Saturday, February 6, 2010
Why are we here? The multitude of ideological rationalizations and justifications that are the foundation of masses of people being fixated on the idea of a God figure that is the aspiration that represents universal optimism that most people are fixated upon. Where did these ideological aspirations come from? We are intelligent life, but why do we have to have the support of an aspiration? It could be because we have emotional ambiguities and the unobjectionable fixation to rationalize the conditions around us. What we cannot discover though science we have to justify through fantasies that are replicated out of the delusional articulation of the universe. If anything, these ideological justifications are the obvious foundation of conflicting ramifications and have failed to reach an ideological utilization, but only ends with consistent belligerency between religions. That should be substantial evidence that humanity is destructive amongst each other for something that accumulates fear in the temporal subconscious that is expressed by deliberate belligerent behaviour amongst the opposing intellectual spectrum. The masses collaborate ideologies over something that is ambiguous and ambiguity creates fear, and fear creates conflict of interests of the central spectrum of thought. Perhaps fear is the reason for the perpetual belligerency and the foundation for the massive likelihood of a rationalization in each individuals mind because every individual has fear and fear is what forces the articulation of delusional and irrational justifications that eventually lead to collaborative ramifications that lead to a manifestation of belligerency that goes perpetually without relinquishment.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
"God is dead" thus Nietzsche spoke, my interpretation of this insinuation is not the simple statement spoken by a atheistic nihilist, but a derogatory utterance of God being dead meaning the transgression of optimism by entering a state of complacency that fabricates temporal compression on massive demographics of people that are "hopeless" in every sense of the word. Thus it becomes the aspirational obligation of the prophet Zarathustra to strike the nucleus of this systematic neurosis that has particular emphasis on the profoundest depths of humanity. This realization of God's death incorporates a metamorphosis in the prophet and cures a selective multitude of individuals. If God died, what would that do to your unobjectionable affinity for optimism that you so passionately justify the universe with? I believe that the central spectrum of people chose to believe in God because of the inevitable ramifications of facing the suffering that every individual is obligated to endure in a life consistent to fluctuation. God is the aspiration that people use to rationalize and justify the ambiguous universe that we can only wonder and hypothesize the reason why we are all here. The Human consciousness is the neutralization of this persistent philosophical manifold of utilized ideas about the secrets that lie within the depths of humanity. Thus we preach amongst each other in the futile effort to establish an ultimate truth. The theological demographics of cerebral activity are obligated to collaborative ramifications that have residual belligerency. Two conflictive intellectual spectrums create a irrefutable manifestation of assiduous speculation towards each opposing delegation of the common current thought. They both distinguish the distinctive difference from each other through an intricate structure of duplicity. Singular stability of mutual aspirations to implement a meticulous distribution of thought. This replicates fixations of requisite exposition of a perceived justification of the external stimulus. Your beliefs may be opposed, but if your passionate about them you will defend them.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
While the notion remains resiliently assiduous,there is an unacknowledged systematic indignation and at an eventual point it will assimilate a prestigious synchronization to preclude it's relative negativity amongst the mutual thought of the scientific community. Virgin birth. The ambiguously sanctimonious virginal conception of the Central figure of Christianity has perpetuated a residual thought of possibility in my mind. When a child is conceived obviously two genetic signatures are required to procreate. If one genetic signature is replicated then it would make a genetically pure child that has an indistinguishable genetic signature from the mother. We are living in a residual paradox of tangible perception. The world as we know it, is only bio electrical signals assiduously interpreted by our brains. As the human brain has a habituation of the illumination and collaboration of the external stimulus, it is a filtration apparatus for the individual. We all perceive the world in different ways, therefore there is no absolute perceived residual reality. Like a pure perception of the world, it's like a genetically pure child of only one genetic signature. To purely perceive the world we would have to be in a sub-conscious dimension but in the same place. The genetic code of a child would be superimposed on by the collaboration of the two different genetic signatures. The perception of the world is obstructed by the limitations of the brain collaborated with the external stimulus. Pure perception is obstructed, like a pure genetic signature in a child.
Friday, January 1, 2010
The habituation of a perpetually administering stimulus superimposed by a meticulous indignation of a seemingly convalescent reality. Optimism versus pessimism. Each day our replicating quiescence is justified by the cruel means of reality. The alterations of our consciousness is obstructed by the miraculous religious justification of the supercilious but commonplace coincidences of every day life. The resolutely mutual justification of miracles are futile in every scene of our pessimistic reality. The individuals that have a representation of a rational delegation are morally prosecuted for a transgression of optimism. The zealously inert demographic have a sense of moderation in the perceived conditions of the matter. While each fastidious plane of thought creates a confrontational reaction, a delegation of opinion is yet to be influenced in an age of assimilation. If the fortunate occurrence of a delegated opinion is influenced, then there is a likely hood of it being frivolous and transparent to the opposing means of perception. The repression of the delegation of opinion would be immanent and very precise due to the opposite resolute opinion and would become a residual disobedience to the delegation. Or perhaps that's just my pessimism speaking?