Cloudscape

As machines become more advanced, more and more humans lose their jobs as machines replace them, until only creative jobs will be left, but there will likely also be a time when machines may also become creative. However, as and when our computers become creative, they will become part of ourselves and so of our own species, for either we will already have found a way of uniting them with our own brain, or we would set these computers to the one task of finding a way to do so until they would, since this would be the most important thing we would need at this point.
There might be a chance that by this time, many people who remained unemployed would have become so decadent that they would no longer care to set these computers to any other task than to find better ways of stimulating the pleasure centers of their brain, but, fortunately, they would be in the hands of the scientists that invented them, and they would certainly choose otherwise.
Thus, even if humans and computers will not yet have united by the time that computers become creative, humans will still be needed for creativity until then, and, because creativity gives meaning to life and our need for meaning is so great, then as soon as they are more creative than we are ourselves, they would be fully focussed on the task of enabling us to have their creativity by unifying them with our brain.
As long as computers are not conscious, our own lives as humans could still have meaning, and as soon as they would become conscious, we would become one with them. In a time when the only work that is left is creative, everyone could likely achieve an equal level of creativity through cognotechnology, as the creativity of someone altered through that time's cognotechnology would be vastly greater than that of anyone who has ever lived anyway. This does not mean that everyone would become identical, however, as there are infinitely many ways of being creative; these need not be scientific or artistic, as they can also be social.
By the time when man and machine will become one, both will be quite different from what they are now. Machines will no longer be the contraptions we see today, as their machinery, just as our own, will entirely have advanced to molecular levels, whereas men will no longer be the animals that we are now, as our abilities will have advanced to cosmic levels. Machines will become more like organisms in structure as they achieve nanotechnological levels, as they will then make more use of analogous media like chemistry, rather than relying only on black-and-white digital media as they do now. Meanwhile, men will also become more like machines in power, as they, as well, integrate aspects of their mechanical counterparts into their bodies. Our computers will become subtler and more complex, whereas we will become stronger and more skillful.
It would seem that a unification of man and machine would make society shift further towards the material and away from the spiritual, but the opposite is true. Our spiritual as well as our material world will grow, but they will also grow toward one another. It's just that spiritual evolution comes more subtle than material evolution.
Moreover, when man and machine will become one, we will still have use for our biological aspects as well as of our electronic aspects, as both have their own unique qualities. Both man and machine will keep evolving, and either evolution will help the other, but both evolutions will themselves unify.
The unification of man and machine is only one aspect of a greater unification, that of mind and matter. Our power to change reality becomes so great that reality becomes like a dream, while virtual reality become so immersive as to become like reality.

When communism rose in the previous century, as is now clear, it was much too early for the world to be ready for it, and thus it remains to this day. The failure of communism has shown that people are too self-centered for it to work, and unless people change, it can never work. People work out of necessity or out of greed, but not out of love, at least for now.

Communism is bound either to fall or turn into despotism as long as it is not the choice of the people themselves, and because of this, the communism we have seen so far has little to do with its actual ideals. Nonetheless, it is probable that communism will be the next step in the evolution of society, though in another form than is seen today. However, today, it is still too soon for us to take that step.

Every kind of government has its place in the evolution of society, and when it is time for one to succeed the other, this happens almost spontaneously, not through revolution. There was a time that democracy could not have succeeded, or even republicanism. When a nation tries to get ahead of itself in this evolution, it is bound to turn either into despotism or into anarchy, and so evolution is usually the best way of change.

In the beginning of this evolution, despotism is the only viable government: at this time, republicanism cannot or barely succeed, as there is too little cooperation between people for it to work. At this point, cooperation must be imposed by a despot. It is crude, but the only thing that works at this point. Without a single ruling power, everyone would become a despot. There is, fortunately, the mercy that the worst despots are often the quickest to be overthrown by the people.

Every society begins in anarchy, and, if it lives long enough, it eventually ends in anarchy, in much the same form, but on a larger scale. Anarchy is viable in the beginning of the formation of a society, when people still live in small clans, which are much alike to a large family. Sometimes, these clans are communistic. Superficially, it seems that these clans are more cooperative than most societies, but this is only so because they are so small; so small, in fact, that every or almost every member of the clan usually knows every other. As these groups grow, this level of cooperation is no longer possible, because although they may be cooperative towards people they know, they are quite uncooperative towards strangers. The people of a clan are so little used to strangers that they will often kill them on sight. Wars between neighboring clans are frequent. If the people of ten clans were put into one tribe overnight, most would be dead before long.

There is a lot of cooperation in early societies, but little cooperativeness. The cooperativeness in societies grows as they evolve, until they eventually achieve the level of democracy and eventually (though this has never happened so far) anarcho-communism. So far, however, anarcho-communism is not feasible, as people have yet to achieve the level of unity for it to work.

However, we live in a world were everything is being automatized through robotics and informatics. This is already posing problems in many developed capitalistic countries as more and more people become (or remain) unemployed as they are being replaced by computers. Because of this, many countries already find themselves to be forced into a compromise between capitalism and communism, in which unemployed people receive benefits during the time they are unemployed.

As work in the primary and secondary sector continues to be automatized, and not everyone can or wants to work in the tertiary sector, more and more people will become unemployed. Eventually, the rate of unemployment will become so high that it can no longer be resolved in any sensible way, forcing the government into offering people benefits in order to help them survive.

With the trend of robotization, it is only a matter of time before we achieve a state where our necessities are provided for automatically or largely so, and so become almost free. Eventually, it will be possible to produce anything through software, and since software can be duplicated freely, this will mean that all necessities will be available in sufficient amounts without any work being done. In such a society, it would be nonsensical to still pay for software, as everyone could as well have all software there is if no one asked money for it. In a society where everyone has enough to survive and where software offers so many possibilities, many people will see software (which by then would encompass all art, science, and culture of civilization) as being more important than money. It only takes a certain percentage of the population to believe this before the system collapses, all the more because many of these people would themselves be artists and programmers. The more people would believe spiritual values to be more important than material ones, the more the capitalistic system would be subverted, and software would be hacked and shared illegally. Moreover, artists and programmers who would be of this view would release their works for for free, so that, eventually, those who would still charge for their works would be likely to be ignored, all the more because their work would be motivated purely out of greed, rather than out of love, and therefore be seen as being of lower quality. It is therefore inevitable that, at this stage, software would become free or practically free.

The need for socialism will increase with unemployment, and eventually, artists, scientists and social workers will be the only people left to be employed. Most scientists, many social workers and some artists (in some countries) are already being paid by the state, but in future, all will depend on the state for payment. For now, scientists, artists and social workers are still required to work in order to be paid, but this is only because much of their work is not fully creative and involves routine. However, as the routine component of their work will eventually be done by computers (robot scientists already exist for genetic research, for instance, as do computer programs for educations), only the creative and social components will be left, and neither can be done on demand. Ideas come best when they are not forced, which is the only thing scientists (and, of course, artists) will still be needed for, and the same counts for compassion, which is what social workers will still be needed for. When I say creativity, I'm not talking about the ability to remember the right idea at the right time, but the ability to think of new, unique ideas that have never been used before, as anything less can be done by computers. With compassion, I'm not talking about commitment, patience or politesse, but genuine and heartfelt sympathy, as, again, anything less can be done by computers. Attempting to enforce creativity will lead to loss of inspiration. Attempting to enforce compassion will lead to detachment (as is seen in many psychologists and psychiatrists today). Either how, the best ideas will come from people who seek them because of their passion for the idea, not from people who seek them because they must. The same counts for compassion. The true scientists, social workers and artists of the future will not need money as an incentive to work. Those that would, would be incompetent anyway.

Obviously, the unemployment would also put many people before the problem of finding meaning in their lives, or rather, it would confront them with that problem which was already there, now they could no longer seek distraction in vacuous mind-numbing routine. By and by, people would learn to find meaning either in love or some form of creativity.

Uncreative people who would want to become more creative could be made more creative through cognotechnology (technology applied on cognition). Because of the significance cognotechnology will have on humanity, it is extremely important that everyone be given equal chances, and here, we are once more faced with a need for socialism: the means of cognotechnology should be equally allocated among those who desire it, for if this does not happen, a disastrous technological divide will result which is so great that, over time, humanity itself would actually split up into two separate groups, one being vastly more intelligent than the other. The intelligent group would become more successful, so acquire increased access to cognotechnology, and so forth. Of course, the more intelligent group would eventually realize the necessity to give the other group equal chances.

In the past, communism has failed because the interests of the individual are capitalistic. In future, capitalism will fail because the interests of the individual will be communistic.

The reason why illegal downloading is so common, aside from the fact that it is very easy to do, is that there is little or no moral inhibition against it. This is not only because the chance of being caught is smaller, but also, and mostly, because the thief does not take anything away from the owner, but merely refuses to give them anything for their work: the owner remains unaffected by the thief. This is worsened by the fact that most software products are sold by large firms, so that if the individual does buy the product, it makes no difference to the firm, as the payment is spread over a large number of people, so that each receives only a very small sum, and only the payment of an equally large number of people will make a difference to them; whereas, if it is paid to another individual, it does make a difference to him or her. Also, because the payment usually happens via Internet, it is made not through a person, but rather to an impersonal website. The firm is a mere concept to the thief, and does not concern him or her at all.
Meanwhile, because they can be duplicated freely, more and more people program freeware applications, which replace the vast majority of non-freeware applications programmed by individuals, so that only the applications programmed by large firms remain unavailable as freeware. Because people become used to getting software for free, they will be all the more reluctant to pay for other software.
Also, the laws of software ownership are also becomes more and more ambiguous, causing people to regard them as irrelevant. For instance, one can legally watch most popular movies and listen to most popular music on a large number of websites, including Youtube and Megavideo, and one can even legally record music from the Internet using legal applications, such as Audio Hijack or SoundFlower, or record videos using applications which are also legal, such Windows Media Recorder.
. Meanwhile, one can also legally upload or download books or articles.
Illegal downloading is becoming so prevalent that it becomes very hard to take measures against it, and even would we succeed in bringing all illegal downloaders to justice, this would mean that we'd have to imprison one third of the population and ruin another third with fines.
Perhaps this means that it is time we find another system, which pays designers and artists fixed regular sums based on the quality of their work. On the other hand, one might also argue that this is unnecessary, as only popular software is readily available for illegal downloading, and the producers of that software have already earned a lot of money with that software anyway, and so all artists and designers still have a chance of earning enough money.
If, however, illegal downloading continues to become more popular, it will soon become unmanageable. Unfortunately, it is very hard to control illegal downloading, as anyone who possesses software can also duplicate it. The only way anything can be done about this is by protecting the software, though this is only feasible for applications. Most "killer applications" have effective protections, but for most of these applications, and almost all of the popular ones, this can relatively easily be surmounted through "cracks," especially for the Windows operating system.
However, for music and movies, it is probably already too late, since YouTube is far too popular to be closed down, and closing it down would result in general outrage among the population. Eventually, it will likely become possible to upload entire movies in full resolution, so that, aside from philanthropism, the only reason people might still prefer to buy the movies would be because it might feel more quaint. The money earned through cinematography would be reduced mostly to the revenues of movie theatres, and the money earned through music would be reduced mostly to the revenues of life performances. Obviously, if we allow this to happen, then artists will need to depend on subsidies. Only applications might still have a chance of escaping the same fate.

If one goes too fast, it is much more likely for balance to be lost. On the other hand, if one goes too slow, this is in itself an imbalance. In the end, one still goes fastest if one goes so fast that one meets difficulties, but only if one can deal with those difficulties. Even if you cannot go faster, you can still work to enable yourself to go faster. When you cannot advance further, you can still make preparations to advance further, so that you do not truly need to slow down, for advance may happen in subtle ways. You will go fastest when interchanging slow and fast in balance. To find this balance, know yourself. Do not overestimate or underestimate yourself.

If you have become too so absorbed in your thoughts that you can no longer feel, the only way you can feel again is by letting go off control. Ironically, you have to let go off control to regain control over your thoughts.

With letting go off control, I do not mean that you become passive to everything that happens, but that you accept it. You might still change those things, but it will no longer be because you think you have to. Change things because you feel you want to, not merely because you think you must. Thought is a medium through which change is organized, but the motivation for change originates from our feelings.

The irony is that through acceptance, you may become much better in changing things than through rejecting them, since it allows you to build from the things that are already there, rather than seeking to undo them before starting over. Everything can be used to build something else, even if it is its opposite.

In order to be in control, you must control your need for control. Do not be attached to control, for this is in itself loss of control.

Whatever you do, do not be stopped by suffering. If the only thing you can feel is suffering, then love your suffering, and it will no longer be suffering.

There is no general rule for where to find beauty, as in all things there is potentially an equal, infinite amount of beauty. If you truly search for beauty, then wherever you wish to find beauty is therefore the right choice, as you then make this choice out of love for beauty; and beauty itself is nothing else than the love of beauty, which is its perception.

Whatever you perceive as beautiful is beautiful to you; thus, seek beauty there were you perceive it the most, wherever that may be. However, remember not to confuse comfort with beauty, and that beauty may hold pain yet not be reduced by that pain. Perceive also that beauty is in perception itself, and so seek beauty in the increased perception of beauty, not only seeking for it around you but also within. Seek beauty in balanced measures inside and outside. Remember, however, that balanced does not have to mean equal, as each of us has their own center which may differ according to our personality.

In seeking beauty, seek it wherever you see it, but do not lose sight of it because of pain. Thought can guide you in finding beauty, but it cannot lead you to it: only your feeling can do that, thus you can but seek for beauty there were you feel it to be.

