Heard a very interesting interview on the radio with Karen Armstrong, a scholar of religion and author. Now, normally I would instinctively recoil from religious discussions, but Armstrong quickly caught my ear - she was actually making sense!
To paraphrase, she asserts that while our thinking about scientific and technological issues is quite advanced, the way we think about religion and god is very primitive. God is not a he or she, god does not have a "personality," and most certainly God is not just some larger, better version of us. God is not a being, god is being. Drop this childish notion of god as some big guy in the sky, looking down on us from above and caring about our lives. God is much, much deeper than that - beyond our lives, beyond caring about us, beyond not caring about us, but within everything. To try and limit god to some kind of being with personality, who talks to you, who manages the weather and day to day life, is like playing a Brahms symphony with kazoos. You are missing out on so much depth, so much power, and stripping a lush harmonic landscape of its richness and beauty. To reduce god to a fish bumper sticker is utter travesty.
But whatever god is, we can touch it. We can experience it. Surprisingly, I'm not talking about anything mystical at all. Just in the act of perceiving existence, we touch it. Just in the act of being, we can feel it. Religion should be about seeking out new states of mind, new states of feeling, and exploring that which words are utterly powerless to explore. God is far beyond our petty day-to-day debates, and he is even very far beyond our deepest political and moral debates. Why have we turned this beautiful concept into a kindergartner's crayon drawing?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Steaming Mad
I know of several self-described conservatives who really get hot under the collar about the issue of climate change. They take the notion that man has negatively impacted the climate system quite personally - something about it inflames them to their core. However, I have yet to encounter a self-described liberal who gets quite so worked up in the same way. If they do get worked up over anything, it's about people's inaction to do anything about humankind's supposed ongoing destabilization of the climate system.
So, why the difference in reactions between the two groups? Well, let's assume that the Earth's average temperature is indeed increasing in a fashion that is likely to be detrimental to our lives, and let's further assume that we are causing it. There is more unambiguous evidence for the first proposition than for the second, but for now we'll run with both of them. What would this mean for conservatives? What would it mean for liberals?
The traditional conservative philosophy is centered around the individual. Each person is free to determine his or her own course in life, and in an ideal world, hard work, perseverance, and ingenuity is rewarded while laziness and mooching is punished. Government intervention in personal and business affairs is evil, except for purposes of national defense. The will of the individual is superior to any perceived needs of "the people" or "the masses." There is no such thing as "the greater good." Hard work will lead to nothing but prosperity.
Now, pit this imagined conservative against climate change. Here is an issue which seems to contradict everything he believes. Energy usage, which is directly coupled to prosperity, is blamed for increasing global temperatures. Private enterprise and the hard work of talented people has created both a high standard of living and a calamity of global proportions. "How can this be?" he yells. "Adam Smith told us that human activity can guide itself, that people need not be controlled by some 'higher authority!' He told us that rational self-interest and free-market principles will keep us safe and prosperous, with no evil government intervention! Global warming can't be true!" We can certainly sympathize with his frustration.
Now add in some very loud liberals, who trumpet climate change as a moral issue with global impact, in which the needs of the individual must be balanced out with those of the rest of humanity, many generations down the line. In their fervor, they perhaps gloss over some of the more intricate details of climate change as a scientific hypothesis, leaving them vulnerable to attack by critics on the right. The mere presence of these loud liberals, and their willingness to suggest that Adam Smith was maybe completely wrong, further infuriates our imagined conservative friend.
It has been described that modern liberal thought emerged in the early twentieth century, with the emergence of a class of people who felt that "life had lost the ability to organize itself." In other words, they started to doubt Adam Smith. These folks aren't too shocked to find out that unrestrained human activity is having negative effects - it jives with their personal philosophy that human life is too chaotic to self-organize. Unfortunately, there are some liberals on the extreme side of things who seem to have a seething hatred for human life and activity - they want us to live in caves or even completely die off. This is really ugly and unfortunate - why should an entity hate itself? I love human activity and prosperity, and I want to see more of it for the entire planet. But that may not be what we'll get it we keep burning fossil fuels and dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The prosperity we may obtain by our continued fossil fuel usage may be dampened by rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, drought, changes in climate patterns, and a host of other environmental impacts.
