Situation A) Sandpaper Y and sandpaper Z are rubbing against each other, producing heat. Both A and B are moving equally fast and forcibly as is possible.

Point 1) It would be absurd side with Sandpaper Y and say Sandpaper Z is the sole, or greater contributor to the heat. 

Point 2) The opposite, naturally, is equally absurd. To side with Sandpaper Z and say Sandpaper Y is the sole, or greater contributor to the heat. 

Situation B) Sandpaper Y and sandpaper Z are rubbing against each other producing heat. This time, Y is moving as fast and forcibly as possible, while Z remains completely still. 

Point 3) Point 1 and 2 still apply. But also to say that Sandpaper Y  is contributing more to heat production, is equally absurd. This applies to all possible the situations between Situation A and B (meaning the opposite situation B, and situations where Sandpaper A and B move all the different possibilities between they two extremes). More or less heat can be produced in all these varying degrees and possibilities of force and move, but never could it be said one piece was more responsible for any observable difference. 




I think most of us see that this is absurd, by a kind of a natural intuition. Explaining why is less obvious, but here’s how I see it. Perhaps a starting point is the fact that both pieces of Sandpaper are required to produce the heat. Even if one of the pieces does not move, despite its stillness its is responsive by virtue of being there. By being responsive as a surface to all the varying speeds and forces the other piece is moving with. More or less movement from each side doesn’t mean one side is involved more or less. The more one moves, the more the other is relatively still? It kind of contributes in its stillness.

Further despite there being different pieces of paper logically it wouldn’t make sense to choose a side in a phenomenon that necessarily requires the two. In a sense there are not really two in the sense of producing heat, there is one, they go together always.


Few final points;

I don’t know if the use to speed and force are the correct words for what is happening, it’s just to say they move in a certain measurable way.

I don’t know but maybe there is a way, probably not in this example, but how one side counters the other to produce less heat. Negative feedback?


Everything you need to know about everything

Jimmy enters the professor’s office. The professor expectedly looks up from the his book, asks Jimmy to take a seat. Jimmy seats himself, hopeful. The professor stands, and moves towards his bookshelf, removes a book and hands it to Jimmy saying ”This is a very important book if you wish to get on in this world, my boy”.

Jimmy looks at the shiny cover and reads;

”Everything you need to know about everything”

and then, exasperated,

”20th Edition”








Is it possible to make a mistake?

My mind will continually assess what the correct cause of action is. How I should play the entire situation that is my life? Will the next step be the right one? Could people think badly of me? Could I lose something? Will I waste time in this endeavour? Will I fall behind others? Could my choices lead to discomfort? Will I be abandoned? Could I cause harm to myself? Will I hurt somebody else through my choices, and thus feel bad about myself? Could I severe a beneficial relationship? Will what I want fulfil my expectations? Will I reach my goal? Will I have to sacrifice things I value now?

What do these questions tell us about what we think about life?

We are striving for something we want, in contrast to what we already have. I lose myself in these questions, frozen by doubt of what to do. I seek to protect myself. Mistakes exist. Life matters. I can win. I can lose. Something could go irreversibly for the worse. I must have felt I experience pain, mistakes etc. in the past, so could happen again in the future. I have an absence of complete power. Life has a set of rules. Other people matter. I know what I am. I know who I am. I feel I am not complete now.

All this seems unreal. The more knowledgable we are, it seems the more thwarted by doubt we are. Something is happening that we don’t touch or comprehend in all this. Something to do with what we think we are.


It seems strange that a mind can make a statement such as ‘it does not make sense that I know my own best interests?’ or  ‘ it doesn’t seem that I have a hand in my own peace’, yet live opposite to this. Believing in it’s own power.

Now, this is often explained by understanding logically and intellectually, and not actually. But where does this leave one.

What we can see is the mind is trying to understand itself. . But when in this half way house, it becomes confused. Questioning itself, but not dropping one of the statements.

Inside mind;

1)I have power/I believe in myself/Ego

2) I have no power/I don’t believe in myself/God


You can’t have both statements together. They contradict each other, yet we seem to keep both. One needs to be dropped.

Why do we keep both? Well we pursue our own power, become exhausted and dissatisfied with the outcome, and then release ourselves with the opposite statement of no power. So we become a man in his bed who turns to one side to feel more comfortable, until he finds this new place of comfort becomes uncomfortable, and then moves again to the other, original side. Moving endlessly from one side to the other. A restless sleep.

The first statement needs to be dropped, but not by moving to the second statement. Its not about moving to a new premise, its about dropping the first. The second I don’t know actually.

Do I know where my best interests lie? 

