Ellora Kailash Temple Built by Aliens

Featured post

10 Pictures facts you must know this Sunday

download (17)--all continents1. Each continent on the earth starts and end with same letter
2.The word Queue is the only word pronounced same as first letterimages--Q
3.The earth we live in is the only planet in solar system not named after a God because human live here .images--earth in solar system
4.Elephant is the only mammal on earth which can not jump.019 - Copy
5.More people are killed by bees than by snakes.

download (11)--Honey bee
6.More number of people are allergic to cow milk than other food.
download (3)--cow milk
7.Pure honey is only food which never spoils.Proved from Egypt Pharaoh (3)--pure honey
8.Most of the dust particles on your bed are from dead skin.images--dust of skin
9.The longest flight in time recorded for a chicken is 13 (30)
10.It is impossible to sneeze with open eye .download (17)--sneeze with eye

Featured post

ଘରକୁ ଅତିଥି ଆସିଥିଲେ, ତେଣୁ କିଛି sweets ମଗାଇବା ପାଇଁ… Sweets ଦୋକାନକୁ ଫୋନ୍ ଲଗେଇଲି… . …tring tring.. Behera sweets stall ରେ ଆପଣଙ୍କୁ ସ୍ୱାଗତ, କୁହନ୍ତୁ ଆପଣଙ୍କର କଣ ଦରକାର…! . ମୁଁ :- କିଛି ମିଠା ଦରକାର ଥିଲା । . ଦୋକାନୀ:- ଲଡ୍ଡୁ ପାଇଁ ୧ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ ରସଗୋଲା ପାଇଁ ୨ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ ଛଣା ଜିନିସ ପାଇଁ ୩ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ । . ମୁଁ କହିଲି ଲଡ୍ଡୁ ଦରକାର । . ଦୋକାନୀ:- ବୁନ୍ଦି ପାଇଁ ୧ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ ଗୁଲାବ ଜାମୁ ପାଇଁ ୨ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ ଜଲେବୀ ପାଇଁ ୩ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ । . ମୁଁ ୧ ଦବେଇଲି ବୁନ୍ଦି ପାଇଁ । . ଦୋକାନୀ:- 10kg ପାଇଁ ୧ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ 25kg ପାଇଁ ୨ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ 50kg ପାଇଁ ୩ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ । . . ବାଉଳାରେ ମୁଁ ୩ ଦବେଇଦେଲି । 😜😜😜😜😜 . ଡରିଜାଇ ଫୋନ୍ କାଟିଦେଲି.. କିଛି ସମୟ ପରେ ସେପଟୁ ଫୋନ୍ ଆସିଲା😯😯 ଆପଣ 50kg ବୁନ୍ଦି ଅର୍ଡର କରିଛନ୍ତି… …… Address କୁହନ୍ତୁ ।😅😅 . ମୁଁ କହିଲି – ମୁଁ ଫୋନ୍ କରିନଥିଲି । . ଦୋକାନୀ:- ସାର , ଆପଣଙ୍କ ଭାଇ ଫୋନ୍ କରିଥିବେ.. ଏଇ ନମ୍ବରରୁ ଫୋନ୍ ଆସିଥିଲା ।😉😉 . ମୁଁ କହିଲି – ଆମେ ୬ ଭାଇ. ବଡ ସହିତ କଥା ହେବାକୁ ୧ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ 😄😄 ତା ଠୁ ସାନ ସହିତ କଥା ହେବାକୁ ୨ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ । ତା ଠୁ ସାନ ପାଇଁ ୩ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ ତା ଠୁ ସାନ ପାଇଁ ୪ ଦବାନ୍ତୁ ସେ ଫୋନ୍ କାଟିଦେଲା….. Market re Ñua, Pura Ghantidia 😆😆

A boss presume an affirmative reply from yoy

Imagine it’s your first day in a new job. You sit down at your desk for the first time, and waiting for you there is a note from your new boss.

In the note your boss bids you a warm welcome to the company, and then says this:

1: My most important priority is your happiness and productivity at work. If there’s anything I can do to make you happier and more efficient – tell me right away. This isn’t idealism, it’s good business, because happy people are more productive.

2: I will not burden you with endless rules and regulations. You’re an adult – I trust you to use your best judgment.

3: You have my full permission to screw up, as long as you own up to it, apologize to those affected and learn from it.

4: Please tell me when I screw up so I can apologize and learn from it.

5: Please make sure to hunt down people who do great work and praise them for it. I will do this as much as humanly possible, but I can’t do it alone.

6: If I get it right occasionally, I’d love to hear about it from you, too :o)

7: I will always have time for you. My calendar will never be so full that my next free time to talk to you is three weeks from next Friday.

8: I want to know about you as an employee AND as a human being. I DO care about your private life, about your and your family’s health and well-being.

9: Life is more than work. If you’re regularly working overtime, you’re just making yourself less happy and more stressed. Don’t join the cult of overwork – it’s bad for you and the company.

10: I expect you to take responsibility for your own well-being at work. If you can do something today to make yourself, a co-worker or me a little happier at work – do it!