If you cannot feel where to find beauty, it is because you do not know what you wish. In that case, you need to decide first what you wish, even if your decision is but that you wish to try things until you happen to find something you feel is beautiful. Whenever you do find something that is even slightly beautiful to you, remember it, so that you might enkindle the wish to search for more of it. It's already a start to wish to find out what you wish.

If it seems like you want nothing at all, or even that in fact everything is something you don't want, then it might be that what you actually want is emptiness, as emptiness is itself also something. Let the emptiness purify you of attachment.

This might also mean that you are depressed, but depression has its purpose: it allows you to let go. Let go, especially, of control. The best thing you might do when there is nothing you want to do is to meditate on letting go of control. In fact, many people who are clinically depressed do this spontaneously: they might find that they suddenly become highly aware, yet nearly empty of thought. Their increased awareness might be of their sensations, of their feelings, or of their thoughts. Depression is also correlated with increased daydreaming, during which you might find out what it is you want.

Depression is a defense mechanism meant to empty your mind after or during a period of excessive stress. Depression itself is not the problem: stress is. Nonetheless, depression might be a clearer sign of the problem than stress itself is.

If there is nothing you wish, then you will become depressed, but in this state you might discover what you wish. If there is too much you wish, you will become anxious, which might cause you to become depressed, so that you find out what you really wish.

If we knew no greed, we would be in ecstasy. To be freed of greed is not so much about not compromising others, but not compromising ourselves. If we weren't greedy ourselves, even the greed of others could not compromise us.

"The first step was covering the subject: first of all, [the nanorobots] layered themselves thickly on the surface, in the case of a person leaving only the eyes uncovered; then, they extended their outer walls; then, they connected them, so that they blocked out all light. The second step was scanning: first, they scanned the ambient light; then, they calculated where the light would go if it were unhindered; then, they transmitted the information of the ambient light to right nanorobots. The final step was invisibility: first, the outermost layers of nanorobots filled the interior of their outer walls with a special chemical; then, they caused it to luminesce with a certain hue and brightness. This hue and brightness was the same as that of the background, so that the surface could become almost invisible.

This was much like the chameleon effect, but the camouflage was perfect. The main problem with this was that this was observer-dependent: from different angles the camouflage had to look different as the background also looked different. This required a technique known as integral imaging. This allowed different images were sent in different angles, sometimes up to dozens, so that from whatever direction one looked, the subject would be invisible. Because the nanorobots were so small, this was not a problem if one had enough of them."

From Tempest II: The Novans

This is, of course, science-fiction, and therefore rather extreme: still, I believe that in reality, integral imaging might still possibly be used as a means of achieving invisibility, although perhaps not on a cloak made entirely of nanorobots.

"The exterior of the nanorobots could consist partly or entirely of compartments which could be flipped, so that either side could face either the inside or the outside of the machine. In this way, the exterior of the nanorobot could rapidly be changed to another material present in the storage of the nanorobot (if such were present): the plates of the material were deposited on one side of these compartments, which then flipped, upon which nanomagnets guided it to their appointed position. If the material was already magnetic, only one was needed, on the inside of the wall. Otherwise, the material was itself equipped with a second nanomagnet.
This process was then repeated at such extreme rapidity as is typical of such small scales, so that the nanorobots could change their exterior surprisingly quickly in this way. Other nanorobots had their exterior made entirely of these "doors," so that the process could be instantaneous."

From Tempest II: The Novans

If you want to be content, compare what you have with zero. If you want to achieve something, compare what you have with infinity. This cannot be done without infinite imagination, and if you could fully realize what it would be like to have everything, and fully realize what it would be like to have nothing, you would be enlightened.

You will learn the most not through suffering, but through the enjoyment of as many experiences as possible, but only if that enjoyment is in the form of love rather than a need for distraction from suffering. Suffering merely occurs when we resist experiences when we are still to learn to love them. Being confronted with those experiences can help us to learn to love them, and it is so that to some, suffering sometimes seems the best way to learn. But this suffering is merely the resistance to the learning process.

Bliss in beauty is the triumph of love; suffering in beauty is its failure, but so too its triumph in bringing itself so far as to try.

It is true that we must confront this resistance in order to overcome it, but suffering in itself is just that which keeps us from beauty. Only once we have learned to love an experience have we truly found its beauty. Pain too must be loved, but just therefore it should not be suffered.

If you try to learn as much as possible, it may be that you will suffer the most, but nonetheless, do not seek suffering in itself, for when you suffer, your love becomes exhausted, and so too the will to love. But if you seek love rather than suffering, then your love may grow through its love for itself, until finally it spreads to things that you would otherwise have suffered and not loved.

A careful balance is needed between seeking more of what which you already love and seeking other things that you have not yet learned to love. Stay too much with the things you already love, and your love will turn to boredom. Explore too much, and your love will become harmed. Either way leads to apathy.

Too much adventure into the unknown, and we hurt ourselves through the suffering of too much pain; too little, and we hurt ourselves through the suffering of too much emptiness.

The greater your consciousness, which leads to sensitivity, the more you will have of either, unless it is paired with an equally great self-consciousness, which leads you to balance. People often suffer the most when their consciousness is greater than their self-consciousness. Consciousness helps us to be receptive, self-consciousness helps us to be in control.

Either how, things will always change, even if it is but through the duration that things remain the same. But even so, things always remain the same, even if it is but change that remains the same. You cannot be free from suffering nor find love unless you find balance between change and sameness.

Change too little, and the things you have will change by becoming monotonous, so that they become harder to enjoy; unless you either learn to enjoy the monotony, which is in itself also a change, or unless you change, so that your enjoyment may remain the same. Change too much, and the change will also become monotonous, so that it becomes harder to enjoy change, unless you learn to live with the monotony or stop changing, so that your enjoyment of change may remain the same.

Love may be lost either if it is not renewed through enjoyment or if it is harmed through suffering, and both will happen if there is too much sameness or too much change. In sameness, love the things you already love; in change, love things you have not loved before.

We must transcend our abilities to love but also preserve the ability to love we already have, so that its growth is not stalled, and this can be done if transcendence and preservation there are both enough, if there is balance between emptiness and fullness, light and dark.

See also:

Love and Suffering

Perhaps police in pursuit of vehicles could employ small parachutes to break the momentum of the criminals being pursued, storing the parachute in a projectile attached to a kind of harpoon, which would be fired at the vehicle and open the parachute as soon as its barbs are attached into the vehicle.

Alternatively, the harpoon could be attached to a crank on the top of the pursuing vehicle, which could then brake or drive in the opposite direction to stop the vehicle, so that it would act somewhat like a winch. In analogy with the system of a retractable leash, the winch could then still be retracted, but not lengthened, so that, should the pursued vehicle brake or slow down, the pursuer would not lose control over the vehicle while driving in the opposite direction. Obviously, someone else should be present to arrest the criminals. Should they exit the car, the cable could be detached through a remotely electronic cable joint, so that the pursuing car could continue to pursue them.

It might be that many psychoactive plants, such as coca, used as stimulant, or Saint John's wort, used as an antidepressant, did not evolve their psychoactive substances through mere coincidence. If it was coincidental, it might have occurred in a few plant specimens, but it wouldn't have come to be present in every single specimen of the species. Evolution does not happen without reason. If a mutation occurs and it is useful, then there's a chance that it is passed on onto next generations, but if it has no use at all for the species, then it will disappear.

Obviously, it must have been some use for these substances. Thus, either the psychoactive effect of these substances on animals was useful for the plant, or the psychoactive effect of these substances is a side effect of the substance's real use to the plant. However, as no other use of these substances has been observed, and the plant only wastes energy on producing them, it is obvious that we should assume otherwise.

Moreover, most plants containing psychoactives contain several psychoactives with a similar effect, even though these psychoactives are very different in structure and composition, so that they are unlikely to have been produced in the same chemical pathways. For instance, compare the substances hyperforin and hypericin found in Saint John's wort: hyperforin is aliphatic, whereas hypericin is cyclic. Hyperforin is derived from phloroglucinol, while hypericin is derived from anthraquinone. Either psychopharmaceutical cannot be produced through the combination of the other with other molecules present in the plant, contrary, for instance, to the substances found in Rhodiola rosea, an antidepressant and alleged adaptogen.

Why would a plant produce two different psychoactives with similar effects in entirely different ways? It might therefore be that for some reason, their psychoactive effect increased their odds of survival.

Perhaps these plants, much like the silk worm do today, have always depended upon human cultivation, and developed their psychoactive effect from the artificial selection of humans, much like livestock developed their increased body mass from human selective breeding, or like dogs developed their obedience. As selective breeding shows, human influence can cause evolution to accelerate dramatically, so that it is very well possible for thousands of medical and psychoactive plants to evolve in only tens of thousands of years. What is clear is that herbalism has existed for at least 5.300 years, based on a body found in the Swiss Alps with medicinal herbs among his personal effects.

When some plants of a species developed a mutation causing them to produce psychoactives, someone would have discovered it eventually, especially if their effects were short-term. If the effect was pleasant or interesting, the discoverer might have decided to find more of the plant, and grow some for later. As the plants which were grown were selected according to their potency, they became more and more distinct from their original species generation after generation, so that they eventually formed an altogether separate species.

It is also likely that many medicinal plants evolved in this way. However, it might also be that certain plants containing medicinal substances might themselves have had uses for it, for although plants have no nervous system which might react to psychoactives, they do have a biochemistry, which, though it differs immensely from that of animals, nonetheless also has many things in common with it.

Plants whose effects were long-term were probably only cultivated in later periods, in the Neolithic, since it was unlikely for anyone to discover the effects of long-term working psychoactive or medicinal plants unless they happened to grow amidst the crops. In this case, the plants were likely to be reaped along with the crops, and parts of the plant may have been eaten by accident, or their substances where inhaled during threshing.

While the first Agrarian Revolution happened only 10.000 years ago, a more primitive form of cultivation might have been possible much earlier, since it requires no actual agriculture to grow psychoactive plants for consumption. After all, psychoactive plants can be used at relatively low amounts to have their desired effect, whereas agricultural plants need to be grown in much higher quantities to provide for food. The Amazonians have almost no agriculture, yet they cultivate ayahuasca using cuttings. In fact, despite their lack of agriculture, they call the Amazon a "cultivated forest," that is, a forest that they helped shape. The existence of ayahuasca might be an indicator that to some extent, the Amazon might indeed be called a cultivated forest. It seems that, at the least, they did help one particular plant to come into being, though the liana, as one might expect, is rare.

Among the psychoactive plants, there are two types: some are symbiotic, and some are parasitic. Basically, a psychoactive plant is parasitic if it is addictive, because the cultivators then no longer use the plant out of their own volition, and therefore, it no longer matters whether the plant has any actual benefit to them; whether it benefits them or not, it is already ascertained that they will continue to cultivate it. The cultivators do not base their selection of addictive plants on whether or not it is healthy, but merely on how well it satisfies their addiction. It might therefore be said that, as a rule, addictive psychoactive plants are never healthy.

The symbiotic plants are the kind that are cultivated because they are of benefit to the users, and are invariably not (or barely) addictive. Most of these plants either act on long-term, such as herbal antidepressants. Among the short-term acting varieties, the overwhelming majority are entheogens.

For instance, the Amazonians use ayahuasca as a medicine for physical and mental illness, enabling the user to find the cause of the illness. Similar plants are found to be used by other Native American tribes for the same reason, such as the San Pedro cactus. Because of the medicinal use of these plants, it was, of course, important in their selection that they were healthy, and relatively safe to use. Those who cultivated these plants for medical use or as a means of self-improvement obviously choose those strains that proved to be the least harmful and most beneficial.

One could say that this could be vaguely compared to a clinical trial, except that the guinea pigs were actual humans, usually the shamans or the natives themselves, and without the procedures of scientific method, such as double-blindness or follow-ups. Moreover, the results were only passed on through folklore and were never written down, and because there was never a careful analysis of the users' health, only the significant findings were noticed: in people who lived in such primitive conditions, such petty symptoms as a skin rash were easily overlooked. Despite all these drawbacks, however, I believe that these trials were not without merit, for they were repeated countless times over thousands of years. Because any strain of the plants that proved to be less toxic than the rest, they evolved until they became of the very low toxicity of which they are today.

For instance, cannabis, unlike tobacco, causes no lung cancer, and there even appears to be a negative link between cannabis use and lung cancer, indicating a protective effect. It has been hypothesized that cannabis contains substances which protect the lungs, because any inhalation of smoke would normally cause an increased risk of lung cancer. It seems very unlikely that a plant which is smoked would spontaneously develop substances which negate the damage caused by smoking by pure chance.

Also, it has been found that marihuana contains substances, such as cannabidiol, which are antipsychotic. Heavy use of marihuana can increase the risk of developing psychosis, and the presence of cannabidiol in marihuana could counter this effect. Unfortunately, modern commercial cultivation of dealers, unlike the wiser cultivation of the shamans, has overlooked this danger. Instead of choosing the strains of cannabis based both on safety and potency, they based it solely on potency, ignoring safety altogether. Because of this, the ratio of cannabidiol to the other cannabinoids in marihuana has decreased, which might in part be responsible for the increase of psychosis among seen among heavier users of marihuana today. That this ratio has changed again so quickly because of human cultivation is an indication that the selective breeding of marihuana had once been based on the presence of the cannabidiol, for if it would always have been based solely on the concentration of THC in the thousands of years it had been cultivated, as it is now, the cannabidiol would by now have disappeared or nearly disappeared.

