A Long, Long Time Ago...

Well, while it's been a month since I've updated, I have been up to other things. I started to write a script for a series I wish to create (hopefully I'll start on this one), studied for exams, and relaxed during Christmas Break. And then a new year began.

The idea of a New Year's resolution may sound pretty boring, and perhaps even vain, but it has a good message: change. The whole reason to make it New Year's Day is that it helps people have a reason to make a change. And so, I too have joined them.

For my resolution, I decided to get more exercise. I find that when I walk places, I get to see more of the beauty in everyday things. I can appreciate all the wonder in a dewdrop, or the flight of a butterfly. Which brought about an addendum to my resolution: I would go on picture walks.

The concept is simple: walk around somewhere, and then take some pictures. It brightens my day since I'm now getting out more, and seeing beauty in the world again. To give you, the readers, something out of this, I've also started a new blog, which I will hopefully be updating on a daily basis.

Concept of new blog:

• Solely for pictures
• Only one picture posted per day, and it is the best picture I took that day
• If I'm late, I'll post the picture the next day
• If you want the full sized picture (2048 by 1536 pixels), then just e-mail me and I'll send you it
• It has a location
  

That's about it. Notify me if you have any ideas for improvements to said blog.

58% Proof By Induction, 32% Random Chance

Mathematicians use proof by induction all the time, and while considered a "forced" proof, it is still a valid way to prove something. The issue, however, is that this does not work in the real world, which is to say, just because someone does well on a test one week, does not mean that they will do well on the next test. But why?

Two possibilities emerge: either proof by induction is flawed, or something is not being accounted for when induction is used. Since the method is sound, (as it has continued to be used), then something is not being accounted for. And this does make sense.

In the example above, only one variable is accounted for: is there a test? In actually, however, there a millions of variables in play, some of which are more important than others (one being: did you study?). Because these variables are not taken into account, or ignored, then incorrect results are the result.

For example, you see a friend with lots of blue clothing, and whenever they receive a piece of blue clothing as a gift, they are genuinely happy. Using proof by induction, you infer that every time he/she gets blue clothing they will be happy. This is a simplification through a generalization, and while it makes your life easier, it does not lead to a guaranteed good gift giving method.

Now, it does increase the probability that your friend will like the gift. But, they could absolutely hate scarves, in which case a blue scarf would be a bad idea. Still, the chance that your gift will be successful does increase. Which brings me to the summation point:

Patterns do not prove anything, but instead give background for claims. There are always multiple models and theories which fit the same data, however the one which is most effective and simplest is repeatedly chosen, as science reflects. So do not think that proof by induction is solid, just think of it as a quick way to improve your chances of success.

1, 4, 13, 40, 121, 364...

Humans are nothing more than advanced in the department of pattern recognition. Creative thought is no more than random interference of ideas. We are just quicker at this pattern recognition, as well as more adept at random interference. Humans are nothing more than chimps with faster brains.

Tangent 1: Pattern Recognition

How do we learn anything? We learn things through patterning. If we hear a car when we're crossing the street, we turn to see if there is one coming. Why? Because the probability of there being a car coming is high when one is heard, as we learn through pattern recognition. Through spending time around cars, we begin to realize that when there is a certain sound, there is usually a car. Additionally, we further discover that depending on what sound is made, a different car makes it, going at a different speed. All of this is pattern recognition.

Indeed, the entire foundation of the scientific method is based upon this cornerstone: A pattern is discovered, and then scientists attempt to find a counterexample or prove that it is true in all cases. If they prove it in all cases, then they create a general rule, often known as a natural law. Mathematicians do the same with number theory.

*Math Warning!*
Let's say that we just discovered an interesting phenomenon: Every odd number squared minus one, is evenly divisible by eight. That is to say that if k is any integer, then 2k+1 will be odd. Thus, ((2k+1)^2 - 1)/8 gives you an integer. The question becomes, why? And if so, can we prove it?

Quick answer: Because it does, and we can prove it.

