Text

I couldn’t remember someone’s name so I described it as such. I was particularly pleased.

Quote

"Raise your words, not voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder."

- Rumi (via ohteenscanrelate)

(via greeenarrow)

Source: ohteenscanrelate
Photo Set
Text

The moon arcs across the ceiling of the sky, and I, unmoving, reflect on that which has occurred. Too many times have I allowed myself to ignore and push past important moments of reflection, but now I take the time to commit it all to the electrical ether. The weekend was grand. After almost an entire quarter of Mock Trial -lessness, I returned to the team for what turned out to be one last tournament. Though our journey to Orlando was cut short, not a single regret has passed my lips nor has one splashed the canvas of my mind. All that is painted, the memories and joys, is absolutely positive. Each frame I recollect is filled with fantastic, and dare I say it, beauteous people. Some in form, but all in spirit. What occurs to me now is the feeling of belonging and the honor of that belonging. We have done very well, our performance respected and praised and our conduct defended by many. I am glad that the note upon which I leave this program is more positive than I could have believed. As the heavens slide away and beckon the new day, I am content and fulfilled. I wish the best of luck to all friends and honorable competitors whom we met and faced this weekend. Nationals should be a showdown of magnificent performance and incredible skill. Before styles are to clash at the meeting of the Mocking Minds, let it be know this day that I am honored to have been a member of the UCSD Mock Trial team and I would be pleased to be recognized as part of this outstanding group of individuals. So much has changed since that first day, those many months ago, when I thought maybe I could do something with my accents, and as it comes to a resounding close, I hope that he who tried out would be proud and impressed at what he went on to accomplish. I am him and he is me and for that we are thankful.

As to the title written here, search the meaning if you are interested. To me it sums up perfectly our experience this weekend. Our performance was solid, but the Universe deferred our reward. But the reward was not the goal, it was all in our experience, our duty.

Video
Text

oṁ tryambakaṁ yajāmahe sugandhiṁ puṣṭi-vardhanaṁurvārukam-iva bandhanān mṛtyormukṣīya mā ∫ mṛtāt

We worship the Three-eyed Lord who is fragrant and who nourishes and nurtures all beings. As is the ripened cucumber (with the intervention of the gardener) freed from its bondage (to the creeper) May He liberate us from death for the sake of immortality.

Whenever I return to consult these philosophical paragons, I am left with more than I expect. I have chanted this mantra many times before, but have never known its meaning as such. I am floored by the simplicity and yet the profound nature of the mantra. “As is the ripened cucumber free from its bondage” is such a clear analogy, I wonder how the rshis dispensed such impressive notions so seemingly easily. It really makes me believe certain things, because such language is not easy and certainly not trivial. And in a way, it is deeply appropriate now, but I will read no more into it tonight. Tomorrow is another day and I have asked for more clarity to rise with the sun. I have faith it will come. Good night.

Text

I went out into the night with questions and sat upon a wall that looked out into the void, a valley below. I voiced those queries that for these few days have bounced around my mind, and waited… Though the night echoed nothing back to me, I felt anxiety lift and dissolve. In its place remained insight for which I am deeply grateful. To all those who weather troubling times, I offer my condolences and the fact that I have found a little peace this night, a peace I wish to share and wish upon all of you who are feeling such sorrow. Though I know not the extent of your anguish, I wish you the will, strength, and hope to overcome it. If I have seen anything, it is that a great deal of love and hope has been left on this earth and that can be propagated forth. In building such a future, our memories of the past will be truly honored and celebrated. I bid each and every one a good night, and a morning of clarity that sustains you through what is to come. God Bless. JSK. ONS.

Photo

death-psychedelic:

The original is about 7000 x 3000; zooming in to see the mountains on the edge is amazing.