Ironically, another way in which some plants proved to be safer than others was through a bitter taste. Almost any psychedelic plant there is known tastes extremely bitter: kratom, san pedro, peyote, psilocybe, salvia divinorum and ayahuasca are all renowned to be thoroughly disgusting. Marihuana is very bitter when eaten, which might have been how the plant was originally used. Of all psychedelic plants, the most disgusting of all is ayahuasca, and it is accordingly also the most potent. In addition, the psychedelics can also cause vomiting if too much is used, and new users of ayahuasca almost invariably vomit, although more experienced users are able to keep from vomiting the brew. It appears that this bitterness is meant as a warning to those who use it. New users are more likely to be stop eating early, repelled by the taste, while experienced users, being more used to the taste, would be better able to conquer their disgust for it. Aside from this, the bitterness is also an indicator of the plant's potency and the dosage the user takes in. To unprepared users, it can be a foretaste of the suffering it might bring about if they are not ready for the experience.

A German and Dutch proverb actually says that what tastes bitter is healthy: "Was bitter dem Mund, ist dem Herzen gesund," translated in Dutch as "Bitter in de mond maakt het hart gezond." While it is true that many medicines taste bad, this is only an issue in herbal medicines, which need to be eaten or swallowed as a brew, and most of all for psychedelic plants. It is very likely that this bitterness is meant to ensure that the right dosage is used. It seems too coincidental that practically every psychedelic plant there is is bitter in proportion to their potency.

Most psychoactive plants which aren't addictive appear to be harmless or even beneficial. On the other hand, some plants might also use psychoactives as a poison like any other, either to warn animals not to eat them them or to kill those that did. Datura stramonium, for instance, is quite dangerous, and none that were so bold as to try to use it thought the experience so pleasant as to even consider cultivating the plant. Hallucinogens as a warning might be a pretty drastic warning compared to nettle sting, for instance, but may imprint a permanent traumatic memory even on an animal's inefficient memory. It is possible that the Amanite uses this same strategy, as an addition to its physical toxicity.

Aside from those meant either to keep animals from eating the plant or psychoactives meant to coerce the user into cultivating the plant through addiction, however, most psychoactives found in plants seem to be largely beneficial.

The notion that these plants live in symbiosis with humans is reminiscent of the Gaia hypothesis, which posits that all organisms in the biosphere are part of a greater superorganism; and although there is clearly not by far as much union between the organisms of the biosphere and the cells of a single organism, there do seem to many symbiotic relations between different species. In the end, any species depends on countlessly many others, and many depend even on us.

Envision microscopic permanent supermagnets dissolved in water, coated with a material which adheres to water and having a microarchitecture which furthers its absorption of water: perhaps it could then be possible to quickly repel the water itself with a larger magnet. This could be used to dry something or, perhaps, to remove the water from an area around the magnet so as to do something beneath where the water surface had been.

That our society inclines towards yang might be because of our primal ancestry, for the African jungles in which they lived are a very yang environment: basking in sunlight, broiling with heat, brimming with life, whirling with activity and abundant in food. Vivacity, hedonism, sociability, industriousness and materialism are all values characteristic of our species, and they are also all very yang. Scientists have already found that war is something we inherited in common with primates from our evolutionary ancestry, and so are language and community; why then, not materialism? That so much of the earth's surface is covered with our factories might be a direct consequence of the fact that we share our original homes with the primates.

Yin and yang can be hard to reconcile. The only reason that nature has managed to combine them is that this was necessary for it to exist at all, since neither yin nor yang can exist by themselves in any form at all. It was needed for nature to achieve this balance between yin and yang in order for it to be able to evolve at all. We must be cautious to retain this balance.

Yin and yang cause one another; yet at the same time, they also avoid one another, as night shuns day and day shuns night. Try at all times to be mindful to be balanced between the two. Do not fear sadness when you are in joy, and do not fear joy when you are in sadness, but try to accept that one flows into the other as day and night. There can be joy in sadness and sadness in joy, and neither is above the other.

As our species are more yang than yin, we tend to fear sadness rather than joy, even though, when our joy remains too long, it will turn into anxiety. Some who are in sadness, on the other hand, fear joy when it comes to them. Try to accept both. Do not deny your sadness, but neither deny your joy. We must accept it when one has to succeed the other. The same counts for all things yin and yang, such as work and rest, or society and solitude.

Pain is our way of repelling what we do not want. Pleasure is our way of attracting what we do want, which may include the absence of something we don't want. Thus, both can be means of achieving the same purpose. The difference between the two is but that one painful and the other pleasurable. Thus, focus on what you do want, not on what you don't want.

Perhaps all the symptoms of schizophrenia, paranoia in particular, are a direct result of ego-splitting, in which the person's sense of self, or ego, becomes split into separate compartments which seem to assume a role of their own. For instance, the person's own thoughts may seem as though they are those of someone (or something) else, leading to the delusion that thoughts have been inserted into the person mind. These thoughts which have separated from the ego may then turn to intrusive thoughts or voices.

At the same time, if the ego has been split into many compartments, it becomes harder to focus one's attention on one specific compartment, because one's thoughts have basically become scattered across each of these many compartments. In this way, one's attention may become distracted as it rapidly shifts from one train of thought to another.

In ego splitting, the central part of one's ego is still in one's physical body, but most of it has become transferred onto other areas of one's consciousness, such as daydreams, to such extent that these may become extremely vivid. These may then have such impact on one's emotions that they seem real, whereas the part of the ego concerned with reality has become so small that real events have a much smaller impact on one's emotions. The result is an increased response to imaginary stimuli, and a decreased response to real stimuli. In other words, the ego has partly dissolved into imagination.

In addition, parts of the ego may become transferred onto objects in the person's environment, so that it seems as though these are alive, or as though they contain cameras, microphones or other means through which they might be spied upon, or it might seem that the person can control these objects with his mind.

This may also happen with people: when parts of the ego are transferred to other persons, the person's emotions about him- or herself may become projected upon them. It follows that if the person has a high self-esteem, this may lead to the feeling that people will likewise have a high esteem of him or her, increasing the feeling of high self-esteem and so forth. This interaction may lead to grandiloquence. On the other hand, if the person has a low self-esteem, this may lead to paranoia, because he or she then projects his or her feelings about him- or herself onto others.

In addition, some people who suffer from self-loathing may use daydreams to punish themselves, especially people who have a lot of imagination. They may do this by hurting themselves in their thoughts, but also by making other people hurt them in their daydreams. In one's daydreams, one has the ability to exert full power over all things, and for people who live largely in daydreams, this ability might distort their image of reality, leading to the delusion that reality differs little from daydreams.

As the ego splits up, the person comes to feel one with things that are in reality separate from his physical self. In this way, the person's sense of separation becomes blurred. This may cause the feeling that people are too close to oneself and so worsen the sociophobia already caused in part due to the paranoia. Furthermore, because of this lack of sense of separation, it becomes as if all things in the world are in fact part of the person's own mind, things that are therefore controlled by the person's own thoughts. As the person dissociates from their own thoughts, however, and they come to appear to take a form distinct from the ego, it seems as if their thoughts are not their own, and that they are instead thoughts that they pick up from other people.

Furthermore, because of this lack of sense of separation, it may also seem that everyone is much too close to them. Close enough, for instance, to harm them, or to read their thoughts. Strictly speaking, this is not in itself ego splitting, since the ego is one's sense of self, and the paranoid still knows the difference between themselves and other people, and does not see them as part of themselves as one would see one's arm as part of oneself, for example; but the feelings they believe others to have towards them still originate from their own. This is so because the paranoid's sense of self has partly dissolved, so that they no longer recognize these feelings as their own.

If the person hates him- or herself, it may seem to them that the entire world hates them. If the person is also self-destructive, it will seem as if the entire world is keen on destroying them. But to paranoids, this feeling becomes so extreme that is no longer a mere emotion, but a reality to them.

One might argue that ego dissolution is not the only thing that may cause paranoia. Traumas can be another cause, for instance, which neither directly nor indirectly have anything to do with ego dissolution. On the other hand, one might question if this is paranoia at all, since people who develop fear of people because of traumas have an actual reason to do so, namely, the chance that the trauma might repeat itself. The traumatized person's estimation of this chance isn't even necessarily irrationally high, but he or she is so terrified of this chance that no matter how small it may be, it is still significant to him or her.

Some Buddhists, and other practitioners of meditation, practice a form of meditation called metta meditation, or compassion meditation, in which the meditator tries to generate compassion for living beings: first him- or herself, then loved ones, then acquaintances, then enemies, then strangers, and ultimately all that lives.

This form of meditation would not actually work with paranoids, because the issue with paranoids is not their own hate for others, but the imagined hate others have for them. However, if this form of meditation were reversed, it might actually serve as a potential cure or prevention for paranoia.

Since the paranoid's emotions have become projected onto other people, he must deal both with the emotions ascribed to the ego as those ascribed to others, meaning that he must re-place him- or herself in the place of others and then deal with the emotions he feels for himself in others' place.

To the paranoid, the metta meditation should be focussed entirely on the first stage of generating compassion for him- or herself, but from the viewpoint of others. In other words, he or she should imagine other people to love them and send them love. This is unlikely to work, but in the process, he or she might resolve the hate that he or she imagines others to feel for them, which is actually their own self-hate projected onto others.

As this form of meditation would require insight on the paranoid's part that he or she is paranoid, this would sometimes be more useful as a preventive than a curative method, at least in severe cases. Nonetheless, it can also be used in less severe forms of paranoia, or while the illness is already or still in full force.

As such, softness cannot be given; it can only be received. Softness can therefore only be given to another by vicariously receiving it in their place.

The goal is always love. You can either search that which you love, or love that which you find. If there is nothing left which you love, for instance if everything causes you suffering, you have no more choice than to try to love that which you find, even if everything you can find brings you suffering. If you are suffering, it is not enough to accept your suffering: you must love it, especially if there is no longer anything else than suffering.

As everything is relative, so everything is in itself equal in value, equally beautiful and equally abominable — infinitely beautiful and infinitely abominable. Everything being equal in beauty, and having no real beauty of itself, the only thing that we should seek is the perception of beauty in itself, since that is the only real beauty we will find. Or rather, it is the closest to real beauty we can ever find — for no beauty is real. Beauty is but in our minds. It is something we imagine, and by imagining it, we make it real.

Outside our imagination, nothing is ever beautiful, and this is a curse we must bear; for whatever we may think to be beautiful, it is never beautiful in itself, and so no beauty we ever see will last outside ourselves; and it may be that when we think we have found beauty, it is only to find later that it no longer holds any beauty to us anymore. If beauty lies but in ourselves, it can never be certain, for nothing that lies in ourselves is. What lies in ourselves can always change.

The tragedy is that the perception of beauty, which is all that matters in the universe, is infinitely fragile, and it may shatter literally in a moment through the force of suffering, or worse, ignorance.

Because perception is so relative, so too is beauty, and beauty can be perceived in literally anything at all, no matter how ugly we tend to perceive it. Thus, to find beauty one must not only seek what one sees as beautiful, but also see the things you have already found as beautiful. The perception of beauty is called love, though love may also be many other things.

Things have no value of themselves whatsoever. Things can only have value to us when we give them that value, and one can only give something value through love. If life seems worthless, that is because you give it no value. If life seems precious, it is because you give it its value. Neither is an absolute truth. But why should we choose to give only certain things in life their value in the form of love, while not others?

In a person who is bipolar, hypomania and depression both have the same cause and cause one another. Bipolarity is usually caused by with an increased sensitivity in some form or other, though increased sensitivity does not necessarily lead to bipolarity. As such, the bipolar cycle is merely an exaggeration of a normal person's emotional cycle between normal sadness and normal happiness.
However, at the same time, hypomania may cause depression and the other way around, as yin and yang usually do, much like the crests and troughs of the waves. For one thing, hypomania may lead to denial of problems. In particular, hypomania may cause an overconfidence which leads to an indifference with regards to negative emotion, so that these become repressed. When these become too obvious to still be denied, they at once come to the surface and may thus trigger a depression.
At this point, the hypomania may either gradually turn into a depression, or it may first turn into a mixed state: a nervous state of feverish excitement. The latter happens if the bipolar person still tries to retain his or her elevated level of energy despite the agitation, but this eventually becomes to painful, and he or she finally gives up to end up in a full-blown depression.
On the other hand, depression may then pave the way for a new hypomanic episode in a bipolar person. The withdrawal caused by depression gives one time to contemplate what one wants to change in one's life, so that, when one endeavors to achieve these changes, one's quality of life may improve. At the same time, one may become used to dealing with negative emotions.
Bipolar people often learn to objectivize their emotions because they are so changeable, thus making it clear to them that everything is highly relative. Realizing this, people with bipolar depression may be more likely in a depressive episode to work about their condition than someone with unipolar depression, knowing that a hypomanic episode may come afterwards which may be worthwhile.
Either how, depression may paradoxically improve one's outlook on life in anyone. It puts one before the choice between suicide, suffering or self-improvement. Eventually, if given enough time, one either chooses for suicide or self-improvement. One becomes forced to become more conscious and more constructive in one's thoughts and actions.
Moreover, depression creates an emptiness which forces one to detach from things one formerly took for granted, so that one is reminded of their value, and later becomes more capable of appreciating them and being thankful for their existence. In major depressive episodes, it may be that one has to let go of absolutely everything one ever enjoyed, simply because one has lost every bit of enjoyment of it. But only once you've let go of something can you be mindful of what it means to you. Becoming depressed and then recovering is like dying and then being reborn again.
Bipolar disorder is common among artists not only because artists are often more intense people, but also because art can be a way of dealing with emotions. In addition, however, their emotions may depend strongly on their art, especially because artists often have less social contact then other people. At the same time, their art depends strongly on their emotions. This codependence may spiral in turns into a depressive and a hypomanic episode.