Long answer: ((2k+1)^2 - 1)/8
= (4k^2 + 4k + 1 - 1)/8 Expansion of the bracket
= (4k^2 + 4k)/8 Addition of 1 and subtraction of 1 “cancel”
= 4(k^2 + k)/8 Factorization of 4
= (k^2 + k)/2 Simplification of the fraction
= (k+1)(k)/2 Factorization of k
Now, at this stage the proof takes a little bit of logic (which, itself, is pattern recognition). If k is odd, then k+1 is even, and hence divisible by two. If k is even, then k is divisible by two. Regardless, the final expression is always divisible by two.
*End of Math*

Double Tangent 1: Logic And Pattern Recognition

All of our logic can be classified as Aristotelian, which is to say that if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Think it through for a moment. If I love pizza, and pizza is my lunch, (and these are the only two factors), then I will love my lunch. Again, if I only love pizza and pizza is not my lunch, then it stands to reason that I will not love my lunch.

Now, how was this discovered? One possibility is that someone noticed that if one thing is true, and another is true, then together they are true. If the grass is green, and trees are green, then trees and grass are both green, so therefore they are the same colour. As the person saw more examples of this, they created a general theory of logic.

An alternate theory is that a person may have been asleep and then simply woke up with the idea which was inspired by a dream. This is known as spontaneous generation, and is often attributed to creative thought. But that is just random interference, and is not unique to humans.

Tangent 2: madRon recinnerfeet

Snakes on a Plane. There's a part in the movie, "Do you remember all those terrorists simulations? Well, I'm smack in the middle of one we didn't think of," or something along those lines. Upon seeing the trailers, I began to think that someone should do a parody and use the exact same quotes as those in the trailers, but instead of having the whole thing take place on a plane, have it take place in a field. The new movie would be called "Snakes on a Plain."

Now, some may call this creative thought, but instead I believe that it is random interference; the meshing of two ideas together in random configurations until one is found that works, and all other ones are rejected. I took the name, my subconscious looked through my mind to find things to associate with it, randomly encountered the word plain, substituted it, and voila.

This idea is so well known, computer programmers have used it. One computer programmer took this idea, wrote some code, and now the software can be put into any robot with limbs, and eventually the robot will find how to move the limbs most effectively through this method. No additional programming is needed, and if a limb should be removed, the software adapts through the same method.

Double Tangent 2: I'm Dreaming Of A White Christmas

The human mind does random interference all the time, although it is more associated with the subconscious than conscious. When we dream, we take the day's events and randomly intersect them with each other. Through this, we discover things that we normally would not have, and make connections in a similar manner.

In the same way, we do this on a daily basis in everything we do. All creative thought can be traced back to random interference.

Tangent 3: Bananas? Chimps And Chumps

In general, we're no different than animals. They may take 150 tries to see that they cannot go one way, but the next time they only take 100 or so. This is simply pattern recognition, albeit at a much slower rate that us highly evolved humans can. Animals, our distant cousins, work the same way we do, in regards to pattern recognition.

Do they have creative thought? Obviously they must, if all it is is random interference. Proof of this is found all over the animal kingdom, such as the gorilla who signed "tomato toothpaste" for ketchup.

Summation:

As far as I can see, we are no more "evolved" than any other animal, except in the fact that we can "learn" quicker than other species. We all use pattern recognition, and we all experience random interference. If you, however, would care to disagree, then please do comment on this blog. I will use my previous ascertained knowledge on the English language (through pattern recognition) to reply to you in hopefully witty way (barring any unforeseen problem with my ability to experience random interference). Oh, and good luck on finding the pattern in my title.

Earrings: A Defense?

Girls do it all the time. They put jewelry on themselves, do up their hair, and then paint their fingernails. The question of why has long been answered: they do it in order to enhance their appearance. However, I wish to dispute this closed idea, and instead offer my own analysis: they do it as a defense.

First, why do we shield our bodies with clothing? We do it to protect ourselves from both the extremities, as well as others' peering eyes. I put forth the idea that we hide our bodies as a preventative measure: we don't want people to see something they can ridicule.

Think about it for a moment: if people insulted what you were wearing, then you wouldn't be nearly as hurt as if they insulted you directly. So what would you logically do? Try to distract people from you more and more, until people were so distracted that they didn't see you anymore, but instead what you wore.

