You Can Disagree With Non-Contradiction, But That Won't Be a Contradiction

The Law of Noncontradiction is a law which can be not believed by a person, but never contradicted. It is probably impossible to actually prove the law, but I think the world is much more fun if you believe the law. It means that humor comes not in coming up with nonsensical contradictions which have no grounding in understanding, but rather in refuting these contradictions. For example, to say, "People who say less is more should not become mathematicians. People who say you get what you give should no be accountants." Less is not more. More is more. Having confidence in this view is very playful.

All the same, it is not necessary to hate anyone for holding illogical views. There is no need to try to convert them. If they are nice, good people, it is really OK for them to hold views you don't believe in. I believe they are imperfect views. They believe they are "perfect imperfections," in the words of John Legend. Actually, I think all imperfections are imperfect, because of noncontradiction.

All nonsense is the same. However, it can be interpreted as sense by a conscious person. Interestingly enough, there is only ever one consciousness at a time by an individual. I first encountered this idea in Bernard Baars' writing. There are many paradoxical ideas in the subconscious, but the conscious mind presents a uniform whole. The nonsense may have functions to be put together by the higher conscious process (which is my idea) but it is still arbitrary. That is the only view I can obtain which rectifies the noncontradictory nature of the finished product of consciousness with the chaos of the unconscious.

This leads to another idea, which is that contradictions are simply  metaphors which do not have to be taken absolutely seriously. They can be used as poetry, or play, but they do not have to be considered actual truth. This is quite possible, and it also allows the person to be less rigid in views about concreteness. Things are not so solid then. Maybe, though I think a typically logical view of contradiction is more realistic.

Still, the first few principles do not have to be a truth claims. They can be sincerity and kindness themselves.

A Post About Changes of Heart

I used to have a bad heart, if heart is to mean one's will and disposition. It was a bad will. Now, I have a good will. If this is understood properly, most people immediately expect some type of religious explanation. This post is not religious. While usually the idea of a change of heart or redemption has to do with salvation under Christ, it does not necessarily have to. It has to do most with understanding that after you are wicked, and do wicked things, do not do them again. There may be some residual remorse, and some residual bad actions, simply because I am not a fully realized person. However, there is a difference between a good and bad person.

I'm reluctant to get into the details of what constituted my badness, but it may suffice to say that I was intent on being vicious. My desire was literally to be as evil as possible. I was not even successful at that, but I came pretty close sometimes. This could be chalked up to being a teenager at the time, and that's true enough. Still, most people don't change heart. They just realize how good they've been all along if anything.

What is the impetus to change heart? It's simply situational. If you realize fully the nature of cause and effect, that basically bad actions do not pay in the long run, the problem will solve itself. Every action is seen. Nothing is hidden. It may not be some god who sees it, but somewhere or somehow it will be known. Knowing this is the solution.

Then there are other things that help to turn a bad man into a good man. There's associating with the right people. There's making conscious moral guidelines for yourself. There's simply trying to be a good person. I'm still quite selfish at times. Even now I talk about myself throughout this post, with the assumption that it may have some residual help for people. Still, the self is there. There is "good enough." Being a pretty good person is all that matters. My friend put it well. "Just don't make a negative contribution to the world." I don't even know if I'm there yet, but I'm on the path. How? Fear of wrongdoing, remorse over wrongdoing, and earnestness in trying to improve.

You Do Not Have Sunshine On a Cloudy Day, Because Of The Clouds.

When it's cold outside, you only have the month of May if it happens to be a cold day in May. Besides, even that is semantically inaccurate because May is not in your possession. It is equally May for everyone, unless you are in different timezones and it is still April in one region or has already become June in another region.



To change topics a little, the Steve Miller Band was quoted as saying, "Abra-abra-cadabra, I wanna reach out and grab ya." Are they talking about me? Why do they want to grab me? I don't know what they're talking about. It doesn't make sense.

Ivan the Terrible, But At What?

If Ivan the Terrible were named that because he was terrible at checkers, it would be better if he were named Ivan the Terrible Checkers Player.



Of course, that would take away from his atrocities. He couldn’t have been terrible with everything. There might have been something he was very good at. For example, he was probably very good at being fearsome. That’s why historically he was also known as Ivan the Fearsome. Realistically, we could call him, “Ivan the Terrific,” if the thing he is terrific at is understood to be his fearsomeness.

I personally approve of such titles. They should be utilized more often, as in the case of Ronald the Magnificent in reference to Ronald Reagan. There could be other names, like Clinton the Hun, or Bush the Mediocre. Why not add some regality to our system which has become far too casual?