When you are too distracted by thoughts during meditation while being still, try to meditate more while moving, for instance, in yoga, tai chi, dancing, walking, exercise, work, or another activity. If you are too distracted by thoughts during active meditation, try a more passive meditation, like insight meditation, mantric meditation, prayer or hypnosis.

Since meditation is merely mindful experience, meditation can be both active or passive. There must be a balance between active and passive meditation, and if this balance is not respected, then the meditation may cease to be effective or even become harmful. People have slipped into psychosis from too much passive and too little active meditation. On the other hand, too much active and too little passive meditation will only lead to an obsessive concentration.

In any case, however it is very important that any activity during meditation can be more or less automatized, that is to say, that it can happen without much thought, as it is not concentration, but experience, that matters in meditation. It is impossible to experience if one is forced to concentrate on thought.

People who have too little yang might focus more on active meditation, lest they only lose focus in passive meditation. People who have too little yin might instead focus more on passive meditation.

When you are in sadness, try to let go of attachment as much as possible: let go of greed, of anger, of fear. Let go of all things you tell yourself that must or must not be. Letting go of attachment is easier when sad, and in this way, sadness can come to its use. It can thus cleanse your being from impurities and, like winter, creates an emptiness from which new life can grow in spring. The faster you are able to let go, the less painful your sadness will feel, and the quicker it can also pass. Thus, do not resist sadness, but try to make use of it until it is gone. The use of sadness is to make one let go how things go, not as a punishment when things do not go your way. In your sadness, let go off all control and let everything be. Thus, it will come to its use.

Sometimes the best thing you can do when you are in sadness is to make use of your sadness' purification abilities, and the best way to do this is to turn inwards. Meditation, or, if you are religious, prayer, can be a good way to do this. In your sadness, you are more able to let go of control, thereby creating an emptiness within yourself. Learn to appreciate the silence this brings, and in that silence try to find grace.

Above all, when you are sad, think about what you want to do with your life. Sadness is an emptiness which creates a panorama within your mind. Hear the silence. See the darkness. Feel the cold. In this emptiness, find purity. Once you have done this, your sadness has served its purpose, and the light may come back once again.

In everything there is infinite beauty; in what things one sees beauty is but a matter of preference. To say that the beauty of something is greater than that of something else is prejudice, for if all beauty is infinite, there is none that is greater than any another. There is inexhaustible beauty in all things, and to be fully conscious of it would mean to be God.

Since everything is perception and so everything is but as we perceive it, everything is of infinite and therefore equal beauty. It is therefore impossible to do or create anything that is more or less beautiful than anything else, except to oneself or to a specific other person. There is beauty only in love, the appreciation of beauty.

As everything is equal in beauty, it is meaningless to seek beauty in anything but the perception of the beauty in all things in itself, which is love. To seek to love all things is the only thing we ever need to do, but unfortunately, since we are unable to love all things, we must often confine ourselves to the things we have already learned to love, lest, in trying to love the things that are still hurtful to us, we would destroy ourselves. Yet our task remains but to learn to love those things we cannot yet love, and to more fully love those things that we already do.

It is a question of balance, therefore, between loving what we find (yin), and finding what we love (yang), in order to find love, which is the only thing we should seek.

Ultimately, love itself is the only thing of value, that is to say, the only thing that gives value to our lives. Thus, everything is of infinite value, and yet nothing by itself is of any value whatsoever.

Destruction is sometimes needed for construction. But if you destroy out of hate, destruction is your ultimate goal, and not a means to an end. If you destroy out of love, then creation becomes your ultimate goal.

You've created this perception of good and bad and do not realize that this is but a perception of your own creation. The only thing that is good is the perception of good, and that perception doesn't even need to be in your experience; it can just as well be in your experience of your experience.

Worries are often the result of indecision. We worry about things if we aren't sure what to do about them, or even what to think about them. In fact, worrying is basically about making decisions: the mind recognizes a problem and debates what to do about.

When we think of doing something but dither about what we should do, or if we should really do anything at all, this vacillation may resound in our minds for some time, and for some people longer than for others; at first, consciously; then, when our minds are distracted by other matters, this may go on on a subconscious level. When this happens, we may have the feeling that we have forgotten something we need to do. The feeling that something needs to change leads to unrest. We have a nagging feeling without knowing just why.

At this point, we may struggle, perhaps without being fully aware of it, to remember what it was we still needed to decide about, sometimes to such extent that it causes us to forget to enjoy. We know not what to think about, but we know that we should be thinking about something, a matter which still needed to be settled upon. Since we forgot what it was, we simply go on thinking about what we were thinking until our thoughts wander. The more frequently it occurs that we cannot decide on something, the further we get lost in our thoughts.

On the other hand, indecisiveness may also be linked to philosophical abilities, since people who are indecisive about what to do may also be unable to decide on what to think, allowing them to keep their mind open to possibilities.

Another phenomenon where indecisiveness can lead to anxiety is in an undesirable situation which may or may not be changed. The mind cannot relax and accept the situation before it knows that it will not change it, as it otherwise wishes to seek a way to change it. However, it may be difficult to change the situation, which may lead to indecision whether or not to change it. To make matters worse, to change the situation one may have to sacrifice something else, further making the decision harder. As long as this has not been decided on, the mind will remain in a state where it sees the given situation as something it wishes to change, and therefore it will become more frustrating. As long as the mind thinks of changing the situation, it cannot accept it. However, someone who is indecisive may also be indecisive about whether or not to even think of changing the situation or accept it.

In addition, indecisiveness is also likely to generally slow people down in everything they do, as they spend a large portion of their time deciding what to do, so that, in this way, indecision may significantly make their lives less fulfilling and more frustrating.

Many people may be faced with indecision now and then, but for some people, this may become so frequent that a chronic sense of uncertainty settles in their minds. If this problem becomes severe, these people may eventually develop depression. It has indeed been observed that in depressed people, the prefrontal cortex, the brain's decision center, is hypoactive, which is one of the most characteristic signs of depression. Perhaps indecision is not just a symptom but also a cause or contributing factor of depression, though it is certainly not the only one. Either how, it seems clear that people who are indecisive run a higher risk of developing depression at some point in their lives.

To be mindful of every experience can uplift one to such state of bliss that, ironically, there is soon the danger that one becomes attached to it, which, once you are no longer in a state of mindfulness, causes negative emotions which prevent us from becoming mindful again. In order not to become attached to the state of being mindful of your experiences of every moment, try to see the transience of every moment, which, after all, lasts only for a moment before it is replaced with the next.

Do not regret when you have allowed an experience to pass you by without you having thankfully enjoyed it, for every experience lasts only an infinitely short time. It does not matter to have lost it, for in doing so, you have lost nearly nothing. In the awareness that every moment fades after an infinitely short time, you may better be able to detach from it.

Whether you were mindful or not at some time in the past does not change your chance of being mindful now, for if at a given moment you wish to be mindful merely for the experience of mindfulness at this moment, and not for its effect on long term, then you certainly will be at that given moment. You may no longer be so the next moment, but that does not matter, for if you do not, it is because you no longer wish to be mindful for that moment, and that, at most, you wish to be mindful merely for the long-term effect of it.

If you try to be mindful but fail, it is because you have forgotten why you want to be mindful. At this point, you no longer truly want to mindful to experience, but merely to be in a state you can call mindful.

Emotions are, for a large part and perhaps entirely, experiences which are embedded within sensations, in the form of impressions. The sensations in which emotions are imbued may be real or exist only in imagination. Thus, to better become aware how you feel, try to attribute emotions to your sensations, including sight, sound, touch, smell (and to a lesser extent, perhaps taste). When you are aware of how you feel,  to feel better, try to imagine that you fill every sensation with positive emotions.

The exaggeration of a point of view will automatically give rise to a counteraction from its opponents, rather than suppressing them. It does not help at all to exaggerate in order to convince your opponents, contrariwise, it will give them an opportunity to further contradict your point of view.

Exaggeration will make you seem less plausible, so that your arguments are more susceptible to skepticism. Once the error of your exaggeration has been uncovered, you are no longer trusted in anything you say or do. This can be dangerous, because you may in fact represent a point of view that, except for its exaggeration, may in fact have a core of truth.

Do not try to argue against the opponents of your point of view, but instead try to argue with them. Be as objective as possible, so that you may invite your objectors to do the same. Rather than trying to show how much we are right and the other is wrong, let us seek for the truth together.

Be open to all points of view, and do not cling to your own. Not only will this help you to find more insight into truth yourself and not be blinded by attachment to your own opinion, but by following another's line of thinking, you may also better be able to falsify it, and so share your own insight into the truth with others.

A common example of how exaggeration has led to increased skepticism is global warming. By announcing the end of the world, many people, including scientists, have only brought about only more controversy about whether or not global warming is effectively happening. With all the prophets around to declare doomsday, many people eventually came to see climate change as a pseudoscience.

If you have a view which is extreme and seems exaggerated because of being controversial, then when propounding it, try to remember to state that it is a mere possibility, a hypothesis, so that others may be more open to it. After all, thought experiments, even when untrue, can always be interesting.

When you do or think something negative, it is not enough to resolve not to do so again. You must also counterbalance the destructive thought or deed with a constructive one.

It is not so that balance means stability; for as there must be a balance between all things, so there must be a balance between stability and fluctuation. Things must be combined both through simultaneity and through fluctuation, so that these two things as well can be combined in balance, and also separated in balance, and combined also through their separation. Things must be combined not only in space, but also over time.

Think of climate, for instance. The earth must be balanced between hot and cold. Not only should its average temperature be balanced between these, but also should the oscillation between temperature be balanced, as in the seasons. Nature would be limited, were there no seasons. But nature would also be limited if the seasons were too extreme.

Extremism is not only out of balance in itself, but it will also cause even more imbalance through reverse extremism, which comes as a reaction to counterbalance it. You cannot achieve your goal through extremism, not only because it will only cause you to shoot right past your goal, but also because it will cause the opposite extreme to grow, and increase conflict between the two extremes. Only if both extremes are reconciled and combined harmoniously with one another can balance be restored. There is a tendency, called enantiodromia, of opposites to attract. If you remain sufficiently in the middle, then the two will flow into one another in harmony, rather than coming together in collision.

First tell yourself how you feel, rather than denying it, and only then, say to yourself how you would like to feel, and try to feel thus. Many people try to do this the other way around, but in doing so only succeed in repressing their emotions.

Sometimes, from your worries can grow plans. Worries are a sacrifice of the present which you make for the future. Be sure, then, that if you worry, you are doing so in such way that you are also planning change. Don't waste too much energy on negative (that is to say, destructive) emotions about how things currently are; instead, try to draw positive energy from positive emotions about how things could be. At all times, also be aware that times when you worry are times of transition, and while these may be hard, they are also the most beautiful passages in the story of your life. Knowing this, be patient.

The love of man and woman is the same as that of all things hard and soft in the universe.

Everything we experience is no more than a connection with things that are already there in the universe. Therefore, ethical matters are more a concern of one's own connection with these things in the universe than those things themselves. Everything, being infinite, will always remain the same anyway. In an infinite universe, all things occur at an infinite frequency, and so their frequency always remains the same. Nothing we ever do can therefore change anything about the universe itself; it can only change the nature of our own connection with the universe.

Ethics, then, is not so much about not hurting others in the universe, but not hurting one's own connection with others in the universe. Others are part of our connection with the universe as is our ego, and so they are part of ourselves. Whoever hurts someone else will hurt themselves.

A war should be fought only if genocide is already taking place, in order to stop the genocide, when all other approaches to stop it have failed, including assassination and coups. A nation who commits genocide must be seen as an offender of international law. When a war does have to take place, the entire world should take part of it against the offender. A war stops only when either party is either defeated or surrenders; both will be more likely to happen, or happen quicker, if either of the parties is vastly outnumbered, so that many lives may be spared.

The United Nations of the world should see any nation in the world as part of their own world, as though it were their own nation; an offense against any nation must be seen as an offense against the entire world. The military of the world should be seen as a political police; like the police, the military of different countries should cooperate. Once it has recognized a criminal, it must put an end to their crimes.

When I say that all nations of the entire world should partake in the war, I mean that it should do so as though it were their own, and as though the people who were dying in of the war were as the people own nations. That is to say, every nation should send all troops that are readily available as fast as possible to the attacked nation or ethnic group. Long before they have fully done so, the offender will be so swarmed that it will be sure to surrender. Moreover, if the entire world reacts in response to genocide, genocide is far less likely to happen.

Children should at all times had the right to choose freely to be received in a foster family, be it temporarily or permanently, for instance in the case of abuse or neglect. As soon as a mental illness (including alcoholism) has been diagnosed in either of the parents, the children of the parents should be informed of this right.

Though most likely not in the modality of classical astrologies, it is factual that the month in which one is born is likely to have an influence upon one's personality, much like the time during pregnancy. When the child is still unborn, the environment can affect it through the mother once the brain is active, because of hormones received from the mother. After the child is born, however, the environment directly affects the child through its own experiences. It is quite logical that, since the brain is still not yet fully developed during the first few months after birth, its growth will still be affected by the environment. In fact, the brain is affected by the environment throughout life, because it keeps growing new connections with every experience.

However, it is mostly in childhood that the personality is formed. It makes sense that the earlier in one's life, the more one's experiences impact one's personality, because there is still so much empty space to be filled in. It is not to be wondered at, then, that people who were born through Cesarian section have been observed to be calmer than those born through the far more traumatic natural delivery.

My idea is that while the time of year also has an effect on the early formation of one's personality, it also depends on all environmental factors at the time of one's birth, including weather and the pervading mood in the family.