(via quantumaniac)

Source: death-psychedelic
Photo
georgetakei:

In case you weren’t depressed enough tonight. http://ift.tt/1na5JOp

Tell me would you please about coincident lines…

georgetakei:

In case you weren’t depressed enough tonight. http://ift.tt/1na5JOp

Tell me would you please about coincident lines…

Source: georgetakei
Link

http://minimadman.tumblr.com/post/77574766218/just-a-little-while-ago-i-watched-the-creation

minimadman:

masteravnishcpatel:

minimadman:

Just a little while ago, I watched the creation vs. evolution debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Both sides had their moments, but what really stuck out to me was Ken Ham’s main argument against evolution. His whole point revolved around the idea of there being two sciences: “observable/empirical”, which is the here and now science that enables us to innovate and discover; and “historical”, which brings up theories about how the universe, earth, and life was created. Ham’s argument could be distilled into this: since we weren’t there, we cannot prove how the earth was created, and that the way things are today doesn’t necessarily reflect the way they were when earth was created. Any arguments for evolution, the big bang theory, etc. are merely perspectives and opinions, and should be regarded as such.

Now, as much of a scientist or “evolutionist” you may be, this is somewhat of a fair point. If you think about it, all we know about life, earth, and its origins has been told to us by scientists, much in the way we are “told” of the word of god. Scientific fact and theory are both grounded in the discoveries, experiments, and mutual agreement of humans—which, like the interpretation of religion, makes it not an absolute truth. On a more existential note, we simply cannot know an absolute truth, because all we know is what we’re told or what we see, and we cannot possibly trust everything we’re told as 100% true, and we cannot possibly see everything.

Being on the evolutionist side myself, I tend to believe it much more because of its ability to predict, as Bill Nye argued. The scientific method creates theories which we can continually test and verify for all of human existence, and each verification reinforces the accepted theory. But still, it is not an absolute truth, it is merely a widely accepted, conditional truth, that is true on all observable accounts to the best of our knowledge. This is the best we can do as humans.

What breaks my brain is how Ken Ham can claim to be a scientist who adheres to this scientific philosophy of seeking truth, when he accepts the Bible as the end-all word of god unconditionally. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like such a glaring inconsistency. How can you be so critical of evolution, the big bang, and other scientifically reinforced ideas, yet when it comes to a book written by humans thousands of years ago and translated in many different languages and variations, you accept it without criticism? What about the bible makes it exempt from this criticism? I just don’t understand. Wouldn’t you, as a scientist, be super critical of the bible’s origins, who wrote it, who Jesus actually was, and why the bible was even written in the first place? Shouldn’t you be exploring the the truth of the bible as much as any other historical document or scientific theory?

The popular argument from religious perspectives is that if you open your mind and wish to believe in god, then god, the bible, etc will reveal its truth to you. But isn’t that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you enter with the intention of believing, you’re already there. It’s like hypnosis; if you’re critical of it, you’ll never be “hypnotized”. Only those who believe that it will work end up fully experiencing it. So then, is religion purely psychological? I don’t know, but I’d love to find out.

For about half a year, I received lessons about the book of Mormon from missionaries in my hometown. At the end of my last lesson, after I expressed my desire to discontinue them, one of the missionaries asked me this: “No matter what you decide in terms of your faith, will you at least accept Jesus as your savior?”
“I don’t know. I do not know who Jesus was. He may have been the only son of god, he may not have been, and I’m not sure I’ll ever know.”

I think it is interesting. I didn’t listen to the debate, but what I heard about it seems to be reflected in your post. I was thinking about the nature of the Divine the other day too. The idea is that nothing human can capture the Infinite Nature of the Divine, not one or a million books. You can only know Truth by experiencing it in an empirical sense, but I can’t lead you there. To know is to know. And that idea is difficult to wrap one’s head around, that is why faith is considered to be so important. So the reason that Ken Ham accepts the Bible is because he has faith that the nature of God is Truth and because the Bible is the word of God, he cannot doubt it. Skepticism in this sense is a threat to his faith, but science is all about skepticism. So it is understandable that nothing Bill Nye says could possibly change Ken Ham’s mind and vice versa because they operate in different arenas of thought and belief. In order to have a logical argument, there are certain assumptions that have to be agreed upon and neither side will ever concede for their respective reasons. That’s why I don’t think that arguing science and religion has merit. Rather I believe that the positive and beneficial aspects of each should be accepted. I am perfectly comfortable having faith and being scientific. I don’t understand why everyone else can’t quite get there. I’ve met many people who have no problem with reconciling both sides. Truth is truth, spiritual or scientific.

