using differential equations to understand people

k is for countertransference

ha, so i just saw a book titled, "everything you know about sex is wrong" but since i dont really know anything about sex i dont see how that could possibly be true.

WE MUST RETHINK OUR LOGIC, RETHINK OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE. it must be developed off of the base of truths we have learned through quantum probing. for instance, the uncertainty principle should be understood to be the correct working of things, NOT the classical concept of theoretically infinitely precise instruments. i intend to understand this better than anyone you will ever meet.

the ß is actually a ligature, used in german still, it represents 'long s over short s', long s ( ∫ )has disappeared from german however.

yeah, im really smart, but only because people have defined smart in a way that gives me an advantage. to be honest, im probably more stupid than most people. thats how cynthia could call me both the smartest and dumbest person she ever met.

hmmm, i seem to be drinking a lot of water recently. maybe ive got a leak somewhere. or maybe im retaining water! oh my god im pregnant!

i just got the advice to "use cliches" which is probably really good advice for me.

dear Miss Potassium Carbonate: what do i do? the gourd is dying!, right before my eyes!. it is a sadness i cannot bare.

i have described this to many people, but never so clearly: "ketamine acts by blocking the receptor for the neurotransmitter glutamate. glutamate is released in abundance when brain cells die, and if it weren't blocked, the glutamate overload would cause other brain cells to die as well. in the presence of excess glutamate, the brain releases its own glutamate receptor blocker to defend itself; and it is these blockers dr. jansen (amongst others) hypothesize as the cause of many [near death experiences]."

how is it that we speak of the 'age of the universe' when time itself is known to be so highly dependent on the frame of reference? could that be used to explain inflation?

"do they experience love? they have those symptoms." did you consciously choose your beliefs? do people with beliefs, normally have reasons? why do people believe in god?

is love the last belief i can have?
interesting question, can i be comfortable being in love, and enjoying love, and valuing... love, while still being very aware of its illusionary status? or maybe clearer: while still feeling very confident that love is merely an evolutionary illusion.
is it possible to believe in something, and value it, while still feeling, in fact believing, that it might as well be factually false, that the something you believe in is simply non-existant? i am uncomfortable with my beliefs! i downright want to believe in love, and i enjoy it, and... to some degree, perhaps not as much as i would like, or need to, i trust love. but i am confident, to a degree most would call 'knowledge', that love is just an illusion. how bizarre.

people sometimes blame science for suffering. they seem to interpret the application of scientific knowledge in the creation of weapons technology as being the result, or even possibly the direct intention of scientific investigation. but it isnt. and i would like to point out, you never hear of scientists blowing themselves up. getting in gun fights. taking over buildings, countries, governments. you never hear scientists promote violence for scientific reasons. scientists are people, and so they may do the horrible things people do. but as scientists, they are solely concerned with science (or should be), and they have no place for politics or beliefs as silly as religion.

if you love someone, you should be willing to allow them to travel 26 light years distant. and if they come back to you, then i clearly dont understand physics yet (unless you just age an extra fifty years). although i already knew that i suppose.

im acting like a... hysterical person.

hysterically happy
hysterically sad
hysterically afraid
plagued by a sense of curiosity.

No comments: