ages ago (logical reasoning added 9.8.1998)

Evil does not exist. Good is not the cause as it is often mistaken to be. Good is the effect. Evil is a lack of goodness. A lack of the effect for the lack of causes, for wrong causes. For the lack of virtues. How could evil exist anyhow? If God is perfect, how could he create anything evil? Nothing comes out of nothing. Does this not mean that we must fear ignorance, stupidity, cowardice and excess? We must not fear for evil but for the lack of it! Ahh, how stupid is christianity again. Quite simple to prove it wrong on any part. Fearing evil is christian. Fearing the lack of four socratic virtues with bravery is reason. Fear of the unknown is unreasonable. That which we fear must be destroyed for it causes destruction of goodness. Opposites neutralize each other or destroy either one. The good must not become nothing or bad. The good must win. The good must destroy the bad.

20.07.98

Reading newspapers is depressing. And they always tell me that i should. i was reading one to pass the time and i read an article about depression--how it is terrible that more and more people are depressed. That more and more people are so terribly sick. And it showed me how stupid and naive i am.

For i had always thought that if one does not get depressed in the world of ours, he is sick. The world is based on appearances and most people only care about what something seems to be. Natural order has been lost (people are in the wrong places and therefore it is impossible to find one's own place). The weak and the strong are "equal". If one does not strive for money he is fucked. All that matters is the body. The spirit has been buried and forgotten.

But at least now i know i am terribly sick. Educated people tell me that in the newspaper so it must be true. i used to think that if natural order were destroyed, as it has been, it creates an environment where it is impossible for a man who feels that he has some soul to live. It would turn out like hell. People are different, but they tell me that everyone is still the same, equal and fit to the same places. An actor becomes a president, chrome turns to gold and gold turns to clay. A philosopher commits suicide in his depression because he does not have a place. Or a philosopher is killed because he tried to take his rightful place. Because he tried to do what he must, to survive. To elevate.

24.07.98

i went to buy some ice-cream today and was looking for this specific brand and flavour of ice-cream. i remember well when a year ago it still existed. But now, i couldn't find it. Alas, oh. i could only find a HYLA-version (suitable for lactose-intolerants) of it. There used to be a time when HYLA-products dind't exist. And there used to be a time when they co-existed with normal food. But now, they have replaced the normal products. There are now only the HYLA-options left. What do i make of this?

Society gets sicker every second. More and more the world is arranged to fit the sick. They have become the normal. The human race deteriorates continuously.

Perhaps i am selfish when i say that if you can't eat normal ice-cream, don't eat ice-cream. But i don't think so. It is a perfect example of what i am trying to say. We should refuse to deteriorate. It goes to the deterioration of the body just as well as to the deterioration of wisdom. We accept it. And we want it. In the name of our holy equality.

In the name of equality we create democracy in order to fit the worst people of society and to degradate us even further. But something more important than normal ice-cream was lost long ago. The wise (the elite) lost their place in the world (maybe it started when Socrates died). This thing about ice-cream may seem pointless, but it is like this: if i am strong, why do i have to adapt to the weak in any case? When it comes to wisdom or when it comes to ice-cream. If my body isn't degraded enough, why do i have to act like them whose bodies are?

27.07.98

i bought my wife a nice blue shirt today. i felt so bad. But that's not the only reason i bought that. But i still felt guilty. For buying all kinds of stuff for myself all the time, and then complaining that i am poor and end up not buying things for her. But now i did. And i feel better. And she looks nice in the shirt.

28.07.98

Academic humanists...they try so hard to be objective in their research and comments that what they do turns subjective...comments for the sake of comments and research for its own sake--for statistics. This is best shown in philosophy, but it can be seen very well, for example, in literary research also.

In literary research (academic), there is no hope or will to find what the writer wanted to say. The reader has to come up with the definitions and meanings of the text (reversed roles, again). The reader becomes the author and the author becomes a puppet. A puppet that is held and made to dance by the reader from the strings.

Dissect. Organize. Admire.

You dissect the text into lines, the lines into words and the words into metasymbols. And you come up with: "i can not make out what the author has wanted to say in this text, so i have to come up with my own interpretation." Why would i care about the author's idea anyhow? i am the reader and the text is now mine. (kind of puts authors out of job, though) You interpret. and then you admire the outcome. You are a good writer. Bound to come up with your subjective ideas. Bound to find a meaning that pleases you, and on which you don't have to take a stand, since you came up with it in the first place. This is the essence of academics. No courage. No courage to make the simplest conclusion of the context and the text, and no courage to take a stand.

Then again, maybe it should be done differently. You dissect last and interpret first. Impressions. Ideas. From the context. And then you dissect and realize all the subtle details of the writer's thoughts. After all this, take a stand.

i can't respect these people. Even if they are humanists. Even if they were misanthropes. for they can only be called statistic-humanists.

It applies to another type of group, too. In movies, it is often shown how a cop shoots a criminal who is about to kill another person. How can they make that choise, without knowing anything about the people involved. That's statistic-humanism at its worst. Protect life for the sake of life. The same with doctors. Save life, nevermind the quality that defines the value.

The same with people who protect nature. They protect the species instead of individual animals. That is statistics for me.

30.07.98

i have been staring at a blank screen for the last couple of minutes already. As much as everyone else might hate it, i can hear mariah carey's voice booming across the room. i think it's one of the most interesting things to do--to stare at a blank screen for a long while. It makes your mind wander. Like right now i'm thinking about what i need at the grocery. Bacon? gee, that reminds me. Jouni has to cut down on his bacon intake. Bad for the heart. But then again, he doesn't really care about the body much. Does he realize that he can't really do any deep thinking if he feels like throwing up or anything like that? Perhaps he just doesn't care about that either. The song has just ended and now my mind wanders to my dad once more. i can't help but think about him. Just a couple of days ago, i was able to talk to him for real...well over the internet on icq. For anyone else, talking to one's own father is probably a typical thing. big deal. Just that in my case, it's quite different. My dad and i have been in a pothole for quite some time, but wait a minute. i don't care to tell the entire story for anyone to read here. That's not even my point here. What i'm trying to say is that my mind wanders a lot (doesn't everyone else's?). The thing is...i think about a lot of things. Just not the 'important' things as jouni always says. Perhaps he is right. He's the kind of person who does a LOT of thinking. And i mean thinking about the things that matter the most. The degradation of society. Elevation of the soul. Et cetera. Et cetera. i don't. But when i do get around to dwelling on things like those, i come up and realize a lot of things that i never thought i understood but did. Strange? i don't know...perhaps it's time that i start thinking about the things that really matter. Oh well...my mind wanders once more.

1.8.1998

degradation. a child is pure. and starts degrading in our society the minute he is born. wrong things being shoved at him. they say, that a young person is heartless if he is a capitalist, if he is not an idealist. and an older person is stupid, if he is not a capitalist.

degradation. it starts. it continues. and goes so far, that we stop to recognise the things important and things secondary. we start confusing them. in school, a child's natural desire to learn is buried by shoving things down his throat (by the wrong people and in the wrong order). a child has to be let follow his own natural interests. and a child has to be taught by his parents. not by strangers. teachers.

all the more, we lose track of importance. we lose sight of beauty. growing up has become a synonym for mental pestilence. a mental leper.

i'll burn in hell before i grow up.