So where is the science in this tug-of-war? Well, real science does not operate in a political vacuum, and climate change is certainly no exception. But from what I've seen, climate change is a valid scientific hypothesis. There is plenty of evidence that the planet is heating up, and so far we have not been able to successfully explain this observed temperature increase without including the anthropogenic component. So either (i.) we don't understand the natural climate system, or (ii.) we really are screwing up the planet in proportion to our standard of living. Which of those seems more likely to you? The answer, I submit, will be heavily influenced by your political preferences.
There is still plenty to learn about the natural climate system, and we have to be honest about the parts that we don't fully understand. The scientists I know are honest about this - after all, one can make a career out of exploring such uncertainties - each hole in what we know is a possible place to explore. Still, I'd say we understand enough to be reasonably confident in hypothesis (ii.) The models we have can reproduce past climates, and they represent spatial and temporal variations in important climatic indicators quite well. So, they're well calibrated. No, we don't understand everything yet, and we likely never will. That's why it is so important that the uncertainties not get lost in the argument - they must come along for the ride and be part of the discussion.
So if (ii.) is true, does that mean Adam Smith was wrong? Can human life not organize itself? Well, we know that free-market principles are great for promoting economic prosperity and peace in the relative short-term, but what happens when you add something long-term, like the harmful temperature increase that (probably) comes about from carbon dioxide emissions? Will this long-term cost really be calculated in anybody's spreadsheet? Will the self-made businessman really concern himself with future generations? What difference does it make to him that the temperature might increase by a couple of degrees in a century? This seems a matter of individual conscience, which will not take the form of one of Adam Smith's stabilizing economic feedback loops. There is nothing I can see in the code of rational-self interest that suggests that an independent businessman should concern himself with the world a hundred years from now, long after he is dead and gone. By the time high temperatures do become a concern for the businessperson, it will be much too late to do anything about it.
So then, doesn't it make sense to do something about climate change now, while we still can? Well, there are those who suggest that it is already too late, and that our money would be better spent combating disease and famine. I'm not sure, and I don't really want to get into the policy side of things right now. I just wanted to try and understand why conservatives get so steaming mad about climate change. To be overly simplistic about it, they're mad because someone suggested that they're wrong. Liberals broadly believe that conservatives might be mistaken about the world and how it works, and this makes them furious. Why else would they get so defensive?
I used to be quite conservative myself. I believed in the power of the individual, his or her freedom to exercise her will in rational self-interest, in limited government interference, and hard work. I'm still shaped by a lot of those ideas, but these days I find myself willing to ponder if government can do some positive things. More on that later, perhaps.
Of course, all this logic rests on the traditional "conservative" and "liberal" stereotypes, which are meaningless political labels which obscure our individuality and lend little to fruitful debate. Still, I think this post got us somewhere. Maybe.
So, why the difference in reactions between the two groups? Well, let's assume that the Earth's average temperature is indeed increasing in a fashion that is likely to be detrimental to our lives, and let's further assume that we are causing it. There is more unambiguous evidence for the first proposition than for the second, but for now we'll run with both of them. What would this mean for conservatives? What would it mean for liberals?
The traditional conservative philosophy is centered around the individual. Each person is free to determine his or her own course in life, and in an ideal world, hard work, perseverance, and ingenuity is rewarded while laziness and mooching is punished. Government intervention in personal and business affairs is evil, except for purposes of national defense. The will of the individual is superior to any perceived needs of "the people" or "the masses." There is no such thing as "the greater good." Hard work will lead to nothing but prosperity.
Now, pit this imagined conservative against climate change. Here is an issue which seems to contradict everything he believes. Energy usage, which is directly coupled to prosperity, is blamed for increasing global temperatures. Private enterprise and the hard work of talented people has created both a high standard of living and a calamity of global proportions. "How can this be?" he yells. "Adam Smith told us that human activity can guide itself, that people need not be controlled by some 'higher authority!' He told us that rational self-interest and free-market principles will keep us safe and prosperous, with no evil government intervention! Global warming can't be true!" We can certainly sympathize with his frustration.
Now add in some very loud liberals, who trumpet climate change as a moral issue with global impact, in which the needs of the individual must be balanced out with those of the rest of humanity, many generations down the line. In their fervor, they perhaps gloss over some of the more intricate details of climate change as a scientific hypothesis, leaving them vulnerable to attack by critics on the right. The mere presence of these loud liberals, and their willingness to suggest that Adam Smith was maybe completely wrong, further infuriates our imagined conservative friend.
