- Practical observations that will improve lives, rather than simply ‘saving’ them.
- Insultation vs. consultation
- Everybody dies. Never forget that.
- If you cannot forgive, and you cannot forget, you must be a rock. As Christ once said, “Throw thyself, thou judgmental piece of shit.”
- A complete language is an historical language – Latin, for instance.
- The mind has no material basis for claiming to exist apart from the body.
Like the iceberg, it is not about how tall you stand or how hot you are, but about how far you can sink below the surface without drowning.
Like a volcano, no one told me to let my ideas explode in the form of a blog.
No one told me to write this.
Or this other thing.
No one taught me how to create laughter and mirth.
No one taught me how to be myself. Yes, they tried to demand it, like an exorcism in reverse. But did it work?
No, or at least not in the way they expected it to. Actually, I am not really sure what they were expecting. All I know is that this was most definitely not it.
You may ask, “What do you stand for?”
I can answer this question, but first we must interrogate the questioner.
Is it reasonable to ask of others that they ‘stand for something’? That they become immobilized by their own words, unable to move to greener pastures within their own minds, even when they discover that the reason this truism works is because human beings have been ‘led out to pasture’ by the invisible hand of the Western conscience? Is it even ethical to ‘stand’ for something, if it means that the mind forgets how to dance?
I know. These are questions, and you came to this blog looking for answers because you were too lazy to read anything else. Fine. Here is an answer.
You are a fickle pickle.
See how annoying it is when someone answers a question that you weren’t asking, in order to persuade you that they are capable of thinking about someone other than themselves?
Sloppy questions warrant sloppy answers, all of which you have heard before and will hear again, until you accept that tautology is a fact of life, and that the stupidity of circular arguments originates in this all-too-common form of denial.
Science succeeds because scientists ask good questions and, more importantly, are not distracted by questions that cannot be answered – the Scientific Method.
The shortest route to an answer is to ask more questions. The ecology of the mind typically sits on the brink of resource depletion, such that every new question enters into a competitive relationship with those that have already been answered. What were formerly scientific answers come to resemble the institutional dogma which they claimed to overcome. In the search for stability, the ecology of the mind enters into a hot flux, and an entire forest of lies is burnt to the ground. Though it may take 100 or a 1000 generations for the forest to return, it will be unquestionably stronger than its predecessors. For no farmer likes weeds, not even the earth.
Question the questioner. Question the question. Question the language in which the question is asked. Question the answer. Question the assumptions behind every error. Above all, keep it in your pants. No one likes a philosopher who asks simple questions. Wait to speak until you have enough content to confuse the reader sufficiently that they will simply have to buy your otherwise worthless ideas. And remember, silence is the beginning of ‘free speech.’
And so on.
At what point do we come to recognize that our suburban grass covers over generations of ancestral feces?
At what point do we discover that soil is the shit of the earth?
And these are just the Tip of the Geyser?
Follow along, or lead.
When in doubt, end with reference to the universe or nature. This passes doubt to the reader/audience, quenching existential questions, much like dipping a nuclear reactor rod in water turns turbines while at the same time preventing meltdowns, martyrdom of saints/scholars (e.g. Giordano Bruno).
For an example of this principle in action, see bottom of about page. Not as helpful for writing grant proposals or ending scientific publications, so refer scientists to next tip, or possibly writing skills center.
For scientists, doubt can be quenched by referencing the need for more research. The need for more research means more funding, Nobel laurels, quixotic falsifications (i.e. Popper, à la carte (i.e. without any further reference to historical antecedents post falsification)), job securitization, sexual liaisons (e.g. with lab techs, colleagues, and funding institutions), and other forms of ‘science.’ Obviously, before this tip-based model can be implemented, further research will be needed to investigate the evolutionary origins of scientific doubt.
Doubting the future, institutions shore up their investment in the past, essentially transforming their hardest efforts into an altruistic oxymoron. The institution is the past, and that is the only reason for its authority on what we have come to call ‘history.’
Basically, institutions need to improve, and not get any worse, if they are to comply with the well-supported research arguments at the foundation of my philosophy. Reason says so, but if that is not enough, tell them that I say so.
More to follow, dear followers. In the meantime, redistribute the wealth of Dr. Geyser’s wisdom, health, and wellness by sharing this page on your favorite social media platforms, e.g. the Twitter, the Facebook, the Snapchat, etc.
Please feel free to leave your comments and questions for Dr. Geyser below. Also, as a legal disclaimer, I am not a doctor. If you want medical advice, ask a doctor, or at least someone who does not mind getting sued (i.e. someone protected by malpractice insurance).