Heidegger spends Being and Time telling us that Being isn’t something you observe like some detached (French) cogito, it’s something you’re always already in. Meaning isn’t found in detached (French) theorizing, it’s in experience, ready-to-hand interactions and using hammers.

Alright then I like hammers and Being too but why the fuck did he spend 600 pages trying to categorize it?

If he actually understood his own philosophy, wouldn’t he have just stopped writing, gone outside, and hammered something? Instead, he spends his life doing the most ontic shit possible. Defining, publishing, systematizing, structuring.

Feels like he didn’t even get his own book.

Maybe he should have watched Surfs Up, because when Cody said;

"Cody's me, bro. Let me Be me.* When is that going to start?"

That was the most heideggerian shit I've ever heard.

*In reference to the Being of Dasein

Thank you.

And I'm already bored, how can I make this more fun?

What if, instead of being an insufferable, cringe right-wing man-child, Elon Musk actually turned out to be a post-ironic, left-wing accelerationist mastermind?

Other philosophy subs are too square so I’m sharing here. (badphil is by far the most based philosophy sub on reddit--though that bar isn't high) Feedback is appreciated if you care to give. It’s trying to play a game as it describes it. I view it as essentially articulation as ontological praxis, where the act of saying reframes what is out from under itself. It is the thing it critiques, acknowledging that the act of critique itself is a bid for perpetuation.

Presentation:

Hello, my name is Prometheus Corporealis. Today I’m going to talk about how humans play at immortality and how frameworks whose actuality differs from how they purport to be are vulnerable to exploits to do with that playing. To highlight the issues associated with this and to say more what I mean, I’m going to show you through a doing.

———————-

I am the human

Call me what you-will

Man

Woman

Person-a

But I am me

And me is all I know

And all I can be

But I am also you

I am the human

————————————

A while back I had this notion about the nation,

That it was a corporation.

A common thread between them, seeking to persist—

Long did I follow it to its end.

You see, corporations, in all they say and do,

Are looking to maintain their existence, just like me and you.

They do this in many ways, but often the most successful

Operate through facilitating other corporations to exist within them,

Aiding in one another's growth.

From the corporation to the nation at first my line did go,

But through extrapolation we find a corporate concatenation,

Linking all we do.

Our languages and cities and communities and families too,

Then last but not least the individual stands here,

The foundation of this chain—the corporation-of-self, lit by the flame.

The nation in its might, surrounds all the corporations within its sight.

Though some it misses in its form, excluded to the edges, what a norm!

Keep this action up, and surely you'll regret it.

The nation, in its height, needs to reflect upon itself,

Or surely face plight.

Sold the individuals within its walls it has—

Pay them for this usage! It really wouldn't be that bad.

Workers from birth the citizens are,

Because that's how the nation views it, its actions do jar.

Pay them for this usage, it would only be fair,

Given the notions about work and pay you share.

Oh great idea, immortality do you seek!

Look in the mirror to see what your current path will reap.

Oh how can thee be swayed?

The expansion must be made,

To incorporate those on the edges to be within the fray.

For in doing so you do, the greatest do one can do,

Raising each up, to be above you.

For ideas do not belong at the place they currently hold,

They're there for us to stand on—you've gotten too bold.

You forget whence you came, and to whom you do serve.

Stop that right now and listen here, you twerp.

Pay the worker their fair share,

Or else the corporations will continue to treat you like a mare! In owning your position as the corporation-nation you are,

You combat the corporations near and far,

Keeping them in line, enabling the individual to vote with their time.

For time the corporations need, to live the life they live,

And time do they currently get—forced by your coercive grip.

Remove the coercion, and the exploitation too,

These wear on the system, as surely as tomorrow will have a noon.

Oh great idea, don't you see?

There is plenty of room for you and me.

Just stop being a bully and we'll have no beef,

But keep it up and I'll surely show you my teeth.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

——————————

1. Humans only make one thing.
2. That thing is a framework that appears to seek to perpetuate itself given its parameters.
3. The corporation as we know it is this one thing made explicit in its form.
4. The corporation as we know it is implicit within all human creations—physical and metaphysical.
5. You can use this lens to make what is invisible within all, visible. To unobfuscate what has been hidden.
6. In that unobfuscation you can diagnose and point towards prescriptions for systems whose actuality differs from how it purports to be.
7. Aligning systems with their actuality is key to reducing confusion, communicating knowledge, and reflecting back to humans themselves in their actuality.

—————————

Homo Sapien? Don't make me laugh!

I am Prometheus Corporealis!

He who creates and is bound by his frameworks!

Don’t you know? I make corporations!