It has been described that modern liberal thought emerged in the early twentieth century, with the emergence of a class of people who felt that "life had lost the ability to organize itself." In other words, they started to doubt Adam Smith. These folks aren't too shocked to find out that unrestrained human activity is having negative effects - it jives with their personal philosophy that human life is too chaotic to self-organize. Unfortunately, there are some liberals on the extreme side of things who seem to have a seething hatred for human life and activity - they want us to live in caves or even completely die off. This is really ugly and unfortunate - why should an entity hate itself? I love human activity and prosperity, and I want to see more of it for the entire planet. But that may not be what we'll get it we keep burning fossil fuels and dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The prosperity we may obtain by our continued fossil fuel usage may be dampened by rising sea levels, more extreme weather events, drought, changes in climate patterns, and a host of other environmental impacts.
So where is the science in this tug-of-war? Well, real science does not operate in a political vacuum, and climate change is certainly no exception. But from what I've seen, climate change is a valid scientific hypothesis. There is plenty of evidence that the planet is heating up, and so far we have not been able to successfully explain this observed temperature increase without including the anthropogenic component. So either (i.) we don't understand the natural climate system, or (ii.) we really are screwing up the planet in proportion to our standard of living. Which of those seems more likely to you? The answer, I submit, will be heavily influenced by your political preferences.
There is still plenty to learn about the natural climate system, and we have to be honest about the parts that we don't fully understand. The scientists I know are honest about this - after all, one can make a career out of exploring such uncertainties - each hole in what we know is a possible place to explore. Still, I'd say we understand enough to be reasonably confident in hypothesis (ii.) The models we have can reproduce past climates, and they represent spatial and temporal variations in important climatic indicators quite well. So, they're well calibrated. No, we don't understand everything yet, and we likely never will. That's why it is so important that the uncertainties not get lost in the argument - they must come along for the ride and be part of the discussion.
So if (ii.) is true, does that mean Adam Smith was wrong? Can human life not organize itself? Well, we know that free-market principles are great for promoting economic prosperity and peace in the relative short-term, but what happens when you add something long-term, like the harmful temperature increase that (probably) comes about from carbon dioxide emissions? Will this long-term cost really be calculated in anybody's spreadsheet? Will the self-made businessman really concern himself with future generations? What difference does it make to him that the temperature might increase by a couple of degrees in a century? This seems a matter of individual conscience, which will not take the form of one of Adam Smith's stabilizing economic feedback loops. There is nothing I can see in the code of rational-self interest that suggests that an independent businessman should concern himself with the world a hundred years from now, long after he is dead and gone. By the time high temperatures do become a concern for the businessperson, it will be much too late to do anything about it.
So then, doesn't it make sense to do something about climate change now, while we still can? Well, there are those who suggest that it is already too late, and that our money would be better spent combating disease and famine. I'm not sure, and I don't really want to get into the policy side of things right now. I just wanted to try and understand why conservatives get so steaming mad about climate change. To be overly simplistic about it, they're mad because someone suggested that they're wrong. Liberals broadly believe that conservatives might be mistaken about the world and how it works, and this makes them furious. Why else would they get so defensive?
I used to be quite conservative myself. I believed in the power of the individual, his or her freedom to exercise her will in rational self-interest, in limited government interference, and hard work. I'm still shaped by a lot of those ideas, but these days I find myself willing to ponder if government can do some positive things. More on that later, perhaps.
Of course, all this logic rests on the traditional "conservative" and "liberal" stereotypes, which are meaningless political labels which obscure our individuality and lend little to fruitful debate. Still, I think this post got us somewhere. Maybe.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
On Knowledge
"I don't want knowledge, I want certainty," shouts an angry voice in the background of a track from David Bowie's "Earthling" album. The voice, straining in a distinctly old-world tenor to escape the modern din around it, is encircled in a swirling electronic clamor.
The desire for certainty is in no short supply on this planet. Many people are impatient with probabilities and likelihoods - they want immortal facts carved in stone. I suppose that this longing for perfect knowledge makes sense from a "survival" point of view - feeling safe and grounded in one's knowledge can have survival advantages. Imagine that you are in imminent danger of being eaten by a lion. Such a time is not well-suited for philosophical reflection, such as wondering whether or not it is moral to kill the lion in self-defense (it probably is.) Instead, survival depends on reflexes, on a feeling of "knowing" that what you are doing is right.