This post was inspired by Michael Wade’s post over at ExecuPundit called Note from boss to employees. I liked his tips but I found the tone of them a little defensive. Michael’s tips had an undercurrent of “business is hard and being a leader is tough but we can slog it out together.”

I disagree – work is great fun (or at least it could and should be)

25 Famous Thinkers and Their Inspiring Daily Rituals

Many find it interesting to glimpse inside the lives of famous thinkers in an effort to understand where such thought and intelligence is rooted. In that vein, here is a peek into the routines and rituals that writers, philosophers, and statesmen have depended on to keep their work on track and their thoughts flowing. Whether you need inspiration to make it through the next college semester of your bachelor’s degree, finishing up your master’s degree program, or are working on a future best-selling novel, explore these daily rituals you may want to incorporate into your life.
CS Lewis. Writer and thinker CS Lewis had a very clear schedule of his day, with activities such as work, walking, meals, tea, and socializing down to the very hour they should be done. He even describes when beer should be enjoyed (not at 11:00 for fear of running over the allotted 10 minutes for the break).
John Cheever. American writer John Cheever wore his only suit of clothing each morning as he rode the elevator down to a basement room where he worked. Upon arriving there, he would undress to his underwear, hang up his suit, and get to work. He would dress to go back upstairs for lunch and again at the end of his day when he would ride the elevator back home.
Fred Rogers. Don’t doubt that Fred Rogers was indeed a great thinker, despite the fact that he is best known as the familiar Mr. Rogers from the long-lasting PBS children’s show. His television show was a safe place for many young children, by his design, and he fought hard, in his quiet manner, for the show to stay on the air. The famous routine that started and ended his show was not the only routine in his life. Each day he would wake at 5:30 and begin his day with reading, writing, study, and prayer. He would take a swim most days of his life, take a late-afternoon nap, and go to bed at 9:30 each night. Perhaps the most idiosyncratic of his rituals was that he kept his weight at 143 pounds his entire adult life. He saw his weight one day and realized it aligned with the number of letters in “I love you” and vowed to maintain that weight, which he did.
Stephen King. This famed writer keeps to a strict routine each day, starting the morning with a cup of tea or water and his vitamin. King sits down to work between 8:00 and 8:30 in the same seat with his papers arranged on his desk in the same way. He claims that starting off with such consistency provides a signal to his mind in preparation for his work.
Gertrude Stein. This famous writer discovered inspiration in her car. Apparently she would sit in her parked car and write poetry on scraps of paper.
Immanuel Kant. Kant would begin his day with one or two cups of weak tea and a pipe of tobacco. While smoking, he would meditate. He would then prepare for his lectures, conduct lectures from 7:00 to 11:00, write, then have lunch. Lunch would be followed by a walk and time with his friend. The evening would consist of a bit more light work and reading.
Barack Obama. Taking care of physical fitness and family are two important elements of President Obama’s daily ritual. He starts his day with a workout at 6:45, reads several newspapers, has breakfast with his family, and then starts his work day just before 9:00 in the morning. He may work as late as 10:00 some evenings, but always stops to have dinner with his family each day.
Alexander Dumas. Whether or not he had heard the adage about keeping the doctor away, the writer of The Count of Monte Cristo and The Three Musketeers, Dumas started each day eating an apple under the Arc de Triomphe.
Benjamin Franklin. Franklin kept to a tight schedule, starting his day waking at 4:00 am. Until 8:00, he would wake, wash, eat breakfast, and think about what he would accomplish for the day. From 8:00 to 12:00, he worked. Lunch was from 12:00-1:00, where he ate, read, or looked over his accounts. He then worked until 5:00. The evening was filled with dinner, cleaning up, music or conversation, a look back over his day, and then bed at 10:00.
Haruki Murakami. This popular Japanese novelist sticks to a specific daily schedule that begins at 4:00 when he awakes. He writes for five or six hours, then either runs 10k or swims 1500 meters (or sometimes, both). After his workout, he reads and listens to music until he goes to bed at 9:00. Murakami claims that writing a novel requires both the physical and mental strength that his routine provides.
Franz Kafka. Kafka started his day at his job at the Workers’ Accident Insurance Institute from 8:30 to 2:30. Afterward he would lunch until 3:30, then sleep until 7:30. Upon waking, he would do exercises and have dinner with his family. He began writing at 11:00 in the evening, usually working until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning–sometimes later.
Toni Morrison. Writer Toni Morrison describes not only her daily routine, but the importance of rituals to writers. Morrison describes her own ritual involving making a cup of coffee and watching the light come into the day. Her habit of rising early was first formed as the mother to three children, but after her children left home, she discovered a routine of her own–that still includes early mornings. Morrison urges all writers to look at what time of day they are most productive and what type of surrounding is most conducive to their work to help form rituals that will promote creativity.
Ingmar Bergman. This famous director, writer, and producer of film and drama demanded quiet and set schedules. While working on a play in 1996, he was reported to stand outside the rehearsal hall half an hour before rehearsal to ensure the actors were not socializing. He had a set time for beginning work, taking lunch, and ending work. He disliked noise, meeting new people, and crowds of people. While he aspired to a quite life of writing without deadlines on the island of Faro, he could not actually stay with his retirement, and returned to the scheduled life of work. He was still working just a few years prior to his death in 2007.