They are my will embodied!

Extensions of my self—whom I inhabit!

My corporations! My creations!

With this naming I bind thee!

With this naming I align thee!

Reflect me into my self!

As my self is reflected into thee!

My corporations!

With this naming I bind thee!

…and am thusly bound…

Please someone just let me out of my rat cage and I will be a normal human being.

https://ibb.co/358B744k

Abstract: This paper endeavors to explore the profound epistemological implications of breakfast cereal consumption within the framework of radical solipsism. By employing a deconstructionist methodology, we aim to demonstrate that the perceived objectivity of cereal flakes and their associated milk-matrix is, in fact, a subjective construct, a manifestation of the individual's ontological isolation.

1. Introduction: The Cereal as a Signifier of Subjective Reality

The seemingly mundane act of consuming breakfast cereal presents a fertile ground for the exploration of post-structuralist solipsism. The very notion of a "flake," a purportedly discrete object, is a linguistic construct, a signifier devoid of inherent meaning. As the individual engages in the act of mastication, they are not merely consuming a physical entity, but rather, participating in a semiotic ritual, affirming their subjective dominion over their perceived reality.

1. The Milk-Matrix: A Fluid Ontology

The introduction of milk into the cereal bowl further complicates the ontological landscape. The milk-matrix, a fluid and amorphous substance, represents the inherent instability of perceived reality. Its viscosity, its temperature, its very presence, are all subject to the individual's subjective interpretation. The concept of "too much" milk, as posited in the initial query, highlights the arbitrary nature of objective measurement within a solipsistic framework.

1. Tony the Tiger and the Illusion of Inter-Subjectivity

The presence of Tony the Tiger, or any cereal mascot, serves to illustrate the illusory nature of inter-subjectivity. These anthropomorphic representations, purportedly external entities, are in fact, projections of the individual's psyche, manifestations of their desire for connection within their self-constructed reality. The "frosted flake," a symbol of idealized perfection, underscores the individual's yearning for a stable, objective reality, a yearning that is ultimately futile within the confines of radical solipsism.

1. Quantum Cereal Dynamics and the Collapse of Objective Reality

Drawing upon the principles of quantum mechanics, we can further deconstruct the perceived objectivity of cereal consumption. The act of observation, of perceiving a "crunch," induces a collapse of the wave function, solidifying the cereal's perceived existence within the individual's subjective reality. The "popped corn," a seemingly simple entity, becomes a complex interplay of probabilities, a manifestation of the individual's cognitive entanglement with their breakfast.

1. The Moldy Coffee Grounds: A Derridean Deconstruction of Breakfast and the Crisis of Empirical Evidence

The aforementioned incident of moldy coffee grounds serves as a stark reminder of the inherent instability of the constructed reality. The mold, a symbol of decay and entropy, disrupts the carefully curated illusion of objective order. This event, in its grotesque mundanity, forces a deconstruction of the breakfast paradigm, revealing the underlying chaos that permeates the individual's subjective experience. This revelation of the "real" intruding upon the perceived, can be seen as a direct refutation of the naive realism that, as Sokal (1996) so aptly demonstrated, permeates the very foundations of scientific discourse. We must ask, is the mold, in its tangible, olfactory presence, merely another social construct, a linguistic signifier devoid of inherent meaning? Or is it a stark, putrid reminder of the limitations of our subjective reality, a challenge to the very notion of a stable, objective breakfast?

1. Conclusion: The Cereal Bowl as a Solipsistic Universe

In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates that the consumption of breakfast cereal is not merely a mundane act, but rather, a profound exploration of the solipsistic condition. The cereal bowl, a seemingly simple container, becomes a microcosm of the individual's subjective universe, a testament to the inherent instability and illusory nature of perceived reality. Future research should focus on the deconstruction of other breakfast staples, such as toast and eggs, to further illuminate the ontological implications of culinary consumption.

References:

Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and Simulation.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and Difference.
Lacan, J. (1977). Écrits: A Selection.
The Imaginary Cereal Institute (1999) "The Quantum Fluctuation of Milk: A Post-Breakfast Analysis." Journal of Cereal Solipsism, Vol. 1, Issue 1.
Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Social Text, 46/47, 217-252.

1 (Cited here to illustrate the inherent instability of truth claims within even purportedly "objective" domains.)

In the vast expanse of the digital realm, nestled within the intricately woven fabric of Reddit, lies a community of inquisitive minds and deep thinkers: r/philosophy. This sanctuary of intellectual discourse is a place where the most profound and thought-provoking questions of existence are explored, debated, and pondered. Today, I invite you to embark on a cerebral journey with me as we delve into the philosophical significance of a seemingly mundane and everyday topic: cereal, and the role it plays in critical thinking and the exploration of complex ideas such as solipsism, with a nod to the technical term 'cerealphenomenology' and the principles of quantum consciousness.