If you are willing to accept a belief from your father, you may feel that this belief is correct because it carries with it the weight of tradition and authority. I'm reminded of a cab driver I met in Columbus, Ohio who told me, "my father told me I was a democrat and a buckeye, and I said okay and never looked back." He may have been joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if he really did cling to the associated beliefs/ideals like a security blanked. Naturally, just because a belief is old or handed down to you does not mean that the belief is actually correct. Plenty of people pick up erroneous ideas from their parents and carry them forward with enthusiasm and confidence.
Many people approach their religious beliefs in this fashion - they don't want knowledge, they want certainty. They want the feeling of being correct, they want to believe that they are right. Religion provides a handy structure for this; many religious beliefs, if they are not carved in stone, take many generations to change. Thus, I would classify most religions, at least in the forms I've encountered, as slowly-evolving belief structures. Perhaps this is why religion and conservatism often go hand-in-hand. In both realms, the ideal is an esoteric structure that only barely changes with time, preferably in only superficial ways. The emphasis is on tradition, authority, and the feeling of certainty.
Interestingly, American conservatism has a strong element of self-determination and distrust of political authority, often coupled with a seemingly contradictory acceptance of religious authority. Many of the same conservatives who rail against big government have a deep religious faith which they would never dare question. The sphere of knowledge has been partitioned - some things may be questioned, while others must not be. Something in their minds makes them more likely to question some ideas than others.
This is not limited to conservatives, of course. Such a structure of mind is ubiquitous. Pick a random individual and create a "map" of his or her beliefs. Some beliefs will be more resistant to change than others. Beliefs are connected to other beliefs in a great web. This "map" or "web" evolves in such a way to minimize tension. The amount of tension in the web is the sum of the tension associated with any two beliefs in the web. The tension between any two beliefs in the web depends on how likely they are to be true together, and on how "aware" the owner of this web is of the contradiction. The web evolves toward a local minimum of tension, though either a "deadening" of the connection strength between beliefs or through a restructuring of these beliefs.
Forgive me for going on so long. I've been fascinated with this "Web of Belief" model created by the philosopher W.V. Quine. In college I wrote a paper about creating a mathematical model of this web - not for anything serious, just for some quantitative fun, of course. I'd still like to play with this model and perhaps run some simulations just for the heck of it. Before I do, I need to flesh out a few details of how this model will run. I think I'll post on that another time.
Let's return to the idea of religion as a slowly-evolving belief structure. We can imagine, on the other end of the spectrum, a belief system where ideas come and go like bubbles on the surface of a boiling pot of water. Beliefs are constantly changing with time, responding to pressure. What are the possible survival advantages of each belief system? Under what conditions is a given belief system optimal for survival? Let's jot down some properties.
Slowly-evolving belief system
That gets me to another pont, but I'll stop for now. Could write all day about belief....
The desire for certainty is in no short supply on this planet. Many people are impatient with probabilities and likelihoods - they want immortal facts carved in stone. I suppose that this longing for perfect knowledge makes sense from a "survival" point of view - feeling safe and grounded in one's knowledge can have survival advantages. Imagine that you are in imminent danger of being eaten by a lion. Such a time is not well-suited for philosophical reflection, such as wondering whether or not it is moral to kill the lion in self-defense (it probably is.) Instead, survival depends on reflexes, on a feeling of "knowing" that what you are doing is right.
If you are willing to accept a belief from your father, you may feel that this belief is correct because it carries with it the weight of tradition and authority. I'm reminded of a cab driver I met in Columbus, Ohio who told me, "my father told me I was a democrat and a buckeye, and I said okay and never looked back." He may have been joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if he really did cling to the associated beliefs/ideals like a security blanked. Naturally, just because a belief is old or handed down to you does not mean that the belief is actually correct. Plenty of people pick up erroneous ideas from their parents and carry them forward with enthusiasm and confidence.
Many people approach their religious beliefs in this fashion - they don't want knowledge, they want certainty. They want the feeling of being correct, they want to believe that they are right. Religion provides a handy structure for this; many religious beliefs, if they are not carved in stone, take many generations to change. Thus, I would classify most religions, at least in the forms I've encountered, as slowly-evolving belief structures. Perhaps this is why religion and conservatism often go hand-in-hand. In both realms, the ideal is an esoteric structure that only barely changes with time, preferably in only superficial ways. The emphasis is on tradition, authority, and the feeling of certainty.