Charles Darwin. In his middle and later years, Darwin stuck to a very rigid schedule that started at 7:00 in the morning with a short walk, then breakfast. He would then work throughout the morning. Lunch, at 12:45, was his biggest meal of the day. His afternoon was also scheduled and consisted of two walks, reading, and backgammon. Darwin could not tolerate much socializing, and kept it to a maximum of 30 minutes at a time.
Kingsley Amis. This British comic novelist and poet was also famous for his love of alcohol. He kept to a strict routine of writing in the morning until about 1:00, when he would take care of his dressing and shaving, then begin the afternoon with a drink and a smoke. He would work until lunch at 2:00 or 2:15, sometimes going back after lunch to work and sometimes not. He considered any work accomplished in the afternoon a bonus. When the bar opened at 6:00, he would fortify himself with more alcohol and work again until 8:30.
Winston Churchill. While Churchill’s routine may not be for everyone, it seemed to revolve around lots of food and drink. He would rise at 7:30 and stay in bed until 11:00 where he would eat breakfast, read several newspapers, and dictate to his secretaries. When he finally got out of bed, he would bathe, take a walk outside, then settle in to work with a weak whisky and soda. Lunch began at 1:00 and lasted until 3:30, after which he would work or play cards or backgammon with his wife. At 5:00 he napped for an hour and a half, then bathed again and got ready for dinner. Dinner was considered the highlight of his day, with much socializing, drinking, and smoking that sometimes went past midnight. After his guests left, he would then work for another hour or so before heading to bed.
Aldous Huxley. This famous thinker and writer would start early each day sharing a breakfast with his wife. He would work uninterrupted until lunchtime. After lunch, he and his wife would go for a drive or a walk, then he would return to work again from 5:00 to 7:00, then have dinner. After dinner, his wife would read to him until almost midnight. Due to an eye illness early in life that left Huxley with very poor eyesight, he relied heavily on his wife to do many activities for him besides reading. She often typed his manuscripts and was even reported to have cut his steak for him at dinner.
James Thurber. Another writer with difficulties seeing, Thurber would often compose his work in his head at almost anyplace he found himself. His wife would recognize the look in his eyes and interrupt him mid-paragraph while they were socializing at a party, and his daughter saw him retreat into his private world over dinner. His method later in life was to spend all morning composing his text in his head, then between 2:00 and 5:00 he would dictate about 2,000 words to his secretary.
Gunter Grass. This German writer starts his day at 9:00 or 10:00 with a long breakfast that includes reading and music. Afterwards, he begins working, taking only a break for coffee in the afternoon, and finishes at 7:00 in the evening. He claims that he needs daylight to work effectively. When he writes at night, the work comes easily, but upon reading it in the morning, appears to be of lesser quality.
John Grisham. When Grisham first began writing, he still had his day job as a lawyer. In order to do both, he stuck to a ritual of waking at 5:00 and shower, then head off to his office, just five minutes from home. He had to be sitting at his desk with a cup of coffee and a yellow legal pad by 5:30. He gave himself a goal of writing one page per day. Sometimes this page went as quickly as ten minutes while other days required one or two hours. After finishing his daily page of writing, Grisham would then turn his attention to his day job.
Gerhard Richter. Famous German artist, Gerhard Richter, sticks to the same basic routine he has for years. He wakes at 6:15 and makes breakfast for his family, then takes his daughter to school. By 8:00 he is in his studio, where he stays until lunch at 1:00. After lunch, he returns to this studio until the evening. He claims that his days are not usually filled with painting, but with the planning of his pieces. He puts off the actual painting until he has created a kind of crisis for himself, then pours himself into it.
Simone de Beauvoir. French writer and lifelong companion to Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir reported that she got bored if she didn’t work and tried to work every day except the few months she would take off to travel. While writing, she woke with tea, then began her work around 10:00. She would work until 1:00, then have lunch and socialize with friends. At 5:00, she would resume working, usually at Sartre’s apartment, until she would stop for the day at 9:00.
Jean-Paul Sartre. In a letter Sartre wrote to de Beauvoir some thirty years before her recounting of her daily working routine, Sartre describes his days, which is noticeably similar to the pattern later described by de Beauvoir. Sartre writes about waking early and having coffee in a cafe, then reading, teaching classes and private lessons, then lunch. After lunch, he would do more reading and letter writing.
Jacques Barzun. This French-born American historian and cultural critic celebrated his 100th birthday just two years ago and still enjoys a life of routine and work. He starts his day at 6:00 with coffee and the local newspaper, followed by 45 minutes of exercise, then a morning of work in his study. He spends his afternoon reading. Cocktails are at 6:30, followed by a light dinner. Barzun’s evening is spent reading the New York Times, no TV, and bed by 9:30.

How can you disagree

How to Disagree

March 2008

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That’s to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there’s less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you’re entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there’s a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn’t mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it’s not anger that’s driving the increase in disagreement, there’s a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it’s easy to say things you’d never say face to face.