Today the word for such things is, “epic.” The word “epic” itself is not very epic, and connotes a sort of casualness which belies its very meaning, like an oxymoron.

Chess Wit

Chess is a battle of wits. For example,  I was in Washington Square Park and I challenged a chess shark to a game of chess, and I said, “what’s the wager?” and he said, “it’s not a gamble, it’s a fee.” He was likely trying to outwit me psychologically so that I would be a weaker chess opponent. My friend said, “you mean like you give chess lessons? How much is it?” he put away his chessboard and called my friends and I, “a bunch of fucking nerds.” He clearly outwitted us again, while not even using his chess pieces.

Then there was the instance when I found out a girl I liked was in admiration of chess players, and went out with a well-known one. Being a chess player myself, I invited her to a chess club where we might play a game and enjoy a conversation. She said, “I don’t like to play chess.” Checkmate.

Then finally there was the brashest instance of chess wit, when I was playing a game of chess and my opponent began breastfeeding. On the topic of breastfeeding in public I have to say that I don’t care very much, but when it comes to games of chess, I believe breastfeeding should be banned. My opponent's husband was kibitzing the game, and said, "are you looking at my wife's chest?" It was right near the pieces, so I could neither look at the pieces, nor look away (as that would mean I might lose the game). I won the game, with much concentration, but I still oppose this form of psychological gambit.

Are Squirrels Communists?

Squirrels may be socialists, or even to the extreme you could call them communists. They bury their acorns in the commons of our backyard, only to reap what little they can randomly, forgetting who they planted the acorns for. It is a pathetically inefficient system, what I am calling the squirrel socialist regime.

Do not vote for any squirrel who is running for office. Actually, squirrels generally do not run for office. You probably already knew that. In fact, I would say there is over a 99% chance that you believed with over 99% certainty that squirrels have never run for a major office in any country in the history of the world. However, in case you didn’t, or in case they ever decide to, by some freak of nature, do not vote for a squirrel, unless you are a communist. If you do not believe my argument that squirrels are communists, take a look at the furs they walk around in, like those people in the cold communist tundras. There is a distinct chance, though at a very low likelihood of probability, that this will convince you.

It is also possible that they emulate the behavior of communists without actually being communists. In fact, this argument is tenable. I think there is also the possibility that you are also a communist, so that you may sympathize with these red squirrels.

It is also possible that this argument is wrong, and that they are not communists. There are actually two distinct possibilities. 1. Squirrels are communists. 2. Squirrels are not communists.

He Wouldn't Be The Pope If He Used Dope

He wouldn’t be the Pope if he used dope. That’s why popes never dope. One is not tested for performance enhancing mystical drugs like LSD when becoming pope, but the pope happens to be pure.

That does not mean he is the real pope. For example, I know four people who have claims to the papacy. One is colin. He is Pope Hogan, ordained by Donny. It was not necessarily an authentic ordination, but he retains the papacy for himself nonetheless.

I too am a Pope ordained by Donny. I sometimes call myself the Ultimate Pope. I have wrestled Pope Hogan. We began with feats of strength, whereby we drank jabanero pepper sauce, spoonful after spoonful to see who was more tolerant. It was not I. Then the next feat of strength was the wrestling match, whereby Pope Hogan was offered a draw. He declined, and there was a near war of attrition as I, the Ultimate Pope, tried to lift up Pope Hogan for a piledriver. As I lost my steam, after a 30 minute wrestling battle, he pinned me and Pope Hogan came out victorious. We had an eating contest, where the food of choice was carrots, where I came out with a sensational victory as my Pope-like asceticism won out over colin’s Antipope-like licentiousness. I defeated him in several other challenges, and also he defeated me in several other challenges. It is a tossup as to who is the real pope between us, but I feel that I have a stronger claim to the papacy than him due to my ethical aspirations.

I ordained two Bobs as bishops, because in my somewhat fragile papacy only Bobs can be bishops. One of these Bobs said, “But the pope is infallible, so I’m going to be the Pope too.”

Also, a lady named Alice ordained herself as the Pope. That makes a total of five popes, four of which are Antipopes. The four popes other than me should be rightly called Antipopes and me the real Pope if you consider that I alone am the center of my own existence. No one else in the universe can claim to be the center of my existence. Indeed, my existence is rightly Jeff-o-centric.

Evidently, colin’s existence is colin-o-centric, but since I am Jeff, it makes more sense for a Jeff-o-centric universe to be correct. Only I can make this argument using my particular variable, while the four other popes could conceivably make it with their own variables in their places.

Pope Francis has the most recognized claim to the papacy, though I don’t necessarily believe that makes him a better Pope than me. In fact, I call him AntiPope Francis.

The End.