Interestingly, American conservatism has a strong element of self-determination and distrust of political authority, often coupled with a seemingly contradictory acceptance of religious authority. Many of the same conservatives who rail against big government have a deep religious faith which they would never dare question. The sphere of knowledge has been partitioned - some things may be questioned, while others must not be. Something in their minds makes them more likely to question some ideas than others.
This is not limited to conservatives, of course. Such a structure of mind is ubiquitous. Pick a random individual and create a "map" of his or her beliefs. Some beliefs will be more resistant to change than others. Beliefs are connected to other beliefs in a great web. This "map" or "web" evolves in such a way to minimize tension. The amount of tension in the web is the sum of the tension associated with any two beliefs in the web. The tension between any two beliefs in the web depends on how likely they are to be true together, and on how "aware" the owner of this web is of the contradiction. The web evolves toward a local minimum of tension, though either a "deadening" of the connection strength between beliefs or through a restructuring of these beliefs.
Forgive me for going on so long. I've been fascinated with this "Web of Belief" model created by the philosopher W.V. Quine. In college I wrote a paper about creating a mathematical model of this web - not for anything serious, just for some quantitative fun, of course. I'd still like to play with this model and perhaps run some simulations just for the heck of it. Before I do, I need to flesh out a few details of how this model will run. I think I'll post on that another time.
Let's return to the idea of religion as a slowly-evolving belief structure. We can imagine, on the other end of the spectrum, a belief system where ideas come and go like bubbles on the surface of a boiling pot of water. Beliefs are constantly changing with time, responding to pressure. What are the possible survival advantages of each belief system? Under what conditions is a given belief system optimal for survival? Let's jot down some properties.
Slowly-evolving belief system
- Stable, resistant to change, not volatile.
- Easier to pass between generations (changes little, easy to learn and teach.)
- Can provide comfort to those who feel frightened by or uneasy about rapid change.
- Believers can easily get a "feeling of certainty" by clinging to old, established beliefs.
- Unstable, can change rapidly with circumstances.
- Harder to pass between generations (harder to learn and teach.)
- Can provide a more dynamic belief system to cope with changing times.
- Believers are constantly asked to question, evaluate, think. Perhaps this can lead to a feelng of "being engaged" or "on top of things."
That gets me to another pont, but I'll stop for now. Could write all day about belief....
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Coming Out
I have kept a big secret from my family, as well as many of my friends and colleagues, for many years now. If they knew the truth, it would break many of their hearts. I would be ostracized from their society and seen as some kind of evil monster. Let's just say that people like me are not well tolerated in the region where I was born.
The big, evil secret is that I don't believe in many of the things that they hold dear. To get right to the worst of it, I don't believe in god. I'm an atheist. It actually feels really good to write that! Admitting that I don't have an established belief in some kind of omnipotent deity feels so right, so honest. Anything else that I say or write just feels like a lie, like I'm trying to cover up my own feelings to make someone else feel better. I've got to say it again - I don't believe in god! Whew....what a relief.
I've never been able to tell my family for fear of ripping their hearts to shreds, and I'm scared to tell almost anyone from the south (where I grew up) for fear of immediate and total rejection. Remember that atheists are among the least trusted group of people in the states, I guess because we scare people. The word "atheist" invokes an image of an angry, miserable, callous monster for many people, even among those who are not particularly religious. That really makes me sad, because I don't feel like that kind of entity - painting me as a hateful monster is not accurate or fair.
Now, I'm subject to fits of depression and emotional numbness just like everyone else. The frequency and severity of these bouts are influenced by a million things from my genes to the weather, again just like everyone else. But I'm also capable of being happy and satisfied. It is possible that I would be happier with a belief in god? Possibly so, but it depends on what kind of god we're talking about here. The god of my childhood is a truly terrifying and unpredictable entity who loves and provides with one hand but tosses you into a pit of eternal torment with the other, at the slightest provocation. He's a real fusion of new and old testament, whose love and hatred burn with equal intensities and boil over at seemingly random times. I most definitely would not be happier believing that this kind of monster rules the universe. From what I've seen, many of the other gods out there are just as evil.