Do I know where my best interests lie?

From a very young age we learn what this ‘life’ is about – ‘life-knowledge’. Although this has many elements, ultimately it is what we should do in order to be happy, secure and peaceful. Yet no one is completely happy, secure or peaceful. Therefore all the ‘life knowledge’ we have taken on, cannot lead us complete security and invulnerability. Which we all want.

Because we have accepted this ‘life knowledge’,  and I think this ‘life knowledge’ is all we essentially are, we believe in ourselves/it to bring complete security. But when we look around, and I ask myself has this ‘life knowledge’ brought home what it says it will, the answer is no.

Yet this ‘no’ cannot is not such a resounding one, because I still believe in my own abilities. I still feel I have a hand in making peace.

So where does this leave me. Somewhere in between two worlds. One where I believe in my ability, and another don’t believe in it. (Wrote something about this in next blog post)

No actually its not two worlds, I must mean believe in myself. Otherwise I would have let go of my own power.

So what do I believe in?

I believe that some situations, and relationships will bring greater satisfaction, and other will bring less satisfaction or discomfort. Therefore I must trust my ability to first discriminate these situations from each other.

Yet we don’t treat it was a discrimination or choice. When I think about/am faced with something I am actually scared of, I see it as danger. I cannot make myself see it as not danger. So therefore seeing it as danger, the natural step is to avoid it. I cannot see it as danger and then expect myself to not avoid it.

So this choice of some situations, over other situations makes perfect sense in the light of seeing danger.


This loops because I now see that this one process of recognising dangers and choosing particular situations doesn’t bring me peace.  So I would have to question my own very seeing. Which I cannot do! Knowledge cannot unwrap knowledge. Though my brain does this, it trips back into this. So I’m left at the beginning of this article again.

The symptoms of powerful writing

I hope to answer this from the perspective of the reader, as this is where almost 100% of my experience of writing has come from.

For me the truest form of literature or writing (or any form of communication for that matter, whether verbal, musical, or whatever – even touch) can be described in analogy to the game of tetris. Confused..? Bear with me.

I begin with the disclaimer that I don’t think all forms of writing, do or should even aim to do, that which I describe below. Though writing which has the greatest impact, on me at least, does do the following. Also I do not claim that writing which doesn’t do the following is unimportant or rubbish, but that it has less impact, and is perhaps less useful to the reader psychically. At least in my opinion.

Sorry reader for such a boring, yet necessary, preamble. Imagine starting a game of Tetris half way through, its all a mess. Blocks everywhere, gaps everywhere, everything is a complete and utter mess. This is the default position a reader finds themselves in when beginning to read. The reader is a bag full of mental knowledge, absolutely bloated with stupid, and useless ideals and philosophies. Systems of thought that are so detrimental to his or her being, a state of utter confusion arises. Maybe this may seem a little exaggerated to you (though it doesn’t to me), and if so, lets at least agree that we arrive with a bag full of preconceptions and usually harmless prejudices.

What any medium that transmits knowledge (T.V., newspapers, fiction and so on) does to an individual is add more knowledge, synonymous to more blocks in a game of Tetris. Even when you completely disagree or can’t relate to what is being communicated, at the bare minimum you have gained the knowledge it was complete garbage. “I won’t ever read that rubbish again”. When you digest information, never make the mistake to think that nothing was gained, no effect has been made. There is always an effect, in some way or another.

What I deem great literature, does essentially the same, but has a slight difference. Naturally, and unavoidably, more blocks of knowledge are added, but this time the person playing the game of Tetris (the author), knows how to play. More blocks of knowledge are added, but tactfully added, in such a way, that in a moment or two, complete lines of previous blocks of knowledge will be completely erased. I know as a matter of fact everyone has read something, watched a film, happened upon a scenic view, had some sort of experience, and come away feeling lighter, less heavy with knowledge, and more rich in real experience. In the moment of knowledge being deleted, a space was created, you were exposed in such a way, that you could be touched by the world around you. In my opinion that kind of knowledge is so so rare, especially in the form of words.

Sometimes, you may even happen upon a writer, who doesn’t just delete a few lines of previous knowledge and experience, but tears right through it all. Their attitude something like,  ‘I’m not going to play according to the rules of Tetris, and delete a line at a time. But if you stay with me, really engage with what I’m saying, I’m going to bulldoze through all your ideals, and show you your unadulterated self.’

I felt like this recently, completely uprooted and struggling to find a centre to cling onto. I also felt momentarily alive.

The spark is from dead wisdom, but the fire is life.

D.H. Lawrence reminds me that even the ‘highest’ form of knowledge, is still only knowledge.