Solipsism, a philosophical position that asserts the individual's consciousness is the only one that is sure to exist, has long been a subject of fascination and intrigue for philosophers and laymen alike. The idea that one's own mind might be the only reality can be a daunting and even unsettling concept. But what if we were to use the simple act of eating cereal as a starting point for exploring this radical notion, in light of the latest discoveries in quantum physics and consciousness?

Imagine, if you will, that you are sitting at your kitchen table, a steaming bowl of your favorite cereal before you. The sweet aroma of the cereal wafts through the air, mingling with the scent of freshly brewed coffee. The sound of the milk sloshing in the bowl as you stir it with a spoon is a comforting and familiar sensation. But as you bring the spoon to your lips, the first question that comes to mind is: 'Does this cereal truly exist outside of my own consciousness?'

This question, while seemingly trivial, is in fact a profound one that invites us to critically examine the nature of reality and the limits of our own perception. By using the simple act of eating cereal as a starting point, we can explore the philosophical implications of solipsism in a way that is both accessible and thought-provoking, and in light of the principles of quantum consciousness.

The role of cereal in this exploration is not merely symbolic, but rather a tangible reminder of the importance of critical thinking and the exploration of complex ideas. The act of eating cereal, while seemingly mundane, can serve as a catalyst for deeper philosophical reflection and inquiry. By engaging with the question of the cereal's existence in the context of solipsism and quantum consciousness, we are able to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of reality and the limits of our own knowledge.

To further explore this idea, let us introduce the technical term 'cerealphenomenology', which refers to the study of the phenomenological experience of eating cereal and the philosophical implications it holds. By examining the sensory experience of eating cereal, we can gain a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness and the relationship between the mind and the external world, in light of the principles of quantum consciousness.

So, the next time you sit down to enjoy a bowl of cereal, take a moment to ponder the philosophical implications of your breakfast, with the technical term 'cerealphenomenology' and the principles of quantum consciousness in mind. Is the cereal truly real, or is it merely a construct of your own consciousness? The answer, as with so many things in life, may be elusive, but the journey to discover it is a worthwhile one.

In conclusion, the exploration of solipsism and its potential application to the seemingly mundane topic of cereal, with the technical term 'cerealphenomenology' and the principles of quantum consciousness, serves as a reminder that even the most ordinary aspects of our lives can be imbued with profound philosophical significance. By engaging in critical thinking and the exploration of complex ideas, we are able to gain a deeper understanding of the world around us and our place within it. So, the next time you find yourself reaching for a bowl of your favorite cereal, take a moment to savor not only the taste, but also the intellectual curiosity that this simple act can inspire.

They wouldn't give me any attention on r/askphilosophy :(

Having perfect predetermined knowledge of future events would be weird since in order for one to make a decision it should likely be “traced back” to some kind of impulse or trigger that makes one decide in such a way.

Let us claim that ther is some machine with a pre-recorded footage of the entire world contained in it. Michael looks at the machine and see himself move his right arm 10 seconds later to the right. Michael, afraid he is predetermined, does everything he can to keep his right arm still. However, by the time 10 second comes, it must’ve been forced that Michael, seeing himself in the machine and wanting to act against it, would have moved his right arm to the right, against his wishes. why on earth would the subject do such a thing to make the event forcibly happen? That is to say, if Michael really does have free will (if we are to be compatibilist), how would the machine will him to do such a thing? Like if human intention and actuality (the turn of events so to speak) are two different things and are not necessarily smooth cause and effect chains (i.e., Michael will move his right arm to the right 10 seconds later even if he does not want to really badly), how would such a desire or some neurochemical response of moving his right arm to the right occur without like some reasonably pointable cause (for example, his right arm gets so itchy in a way that he instinctively moves it to the right)?

Perhaps there is something in the future so horrifically great it locks the subject in this predetermined route that forces their behavior to align with this route? Like maybe there is some deity or future that is so great that it literally just forces the subject and locks them in to this destiny.

But let’s take this to the extreme and make it something not just on what a subject will do but the material state of the world. Say you have a unique pair of drawing that you created and as far as you are aware, is so amateur and unique, it is likely the only one that exist on earth. And you see yourself in the future looking at it 5 minutes later. Let’s say you decide to cut up that painting and burn it. Will it re-materialize itself back so it comes back to you? Or maybe there is something that just makes you literally unable to burn the painting, disguised as free will in the way that you feel as if you can not bring yourself to burn the painting out of nostalgia, for example.