If we’re all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here’s an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We’ve all seen comments like this:
u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!
But it’s important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like
The author is a self-important dilettante.
is really nothing more than a pretentious version of “u r a fag.”

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators’ salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He’s a senator.
This wouldn’t refute the author’s argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It’s still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there’s something wrong with the senator’s argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn’t, what difference does it make that he’s a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn’t, it’s not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author’s tone. E.g.
I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.
Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you’re not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:
I can’t believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.
Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it’s right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it’s hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it’s common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don’t realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you’re doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It’s also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn’t necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone’s central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone’s grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one’s opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:
The author’s main point seems to be x. As he says:

But this is wrong for the following reasons…
The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author’s main point. It’s enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn’t give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it’s correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don’t set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he’s really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don’t have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don’t want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don’t really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can’t help it.


73 Mind-Blowing Terence Mckenna Quotes

Terence McKenna (November 16, 1946 – April 3, 2000) was an American philosopher, ethnobotanist, psychonaut, lecturer, writer and author who spend much of his life speaking and writing about a variety of subjects, including but not limited by shamanism, psychedelic drugs, plant-based entheogens, alchemy, metaphysics, language, culture, environmentalism, technology and the nature of human consciousness.

Without further ado, here are 73 deep, mind-blowing quotes from the mushroom ambassador Terence McKenna:

1. “I think of going to the grave without having a psychedelic experience like going to the grave without ever having sex. It means that you never figured out what it is all about. The mystery is in the body and the way the body works itself into nature.”

2. “If the words ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ don’t include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn’t worth the hemp it was written on.”

3. “If you don’t smoke cannabis, you may spend your evening balancing your checking account. If you do smoke cannabis you may spend your evening contemplating the causes of the Greek Renaissance.”

4. “Stop consuming images and start producing them.”

5. “You are a divine being. You matter, you count. You come from realms of unimaginable power and light, and you will return to those realms.”

6. “You are an explorer, and you represent our species, and the greatest good you can do is to bring back a new idea, because our world is endangered by the absence of good ideas. Our world is in crisis because of the absence of consciousness.”

7. “The male dominant agenda is so fragile that any competitor is felt as a deadly foe.”

8. “You simply have to turn your back on a culture that has gone sterile and dead and get with the program of a living world and the imagination.”

9. “The imagination is the goal of history. I see culture as an effort to literally realize our collective dreams.”

10. The message of psychedelics is that culture can be re-engineered as a set of emotional and spiritual values rather than products. This is terrifying news.”

11. “Nature loves courage. You make the commitment and nature will respond to that commitment by removing impossible obstacles. Dream the impossible dream and the world will not grind you under, it will lift you up. This is the trick. This is what all these teachers and philosophers who really counted, who really touched the alchemical gold, this is what they understood. This is the shamanic dance in the waterfall. This is how magic is done. By hurling yourself into the abyss and discovering its a feather bed.”

12. “Half the time you think your thinking you’re actually listening.”

13. “Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behaviour and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong.”

14. “The artist’s task is to save the soul of mankind; and anything less is a dithering while Rome burns. If artists cannot find the way, then the way cannot be found.”

15. “Animals are something invented by plants to move seeds around. An extremely yang solution to a peculiar problem which they faced.”

16. “The syntactical nature of reality, the real secret of magic, is that the world is made of words. And if you know the words that the world is made of, you can make of it whatever you wish.”

17. “The purpose of life is to familiarize oneself with this after-death body so that the act of dying will not create confusion in the psyche.”

18. “We tend to disempower ourselves. We tend to believe that we don’t matter. And in the act of taking that idea to ourselves we give everything away to somebody else, to something else.”

19. “The shaman is not merely a sick man, or a madman; he is a sick man who has healed himself.”

20. “You see, a secret is not something untold. It’s something which can’t be told.”

21. “If you don’t have a plan, you become part of somebody else’s plan.”

22. “Nature is not our enemy, to be raped and conquered. Nature is ourselves, to be cherished and explored.”

23. “We have been to the moon, we have charted the depths of the ocean and the heart of the atom, but we have a fear of looking inward to ourselves because we sense that is where all the contradictions flow together.”

24. “My technique is don’t believe anything. If you believe in something, you are automatically precluded from believing its opposite.”

25. “It’s clearly a crisis of two things: of consciousness and conditioning. We have the technological power, the engineering skills to save our planet, to cure disease, to feed the hungry, to end war; But we lack the intellectual vision, the ability to change our minds. We must decondition ourselves from 10,000 years of bad behavior. And, it’s not easy.”

26. “We can begin the restructuring of thought by declaring legitimate what we have denied for so long. Lets us declare Nature to be legitimate. The notion of illegal plants is obnoxious and ridiculous in the first place.”

27. “Some kind of dialogue is now going on between individual human beings and the sum total of human knowledge and nothing can stop it.”

28. “Nothing comes unannounced, but many can miss the announcement. So it’s very important to actually listen to your own intuition rather than driving through it.”

29. “We need to interact with like-minded people throughout the world to establish the new intellectual order which will be the salvation of mankind.”

30. “Western civilization is a loaded gun pointed at the head of this planet.”

