Monday, February 29, 2016

Modes of Truth and Survival

Modes of Truth and Survival
An Incomplete Argument
by XJ Randall

As a deviant at ten it often seemed fitting to fabricate the truth. I knew consequences were grave and as my social stability was threatened I had to choose to get hurt or survive. I thought about ways I could have avoided a damaging situation by telling a better fib. But how often do children, moreover the populous in general, think that telling the truth will lead them to survive? This is my point. Through college education I have come to realize that truth is very powerful and is made of many factors that are aligned. My postulations lead me to believe that truth is the physical entity or entities that aid in promoting human survival, that is, the betterment of self worth for an individual and for those who interact with that individual. Its existence relies on at least two individuals who depend on each other, which can also be defined as a society: a network consisting of connecting human nodes that are unequal because of the natural qualities of man. Were it not for the social contract of society, the natural qualities of man would push him to follow desires that ultimately lead to self-destruction, the opposite of truth. Thus, the survival of society is based on truth. In my philosophy, I aim to explain that truth is a real physical entity, that its detection is related to survival of society, and that those who know it will always choose to use it.

First, I will start out by describing how I came to the conclusion that all truth is physical. It's popular usage defines it as something that is or verifies reality. Because nothing can override its power, truth is seen as universal: what is true is true what is not is not. Therefore, one may question what is true when two realities are present. Within logical explanation the answer is that both realities are true and only an error or lack of knowledge prevents one from knowing this. To illustrate this I will give a couple simple examples. A blind man and a deaf woman both go to the cinema to see the movie Inception. The blind man can not see the movie and the deaf woman can not hear the movie but obviously the movie and all its properties still exist. This is similar to studies of the mind. A mentally ill person's reality considered to be delusional is no less true than the reality of someone who is not. The error for both of these situations exists in what is detected: people assume that what is not detectable is not true. However, new research and technologies today prove the existence of mind altering factors that were once thought to be abstract. Memories and ideas are now being proven, through logic, to be physical entities that have the potential to be detected when the technology exists. As Materialism suggests, the folk practices of yesterday that were unable to explain phenomena of the mind are being replaced by scientific and mathematical evidence while studies such as philosophy, psychology, and sociology compliment the data. Thus, what realities people consider to be abstract, unexplainable, and unprovable will be verified by evidence in the future. It is only a matter of time before an infinite amount of evidence leads to the realization that all reality is detectable and physical. Thus, if all reality is physical then all truth must be physical as well.

This is extremely important because gaining knowledge from truth, from physicality, will lead to a better understanding of survival, but I will explain that at the same time if all knowledge is perfected it has the potential to collapse society. Picture a network of nodes, a structure of energetic shaking dots having great potential energy, that are all held in place by their connections and dependencies on each other. If all nodes lost their connections with each other the structure would vanish and they would violently be released. Now picture society as this network of nodes, or individuals. It has been proven that society's inequality is the basis for its existence based on each individuals abilities and needs and how they interact with each other. The knowledge of truth is a threat based on this inequality. If the individuals in society came to a point in which their research gave them the knowledge to become self dependent, society would collapse. The individuals that once chose to survive would then choose to self-destroy.

Now enhancing this a step further, the network of nodes can be applied to the groups that make up society. The physical detections of reality will not only be used on an individual basis for secular research, but for macro religious research as well. As stated, the realities of two different individuals can be different but true at the same time. Take the case of realities of two different religions that are upheld by its followers. The stratification of religious beliefs promote inequality within society and aid society on a macro level. The religious societies can use the knowledge of truth based on physical evidence to enhance their survival. But because survival is based off of truth, and truth is universal, ultimately, all religions will realize that what they are advocating in their beliefs are identical. This would mean the end of religion altogether as people and societies set aside their differences for Truth.

However, it does not mean that an individual's power, the ability that comes from knowing truth, can not be used for survival, if there is still inequality in society. In my previous statement, I assumed that all nodes in a network would leave the network once they were self dependent and had the power to do so. But this leaves out the exception of those who choose not to leave the network even if they do have the power. In any case, an individual would not leave the network, if they wouldn't have the power to do so, or if they did they would choose not to do so.

