A note to all bloggers

When did everyone became an expert on blogging? It seems to me that everyone is now blogging about blogging all of the sudden. I Googled: “How to blog”, resulting with hits of over 1,620,000,000 results (0.22 seconds). Blogging started to gain popularity in 2001, that’s 13 years ago. Acting is been here for thousands of years  and there are only 401,000,000 results.

From what I have noticed, these bloggers are just rephrasing or rewording the same-old questions repeatedly. The most frequently rephrased questions are pertaining to strategies about traffic increment.

Bullshit titles like: How to this, how to that, 100 ways to this, why bloggers this, blah blah blah…. Next time you decide to write a blog post about how to increase traffic to your blog, do me a favor and give me something new (well, not me because I am not interested in gaining traffic to my blog). I don’t want to hear about how commenting in  other people’s blogs can be very beneficial to blog traffic. I don’t want you to tell me that sharing post on Twitter, Facebook, and Google plus in a must do, I don’t want to hear about guest blogging, I don’t want to hear about Email signature, and I definitely don’t want to hear these words in you blog post titles:

  • Sharing
  • Interact
  • Participate
  • Value
  • Engagement
  • Friendliness
  • Attention
  • Fresh
  • Properly
  • Define


You’ve got to be stupid if you need someone else to tell you that. Those things are obvious and you know that. And stop saying “what a great post” to every damn post because not all posts are great.

UFOs and the scientific reputation

 Is it reasonable to claim that the US Government’s reports of unidentified flying objects require a more plausible explanation than the official ones? I think that any reasonable person would agree that some explanations of certain occurrences given by government officials with the aid of mainstream scientists seem implausible, and appear to be biased towards scientific reputation. I also find it interesting that in a general sense any form of government skepticism also appears to be euphemized and/or categorized under the term “conspiracy theory”. I am not claiming that every single report concerning UFOs necessitate a better explanation, but maintaining that some reports do demand a more reasonable one. The term conspiracy theory seems to be besought to take over mostly any form of government opposition/skepticism and to abruptly be utilized beforehand so that any theory that does not assist in the substantiation of government power becomes inevitably concealed.

As a result of its concealment, the term conspiracy theory itself becomes intelligently conspired, concealed, and camouflaged under its own definition to be standardized as a legitimate hyponomy with an automatic function without even really having been hypothesized. The closest way to really understand the bias within the term that supports the uphold of scientific reputation is to correlate it with an analogy of a term with similar make-up but with distinct nature. I will, for that matter associate the term conspiracy theory with the term reality. Reality is, strictly speaking, an umbrella term for whatever it is that it renders; physical objects or elements within it, 3 dimensional entities, everything perceive as independent.

Now, with that being said, the term conspiracy theory seem to have a reality of its own, portrayed with homogeneous parts: It’s either true or untrue, and whatever falls within it will be more likely seen false due to its embedded reputation that continues to reinforce its aim, which is really a confirmation bias because it’s been already settled to prove its falsity,  but a few will see its truthfulness. I know this analogy does not follow consistently in terms  because in reality people tend to have hold belief to their perceptions as objections and those objections as truthfulness, and that is the opposite with the term conspiracy theory; its objection will be more doubtful and false.  To clarify this abstraction, people is more likely to believe what they see than to remain skeptical and doubtful about what they see or perceive.

I choose to exist but I wish I was dead.

Honestly, sometimes I wish I was dead, better yet, I wish I hadn’t had existed in the first place. If only there was a way to dismantle the true nature of reality, and be enlightened with certainty of what might be the absolute truth of my existence: A solipsistic reality; to commit myself to suicide seems to be the best deed. But I don’t know, and that’s a problem. On the contrary, what if empirical evidence is the truth of the ultimate reality?  – I guess I am a metaphysical agnostic.

When I die I don’t want any physical evidence to be found, still less procured. Of course there are ways to avoid such dilemma by utilizing a somewhat creative implementation to the action, but if the final choice of my determination falls in the views of a scientific reality then I rather maintain a metaphysical agnostic perspective and continue to put up with life’s miseries.

Due of this uncertainty, I choose to exist and the reason why I wish I was dead may look like a contradiction, which explanation I don’t have. A friend named Nate killed himself recently – by jumping off the Bay Bridge, to address one’s curiosity – and it reinforces my level of skepticism within me, a skepticism that places uncertainty in my thinking. Such uncertainty put me in an agnostic view of reality. Soon I will attend an open casket funeral of the aforementioned friend which claim to amount to “evidence” of what it means not to exist or to support the thought that reality is independent of one another. If I follow his path, will everything that “I” sense be the same? I wish I knew the answer to this unknowable question, any given answer or to be more precise, any given interpretation of this philosophical problem will never be known.

Am I the only one who exist? If so, what does it mean to be me and to exist? well, I suppose that if the “I” which means me is the only thing that “exist” then my sense of existence must have an underlying reality. And if I happen to be the only one to exist, do I have a body? is the body just another type of entity like another person that I label as some sort of imagination because it doesn’t exist independently? if I am the only one who exists and everything I perceive is just an interpretation of what I as the self sense to be reality; in a nutshell solipsism. I assume that it doesn’t exist independent from whatever it is that I sense as my own reality.

The Nate’s Letter


Dear Nate,

Awesome roommate and friend!

The unexpected has finally happened; even though it is expected as a function of life, it wasn’t expected to happen within the year 2014, much less at the earliest days of the year. It’s been about 24 hours since I heard of your demise. You were part of me and I will always carry you inside, to me you’re alive.

I wish life’s fundamental questions of reality were certain to me, but in my humble opinion I know that if we were independent from one another, and if the concept of mind is merely a euphemism for the soul, and if consciousness is really what the soul entail, I believe that you are in a better place than ours and I hate to accept your absence and even find it hard to believe the veracity of the story. Nate, rest in peace and may all the sweetest memories of ours continue to live in your heart.

You are a wonderful person Nate. Nice, sweet, and a caring person. Whatever happen to going to Las Vegas, maybe you should have departed without hesitation. I am sorry, I shouldn’t tell you what to do. I just can’t believe it nor accept it. Remember last time I called you and we talked about hanging out and play Call of Duty? You sounded happy and I made you laugh about me wanting to be a D.J. like you — “Haha… you want to be a D.J. Nelson?”.

We talked about girls, we would go to the nearest store and walk back, we would laugh and share our past experiences with girls.

Friend forever and ever! R.I.P. Love, hugs, and happiness.