31. “Television is by nature the dominator drug par excellence. Control of content, uniformity of content, repeatability of content make it inevitably a tool of coersion, brainwashing, and manipulation.”

32. “Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable.”

33. “We are told ‘no’, we’re unimportant, we’re peripheral. ‘Get a degree, get a job, get this, get that.’ And then you’re a player, but you don’t want to play in the game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that’s being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world.”

34. “It is the imagination that argues for the Divine Spark within human beings. It is literally a decent of the World’s Soul into all of us.”

35. “The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it’s only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse.”

36. “Even as the nineteenth century had to come to grips with the notion of human descent from apes, we must now come to terms with the fact that those apes were stoned apes.”

37. “We are so much the victims of abstraction that with the Earth in flames we can barely rouse ourselves to wander across the room and look at the thermostat.”

38. “If you keep yourself as the final arbiter you will be less susceptible to infection by cultural illusion”

39. “The problem is not to find the answer, it’s to face the answer.”

40. “The way you stretch the envelope of culture is by creating language.”

41. “The real tension is not between matter and spirit, or time and space, the real tension is between information and nonsense.”

42. “Nothing lasts but nothing is lost.”

43. “Matter is not lacking in magic, matter is magic.”

44. “People are so alienated from their own soul that when they meet their soul they think it comes from another star system.”

45. “Nature is not our enemy, to be raped and conquered. Nature is ourselves, to be cherished and explored.”

46. “Ideology always paves the way toward atrocity”

47. “The creative act is a letting down of the net of human imagination into the ocean of chaos on which we are suspended, and the attempt to bring out of it ideas. It is the night sea journey, the lone fisherman on a tropical sea with his nets, and you let these nets down – sometimes, something tears through them that leaves them in shreds and you just row for shore, and put your head under your bed and pray. At other times what slips through are the minutiae, the minnows of this ichthyological metaphor of idea chasing. But, sometimes, you can actually bring home something that is food, food for the human community that we can sustain ourselves on and go forward.”

48. “You don’t want to become so open-minded that the wind can whistle between your ears.”

49. “If you’re not the hero of your own novel, then what kind of novel is it? You need to do some heavy editing.”

50. “Culture is the effort to hold back the mystery, and replace it with a mythology.”

51. “Unexamined cultural values & limitations of language have made us unwitting prisoners of our own assumptions.”

52. “This is a society, a world, a planet dying because there is not enough consciousness, because there is not enough awareness, enough coordination of intent-to-problem. And yet, we spend vast amounts of money stigmatizing people and substances that are part of this effort to expand consciousness, see things in different ways, unleash creativity. Isn’t it perfectly clear that business as usual is a bullet through the head?”

53. “The culmination of man’s effort in time will be the perfection and the release of the human soul. And it’s not that we are ‘doing’ it. It’s that a natural law that we are still unaware of is inexorably unfolding.”

54. “Our world is in danger by the absence of good ideas. Our world is in crisis because of the absence of consciousness. And so to whatever degree any one of us, can bring back a small piece of the picture and contribute it to the building of the new paradigm, then we participate in the redemption of the human spirit, and that after all is what it’s really all about.”

55. “We have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us – the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.”

56. “What civilization is, is 6 billion people trying to make themselves happy by standing on each other’s shoulders and kicking each other’s teeth in. It’s not a pleasant situation.”

57. “Culture is a perversion. It fetishizes objects, creates consumer mania, it preaches endless forms of false happiness, endless forms of false understanding in the form of squirrelly religions and silly cults. It invites people to diminish themselves and dehumanize themselves by behaving like machines.

58. “Culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people’s convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture.”

59. “Personal empowerment means deconditioning yourself from the values and the programs of the society and putting your own values and programs in place.”

60. “Chaos is what we’ve lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego, which clenches because its existance is defined in terms of control.”

61. “Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable.”

61. “You have to take seriously the notion that understanding the universe is your responsibility, because the only understanding of the universe that will be useful to you is your own understanding.”

62. “The apocalypse is not something which is coming. The apocalypse has arrived in major portions of the planet and it’s only because we live within a bubble of incredible privilege and social insulation that we still have the luxury of anticipating the apocalypse. If you go to Bosnia or Somalia or Peru or much of the third-world then it appears that the apocalypse has already arrived.”

63. “We are so much the victims of abstraction that with the Earth in flames we can barely rouse ourselves to wander across the room and look at the thermostat.”

64. “The cost of sanity, in this society, is a certain level of alienation.”

65. “The future of communication is the future of the evolution of the human soul.”

66. “Our need to feel part of the world seems to demand that we express ourselves through creative activity.”

67. “Part of what psychedelics do is they decondition you from cultural values. This is what makes it such a political hot potato. Since all culture is a kind of con game, the most dangerous candy you can hand out is one which causes people to start questioning the rules of the game.”

68. “Life lived in the absence of the psychedelic experience is life trivialized, life denied, life enslaved to the ego.”

