A Tropical Fallout

A man stood upon a shore, his head darting in every which way, scanning the landscape of a desolate shore with his hands firmly pressed to the side of his stomach, grasping his stomach, and arms jutting out to the side. He had shaggy blond hair atop his head that cascaded into a scruffy jaw. He wore a clothing of various sorts stitched together by some rather think leather straps. The top was decorated by predominately red pieces of clothing with some thinker, brown padding of leather on the shoulder and elbows. The bottom was composed of the same stitching patterns, random linings about the article. It was decorated by bash and brown clothing with the entire front covered by the same thick leather as on the elbows and shoulders. He was tanned by the ever beating sun upon his tiresome face, lines sprouting from the corner of his golden-flecked green eyes, each reflecting the image of the sorrowful sun as he stared upward with a scowl. "You can't just fucking throw the guns, our only goddamn salvation, to the whatever fucking side pleases you," exclaimed the man. "They were going to attack us, Aries; I wasn't worrying about the damn guns at the moment!" shouted another man towards Aries. This man donned shoulder-length black hair with a surprisingly clean-shaven face in the face of this environment. His top was composed of a darkly stained white undershirt as giant black overalls wrapped itself across his upper and lower torso. Aside from the ashy shading that had been attributed to the overalls, a giant cut ran down the upper left top part of the overalls to within a couple inches down the side of the left legging of the overall. He wore a brown, leather fedora with dark brown patches dotting its visor and top. It cast a long shallow shadows across his already black eyes, as though making the black even blacker, as if there had still been a shade of light to it.  Aries was enraged. "Goddammit, do you realize they just stole our guns, our fucking protection?! Dammit, Aquilo!" "They were armed and they were ten people. If it hadn't been for that first shot, we would both have been that poor-ass fool. I was just reacting because frankly, the only thing I could think about was getting to shelter. Do you value the guns more than your own friggin' life?" "Fuck you, Aquilo. Fuck you," yelled Aries as he abruptly thrust a middle finger into the air in the direction of Aquilino.

Greenish waves seamlessly cascaded over the the browned sand with their subtle foams, racing forward, and then racing back. The sea itself had a sickening green color as an equally sickening light was given from the sun, filled with the remains of an era long past. Discarded and deteriorating bottles, a century or so old, dotted the coastline with letters now indecipherable from time, cans covered in wet, glistening rust with hardened creatures inside, and a man, several bullet holes inside his chest, lie still, his measly torn attire of worn pants and a hoodie, coated in red; its dirty white hue was now indistinguishable. A desolate beach of artifacts new and old surrounded two loners. 

The Cubone Enigma

I have a Pokemon conundrum, thanks to Pico Riley.

It is theorized that Cubone is a young Kangaskhan that lost its mother, adapting the skull and bones of it. Cubone evolves into Marowak, a more advanced version of...a motherless animal(strange). However, something peculiar happens in Red and Blue. In Lavender Town, the restless ghost haunting the tower was a Marowak who died protecting her Cubone... Did you catch that? Cubone is made from a motherless KANGASKHAN, yet the undead Marowak at the tower was a mother of a Cubone. It is as though a child of a Marowak can adapt the same skull of a Kangaskahn from Marowak or it was born a Cubone.

(seeing as Marowak does not have the same shape of head and itself lost its mother as well as it was a Cubone before, implying Cubones who take a skull from Marowak to become Cubone is not the norm and/or would be in different shapes. Not to mention there would have to be an original Marowak set to have died, if this was the typical succession process, but how did they become Cubones? Unless there was another species that it took its skull from at first.)

You may say it turned into a Cubone afterwards, but there are two things: Marowak does not evolve into a Kangaskhan, so a Cubone could not form as it never had a KANGASKAHN mother. However, it may be born as a baby Kangaskhan what with genetic similarity and all and then it lost its mother, becoming Cubone, or possibly just a Pokemon that adapt the skull of its mother, whomever its mother is. However, "it died protecting her Cubone child."-Bulbapedia. It was a Cubone before it even lost its mother. Even if the claim that Cubone=motherless Kangaskhan are false, Cubones still are, by the Pokemon definition, formed because they are motherless. It may have been adopted, and that could tie loose-ends relative to Red/Blue (not the whole breeding issue, though), but, why not adopt the skull of Marowak, seeing as Marowak was its mother?

However, it is completely possible Cubone is just naturally bone-headed and evolves into Marowhak due to the ability to breed it, as is likely the case now in subsequent generations. There is something to remember though, aside from Pokedex entries,http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Cubone_(Pok%C3%A9mon)#Pok.C3.A9dex_entries . Breeding was not available in RBY. It is possible they changed the story completely with Cubone, but did not clean out everything from the story and Santi's link seem to address that.

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Cubone_(Pok%C3%A9mon)#Physiology

http://funky-facts.blogspot.com/2009/09/pokemon-baby-kangaskhan-theory.html

http://pokemon.wikia.com/wiki/Kangaskhan#Trivia

So...does this mean Cubone and Marowhak are Kangaroo Pokemon? 

