writeabook

((I just cut parts and pasted them, it's a reaally long story)) - Sean Murray**From these parts, I can't really tell what the memoir is about. However, I love the way you write. I'd really like to read the whole thing when you're done with it. (: - Alicia Cardona**

I'm writing a book. It's a pretty solid thought; rationally based. Yet, here I am having to do something. "Doing things" isn't the work of a philosopher. "Doing things" is what construction workers do; what politicians use to trick normal people. Usually a waste of //something// and barely ever efficient, "doing things" is just the easiest way to phrase spontaneous conpoundation of impatient will. The will to act without a rational basis.

This compoundation, "doing things" is easily avoided by over thought, the process of over thinking. With over thought, one can bypass the layer of action between planning and replanning. This "putting into action" of a plan just wastes the resources necessary for a more efficient plan. A plan that could be as close to perfect as humanly possible. So how is it possible to rationalize action without a humanly perfect plan for such action?

These are my actual thoughts. It's 2:32am on a Monday.

I don't think people think more in the shower. On average, people probably think consistently less in the shower: rub self, rinse self. The only reason to think would be if you do in thinking about something; you'll have concentrated nothingness in your mind except for what you went in with. In the shower, you aren't scared or bored; you aren't moral or evil or beautiful. You're alone, in a shower, without bias. I think that people notice themselves thinking about amazing things in the shower. Amazing things that they might have been thinking about for a week. But the shower takes the credit. The shower presents them with an unbiased opinion. Is it an idea or a theory? A hypothesis or postulate? Can this be done?

"What if" is the shower's tool. Because we have the time. The shower doesn't set an alarm or call you from the kitchen. The shower doesn't have a meeting to get to or a bus to catch. **The shower has all the time in the world, and you have all the time in the world, in the shower.**

"Why do you think that music is used as a catalyst by this world's great minds?" "Could it be that music brings a consistent rhythm to their work that they otherwise would have maintained themselves?" "Part of it is that, yes. Music allows for the mind to adopt faster speed of thought, like in the case of Free Thought in Suspended Perception. The second part is purely physical. Music is harmonious vibration. Such vibrations resonate on the skin and in the ear; they bounce every which way and find themselves being represented by impulses in our brains. Music sends waves to our ears, and when you increase their amplification you literally increase the amount of energy being sent to the brain. "So this is not a directly balanced equation, because the amount of energy the brain expends translating impulses is not affected by the force of the sound." "Exactly; the frequency dictates what the brain hears, and loudness isn't represented by a more energized electrical impulse. you can literally send more energy to your mind without your mind utilizing it in translation. The limiting factor being your eardrum's resilience."

Lack of knowledge means an inability to act in any unknown situation. Ideally, one would have enough knowledge to put forth a set of conditions to be met under any circumstances that, in completion, would warrant some degree of explanation of the issue at hand. It is in these unknown situations where a lack of knowledge can influence an array of emotion. Like a cornered animal, "What do I do now?"

Now, in the age of technology, almost any problem can be solved by searching the internet. Usually, people don't have new problems; that would make them unique. Normal people are mundane conforming massses. Little more than semi-conscious matter. For them to be the first to ask a question, no matter how inane, would be the value of their existence.

There are these emotions, though, even if you aren't the first to ask, but arrive before the first to answer. Then you are put in a situation where you have no choice but to say, "I have this problem too," and wait for some **self important solutioner to rescue you from your ignorance**. People in this situation usually become more than just a person asking a question. They become pests. Unable to move on after their lack of knowledge has been questioned, they refresh their sources constantly and cannot fathom why it takes someone else so long to fix a problem that they can't even begin to understand the solution to. It's human nature to be curious about things when the understanding of these things becomes a necessity in our direct environment. Like a grandmother being taught about the new Digital television signal over the previous Analog; the necessity to understand these situations only seems to matter when they are directly imposed. Such is human nature that only a direct confrontation can change our ways. A mediocrity of adaptation.

People usually take emotions out of the equation when dealing with strictly logical and rational problems. It's like taking morality out of the equation. If we aren't going to be consulting how we feel about something, why should we consult how "God" feels about it? Emotion and morality are one in the same; subjective degrees of thought we attribute categories. Fear is a logical emotion. There can be rational fear, because there is always a reason to fear. You don't fear for nothing, you have a reason. To discount that reason in a rational equation is to take X off the side of the sum but not the solution.