It has already been observed, for instance, that the chance of developing schizophrenia is higher if one was born during winter or early spring, with a ten percent difference between february and august. It is also known that schizophrenic symptoms are generally worse in winter than in summer. This former correlation, however, is also likely partly caused by the last three months of pregnancy, as the brain of the fetus activates at nearly six months after conception.

There is a possibility that, through the passage of observation from one generation to the next, correlations were observed between the month of one's birth and personality, although this is no excuse for proper scientific method. These may later have formed a core of truth in some astrologies, but since astrology is based mostly on the significance one would be inclined to attribute to zodiacal signs, most of it is still likely to be fantasy.

Instead, it would be interesting if, as an extension of earlier investigations which correlated schizophrenia with birthdays in winter or early spring, researchers would investigate further links between the month of one's birth and personality. The correlation already said above, for instance, could mean that people born in winter or spring are generally more fantastic or more nervous than other people. By that logic, people born in summer or early fall would generally be more practical and cheerful.

It would be interesting to see a scientific replacement for astrology, although the correlations actually found would likely be less dramatic than those affirmed by astrologies. Furthermore, the correlations would likely be less specific for each month, instead being spread out over many months.

Imagine how it must be like for a newborn to suddenly emerge from the womb and begin to experience its environment. Only months before, there had been nothing but a great blackness. You can remember absolutely no past; nothing whatsoever. There was nothing. There has never been anything. You are unable to form a single concrete thought; all you can do is to experience the world in its overwhelming intensity. Everything is new, alien, impossible. You are constantly learning. Every single sensation or movement is a new lesson to understand. Your mind is filling itself with qualia like a black hole. Life suddenly explodes from a narrow space in a mother's womb into an entire, infinite universe. In this time, how can it be otherwise than that the nature of our first experiences impacts our personality for the rest of our lives?

If there is or would be a God, then all things to God are of infinite and therefore equal value. With regards to its value, therefore, it does not matter what we do except to ourselves individually.

Love, in its earliest form, still as a germ, usually inevitably comes with attachment, and so fear, and ultimately hatred for anything that threatens that which we are attached to, and these remain until our love has become perfected. Usually, it is only if our love grows steadily, so that it grows already being close to perfection, it does not cause attachment. Attachment arises when our love grows faster than we can deal with.

Perhaps we can so see the evil within us, in the form of fear and hate, at least in part, as a good sign. It means that we are growing, and that we are growing fast. That we hate means that we love, and that we love so much that we are prepared to make the sacrifice of suffering for it. When we make this sacrifice, we must bear it, however, and not impose it upon others; it is our own burden. Others did not choose to share in it.

It is, in fact, easy to get rid of all suffering, but only if one gives up one's love. Love, once found, however, is so strong that one rarely finds the force to dispose of it again, unless one has descended into extreme tendencies of self-destruction, such as drug addiction.

Life is as hard as you are willing to make it. Life will never be easy unless you make it so. Remember this when you are suffering. It is the cross you bear to love. You can always be freed of it if you give up that love, and stop caring about anything in unfeeling emptiness. To suffer, until you are perfected, is your own choice.

Suffering, it itself, is not necessary to grow. But nonetheless, that we are suffering means that we are growing. It means that we have not given up, and that we are trying. For failure is always also a sign of success.

See also:

Change and Sameness

Updated article: Condensed Light

"It may also be possible all energy has the same constituents as photons are themselves composed of, which would likewise always have the speed of light. What those may be, however, is highly speculative, as they would be beyond the level even of elementary particles. If all elementary particles have the same basic constituents, however, this would explain how elementary particles can bring others into being. Photons themselves can be converted into any kinds of other particles, for instance. Usually, when two particles interact (read collide) with one another with enough energy, their kinetic energy is converted into other particles. However, if two photons interact with one another with enough energy, they are entirely converted into other particles. This is basically the time reversal transformation of the combination of matter and antimatter particles, which yields photons.

When photons are converted into matter, its energy is transferred into these particles. Thus, it is obvious that the energy in the photons is of the same form of that of the particles, and therefore, has the same particles at some level. That all forms of energy can be converted into one another seems to indicate that all energy fundamentally has the same constituents. Otherwise they could interact, but no more.

All this is, however, mere guesswork."

It is only when one stops trying to resist one's sadness that one can be free.

Do not be afraid to be content, even though you dream of more, but always keep dreaming even when you are content, and keep being content even when you dream of more; so that your thankfulness, and so your happiness, might help to make your dreams come true, and that your dreams might also help to make you happy.
Day and night must alternate within you; but so too, in some part they must be one. When night falls, keep the light of day within you, and when dawn comes, keep the dreams of night within you.

Whenever you fail to be fully mindful in whatever you do, stop doing it for a few seconds to become mindful again.

Love your hate, lest in hating it you would let it grow. In so doing, however, remember that your hate is, nonetheless, something that is not meant to be, but do not attempt to undo it. Be objective, trying neither to kill it nor to make it grow, but merely observing and enjoying it in the current moment, as nothing more than a merely relative and transient experience.

Moreover, experience it in its context, neither focussing too much upon it nor too little; for hate is an enemy which will attack you in your back lest you are on your guard, but as the Hydra, it will also only grow stronger as you fight it. Instead, then, try to unify and reconcile it with your life, and your life with it. Let it be part of your life as long as it is there.

Updated articles: A Dualistic Universe and A Monistic Universe

There is less than one would be inclined to think that separates the intellectual from the idiot. The greatest genius arises not from intellect alone, but also from creativity and sensibility. The greatest idiocy arises from intellect without creativity or sensibility.

In dreams only you are alone. Only when you are alone are you dreaming. But when a dream is shared, it becomes reality.

Messier registered hundreds of planetary nebula in order not to be distracted by them in his search for comets. Today, planetary nebula prove to be even more beautiful to us than any comet as yet observed.

Perhaps we can learn from this: anything can become beautiful, if only we look close enough.

Craving and fear can be converted into love through detachment. Do not therefore resist them, as they can precede love. Instead, allow them to grow into love.

We resist suffering merely because suffering is per definition that which we resist, nothing more and nothing less. Suffering, then, is but resistance and otherwise nothing but an illusion. Pain itself is not an illusion, but if one will not resist it, one will not suffer from it. Do not resign yourself, but do not resist either.

It is in your emptiness that you can most purify your life. If emptiness comes over you, then, use it to do so.

When losing something, people often try to represent what they lost as being of less worth than it used to be to them. This may lessen their sorrow for what they lost, but this is no good way of saying goodbye. Instead, remember of what worth it was to you, but also see the worth of its loss, and what that loss may have brought you instead.  You will then find that it may have brought you more silence where before there had been disorder.

Attention is as much a place in one's mind as one's location is a place in one's world. One must therefore remember to accept not only where one is in the world but also where one is in one's mind. Accept where your attention is as long as it is there where it is, as you should accept where your location is as long as you are there.

If your senses are focussed on sensations you experience as negative, learn to love them, and so too if your mind is focussed on emotions you experience as negative, accept them as well.

After no time will time ever be aught but this moment; and after no time will this moment ever be again.

The only thing that you can perfect is your awareness of the perfection in and of the universe. To be fully aware of all perfection in the universe would, however, require infinite consciousness.

In absolutely everything you do, be, intensely, mindfully, wholeheartedly creative, even if what you are doing at a given moment is no more than enjoying, for even in the way one enjoys one can be thusly creative. Without really needing to achieve anything, let everything you do every moment be as beautiful as possible, as though it were a work of art — not only in your actions but also your experience. In this way, one may grow through every moment, and every moment will contribute to one's constant growth. In this way, one can both experience and improve at the same time, at all times.

In considering the possibility of life on other planets, we must note that the earth has had far more advantages than just having seas and the right temperature:

1) The protosphere, the nebulous disk from which the solar system arose, formed of matter from a heavier star which contained a wide variety of heavier materials.

2) The Earth was formed of a mass which contained a wide variety of elements

3) The Earth was protected from the impact of heavier asteroids by the proximity of the gas giant Jupiter, the vacuum cleaner of the solar system
4) Meanwhile, smaller asteroids and comets, having less gravitational attraction to Jupiter, were let through into the innermost solar system, providing water, organic materials and minerals.
5) By an amazing stroke of fortune, our planet has a stable moon, which is highly exceptional for terrestrial planets. Usually, natural satellites of planets our size either collide with the planet or rapidly drift away from them. By causing oceanic tides, the moon brings many advantages to the Earth's biology and in particular to its evolution. Without it, it may have taken far longer for life to migrate onto coastal areas and later inland, and for all we know it might never have happened had some of the first sea animals not been swept away to the shore.
6) The Earth has a magnetosphere which repels cosmic radiation and solar mass ejections which would otherwise almost fully sterilize the planet.
7) The Earth has an ozone layer which offers a protection against UV rays. However, as ozone is relatively likely to form in an atmosphere rich in oxygen, this is linked to the probability of high atmospheric oxygen.
8) In addition to having water at all, the Earth has actual oceans,
9) The Earth has plate tectonics, which furthers biodiversification compartmentalizing the earth into many separate as well as non-separate areas, thereby allowing the biosphere to experiment with evolution in different environments; adding to the variety of the terrain will add to the variety of the life-forms inhabiting it.

Self-replicating spacecraft could replicate until there were many enough to build even greater self-replicating spacecraft, which could then in turn replicate to build even greater spacecraft, so that through self-replicating spacecraft one could eventually create megastructures which could manipulate the solar system in any way theoretically possible. In this, these self-replicating spacecraft would be similar to self-replicating nanomachines, which could build even smaller self-replicating nanomachines and so on, so that nanomachines could eventually manipulate molecules in any theoretically possible way.

1) Experience (Input)

Be lovingly, curiously, intriguedly aware of your current experiences;

Be thankful for them, knowing that they might as well not be there, that they will not last, and that they are unique for every moment, and beautiful in that unicity;

Perceive all things as being novel and impossibly, paradoxically wonderful in the fact of their existence;

Perceive all things as though they were living beings, and lovingly interact with them, while forgiving them for any disharmony felt with it.

Take a walk, remembering to be fully anchored in one's experiences;

Say to yourself repeatedly "I live" whenever you find yourself slipping into unconsciousness, and set your determination to stay firmly in your experience;

Meditate, focussing on absolutely everything you experience, and let the experiences come to you rather than seeking out the experience;

Repudiate judgmental thoughts.

2) Imagination (Processing)

Perceive the world as being a dream, and as such part of oneself over which one has full control;

Trust that everything that happens has a meaning and reason, and perceive them as being part of a design;

Feel the infinite love of the universe;

Ask for whatever you want, trust you will get it in time, and wait for it, as on a parcel;

Feel a connection with the earth (yang) which keeps you firm, and a connection with the sky (yin) which keeps you open-minded;

Imagine whatever you dream of, or whatever would make you feel happy, as vividly as possible.

Whenever you catch yourself in an unpleasant daydream, mend whatever has happened in the daydream, and make it become as positive as possible.

3) Activity (Output)

Do whatever you feel like doing, without thinking about it whatsoever;

Always keep busy with at least one thing (even if it's just experiencing in some way, as long as you commit yourself to doing so wholeheartedly);

Take a walk or engage in other kinds of exercise, remembering to remain aware of doing so every moment;

Review your past achievements, and compare them as a proof of your progress so as to gain confidence and motivation;

After having accomplished something, spend some time contemplating it, either to figure out what you need to work on, or to reinforce your self-esteem;

Experiment and playfully try new things.

A good compromise does not lessen the advantage of either side but finds a way of fully retaining the advantage of both, or even improving both: in other words, a good compromise is one that achieves a Nash equilibrium. With this, I refer not only to a compromise between two or more parties, but also between two apparently opposing motivations in a person or other entity.

In all things we do, then, we should not act from a single motivation but take all our motivations into account at the same time, in such way that each benefits the other and so all motivations become connected. We must seek to thus connect all things thus in balance.

(See the entry below for an example, in that case, a compromise between ambition on the one hand and contentment on the other.)

If you deeply aspire to achieve something, then by all means do all that is in your ability to achieve it, but remind yourself that you can do no more than just that. When you are already doing your best, you should not try to push yourself further, for it will not work, on the contrary, it will then only demotivate you. When you have reached the limits of your abilities, accept them as long as they are there, until you manage to push them further.
When you are already working hard to achieve your dreams, it is time to once more avert your focus from those dreams and turn it back on your experience. In this way, not only will it become more pleasant to work to achieve them, but you will also become better at it because you do so with more focus.
In this way, one can have very high goals without being pained by them. Whatever efforts you exert to achieve your goals, you must always do so step by step, departing from where you are to then arrive as close as you can get to your goal; if you have made up your mind what your goal is, it is no use of thinking about that goal when you are already doing everything to move closer towards it; instead, focus on how you move closer towards it and that alone. Devote yourself to what you do now, not to thinking of what you cannot do yet.

In the meantime, as you work to achieve your goals, enjoy what you have achieved so far and what you are achieving as you work. In this way, a compromise can be made between the need of achievement and a need of happiness without compromising either of both, and indeed actually improving both; similarly, such there are for all things.

One of the functions of our dreams, including daydreams, is to represent a model of reality; therefore, we should try to become aware of our dreams and daydreams, and try to achieve the best possible outcome in them. In this way, we will not only be more ready when the situation in question comes in reality, but we will also harmonize our feelings: if something negative happens in our daydreams, it will affect our feelings negatively, while if something positive happens in our daydreams, it will effect them positively. Therefore, in our dreams we should do that which feels best as well as we should in reality. If something negative happens in your daydreams, set it right.