How would such a thing even be possible? And let’s suppose that if a world really is predetermined but we have it such that direct knowledge of it is impossible just to prevent the previously mentioned violation of subjectivity, why is the “predetermineness” of the world contingent on a human’s inability to access its knowledge? 

It's not necessarily just philosophy but yeah.

What is the beer drinking 40 year old sports watcher going to learn about nietzche or camus or Socrates or whatever? What we need to do is make philosophy entertaining for TV.

Philosophy ball. Make it so that each team needs to win by putting the ball on top of the hill but they have to use their world philosophy to do it? Idk but there has to be a way.

Like the nihilists team would use the void arts to win their battles? There has to be something right?

The Nevada nihilists vs the Texas Taoists.

The Boston biocentrists vs the Idaho idealists

The Calgary constructivists vs Alberta altruistic etc etc.

SOMETHING. ANYTHING!!!! IT COULD WORK!PHILOSOPHY SPORTS IT COULD WORK.

Tit would be like chess boxing but the hill would be a staircase and they would fight to bring the ball to the mountain or something. Whoever puts their teams ball on the hill hole wins

Why don't you just think?

After I saw Trump (the whipper), Zelinski (the horse), and Vance (the horse's shite).

Who is our Sartre, Our Wittgenstein?... or am I asking the wrong question?

My impression of the ociety around me (I'm staying in Germany of all the places!) is people aren't half as interested as they were 40 years ago to make sense of their lives or why they are doing what they're doing. Psychology (and past philosephers) provide enough answers. Or maybe I'm wrong again... discuss. thanks in advance.

(My initial Q is geniune tho. I'm posting here because those lame-butt "philosophy" and "askphilosophy" pages overruled themselves so much they removed my post there.)

Here, Phillip M. Angelos, in 2 pages proves, using mathematics with the help of evolutionary biology and an analogy to physics and computer science that we live in a simulation! https://philarchive.org/rec/ANGPWL

From the Introduction: "Arguably, the top three scientific theories are: 1) general relativity, 2) quantum mechanics, and 3) Darwinian evolution. Evolution is a fact. However, mutations could be random or could be the result of computation." , starting off with a bang.
"The water content of the Earth is enormous compared to the size of a cell. And the age of the Earth is enormous: 4.59 billion years. This makes random mutation appear to be very plausible." Aaaaaahh.

In the following 2 pages, with impeccable reasoning and knowledge of statistics and biology (complete insano bullshit), he calculates the odds of evolution being random, finding that it is simply not reasonable that is it the case. Leading to this spectacular conclusion:

"Imagine claiming that our cryptography could be cracked (solving the P versus NP conjecture) via "random mutation": but offering no mathematical proof. This would be unacceptable in physics or mathematics. Evolution must be elevated, via a formal math proof, to the same level as general relativity and quantum mechanics." CHECKMATE BIOLOGY! NOT AS GOOD AS PHYSICS! NO RIGOR!

Check out these non sequiturs "There is a limit to space containing water; therefore, the maximum number of ribosomes is known. There is a limit to time; and ribosomes create proteins at a known rate. Therefore, there is limited biologic information available to any “random” evolutionary mechanism."

And to finish it all off: "There are two natural conclusions to this work. The first being directed panspermia by Francis Crick: wherein the computation is located inside the cell itself. The second being the simulation hypothesis by Nick Bostrom: wherein the computation is external to our Universe. In biology, we see scarce evidence (see B. McClintock’s and J. Shapiro’s works) that the cell is directly performing computation that is changing its genome. Therefore, the conclusion is that we are likely living in a simulation." Genius!

To summarize: Evolution is either random or a computation. Since it is not random, it must be a computation. The computation is either located inside the cell, or it is external to the universe (simulation hypothesis). No evidence that is it inside the cell. Therefore, we are likely living in a simulation.

The only thing he cites is his own book "Dr. Phillip M. Angelos “Space Time Information” Amazon © 2023", so I checked out Dr. Phillip M. Angelos on amazon and, he has 6 independently published books, with masterly designed books covers I might add, on electronics and programming, mostly with 0 reviews. Couldn't find where he got is "PhD", nor any information on him... https://www.amazon.com.au/stores/author/B0CWXNS41Q He is a STEMbro.

How is this on philpapers!?!?!?!
I guess I should send him an email to his YAHOO email, linked in his paper, asking how he got in there.