3.8.1998

what one likes and dislikes is usually considered to be just a secondary matter of opinion. no biggie. i was just wondering...about this other thing that i won't get into, but isn't it so, necessarily, that the same things are good and beneficial, just as bad and degradating, for all people? so doesn't this clearly point, that what one likes kind of shows the kind of person he is?

if a person likes things that are...of a lower level, of a lower level origin...doesn't that mean that he is weak? and that he is not doing what he should be doing? that he is degrading himself further all the time. because if the same things are good and bad for all people, then these people would not know that they are doing something bad (according to plato, no one harms himself deliberately). so they do not know. this is the reason for different kinds of tastes existing.

different levels. different values. different qualities. of course, a refined taste, a taste that values that which reflects things true and beautiful, would be of a higher level person. distributio medii.

it is a shame that in our time, we even tolerate "artists" like madonna (or anyone like that). wisdom is a beautiful thing. the old saying, de gustibus, deserves to be left alone and forgotten and never said again, so at least our future generations could grow up to value things of beautiful origins. it is often times too hard to rise above all the crap.

4.8.1998

this is not anything important, except on a very personal subjective level, and i guess that would make it a lot more valuable at least to me than a lot of other things i have written on this page. today i got my first sisters of mercy -video. and i was not disappointed.

andrew eldritch surrounded by mist and a veil of lights, presented as a demon or sometimes like a god, but all the time apart from everyone else. alone. somewhere higher. somewhere distant. a dreamlike figure. an image. not a person.

i knew from before that the early sisters concerts were nothing like the albums, and they were not supposed to be. "different media." but i never could imagine how dreamlike a simple concert could be. how it draws the audience to its own world. to the world where nothing exists but which holds everything. there is you. and there is god. there is all that matters. the video had a lot of visual effects. and i can only hope that they were there to intensify the atmosphere that could not be totally reflected from a mere video. that the atmosphere in the concerts really was like that. i could imagine it well being so. it made my understand what eldritch meant saying that you could find yourself (but more probably lose yourself) in the midst of lights and shadows.

i am very impressed.

7.8.1998

i got a rune for myself a couple of days ago. Wyrd-rune. Odin's rune. A blank white rune. It looks nice but that's not important. What's important is, that it has an effect.

i chose white over black because white is emptiness. Intuitivelly. i can't quite put it into words, but it's something close to that i get energy and lose energy at the same time for the emptiness of the people of today. They make me reach higher and they drain me more. Odin's rune, because all the more i want all the decisions, effects, being final. i have come to hate temporary decisions and compromises. What's not ideal is not to be accepted. Growing up has a lot to do with accepting. And that acceptance creates degradation.

Varg Vikernes sees himself as a Chieftain of his folk. Plato was an idealist that wanted to change the world, while Socrates remained an individualist only concerned about his own elevation. i strive for both, but as i don't see that it is possible to change this world, most of the time i would rather live for myself (or more accurately, for my wife).

8.8.1998

This is actually something i figured out a long long time ago, but it just came to my mind today again. The society is built in such a perverse way, that the people live for the society and the society exists for its own sake. Whereas it should be more like that the society exists for the people and people exist for their own sake.

If you don't conform and adapt to the way the society works, you have no (real) chance of getting along. Unless you are very rich, then again, which means that you, after all, live with the rules of the society. Lately, i have been reading about Norwegian Black Metal from the book Lords of Chaos, and i truly admire some people there, people like Varg Vikernes, who live for themselves and don't care about the (physical) consequences. Do what is right and natural nevermind where it brings you. (The scene is also full of idiots, i know.)

i just would like to see...having myself a chance, along with my wife, to live...in a way still contributing to the society my (our) own way and given the chance to live for ourselves at the same time. Of course, a society in which that would be possible would be ideal...Plato's Republic would come close.

12.8.1998

This text was originally on the page Akademeia, but since text there should be more constructive than destructive, i moved this here and wrote another one there.

An example of reasoning why judeo-christianity must be destroyed. In judeo-christianity there is a command from God to love your neighbour, disregard the person, love the man. In the words of poet D. H. Lawrence, "whoever forces himself to love his neighbour begets a murderer in his own body". Love is a feeling. Since when can feelings be forced? Since when they should? Or take Jesus for he is a part of a great paradox. If he is the son of God, proclaiming this with a loud voice, and at the same time, telling everyone that they are sons of God, why is he above anyone else human? Christianity only suits the weak and futile. Christianity is the power of the weak (unnaturality). Christianity was created to keep people in line, for the power of the church.

Democracy breeds from equality. We have seen what comes out of democracy, we have seen the rise of the USA and what it does to civilization (i am not even going to go to that true democracy exists not for it would not be any better). People want democracy cause they want to feel good about themselves. For their need to be in control (or at least think that they are). People need democracy for the feeling of safety, so that they can think they are not ruled by someone like Stalin or Mao or Ceaucescu (i am not even going to go into that these were all in fact a million times better rulers than Bill Clinton will ever be).

Capitalism is a strong part of democracy and will never be defeated before it. Capitalism destroys the man. It degradates the soul. The more a person grows up to be a "rational adult," the more he gives into the capitalistic demands of the society, the more he loses contact with nature and his soul. The only class of people who can live with capitalism, are artisans, for they can do their job and get what they need with help from capitalism. The lowest class. And at this moment, the whole world is conducted to work at the rules of this class. Capitalism will destroy me. It will destroy my life. i have no doubt about that. i know far too well that i have no energy to try and do what i know i have to do along with spending hours of day at work doing something which anyone could do, where i am not even needed. My goal is higher.

13.8.1998

Yesterday i changed my rune. Or asked my wife to change it. i think the rune as it was made me sick. i got a terrible stomach ache along with high fever and nausea after wearing it for a couple of days. i wanted to make it a little less powerful and easily controlled, it is my first rune and i don't have a very good control over it. So.

My wife crafted a symbol of chaos on the front of the rune, chaos symbolises change (fire symbolises chaos along with other things). With this, i wish to alter the purpose of the rune a little bit. i still think of it as Odin's rune, though. But i want it to represent change, final change. In the world, in the universe. Not in single persons anymore.

22.8.1998

Christianity breeds equality breeds democracy breeds capitalism breeds unnatural and unhealthy world. But enough about that. Let me tell you something about myself.

It is strange how, looking back at my life, i notice things in the past that i do not understand how i have endured at that time. Being married now, i do not understand how i got through the time of my life i was living in Turku and being in the community service. At that time, i took long walks late at night all by myself. Now i could never do that again. i also don't understand how i got through the days working there.