Then, it was brought to my attention, Arix, that it is possible Cubone was adopted by Marowak and that Marowak's form by an already motherless Cubone losing its mother again and this then impacts its development into Marowak form and taking the skull of the dead Marowak mother. You may say that there would need to be an original Marowak and if there is, where did it get its skull from. Well, unless, the original Marowak was formed by another, unidentified pokemon. Maybe the Cubone had been adopted by another type of pokemon prior and if it lost that mother, it took its skull. This type of pokemon may have receeded and from a psychological evolution, these "new" Cubones (aka Marowaks) began to adopt other Cubones, a learned behavior passed down like how those Japanese monkeys learned to dip food in salt water for flavor and to go into the hot springs when it is cold. There is an extinct pokemon we do not know about if this description is correct... I would like to cite the similarity between Marowak's skull and Nidoqueen's skull Arix brought to my attention. Is Nidoqueen intertwined with Marowak as well?

Pokemon: A Horrifying Truth

In honor of Pokemon month and my recent antagonism towards Pokemon since my Pokemon Black copy stopped working (like they do in reality), I have taken it upon myself to "uncover" Pokemon. Having already pointed out (amongst peers: Arix and Pico) the fact Cubone has some serious inconsistencies and Oedipal problems to work out, I shall now reveal what sort of Hell we would live in if Pokemon were real. There are some factors we will view as actual occurrences:

*Pokemon are as intelligent as they are shown.

*They have a cry that is similar to their name

* They are able to communicate with another. (it's fucking magical, or something)

*They can suddenly mature after reaching a certain age and psychological state. AKA evolving

*They can perform the same attacks as they do in every medium they're presented in.

*THEY AREN'T INVINCIBLE!

*Legendaries exist, and only one of them for each legendary.

* Cubone will not be touched upon. I'm tired of them.

* "Super effective" and "not very effective", both nonexistent. Nearly every attack is effective.

*TMs can be taught to them (magically)

* Once they reach a certain stage of development, they learn new attacks

Health & Safety

Imagine a world in which animals run around, much like this one. Playing, running, eating, survival stuff. Now imagine these animals invoking the power of nature to summon an eruption to fend off a rival thereby successfully igniting brush fire across the whole state of California. That's Pokemon. Pokemon would be INCREDIBLY dangerous. The ability of relatively intelligent animals to call upon destructive forces could decimate cities, or more likely, be responsible for much of the damage in cities. Let's assume much like now, the building of cities pushes Pokemon away due to negative human interaction. However, Pokemon could still potentially live in cities, within the context of Pokemon that would likely live there (rattata, pidgey, starling, meowth, skitty, etc). An oversized pidgeon could be a common sight (and is a common sight), but this sight could form a miniature tornado to tear through the city, creating damage and killing a variety of people. Let's play Devil's advocate and say only small Pokemon live in cities. Fair enough. Take a look at moves they can naturally learn. A pidgey well trained enough by itself is not some little shit, but like the rabbit from Monty Python's Holy Grail. I would also like to site Grimer, a Pokemon made of poisonous sludge. Imagine that thing invading your water supply? Yeah, a lot of disease and illness may prompt more stringent requirements in analyzing water content.

Besides murderous pidgeons to be seen daily, we aren't taking into account the rare possibility a truly destructive Pokemon enters the cities vicinity, angry or moody, say a legendary. If Ho-Oh has been awakened and takes flight, in the chance he decides to unleash a Hydrogen bomb type destruction upon the city, they would have to evacuate the city almost every time he flew over, lest, you know, massive death. On a lesser scale, imagine an angry Rhydon stomping around. This can cause numerous miniature tremors. Ignoring the horrid impact it may have on plate tectonics, there would likely be drills to deal with these "lesser" destructive Pokemon. Now, going back to legendary destruction, the threat they pose is so severe, do you really think they'd allow EPA to protect them? Hell no. They would probably assign a task force to kill them, or if you're cynical, kidnap them and use them for personal gain (like every pokemon villain except the villain this time is a government with access to military and their own destructive pokemon). There would probably not be that much of an environment backlash since they are the only one of their species, though killing Celebi may be kinda bad.

It is also this sheer danger that would render small, rural towns like Pallettown a pretty damn stupid choice to live. If just one pissed off Pokemon enters, it would bring the town to ashes and there is not too much concern in regards to protection to motivate government to send forces to stop the pissy Pokemon when there is an entire city at risk of these encounters. The town may have a "close connection with nature" thing going on, but I restate, it only takes ONE pissy Pokemon. There are far too many wild Pokemon that would likely run about such a town and the structures/government agencies dedicated to protecting the town are nonexistent. This is why a single Pokemon wiping a city off the map can be probable, not to mention that directly outside the town and passing through the town would be rather sizable Pokemon, like a fucking Scyther.