Anything done out of craving or fear rather than love will destroy, whereas only what is done through love can create. This is a general rule because of how love, craving and fear are defined; love will do only that which is the best for that which it loves, whereas fear and craving will bring it harm in trying to do so. However, it must be noted that in everything we do there is both at least some love and some craving and fear involved, so that everything we do will therefore both create and destroy. We cannot be perfect in fully doing everything out of love alone.
We should to do whatever we do with greater love than we do it with fear and craving, to let our love be greater than our fear and craving in what we do; otherwise we should not do it at all, as it would then bring more harm than it would bring growth. If we really are to do something but our craving and fear to do so is greater than our love, then we should wait as long as it remains so, until our love has become greater.

In future, when perhaps all experiences can be shared through direct neural interface, the mere fact of experiencing would become art and the only art. Anything could be created by merely imagining it; by imagining an image, it could become a painting; by imagining a melody, it could become a composition; by imagining a scene, it could become a movie; but even emotions, thoughts or any other experiences could become a form of art, and be shared as they were experienced by the individual. There would be artists who would try to achieve the most beautiful possible experiences to share them with others, be those experiences in reality or in their minds.

Suggest to yourself that everything around you loves you infinitely, and in this suggestion love it back. If nothing else, it is merely a suggestion, but nonetheless it is one that has incredible psychological power.

Conceive of all reality as impossible, and it will stand out in all the clearer reality. Say to yourself at everything you perceive that for all the mysteries of its wonders, it simply cannot possibly exist — when this thought then collides with the undeniable fact of its existence, it will stare you in the face and defiantly stand out in all the sharper contrast.

Evil builds its own hell and so destroys itself, though it builds its hell not only for itself.

Give negative feelings as much love as positive emotions, but shun negative thoughts. In fact, perhaps negative feelings would not be called negative were it not for negative thoughts that judge them thus.

Ensure that in your winters you will retain as much yang as possible to complete the yin of winter, but also accept the yin it brings; meanwhile, ensure that in your summers you will retain as much yin as possible to compensate the yang of summer, but also accept the yang it will bring. Remedy not what there is too much but what there is too little.

Always remember when trying to change your feelings that you change them only in whatever way already feels is truly the best for you in this moment, and not based on your thoughts of how you "ought" to feel.

Mood affects expression, but so too expression affects mood. Use your expression both as a gauge of how you feel and as a lever to change it.

If you are unsure whether or not to do something, decide based on the cost; if you have little to lose, by all means, do it no matter what it is. If you could lose a great deal, refrain until you've made up your mind.

Everything has unique aspects of beauty surpassed by nothing else in the universe.

Love in the form of craving or fear is worthless; true love is love that is purified of these. Craving is formed by male, yang energy that stands alone, fear by female, yin energy that stands alone; only when the two are combined can love be achieved.

Everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they do not harm others. In this, they should also have the freedom to belong to whatever system they want as long as their system does not harm people in their own or other systems. Therefore, there cannot be anarchism without there also being panarchism, which is the freedom to join any government one chooses. Having total freedom, one could also choose for oneself to have less freedom, pledging oneself to a benevolent, enlightened dictatorship.

Through panarchism, anarcho-communism could be made to work, as only people who would fulfill its conditions could be allowed to join; it would work best if people who would join only to profit from others in the system were not allowed, though, of course, in a panarchism people would be free to form a system where these people were allowed, although it would then be significantly poorer. In the system where these people were not allowed, anyone who was judged to work too little could be banished for causing indirect harm to others in the system.

In a panarchistic system, politicians would be inventors, not petty preachers trying to howl each other down.

Let life and all of life be your lover, and cherish all beauty it brings.

There are some that say that as the earth has been able to sustain itself for billions of years, we need not worry about climate change. The danger about climate change, however, is not that it would destroy the Earth but that it would damage it. One might as well say that as one usually survives a bout of flu, there's no need to use medication against it. Climate change has caused mass extinctions in the past and it is certain to do so again in future unless it is prevented. No-one wants to live in such a period of mass extinctions. But mass extinctions are effectively happening, very probably in part due to deforestation and very possibly partly due to global warming. Either how, it cannot be said that we are too small to have an impact on the globe, as we've already impacted 83% of the Earth's land area. In fact, it's quite likely that deforestation is partly responsible for the increase of C14 (carbon-14, a more useful measure in climatology because it is found both in CO2 and CH4, methane). The Amazon Forest alone is thought to be responsible for 10% of the carbon stores. The radiative forcing of carbon dioxide has been measured, moreover, and those measurements prove that the increase of carbon dioxide is at least in part responsible for the global warming: it has been shown, mathematically, that a doubling of carbon dioxide leads to an increase of 3 kelvins. Well, carbon dioxide concentration hasn't been above roughly 250 ppm for the past thousands of years, and hasn't been above roughly 300 ppm for the past hundreds of thousands of years, but since the Industrial Revolution it rose to 390 ppm as of 2009 (sources), an increase of 30% which would cause 0,5 kelvins of increase in global temperature, which is pretty close to the increase which has been observed, about 0,75 K. It must be noted that the 0,5 kelvin value does not include positive climate feedbacks, which may or may not account for part or most of the remaining 0,25 K. It is sometimes said that the radiative forcing of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is no more than roughly 3 watts per square meter, which would be equivalent to placing a christmas light on every square meter of the planet, but this representation is quite misleading. Against what one would expect, those christmas lights could count up to something quite big. Counterintuitively, when one does the math, one achieves the same figure: a radiative forcing of 3 watts per square meter would still cause an increase of average global temperature of half a degree. The solar constant is 1368 watts per meter, causing a temperature increase of 288 kelvins which is the average temperature; 1368 by 3 equals 456. 288 by 456 equals 0,6 degrees. It must be noted that the global cooling effect of aerosols has not been taken into account, as its value is not known, and neither have I taken into account the global effect of deforestation or other human activities, as their values neither are known. Either how, this shows how one must be cautious how one interprets values. An increase of 0,6 kelvins doesn't seem much, but in the span of a century, which is an extremely short time on geological scale, this is quite a lot. In fact, should this change continue for another thousand years, which is still a very short time on geological scale, then this would lead to an increase of temperature equivalent to that of the Paleocene-Eocene Temperature Maximum. During the PETM, the temperature had increased by 7 degrees over a period of thousand years, an effect so dramatic as to bring about tropic forests as high as the arctic circle, called boreotropic circles. Worse, the global warming is speeding up, and is predicted by the most accepted scenario's to be 1,4 kelvins for the twenty-first century, though some scenario's predict an increase of only 0,5 kelvins, while others predict 4,4 kelvins. The only solace is that while a hundred years may be little on geological scale, it is quite a lot today on futuristic scale, so that it may give us time to reverse global warming. Moreover, an obvious discrepancy has been observed between solar activity and carbon dioxide concentration, which becomes especially conspicuous from 1950s onward, whereas before the 1800s, the two had been parallel (Reimer et al., SIDC, NGDC). Also, in contrast to C14 concentrations, sunspot activity hasn't been particularly high over the past few thousands of years (Solanki et al.). In fact, research indicates that the Arctic has been receiving less and less energy over the past 8000 years, and that this cooling trend would normally have continued for another 4000 years, weren't it that another phenomenon had reversed it (University of Arizona). The north pole should have been cooler than it has been in the past eight millennia, and yet it is melting rather than growing. It is true that through sunspot activity, increase in global temperature can increase carbon dioxide, but as the data show that the former is not responsible for the latter, it must logically be the other way around. It is a often a premature assumption that if two things are causally related and either precedes the other, one thing causes the other and that is the end of it. However, this leaves the possibility that the causal relationship is bidirectional, ie either may cause the other. A similar and even worse prejudice is that when it is found that something causes a particular effect, it is also the sole cause of the observed effect; however, it is very often so that an observed effect has several causes, especially with more multiplex systems, such as those of psychology, biology, sociology and in this case, geology. In fact, when there is widespread dispute amongst scientists which of several possible causes is the effective cause, what we find is that it is, one could almost say, almost always so that all are at least to some extent involved, as the mere fact that so many scientists find reasons to assume that a particular cause could be responsible often means that those are good reasons. The truth often lies not in either extreme but in the middle. Some researchers argued that the increase of C-14 follows the increase of global temperature, rather than the other way around, based on the fact that in past cases of global warming, the increase of C-14 often lagged behind the increase of global temperature by 800 years. It is indeed true that global warming causes a release of C-14, partly because drought releases C14 from withering plant material and partly because heat releases C14 from melting ice reserves. However, it must not be forgotten that this causality is bidirectional: temperature increase will lead to an increase of C14, but an increase of C14 may also lead to an increase in temperature, so that these form a positive feedback. It is unscientific to simply assume that because the latter can cause the former, the former cannot cause the latter. Either how, the abrupt increase of temperature from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution would be very coincidental if there was no correlation. Keep in mind that a hundred years is an extremely little time on geological timescale; hundred years for the entire earth is about twenty seconds for the average human. If someone gives an injection to a human and he faints twenty seconds later, it is likely to be due to the injection. Nonetheless, we should be open to possibilities, as this correlation might indeed have another explanation. The sun can have a great variety of effects, since the entire biosphere thrives on it. Chizhevsky propounded that for some reason or other, most historical events appeared to be related to a high number of sunspots, based on examination of human history and its relation to past sunspot activity. This might, for instance, be because of the stimulant effect of sunlight, which increases dopamine, serotonin and glutamate, along with other neurotransmitters. These changes are ideal to stimulate motivation, which is one of the reasons oriental philosophies associated yang, masculinity, with the sun. Sunlight has been implicated in an increase of cognitive and creative abilities, and perhaps — who knows? — this was what prompted the sudden revolutions in the nineteenth century, not only in technology (the Industrial Revolution itself), but also in science (the later part of the Scientific Revolution), and arguably even in art (the rise of romanticism which, for instance, produced some of the best-known classical composers). I am saying this not because I believe this to be the case, but to open our minds to possibilities: it is very hard to know for sure what causes what in matters that take so much time, as there is no way to experimentally verify it and therefore no way of scientifically fully proving it. It has recently been proposed, based on a comparison of today's global warming with that of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, that carbon dioxide alone does not fit into the models of global warming for that period, and that some other cause must have been involved as well (Rice University). If our models are wrong, it may well be that there is another factor responsible for global warming today, as well. However, it might be that this study overlooked other greenhouse gases such as CH4, a far more potent greenhouse gas. Either how, whether we are the most important factor in global warming does not matter that much in itself: either how, we are the only ones who can deliberately do anything about it. If we were the ones who caused the increase of carbon dioxide, then it's too late now to repair that by simply stopping anyway, and if not, then there's no way to stop it anyhow; instead, then, we must reverse it. Either how, the increase will continue for some time now unless we do something; partly because it takes a lot of time to revamp an entire civilization of seven billion people, partly due to a vicious cycle of increase of heat leading to increase of carbon dioxide and vice versa. Being so slow and long-winded, geology is a very inert system, and so is our own civilization. We need to take active measures to actually restore the earth's temperature. When someone develops a disease because of toxins in the plumbing, you're not just going to remove the toxins in the plumbing and wait till the disease stops, and whether the toxins in the plumbing are from the pipelines (of human cause) or from the water supply itself (natural cause) has little to do with that. We must cure the diseased ecosystem, even if the disease will pass with time and the victim will survive it. How dangerous global warming is for us, I think, is not so important. Our primary concern is not our own safety but the safety of nature, and it is short-sighted to worry more about our own prosperity than about the thousands of species we bring to extinction. Humans can adapt. When struck by floods or hurricanes or desertification, they can be displaced. But nature is not as flexible as ourselves. It does not possess our ingenuity with which we can change in a matter of centuries, and it is not used, even after all the calamity it had gone through, to change this fast. The ecosystems have already been weakened, for instance by our continuous practises of deforestation; in this state, it cannot be put under any more stress without irreparable damage. Sure enough, it will come through whatever torment we put it through: but it will come through maimed, leaving our children on an earth that has become homogenized. One day, our descendants will despise us for having destroyed so much beauty in the world just to satisfy our decadence. I do not think that global warming in itself is the worst thing we are doing to the planet. If we can cause global warming, we might also cause global cooling. Furthermore, we have increased the temperature with only about half a degree, whereas we have impacted 83% of the Earth's surface, and a large part of it in the most abominable way. Across the entire earth, we have reduced beautiful treasures of nature into into apocalyptic landscapes of materialism. We have bedecked the earth with sights more horrible than any ever seen in the billions of years of our planet's history, and while these industrial sceneries may in themselves have a simple and twisted kind of beauty, it is none that could replace the sublime and multiplex beauty of nature. Global warming in itself can be reverted with the proper technology, and technology is advancing fast; but the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of their species, however, is a lot harder to reverse through technology. Mass extinctions are effectively happening, partly due to global warming and partly due to deforestation. These mass extinctions have happened since the beginning of the Holocene epoch when the first larger settlements arose; this ongoing series of mass extinctions has been called the Holocene extinction event. The ecosphere has gone through many mass extinctions before, and it needed them for evolution to occur, but we really do not want to be the ones to have to go through such mass extinction, lest we lose the most beautiful thing on earth in our lives, nature. At some point, if you have been saved from being blunted by society, you must have been moved by that beauty; can we afford to lose that? Has our comfort become more important to us than beauty? We are the only species on the planet having the power of controlling the earth in such way a we do: we should make extinction obsolete, and not accelerate it. We should take care of life as tenders of a garden, and not damage it by becoming its harmful weed.

Yang seeks out what it loves; yin loves that which it finds. The yin side of love is to be thankful for beauty; the yang side of love is to nourish it.

By expressing oneself, one becomes vastly more aware of oneself. Aspects of oneself that would otherwise be hidden in one's subconsciousness manifest as one pays attention to them. This is the main reason why psychotherapy, a diary or creativity can be so useful to gain psychological insight.