Most of the things i have done in the past are like that. i could never do them again. Maybe it's all about being alone and now not. Sometimes i just can't comprehend how i got where i am. And just as strange is where i am going from now. i would even say i don't understand my present.

26.8.1998

Why should we have compassion when God himself has no pity on us? Because we are more than Gods. We are supreme. We have supreme spirit. Spirit is the potential to become a God. The essence of human. The one that defines us and the one that gives us value, as humans and as individuals. It gives us value over animals. It gives me more value than Bill Clinton. We are defined by our spirit, everything we are is stored there. Or not stored. Written. And we rewrite it all the time. So we should claim our position as Gods already. We create and destroy. We think and we learn. We strive for perfection with what we do (too bad most people don't do that on themselves...christians...think they are good enough, that EVERYONE is good enough already, dangerous way of thinking...that you are perfect).

If we become Gods, we have greater knowledge and understanding along with a supreme ability to love. That alone is a good reason, as good as any or better, for me to strive for perfection. We must ignore the body. To rise above the pleasures and pains, or our spirit gets used to the idea of the body becoming first (as it comes in the world today). And we start thinking it's the truth. Our body lies and cheats on our spirit. What is pleasurable now, produces pain five minutes afterwards. What feels good for the body, degradates the spirit.

But we shan't not ignore the body. We must know its limitations and its powers. We must control it with our spirit. The body is not important and secondary. We can disregard it. Chi? Unlike Asians, i believe that we can control whatever energy we have in our body without exercises as katas. Just experience is important. If we have energy, we can use it naturally, just as ourselves, as long as our spirit is in control. Asians prefer using chi with the control of the body. i think it should be used with the control of the spirit. The balance of the body and mind should be forgotten and go further...just the mind is important. Extremity leads to supremity.

Oh, and one more thing. We are getting married, again, tomorrow.

30.8.1998

Jews are the common holy cow of the whole world. Say one bad word about jews and you get everyone on your back. Because some individuals of the jewish race have suffered (bodily) harm by someone, who wanted to make his country a better place to live for people of spiritual progress. Who believed that jews are a materialistic bunch, who believe in no spirit, who consider this world to be their playing ground...and how they play...buying and selling works of other (talented) people. Jews do not create. They raise fortunes with the talents of other races.

Everyone forgets, that all the spiritual people have been left out to suffer. The people of highest levels. So why should we cry about a few materialistic jews? Socrates was executed, and at the same time, the world showed how wisdom is to be treated. The death of Socrates, i daresay, the wisest man who ever lived, was a far more tragic incident for the world in general, than the death of any jew, black, white ever caused by a member of another race.
The same goes for blacks...they are also a holy cow. And everyone disregards the fact that there is not a single black artist that could be taken seriously. Not a single black philosopher.

i am a racist. Anti-racism should be made illegal. We must not disregard the differences of races, of individuals, for we must acknowledge them for natural world. What does a black person do the first thing when he gets money? He buys jewelry. He tries to make his body beautiful...and the only thing they care about is the body, anyhow.

Individuals are a different thing. A member of black race could be more spiritual than another member of white race. But when we discuss differences of races, we must discuss the highest individuals of the races (i am sorry to say though, that i have never seen any member of black/jew race that i could respect, that is not to say though, that there could not be one).

i am a racist, but not in an ordinary sense. i don't support skinheads nor neo-nazis. i support naturality. i don't even say that my own race is superior. Asians...asians are very beautiful people. Most of the time, more beautiful than white. Asians are also spiritual (yes, christianity has strong roots in Asia at the moment, but also a lot of white people are christians). Without the effect of USA in Asia, i believe that the continent could have survived with its own spirituality intact. But USA represents a plague raping the rest of the civilized world.

2.9.1998

Opposites of the qualitative things that are variable and inconstant are and must only be abstract. Hot is not, in concrete, the opposite of cold, and neither is slow the opposite of fast (these things are merely born of each other, and therefore they may be called abstract opposites). All temperatures are caused by the movement of particles, colder temperatures have slower movement and warm ones, faster.

If outside it is only 5 deg C and we go inside, where it is, say 20 deg C, we can say that it is warm. But when it is 30 deg C outside and 20 deg C inside, going inside, we will say that it is cool. Does this not mean, that there is no cold nor warm, but our body merely senses temperatures, that is, movement of particles, and fitting the occasion we give it a name? This necessarily applies to all definitions that are variable and inconstant. They are merely abstract in nature and in reality, do not exist. Every thing that we can obtain through our bodily senses is variable.

Any thing can only have one opposite. But if it were that these variables had opposites, they would have innumerable amounts of them. All the temperatures that would be labelled as 'cold' in a certain situation would be opposites to the single and every temperature that in the same occasion would be named 'warm.' All absurd.

Qualitative things that are constant and invariable have concrete opposites, their Forms. Beauty is always the same, and its opposite, called Ugliness, also. The forms of Beauty and Ugliness. What is always common for these things, is that we don't use our bodily faculties to know them. Also, all this makes true Beauty incomparable. If something possesses the form of Beauty, it has it and that's it, it has it no more or less than something else that includes the same form.

And when we do make a difference between any two beautiful things, we are using our bodily senses rather than our spirit. We name beautiful that which pleases the eye or ear, neverminding what our spirit conceives of the work.

3.9.1998

Since nothing comes into being from nothing, and therefore everything that is has always been (the universe, Gods and souls), there is a slight problem regarding the immortality of the soul considering the population of the planet at this time and at the time of the Athenians, for example. A logical conclusion is, that it is impossible, then, for the individual soul to be immortal. But it is also impossible to disregard Plato's proof of the nature of the soul. It must be of divine origin.

Soul, although useless to think it being made of any physical matter, must have some sort of substance. There is no denying, that in general, at the time of the Greeks, or the Vikings or Egyptians, the people were more spiritual than the billion christians of our modern world. So, taking in consideration overpopulation, substance, spirituality and the "immortality of the soul", we can only arive to one logical conclusion.

The substance today is divided in a different way than it was 2000 years ago. Also, this concludes that an individual soul is not dissoluble but it is the substance that does not vanish. Just for this explanation, let's assume that the substance has mass. The mass of the soul (that is, how much substance it uses) has a relation to the level of the soul. If we were to weigh the souls of Socrates and St. Thomas Aquinas, i wouldn't be surprised if Socrates' soul had a mass 1000x (or probably more!) that of Aquinas' soul. So, in other words, if Socrates' soul would for some reason disintegrate, that would give a life for a thousand (or more!) christians.

The mass being x, at the time of the Greeks the population of our sphere being, say, 30 000, means that at that time the average weight of the soul was x/30 000, as it is now x/5000 000 000 (since there is no way of knowing, how much, but not much, of soul's substance is being stored…but matters not, since the relation would still be the same). Of course, the portions of the individual souls differ, according to the level. It is not, even today, impossible that someone has a soul mass equivalent to that of Socrates, and in the times of Athenians, someone (Meletos?) was bound to have a soul mass equivalent to that of Bill Clinton.