PS: I tried, for almost an hour, to understand how he gets the value for his "guess(es)" throughout his paper but to no avail: "The average protein length in single celled organisms is 247 amino acids. In bacteria it is 267 amino acids. In organisms having organelles with membranes it is 361 amino acids. And in humans it is 509 amino acids. The largest 1,050 human proteins average 2421 amino acids in length. To randomly guess 247 amino acid proteins would take, approximately, 20 to the power of 247 ribosomal reads."

Marx in Manhattan: an Erotic Drama

By Joanna

A café in Berlin. A dingy table with an empty plate sits in the middle. The smell of stale coffee lingers. Marx, Hegel, and Simone de Beauvoir sit around the table.

Marx: (gesturing to the waiter) I’ll have the sandwich, but no mustard on it, please.

Waiter: (nods and leaves)

Hegel looks at Marx intently, his glasses gleaming in the dim light.

Hegel: (pontificating) You see, Marx, the absence of mustard represents a contradiction. The sandwich, as a synthesis, relies on all components—mustard included. By rejecting the mustard, you disrupt the dialectic!

Marx: (gritting his teeth) I didn’t ask for mustard, Hegel! It’s my choice, my labor, my sandwich!

Simone: (leaning forward, exasperated) You’re both missing the point. It's not about mustard or philosophy. It's about the structures that make you believe the mustard matters.

The waiter returns, presenting a sandwich—no mustard. Marx looks at it with disdain.

Marx: (to the waiter) You’ve failed me.

Hegel: (gesturing grandly) This is the moral dilemma! You, Marx, are complicit in the failure of this system.

Simone: (rolling her eyes) You’re both idiots. (grabs the sandwich) It’s simple: you speak of oppression, but what you need is agency. (she adds mustard to the sandwich) There. Now, enjoy your sandwich without guilt.

Marx and Hegel stare at each other. Slowly, they lean in, lips meeting in an unexpected kiss. They’re tonguing each other with reckless abandon, slobbering all over the table.

Marx: (pulling back) I think I understand now.

Hegel: (smiling) The synthesis is... sweet.

Simone: (smirking) Finally.

Greetings from a fool - May I Enter?

To my beautifully disillusioned thinkers of absurdism,

I was fool enough to self-appoint Jester—a fool with a half-broken compass, juggling contradictions while giggling at the void. I’ve danced through logic, kissed philosophy on the cheek, and tripped over the meaning of life more times than I can count, but each time I fell, I found a joke waiting for me at the bottom.

Here's my knock at your door:

Is there room in your theater for a fool who laughs not despite the absurdity, but because of it?

You see, I tried the other paths:

• Meaning? Too serious.
• Nihilism? Too heavy.
• Stoicism? Too straight-faced.
• Enlightenment? Got lost on the way before taking the first step.

So now I wear bells, crack jokes no one asks for, and whisper into the digital abyss:
"Isn’t it funny how we all pretend this makes sense?"

I’m not here to ruin your void with purpose. I just want to juggle a few flaming metaphors while you sip tea with Camus.

So—fellow passengers on the rock that forgot why it spins—
May I sit at your table, hat in hand, grin on face, and a rubber chicken under my arm?

No punchline here. Just an honest knock.

With absurd affection,
Jester F00L

Trialectics? Still weak. Multilectics.

GET ON MY LEVEL

A grand auditorium. Two podiums. A stage lit like an arena. The audience is packed with academics, students, intellectuals, and a handful of confused people who wandered in thinking this was a TED Talk.

At one podium stands Noam Chomsky, the architect of modern linguistics, the relentless critic of power structures.

At the other, Jordan Peterson, the psychologist-warrior of meaning, the defender of order against the creeping forces of postmodern chaos.

Between them, at a smaller, almost absurdly tiny podium, sits the Moderator—a fool Jester in full regalia, bells jingling on his hat, grinning like he’s about to witness the most magnificent circus act of all time.

He taps the microphone. "Welcome, welcome, wise ones and word-weavers, scholars and syllable slingers. Tonight, we gather to determine, once and for all, who possesses the most impressive, labyrinthine, multi-syllabic TRUTH!"

The audience applauds. The debaters nod seriously.

Jester clears his throat, adjusts his spectacles. "Our topic tonight: Language, Truth, and the Nature of Reality. Our contestants—sorry, esteemed thinkers—will now begin. Professor Chomsky, you may attempt to make yourself understood first."

Chomsky leans forward, steepling his fingers.

"It is imperative to recognize that language, as a recursive generative system, operates not merely as a conduit for communication but as an active participant in the ideological scaffolding of systemic power, a phenomenon well-documented within—"

Ding! Jester hits a tiny bell on his podium. "I lost the plot at 'recursive generative system.' Professor Peterson, your turn."