Perhaps this is part of what females do; they wear earrings, elaborately make their hair, and paint their nails, all in an effort to distract attention from themselves. The underlying truth of this is simple: we are all vulnerable, and wish to protect ourselves. Magicians use this method all the time; they distract you from what they truly try to accomplish (redirection). Similarly, we dress up when going to a ball in order to impress others, and reduce the chance that people ridicule you on who you are. It would make sense that on a day when you are being judged by others, you would protect yourself by wearing garb to disguise you.

So, if we wear things to distract others so they cannot ridicule us, then why do we not wear a suit of armour itself, instead of these trinkets, which serve that purpose? Despite the physical problems with the idea itself, there is also the fact that we wish to bond with others, and completely hiding ourselves from ridicule is a problem. With this in mind, we let ourselves be vulnerable, and we let people interact with us, so that we too can gain emotional support.

So, what does this prove? Simply put, something that we have always known: those who are shallow and wish to decorate themselves with beauty enhancing things, wish to hide who they truly are, for fear of rejection.

"a" versus "ur"

It's a question that's plaqued the philisopical for thousands of years: Are we who we are due to our genetics, or due to our experiences, and if it's both, then in what ratio? This essential question is woven into a myriad of ponderings that stem from it: Do people change, and if so, how much? Is that really just the nature of the beast? Can an old dog learn new tricks?

More importantly, however, is the question of where do our genes end and our life experiences begin?

I won't deny that our genetics lay the foundation for our being. In the few moments we're alive, our actions are solely based on our genetics (where’s the grub?). But when do we start to change due to our experiences? And do we? Just because you learn calculus or how to play the piano doesn't mean that they decision and aptitude didn't come from your genes. (It also doesn’t mean that it didn’t come from the chocolate bar you just ate.)

Let me attempt to tackle this question in sequence. First, how can your genes give you an aptitude for playing the piano? It seems like a rather impossible feat, seeing as how pianos have only been around for a relatively small portion of time. How could our genetic structure adapt to hold information about playing the piano? (Besides magic, although magic is awesome.) My answer is simple: it doesn't. Instead, it categorizes talent.

Most people who have a talent for something have a talent for related things. I have a talent for math, and so this lends itself to a talent for physics as the majority of physics is mathematics. Similarly, someone who has a talent for words is most likely good at debating. (Or rapping, even if that’s just a lot of “mofo”ing.) The counter point to this line of thinking is what about specific, out of the ordinary talents? There are people who are horrible in math, but can do pattern analysis exceptionally well. Why is this?

Overlap. Just like any properly drawn Venn diagram, we have overlap in our talents. A natural interest in art may lead to an ability to look at a picture and recognize a pattern present in it. (Or acting really snobby.) They may not seem related, but they are. Additionally, a talent in music may come from math skills (for recognizing numerical patterns) and an appreciation for art (in order to make said patterns appealing to the ear).

This being said, we can end up with highly refined talents, such as being able to visualize the complex structure of biological components of a theoretical plant. Our genetic structure could not specifically give us the talent for this, but the interference from our other talents did. Just as two musicians harmonize to create music, so too does your genetic structure conduct your talents.

Now, have you ever noticed how some people work so hard on a certain area, and just can't get it? Or people try to give up smoking but can't? (Winners don’t do drugs kids!) Perhaps you've seen people continually fall into the same problems, no matter how hard they try. Currently, it's up for debate as to whether or not these things occur do to the nature of the person, or who they've become to be and their mental roadblocks.

Many people study very hard and try their best to understand engineering, and just cannot. One theory is that they were born without the ability to learn it. Another theory is, however, that they failed once and then they expected that they'd fail again. This expectation then occurred, resulting in their continued annoyance at engineering and the belief that they could not succeed in it. (Some people might just argue that they shouldn’t even attempt engineering, as it’s a waste of their life anyway.) Alternatively, they could have been told at a young age that they couldn't build a fort cool enough, so again they got discouraged, and the same result was the outcome.