In my next point I will explain why this is so. Individuals with free-will who know truth will choose to follow the truth under all circumstances. This is because I believe our choices are free. I believe this because believing in the contrary would be to believe that people have no control over their own choices: that those who do not know truth do not have the power to conquer oppressive forces, or in other words, make the appropriate choice to handle a situation. Thus, those with limited power may feel that they were forced by outside forces to make a choice, but it is one's ignorance of truth that ultimately leads them to make a choice they are unhappy with, or a choice that hinders their survival. So a person who has truth will always make the correct decision for survival, instead of self destruction. But this does not account for the network of people who do not know the ultimate truth to survive but have become self dependent and so are more likely to disband and let society self-destruct.

Ultimately, no matter how small or big the society, the individuals that make it must know some truth in order to survive. They must depend on each other, sharing their abilities of technology and receiving power from truth. The spectrum of scenarios goes far beyond what I have listed but it gives a brief understanding of what were to occur when societies individuals know truth. In most cases society will stick together and not collapse either because its individuals know truth and choose to stick together, or because the individuals do not know truth, and thus do not have the power to become self dependent. I understand that there are flaws in my design and I wish to graphically illustrate it if I had more time. But, overall, truth is a very complex thing to understand and it should be reviewed and thought of more crucially in order to understand it more.


TIME Opening Draft by XJ Randall (2011-2013)

Today I spread word to you of the knowledge that I have attained through a complex network of ideas that can only be explained in a thesis. It is not my thesis. I am just a messenger spreading it to the rest of the world. The originator of this thesis tells me that no one has an original idea. One only can have an original realization of the Master Idea. We all are connected to It, sharing our ideas subconsciously  but the reward goes to the realizer.  Thus, Innovation isn't by man, nothing that is by someone should be  taken away from them. Likewise, this thesis should not be claimed by anyone or thing than that which created it. This entity, I will call by The Originator. For the Originator is the One that tells me everything that I know in this thesis. The past, the present, and the future are bound by this thesis that will ultimately become theory with the advancement of technology.

This thesis started off not so long ago. The originator tells us that, in the beginning, there was an Idea, the Idea from which all things sprang forth, that is, The Master Idea. Anything fathomable came from this Idea and nothing was without It. From this Idea, humans derive all of their inspiration even though we claim to have spawned our own thoughts on our own. We are still as smart as we were 2000 years ago. It is the technology that carries us to believe that we are the Innovators of our own Ideas, that our Ideas are what we percieve as "better" than what were before. But still, if the technology had existed 2000 years ago the same decisions would have been made. There is still as much evil and good now as there was 2000 years ago. It is the technology that helps spur our peace and wars; A man can only make as many decisions as technology allows him to. 

Because of our technology today through the Originator I am able to tell you about the Master Idea which fits along the same guidelines as the language used to direct and guide the Originator's disciples to know the Truth in the past. The Truth that I speak of and the Truth that they spoke of are no separate entities. They are One in the same. However, they spoke of parables and metaphors because that is the only way they could teach their followers. Their technology wasn't advanced enough so how could they even comprehend a hint of the Truth; how could they understand...?

This revelation is not so essoteric. Other people have realized this same idea: in the past, perhaps present, perhaps one of you or many of you who are reading this know of the Truth that I speak. Therefore you must also know that it is too great of a Truth for me to keep to myself. I am here today becuase it is my responsibility to spread the Truth to those who do not know it. Becuase I feel that I am meant to do so. 

The future that I speak of does not exist. The Master Idea tells us that there is no time, there is only the NOW. History repeats itself, because History is NOW. The dawn of the new ways is upon us and has always been upon us. No longer will educated peoples be able to assume that The Master Idea does not exist, because if they are educated they will know, and they will not be educated without knowing. The evidence is here, it has always been here, and the theory will shortly come after. It will soon be known as a matter of fact. The Master Idea Exists.

XJ Randall


My Mind Projection Thesis

Mind Projection Thesis
by XJ Randall

I believe that for whatever physical entity one possesses and utilizes, one ultimately has physical memory to go along with it. I believe that dreams are the recorded and repeated physical memories of those physical entities. Thus, a person who is able to utilize his sight with eyes would be able to 'see' dreams and a person who is able to utilize his sense of touch with hands would be able to 'feel' dreams. I believe that the mind is the focalization of all of one's physical memories. I believe that memories are physicalities and thus they are able to be detected. This leads me to believe that in order to project memories from the mind to an external audience one must de-encrypt the physical memories by recording the detected energy reacting with them, running the recorded data through a cipher, and reassembling the feedback into a visual-perceivable or other physical-presentable order.