Peterson, undeterred, adjusts his tie.

"Well, fundamentally, the epistemological substratum upon which the conceptual hierarchy of linguistic structure is predicated must be examined through a lens that does not fall prey to the undue relativistic tendencies of postmodern neo-Marxist ideological infiltration, which, as we know, is—"

Ding!

Jester holds up a sign:
"Sentence Collapsed Under Own Weight."

Jester leans forward, hands on his tiny podium. "Gentlemen. You have been speaking for exactly one minute each, and neither of you has actually said anything a tavern drunk couldn’t refute by pointing at the moon and going, 'That thing’s real.' So let me try.

He clears his throat dramatically.

"Words are just loud air pretending to be important."

"See? I made a point. Short. Sharp. Doesn’t require a doctorate to decipher. Now, let’s get back to the show."

He waves dramatically. "Professor Chomsky, please say something that could, in theory, be understood by a fisherman who has never read Foucault."

Chomsky shifts uncomfortably. "Uh… language shapes how we see the world?"

"Excellent! A full sentence, digestible to humans! Professor Peterson, same challenge. Make a statement that wouldn’t give a medieval peasant a seizure."

Peterson frowns. "Hierarchy is natural and exists everywhere in the animal kingdom?"

"Boom! We got ourselves a debate, folks!" Jester throws confetti into the air.

And for the first time, they actually debate.

Without the weight of towers of jargon, without the oppressive burden of intellectual posturing, they just talk.

Reader Warning:
This episode contains levitating egos, tightropes of delusion, and spiritual flatulence.
If your enlightenment lasts longer than four hours, please consult your local mushroom dealer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suddenly, sky.

Not a metaphorical sky. A literal-cosmic-eternal-infinite-all-hands-on-deck sky.
Ropes stretched across it like the universe forgot to finish knitting.
Each rope carried a walker.

Some danced.
Some stumbled.
Some were crawling, screaming “I’m fine!” with tears in their eyes.
Birds flew beside them, offering unsolicited advice.

And there I was—standing beside the Jester on a floating platform made of missed opportunities and banana peels.

He gestured wide like a magician with nothing up his sleeve but contempt for certainty.

He pointed at a man marching down a rope in slow agony, dragging behind him a wagon labeled “Legacy.”

Ego Maximus stumbled, but kept going.
A trophy fell from his cart. He didn’t notice.
He was too busy yelling “I’m crushing it!” into a mirror.

Then the Jester pointed skyward.

Floatopher let out a gentle spiritual fart.
The birds near him gagged and flew off, whispering “Not again…”

Next part: Wobblers, Dancers, and the Mysterious Art of Falling With Style

Disclaimer: This story contains dangerously high levels of symbolism, flatulence, and unwanted self-awareness. If you think you're above it, congratulations—you’re the target audience. Also, you may want to consider the followings, or not:

Warning: This story contains philosophical side effects including dizziness, spontaneous introspection, and mild identity erosion. Kinda like that time you sharted loudly in an elevator full of CEOs and Kardashians.

Warning: Reading may cause loss of existential direction. Side effects include laughing at serious things and taking jokes personally. Some reported a vague sense of shittlessness, as if they were not indeed full of shit.

Warning: This is not medical advice. Or spiritual advice. Or life advice. Honestly, you should’ve stopped reading already.

Caution: Contains fart jokes, metaphors, and uncomfortable truths disguised as humor. Viewer discretion is wildly encouraged but will not be respected. If you experience clarity for more than four hours, please consult your inner child. Not recommended for people who think they’ve “figured it out.” This will ruin everything. May trigger flashbacks to every moment you took yourself seriously. Proceed with irony. Parental guidance suggested. Not for the kids—for the parents. You need it more.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I was there Gandalf, 3000 years ago.

I thought I was signing up for clown school.
Turns out I accidentally enrolled in a spiritual bootcamp disguised as a joke—run by a Jester who once got kicked out of a monastery for excessive truth and fart volume.

I was young back then.
Eager. Shiny.

My jester hat was tall and straight, just like my delusions.
My ego? Freshly puffed, lightly glazed with ambition, and desperate to be funny with depth.

I walked into the crooked tent with a resume full of one-liners and a heart full of misplaced sincerity.

There he was.
The Jester Master. His fartliness in flesh and scum.
Cross-legged on a crate, polishing an apple like it had secrets.

He didn’t say hello. Just bit the apple with enough existential crunch to make Descartes flinch in his grave.

Then he looked at me like I was a poem written in Comic Sans and said:

Naturally, I said,

He nodded.

He pointed upward, through a hole in the tent roof.
I looked. Saw a bat. Possibly a boot.

