Varlawend: Mysteries Among the Stars

Love is a lavender scented bubble bath of pure oxytocin overlooking a rustic room dimly lit by smoldering magma and golden ambrosia. It's massaging bed sheets made from french silk pie clouds under a cool night breeze, where it beguiles with hypnotic fae folk lullabies, murmuring me into the transcendent dream gnosis of serenity. It's the cuteness of fluffy kitten puppy dog eyes made manifest physically and abstractly in the very air around me, the nudging grace of divine nature. It thrusts me into ecstatic communion with all, cajoling my entire world into suspending its frivolous wars with an everlasting mutual embrace. It's a steam that thaws my aching heart in even the most bitter tempest, rising up through my chest as if through a heretofore hermetically sealed love potion enduring under the frosty Arctic tundras. Gazing upon its euphoria lifts me nakedly into divine rays of the sun, divulging all my depths to the court of luminosity, presided by all of Nature's Lo

I'm currently weighing a case I've been considering about the concept of monopolies. It started from this interesting NYTimes article asking the question of whether it makes sense to break up companies like Google, Facebook, and Amazon: https://www.nytimes.com/…/is-it-time-to-break-up-google.htm… First, it points to a 10 year shift in the 5 most powerful companies. In 2007, it was Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Citigroup, and Shell Oil. Nowadays, Microsoft is still up there, but the other players are Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook. It explains their degree of market share in their respective domains, and points out that they aggressively acquire other companies as well, so their growth doesn't show any signs of languishing. Besides "Natural" monopolies like water/telecommunications/etc., the argument seems to be that other kinds of monopolies, massive consolidations of private power are dangerous. Examples of this can be seen with the 2008 b

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9334215/equality-of-opportunity I read a piece on the data-driven journalism website, Vox, called: The Case Against Equality of Opportunity.  It was from a friend who took quite a fancy to the piece.  It purports to question the near ubiquitous notion of equality of opportunity as an ideal in political discourse.  I was intrigued at first, but ultimately very disappointed in what the article offered.  I included the link to the article above even though I quote the article below, just in case someone wanted to see any of the few tidbits I left out.  You may want to read the first paragraph of the piece for background as well. “The only problem? No one really wants equality of opportunity, nor anything close to it. Nor should they. Pursuing true equality of opportunity would require turning America into a dystopian, totalitarian nightmare — and even then, it would still prove impossible.” At this point, I’ll just be charitable and assume this is so

Here is what was said to me in a dialogue with a fairly insistent Law of Attraction supporter named Sebastian: Sebastian:  The point is that its ok to think about how reality works and respect logic stuff, but i still insist that if you knew well yourself god would exist in your heart and your mind. If you dont believe in your existence then you dont belive in god because he is everything that exists, if you dont believe in the existense and the love that you feel for others you are just trapped in your physical body instead of being connected with your true self and that is what makes you suffer, to be trapped in your body and just being nothing else than a simple person (ego) separated from the reality like its something totally independent of yourself. People that really know themselves are beings that are closer to god. If you achieve to trascend the duality with your mind you get to know a better reality, but if you are trapped thinking that just what you see is the real thing

Personal Demon Hunting Styles It is inevitable that we acquire personal styles and habits through our forays into open table discourse. Besides differences in our innate essences, whether from nature or involuntary relationships like family, we also go on different adventures, which habituates us to different stimuli. In the process of our journey, we'll develop vastly different homeostatic equilibria and skills as compared to people who share our personality, and who share our socio-biological origins. Nonetheless, the comforts to which we become accustomed, the ways we become so set in, and the opinions we become so certain of are all but crude shadows of Natural Law in all its glory. We all possess glimmers of the shining light of truth, and some possess far more than others, but all humans are possessed of comforts, ways, and opinions that are little more than the mirage of an oasis for them before the beating sun of the uncompromising Natural Law desert. It's no su

Demon Hunting:  Specificity versus Vagueness A possibly helpful series of primers: Sense, Reference and Demons Gottlob Frege: Sense and Reference  (Only if you still haven't seen it) If you imagine your Apparatus as a prorgramming application ensemble as we were discussing previously, then you can better grasp the role of Sense and Reference in demon hunting.  The more sense-centric your focus, the more you're going to focus on bettering the program itself without trying to end at a particular result.  This is the more Yin exercise associated with Vagueness, and the demons become increasingly impotent before a sense-centric approach because you are pure of intention and without lust of result; you aren't even trying to destroy specific demons, rather they will only be destroyed by a focus on doing the right thing, regardless of what that means.  If the demons want to stop you, the more vague you become, the more they will be forced to reveal themselves.  Ev