Now, what about those cute little trainers? Could they not defend the city with their own Pokemon that they trained battling with one another in friendly competition? No. If I have not established the danger level of using Pokemon, let me put in a lawful perspective. Pokemon would be WEAPONS. W. E. A. P. O. N. S. Giving a kid an animal that shoots fireballs with the goal of fighting other kids who have animals that shoot fireballs is like giving kids flamethrowers with the aim of blowing up the other kids flamethrower. You can make anything cute. You can make children smacking each other with steel rod-swords, so their soul is not stolen, alongside Disney characters cute (See: Kingdom Hearts)(heh...Disney and souls). Anyways, Pokemon=1st class weapons. No man, woman, or child would be able to own them due to being both highly dangerous weapons and an exotic animal. (Like a lion that emits nuclear radiation from its robotic mane). To deal with the occasional disruptive pokemon, the options would be: (A) Kill it, (B) Sedate and remove, (C) Fight and remove, (D) Ignore it/Leave city. In (D), the city would be ridded of or sustain massive damage before it finally ends, which is never a good thing (people, homes, property, jobs, etc.). While (C) seems appealing to anyone with the concept of Power Ranger type battles, this could be worse than even (D). Having two animals go at each other each with the potential to bring down civilizations will do more damage. If the pissy Pokemon is engaged, it may, you know, become even more pissy and utilize attacks with greater power behind them ( which frankly equals more destruction and risk to human life). This also does not take into account YOUR Pokemon becoming stimulated in the fight and putting power behind its attack. In this case, you're never a part of the solution, only the problem. However, if you have a specially trained Pokemon that exceeds the others power and it can use a simple Slash to rid of Mr. Happy, well, kudos to you, you actually were a part of solution, and may have prevented mire destruction by ending the rampage sooner than a dart or bullet to the face would have.

Following up upon the fact that Pokemon are WMDs and you chose to actually fight the problem rather than sedate or kill it, there would probably be a special task force under orders of military and government to utilize such dangerous creatures. "Trainers" would not be the happy-go-lucky children in the show, but highly trained, elite, CIA or military personnel able to obtain access to destructive devices. It is safe to say this division would be responsible for dealing with rampages, but it would likely be, since there are few of these men and not as readily available as the police, for rampages where sedation and a bullet to the head are ineffective and this Pokemon is annihilating city blocks every 2 seconds, like a vexed Tyranitar using fissure everywhere. A pissy Pidgeot would likely be handled by FBI or police as having such a group that demands a high degree of training and would likely be used for more important "matters" (*coughespionagecough*). If you may have figured out by now, TMs would be made by the government and be a black market item for the public since powering up an something that can easily bring about genocide is generally frowned upon in law...and society in general. I would also like to put in a little biology, if you are fighting each other with Pokemon, using slash, like in the example of what to do, would not render them unconscious. Using attacks will result in damage, massive damage. A slash would render a blood carcass while Flamethrower would turn Pokemon into a living model of witch hunting. Yes, they will be burned alive. Unless it is something like using ember on a Geodude to eventually render him unconscious by heat bombardment, most battles will end in suffering and death. Good ol' kids' games.

*This mainly focuses on wild Pokemon and Pokemon's natural power. Criminals and Pokemon will be next...maybe...if I feel like it. Don't expect anything soon... or at all.

The Rabbit Burrows

Here's a tale. Beneath the delicate surface of the bellowing green grass of the country, upon the side of a stout, English hill, there had once been a nest home to a collective of rabbits. Such a close, caring commune where all were upon the vigil for all others, looking out for those who nursed, those who led, those who gathered, those who played, steadfastly youthful in this sole burrow away from foreign ground. These young rabbits had known this and only this burrow, this burrow where they were raised, fed, and nurtured amongst themselves. As time had passed, so did their immaturity; full fledged rabbits, but maturity demanded more than the physical. A horrid storm decimated the complex tunnels of the burrow and the rabbits were shoved into the forefront of adulthood. They had to find a new settlement where they may survive. They were individuals, each with their own personal ideologies, dreams, and goals, and like all good individuals, they each sought their own individual paths. In going their own ways, they each met their fates. One was a fighter, who would never wither from a conflict, as though he had something to prove. He died as he lived. Attempting to fend off a bird of prey, he was mortally wounded from a gash to his side, dying silently in the claws of the predator. Another was a leader. He took two others as they formed their party in search of a home. A leader never is proven as one until they reach that which defines a leader, the altruism for utilitarian, valuing the group as greater than the individual. Upon seeing a group member struggle to flee from a farmer, a broken impedded her, he sprinted toward the farmer, successfully distracting him. Though she had finally fled, he was now exhausted and the farmer easily ridded of him. Each met different fates, some encountered death, and others despair. Some encountered that curious room where all things that vanish seem to appear while others found the warmth of a mate in a new home they could join. Of all these individuals, only one saw his frontier, only one saw the home he vowed to make, only one was left to truly ponder. He created this new burrow, his own two paws. It was eventually populated as neighboring burrows united with his, soon developing into that complex he had been so used to, but it was just a burrow as in his youth. Everyday upon building his burrows, everyday upon uniting burrows, everyday upon living in his creation, he wondered what had become of those once so close to him. Those young rabbits he had been so attached to were nowhere near him. Where were they now? What were they now? How were they now? The goal was to make themselves a new home, but is it possible any of them achieved their own? Did any of them achieve their place of content and comfort? A little place called home. 


*There is a reason why I chose the title aside from the literal story (think of how burrows have tunnels, each leading down separate paths, but all are still a part of this home)

Chaplinism

Chaplinism is a philosophy on life and emotional perception. In chaplinism, it rests on the statements life is a joke or more generally, everything is a joke. It is inspired by Charlie Chaplin's statement, "In the end, everything is a gag". In this philosophy, it basically advocates everything has a funny side towards it and in regards to life, one should not take it seriously, like a joke, and find the humor in it to better deal with life's negativity. Regardless of how negative a situation seems, there is always an aspect of it that one will find humorous. It does not advocate utter indulgence into humor so as to rid of other emotions and possibly lead to a difficulty in compassion and empathy/sympathy because they may not perceive the depressive emotions of another going through difficulty. It advocates placing a funny side to situations to reduce its negativity and possibly better deal with it. It wants the individual to retain a realistic view of life where they may see the facts and pragmatically deal with them as well. Utter comedic indulgence will be called Jesterism.

