DRUGS.

I am really in the strong belief that drugs are a short cut to emotions, feelings, and realizations that you could have came to without the use of a tool. Sometimes the realizations and epiphanies could potentially not happen within a certain soul's lifetime, or the immensely strong feelings will never be realized when they occur without the use of a tool. Maybe those realizations have more power when they are not aided by the use of drugs, with the easy route of drugs, but those realizations are nonetheless powerful, and it doesn't degrade the specialness if stumbled upon with the aide of a substance.

There is a thought that Ken Kesey stands by in books like the Kool-aid Acid test and others, which makes a lot of sense to me. Keep in mind that I have never read this book in its entirety, I transformed the thought to my word choice, and I am paraphrasing from what a friend told me in a conversation. Nevertheless, Ken Kesey believes that using these short-cuts are beneficial because they produce those experiences of the mind, and one can realize things and so forth, but once one realizes the power of the mind, they need to stop using short cuts. The mind has already been opened and it has learned through quick lessons how to function, so the tools are no longer needed. I am not saying that drugs teach you how to think, for it is the mind that decides how it will think. I am saying that when used, a drug can teach the mind how to open. The lesson can be learned without the use of a drug, but if a mind and a body were to subject itself to a drug and not learn the lesson the substance had to teach, I feel the tool to that person is useless.

Now, what is this drug? A drug can be anything. It is only a tool which to open the mind. I feel that something as simple as breathing could "open the mind". Reading and gaining knowledge, not sleeping, sleeping a lot, eating certain foods, exercising, speaking with others... these can all be considered drugs. And also the contrary: over-consumption of any one thing, misinformation, eating rotten or unhealthy food, and so forth can be considered a drug. So what am I trying to say here? Anything one being subjects themselves to is a "drug". Anything that changes how you think, what emotion you have, or alters your mind in any way is basically a drug. By using the more risky of substances, and putting a potential powerful toxin into your body, it is unnecessary unless you recognize and respect the tool and use it to learn. The body is a temple; the power of the mind is vast. Once seeing what the mind can do, the use of the means to get there should be obliterated. The mind already has observed how to open. The body has been subject to a toxin that it does not need to be subject to anymore.

I am not trying to instill my views on anyone. I am not trying to say that my realizations are correct. I am not saying that drugs should not be used. I am not endorsing the use of drugs. I am only saying that with the use of a drug, one should learn what it has to teach and go about their ways. The experience should be lived than the mind should continue to function as it was meant to function. That is all I suppose:]
And I suppose these are all hippie thoughts, but I don't care. I don't care if I'm pinned by the government for being someone talking about drugs to the public eye. This is who I am, these are my opinions right now. So be it.

Population, Luxury, Poverty

UGHHHHHHHHH
IM ANGRY!!!

I was in my sustainability class today, and we were having the discussion of population, luxury, and poverty. People were saying that we need to be more like the animals in which we are. When we detached ourselves from the hunter-gather society and we stopped having our own gardens and killing our own meat, we stopped the connection with nature. We started to indulge in luxury and not respect the food that sustains us. We buy food from the grocery store, and because there is excess there, we buy more than we need. There is no personal reward for opening the plastic package and cooking already prepared bacon; we just eat. There are no survival techniques so we don't value life as much. Regardless of the value we place on life, we still have the biological desire to reproduce, and consequently, our numbers rise. This causes these luxurious lifestyles to double at the expense of the earth and its resources.

Now I agree with this for the most part. But the thing that came next got me completely fired up.

Someone said that in order to have resources for all, we need to take that animal role and let nature take its course. The weaker ones of our culture should be left to die, to sustain the lives of the stronger by leaving more resources for them. The weaker ones meaning the impoverished and the diseased. They also said that the poor people, specifically America's impoverished, did not respect what they had, like when given a helping hand they go out and buy McDonalds. This got me so angry. All these privileged people of this classroom agreed with this statement, nodding their heads. Another spoke about how he reconsiders giving canned goods to the poor, for the purpose of this law of survival of the fittest. If he helped these people out this time, what happens when they are hungry again? They aren't working for their food, so then they should be the weaker.

These fucking trustafarians have NEVER been hungry.
They have never had the humiliation of having to try to find food when you don't have money, and having the haven of a canned good to sustain you. They have never gone to sleep hungry, and woken up the next day, stomach growling.

The poor are the most connected to nature. They ARE the hunter and gatherers! To make a meal out of what one scavenges out of their cubbard is most challenging and rewarding. To make a garden because the family needs it to survive, and they go hungry when it does not bear fruit, is something these fucking hippiecrites will never experience. They think their little gardens are mimicking sustainability and environmentalism, but when it doesn't do well they go out and buy groceries because they're hungry and purchase brand-new books about their poor little gardens. They are considered the strongest, but aren't the weaker ones that possess more strength? When they eat at McDonalds they have to pay for the health consequences, but when someone is trying desperately to do that "work harder" thing, to meet up to the stronger ones, so they can go out and buy groceries when their gardens fail, they're exhausted. And when a person is tired, hungry, and losing hope, a pre-prepared, cheap, hot meal is mighty satisfying. Counting change for that satisfaction is gathering right? Searching the menu for the most food for your money is hunting right?

Maybe I am just another hippiecrite by thinking I know what I'm talking about with poverty, but my family has had its ups and downs. Not that I am a voice of the issue, but I feel like I have seen a little of both worlds. We do not choose what environment we are born into, or the automatic privileges we are given by our class, gender, and race, but we must be aware of what the unprivileged have to deal with. We must be compassionate.