These two theories are at the heart of the nature versus nurture the debate. Some people want to know that they have free will and can control their own life. Others would like to be able to dismiss their failures as simply fate (all while silently cursing their parents).

What does it matter though? So what if we're all pre-programmed automatons? Who cares if eating that second chocolate bar was your own choice, you fat worthless slob? I'll tell you who: me. I care.

Should I get rid of my friend who thinks that soap operas are the holy grail of television? If she can't change, then who cares about her? If she can, then I'll just strap her down in front of some Terminator and cure her of the disease. Enough is enough though! These philosophers would tell us that if she doesn't change, then it could just be because of some mental roadblock baloney.

So how the hell can we find the answer? If we test one of the theories, and seemingly disprove it, then the other philosophers just go "That was meant to happen due to their genes!" or "They chose to stay that way!" The truth is, if we can't prove it either way, and the results are the same, then the why doesn't matter.

“I don't give a damn”, I guess is the right attitude. If your friend can't stop watching soap operas, either accept it or move on. It's either the nature of the beast, or their stupidity. And that's the real point. So, eat that second chocolate bar, because even money says that it's not your fault. And I'd take those odds any day. Just remember, the result will be that it will damage your teeth anyway, so make sure to brush. That is, unless you're not meant to...

Who knows what we’re programmed to do… Was I meant to write this?... Will I become homophobic?... Will I start a mass revolution involving elephants painted pink flying through the skies in hot air balloons, ready to do my evil, if hippie-idealist, bidding?!...

I hate my parents.

It's like... one of those optical illusions...

Since I don't have time to go into anything indepth, I just wish to say:

Isn't it interesting that the one time you know for sure that you're above someone else, and that you shouldn't waste your time on that person any more, is the minute you find out that they think they're better than you?

Stone Cold Shoulder

In a completely logical world, we would not have friends. (A completely logical world being one which people do not do things for emotional reasons, and ignore the influence of them.) A logical person would instead have associates, people who they would meet for information, nothing more.

No one would get together for fun, but instead for a purpose. We would congregate to discuss problems which face us as a whole, and we would do things that would benefit us and society. Games would not be played, and cards would not be dealt. Instead, we would increase our lifespan at the gym while casually discussing the existence of an almightily being with the chap whom we may never meet again, but just happened to be riding a stationary bicycle next to us.

Indeed, friendship would be pointless. If you felt emotion, you would act illogically. In essence, we would be weakening our self, corrupting our pure state of logic with petty whims. Besides, friendship requires risk, and emotional risk would be pointless as it would only lead to the potential for emotional gain, and emotional gain does not provide a logical person with anything. Truly, friendship is pointless if a person is logical.

Instead, your relationships would be trivial, both people only talking if they got knowledge out the endeavour. It would illogical to fraternize with people who could not benefit you with knowledge, and so the world would become highly divided. We would separate into classes of the most intellectual, and the least, with all the hues in between. Sure, teachers would still be ever-present, as it would be logical to attempt to educate people as much as possible, (it would ultimately lead to the betterment of all society) but there would still be segregation amongst the upper echelons of the educated.

Friendship would only serve to make the structure less efficient, as the most promising of people would trivialize their time with discussions with people intellectually beneath them. The entire ideal of continual betterment through productive discussion would be in jeopardy. Thus, friendship must be eliminated in a truly logical society.

We do not live there, however.

If a person tries to live by these ideas (do not create lasting friendships as once you are done discussing things which benefit you with the person, they are no longer useful, and creating a friendship with them only means that you are emotionally attached and therefore have to stay with them after their usefulness has come to an end), they would most likely be rejected in our society.

Humans thrive on friendship. We create them even though they are riddled with problems. We need to know that out there, there is someone who cares for our emotional well-being, because our emotional well-being influences our productivity. If someone just formed trivial relationships based on the sole purpose of gaining information through them, then one person would feel like they were taken advantage of. It is rare to ever find a relationship of any kind dissolved by mutual consent.