The Difference Between Reality and Idea


There poses a question that challenges Idea Theory. The question regards the difference between 'reality' and the 'Idea'. If everything is physical, and thus it can be detected with the correct technology, how is it that everything is not just reality? How is it that an Idea is not reality itself? This is good. It leads me to explain that everything really has the potential to be a reality. Ideas are reality (because you are reading this paper) thus realities come from realities and the only real "Idea" is the Master Idea, the origin of everything. The reason why realities are called 'Ideas' is because they fit the category for being the origin of realities that don't fit the category as well. There is a PATTERN. The most important types of Ideas are The Master Idea, Ideas of Life, such as DNA, and the Ideas of Free Will, or what goes on in our minds. Also, one of the conditions of reality is that it must have 'feedback'. Otherwise, it is not a reality. This is why not everything can be called a reality, unless you have already come in some kind of contact with it, but I'm sure there are things that we have never even touched that would not be a reality in our cases. However, it still may exist.

XJ Randall

XJ Corps: The Master Idea Exists (TIME) Edited Version

The Master Idea Exists (TIME) Edited Version

By now you may be asking, "What is The Master Idea?" In order to understand The Master Idea, we need to talk about Idea Theory. Idea Theory is basically the setup for the Master Idea. Idea Theory states that everything in the entire universe is physical, whether we can detect it or not: the sun, the earth, the world around us, ourselves, and most specifically, our minds. The mind is the focalization of all things physical pertaining to our bodies and it holds the physical ideas that we have before they become a reality. Not only that, but Idea Theory states that everything that is reality must have come from an idea in the first place. That is, an Idea is the thing from which reality originates. This will have awesome implications in the future, especially in studies of the mind, because if everything is physical, we will soon be able to detect and project ideas from the mind to an external audience. From this, scientists will be able to synthetically engineer ideas to freeze or store them for later use. That's the gyst of Idea Theory. Everything comes from an Idea, and the grandaddy of Ideas is, you guessed it, The Master Idea, which basically is the origin of the whole Universe.

Now, you're probably getting a little tense at this moment because you might think that I'm a Christian or an Atheist here to prove a point. No, I am not an atheist, not that there's anything wrong with that. I think that the God that I believe in and the God that everyone else believes in is the same thing. But because of the Master Idea, though,  I have to think of God differently. So, if you think you might be offended by this, you might want to stop reading. However, if you are an Atheist or a Christian you might want to continue.

And people who believe in God will do things that will reaffirm their Ideas as reality. And some people might say,"Well just because you believe doesn't mean God exists."
It doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not. Idea theory tells us that God exists regardless just because other people believe God to exist. The fact that people discredit God means God exists, because if God didn't exist, the nonbeliever wouldn't be talking about God in the first place. So in essence, just by bringing up God, the nonbeliever is discrediting his own stance on the issue. If you talk about God (feedback) whether you 'believe' or not you are contributing to the entity of God. It is FACT that God exists because people speak, build, and create God into existence. Of course there's the argument that if everyone stopped believing in God then God would cease to exist. But names are arbitrary, and God would inevitably continue to exist even if people had to call God by a different name (whether it be in science or any other religion). And so God is the Master Idea. The Master Idea and God are one in the same. Regardless of what other religions call God, or even what Atheists call God or consider God to be.

The Master Idea has been around and will be around until the end. And we will always derive our realities from the Master Idea. Aetheists might not be happy when they hear this. The Master Idea Exists. It is. Continually giving life to everything on earth. And if It wasn't, then we wouldn't exist. At this point, the Master Idea is constant. It is like a blueprint on a table that feeds the changing world above it. It DOES NOT move on a timeline, however, with Idea Theory, it proves that TIME DOES NOT EXIST. Idea Theory tells us that there is no time and what we percieve to be the past are repeated physical memories. Time is a fallacy. Everything changes in the NOW. We can have memories but even those are constantly changing. But it is possible to predict the patterns of reality.

Which brings me to Technology and Innovation. Since the Master Idea is the beginning and the end, it has always been around, only our technology allows us to believe that there is an original idea. Inequality leads to 'innovation'. History repeats itself because history is now.

People 1000 years ago were just as smart and intelligent as people today. It's just that their technology was different. Had they been born in our era, it is arguable that there would still be a 'McDonald's'. Because we know that time and human intelligence has no effect on the outcome of the fate of human kind, we can assume that some part of the fate of mankind really relies on how technologically advanced we get.