I certainly agree with your sentiments that arguing science and religion doesn’t have merit. But that was the whole basis of their debate: “Is creationism a viable scientific model?” The whole idea of creationism is based off of interpreting the bible’s account of how the world was made as scientific fact. That is to say, religion is being regarded as science. My point was that skepticism seems to be absent when Ham is evaluating the bible—which is fine, if you’re looking at it as a pillar of your faith—but when you’re promoting it as fact? That’s contradictory to all other forms of science, and it doesn’t make sense to me. But of course, science and religion can coexist, as both Ham and Nye agreed. Creationists can be successful scientists, and scientists can be deeply religious.

You’re right of course, it makes no sense whatsoever. I think it comes down the fact that science is verifiable and testable, and as you said reflects the best knowledge of its time. Many religions have survived in modern society because they have been reinterpreted in the scope of humanity’s advancement. I think creationists tend to stick to a very conservative interpretation that forbids them from questioning the Bible, which again is counter to anything science stands for. There is no empirical domain that science dare not probe. Science grows by the exercise of curiosity and humble skepticism. Creationism could never hope to represent such beautiful interests. Creationists fail to be convinced by argument because their beliefs run contrary to logical reasoning, and that’s why they won’t concede. So we can agree that creationism clearly is not science, and that it breaks our brains that they cannot understand that FACT. I’m sorry I couldn’t be of more help, all I can do is commiserate… 

Let me know if you figure it out, will you please.

Source: minimadman
Link

http://minimadman.tumblr.com/post/77574766218/just-a-little-while-ago-i-watched-the-creation

minimadman:

Just a little while ago, I watched the creation vs. evolution debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Both sides had their moments, but what really stuck out to me was Ken Ham’s main argument against evolution. His whole point revolved around the idea of there being two sciences: “observable/empirical”, which is the here and now science that enables us to innovate and discover; and “historical”, which brings up theories about how the universe, earth, and life was created. Ham’s argument could be distilled into this: since we weren’t there, we cannot prove how the earth was created, and that the way things are today doesn’t necessarily reflect the way they were when earth was created. Any arguments for evolution, the big bang theory, etc. are merely perspectives and opinions, and should be regarded as such.

Now, as much of a scientist or “evolutionist” you may be, this is somewhat of a fair point. If you think about it, all we know about life, earth, and its origins has been told to us by scientists, much in the way we are “told” of the word of god. Scientific fact and theory are both grounded in the discoveries, experiments, and mutual agreement of humans—which, like the interpretation of religion, makes it not an absolute truth. On a more existential note, we simply cannot know an absolute truth, because all we know is what we’re told or what we see, and we cannot possibly trust everything we’re told as 100% true, and we cannot possibly see everything.

Being on the evolutionist side myself, I tend to believe it much more because of its ability to predict, as Bill Nye argued. The scientific method creates theories which we can continually test and verify for all of human existence, and each verification reinforces the accepted theory. But still, it is not an absolute truth, it is merely a widely accepted, conditional truth, that is true on all observable accounts to the best of our knowledge. This is the best we can do as humans.

What breaks my brain is how Ken Ham can claim to be a scientist who adheres to this scientific philosophy of seeking truth, when he accepts the Bible as the end-all word of god unconditionally. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like such a glaring inconsistency. How can you be so critical of evolution, the big bang, and other scientifically reinforced ideas, yet when it comes to a book written by humans thousands of years ago and translated in many different languages and variations, you accept it without criticism? What about the bible makes it exempt from this criticism? I just don’t understand. Wouldn’t you, as a scientist, be super critical of the bible’s origins, who wrote it, who Jesus actually was, and why the bible was even written in the first place? Shouldn’t you be exploring the the truth of the bible as much as any other historical document or scientific theory?