What makes a soul disintegrate? Degeneration. Giving up its potential to become higher. When a soul is constructed of its substance and is given a body for the first time, it comes here in a state of instability, that is, it is not perfect, but it is not empty either (empty is also a sort of perfection, and thus it's impossible). To what direction the soul goes, is up to the bearer of the soul, the person. If the person reaches higher, becomes less impure he will inevidently reincarnate, after his body's death, back here. If the person degenerates, after the death of the body, the soul will disintegrate and becomes mass again, of which new souls will be constructed. Or if the person reaches purity, the soul will reach the regions of Hades.

19.9.1998

Lately, my motivation to write anything here has been gone. Some time ago i got a huge desire to start painting, and i couldn't get rid of that will before i got myself paints, brushes and paper...and after that i haven't had time to do much else.

i've never even tried painting before (well, in school we did "paint", but really). And i was kind of amazed how easy it is. My technique isn't very good, but i still manage to bring out what's on my mind. And it just makes me think about artists. What do they have in their heads anyhow?

i am not talking about artists like van Gogh here. But in general, i have lost my interest in artists. Anyone can claim his position as an artist, but that decision and technical ability doesn't make anyone talented. i could put it this way. There are two kinds of people, those with talent and those who don't possess it. Talent can be divided into two categories. There are people that are amazingly talented at one field, great scientists and some great artists have this kind of talent. But out of their own field, they are not different from anyone else. These artists have a talent for, say, singing. Celine Dion is a great singer. But would she have depth in her as a person, i doubt she'd be singing the songs she does. She is, as a singer, more talented than Diamanda Galas but Galas' talent is in a totally different level. Her talent comes from the spirit. Not from her vocal cords initially. Using one's spirit, one can rise over difficulties of an ordinary person. Scientists...Stephen Hawking is undeniably a very talented physicist, but due to his limited way of thinking he has the adaucity to claim that christianity is the only religion to be taken seriously and thus to be refuted.

Talent that reigns from the spirit. It is the kind that true geniuses possess. They are the ones whom society does not understand, who are greatly misunderstood. Beethoven. A great composer, like Mozart, but so unlike him. Einstein...the only scientist i can appreciate. He didn't deny the need of some higher force than physics and evolution. All true philosophers have this sort of talent. Talent that is dictated by the faculties of the spirit. Socrates? There was nothing he could not do. These people are few and far between.

True talent is not being able to do one thing superior to others. It is being able to do anything, not because of what is called talent or gift, but because of one's spirit.

20.9.1998

Last night me and my wife were browsing the web for all kinds of IQ, wisdom and EQ-tests. i would say for her that there is nothing wrong with her intelligence, wisdom or emotional understanding, and she'd say the same about me. But the most striking example is this. We were able to solve most puzzles from a genious test. Then we took one common iq-test. According to that, my IQ is 44 and hers is around 80. According to wisdom test, my WQ (eh) is 80 when average is at 100. My emotional IQ is also around 80, average being 100 and highest score on that test being 200. But to look at these tests more closely reveals something.

In short, they have been designed by jewish people. (just a pun from Varg Vikernes) Let's take a look at one question in EQ test. What to do when you are babysitting a 4-year old girl, and other children don't want to play with her. According to the test, you should encourage her to participate in the games of others anyhow. And my own answer was to distract the girl and show her things she can do by herself (as was my wife's). Why should the child be forced to play with children who don't accept him, or whom he doesn't accept? It just seems to me that the test follows some commonly accepted rules of psychology created by second-rate jewish psychologists. Another example of the test. You have a job as a call-salesman and after 18 calls no one has bought anything from you. What do you do? i would choose to change the job, but according to the test, i should take a close look at my strategy and enhance it and try again. Why might i ask? i doubt anyone has a calling to be a salesman in the first place. And i doubt the job much helps me in my pursuit of spiritual advancement. The thing is, that the test is designed in a way that those who are bound to become successful in terms of prevailing western society will get highest scores. Jewish. Typical. Real EQ my ass.

An example from wisdom test. A person is least to himself. i chose the word 'likable', as did my wife, when the correct answer according to the test was 'known'. It is a generally known fact (even overrated and overused) that the features that most annoy us in another person, are the features we have ourselves. Known? i thought the test was about wisdom...and shouldn't any wise person at least know himself. i believe it was the spartans, who weren't well-known for their wisdom, in time of the greeks, of whom Plato said that they merely hide their wisdom from others...and Plato gave an example, that while talking to a spartan he may not seem very intelligent, but sometimes they, out of nowhere really, come up with real wisdom, such as 'know thyself'. And furthermore, the whole test was constructed from common populistic proverbs and pseudo-wise comments that have no philosophical merit whatsoever.

IQ-test. The scale was from 0-120. And i scored 44. i would like to think myself quite articulate even when it comes to english, which is my second language, though not as articulate as my wife. But in an IQ-test, one might ask if you can ask the meaning of the word 'pusillanimous'. i know the prefix 'il-' and the mainword 'animo' from latin (which, in my judgment is the MOST that could be required in IQ-test, though even that seems too much) so i concluded from the choises it's either 'dead' or 'unconscious'...then again, the real answer was 'coward'. My wife didn't know the word. And she didn't know most of the words in other questions, either, as, i didn't. There is just no way to conclude what means the word 'annulus' (of course it's a noun) when all the options are nouns.

Well, of most of the tests i've done, i have no such complaints. Most of the time though, the tests fail in that there are more than one logical answer to the question (IQ-tests, that is). i just wish psychologists would stop drawing up these tests. It should be left to those who possess real wisdom and intelligence, philosophers.

What's in a name? They say the name of a person tells a lot about his history. Most parents who are overly unimaginative merely combine their names to finally come up with a "decent" and unique name. As for myself, I had always thought that my name was rather odd. Margaux Phoenix. Always, especially at first days in school when everybody's name is read out and you say something about yourself (that is, by the way, unnecessary--it's not like the teacher really cares what your name is unless you kiss ass), teachers have a way of mispronouncing my name. It's become something of a routine to have to correct someone. But even with all that, I am quite proud of being named this way. Well, of course, it IS just a name. It comes quite rare, the combination. I'm even glad to know that there is only one other person to my knowledge who is named after me--my eldest sister's friend's goddaughter.

But it feels quite different to know there's also someone else who has the same name as mine. A basset hound.

7.10.1998

Aesthetics. What is the quality that defines if a person is aesthetic or reminds more of a perverted mutant than a human being (like a lot of Americans do). Some could say that pamela anderson is aesthetic and pleasant to watch. i could say that she isn't. i could say that she doesn't look like a person at all. But what lacks of her to make her look like that?

In my experience, and not only mine, it is always easy to see just by looking at a gay person that he is gay. Well, this easiness isn't shared by most people, naturally. But in some way the spirit reflects from the body. You can tell if a person is spiritual or if he is perverted and has lost his divine qualities. Of course, a person who is far from natural could not possess this ability himself.