When we detached ourselves from the agricultural world, we saw the opportunity to improve the quality of life. Farming machines made it so more people could go into the cities or whatnot and become writers, artists, musicians, actors, and so forth. The books which we are reading in class wouldn't exist if the author was a farmer. Of course the society we have constructed is ridiculous with the societal norms and complexities we have fabricated out of nothing. Money is not needed, yet it controls a lot of what each of us does. We have improved the mind, but disconnected from nature. The transformation led into the expulsion of self-sufficiency. And apparently the helpless impoverished.

Are we to help the ones who are "weak"? Do we let them suffer for the betterment of the lives of the strong?
I think humans have a conscience, and to belittle ourselves to be less, with the excuse of getting in touch with our animal nature, is disgraceful.

Lonely Souls

I think people start relationships when they get into college because they want to feel connected with someone. The friends they make may choose not to hang out with you anymore and choose other friends they think are better. They want someone who is constant, and that they can rely on. Not indefinitely, but can trust more than others at least for a little while. A boyfriend or girlfriend can provide a sort of comfort.

But what about those who don't get into relationships? Are they the ones that are more secure in themselves or are more independent? Or is college just a new place that one person can meet another?

I definitely think that people need to realize why they are going into a relationship. They think if they like a person that is the common step to take, but why does one like that other person? What is that person offering that the other craves? Attention, consistency, comfort, good looks, good kissers...what is it that gets someone hooked?



Maybe I just don't understand. I've never had a long-term boyfriend. I don't know if it's because I haven't met anyone yet, I just don't care enough to make an effort to get one, or I get claustrophobic in relationships, but I just haven't had one. My first "boyfriend" was in junior year of high school, a point in time where most girls have had many boyfriends. It lasted barely four months. I needed freedom, I wanted out. So now, a few flings and hookups later, I find myself two months into college. I've found that college relationships go a hell of a lot faster than anything I could've witnessed in high school. Maybe because we live near each other and interact more. Or maybe when a person gets lonely when they start to miss the comforts of home, they go for the comforts of someone's arms.

The feeling of understanding and compassion from another person is enough for an extremely strong and valued connection. It can get me into trouble sometimes, but I tend to base who I surround myself with and my romantic interests on connections alone. I have too much hope in people. There are no good or bad people in my book. I see the best in people, and recognize that they can have a bad side too. I trust everyone, yet trust no one. Maybe I trust the good side, but am distrustful of that inner devil that can surface, I'm not entirely sure. Nonetheless, I am too hopeful. A person I know I shouldn't invest time into, I still do, because of that connection with that goodness I see within them. It might just be the mystery or the challenge of bringing out that goodness, but the common sense of going for the "good guy" has left me. My friends tell me I'm attracted to jerks. I try to explain what I have written here, but every time I'm a little lonely, my mind comes to this. That first boyfriend, and other ones who wish to catch my eye, seem to be good guys, but it's all a gamble if I will feel a connection to them or not. Or if that connection will be enough to keep the attention of a free spirit.

Maybe its not a connection though. Maybe it's just the offering that person has that I crave at the time.

This world of emotion confuses me.

First Post!

Huh. So what now? I have no idea what these blog shenanigans are all about. All I know is I need to spill sometimes, and as I read my good friend Ian's blog, Phriction, it made sense to possess my own vessel of expression. The paranoid voice within me doesn't want to put personal information on this site, nor let the public eye sift through my thoughts, but the cry for a new creative outlet is louder. 

Fact One: I am a freshman in college. 

It is, to say the least, overwhelming. With the bombardment of a variety of pressures such as forming and concreting our pathway to our chosen career and choosing how to portray ourselves in a new environment, it is hard to sort it all out. In one of my require

d readings, I came across a line that rang infinite 

truth. Annie Dillard said in her book, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek,  

"The world’s spiritual geniuses seem to discover universally that the mind’s muddy river, this ceaseless flow of trivia and trash, cannot be dammed, and that trying to dam it is a waste of effort that might lead to madness."

I have found that I am always demanding immediate answers to any question that passes through my mind. Any wonderment of the spiritual mind can be shared and discussed with others, like that of the academic mind when one raises their hand in class. However, to choose that one question, that one thing to ponder, is damming the mind. To accept the new ceaseless flow of information and opinions I have been surrounded by, I have been trying to accept the full flow as a whole. I realize that in order to transform and become educated, I must form my opinions on each thing specifically, and decide which information is trivia or trash. I suppose this blog can be that place to sift through my mind as I focus on each internal question. 

Fact Two: The college I go to is an Environmental Liberal Arts college. 

The word "Hippiecrite" is something I overheard one day while attending this college. It was used to describe the people who party in the woods but do not clean up after themselves. This school is for the environmentally minded, for each class is related in its own way back to the environment. So the ones who chose this school should be the ones who truly care for the environment in which they live right? Apparently not. The things one says and the things they do are apparently entirely different things. 

I am not any different. No one can be fully conscious of their consequences of their actions, they can only choose to take responsibility and change the repercussions they see. I am not blind. I am not average. Everyday is a constant struggle to rise above the average, and I choose to take that challenge. How can that immense change that everyone cries out for happen if no one chooses to struggle and rise for the things they are passionate about??

Fact Three: My life-long Challenge

...is to live life with passion. Throughout my blogposts I suppose I will share what fills that heart of mine...in the meantime, thats a wrap!

p.s. I'm going to be a fairy for Halloween and it's going to be grand :]