The popular argument from religious perspectives is that if you open your mind and wish to believe in god, then god, the bible, etc will reveal its truth to you. But isn’t that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you enter with the intention of believing, you’re already there. It’s like hypnosis; if you’re critical of it, you’ll never be “hypnotized”. Only those who believe that it will work end up fully experiencing it. So then, is religion purely psychological? I don’t know, but I’d love to find out.

For about half a year, I received lessons about the book of Mormon from missionaries in my hometown. At the end of my last lesson, after I expressed my desire to discontinue them, one of the missionaries asked me this: “No matter what you decide in terms of your faith, will you at least accept Jesus as your savior?”
“I don’t know. I do not know who Jesus was. He may have been the only son of god, he may not have been, and I’m not sure I’ll ever know.”

I think it is interesting. I didn’t listen to the debate, but what I heard about it seems to be reflected in your post. I was thinking about the nature of the Divine the other day too. The idea is that nothing human can capture the Infinite Nature of the Divine, not one or a million books. You can only know Truth by experiencing it in an empirical sense, but I can’t lead you there. To know is to know. And that idea is difficult to wrap one’s head around, that is why faith is considered to be so important. So the reason that Ken Ham accepts the Bible is because he has faith that the nature of God is Truth and because the Bible is the word of God, he cannot doubt it. Skepticism in this sense is a threat to his faith, but science is all about skepticism. So it is understandable that nothing Bill Nye says could possibly change Ken Ham’s mind and vice versa because they operate in different arenas of thought and belief. In order to have a logical argument, there are certain assumptions that have to be agreed upon and neither side will ever concede for their respective reasons. That’s why I don’t think that arguing science and religion has merit. Rather I believe that the positive and beneficial aspects of each should be accepted. I am perfectly comfortable having faith and being scientific. I don’t understand why everyone else can’t quite get there. I’ve met many people who have no problem with reconciling both sides. Truth is truth, spiritual or scientific.

Source: minimadman
Photo Set

mackenzie-destroyer-of-worlds:

amandaonwriting:

Nine Wonderful Words About Words from 25 things you had no idea there were words for

I DIDNT REALIZE I NEEDED THIS IN MY LIFE

(via bullshifter)

Source: amandaonwriting
Text
Photo Set
Quote

"

“If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.”
― Albert Einstein

“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.”
― G.K. Chesterton

“Fear isn’t so difficult to understand. After all, weren’t we all frightened as children? Nothing has changed since Little Red Riding Hood faced the big bad wolf. What frightens us today is exactly the same sort of thing that frightened us yesterday. It’s just a different wolf.”
― Alfred Hitchcock

“Deeper meaning resides in the fairy tales told to me in my childhood than in the truth that is taught by life.”
― Friedrich von Schiller

"

-

I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that fairy tales are about emotional truths. No one reads a fairy tale and thinks that they may literally have to slay an ogre, or steal the golden goose, or wear out seven pairs of iron shoes and dress in a thousand furs to find the prince, but some people criticize them, saying this is unrealistic, this is all there is to the tale. Put a little thought into it. In your life, you may not have to climb mountains to find the home of the north wind, but you might have to ask someone intimidating for help. You may never have to trick the wicked prince into looking into the glass-filled barrel, or the witch into peering into the oven, but you might have to sacrifice someone else’s comfort for your own wellbeing. Your mother might not be wicked, but sometimes you’ll be angry with her. You might not be turned into a Beast, but sometimes it feels like there’s nothing about you worth loving. Fairy tales remind you of that. They remind you that there are troubles and trials, and that this is normal. It is the way of things, and you’ll come through it. (via agreyeyedgirl)

Dragons can be killed… :)

(via wilwheaton)

Source: batbcomic