It is like this. People are getting farther away from the nature, becoming more and more perverted. Except for those who make a conscious effort not to. And perversity shows in the eyes of those. The common ideas of what's ugly and beautiful in person's looks have nothing to do with aesthetics. Truth and nature are beautiful things and people living accordingly are aesthetic.

10.10.1998

Christianity is not open to critics. In fact, half of the religion is defined to make critic illegal, a sin. That makes it the scariest of all religions. It denies, just as all the christians in their faith in jesus christ, the need of learning. Christianity sees itself perfect. Declares. And everything that doubts its doctrines is said to come from its enemy, Satan. So there is only those who believe in its way, and its enemies. And those who believe are good and the enemies are evil. Black and White. Light and Darkness.

Thus, christianity could be compared with a fatal disease affecting the spirit. Not only it infects the bearer with unnaturality, but also makes sure the bearer never gets free of it.

11.10.1998

Esa Saarinen is a finnish philosopher. He was voted as the wisest man of Finland. He gets 12 000 marks for one hour lecture. And he is very much visible in the media, he's written an introduction for Donald Duck comic-book and you can see him on TV just about every week talking about unemployment or ice-hockey or something else that stirs the finnish people.

The only real problem with him is his mediocre mind. When talking about people not feeling satisfied with their work, unlike a philosopher, he doesn't find the reason from the fact that most work people are doing, is in fact useless and offers no gratification, but, like a psychologist, says that people should be happy about what they are doing no matter what it seems like to themselves.

Once again. The whole society is getting farther from what is natural, and people become more unhappy all the time. One example is this. i like raking. It's the kind of work that gives me the chance to think while doing it and it helps to keep the yard clean, so it does something real. Also it kind of keeps me in shape a little. But my brother got himself a blower kind of thingy, that you blow the leaves away and all you have to do is carry it around the yard. i don't know. i just don't know why anyone would need it. You can't possibly blame it's fun. The job gets done but by what means? i guess it gives you more time to watch tv. Or do something else just as useful.

23.10.1998

What is my life like? Day after day i try to please everyone around me, everyone of those, that is, who do not understand me. And while trying to do that, i lead the kind of life that is totally opposite of what is good and beautiful. The problem is no one understands a philosopher. No one understands a free spirit. A person who lives for his spirit. No one even cares enough to try to understand someone who seems to mock them, who seems to be so conceited that he has no respect or interest for things those people who lived for all their lives. Someone whose understanding is not great enough to see that there is some virtue to enslaving one's own spirit to petty laws of nice everyday life. Whose spirit flies around the universe above the heavens and under the earth and beyond, and who laughs at people around him whose narrowmindedness betrays him more and more each time he looks down at them.

About the truth. It is asymptotic. As in this. It is possible to know what the truth is not like, as assuredly as it is impossible to know what the absolute truth is. If you are told about a shade of blue, you know immediately that it is far from red, but you do not know exactly what kind of a shade it is. Just as in truth. If you contemplate it, you will be able to find out a lot of possibilities which must be far from it, and you can always get closer to it, but you can (never as a human) not get to it.

16.11.1998

Intelligence is an overrated virtue. In fact, most of the time it is very much short of virtue. There are two kinds of intelligence. One that rises from one's physical faculties, and another one, a higher one, that utilises person's spirit.

The so-called intelligent people are in many ways just like not-so-intelligent ones. They like the same things. They have the same moral values. They have the same kind of sense of humor. Neither one is more spiritual than the other. A lot of highly intelligent people are christians, which points out, how much they care about thinking those matters. Most of the time they even have the same jobs with the ordinary people. Their idea of justice is obeying the laws.

It is because they have a very good potential for learning that they are called intelligent. But virtues are not learned. Virtues are earned. There has never been, and never will be, a man who has become a philosopher by education. It is a twisted joke that in our present society philosopher is a title earned by studying. But that can be accounted for christian morality. That every man was created equal. You do not need to be virtuous in order to be a highly elevated person. Just study.

All this makes me sick. An intelligent person is only good at working on his own field. That is what learning is good for. An intelligent person makes a better mechanic than an idiot. But aside from his own field, he is not better than a child. The faculties that make a person elite are not learned.

A person of spiritual intelligence then. A philosopher. He sets his own moral standards of living, for the ones the society sets, are too short-sighted and narrow-minded for him to follow and understand. He does not seek the same pleasures. He does not love the same things. Any thing that can be learned in school he looks downwards at how anyone can be interested of such petty thing. He does not strive for happiness. For he knows, that happiness on earth is too a variable thing for ever to achieve, without it leading to greed and excess. He seeks for his personal betterment. He does not forgive others their faults and mistakes. He may not know much of the things of the common world, but he knows, that if he ever is to need them, they are easy to find out. He does not consider laws as justice, nor does he acknowledge cultural differences, for he is only interested in justice as it is constant. To common people he will seem injust and arrogant all his life, but that is only due to their limited understanding. He cares too much about the world and humanity to let the public's opinion lead him astray from the path of true virtue and justice. He cares too much of himself, too. His path is divine.

4.12.1998

Plato and Socrates believed that moderation is a virtue. Man is entrapped in his body and he must grow in spirit to be able to escape.

If someone, for example, eats too much and becomes overweight, then one would say that he does not have much of that particular virtue (this is a bit simplifying the idea, but the process stays the same). But, the body has no own will. The body is nothing without the spirit. And to say, that moderacy is a virtue, and that man is trapped in his body, suggests that body is in fight with the spirit. Which of course is impossible. The body can not act without the consent of the spirit, so it is wrong to say that with moderation one is able to reduce the physical needs.

Also, moderation can not be applied to spiritual things. There is no such thing as thinking too much. And since the idea of the virtue moderation is to keep the body in its place, not being fond of greed and excess in bodily needs, it is confusing the cause and effect (like Nietzsche's allegory of a healthy cooking book).

If someone is moderate in his needs, it is not because he is able to resist the needs of the body itself, but that is a result of other spiritual faculties. It could be because of wisdom, for knowing what is important and what is not. For knowing, that the needs of the spirit should become first. It is hard for me to imagine a person who wants excessivelly food, money or sex and who is also wise. In fact, i am quite sure that kind of a combination does not exist.
The spirit is also not trapped inside the body. For the spirit can at any time flee the body. The idea is true, though, that most people let their physical needs dominate their actions and it is important to rid oneself of that. But this can only be done by understanding.

It is also safe to say that it is unholy to be unable to control physical urges. For example, if one eats too much and becomes disgustingly fat, one is unable to fight. Also, people who can not control their needs, are unable to think of anything but them.

