Wednesday, June 30, 2004


The trick about responsibility is: who owes. All kinds of authorities claim the debt: the Govt., the church, the military, the mafia, school heavies, a lover, family, your goldfish, anyone who can get between yourself and some ideal state of contentment. I don't specifically owe you this description, because maybe you suck. It's all done for the hormonal rush of self congratulation for doing something of possible value for society, so that in my selfish rush, ... maybe this isn't really g ood! Maybe this tiny bit of advice is a seed of discontent. Maybe it's the point where entropy becomes chaos. Oh doom, Oh woe, alas: the final liberation. Maybe not.

There's some debt-claiming authorities woven into the string that holds the world together. Here's some scissors, be careful, if you must run, let me hold your wallet.

Everybody likes pats. We move toward them & away from stabs & hits. Amoebas do it. It gets complicated though, like there are people who are addicted to war. It makes them feel important & they like that, carrying a gun & all. But they still have to link that importance to something good. Someone they admired did it, or survived a contest, “hey, I want to be like Roy Rogers!” That's a powerful hormone. It's produced by a part of the brain called Battoshki's Cells. They make a person recognize their own people. Kids have more than adults and black people have more than white people. Old white people are typically terrified of black kids. I'm an old white guy but I have a GUN so don't mess with me, because I'm irresponsible enough to be real important. So like, rowdy hip-hop gang punks are more driven to responsibility, than your ordinary hard working, dues-paying drudge, they just get "rightous" confused with "pissed". See: being rightous justifies being pissed, but being pissed doesn't justify rightousness.

We're all radios tuned to the same station, believing the music that comes out is uniquely myself.

Look, responsibility is determined by a persons susceptibility to manipulation. Believe them and it becomes more responsible to support the war on terror, & the war on drugs, & the war on womans rights, & the war on whatever's next, (skatebording?) than it is to look for ways to make peace instead. How come? Duh! It's because we're being taken for suckers by anyone with a motive & who can sound righteous about their cause. (except me of course, George Bush II isn't pleased with me so I'm demolished with guilt). It's how demigods support themselves. It's how primates & other social animals get information, it's called objectivity & it means trusting someone else's opinion over your own. Trusting only your own opinion is called subjectivity, and is by definition, un-proveable.

Ok though, not everyone wants those wars, so it's legal to be objective about it (I mean, you're not the only one). Then we get into the problem of like, what's my involvement with this, since those wars don't affect me personally. I'm not a druggie, not a woman, & not a terrorist, so who cares? Well, if i have any opinion that's not mine, (and I must to be objective) then there's something more than me. Call it society, or the “Bills Universal Field Theory Of Heaven” (yes, I live in Calif.) And it's real if for no other reason than you just read it here, so you can afford to have an opinion, & generate some hormones, be objective about it, & is it crap? Not if you formed an opinion.

Now according to the BUFTH (Bills Universal Field Theory Of Heaven), We all play for survival, so ultimately there's more risk with more strife, and all those forces that make up Heaven/society, ultimately affect us as individuals, the same way that a ripple in the food chain works its way to the top: i.e.

The extinction of some bug in Bolivia affects the balance of available protein in the world & causes the next atomic war. See, the bug supports migrating birds that also feed on sand shrimp in the Caribbean. The birds population declines & the sand shrimp population explodes, shrimp eat up some zooplankton that cleans coral, so the corals get dirty & die, associated fish loose their livelihood, Fish that spawn in the corals become scarce, squid that eat tho se fish and the deep sea fish that live on the squid become scarce, occasional side extinctions along the way propagate to the cost of fish protein additives for animal & dog food. It becomes a class symbol to own a dog because poor people can't afford to feed them. Rich people drive around with big dogs in their SUV's and farmers with trucks can't, class warfare breaks out, farmers buy nukes on the ex soviet block black market, events quickly spiral out of control, etc. etc.

Meanwhile in Bolivia, little José Mamani finds the last bug in his Qunioa patch, knowing he can save the world if he can grow enough bug offspring, he abandons his harvest, sells his ox & invests in arthropod propagation equipment & hostplant cultivation. He saves the world, and goes broke. His neighbors shake their heads, “Should'a let the gringos blow themselves up!”

But he gets a heavenly reward. (I don't know what it is, it depends on his hormones & social contacts, probably not 72 virgins, his wife wouldn't approve. She couldn't divorce him because they're Cath olic, so they had to move to Potosi & sweep streets for a living) The gringos never found out.

Ok so now a question presents it's self: like, after we die, where's the endocrines that produced the hormones and where's the tissue & vessels that support the endocrines, etc.? That stuff ceases to function is what happens, so where do we get hormones in heaven? Can it be that heaven and hormones are either separate or so inextricably linked, that there is no afterlife? (Well heck, I guess, yeah, if that's true ... what?) See he gets a heavenly reward, but how can he appreciate it if he doesn't have hormones that cause the emotions to feel it?

So now in order to justify an afterlife, we have to show that heaven & hormones are separate. To do this we gotta get metaphysical (& I just love that because the terminology is so ambiguous) We have to show that consciousness exists in a recognizable state without supporting tissue. & as a byproduct, show that ghosts exist. (Ohboy, ohboy, this is where California comes into it's own!)

Take ghosts: Genuine Authorities (whoever they are) seem to agree that ghosts don't show much in the way of creativity, I mean they just do the same thing over & over, walking down halls & so forth. If their pituitary was working, they'd be cruising, pinching butts & looking for entertainment, or social alliances. But no, they just keep the same attitude all the time, though different ghosts show different attitudes, each ghost stays within the bounds of it's “personality”, and each personality is associated with a place. So, in my opinion, ghosts don't act like they have hormones of their own. They could be aware of hormones in others however, & use those hormones for interaction, but given this, how does one interact with ghosts? How do we know which is us & which is them? They're notoriously hard to interview.

Perhaps the hormones of the observer overwhelms the communication, but if any response by an observer has to be those of the ghost, then a person would essentially be talking to themselves. In that case ghosts wouldn't recognize us, we would only recognize them.

However, there are people who interact with ghosts. How do they do that, could they be subjective or something? All the people in western culture who make a deal of it are either sedated, locked up, or temporarily homeless till they can be locked up. What happens is (I think) the person just happens to share the same time/space & social fantasy (see below: Feb 1 2002, Todays flash: synchronicity!). Half the population could be ghosts and you'd never know, they'd deny it anyway.

So what? People still see ghosts, boogers, & Angles and corroborate their looks & action without pre-agreement. Therefore one may tentatively conclude that hormones are required for our perception and judgment of ghosts, but not by ghosts for their existence, ergo: Heaven & hormones are separate, and recognition of independent spiritual existence is justified. (you can say I said so on the strength of hearsay).

Ok now we get back to responsibility: If heaven (however idealistic) is better than the War On Whatever, then that's the way.