Scientists need emotion. They need to constantly question if what they are putting in is worth what they might get out. This equation certainly must include emotions: 30 years of studying death for 20 years of life seems like a certain loss. Not to mention the morals. Morals like, "should I or should I not kill this baby fetus?" A question an abortion doctor has to ask himself every operation. "There is life in this creature, whether it is conscious or human or not. This creature has life, and I am taking it away. Is what I get in return worth this blood on my hands?"

Is art an object that the majority would call beautiful? Certainly not, the majority wouldn't know what is truly beautiful. People judge beauty on what they have seen. They certainly wouldn't be able to judge the works of Picasso without a proper education as to the method of his artistry. Well, if the majority doesn't designate beauty, who does? Do professionals have the right to judge beauty? I should say not. For there are plenty of praised artists whose work I could not be paid to hang in my halls. What does it matter if some elite group calls something beautiful? If it isn't, who has the right to tell them off?

Is it me? I certainly wouldn't have the same concept of beauty as someone in mid-Africa or even a Frenchman. What makes my sense of beauty the correct one? Can there be a correct one? //There has to be a correct one.// Yes there must be a correct one, because even if beauty is subjective, there has to be some uniting factor. Some one thing that makes something in a certain culture more beautiful that something else in the same culture; that thing that could be constant. Maybe understanding the necessity of beauty's subjectivity is to truly understand beauty. This I certainly understand, which would make it true that such beauty is mine to decree.

I have to write at different time of the day, in different states of mind. Because there are different parts of the say; there are different states of mind. When a writer writes with the same state of mind, at the same time of day, it sounds the same. I should hope that I don't sound the same; that my voice is changing with respect to the way that I feel when I type: **because** I feel when I type, and there has to be something to reflect that.

But are all emotions rational? Maybe some emotions are false emotions, or a combination of other emotions. Anger is usually considered it's own emotion, but to be honest, all anger can be traced to fear. It is, rather, a facet of fear. Not to mention there isn't anything to gain from anger. Sure fear makes you cautious; logically cautious, but add anger and you are just acting recklessly. Maybe anger allows you to manufacture adrenaline at an increased rate; a chemical advantage. Though this would mean that anger only helps people who have a lack of control over their emotions and chemical processes. A false emotion that only benefits the majority. Anger is probably controlled by the government. O.O

I don't care. I don't know why I don't care. I should care. Can I care? Why can't I care? Years ago I cared. I saw it as digging a hole that I'd have to climb out of. But I don't intend to climb out. It's like digging to China. I just dig until I hit gold or come out on some other side.

I dig to escape. The land that I started digging on isn't a place where I want to be. I have no desire to return to a land with systems that support and promote mediocrity. Failure i their schools doesn't signify a lack of knowledge, but an effort to follow a set of morals that no longer coincide with the majority. If the way you learn isn't the way they teach, **you** have a problem. If the way you answer problems isn't the way they answer problems, getting the correct answer is no longer good enough. A system that values consistent method over results is a broken system.

So I dig.

If you could have any super power, what would it be? Well you can only have one; think about it logically. If you had anything but the ability to stop bullets or regenerate, you're just asking to die. If you have flight, how do you stop the wind in your eyes? Have you ever ridden a motorcycle with the mask up? Holy shit it's windy.

You'd have to choose something that allows you to live as long, or longer, than the average human, or else it'd be like having cancer. Yeah, people will give a kid with cancer a TV show and a new house, but he's still going to die in 4 months, and that sucks. We'll skip regeneration because it's Perfect. So, stopping bullets, that entails some sort of mastery of force or electro-magneticism. Like a force field or EM field. Problem is, you can't keep it on all the time. I mean, if you kept an EM field on all the time you'd mess everything up around you. You wouldn't be able to use a computer or sit on a metal chair. Forget about cars, busses, trains, airplanes. So you don't intend to keep it on all the time. You intend only to turn it on when you need it. Like the Invisible Woman from the Fantastic Four. That's cool, until you get Shanked. Yeah, someone Shanks you. They sneak up while your shield is down and shoot you in the back of the head. Before you know what's happening (or you're dead) they cut you up into little pieces and box you up. You don't have regeneration so you're done. The end of Superhero You.

Basically, anything that isn't passive is a waste. Even with the best power, regeneration, you still have to make sure you don't get caught, which is the hardest part with a passive power. Because even if you can't die, you still feel pain, and you can still be locked up. Without an active power, getting locked up means you have no ability to escape. Unless you pull some wolverine shit.