Striking Striking Striking

A clock rested on the wretched Earth at an angle, with the edges of a steel number twelve pointing, still in as pristine a condition as it had been, towards the ill sky. The case surrounding the face of the lone clock was partially intact, with some of its pieces still clinging on as though they would fall to their demise, while less fortunate pieces lay about the awkward clock, burying their miserable selves into the dirt. The clock's case and exposed facial parts were covered with a layer of grime that served to shroud a great minority of the numbers, but left the majority revealed, or at a least a majority partially so. This mechanical wonder had fallen from its zenith atop a once magnificent skyscraper, some one-hundred years ago, to the bottom-feeding low life of the Earth, much like many other surrounding buildings. The clock read 12:00, but only momentarily. You see, its severed hour hand continued to inch forward along a circular path followed in this hollowed city once known as Johannesburg. 
An elderly man sauntered, sometime afterwards, out of his shack, composed of scraps of metal hammered out with a makeshift hammer, hides from various creatures that had stalked these wastes, and the stone rubble that had descended from greater buildings. He carried only a bar of metal, bent near the top. Upon his minor steps, he managed to strip over minuscule dune, causing him to tumble downward along with his bar. The desolate thump echoing throughout the city. He grabbed his bar, placed all his weight along its vertical threshold, pulled himself up to what was his former glory, and continued his venture. As he continued, the act of him falling brought to the forefront of his feeble mind thoughts of the longevity of life, and whether death was as much a procrastination. The lengthening shadow of the hour hand struck the withered three. 
He eventually reached his desired spot, some miles away from his abode, in the alleyway of two buildings sloped into one another at the top, forming a sharp, v-shaped arch pointing upwards, and he peered between the arch to see the wind-swept hills of Witwatersrand. His sight was failing him, and he could but only imagine the apex of the hills with the barely perceptible details beholden by him. He perceived a glowing white tip with minor sparks of green dotted about its surface. He then viewed a sight much greater clarity where from the white tip descended darker tones. At first, it was yellow, emanating with a brush of poison, but it ultimately descended down to the very crevice where he stood, a sickening brownish yellow that exclaimed the very source of the yellow poison. In the face of such illness, he held onto his belief in the hilltop and retraced his steps, all the while that lone clock's hour hand, now further lengthened by light, struck six. 
It was but a few hours until the elder heard chatter coming from a few yards away from his huddled shack. Peering out of a partially obstructed opening that served as his window, he saw a faint light flickering with the mutter of voices stalking it closely. Having a mind not as reflexive as it had been in the best, he chose to remain peering out of the opening at the approaching light rather than observe the phenomenon from a secluded distance. His face became marred with horror as he saw three figures appear from beyond the fluttering light, each holding objects of length in their hands. He was only able to see such figures as their scarred, grinning faces were already revealed by the light that still fluttered and even more rapidly now as though it was the last breaths of a dying pride before it gave its last wail. He saw them just as they saw him. In a fret of sheer panic, the man stumbled around the shack, looking for his metal bar that was curved on the end. This would be his key for the purpose of prying open a door resting on the floor of his shack. Upon finding his method of salvation, he heard scampering heightening in pacing and sound. He dashed to a corner of his shack and began to rip at the door placed there with immense grunting noises, still hearing the heavy pacing descending upon his shack. With a final wretch, the door snapped open, the man threw himself down its entrance, and the man stretched his body across the door to secure the handle of the door. The clock struck nine, with its lengthening hand. 

A bullet passed through his head. The clock continued on with an outstretched hand heading towards a zero.

A young man wandered out from behind a statue he had been sleeping behind; a statue that had withstood for hundreds of years. After a weary walk, he spotted a secluded little shack beneath humbled buildings built for kings. Upon reaching the shack, he came to find it was deserted, but in disarray. Miscellaneous objects, such as playing cards, cups, lights, wires, toy cars, and scorched articles of literature, were thrown with no pattern amongst the dirt floor. The young man investigated the shack more so to find a pile of flammable objects that had been burned over, makeshift shelves that contained rocks, sharpened pieces of metal, and sheets of metal, and a metal bar tucked away in the corner by a hole. Upon peering in the hole, he saw nothing but some blood surrounding its rims, and chose to close the door he assumed served as cover for the hole. He saw all the aspects and features of the house and began to analyze how he might adjust it to better the defenses it offered from where they had deteriorated prior, maybe even greater than their original degree. He looked out of the opening to observe an hour hand that seemed to be at a normal length as it struck the steeled twelve, still in as pristine a condition as it had been. 