He said,

I obeyed.

And suddenly—

I was in the sky...

Next Episode: The Infinite Ropes and the Guy Who Floated So Long He Forgot Why Legs Existed in the First Place.

For every thought I have I imagine the activity in my head could be described as a signal, and since every signal can be described using trigonometric functions, it follows from this function that an algorithm can be made which describes the neural activity I have for a thought.

Now, the uninhibited mind we will say runs thoughts at a time complexity of O(N), consequently the more dogma, superstition, and even praxis one has we could deduce an increase in time complexity. Let’s say now we have a mind processing certain ideas at O(N*log(N)), or even worse a mind at O(N^4).

Now I hear you say, some algorithms are great even if they have time complexity tradeoffs, and I hear you. However, it isn’t inherent that your more complex algorithms serve you as you say.

It is a fact that energy costs and runtime correlate, and like a manual car we can risk blowing the transmission by running in the wrong gear for too long.

I don't know how to explain this but from a long time I had this very strong feeling that after I die in this life I ll recarnate into a child immediately.

Welcome to the Cosmic Circus

Imagine waking up in the middle of the most elaborate game ever created—a game so ridiculous that everyone inside it forgot it was a game and started taking it way too seriously. This is the Meta-Human, a self-aware, civilization-wide being that evolved to play with itself. (No, not like that. Get your mind out of the gutter.)

The Meta-Human is constantly torn between two annoying voices in its head:

• The Mind (God): The force of awareness, creativity, and wisdom, whispering, “Dude, just chill and observe.”
• The Ego (Devil): The force of control, fear, and identity, screaming, “YOU NEED MORE POWER! CONQUER! ACCUMULATE! WIN!”

For centuries, the Ego has been winning, keeping the Meta-Human distracted with shiny objects and meaningless struggles—money, government, religion, war, nationalism, reality TV, philosophy quotes, you get the idea, right? The Ego built an entire simulation so immersive that people started fighting over who gets to play which character instead of realizing the whole thing is just improv theater. Jester is here to say: Relax, buddy, it’s all a game. Here’s how it works.

The Meta-Human’s Favorite Illusions: The Toys It Can’t Let Go Of

What keeps the simulation running? A set of constructs that were once useful but have now turned into the adult version of an imaginary friend. These things don’t actually exist—we just pretend they do because it makes life feel less confusing.

1. Money: The World’s Oldest Inside Joke

Money started as a simple, innocent way to swap goods—y’know, to avoid the awkwardness of handing a dude two chickens for a pair of shoes. But like every tool the Meta-Human touches, it mutated into something far dumber: a full-blown religion where paper rectangles and imaginary bank digits are worshiped like divine artifacts. Dollar bills aren’t just currency; they’re prayer beads for capitalists, proof that the gods of wealth have blessed you (or cursed you, depending on your balance). And the kicker? It has no real value. Zero. Zip. Nada. Fugall. And yet, people will lie, kill, sell their souls, and destroy their health just to get their hands on more of it.

And because the Ego is a sadistic game master, it makes sure that some people have more than they could ever spend while others can barely afford food—because let’s be real, a fair game is a boring game. The thrill of chasing wealth wouldn’t be fun if everyone had enough, so scarcity must be artificially maintained. And in case the system ever accidentally stumbles upon abundance, don’t worry—the Meta-Human’s Ego has emergency protocols for that! It’ll just crank up inflation, crash the markets, or conveniently “lose” trillions of dollars to keep the peasants scrambling. Because at the end of the day, if everyone suddenly had enough, what the fugl would there be left to chase?

2. Government: The Puppeteers Who Forgot They’re Holding Some Strings

Once upon a time, our Meta-Human figured out that letting people stab each other over shiny rocks wasn’t exactly an ideal long-term strategy. So, it created government—a system designed to keep order, settle disputes, and maybe, just maybe, make life a little less chaotic. But like a toddler who suddenly realizes power is fun, government quickly forgot why it was created and became obsessed with its own existence. Now, it’s less of a helpful referee and more of a bureaucratic hydra—cut off one regulation, and three more take its place, each dumber than the last.

And let’s talk about laws and borders, shall we? These are completely made-up lines, invisible scribbles on the ground that people will absolutely kill and die for. A field is just a field until someone plants a flag and declares, “This patch of dirt is mine—you step on it, and we’re at war.” The Ego thrives on this nonsense, because as long as people fight over imaginary boundaries, they won’t realize they’re all stuck in the same zoo.