5.12.1998

some english philosopher defined the levels of morality from one to six before. but here is how i see them closest to the truth.

on the first level there are two categories that can not be said on which is over the other one. on first one, the person acts according to what other people in his company say and on the second one, he makes decisions according to his fear of punishment.

the second level. the person acts the way he has been taught (like for example, a christian would act according to christian morality). between the second and the third there is a big gap. a person on the third level knows the deceiving difference (and similarity) of good and evil and acts according to his own understanding, even if his will says otherwise.

the fourth level. the ubermensch. acts as it is natural to his personal (spiritual) development, because he understands, that the best thing he can do for the world is to better himself, for without understanding, any quality one has is misused.

only on this highest level, can the person be called holy. for then his will and understanding are in harmony with each other. and even if some of his actions would be evil, that is only because of his limited wisdom (and all the people on the other levels, are not capable of judging his actions, for they do not understand anything of true good and evil, they understand only of what they have been taught and it is only a coincidence if they would be right on anything).

13.12.1998

this time i will pretend to be wittgenstein and with his method will prove the different value of people.
1 all people are born different.
1.1 people are interested in different things.
1.2 some people will learn things better than others.
1.21 some people have no capacity to learn some things.
1.211 people have different physical, mental and spiritual qualities.
1.22 physical, mental and spiritual qualities all give the person different abilities.
1.221 the lack of physical and mental qualities can be replaced with spiritual qualities.
1.2211 only spiritual qualities are very important.
1.23 only people who have strong spiritual qualities have the potential to learn everything.
1.3 people who learn everything are a few and far between.
1.31 people who can not learn everything are the majority.
1.311 people with strong spiritual qualities are rare.
1.32 people with strong physical and mental qualities can be seen everywhere.
1.321 the world still being as it is, it is impossible to expect those people to be able to do anything important.
1.4 spiritual qualities can be called virtues.
1.41 wisdom refers to understanding and is a virtue.
1.42 without courage to do things, understanding is not put to use.
1.421 courage is a virtue.
1.43 there can be no understanding without being able to make conclusions oneself.
1.431 conclusions are made with intelligence and intuition.
1.432 intuition can replace intelligence and the other way around.
1.4321 intuition and intelligence are both virtues.
1.44 intuition could be said to pre-exist coherent organised understanding.
1.441 intuition is the quality that sends one after spiritual evolving.
2 virtuous people are above the common folk.
2.1 people above others should be the rulers.
2.11 virtuous people should be the rulers.

15.12.1998

in our modern day christian society everything is polarised. there are ideas like absolute good and absolute evil. christians would like to live in a paradise-like environment, where evil would not exist, and thus wish to ignore evil.

to do this, they oppress all emotions that reflect feelings that are negative towards someone. hate is oppressed and love is celebrated. since no evil is recognised in individuals, no hate is needed. evil is simplified into one being that causes all evil. happiness is good and depression is the opposite, for to be depressed, one has to (in christian sense) be aware of the evil (the negative side) in individuals.

people are different. everyone has good and bad qualities (some others more than other people). without the use of crab-mentality, there is no way of coming to a conclusion that supports the lack of individual qualities, both good and evil. hate and love are, in the essence, worth the same. it is equally important to be able to love, and to know what to love, as knowing what to hate. just because hate reflects negative feelings, means not that the emotion in itself is negative. and the fact that love reflects positive ideas of something, means not the the emotion in itself is positive. emotions themselves are all neutral. the use of them defines the worth of the emotion.

most people strive for happiness. while philosophers strive for understanding. happiness is worth not much in itself, in fact, it is a worthless state. just because one feels pleasant and stagnant and safe in it, is by no means enough of an excuse to strive for that. misery and depression are considered states to be avoided. while in fact, as it can be just as useless dwelling in depression, as it would be dwelling in happiness, depression can be a very creative and productive (either destructive or constructive) state of mind. both, when used wrong, depression and happiness, create nothing or destroy nothing. create no good, destroy nothing useless. when one decides to strive for happiness, for stagnancy, one turns into a plant which moves nowhere. certainly it does not evolve. to take this parable further, i suppose one would consider himself to be blooming when deciding to reside in his current state of happiness. well, blooming plants tend to whither sooner or later. so, as it is impossible for him to grow and evolve, at some point, he will inevitably start whithering and degrading. (this same applies, naturally, to people who decide to dwell in their depression).

happiness and depression both used as a tool are productive states of mind. neither one is more negative or positive.

war and peace. i always like to say that war is philosophy in action. while war is the ultimate tool of destruction, used right one can create a space for a better breed of people (as hitler tried to do). and of course, peace is an ideal state in a country that is ideal. but before any of them are, when all the countries are lead by people who are mere puppets of the jews, no peace should be considered as good. with the way the world and the people living in it are at the moment, no war is bad for it always destroys people whose only real achievement in life is to support unnatural order and suppress more and more people (if no one else, their own children) under a rule that will destroy their spirits.

it is commonly told us not to dwell in our miseries. it would be equally important, or maybe evne more so, to tell people not to dwell in their happiness.

post script. i use the word philosophers to make things easier for myself. while i do think, that at the current state, philosophers are the only people who are able to distinguish any kind of truth in the midst of the chaos. if the world was more closer to ideal, what it was 2000 years ago, the difference would not be so astounding. all people would respect the same things in their fellow citizens as philosophers. at the moment it is just impossible, for a person of not superior spiritual strength, to follow the natural and divine path of man. philosophers, though with the world as it is, are worth a lot more than common people, are not worth more than others in a world more ideal. it is the faculty of superior spiritual strength with which philosophers now seem (and come out at least in my writings) worth more than other people. whereas in the essence, an artisan is worth just as much as his ruler. for the ruler can not survive without the artisan, and the other way around. blame it all on the spiritual plaque from the south, christianity.

17.12.1998

this is written after spending an agonising hour watching a programme about stephen hawking's and his predecessor's ideas on tv. the importance of life in universe is a question on everyone's (that is, in scientist's, theologist's and philosopher's) mind. but the nature of the question is different for everyone.

scientists explore the relationship between man and the universe. their starting axiom is that everything is physical. thus they give great importance to a detail such as the location of man in cosmos. also the fact that there are billions of other solar systems (and thus possibly billions of other life-forms, more and less advanced technologically) is relevant to them. hence our solar system is not located in the center of the cosmos, according to their logic, our solar system is meaningless. and since there is (possibly) billion of other life-forms in the universe, our life is meaningless. just that the logic seems to be missing in this one. but it will be pointed out when philosopher's point of view to these questions is explained. (with their logic, there is no meaning to anything, cause the point of everything would be only to sustain physical life, hence there is no meaning in any kind of advancement).

(western) theologians (as eastern theologians are closer to philosophers), well, maybe i shouldn't even talk about them since they are the ultimate crabs. but anyhow, to them partially the same questions are important as to the scientists, with the exception that man has to be the only life-form to satisfy their god's appetite.

the last and the definitely not least. philosophy. philosopher could not care less about the location of our solar system. he could not care less about whether there are more advanced life-forms than us. he does not worry himself believing he is irrelevant just because there are others out there. he starts from the beginning. he takes to account the things he can see, related to things unseen and even unphysical of nature. and after that, there is only one conclusion to come to. given the spirit man possesses, the importance of his existence is not related to the amount of intelligent (sic!) life-forms. nor to anything he might physically perceive (for anything physical is unimportant, merely because only living things (which all must possess a spirit) can make use of physical things and all physical life ends at some point, but the spirit goes further). the importance of man's existence is simply related to how he makes use of this. the question is not collective, an answer to the question is always individual. it is not related to the universe. it is related to the spirit of the man. man's existence is important if he uses his spirit in a way that a spirit (be that his own, another man's or animal's) gains from it.