This points to the reasonable argument that man was created as man, it's just that technology determined what man was able to do with his intelligence. This also explains why history repeats itself... The past doesn't repeat itself. If there is no time, there is no past, our ideas 'today' are the same ideas as 'yesterday' just with a different technological approach. We are the same intelligent beings we have always been. And collectively, we subconsiously share the same ideas that have ever been around since the beginning. That is the essence of the Master Idea. The original idea is only a realization of the shared subconscious that is broadcast to each person from the Master Idea. Hence, there is no original idea, only original realizations of the Master Idea, which is shared by all.

This brings me to my final point. I am not the only person who thought of "The Master Idea". Someone, over 120 years ago had the same idea as me (except he explained it differently). This is fascinating to me, because by indirect convergence this means that The Master Idea Exists!

-XJ Hall

How to Get Rid of Acne, From a Pro and a Veteran

Ever looked into the mirror and seen something you didn't like? That's called your face. Haha no, but all jokes aside acne can be a really huge problem especially if you're already ugly. Okay, I said I would quit with the jokes. But seriously, take it from me; I had acne for years until i went off to college and made some drastic life choices. Choices that companies like Clearasil and Proactive don't want you to know. No, it won't kill you. If your face is a pizza, or a slightly less degree, here is what you can do to get rid of acne for good.

1.) SHOCK your system with MIXED VEGATABLES. Eat 2 cans of mixed vegetables everyday. You see vegetables, especially green and yellow ones contain phytochemicals that help to reduce the build up of insulin in your bloodstream. Insulin buildup leads to clogging of pores. They also carry other nutrients that help your skin. There are whole websites that list the nutrients vegetables have.

2.) SHOCK your system with JUICE. Drink 3 LARGE glasses of juice everyday until acne has ceased to exist. Juice, along with vegetables, also have nutrients that are vital for great skin. These include, vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients and fiber. Besides that, it will keep you healthy and your system flushed.

3.) DO NOT BINGE on sugary stuff. Again, studies have purported that insulin buildup in your system leads to acne on yo FACE! Chocolate does not affect everyone, but it sure as hell effected me. That's because it's almost like you are eating table spoons of oil, very rich oils. That's why you want it more. BUT the sugar isn't good for your face. And besides that you probably feel like spit when you binge on kisses. Hahaha no pun intended. But seriously, you can get diabetes from binging.

4.) DO NOT SPEND A BIGILLION DOLLARS ON spit THAT DOESN'T WORK. Take it from me, if you are SHOCKing your system everyday with vegetables and juice, the only thing you will need, which is proven to work because I use it and BELIEVE in it, is Cetaphil Daily Facial Cleanser. This stuff, is the bomb. I have been using it for years. It keeps your skin feeling fresh and it was actually prescribed by my doctor. And the best part is, you can get it at WALMART, at your convenience for only about $5. No waiting for stupid mail orders. yep.

5.) HYGIENE. Basically what it says. But make sure you don't over do it. That can leave your skin dry and red. And if you use Cetaphil, your face should be not too dry but not too oily the whole day through.

So there you have it, basically all you need to get rid of your ugliness so that you will be the prettiest dude or most handsomest chick in town. Just make sure you get the juice and vegetables, keep away from binging, and buy Cetaphil - it's prescribed by doctors. Give it some time, like a year or so. If that still doesn't get rid of your ugliness then maybe you're just ugly by default... and you'll be healthy too ;)

-XJ Randall

The Error in Presuming Stress Levels by XJ Randall

The Error in Presuming Stress Levels Original published article found here.

The Problem - To begin with, I started thinking about this while I was making some rice on the stove. I accidentally spilled some rice over the counter, and knowing that the flu was going around decided to throw away the excess instead of putting it back into the cup. Then, I thought of that saying "Think of the starving kids in..." That's when I began to go crazy with thoughts. I have had a lot* of stress in one month, and I began to wonder how I could compare my stress to someone else's, specifically the starving kids in nowheres-ville. After a long discussion with myself I concluded that there is no way to accurately determine or compare one person's stress level to another person's.

The Logic

1) Stress is like art. It is conceptual. There is no way to accurately measure stress because it is unique in each person's mind.

2) Stress is an authoritarian word, being created for the purpose of defining an abstract idea to the masses that, of course, agree to it's purpose and definition. The authority would be the collective majority of those in a higher position of power, ie. Drs + Therapists + Psychiatrists, etc.