69. “We have to create culture, don’t watch TV, don’t read magazines, don’t even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow. The nexus of space and time where you are now is the most immediate sector of your universe, and if you’re worrying about Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton or somebody else, then you are disempowered, you’re giving it all away to icons, icons which are maintained by an electronic media so that you want to dress like X or have lips like Y. This is shit-brained, this kind of thinking. That is all cultural diversion, and what is real is you and your friends and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears. And we are told ‘no’, we’re unimportant, we’re peripheral. ‘Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that.’ And then you’re a player, you don’t want to even play in that game. You want to reclaim your mind and get it out of the hands of the cultural engineers who want to turn you into a half-baked moron consuming all this trash that’s being manufactured out of the bones of a dying world.”

70. “Culture is not your friend, it’s an impediment to understanding what’s going on. That’s why the words cult and culture have a direct relationship to each other. Culture is an extremely repressive cult that leads to all kinds of humiliation and degradation, and automatic, unquestioned and unthinking behaviour.”

71. “We are caged by our cultural programming. Culture is a mass hallucination, and when you step outside the mass hallucination you see it for what it’s worth.”

72. “The internet is light at the end of the tunnel…it is creating a global society”

73. “If the words ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ don’t include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn’t worth the hemp it was written on.”download (13)MUKESH

The theory of Terror Management

Coalitional psychology (CP) is presented as another alternative to TMT, which proposes that there is an evolutionary tendency to seek safety in groups (coalitions) as a reaction to adaptive threats.[51] People already a part of coalitional groups seek to protect their membership by exhibiting their value to the group.[51] TMT theorists answer by arguing that CP 1) cannot account for the fact that virtually all cultures have a supernatural dimension; 2) it does not explain why cultural worldview defense is symbolic, involving allegiance to both specific and general systems of abstract meaning unrelated to specific threats, rather than focused on the specific adaptive threats it supposedly evolved to deal with; 3) it dismisses TMT’s dual process account of the underlying processes that generate MS effects without providing an alternative of any kind or attempting to account for the data relevant to this aspect of the TMT analysis and 4) the experiments testing hypotheses derived from CP do not provide compelling or unique support for CP, 5) it cannot account for a host of empirical findings supporting hypotheses derived from TMT that could never be deduced from CP.[52]

Top 10 Philosophy

Top 10 Likely Places We Could Find Aliens
MAY 19, 2017 OUR WORLD
10 Mind-Blowing Things That Happened This Week (05/19/17)
MAY 19, 2017 OUR WORLD
Top 10 Fascinating Facts About Uzbekistan
MAY 19, 2017

10 More Missing Treasures You Can Still Find
Top 10 New Questions Surrounding London’s Biggest Mysteries
Top 10 Real-Life Counterparts To Game Of Thrones Characters
MAY 18, 2017
Top 10 Weird Facts About Death & Dying In The Middle Ages
MAY 18, 2017 HEALTH
Top 10 Crazy Facts About Psychiatry In The 19th Century
MAY 17, 2017 HISTORY
Top 10 Disastrous Cases Of Regime Change By The US
Top 10 Bizarre Objects Commonly Found In Cabinets Of Curiosities
MAY 17, 2017

Top 10 Philosophical One Liners
Philosophy is no more or less than the search for wisdom. It deals with all manner of problems which everyone faces in their lives, and by thought and logic attempts to solve them. Since we live in a terrifically complex universe lots of philosophy is itself, very complex. Modern academic philosophy can be almost impenetrable to an outsider, and anything not couched in the terms of the academic philosopher is considered simple musing. However, philosophy has thankfully provided lots of short, pithy philosophical statements to ponder. Here are ten of the best one-liners drawn from Western philosophy.

12477728534DlbjtcYou cannot step in the same river twice.Heraclitus of Ephesus, also known as the Weeping Philosopher and Heraclitus the Obscure, has left us only a few philosophical sentences. Due to this lack of original writing, Heraclitus’ philosophy remains hard to characterize. His belief seems to have been that the universe is in a constant state of flux, as this famous quote indicates. By the time that you attempt to step into the river a second time, the waters of the river will have moved on and so, the river will not be the same one you stepped into the first time. The sentence also has a second meaning; you cannot step into the same river again because you are no longer the same as the person who took the first step. The question of how identity is preserved over time is one which still animates philosophers today.9
Prague Praha Josefov CemetaryDeath need not concern us because when we exist death does not, and when death exists we do not.Epicurus and Epicureanism, has suffered for many years from a misapprehension about what his philosophy teaches. Epicureanism is a hedonistic philosophy in that it teaches that pleasure is to be sought, but only to the extent that pleasure is the freedom from pain and fear. Epicurus also taught on the gods and death. Epicurus is famous today for his questions regarding the problem of evil existing if there are gods and for this statement about death. Because death, being dead rather than dying, involves no pain, for Epicurus the state of death is a good thing (or at least not to be feared). Epicurus is well beloved of atheists and humanists today because of his rational outlook. In the Roman period, tombs of Epicureans would have this carved on their tombs- I was not. I was. I am not. I do not care.