Someone who does not care about your emotional state shows that they are uncompassionate towards you, and you become bitter towards them. We do not like people who do not value us, and we feel betrayed. However, there is no real betrayal, as it is their nature (I call Star Trek fans to the beautiful Scorpion monologue by Chakotay in Voyager’s Scorpion, Part I). Do we curse the wind when it blows in the middle of winter? Some of us might, but in the end we all realize that it will not change, and instead put on something warmer to protect our self.

Perhaps this is an instance where we must simply accept that some people do not wish to form lasting relationships with others. It is a shame though, as it means that while they will never feel the pain of being hurt by caring for someone and finding out that they do not care back, they will never be able to experience the elation when a friend helps them out.

And that is the true purpose of this blog: To say that we should appreciate our friends more. They put up with our faults, understand us, and even when we do something wrong, they still stick with us. For I may hurt you today, and you may hurt me tomorrow, but if we can not work through our differences, then we are not worth the breath of another. We all will stumble at one point or another, and what we need, most of all, is someone there, right beside us, offering a hand and saying “I forgive you for all the pain you have caused me.” That, is love. And truly, love is blind.

Use The Force Luke

Our parents do it all the time. They take us and force us to do things we'd rather not have. For example, there's my graduation a little while ago.

I didn't want to go. I’d have to dress up, only to have a gown cover up what I was wearing. (We all looked like we were from Hogwarts too!) It seemed ridiculous. Why dress up only to hide it? It made as much sense to me as having a stripper wear a wedding gown only to take it off two seconds later.

Then there was the idea of a celebration for graduating anyway. I would get my diploma regardless of going, so why go? I'd just have to sit there for an hour or two, listening to people talk about stuff I didn't care about. I didn't want to waste my Friday evening in such a meaningless way. I was hell-bent against the whole thing.

But I was forced to go.

Did I regret it? Not really. I got over the whole wearing a dress shirt and pants, and I did sweat. But the fun I had with people there was more than worth it. I got to see people who I hadn't seen in a while, as well as make some memories that'll, appropriately enough, last a lifetime.

Sure, I may have logically approached the situation, had the same information as my parents on the ceremony, etc., but I lacked the understanding. As explained previously, that lack of understand lead to different conclusions on the part of myself and my parents. Their conclusion was right.

Now, this being said, I have two things to show through this example: the idea of parents living through their kids is something we all do, just in different forms, and sometimes people need to be forced into situations they don't want to be, and they will thank you in the end.

The first is the most important. Most people, especially teens, condemn their parents for forcing them to do things they don't want to. It's formally known as living through your children, however, this is just the most obvious manifestation of the human need to live through others.

Why do we watch television? To escape. We imagine ourselves as another person in the same room as those actors. We pretend we're their friends, that our lives are similar to their own.

Why do we play video games? To experience that which we normally cannot. We dive into another world, and take over another person, becoming them. We become ruthless 007, ready to be thrust into another deadly situation.

We do it to our friends too. If someone you know is going to Egypt, you might suggest that they take their picture in front of the Sphinx, mainly because it's something that you'd like to do yourself but cannot. It may not be as enjoyable as going there yourself, but it's something.

Why do you think that people read romance novels? Because they wish to have the same things in those books occur to them, but cannot, so they experience them through the book.

Every single day we live through others. Since we cannot experience all the things we want to, we live through other people. The only reason why we condemn parents is because they have enough influence to make their children do what they want them to. We all live through people to some degree, it's just that parents can, and do, to a greater one.

Now, this brings me to my second point: Some times you need to force people to do things for their own good. Many times we lack the time to explain something to someone so that they will understand, or the ability to break through their emotional barrier to have them analyze the situation logically. In these cases, forcing people to do things is sometimes the best thing to do.

Humans are creatures of habit it has been said. We do what we're used to because it's the easiest and we are the most comfortable like that. If we step outside this comfort zone, we become scared. Humans are scared of the unknown.

This being said, how do we make people break out of their comfort zone? Well, we can either have it occur suddenly, or gradually. To do it suddenly, force must often be applied. To do it gradually though, the situation must be approached with caution, showing the other person that it's not as scary as they think. Patience and perseverance must be used in order to alleviate any remaining fear so that the person is ready to tackle the situation.