3) Stress can be measured physically on relative terms, using meters and such to measure heart beat, blood pressure, sweating, etc.

4) Everybody's unique in that people have their own experiences and everybody is different, physically and psychologically. The two actually go hand in hand when it comes to stress because one can alter the other.

The Presumption

Based on the mass agreement of the definition of stress, I can guess that a lot of people feel fairly accurate when they are measuring their stress with someone else's. This is typical and an example would be when an Engineer from Purdue says he's had a lot of homework stress from labs and such and the Biology major he is talking with agrees with him/her. Note that even though they are in different majors, the concept of "labs" is so similar that they both can safely guess, and accurately compare their stresses to be relatively similar. This can also work the other way. When a HS student complains that he/she has had a lot of homework to a Grad Student at Purdue, the Grad student will probably not show any sympathy because he/she knows that their work is far more challenging than HS. This would be based on the common knowledge of the hierarchical school system and the notion that higher levels in the hierarchy require more physical and mental work and-or time. Again, the grad student is using relativity as the base measurement stemming from the mass agreement of the definition of stress. Going back to the rice I wasted by throwing it out - I can say that I had little stress or conflict with myself after throwing away what seemed to be perfectly good rice. But based on that saying, "think of the starving kids in...", I can guess that those starving kids would not feel the same. Therefore, I can presume that those starving kids have a lot less opportunities than I do, and therefore have a lot more stress.

The Error

Here is the error. Stress is only relative to the mass definition. But Actual Stress is conceptual and based on our own experiences, NOT someone else's. An ideological way of thinking about it would be to think about drinking alcohol. A lightweight and a heavyweight go into a bar (sounds like a joke). Just because they drink the same amount does not mean that they both have the same stress. And just because they drink different amounts of alcohol does not mean that their stresses will be different. Each drinker has stress that matches their own body, regardless of how much they drink compares to the other.

How does this apply to those kids? Those kids just very well may have a lot less opportunities than me. But stress-wise, we have very different ideas of what is most stressful and what is least stressful. Take an imaginary scale of 1-10: 1 the least amount of stress, 10 the highest. On that scale to me, a 10 might be relationship troubles. A 10 to a starving kid might be not finding food for the third day in a row. But logically speaking, they ARE BOTH 10s! This proves that the catalysts of stress may be drastically different for two different people, but the reactions/stress levels can be near equal.

Another example that I have commonly seen or heard people talk about is suicide threats. The person who feels they have superiority, ie. more stress but are able to handle it better (Person A) than the person who is making the suicide threats (Person B) may dismiss that knowledge in disgust or a jokingly manner. "They won't do it." or "...all because they dumped that person?" What Person A doesn't understand is, that although the stress seems like a 4 or 5, to Person B the threat is a 10. The only way to accurately measure the two peoples' stress is to get them both to the same point on the scale. That would be a 10. This would mean that Person A would have to become suicidal as well. Let's say Person A went bankrupt and lost their business, house caught on fire, and $1,000,000 Lamborghini was not insured after it got pummeled by a hailstorm. Proving my point, Both Person A and Person B are now at 10, but their experiences that drove them there are totally different.

Similarly, this idea can be applied with the HS student and the Grad Student. The grad student expects his work to be harder and more laborious, therefore more stressful based on the mass definition of stress, enforced by the authorities. But in ACTUAL STRESS, based on each person's own experiences, each person may or may not have a different number on the scale. On the stress scale, the HS might have a 10 with homework and the Grad might also have a 10. This means that there stress levels are equally matched, therefore they both have the same amount of psychological and physical trauma. But also, the high schooler may even have more actual stress than the Grad, ie. the high schooler's scale = 10 and the Grad's scale = 7 because the grad student has become so accustom to writing Papers it has become second nature. This proves once again that stress is based on experiences, not the quantitative amount of work performed or measured.

The Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no EXACT way to measure stress. Stress is 'inner', it is like our thoughts and cannot be taken out of our bodies, although it does cause physical and psychological reactions, both interacting with each other. To measure one person's stress with another doesn't make sense because people have different, unique experiences that determine their own stress levels on the scale, regardless of whether they are or are not in the same scenarios. A true measure of stress may be finding similar if not unmatched reactions from two different people, but that measure would only show similarity in reactions and not overall differences in stress levels or the catalysts behind them. Therefore, the stress level from one person should not be presumed when solely basing it on tangible evidence.

* 'A lot' is a term used to describe a significant amount.