God-Creates-Man-Sistine-ChapelGod is dead. Poor Friedrich Nietzsche has suffered from misconceptions quite as much as Epicurus. After his death, Nietzsche’s sister took control of his writings and edited them to fit in with Nazi ideology. This association with the Nazis – which was no fault of his own – has harmed his reputation ever since. This three word aphorism is perhaps Nietzsche’s most famous. It should not be taken to mean that God is literally dead, for Nietzsche does not believe God ever existed. As with many short sentences, this one can bear many contradicting interpretations. Nietzsche suggests that it is the inability of humans to live up to a moral code which has destroyed God, but it is equally possible to see it as a statement that God has no place in the modern world.7
Magritte-E280A2-The-Son-Of-ManMan is the measure of all things. This is the most famous saying of Protagoras, though it is in fact, only the first portion of his statement. The full line runs ‘Man is the measure of all things; of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not.’ Protagoras’ relativism is one of the most extreme ever argued. This means that truth is relative and for each individual truth is different. This can be true with things like temperature – you might find the evening chilly, but for me it is warm. However, we can all agree on the absolute temperature in degrees. Protagoras would disagree and would say that all of our knowledge is sense based and therefore unique to each individual. The problem with relativism is that it makes philosophical discussion impossible; what you think you say and what I hear might be completely different, if we are unable to agree on objective truth.6
LiesA categorical imperative would be one which represented an action as objectively necessary in itself, without reference to any other purpose. Kant is one of the giants of Western philosophy. Someone once said that philosophers who came before Kant had the enormous benefit of never having to study Kant. It is true that Kant’s philosophy can be heavy going to read and understand, but his theory of the categorical imperative is one deserving study. A categorical imperative would be something like ‘It is never right to lie.’ The test of the categorical imperative is whether it should be universally used. So, if lying became universal then trust would be abolished, therefore lying is wrong in all cases. Whether you agree with categorical imperatives or not, and situational ethics is the flavor of the modern age, we must all consider why things may or may not be good.

ChainsMan is born free and is everywhere in chains. The concept of the social contract did not originate with Rousseau, but he was the great popularizer of the concept so neatly summed up in this aphorism. Hobbes thought that in the state of nature, man’s life was one of terrible beastliness (nasty, brutish and short). The social contract is the giving up of these natural freedoms by an individual to better accomplish his goals by working within society. Since man is born free, the chains we wear are ones we choose to wear. It is for the individual to decide which freedoms are worth giving up.4
LakeThe unexamined life is not worth living. For me this statement of Socrates’, as told by Plato, is sufficient to explain the necessity of studying philosophy. Everyone is pitched into the world blindly and makes do as best they can with the things they are given. For many, this muddling through is hard enough, and examining their motives and the rightness of their actions is just an added, and superfluous, difficulty. However, if we do not examine our lives and use the wisdom we gain from it to plan the future, we are no better than animals following instinct to survive. To take control of your life you must engage your mind. This is not to say that everyone must become a new Socrates, or study academic philosophy, but to paraphrase Voltaire ‘we must all cultivate our own wisdom.’3
Thinkingman RodinI think therefore I am. Je pense donc je suis. Cogito ergo sum. These are the words which Descartes used to slay total nihilism. Nihilism is the philosophical denial of existence, either of anything at all or more specific portions of existence. Everyone, at some point in their philosophical musings, wonders whether anything at all exists. Descartes was clever enough to see that pondering, doubting, existence was sufficient to prove that at least one thing exists; the thinker. This has given philosophy something to build on as we can now be certain that one thing exists. There have been criticisms of Descartes argument as a tautology (I think therefore I am) but the basic principle stands as a buttress against the void of nihilism. The writer Milan Kundera has joked “‘I think, therefore I am’ is the statement of an intellectual who underrates toothaches.” 2
William of Ockham
4 Closeup Razor 2CEntities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. William of Ockham was a noted English logician of the 14th century. Ockham’s razor is often quoted simply as ‘the simplest explanation is usually the right one.’ This is a gross simplification of a powerful logical tool. A better stating of it would be something like ‘All things being equal, the simplest explanation is more often correct.’ We live in a complex world where the answer to any question is often very complex. All things being equal, with no more evidence for one solution than another, we should not posit the existence of an agent we do not need to explain a phenomenon. When thinking about a subject, we should use the simplest reasoning possible unless the evidence compels us to include an extra agency.There has been a recent innovation in the world of philosophy which claims to put Ockham’s razor to rest. Scientists are notoriously sniffy of philosophy, and so Mike Alder has created an improvement of Ockham’s razor – Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword. Simply put, this new philosophical tool states ‘That which cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.’ The Flaming Laser Sword certainly simplifies things; one thinks Ockham may have approved of it. 1
Golden Rule
Screen Shot 2011-10-11 At 15.07.00 Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.This is called the Golden Rule of ethics and has been stated by many people in many places at many times, and so no one religion or philosophy can lay claim to it. This maxim deserves the top spot on any philosophical one-liner list because it so neatly sums up a system of ethics by which many people live their lives. The statement is a challenge as well as an instruction – we must try to empathize with others to understand how we ourselves would wish to be treated if in the other person’s place. There may be exceptions to the rule and it may not be sufficient to a complete moral doctrine, but as a simple rule for daily life it is hard to think of something which would so improve everyone’s lives if put universally into effect. +
Trivia PhilosophyThere is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it.I know philosophy leaves some people cold, so here is a quote from Cicero. Cicero translated Greek philosophy for a Latin audience so he surely knew what he was talking about. I hope this list has gone someway to showing that not all philosophy is bunk, however.