A Paradox for Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes, a political philosopher (that is all you need to know of him for this entry), believed humans were naturally evil, but their nature of wickedness led them to establish the institution of the state (which itself has adopted as its nature what it hoped to protect, but that is a paradox for anarchistic position). If humans are, so called, naturally "evil", but establish the state as protection, does it not logically follow that it is in their nature to establish "good" (as it seems Hobbes implies government as a counter-balance to evil in posing a contrast to an evil nature) institution to protect from evil as if they were generally evil, why establish a protection that limits themselves? If they were evil, they would radiate such wickedness and not establish something that excludes their desires. Rather, humans naturally have good natures and establish government not so much as protection from what they desire and may present harm from others, but to uphold their virtues from the evil outliers. If state is established as a general aspect of human nature, I would see it appropriate to say that humans are at least just as good as they are evil, rather than one factor generally dominate them, or that a factor of good persists in the evil to a notable degree (but it still requires a limitation of the attainment of desires). One may very well contest the state more so a protection from other evils so that the evil man may better holdhis life. Limiting his own actions for the sake of livelihood. If we accept this outcome, one may suppose as a possibility as well that if the state's purpose is to protect a certain amount of wickedness (protecting a wicked man so he may still utlize some of his wicked desires as that is why he wishes to maintain his life [living to simply live is wanted due to experiences desired to be fulfilled] and nothing is absolute, whereby his evil desires are not completely nullified simply in self-preservation) is wicked in and of itself, thereby making the state, due to its very purpose, an evil entity, and rather than reject wickedness, it only maintains it in its own degree, and is empowered with wicked acts it deems too wicked to deal with wickedness (acquisition and dominance through force), becoming hypocritical, and facilitating wickedness. One may very well say individuals exchange desires to those of virtuous desires so that they may live under protection. This provides a fallacious view of nature whereby they exchange the foundations of their nature for another so they may live under protection, a very temporal definition of nature. Rather, if good desires were had under government that they naturally erect, it may be viewed as yet further support to humans being of natural good, but holding wicked outliers.

Sectionalism

It was brought to my attention that sects are "against" Christian teachings per various verses in the Bible. Though a person gave the verse to look for, I never discovered any results of such a verse existing nor any discussion on the topic of sects being against teachings. However, for this explanation, I will provide the benefit of the doubt and say that sects are spoken against in the Bible. 

If it is ruled that sects are "heresy", then, I assume in one case, it advocates how there is only one follower, one interpretation which all Chrisitans should identify with. A single sect of Christianity. If this is what is trying to be stated by the person, then I must point out some loophjoles. By advocating a single realm of Christianity to be taught, Chrisitians may all have to be given to a single interpretation of the Bible, but who says this interpretsation is not false and is what the Bible says? By advocating all join one group, the Bible may be seen to unify Chrisitians under this single sect of interpretation that is false and possibly spells doom for all Christians. It may be seen as a cotradictory belief system whereby they advocate unity and condemn separation, but this would also be at the risk of damning themselves following false teachings. However, they cannot separate as even shifting interpretation to the correct one would be the formation of a new "sect". You may bring up that they then should unite under the banner of the "true" interpretation. And that is where the whole concept of "sects" in Christianity arise from, what is the "true" interpretation. What gives your interpretation of the Bible more audacity, if you will, than that of another. You may advocate if we followed the original teachings of Jesus they will find the "true" interpretation, but even his teachings in the Bible are not objective as to their meaning. Even if those in the time of Jesus followed his teachings and passed them down to future generation, these future generations would misinterpret his teachings for even the apostles of Jesus did not see a cut and dry interpretation of their master's teachings. Play phone tag where you say one word till it makes its way 'round circle to you again and see if that word is the same. A similar concept applies to the teachings of Jesus and why following a single, "true" dogma is contradictory. 

Now, there is another case whereby one may say Christianity should not form into sects in that they may all hold different interpretations as to the Bible, but they need not form into sects of this idea. Label themselves as Christians and nothing more. To this, I respond that they actually have. They all identify as Christians, but simply form pairings based on similar interpretations and nothing more. They do not segregate themselves from other Christians, but associate their similar dogmas. Christianity may have sects, but they, in general, do not have "schisms" whereby they break in "communion", communion meaning " an especially close relationship of Christians, as individuals or as a Church, with God and with other Christians." Sure, there have been schisms in the Church before and some have separated their Church entirely from another branch, but some have done this only in regards to the origin of their church, but have sense redeveloped the close bonding. Again, not all members of every church have achieved this, but in general. They do all regard themselves as Christians, a single sect, but simply have different interpretations. These similarities of different interpretations have allowed some to collude into a group with similar ideas of interpretation, but they do not show opposition, complete segmentation, antagonism towards the other groups who have formed within Christianity. In regards to the more prominent and general sects/denominations, they regard themselves as one with the other sects with simply a difference in some aspects of interpretation; they did not really have a schism or have since their schism reunited. An analogy for this event is the realm of, well, humans. We view that humans are categorized in races and separate them in this view, however, despite some differences (mainly place of origin and skin color), they are actually united as human and not to be viewed in their similar difference towards one another as a separation between groups, but simply differences in the single group known as humanity. Many Christians, and what they hold as their "groups", view that despite this grouping, they are actually united as a single sect, they are not "separate" from others, simply differ on their take on various issues in Christianity. Grouping one another does not inherently mean schisms in the Church, nor separate sects that do not connect themselves with other sects.

*I know "sect" implies a difference with another group, but I use the term "single sect" to convey the point of unity...paradoxically. 

