As I push forward in my thought, I have begun to get a hold of what is sometimes known as emptiness, or how everything lacks inherent existence. All things depend upon, number one, that which caused them to exist in the first place as well as other things existing for them to be distinguished (appear finite) from. I visualize it as so: imagine a piece of paper (plain white paper, non-lined); this piece of paper represents the entirety of existence. Forms (possessing finiteness, represented as a mark on the paper) can only exist (be perceived) if they somehow distinguish themselves from the sheet of paper. Marks on the paper are dependent upon, first of all, that which caused them. Second, that which the mark consists of (say for example: graphite or ink).

Is everything only that which causes it? The ink on the paper must have come from somewhere, caused into existence by something. When those circumstances which cause my physical body to function are no longer in place, it will cease to exist. But did I ever exist in the first place? In one sense I do (the sense that a human named Otto Borden is typing this message right now), but I ask when did I begin? Birth? Conception? Conception is a process, not an event. If one is to trace the web of cause and effect to try and find ones beginning, an honest attempt would lead to no beginning. Why not say the start of my life was when my parents first locked eyes? Or when their grandparents first locked eyes? Or when the first mammal appeared? Or when the Earth was forming? It becomes obvious, it’s all in how you define life.

EDIT: BTW, I realize that if the paper was everything, there wouldn’t be a pen or pencil to mark on it, its just a metaphor.

Please don’t ask ontological questions, Otto. They are extremely hard to deal with and things can get quite confusing. We are marxists here and we want to talk about cigars, green fatigues, mangled beards, and a willingness to work voluntarily to build the state economy.

Like a well oiled machine…

Pragmatism, baby.

i’m more worried about Noth Koreas economy than Canada’s. We don’t have a “nuke” though its obviously a ploy to gain influence/ foriegn aid, there fucking crazy for even saying it. Iran is even scarier because they have $$$, a crazy leader(anyone who denies the evidence of the holocaust credability is
a dangerous man) and they deny even working toward a nuke. Which obviously points to the worst.

Speaking of conspiracy theory, I have a general formula for dealing with it.

There are ways to argue and convince that conspiracy is ridiculous on its face, but there are ways to understand its possibility as quite likely if not even most likely. It depends on the direction a conspiracy, or conspiracy in general, is approached. If one has a premise in mind and seeks to find hints or clues toward some evidence, they will “see what they want to see,” and it will begin to make sense.

On the other hand, the motive and reason for conspiracy in general is certainly real and rather than asking “is a race doomed by biological warfare,” for example, we should be asking “is it possible and would it be useful for one race to use such technology against another.” Well, yes it would, because in itself it serves it purpose. It is the greater picture and the incentive of such a conspiracy that is troublesome to elaborate. But simply because it is possible, a conspiracy might be invented to fit it…that is, a race might believe they are superior because of having invented the technology.

In other words, if you put the ducks in the right order, suddenly conspiracy theory becomes demystified, while retaining its possibility.

The basic axioms:

Man is intelligent.
Man is deceitful.
Not all forms of governmental ordinance is known by the public.

Put these three together and you get several possibilites for very many little conspiracies, if not links or developments in a grand conspiracy.

Final axiom:

Man is clumsy.

Now, forget about the grand conspiracy because most likely it would fall apart. Everything is subject to Murphey’s Law.