breaching of the veil terminates the experiment ... renders the experiment unsuccessful.

5) Big "C" Consciousness creates a communication grid to connect Itself with itself. Humans are part of this communication grid ... perhaps near the top of the hierarchy ... perhaps not. St Augustine claims ... nature speaks to us through it's beauty. Animals speak to us through their actions. Humans and other life forms have developed language to articulate and communicate thought.

6) Conclusion ... humans are a 'fragment' of big "C" Consciousness ... within the illusion of separation ... as well as "thought". At the appointed time, the veil ... the illusion of separation ... will disappear and all will be ONE again.
"Do not be influenced by the importance of the writer, and whether his learning be great or small; but let the love of pure truth draw you to read. Do not inquire, “Who said this?” but pay attention to what is said”

Thomas Kempis 1380-1471
User avatar
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:16 am

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby WendyDarling » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:28 pm

Nicely put tom.

tom wrote
your post feels unusually positive


Yes, unusually positive and MA doesn't deal in feelings so consider such positivism a set-up, for who, well that's up to you to decide tom, now isn't it? You bit his hook though...careful. :lol:
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Is this Sanity

Postby The Eternal Warrior » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:25 pm

an eternal mass consciousness of group consciousnesses and individual consciousnesses that become group consciousnesses in the throes of an eternal compression and decompression balance/imbalance of time and alternate realities.

"didn't mean to give you mushrooms, girl; didn't mean to bring you to my world; now you're sitting in the corner, crying, and it's my fault, my fault."

Welcome to life: the greatest acid fry you will ever know.

If this is sanity then sanity is insane. If it is insanity, then it's remarkably sane.

It is still very much depraved. I have fought to prevent it from dipping, dropping back down, fought to keep myself and I find myself to be the most insane and depraved of the bunch. Ironic. Irony. Delicious satire. Welcome to my eternal tragedy. As promised, it will haunt you forever. It already has.
User avatar
The Eternal Warrior
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2436
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:26 am

Next

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users