23.12.1998

There comes a time when one really has to go back to his roots to sort out the mess once left there. That is what i had to do today. Back to Plato. Something that i'd already almost abandoned and forgotten. Back to the very basics.

First of all, soul. Plato's proof of the existence of soul, basically, was that it could not be any other way. The living have to become out of the dead. And hence, there must be a soul. The logic of this conclusion has been always questioned, but it seems to me be invaluable. It is simple induction. For example, if something becomes cold, it has to be not-cold prior to that. Just in the same way, if something becomes living, something is born, it has to be dead before that. And since it is dead, it has to have become dead at some point, and thus it has had to live before. (This proves both the existence of soul on all living things as well as the unlinear form, or rather, the lack of, time).

The theory of forms. i had not really abandoned this theory, just forgotten it and moved onto (or so i thought) to more important things. But then i was reminded of Aristotle's criticism on the theory. Like, what about negative things? Negative numbers? Easy. They are numbers just as any other numbers. Thus they do have a form. Darkness and light. Yes, physically considering darkness is nothing but lack of light, but even with our very imperfect senses we can sense the lack of photons, which we call darkness. Thus it must exist. The nature of the mere physical presentation of darkness, that is, how it is shown in this world, is of no importance. Darkness exists. Light exists.

About the forms of all things on earth. It seems to me at the moment, that there is only a form to those things man has not created himself. And those are the things man can not create. Everything man-made is combination of other things. Plato talked about a carriage and how man knows it is a carriage. But he didn't take into consideration that man made it himself, through his own knowledge of other things he did not create. The things comprehensive have forms, the things man-made do not. Man has imagination and he can use that to create things he has not seen before here or in the realm of perfection.

More about the soul. Lately i have found myself a lot of times thinking about a proof for existence of soul. And it came to me today, as i thought it would, so easily. The fact that one can enjoy things not physical, such as music. Yes, music scientifically speaking is result of certain kinds of sound-waves hovering in the air. But the essence of music. if music is made for a reason, a purpose, when it has a meaning, when the something of the soul of the composer is in the music, the result is on totally different level. Personally, i can not enjoy music that is not like that. And why would that be, then? Mozart is brilliantly composed, sometimes Current 93 is not, but always, Current 93 produces a more profound effect than Mozart. Just as all the music that has something in it. That is all the proof i need to know that i have a soul. And as for love...

26.12.1998

More about light and darkness. Because we can sense either one, even if our senses are very imperfect and can not be trusted at all, we can conclude that both of them must exist. Because the existence of the other makes the other one compulsory. It is not wise to trust the senses at anything, but we could not fabricate the essence of light and darkness without them being real.

5.1.1999

the talents of the philosophers. there is nothing strange about things being clear to philosophers, why they are able to figure out how to do anything by themselves, while most people need education for that.

Plato said that all the skills we have are already within us, we merely remember them. and most people need education for this. but philosophers, since they spend their life investigating the being of man and all the things in heavens and below, grasp all these skills like by accident and by default. in their search for something higher, all the petty useless skills they recollect while reaching.

this is nothing new. i just came across with it with the help of my wife watching the movie Se7en. Plato (in Republic) was talking about intelligence and its guidance. Dostojevski is one of those who have a great distrust on people with intelligence. and Plato remarked on how clever and cunning most vicious people are. and he said, that this is because their souls have been guided wrong, they have received wrong kind of education as a child. and had their souls been properly guided, they would have turned out to do good. and this is what the world of today does. guides man to do wrong. soul is given no purpose any longer, thus intelligent people (without the virtue of intuition) turn into someone who can only be despised, regardless of their virtue. thus it is wrong to distrust intelligent people, or to say that intelligence is not the highest part of the soul (as opposed to the emotion-part of the soul...the soul must not be ruled by its emotions). to say that world ruled by intelligence (as it is now, sic) can never reach closer to ideal. virtues when misguided turn into vices. and it's no use blaming intelligence, then. wisdom is a virtue on its own level, for it can not be misguided. it guides other virtues itself. thus, wisdom must be of some higher origin. wisdom must be connected to the eternal truth (which kind of shows that intuition is a part of wisdom and not a virtue of its own...)

6.1.1999

today, it's been a long time, i read one newspaper. there was an article about some conference on medicine and they had been researching on why the behaviour of youth is so destructive and why young people are interested in things like mysticism and rituals. according to the good doctors, children who feel left out, who have no good parental support in life, in a sense abandon good and become inclined to evil (that is become destructive, of course, it is beyond their comprehension that destruction is not necessarily evil). and also, the groups of mystics and sorts have a sense of being above other people in them, so that is why left out youth searches for them.

well, since i am a young person inclined to an irrational way of thinking, believing in spiritual things, mysticism and even magic, i might have something to say on the subject, too.

i believe in destruction. destruction of this society. destoying the society that is governed by money. jobs are taken to earn money. not to do something useful. it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you make a lot of money. the more money you make, the more successful you are. i wish to destroy that. hypocracy. things are considered legal and illegal, instead of idiotic, immoral, moral and just. if something is legal, it is acceptable. if something is illegal, it is unacceptable. and in addition, as long as there is no fear of getting caught, you can and should do what makes most money. crime does not pay because you might get caught. it's not that crime doesn't pay for its own sake. i wish to destroy that way of thinking, too. laws ought to be destroyed. as long as laws are dogmas from jehova, they have nothing to do with justice. i support laws taken from Edda. Be not an asshole. and so forth. i could go on as long as you'd like me to about this subject. the point is, society as it is and all who support it ought to be destroyed, in my humble opinion. it has nothing to do with me feeling left out of the society and because of that, developing a sense of hatred towards it. my hatred rises from wisdom and understanding. not of petty fear.

mysticism and things alike. i would not even expect members of the judeo-christian herd to understand anything about the spirit. the spirit does exist. and thus it can be used. its powers are far beyond the powers of anyone's body. the spirit should be the meaning of people's lives. now it is not. maybe, it's not that these kids grow up to be less-than-whole adults when they have been left out, just maybe it makes them grow stronger in spirit. and in that sense they are above other people and it is only just that they feel that way, too.

7.1.1999

In Scandinavian mythology, beauty (Baldr) is the son of wisdom (Odhinn), and in the Greek mythology the god of beauty and wisdom were the same (Apollo). Plato understood beauty as a form that is apparent in objects that are beautiful. Both of these conceptions of beauty leave no room for interpretation, or for the existence of many beautifuls. In fact, the whole idea of beauty, if we wish to give a meaning to the quality, being "in the eye of the beholder" is absurd.

