Put simply, 'happiness' is a qualitative state that is meaningless without the context, and therefor the means, by which it attained. It states relation between subject and object: I (subject) have happiness (object) because... (relation to such and such). However there have been no fool proof methods of yet attaining the goodlife for everyone, and that is with no shortage of attempts, either offered in advice or forced by dogma! Aside from the relation of subject to object, there is also something intrinsic to the idea of a state of being arising from a relation to other things -- evaluation. Evaluation is a measure in accordance to goal. If you want to live, you will evaluate food is better than poison. As happiness always seems abject to the fulfillment of desire. Perhaps the case would be a simple one, concerning human beings happiness, if we had relatively few desires that didn't conflict with one another. Unfortunate the case might be that I might both want to go out drinking all night, and at the same time arrive to work the next morning less than drained, I will have to arbitrarily evaluate these projected outcomes to one another. But there is nothing that imposes that I must remain continuous with my evaluation. Though I might value a night drinking on the town with my friends, at the sacrifice of sleep and sobriety next morning, it is no guarantee that I will retain this evaluation the next morning as I hug the toilet vomiting, and call out to work. So we have a few obstacles, we have the contingency of happiness to means (i.e. not self sufficient; desire other than, or upkeep to present being), we have the multiplicity of drives and desires (themselves host to different causal phenomena like chemical reflex, or psychological conditioning) that can and often do compete with one another, and we have a capricious nature of fickle moods that alter the priority of values into different hierarchies.

If you are going to propose something exists, you must also propose the means by which it is intelligible. If you cannot define what it is you are proposing, then the validity of what is denoted becomes meaningless in conversation. This must mean, of course, that a thing must be somehow knowable, which is to say, identifiably different than other things. Something must be known of the object claiming existence, in order to make propositions of existence intelligible. This proceeds the need for proof, because before we can weigh evidence, we need to know what it is we are talking about, and how it is made intelligible. Asking for proof that a 'flabulperbotuck' exists skips over the need for intelligibility.

It has been said that life is worth living in accordance to the scope of one's dreams, and I will not be one to refute this. Instead I will try to offer an analysis, and hopefully an inspiration in accord to the passions that set the gears of life in joyful motion. If we try to navigate the labyrinth of the spirit, it is tempting, and perhaps necessary to abstract and fragment it's aspects into useful identities, and within these identities really rest territories we give to space or action. Love, fear, lust, disappointment and the rest of the spectrum we use to denote our experienced world, are external descriptions we use to convey meaning to one another and, and as symbols with clear denotations, serve as a surface description-- a mask used for presentation to the receiver. The masks of these representations serve to manipulate the social animals with which we can communicate, through marking the space inside the denotation into a territory or identity. The demarcation required for abstract representation and communication serves to classify serial identities and needs precision in order to relate to its context. The relativistic nature of context necessitates a certain malleable character for representations to indicate how far down the list of qualities an identity has are useful. A set is an identity and a thing, it is separate from other identities based on qualities; the sub-set of this set too is an identity, and all identities have qualities. The identity of the sub-set is contingent to the identity of the set that contains it, however, as the sub-set too may contain its own sub-sets and qualities, the set itself is a sub-set to a set of a broader context. This is the hierarchy of denotation, an ever branching series of identities and sub-identities.

I have been researching things and thinking for the future (job, projects, etc.)

This trend will most likely continue, but I should be come more active at some point.

If you wanted to know what I've been researching I've been looking into Linux, Firearms, Electric Vehicles, and Programming. If you got a link or advice feel free to go nuts.

For a week I looked into reptiles, but thats not important.

Why is it that there are always outbreaks of bacterial-borne diseases coming from fast-food restaurants? I will tell you why. It is because they are filthy.

The people who serve fast-food really don't care about their customers. They are merely trying to get a paycheck. So when the boss says "this is fast-food, you have to move fast!", any thought other than speed goes ouot the window. Dishes get rinsed really quickly instead of being washed. Time is not taken to wash hands. Food gets undercooked.

What about state and federal health regulations? Like they matter! Health inspectors call before they come, do quick run throughs, and are not very thorough. Besides, they work for the government. Government is more concerned with governing then protecting you or your health.

Got this from an e-mail list of an atheist group that meets up in Virginia:

"Speaking of comming out. I tried it Saturday. I was at the Pottery Shop in Williamsburg. Just before I reached the entrance a man approached me with a small book in his hand.
He walked up to me and showed me the book. It was the New Testiment. With a warm smile on my face I took his hand, that had the book in it, with both of my hands and looked looked directly at him saying "Thank you very much but I'm an athiest and I am sure that their are others that would like the book.
His expression froze, he said nothing, and just looked at me. I nodded, gave him another plesant smile, turned and walked away. He was not there when I left the Pottery Factory.

Many reviewers on the Internet have jumped in the U.S.A.-bashing bandwagon again by claiming the movie "300" is just anti-Iran propaganda.

Let's see how that argument might work:
a: The antagonist of the story is the huge Persian army.
b: Iranians are the descendants of the ancient Persian people.
c: Frank Miller's Spartans fought for freedom; Bush also likes to speak of freedom.

a + b + c = d: "It's a conspiracy to make Iran look bad, because George Bush is evil; oh, and btw 9/11 was an inside job!"

Well allow me to retort! That is MADNESS! and it sure as hell isn't Sparta.

I am new to RRS but have been an Atheist for about 10 years and "out" for about 6. It will take some time for me to get familiar with all the sites but I plan to stay involved for a long time. One of my interests is getting groups to join and cooperate. I live just south of Richmond Virginia and would like to meet anyone from my area. I have recently gotten involved with several local goups and attend meetings somewhat regularly. Most of the members of these groups are just as passionate as many of us online but are not quite aware of how powerful we have become. Many are much older and most are very well educated (retired professors, PHDs etc..). If anyone in the Richmond area is interested feel free to contact me.

Tomorrow (Saturday) is my 15 year class reunion. I am likely the only atheist in my class - there are plenty of fundies. Luckilly most of them are ignorant and never debated religion, and those that have only know the shit we have tossed already. I am ready to tear them a new asshole. Wish me luck!

I don't have the patience to re-post my blog, if you wanna read it, go to myspace