Most times though, people cannot be bothered to just sit idly by. Instead they force the other person into the situation. In these cases, there are usually two outcomes: either the person is thankful for the experience, or resentful.

If you truly know that they will be happy about the experience, and you turn out right, then they will thank you. However, if you're wrong, then they will probably resent you for doing it. (However, they may say that the thought counted as you did care enough to try to benefit their life, even if it didn't turn out that way.)

My conclusion? We all live through people, so stop saying that parents are the only people who do it. Secondly, if you think that forcing someone to see something is the only way that they can get the understanding they need, then make sure that you're ready for the outcome. Thirdly, sometimes force is needed in situations in order for them to learn and grow.

And Then, He Was Spirited Away

In a week, spare a day, Halloween will occur. I think that it is appropriate to look at some of the rumours involving this day, in order to see what it’s all about. Remember, knowing about our culture helps to understand some of our traditions and customs.

According to good ol’ Wikipedia, it is believed that the Celts began this tradition and called it Samhain (or End of Summer) in which they had a fire festival, and it was believed that the dead would revisit the mortal world. The bonfires were lit to ward off evil spirits.

This festival was held on the last day of October, and then Pope Gregory the Fourth decides, “Hey, we should change the day, “All Saints Day”, to November 1st!” And the peasants rejoiced because now the day was no longer in April, but still wished to celebrated their other festival the night before. It’s name got corrupted though, into All Hallows Even’, or Hallowe’en. The apostrophe is often dropped for simplicity.

Now, there’s another little known fact about our calendar system, but we lost a series of days in the past. In Great Britain, it was a total of 13 days. Other countries varied, depending on when they switched to the new calendar system. (The switching was needed as leap days were added to the new calendar system to increase its accuracy).

In this day and age, we still hold the day on October 31st, even though the calendar changed, (actually, most days are held on the same days as before the change), and many people still believe this day is when the realms connect. Additionally, we still light fires, except now they’re candles inside pumpkins and in the form of Halloween lights.

What does this mean? Well, if Halloween is the date upon which spirits can communicate with the living realm, then we have to ask why it is every year. It must mean that the dimensions overlap with the greatest intensity every 365 days, if we assume that the original date was correct. If this is true, then people who say that they can “feel spirits” on Hallowe’en are delusional, because the date is now off by more than 15 days or so.

Conversely though, if we assume that our calendar is correct, and Halloween is now falling on the proper day, than those people who believed that they “felt spirits” on Halloween previously after leap years first were missed and today’s calendar started to become different than the calendars of old, must be delusional.

But, there is something more! Since both people believe the same thing, and they recite the same experiences, then something truly strange is going on. Either there is a changing pattern (which is an oxymoron), in which the date moved on one of the calendars, and then became stationary (which is highly improbable, and defies logic), or Halloween is a croc and it is not a day in which we can communicate with spirits.

Logically, we must conclude that Halloween is not a day in which we can communicate with spirits.

I will continue on with this idea of spirits and an afterlife in another blog in the future. Cheers!

High on Life

The speaker of the assembly was a recovered drug addict. I thought it was nice to be out of the high school class, but a waste of my time that this freedom should be stifled by a boring person talking about a subject which didn’t affect me directly. I never had done drugs, nor was I expecting to do them. I knew what they could do to you, and had seen the results of them everyday as I walked up to school and passed people hooked on tobacco in front of the school.

The speaker was a thin man, about 25. He had blond, short hair that made him look younger than he most likely was. He stood up, walked to the podium, and just gazed out at the student body. And then he began.

“Addiction. It’s something that we think wouldn’t happen to us, and when it does, we don’t recognize it. Take the example of my friend Glen and I. We’d smoke some weed on the weekend, just to relieve the stress that had accumulated over the week. It was relaxing to sit there, stoned, in a state of bliss.

“I never once thought I was addicted. I always thought, Yeah, this is fun. I can stop at any time I want, but why should I? It doesn’t hurt anyone. Although Glen never said it, I knew he agreed with me. We weren’t hurting anyone. It was just like we were inhaling a massage instead of having one done to us.