That being said, if you find that believing in god makes you happier, please do so! I've no right to tell how how to be happy and no desire to impose my worldview on you. All that I ask is that you give me the same courtesy in return. Please don't get mad at me when I say I don't believe in god, and don't assume that I'm a bad person simply because I don't go to church. Just let me be, and don't read my posts if you don't want my opinions.
As for what I do believe in, I'll take my chances with this world. I'll take my chances believing in what we can see and test and comprehend. I'll risk it all by believing that humanity is a heroic sort of creature, stranded on a little rock circling a burning star and constantly fighting back the encroaching darkness. Most of all, I'll risk it all by believing that we can succeed in this struggle, at least for a beautiful, brilliant little while.
The big, evil secret is that I don't believe in many of the things that they hold dear. To get right to the worst of it, I don't believe in god. I'm an atheist. It actually feels really good to write that! Admitting that I don't have an established belief in some kind of omnipotent deity feels so right, so honest. Anything else that I say or write just feels like a lie, like I'm trying to cover up my own feelings to make someone else feel better. I've got to say it again - I don't believe in god! Whew....what a relief.
I've never been able to tell my family for fear of ripping their hearts to shreds, and I'm scared to tell almost anyone from the south (where I grew up) for fear of immediate and total rejection. Remember that atheists are among the least trusted group of people in the states, I guess because we scare people. The word "atheist" invokes an image of an angry, miserable, callous monster for many people, even among those who are not particularly religious. That really makes me sad, because I don't feel like that kind of entity - painting me as a hateful monster is not accurate or fair.
Now, I'm subject to fits of depression and emotional numbness just like everyone else. The frequency and severity of these bouts are influenced by a million things from my genes to the weather, again just like everyone else. But I'm also capable of being happy and satisfied. It is possible that I would be happier with a belief in god? Possibly so, but it depends on what kind of god we're talking about here. The god of my childhood is a truly terrifying and unpredictable entity who loves and provides with one hand but tosses you into a pit of eternal torment with the other, at the slightest provocation. He's a real fusion of new and old testament, whose love and hatred burn with equal intensities and boil over at seemingly random times. I most definitely would not be happier believing that this kind of monster rules the universe. From what I've seen, many of the other gods out there are just as evil.
That being said, if you find that believing in god makes you happier, please do so! I've no right to tell how how to be happy and no desire to impose my worldview on you. All that I ask is that you give me the same courtesy in return. Please don't get mad at me when I say I don't believe in god, and don't assume that I'm a bad person simply because I don't go to church. Just let me be, and don't read my posts if you don't want my opinions.
As for what I do believe in, I'll take my chances with this world. I'll take my chances believing in what we can see and test and comprehend. I'll risk it all by believing that humanity is a heroic sort of creature, stranded on a little rock circling a burning star and constantly fighting back the encroaching darkness. Most of all, I'll risk it all by believing that we can succeed in this struggle, at least for a beautiful, brilliant little while.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Why Blog?
Hi there.
Welcome to my little blog. Why do I have one? What's the point? Well, let me try to be honest - I want to write stuff on the internet. I just do. I want to "hear myself think," so to speak. You probably won't be interested in anything I have to say, but that's okay. This blog is for me.
I have random thoughts just like anyone else. I want to deposit them on the internet to soothe my burning narcissism. Apparently my Facebook, Twitter, Fark, and EP account are not enough to quench my thirst for self-obsession. I'm reminded that each of us reigns over a "skull-sized kingdom." This is me standing on the balcony of my palace and pontificating to the loyal subjects in my head. Luckily for you, should you choose to get out of earshot, escape is only a click away.
Later!
Welcome to my little blog. Why do I have one? What's the point? Well, let me try to be honest - I want to write stuff on the internet. I just do. I want to "hear myself think," so to speak. You probably won't be interested in anything I have to say, but that's okay. This blog is for me.
I have random thoughts just like anyone else. I want to deposit them on the internet to soothe my burning narcissism. Apparently my Facebook, Twitter, Fark, and EP account are not enough to quench my thirst for self-obsession. I'm reminded that each of us reigns over a "skull-sized kingdom." This is me standing on the balcony of my palace and pontificating to the loyal subjects in my head. Luckily for you, should you choose to get out of earshot, escape is only a click away.
Later!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)