Beauty is the physical quality that reflects from every object that holds something of the eternal truth in their essence. Of a person, wisdom reflects on the outside. Without the help of aesthetics or any other quality that could easily be understood (beauty is easily apprehended, though). No real beauty is present in a person who has no virtues, no matter how aesthetic that person would be. A lot of artworks can be found aesthetic, but it is a few and far between that can be said to be beautiful. Beauty has nothing to do with ordinary means of perception. It abhors them, hiding itself from the eyes of those who do not understand.

Without understanding, any perception is meaningless and surreal. With understanding, perception is processed through deconstructive analysis, and the meaning is achieved. And thus, even if the quality of perception has nothing to do with understanding, the meaning of the perception has everything to do with understanding (which is an effect of wisdom).

It could be said that beauty has no meaning or importance, just like aesthetics has none. But since there is a quality that is reflected from beings that hold the truth in them, be they people or objects, we should give it a name more meaningful than aesthetics.

Plato thought of beauty as a form. The existance of Beauty. But beauty has no form. Plato was a romantic and the thought of the idea of Beauty is a romantic thought. We call beautiful those things that our spirit remembers seeing before entering this life. Therefore, truth is still always beautiful (as Plato concluded, too), and wise people are beautiful.

It is true that beauty is not a virtue. Beauty is not the essence of anything in the same sense as wisdom. Beauty has nothing to do with anything. Wisdom and truth are the essence, and those qualities are merely perceived with wisdom, through beauty.

Man can create nothing. That means, that man can create nothing natural. Man can only make use of the basic substances and basic structures that were created by higher beings. All that man creates is of no meaning.

But real creations have a substance of which we know nothing. And thus we know not how to imitate it (and we never will).

We can split the atom but we know not how it works. We can dissect wood in chemical analysis but we can not create wood. Since we can not create something, we know not of its real meaning. In the face of nature, man must bow down and learn from it. Nature was created by the same force as man. But most of all, since man does not fully comprehend it, and since man inevitably is a part of nature, he must not stray from it. Nor must he destroy it.

12.1.1999

the world could be divided into beings organic and inorganic. inorganic beings have a body and a spirit (the FORM Plato was talking about and trying to reach)...they exist for a PURPOSE and ideal for their purposes. (so in their cases, the spirit is stagnant, a true form.) they are not perfect, for they have no potential to become the highest beings....they are tools for those who evolve.

organic beings (Gods, men, animals) consist of a spirit, a body and a mind. the FORM of organic beings is IMPERFECT, thus organic beings have NO PURPOSE the same as with inorganic ones. organic beings GROW and evolve. the spirit of men is evolving. and so is the spirit of gods. and of animals. according to this, man has no FORM ready. perfection of organic beings is an impossible idea.

i am not totally satisfied with this (as i am not with a lot of ideas i have presented here). sometimes it seems to me that only thing i am capable of reaching are the effects...i strive for reasons but they seem too far to reach for any certainty. it is confusing to use words organic and inorganic...i could as well use the words dead and alive. !! imperfection is what makes a being alive! imperfection for its purpose. the energy of movement (evolving is movement). things with FORMS are stagnant and not alive.

18.1.1999

one thing that bugs me greatly, is the change of the millenium. the year 2000ad.
first of all. a son of a carpenter was born allegedly 2000 years ago. fine. he claimed to be the son of god. the son of jewish god. the founder of the religion that killed everything natural and good from the world. so why do we have to start counting the years from his birth? for me, the year right now is 2398. i start my time from when Socrates was legally executed. the occasion symbolises the degradation of mankind. loss of wisdom.

what is time? i don't see any use for time as a dimension or any other kind of concrete form that exists. one year means a trip of a planet around the sun. here, one year is less time than in jupiter, for example. so, the earth has gone around its sun 2000 times since that birth.

and my third arguement. the year 2000 is only an even number in decimal-system. it is not like that in, for example, hexadecimal-system. the reason it seems even for us, is that the most popular numeric-system on this planet marks the numbers in a certain way. in reality, it is no more even or odd than the number 1234563 or any other number i choose to type from my keyboard. numbers as themselves are forms. it is not in reality even a bigger number than 1999. just a different number.

well. that's all, folks. i will definitely spend my change of your millenium inside, probably with my wife listening to Current 93 or doing whatever i would be doing on any other ordinary night. blaah. you suck.

22.1.1999

It has been said that man is in constant change and therefore, no one is the same as he was before, ever.

The whole idea of that thought seems to me be very rhetorical and uninteresting and made-up. i agree that man is in constant change. Or man's spirit's form is. In -constant- change. It is never (not even for 1/100000000 seconds) in a constant state. And if something turns different, does it not turn different from what it was before? And if it was in change before, that it was not in any state, but the state of change, how could it be really different? When it has never reached it's form yet. (This is about the SPIRIT's form, not MAN's form).

Also. Even if the spirit of man changes, for never yet reaching its form, the spirit does not turn into a differente spirit. The spirit stays the same. And spirit is MAN's form. And the spirit is the same. So the man is the same, for he has the same form. Just that the FORM OF MAN is changed.

31.1.2398

Western psychology is the field which has misunderstood the nature of the man (probably both with and without intention to do so) more than any other. Why?

Well, because the psychologists themselves are not the best of people. They are not philosophers. And actually, psychologists are the people with most problems themselves, that is why the go to study the field of psychology to begin with, so they could understand themselves better. So, in order to make themselves feel less inferior to those better than them, they make up all kinds of abnormalities that supposedly are bad.

Perfectionists have anal-fixation. People who do not spend their lives searching for pleasure, for this is totally incomprehensible to psychologists, have a sick sense of pleasure. People who still believe in things like honour or who simply do things better than others, have a superiority complex. People who are depressed, have a disorder (this has been taken so far that generally depression is considered to be an illness to be treated and most people who are depressed, those without sufficient spiritual strength, believe it).

i am not good at coming up with examples, but i think you get the point. When are they going to contemplate on the question, whether being normal is desirable or not. When are they consider such a thing as a spirit. When do they realise that maybe chasing success in a society like that is not AT ALL desirable but the opposite. People who have no need to succeed, are commonly called losers (hahaha, in Profiler, Jack of all trades was said to be a LOSER, nevermind that he was WAY superior to anyone else around). When are people going to understand, that madness and geniousity truly are not related to each other, but people confuse them, because they do not understand EITHER one! Geinouses are thought to be mad because their thoughts are way above. And people who truly are mad...are considered normal?!

1.2.2398

Short thoughts.

All lies are built on elements of truth.

Age produces wisdom only when the experiences of life have been understood correctly and in the proper context.

Most of the time a man desiring to make a change for the better must take a risk and say "this is true", be he wrong or right or even uncertain of the truth of his saying, for to a man the truth is asymptotic and thus inobtainable. Just as well, a man must be prepared to destroy every thought he has ever had in order to get forward.

Pazuzu: "i am sicker than you think".