“Over the weeks it seemed like the relaxing effects of the weed was decreasing. At first, it wasn’t noticeable. But as time progressed, the change became more profound. I felt that the weekly dosage wasn’t enough, and needed more. I asked Glen to try to increase how much we got per week, but it didn’t work; the dealer could only get so much to us.

“I needed something to smoke, so I turned to cigarettes. They weren’t as good, but at least it was still something. It relaxed me, and fixed the problem temporally, but soon I increased the amount I had. At one point, I even started to smoke two at once, just to help take the edge off.

“I still didn’t think I was addicting. I rationalized what I was doing by saying that I was merely increasing my dosage in order to compensate for the decreasing quality of the product, as well as my increased resilience to its effects. I took it as a good sign too. If I had to smoke more in order to get the same calm that half of what I had before would have given me, then my body is set to help me resist the addictive effects of the substance, and it had already begun. I thought it’d be easy to quit whenever I wanted to.

“Then Glen informed me that the dealer had been caught, and wouldn’t be back for a few months. I panicked. How could I calm myself now? I needed that weed to survive. I went on a search to find another source, but it didn’t work. People looked at me strangely when I asked them if they any weed for sale.

“They looked at me as if I was useless. I knew differently though, that I was something. So I looked down on society. I thought myself better than them. They were just snubbing me because I was better than they were, and they were jealous of that fact.

“I became introverted. The only person I talked to for the longest time was Glen, but only then to see if he had found a new source. I started to become poor in my quest for relaxation. Then the worst thing that could have happened, did. Glen stopped.

“He didn’t explain why really. He just stopped because he had too much work to do he said. I laughed. Work? That didn’t matter. What really mattered was being relaxed and mellow. So I left my only friend like he left me. I moved on in life, a lone wolf.

“The change happened one day when I was walking down the street, going to the convenience store for another package of cigarettes. I saw an old man, homeless, banging on the door, demanding that they give him cigarettes. He yelled about how he had money, how they were killing him, and how they were horrible people at heart.

“I just walked away. I knew what I had become. Addicted. My whole life had begun revolving around reaching that mellow state to the point where I was stressing over it. Nothing was good enough. It wasn’t a sign that my body was resisting, but instead that it was so accepting, it became dependent.

“It took a while, but my mind was set. I had relapses, sudden urges to smoke, but I was determined; I would not become that old man. I came clean, and have stayed that way ever since.”

He paused, and this was the first time that my thoughts we allowed to come back to myself and the place I was in. Most students were busy laughing at the man who fooled himself, but I could not turn away. He was someone to be revered, his wisdom obtained at half the normal age. He resumed.

“But what does this mean to you? How does this tale affect you? What wisdom are you given by this story? Just a few things. Look at what you like to do. Do you play video games? Work out? Strive to be thin? Has this hobby become an obsession? Is it all that you think, eat, breath, do?

“You may think that it’s easy to break out of. You may think that it doesn’t adversely affect you, or those around you, but it may. The best pieces of advice I can leave you with are: 1. Find the person who has taken their hobby, the same one as yours, to the extreme. What happens if you get addicted to a television series to the point where it’s all you watch, and you memorize the lines? Ask yourself if that’s who you want to become. If it isn’t, then slow down a little.

“2. Do everything in moderation. Take a break from that which you divulge in, and reflect on your actions because of it. Is it good that you’re obsessed with that which you are? Would it better for you to do other things? Should you study and get your marks up?

“Your life is yours to live. I got lucky in the fact that I discovered my addiction quickly. Other people go on their whole life addicted to being in a romantic relationship, talking about a single joke, or other things. The worst part is that they don’t recognize their problem, or admit that they have one.

“So stand up. Be a big person and admit you have an addiction. Admit that you are weak. And then set out to deal with it. You can only solve your problem, once you identify it.”

He hovered on stage for a moment while the words sunk in, and then departed to the front row. I knew what I had to do, and that night I’d do it. I’d look at my life, and see if there were any addictions I had, and then analyze them. I knew now; those things worth my time, could wait until I was ready for them. I could overcome my addictions.

Just as soon as I found them.