*This is spoken in regards to the sects in general and the people in general. This is not, at all, meant to be applied universally to all sects and people of Christianity.  

Pagan Origin=/=Pagan

Aside from a a vague title, this is written mainly because some people, not listing any names, want to insist that simply because some holidays/observances originated from Paganism mean they are Pagan. Pagan origin does not mean these events take on and lose traits that while, in their method, may have been kept throughout the event, that does not mean intention is the same as it was before, and therefore may sufficiently be said to NOT be Pagan at these times. If we simply regard something's origin as being the thing itself, culturally, the idea of worshipiing a god is Pagan. That's right, you were all just hypocritical pagans this whole time; you just thought you separated from them. They have been living amongst you this whole time! Dear God, you have all sinned! See? Origin=/=composition. In regard to Christmas, yes, during a certain Pagan observance it was used to celebrate the winter solstice and, possibly, to celebrate sun gods in the festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti. However, as with many other cultural things, a little thing known as "custom evolution" occurs and the intent of customs changes into traditions, like apple pie and ice cream FUCK YEAH AMERICA,or possibly the same custom in regards to how it is performed, but a new meaning (kinda like Halloween where though the practice of wearing masks in the Autumn was Pagan, it has since rid of such a purpose in exchange for simple, well, celebration. PARTY!) What has God denounce Paganism is not the origin of the practice, as  later in the Bible we see those celebrating God USING PAGAN-ORIGINATED PRACTICES, but it was the intent of the practice (believing in false gods other than Himself) or the consequence of SOME of the practices (BLOOOOOOOOD SACRIFICE! *heavy metal music in the background*). There are no automatic prohibitions of the Bible that bar a practice that may be Pagan in origin, but has a different intent and does not commit other sins as it then is simply a celebration where "custom evolution" has occurred as to how the celebration is presented. A secular celebration, possibly; maybe even one celebrating God. Though, I am not aware if God outright prohibited celebrating Him or His son. Halloween today may have been Pagan in origin, but the practices were simply kept and removed of their original intent, making the practices secular. Halloween in America for the general populace is a secular holiday, much as your birthday is.

(Irrelevant argument to the prior)As for Christmas, it is both secular and religious. NIGGA SAY WHA?! In "custom evolution" I believe a holiday may adapt both a religious aspect, as per Paganism into Christian tradition, but also it may take on a more nationally traditional route whereby it can be a secular holiday celebrated only due to the secular culture of an area where it is just a socially cultural celebration, such as Quince Anos (or whatever the hell they're called. Also, I don't know how to do the "n" with the "~" on top.) in Hispanic traditions. It can also be more of a nationally cultural celebration observed because an entire nation recognizes it and celebrates it as it has developed more secular undertones, such as Thanksgiving. For this reason, an atheist celebrating Christmas is not some hypocrite, but just celebrating a cultural festivity as Christmas has attached to itself, in modern times due to "custom evolution", a likewise secular form of the festivity in cooperation with the religious festivity. Sociology is a funny thing.

On the Perfection of Species (aka OPS)

*Species interdependent on environment and other species. Even if "surroundings" were static, the species itself would remain seemingly perfect (never changing) only because of static surroundings. This interdependence means that the species themselves are not perfect as their perfection is brought through surroundings.

*One may say that their changing allows for being closer to perfection relative to their environment, but the species will still have faults, hence is why they change. One that changes for desert climate will therefor show faults in an arctic environment. If they were perfect, there would be no need for change in order to better faults, and if changing was perfection, why would they need to change? 

*If a hypothetical species could, at will, change its "composition" so that it may be instantly adapted to the environment. This would be the only permissible way in which a species may be overall adapted in that it changes itself at will, rather than random biological occurrence. However, the fact that it must change constantly means that it is not wholly adapted as it must CHANGE to adapt or die. If you will, a self-inflicted instantaneous evolution only different from typical evolution in that it is self-inflicted. A comparison may be drawn to frogs who change sex at will if too little females are around in that they will change to greater reproduce their species and survive. 

*As a random tangent, if perfection is simply defined as the lack of flaws, then all may be considered perfection as "flaws" are attributed to things as being such only by nature of the mind, much as morals are not an objective thing.

Ontology+Relativity+Mr. T

It was asked whether within the concept of existence if everything can be explained logically. Scientifically, etc. An explanation in general that is not some made up bullshit like the sky is blue because Mr. T wants it to be blue, or those trite Chuck Norris piles of shit. To this, I believe it relies HEAVILY on relativity. First of all, clarity would need to be made in regards what exactly is the definition of “existence” in this case. For all intensive purposes as to what I BELIEVE the person was asking, objective existence, such as the keyboard beneath my fingers as opposed to the colors one observes. It would need clarity, also, as to what an “explanation” is. Does this include an answer to a question of what, how, why, who? Does this an explanation in regards to the assumption of whether or not an answer as to the thing’s existence has already been answered as yes, or no? Is an explanation also in regards to the existence of the fact that thing does NOT exist, or only explanations for those that exist? I am going to assume, yet again, that the person’s underlying question is WHY something is and would also want an explanation as to why something is not.