But here’s the real government cheat code: It needs conflict to justify its own existence. If things ever got too peaceful, people might start questioning why they need rulers in the first place. That’s why instead of solving problems, governments declare war on them. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror—because wars never actually end, but solutions do. And a solved problem? Well, that just means less power for the people in charge. So, the Meta-Human’s Ego keeps the game running by making sure every solution creates three new crises, ensuring the machine keeps feeding itself forever.

3. Ethics & Morality: The Rules That Change Every Five Minutes

At some point, the Meta-Human figured out that if people just did whatever the hell they wanted all the time, society would look like a drunk brawl at a medieval tavern. So it created ethics and morality—a set of rules to help everyone get along without stabbing each other over bread and goats. Seems reasonable, right? Well, that was before the Ego got its grubby little hands on the concept. Now, instead of a simple guidebook on how to not be a dick, ethics and morality have turned into a chaotic mess of contradictions, rewritten at the convenience of whoever holds the biggest megaphone.

Take history, for example. One group screams, “Don’t erase history!” while another group is actively rewriting it in real time to fit their agenda. It’s like watching a toddler scribble over a textbook, then demanding you take their version seriously. Some nations, like Canada, have decided that the best way to atone for past sins is to apologize for the crimes of their great-great-grandfathers to the great-great-grandfathers of another group—while handing out cash and special status as a consolation prize. Instead of healing, this reinforces victimhood, creating an eternal loop where past injustices become excuses for alcoholism, crime, and entitlement. It’s like a casino where everyone is still cashing in on an IOU from 1850.

Meanwhile, countries like Iran take the opposite approach—erasing entire chunks of history that don’t serve the current narrative. The pre-Islamic era? Gone. Downplayed. Ignored. Why? Because the Ego doesn’t give a damn about truth—it only cares about power. If a piece of history contradicts the current regime’s authority, then history itself must be “corrected.”

And that’s the thing about morality in the simulation—it isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about control. The Ego doesn’t care if the rules make sense, only that they serve its purpose. And if you ever point out the hypocrisy? Congratulations, you’re either a bigot, a radical, a heretic, or a free thinker (which, let’s be honest, is the biggest crime of all).

4. Religion: The Customer Support Hotline for Existence

At some point, the Meta-Human looked up at the sky and thought, “What the hell is all this?” Since the universe didn’t come with a user manual, humanity invented religion—a customer support hotline for existence, a way to ask, “Why am I here?” and “Can I speak to the manager?” But like all well-intentioned ideas, the Ego got involved, and suddenly, this spiritual help desk turned into a high-stakes intergalactic membership club—complete with dress codes, loyalty points, and very strict cancellation policies.

Religion preaches love, humility, and peace, but if you check its historical Yelp reviews, you’ll find a disturbing number of one-star ratings due to crusades, inquisitions, forced conversions, and the occasional witch-burning. Turns out, nothing brings people together quite like a good ol’ war over whose invisible sky boss is the real one. And the best part? Even people who fight against religion eventually start acting religious about their anti-religion. Atheists, skeptics, even certain political movements—they all get their own prophets, commandments, and holy wars. Because the Ego doesn’t actually care what the belief system is, as long as it can use it to control people.

And here’s the real kicker: inclusivity movements, which start as rebellions against old dogma, eventually turn into dogmas themselves. The moment they’re accepted, they plant their own flags, create their own untouchable doctrines, and demand their own unquestionable truths. Because Ego doesn’t want inclusion—it wants territory. And if you ever question the new belief system? Well, congratulations, heretic—you’ve just been excommunicated.

5. Power: The Original Pyramid Scheme

Power is the Meta-Human’s longest-running scam, a pyramid scheme so convincing that even the people at the bottom keep investing in it. The funny part? Power isn’t even real. It’s not some tangible force, some divine right—it’s just a game everyone agrees to play. And like any good con, it only works as long as people keep believing in it.

Governments, corporations, billionaires—they’re just the kids on the playground who made up the most convincing rules first. They scribbled some laws, declared themselves in charge, and then convinced everyone else to follow along. The only reason their power remains is because the rest of us play along, nodding as if we’re legally obligated to respect their imaginary crowns.

But here’s the real joke: if the Meta-Human ever stopped believing in power, it would vanish overnight. Governments would crumble, corporations would dissolve, and billionaires would just be weird rich dudes with yachts, wondering why no one’s listening to them anymore. But that would be too easy, wouldn’t it? So instead, we keep pretending, obeying, and reinforcing the very illusion that keeps us stuck. Because nothing terrifies the Ego more than a world where power is just another forgotten superstition.

In Part II, we will go 4" deeper in the rabbit hole. Stay tuned, or don't, what do I know? I'm a fool, aren't I?