Neither resist nor cling to either sadness nor joy, for both will become both harmful when and only when we do so. Know when either comes among the other, for then it is time to become mindful of it; if you ignore it, it will eventually seize control over you. Instead, we should just let them be what they are when they come, and love them as part of our experience with neither fear nor craving.

Our emotions are a compass for what we should do; we should therefore listen to that compass. We must know when we feel negative energy that it is time to rest, and we must know when we feel positive energy that it is time to work. If we do not do so in time, the transition will become painful.

This is especially important to people who are bipolar. Bipolar people are in pain because out of craving they cling to their (hypo)mania so long that when they finally face their depression, it is painful. Eventually, when they've accepted their negative energies, the depression then assumes the form of a deep peace. Out of fear, they then cling to the tranquility of their depression so long that it eventually becomes painful again when they face their hypomania. When they've then accepted their positive energies, their hypomania then assumes the form of a deep happiness. Then, the cycle begins anew. In fact, neither depression nor (hypo)mania have to be painful, as they are just periods of inactivity and activity, respectively. Only the transition can be painful if it is resisted.

All of us have such a cycle, although for the average human, it is less significant. Because of this, the bipolar cycle can be a useful model to understand the average human's emotional cycles as well.

When you feel negative psychological energy, do not try to stop the flow of its course, but instead divert it towards where you want, in this way transforming it into positive energy. Resisting the negative energy will only make it stronger.

To be loving, one must be both thankful (accepting, yin) as caring (giving, yang).

In future, nanorobots could be used to form larger things, like cells form organs, assembling to form a greater whole. Also, however, they could be used to actually create a larger thing outside of themselves, like some cells create the inorganic matrix in bone, or like human builders creating a building. In this way, they could be used to create anything from almost any material.

The ego is like a despot, for the despot calls itself its nation entire, while the ego sees itself as the whole of you.

Compare everything to absolute nothingness, so that you are thankful for that which you already have; at the same time, compare everything to absolute perfection, so that you can be ambitious to strive towards it.

When unsatisfied about something, imagine what it would be like if it weren't there at all. When apathetic with something, imagine what it would be like if it were complete.

It is perfectly possible to be both thankful and ambitious at the same time; to combine these in balance will bring us most beauty. Yet again, we are here faced with the question of combining yin and yang.

The dissonance between two people does not mean that either of the two is inherently bad, as little as the dissonance between notes means that either of the two is; instead, it is merely the combination that produces such effect. The same counts for the combination of any two things, or of a person and a certain thing. Try, then, to combine consonantly with as many things as possible, without harming the consonance you've already established with other things.

Hypomimia, or lack of mimic, is not specific to mental conditions such as schizophrenia or autism, but rather is a defense mechanism all of us have to some extent, which we may use instinctively against people we do not trust, in which case it is safer not to show our emotions. Because people such as schizophrenics often hardly trust anyone, it is therefore obvious that they seem to lack mimic altogether.

When there is the need to close yourself from someone that they might not hurt you any longer, even so, keep loving them, even if they do not love you back, even if it is but in thought that you love them when you have parted. Do not open yourself to all lest it harm you both more than it allows you to grow, but nonetheless, always try, if you can, to keep loving them.

All emotions are motivated in some way or other by some kind of love; even fear, for if one loved nothing one would have nothing to fear; even hate, for if one did not love to hurt one would have nothing hate; even loathing, for if one did not love that which is opposed to what one loathes, one would have nothing to loathe. Therefore, without love one is emotionless, and that is why love alone, in some form or other, is the only thing that can resolve emotionlessness.

As all emotions have some element of love, the only thing which could be fully opposed to love would be indifference - or not even indifference, as even that can perhaps said to be an emotion sometimes. Rather, then, the only thing we could call it is unlove; that which falls towards lower levels of beauty, closer to nothingness, whereas love strives towards greater beauty, closer to infinity.

Pattern recognition could be used to improve the image resolution of photographs to levels actually higher than those of its optical resolution This is how some artists are able to reproduce a photograph in a resolution greater than the original photograph itself, a recent art which has become known as hyperrealism; hyperrealism is achieved mostly through human pattern recognition. In this way, the resolution of an image could be made far greater than the original. This would not be very useful to distinguish additional details, but it could vastly improve the esthetic value of an image.

For example, zooming in on an image until one eventually discerns its pixels, through pattern recognition one could make all pixels in the image transition into one another in a gradient. This gradient, being composed of layers of hues transitioning between one hue and another, could have its layers of hues be equidistant from the nearest border. In other words, each layers would follow the same line or curve, although smaller.

For instance, take a picture of the nose. Zoom in on the nose until you are eventually in its tip, and the pixels become visible. Here, the gradients between the pixels could be aligned with the curve of the tip of the nose, meaning that their layers would be curved in the same way, remaining at an equal distance from the edge. In this it would follow the form of the nose. Because the edge of the nose would usually be marked by an obvious line beyond which there is a sudden change in tint.

Suffering is the only thing that does not cause growth, yet that which causes the suffering often causes most growth. To grow, one must overcome suffering.

See also:

Change and Sameness

It is because of the irresponsibility of the illicit drug black market that drugs have been made illicit; but in doing so, the government has refused to take on responsibility for these drugs, and left it to the masses. In this, they only gave the illegal drug industry an advantage, whereas if they took drug industry in their own hands in a responsible way, illicit drug industry would cease to be attractive to users. Since users would therefore be better informed and guided about their drugs, this would probably result in an actual decrease in the abuse of illicit drugs, so that drug use would lead to less addictions, overdoses, and side-effects such as brain damage.

All use of drugs should therefore be monitored by a psychiatrist, unless or until the subject is deemed sufficiently responsible to use them independently; in this case, the subject could receive a license, the allocation of which would be based on the psychiatrist's assessment of the individual's prudence and knowledge. Without this license, the use of the drug should be prohibited. Police officers could take action if they see that someone uses a drug in an irresponsible way, as they can in the case of alcohol. Whenever they know that someone has used a drug they can ask their license, even if the drug is alcohol (in the case of alcohol, however, this would only be done in obviously high dosages, as alcohol is otherwise used far too frequently). In doing so, it is important that, should they have used hallucinogens, they do not do this in an aggressive way.

If someone is caught using a drug without license, the penalty depends on the nature of the drug. If, by taking the drug without license, they might cause harm to others, they are penalized for that risk. Such risk to others would usually be seen in the case of addiction, such as to cocaine or alcohol. If they cause no significant risk to others in taking the drug, for instance in the case of marijuana, they receive no penalty for this. However, they are encouraged, in either case, to see a psychiatrist to guide their use of the drug. In the case of drug addiction, they could even get reduction in costs as any other mental patient (that is, in countries where such reductions occur), since DSM-IV recognizes drug addiction as a mental illness.

However, they could receive a penalty for buying their drugs from the black market, as they thereby support their dealers and so indirectly harm others by encouraging them to further deal drugs; not only do they thereby encourage their dealers to continue dealing, but they might also encourage others to buy from them. The subject is promptly interrogated (as soon as the drug has worn off, of course) about where he got the drugs, and if he can remember his dealer's face, this may also prove useful in finding him.

The foremost role of the psychiatrist would be to educate the subject about the substance, not to decide whether or not they should use it; if they educate them correctly, the subject will be able to decide for themselves whether they should use it or not. The only exception is that in their use of the substance, they do not harm anyone else, as they cannot decide for the others they might pose a danger to. Disorders such as schizophrenia and psychopathy are therefore possible contraindications.

Legal conditions of use should be a responsible set and setting: if usage results in dangerous psychotic behavior which may be harmful to themselves or others, this is a sign that they have not made responsible use of it, either because they have used it without a license or because the psychiatrist has misjudged their responsibility. Dangerous behavior while under influence of a substance will result in a retraction of their permit for the particular class of that substance, just as dangerous driving may result in a retraction of one's driving license.

The police officers may, if qualified to do so, administer an antipsychotic to sedate someone under influence if they are using it in an irresponsible way (something which can also be useful in other cases of dangerously psychotic behavior). Usually, punishment will be unnecessary because the negative experience will be the most efficient way of discouraging anyone from using the drug in an unpremeditated way; rather, the abuser should be incited to see a psychiatrist; an exception is when the user is driving or handling a mechanical device. Since this need not be associated with a negative experience, it is best to impose a sanction on the user either how, upon which the user should be escorted back home.

In doing so, however, the police officer must be warned to be as respectful and careful as possible, lest the sanction itself will lead to a negative experience. In the case of psychedelic, this can be a traumatizing experience, so it is quite out of place to do cause a negative experience as a punishment; to do this, as well, should be punishable, whether the person who caused the negative experience is a police officer or anyone else. It can be very difficult to judge, however, if the negative experience was in effect caused by the person in question, as this can be very subtle. This can be a conundrum for trials, but the same is true for bullying, which in some countries is nonetheless punishable.

A permit for substances is especially important for hallucinogens. Because different classes of substances will have different levels of risks, such permits should, obviously, be subdivided into several classes. The endowment of such permits should not be taken lightly, as they enable a person to make use of a substance without any supervision by a psychiatrist at all. This requires the person to have a profound knowledge of the possible risks or side effects of the drugs and the dosages at which these may occur, as well as a proper judgment of these facts: for instance, people who are suffering from mania, dissociative identity disorder or orbitofrontal dementia, should not be given such a license. For some substances, such permits would be exceedingly rare, and might even require an extensive course on the substance in question. Importantly, such a license might be temporary, or otherwise provide further specifications about the place, time, or other circumstances in which the substance in question should be used.

Some licenses would be easier to obtain than others, based on the possible dangers associated with them. Some substances, like tobacco, would require no license at all, and the user would be trusted to be courteous in when to use it or not. If there would be one, a license to alcohol would require only limited assessment or more likely none at all, but it could be taken from them, for instance, in the case of binge drinking, alcoholism or drunk violence. In the case of drunk driving, it makes more sense not only to take the driver's driving license but also their drinking license. Since people will be forced to drive back home anyhow after they've drunk alcohol, it's better to just forbid them drinking alcohol.

If such law was indeed introduced for alcohol, it would be best to distribute the licenses for alcohol freely at first, lest no one would pay heed to it; later, they might be issued with one's passport. What is most important is that the license can be taken from people who engage in dangerous behavior whilst drunk, much like a driving license.

The problem with the use of drugs is not that the user might harm themselves, but that they might not be aware that they are doing this. As long as they are aware of the damage they might be causing themselves, they are free to do so if they deem the experience of the substance to be worth it. After all, if they will harm themselves, they will already be punished, and if the risk of harming themselves will not be enough to discourage them from irresponsible use, then neither will the risk of punishment.

As long as one does something only to oneself and one knows what one is doing and really wants it, one should be free to proceed. The greatest danger is that a user might underestimate the addictive nature of some substances. However, if all drugs would be legal, after all, drug addiction could be much easier to treat, since drugs such as ibogaine and other psychedelics have proven to be effective in the treatment of drug addiction. Moreover, people who are addicted to an illicit drug will be unlikely to seek help for their addiction, either because they would not trust their doctor to keep it secret, or because others might find out why they see their doctor. If the drug is licit, not only does treatment of addiction become far more evident, but so does social support.

If even the most dangerous and addictive drugs are made legal under psychiatric supervision, they automatically become less dangerous: they are less likely to be contaminated with other, sometimes toxic substances; they are less likely to be administered with unsterile needles, which may transmit disease; they are less likely to lead to addiction, and when addiction occurs, it will be less likely to remain untreated; most important of all, the user will be fully aware of the dangers.

If one can use a drug safely and legally by simply regularly consulting a psychiatrist, one will be very likely to do so rather than to resort to an unsafe and illegal black market. What the individual needs is guidance, not enforcement; as we know from experience, enforcement seldom works.

While the dangers of drugs must be dealt with, it is also important that the benefits of drugs are exploited. Doing so can save many lives from various conditions. It is known that many psychoactives could have invaluable applications in medicine, psychiatry, psychotherapy and even the self-development of the healthy individual. Some psychedelic drugs, in a

can offer a dramatically effective treatment for depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcoholism, drug addiction, cluster headaches, and even schizophrenia, where any other kind of therapy has failed. It is therefore inhumane to forbid the medical use of these substances. Doing so condemns millions of innocent people to unnecessary suffering and even suicide, and it can therefore not be represented as anything less than murder.

It is, moreover, especially important for the use of psychedelics to be legitimized under psychiatric supervision so that they would not be used without. The greatest danger associated with psychedelics are caused by the irresponsible way they are used. If they were used only under the supervision of a psychiatrist, this danger would be dealt with decisively. Psychiatrists know the effects of the drugs, which dosage is best administered, and what mindset their subject has; most important of all, they are armed with anxiolytics and antipsychotics in case the subject would react adversely to the drug, such as by a panic attack.

This is especially important, of course, for people who would use psychedelics as a treatment for mental illness, as this is an extremely delicate matter best left to a psychiatrist. A psychiatric setting would offer complete safety for the subject, as the notorious "bad trips" would never have to occur. People have had severe psychological damage from bad trips which would otherwise not have occurred had they been supervised by a psychiatrist, similar to post-traumatic stress disorder. Users of some heavier psychedelics such as DMT have reported having had panic attacks for several years after a negative experience, and some were even hospitalized with psychosis (though this usually lasted only a few days). Moreover, some people have killed or injured themselves during a negative experience, both accidentally and intentionally; if nurses are nearby which can administer an injection of thorazine or benzodiazepine, or in the worst (highly unlikely) case, use a straitjacket, this cannot happen.