Related From Listverse
10 Shameful Facts About Japanese-American Internment – Listverse
10 Shameful Facts About Japanese-A…
10 Disturbing Things That Happened To Famous Corpses – Listverse
10 Disturbing Things That Happened To…
10 Evil Psychopaths You Probably Don’t Know – Listverse
10 Evil Psychopaths You Probably Don’t…
10 Recent Space Discoveries No One Can Explain – Listverse
10 Recent Space Discoveries No One…
Top 10 Secrets In A Deck Of Playing Cards – Listverse
Top 10 Secrets In A Deck Of Playing Car…
10 Fascinating Facts About The Ancient Roman Army – Listverse
10 Fascinating Facts About The Ancient…
10 Confounding Secrets Taken To T…
10 Mysterious Discoveries That Co…

Sponsored by Revcontent
Around The Web
Bhubaneswar Girl Kills Belly Fat In 1 Week Using This Odd Trick (Try It)
Bhubaneswar Mom & Dad Lose 40 Kilos Together (Try Their 1 Simple Trick!)
Discovered: the #1 Natural System to “Destroy Diabetes (type 2)
Top 10 Stain Removal Tips
Top 10 Tips For Becoming Famous
Top 10 Steps To A Top 10 List
10 Ridiculous Reasons People Were Fired
JANUARY 13, 2013

Keep your Identity small

Keep Your Identity Small

February 2009

I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions.

As a rule, any mention of religion on an online forum degenerates into a religious argument. Why? Why does this happen with religion and not with Javascript or baking or other topics people talk about on forums?

What’s different about religion is that people don’t feel they need to have any particular expertise to have opinions about it. All they need is strongly held beliefs, and anyone can have those. No thread about Javascript will grow as fast as one about religion, because people feel they have to be over some threshold of expertise to post comments about that. But on religion everyone’s an expert.

Then it struck me: this is the problem with politics too. Politics, like religion, is a topic where there’s no threshold of expertise for expressing an opinion. All you need is strong convictions.

Do religion and politics have something in common that explains this similarity? One possible explanation is that they deal with questions that have no definite answers, so there’s no back pressure on people’s opinions. Since no one can be proven wrong, every opinion is equally valid, and sensing this, everyone lets fly with theirs.

But this isn’t true. There are certainly some political questions that have definite answers, like how much a new government policy will cost. But the more precise political questions suffer the same fate as the vaguer ones.

I think what religion and politics have in common is that they become part of people’s identity, and people can never have a fruitful argument about something that’s part of their identity. By definition they’re partisan.

Which topics engage people’s identity depends on the people, not the topic. For example, a discussion about a battle that included citizens of one or more of the countries involved would probably degenerate into a political argument. But a discussion today about a battle that took place in the Bronze Age probably wouldn’t. No one would know what side to be on. So it’s not politics that’s the source of the trouble, but identity. When people say a discussion has degenerated into a religious war, what they really mean is that it has started to be driven mostly by people’s identities. [1]

Because the point at which this happens depends on the people rather than the topic, it’s a mistake to conclude that because a question tends to provoke religious wars, it must have no answer. For example, the question of the relative merits of programming languages often degenerates into a religious war, because so many programmers identify as X programmers or Y programmers. This sometimes leads people to conclude the question must be unanswerable—that all languages are equally good. Obviously that’s false: anything else people make can be well or badly designed; why should this be uniquely impossible for programming languages? And indeed, you can have a fruitful discussion about the relative merits of programming languages, so long as you exclude people who respond from identity.

More generally, you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn’t engage the identities of any of the participants. What makes politics and religion such minefields is that they engage so many people’s identities. But you could in principle have a useful conversation about them with some people. And there are other topics that might seem harmless, like the relative merits of Ford and Chevy pickup trucks, that you couldn’t safely talk about with others.

The most intriguing thing about this theory, if it’s right, is that it explains not merely which kinds of discussions to avoid, but how to have better ideas. If people can’t think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. [2]

Most people reading this will already be fairly tolerant. But there is a step beyond thinking of yourself as x but tolerating y: not even to consider yourself an x. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.


[1] When that happens, it tends to happen fast, like a core going critical. The threshold for participating goes down to zero, which brings in more people. And they tend to say incendiary things, which draw more and angrier counterarguments.

[2] There may be some things it’s a net win to include in your identity. For example, being a scientist. But arguably that is more of a placeholder than an actual label—like putting NMI on a form that asks for your middle initial—because it doesn’t commit you to believing anything in particular. A scientist isn’t committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it. All he’s committed to is following the evidence wherever it leads.

Considering yourself a scientist is equivalent to putting a sign in a cupboard saying “this cupboard must be kept empty.” Yes, strictly speaking, you’re putting something in the cupboard, but not in the ordinary sense.

Blog at

Up ↑