Now, surpassing the question’s relativity, there comes the relativity in the answer. First off is f you view the base of the universe’s workings as structured or cyclical. If you view it as structured, the explanations for one event, thing, phenomenon, etc. are unique; that only this one whatever has that explanation as to why it exists. If you ask why a photon does not pass through one object and why a ball does not go through an object (generalized hypothetical situations, people), both do not share the same explanation, but are unique from one another despite how similar the explanation sounds. If so, then, it may be more likely for one to view that science cannot explain each segment of existence as they may try to explain one thing and regard that as the explanation for another, but this person not viewing interconnected things regards this as an inability to explain one in an attempt to explain the other. However, one may be a “structurist” and still view that by simply rearranging semantics of one explanation, they form a new explanation for the other individual thing. One who views the workings of the universe as cyclical will see that explanations can be recycled, where an explanation for one thing (I hate using this word) can serve as the explanation for another thing. They may view the explanation for a photon being unable to go through something as the same explanation for a ball being unable to go through a wall. (Again, generalized). However, as in the case of “structurists”, “cyclists” (hehehehe) may favor the answer of everything in the universe being able to be explained through science, but this does not mean they have to regard the universe as explainable. They may see that if one segment cannot be explained, this also connects to another segment of existence. Rendering that segment unexplainable as well. The “cyclists” my also view that if we continually ask why for an event, we reach a point that is unexplainable (unable to EVER be explained) and this therefore connects to ALL segments of reality. Despite the composition fallacy (or, in general, a hasty generalization), this would be there view. Some may view cyclists as committing the fallacy of begging the question as they answer a question about the thing by stating why it is over and over each time a question as to why it is, and why it is the way it is. In the realm of physics, this is applicable, begging the question, as with many factors in physics, the mere existence/composition of the thing is why it is and why it is why it is is because, again of its mere existence. Claiming begging the question so quickly in physics as being a point of logical fallacy would be a strawman/red herring (however you view it) in this case as, again, in physics, this type of logic is applicable as to the forces that govern us. 

Another relativity that is taken into consideration is that when regarding the objective existence of things is whether we also take into account people’s personal beliefs on the objective existence? Though this question may seem obscure, I believe the God questions best illustrate this relativity. Do we take into account those whom believe that God exists and ask them to explain why this is so, and the opposite perception? Or, do we regard ONLY that which exists and we withhold questioning an explanation as to why God exists as he has not yet been solidified. I assume, it would be best to pose the question to both parties, thus opening more relativity. Those that believe in God’s existence would favor a view that there is an explanation for everything’s existence, whereas one who does not hold belief in God may favor the opposite. If God does objectively exist, then I would state that not everything can be explained such as God’s origin, or lack thereof. Now, something should fire off in your mind. Wait a minute, how do we define God? This introduces yet another level of relativity where the view of existence of one thing may be held as differing explanations that are just as plausible as the other as the existence of this thing can be taken into differing ways, none of which as a solidified objective truth, but still maintains a truth. In this case, as whether or not we regard God or gods existing in terms of our belief, and where a lack of existence for one definition of God may result in the idea of one believing that an explanation for everything is so, but the same definition of God may result in one holding an explanation for everything is not so. I believe God is a flying, omnipotent spaghetti monster (for all intensive purposes of this explanation) and hold that is cannot be explained why God is so. However, that same perception of God may hold that this is so because God chose to be a spaghetti monster with his omnipotent powers. God simply being a flying spaghetti monster is one explanation of the same concept (God being a FSM), but God CHOSE/PREDESITNED to be the monster is another explanation of the same concept, and that even if one is regarded. It cannot be truly said that one explanation can be objectively right nor objectively wrong, but relies purely on interpretation, which may almost necessitate the involvement of personal views on reality per the original question of whether everything in the universe can be explained. There is one more point of relativity as to whether reality can be explained wholly or not, and that may be how we define a thing as existing. Though we may agree on the definition of existence, an objective existence, once we reach the same definition of a thing, such as God (He is so versatile in this explanation), we may not agree that God’s precise existence is not quite the same type of existence agreed upon, where they may see one concept of God as inherently being not of objective existence, such as the Christian God, as he lives not on a different universe, but a different “plane of existence”.

All in all, whether or not everything can be explained is incredibly relative and per my relativity, I say am unsure as I am a non-theological agnostic (not the theological definition of agnostic, but the general definition). Everything may be able to be explained as an objective, scientific fact/explanation or as an non-false truth, be the truth relatively objective and subjective (The "why-God-is-what-he-is" scenario), and that may be ground enough for it to have an explanation as to why it exists.

I would also like to add, as a nit-pick, that "why" and "how" may be used interchangeably in presenting the question of one's existence.