Another possible problem with some psychedelics, including THC found in cannabis, occurs when they are used in immoderate amounts or frequency. In this case, the effect of expansion of consciousness becomes excessive. The mind becomes so expanded that it becomes difficult to concentrate it, as these are two opposites. When the mind is expanded, it experiences; when it concentrates, it thinks. When consciousness becomes so expanded that it can no longer concentrate, it becomes harder to think.

The mind needs to have a flexibility between expansion and concentration, and psychedelics can help one achieve this flexibility; nonetheless, they will also generally incline the mind to expand itself more frequently than concentrating itself. Usually, this is not an issue, as in the intervening period between two uses of psychedelics, the user will maintain its powers of concentration by training them in day-to-day activities. However, if this intervening period becomes too short, the mind will have difficulty to catch up to improve its flexibility to switch back to concentration. The result, in this case, can be that the user develops cognitive problems.

This cognitive damage is, however, usually of psychological rather than neurological nature, and it is because of this that it has been found to be temporary, in contrast with the cognitive damage caused by alcohol. Two popular psychedelics which are likely to be abused, in contrast with others, are LSD and cannabis: LSD, because it can be used in extremely high dosages, and cannabis, because it causes far less tolerance. In both cases, abusers reported cognitive damage, and in both cases, recovered abusers reported recovering from this side-effect over time.

Some people have reported to have the opposite problem with nootropics, (legal) substances which increase cognition, stating that it was harder for them to experience as their increased insights crowded in on them. If so, then perhaps nootropics can be used to remedy this problem. However, it is better to avoid that these problems ever occur by not using the drugs without moderation.

In extreme cases, this effect may further escalate to cause such symptoms as "flashbacks" or HPPD, ego death or, in some cases, psychosis. Cannabis is even thought to be linked to schizophrenia, though it is uncertain if the cannabis caused the schizophrenia or schizophrenics are more likely to use cannabis. It is likely a bit of both. That this problem appears to occur mostly with cannabis is probably because unlike most other psychedelics, it can be used frequently and so has greater abuse potential.

Everything is a question of balance, and with states of consciousness as extreme as those caused by psychedelics, this balance is particularly delicate. Because of this, it is certainly possible for psychedelics to cause mental illness. Depression, anxiety, panic attacks and even psychosis may all very well occur in the case of irresponsible use. It must be noted, however, that mental illness has been caused by other practices which are normally harmless. For instance, there have been many reports of people who developed mental symptoms because of meditation, especially following retreats. In some cases, these setbacks have been very extreme, leading to, again, depression, anxiety, panic attacks or psychosis. Anything can be dangerous. Again, everything is simply a question of balance.

Although the long-term side effects of abuse for psychedelics are temporary, it is unknown if this is also so for abuse of dissociatives, another class of hallucinogens which act mostly on the NDMA receptors. Dissociatives, such as ketamine, memantine, phencyclidine and dextromethorphan, are thought to cause Olney's lesions, although for most dissociatives, this effect has been established only in rats. Nitrous oxide is known to have this effect in humans, but, at least for nitrous oxide, this effect turned out to be temporary; being a common human anesthetic, nitrous oxide is the only dissociative which can be tested on humans. This may suggest that Olney's lesions from all dissociatives are temporary. However, some heavy users have reported their brain damage lasted for several years, though it is, of course, uncertain if this was because of the dissociatives or because of other drugs they might have used in the meantime. This damage can apparently be prevented by gaba-a receptor agonists or anticholinergics. Serotonergic psychedelics and MDMA can also prevent Olney's lesions, but because the combination of any of these drugs with dissociatives is unpredictable, caution is particularly important. To a random user, it would be pure guesswork in what dosages to combine these substances, although a psychiatrist could be able to prescribe the right specific dosages.

For several reasons, most psychedelics have very little abuse potential. One is that tolerance from psychedelics forms quickly, so that after a single usage, the drug has little effect for several days. Another is that it these psychedelics do not activate the reward centers through any direct physiological action. And most importantly, the use of psychedelics can be a quite challenging activity, much like climbing a mountain or running a marathon. Users report feeling no craving to use the hallucinogen again after the effects have worn off, although they often decide yet to do so in future.

There are few drugs which are known to be completely safe, but the possibility of side-effects must not be dramatized: many drugs have been used by millions of people, and any side effects associated with them, though not scientifically established, are therefore generally known to them. Usually, the knowledge among them of the possible side effects can be relied upon, as they are based on past experiences of people, although not everyone among them has that knowledge, and not everyone among them believes it to be true.

Long-term side-effects of drugs are generally caused by a buildup of short-term side-effects, so that one may notice them as they start to appear. There is no way that after causing no short-term damage, a drug would suddenly magically start causing damage after several years, long after it has left the body, at least, not damage of a physiological nature. Therefore, if the use is supervised by a psychiatrist, he or she may decrease, suspend or discontinue use when noticing that long-term side effects are starting to build up to form actual long-term side effects. Usually, like the short-term side effects, these long-term side-effects will usually wear off in time, though they will obviously take longer to do so than the short-term side effects — unless, that is, the side-effects are of a psychological nature, but as discussed before, these could already be prevented by psychiatric supervision.

It is usually hard to research the long-term side effects of illegal drugs, because of two reasons. The first is that most people who use one illegal drug will often use another, especially if the drug in question is a hard drug. The second is that many people who use illegal drugs are already mentally unstable before using the drugs. Especially, there is an obvious inclination among people with schizoid personality disorder, schizotypal personality disorder and schizophrenia to drugs. Moreover, some people with other mental illnesses will use drugs, especially psychedelics, as a self-medication.

However, there are some drugs which can be researched without these stumbling blocks, because in certain cultures, they are both seen as normal and used separate from other drugs. These are the alkaloids used in some ancient tribes, mostly in Africa and North- and South-America: three prominent examples are ayahuasca, san pedro and peyote. Peyote is likely one of the only so-called hard drugs of which there is conclusive and compelling evidence that it is safe: comparing a group of 79 Navajos who used no alcohol or other drugs with a group of 61 Navajo members of the Native American Church who regularly used peyote, Dr. John Halpern et al. found no short- or long-term cognitive, emotional or perceptual damage among the group who used peyote, and that in fact they emotionally scored better. That they scored better emotionally may be partly because they were religious, but it also seems likely to be partly because of their peyote experiences themselves.

San pedro is very similar to Peyote, and since the primary active substance in both cacti is mescaline, it is also highly probable that mescaline itself is physiologically harmless. It must be noted, however, that psychological damage might still likely follow from these substances. The reason why no psychological damage had been found among the members of the Native American Church is because this group had learned to make use of the Peyote in a responsible way. Notably, there is a convention among them never to use it alone. The experience is normally always shared by the entire group, and is preceded by extensive ritual preparations.

In theory, almost any psychoactive can have applications in psychiatry in subjects who miss just that which the psychoactive brings about. The problem with some of these psychoactives is, of course, that they can have side effects, most notably addiction. However, if those particular psychoactives are used only rarely, this need not be a problem. Heroin, for instance, is routinely used in hospitals, where it is known as diacetylmorphine or diamorphine, to alleviate pain — as is morphine itself.

Though most therapeutic value lies in psychedelics and empathogens, in rare cases other drugs might similarly be of value. Cocaine or other stimulants could perhaps be used in the case of chronic catatonia, though this is quite speculative. Some people remain in catatonia for weeks or even months (in some cases, as in encephalitis lethargica, even years or decades). This may lead to severe complications such as thrombosis, joint symptoms and bedsores, the latter being the primary iatrogenic cause of death. Obviously, in this state, these patients are unresponsive to any form of psychotherapy, but should they first be given cocaine or other stimulants to take them out of their catatonic state, they might temporarily be more responsive to reality; ensuing treatment can then lead to long-term recovery.

In these patients, the reward centers are usually hypoactive, so that addiction is hardly an issue. Nonetheless, tolerance could eventually cause a relapse into catatonia unless the patient has been successfully treated by then. One must be very careful with these cases, however, as in many of these patients, a too-high dosage might trigger psychosis or cause an aggravation of already extant psychotic symptoms. There are, on the other hand, many non-psychotic cases of catatonic schizophrenia in which cocaine might speculatively have some use. Extra caution should be paid if the catatonic patient has had made past attempts to kill or injure him- or herself or someone else, in which case the cocaine might elicit renewed attempts. However, as such cases of chronic catatonia are mostly found in mental hospitals, this would be relatively easy to control. Catatonia also occurs in some other mental illnesses, however, such as depression or autism, which is less severe and in which such treatment would not be necessary or advisory.

In the past, LSD has effectively been used by psychiatrists to treat various mental illnesses, as well as a means of self-development, until it was forbidden in 1968. Originally, it was limited to psychiatric settings; later, it was used by the general public with little responsibility. Perhaps what the government should have done then was to forbid people to use it irresponsibly, rather than to forbid its use entirely and thereby only increase its irresponsible use.

The same goes for MDMA, more commonly known as ecstasy, which was originally used to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, and some countries are currently re-evaluating this application. MDMA has also been used, generally as a self-medication, for general anxieties, and it could likely likewise be used for more specific anxieties, such as phobia, in particular social anxieties. Many people have reported becoming more sociable after using MDMA. It is not unthinkable that it could even be used to treat autism, to those who would prefer to be treated for it.

It is known that MDMA causes damage to serotonergic axons, although the original US government-sponsored research which discovered this effect had dramatically exaggerated it, stating that a single recreational dosage could cause a decrease of up to 85% serotonin function — a decrease of which it is questionable if it could be survived at all. The same research also found a link between MDMA use and Parkinson's disease, which was later found to be because the researchers had administered methamphetamine instead of MDMA. This debacle has caused the government to lose a lot of its credibility in its attitude towards drugs and in particular MDMA.

Later researchers found a far slighter decrease of just 5%, which appeared to be temporary: the brain recovered its lost axons after a period of three months or less. However, more recent research suggests that this pattern of reinnervation is abnormal, with approximate brain areas becoming hyperinnervated and more distant brain areas remaining denervated. It is, after all, more difficult for the newly sprouted axons to reach the more distant brain areas. Because of this effect, MDMA may still, after all, cause cognitive and emotional damage over time, though it is uncertain to what extent. When used infrequently, it is doubtful that this effect is significant.

It must be noted, however, that everything, no matter what is is, has side-effects of some sort. Many prescription medications have caused thousands of deaths, including some which have not been retracted from the market. Some neuroleptics, for instance, can cause neuroleptic malignant syndrome, which can cause death in 10-20%. Others can cause tardive dysphrenia, which can trigger or worsen psychosis. If psychedelics and empathogens became the new medicines in psychiatry, then perhaps there would be far less side-effects.

Compared to long-term acting drugs such as antidepressants (which work only when used long-term), short-term acting drugs like psychedelics (which work immediately upon using once) have many advantages. The most important is probably that long-term acting drugs change the individual in a purely chemical way, short-acting drugs do so instead in a psychological way. The former force one's personality to change in a particular way that is outside one's control, while the latter encourage one to change one's personality in one's own way. People who use long-term acting drugs often complain that they do not feel themselves, as though they are becoming someone else, while people who use short-term acting drugs often claim that they have finally found themselves, as though they are, instead, becoming who they really are. Drugs such as psychedelics work by giving people insight into who they are and how they can become better people, much like psychotherapy; drugs such as antidepressants, on the other hand mask who they truly are.

While most long-term acting drugs remove some quality from the individual's personality in order to add another, short-term acting drugs usually only add qualities, rarely taking any away from the individual. Many people using medicines complain that they are becoming superficial, unfeeling uncaring or uninspired. Some lose their emotions, others their creativity, their dreams or their willpower.

Mental illness has been associated with artistic abilities. 70 percent of all artists have had some mood disorder at some point. Many great geniuses had mental illnesses of some sort of other: Einstein, Da Vinci, Edison and possibly Beethoven might have been dyslectic, Dali schizotypal, Beethoven, Lord Byron, Edgar Allan Poe, Robert Schumann, Nietzsche and Newton bipolar, Oppenheimer, Kierkegard, Van Gogh, Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy and Bohm depressive; John Nash, Van Gogh, Enduard Einstein (Einstein's son) schizophrenic, Dostoevsky and Edgar Allan Poe might have had Geschwind syndrome, Leonardo Da Vinci ADHD, and the list goes on, as I omit all but the most well-known names, as well as the more speculative diagnoses. These people all had abilities which modern medications would take away from them, and there is no telling how many people today might have lost such abilities because of them. On the other hand, psychedelics would, rather than taking away these abilities to end their suffering, learn the people who have them to be able to deal with them in such way that they do not cause them as much suffering.

There is another advantage to psychedelic therapy above pharmaceutical therapy, and it is the decreased incidence of toxicity. Using a substance foreign to the body every day is likely to cause adverse reactions, but using such a substance once every few weeks, or every month or year, is highly unlikely to cause long-term adverse reactions. Most substances only damage the body after regular use. It is nonsensical to fear damage from substances which are would have to be used only rarely in therapy while many prescribed substances regularly cause damage the body, causing a wide range of symptoms both physical and, more importantly, mental.

By forbidding drugs, the government cannot shirk their responsibility over them; damage due to the drugs still occurs, and it is their duty to do something about it. Forbidding all use of these drugs is no help at all, as this only shoves the illegal drugs aside to the black market.

The reason why drug use is not licensed in psychiatric settings, though it could solve the greater part of the problems caused by drugs, is that the drug law isn't meant to protect the individual but to enforce norms. Drugs are forbidden because they are taboo, not because they can be dangerous. Society demonizes anything that does not conform to it, and it is therefore not surprising that they punish it.

Earth needs water, or it will crack; water needs earth, or it will stagnate. Either put alone will destroy itself.