Existential Purpose and Potential (My life philosophy)

First of all, I believe our purpose is initially unknown, but not only unknown, but also unformed( hence "unknown"). I view purpose as to WHAT we do and also WHY we do WHAT we do. Our purpose, per my definition of "purpose" (in a philosophical context) is defined indefinitely throughout time. Depending on what we do, our actions, we add definition to a purpose. If we hit a baseball into our neighbor's yard as a way of saying, "Blow it out your ass Mr. Scott" (*coughpoliticalmessagecough*) then, we have added to the definition of the purpose of our existence being to blast a ball through Mr. Scott's home. However, we also added the definition of WHY we did that, to send a grandmotherly message to someone. Through this definition, what one's definitions are to their purpose cannot be taken away as you have still committed that act, even if one was to go back in time as that would now be a different person with a different purpose, not the same person. Through this definition as well is the seemingly infinite factors of purpose. Another aspect of my view is that our emotions towards events, our thoughts are actions as well. If we spent the majority of our existence being happy while we underwent hardcore drug intakes, then, as much of a monster I sound like saying this, our purpose has been being happy for a majority of our existence. Another facet is that if we thought of ourselves as the coolest thing while doing such intakes, then a part of our purpose would also be being cool as this is relative to OUR purpose. Simply because dictates you as uncool undergoing that, that would be their take on your purpose, not something a part of your purpose. YOU define your purpose. Now, what if looking back on the majority if your existence and dictate you weren't cool? Well, that is your thought on a part of your purpose already defined, a thought also added to your purpose. This may also be applied to non-cognitive objects like a rock. If it falls on a man's head and crushes his skull, it has added definition to purpose. We may view it as tragic, but those are OUR thoughts, not the rock's. Objects themselves may have a purpose. One may view that because they exist longer than another, they therefore have a more defined purpose. This is not so, rather you had more time to define purpose. Purposes gave different degrees of purpose, but degrees not measured in numerical character that can be determined as more than another. Different degrees in the sense of a desert compared to an ocean in climate, not 1 vs. 2. However, there is one inherent purpose, existence. If we are a life, then we have living added to that definition. Life is a state of existence.

Through this definition of purpose, I reach my thoughts on potential. This is both a pessimistic and optimistic view of our existence. I believe, no matter our action we give 100% regardless. This is because we perform what was given to us as potentially optimal as was capable due to the all the factors of our existence leading up to this point. We cannot go back in time and redo it as we have now added more factors to influence optimal potential. If we earn a 20%, this is the best we could have done while another who earns 80% has done the best they could do. No better, no worse. If we could have done better, we would have, and if we could have done worse, we would have. One may interpret this as determinism, but that would be a strawman. I am not stating these factors inevitably determine our ability, but with these factors we do the best we can. This is the quintessential philosophy I follow as I go through my life. It provides me comfort knowing my existential experience.

My Objectivist Philosophy

My Objectivist Philosophy

      While the beliefs of Objectivism have more definition, for the purpose of this…writing, we will say that Objectivism is, “… that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest...”- Wikipedia

        I do believe that even if our conscious was to die, there is an actual reality that will exist whether we perceive it or not. If we die, that woman we saw the day before our death will still be there, assuming she didn’t die, after we die. I believe our conscious creates our PERSONAL realities, a reality that die with our conscious as it includes our memories, our understandings, our connotations, etc. Our personal reality is had through the presentation of A reality and the actual experiences we have in our (the consciousness) interaction with the reality. Our personal reality is not exactly real itself, but exists only in our conscious, kinda the opposite of what “reality” means, however, what our personal reality was attached to continues to exist apart from our acknowledgement of it. If one prescribed to the idea that reality is something that either or conscious or subconscious perceives, reality is not independent of our consciousness, then that old man that was just in the face did not exist until you now think about him. Not to mention, you do not know the exact specifics of the man (face, family, morals, etc.) so can a vague old man whom you may prescribe a face to when that is not his face (the man in question) exist for those who prescribe to a conscious dependent reality? You consciously acknowledge him, but not his specifics. Is our connotation of the old man enough to give him an existence since reality relies on conscious acknowledgement, regardless of what we say his face is? There is an existence in the mind where we may prescribe a face to the man and he exists, but is this the only reality? I suppose it depends on what one defines the interaction between a conscious dependent reality and the conscious as.

      Now, for the part that we may obtain objective knowledge, I do not agree completely. By interacting with an independent reality, we do definitely acknowledge objective information (subconsciously/consciously), but is this objective knowledge since we do not see the objective aspects by its self? I believe that when we consciously/subconsciously acknowledge objective information, the knowledge we acquire instantly adapt subjectivity once it enters to conscious (since, per my definition, knowledge is conscious). Connotation, feeling, blah, blah, blah, all instantly attached. We have objective knowledge in regards to a specific point in a unit of our knowledge being objective information (such as there being an object with this shape in front of me), but attached to this point of the unit is subjectivity (object’s color, the name of the object is called a crystal, it looks sexy, etc.) In general, knowledge is not objective, but points of the knowledge are objective where branching points of subjectivity are then attached to each “unit” of knowledge.

      In regards to the “proper moral purpose”, I personally do not regard it as “proper” namely because it is not formal nor the right thing to be done, but it is our moral purpose in that it is universal to humans and animals in terms of their conscious (not so much computers in that they have a different set of rules for the “conscious”)and is acted upon regardless as it is hardwired into us. I believe it is a universal moral that we all regard as right as that is how we pursue activities in our life. The pursuit is also why I believe it is a purpose. I prescribe to psychological egoism, the belief that ALL of our loves, activities, goals, etc. are set due to our self-interest, never being holistically altruistic. It is with this belief of humanity that I feel it is a moral purpose, a “right”/moral/perfectly fine purpose, that humans should seek their own satisfaction, not necessarily MAXIMIZES their satisfaction as it is rational, since they always seek their own satisfaction as we are hard-wired (we and animals) to do so. Actually, I’m not exactly sure about hive-minds, they may have true altruism.