Goals of the week

So I didn’t have time to post my goals of the week last week.  They were pretty simple.

Week 19 Goals:

  1. No lists for the week.
  2. Stay positive (no negativity).

No Lists

I always keep a million lists about what I need/want to do, whether it is short term (for the day) or longer term (this week, this month, etc). I keep these lists because I have so many things on my mind that it is hard to keep track of. But then I got to thinking that by keeping these lists I am removing the amazing exercise that my brain would have of being forced to remember. Without the selective pressure of having to remember all the things on my list, my brain no longer needs to commit things to memory, and thus my memory suffers.

This is not a good thing.

Another idea that popped up for me was that, if something was worth remembering to do, I would remember it. If something slips from my memory and I haven’t noticed for a few days, then it couldn’t have been that important or integral for moi.


Stay Positive

This has been an interesting area for me for almost the last year. I have always been a pretty positive person, but I have noticed, at times, I have found myself to have negative outlooks on things.

The catalyst for me was reading some texts on the Yoga Sutras. Here the idea of reality was presented so clearly to me:

Reality is nothing but the specific combination of attention and interpretation.

What this means to me is that whatever your reality is, it depends on what you have paid attention to (are conscious of/have sensed with your sense organs). This is fairly simple and easy to accept. If I have never seen a bird, heard a bird, touched a bird, or have heard any description, drawing, or stories (etc etc) of a bird, how could a bird be in my reality? There has to be a sensory perception, and this is what attention means.

Interpretation, of course, is how you make sense and understand that sensory perception (attention). I can watch the same movie, read the same book, hear the same song, see the same person that anyone else on this planet can see, hear, read, and yet still have a different experience from them. Interpretation has a very deep and powerful influence on reality. I have often interpreted various conversations with other people differently than how my girlfriend interprets them. I might be adamant that the person was being negative, while she was sure they were being positive. I might think someone was joking, while she might think they were serious.

So we have attention and interpretation. The specific combination of the two form your reality. If I want to live in a reality that is positive, then I have two paths to this reality. The first path is to focus my attention on positive things, things,events,people and actions that are in the realm of positive. The more time I keep my attention on positive things, the more my ‘net positive’ experience grows,and thus the more positive my reality becomes. The second path is to look for the good and positive in things that come to my attention (sensory perceptions). Here, even something as obviously negative as pain could be attempted to be interpreted as positive, but requires focus and discipline.

So, that was my goal for last week, and something that I will strive for continuously, I believe.

Someone asked me “Well, if you leave negative things out, isn’t that just ignorance?”

It is a good question. It really is. But, I think that my answer is good enough for me. First, there are an infinite number of things in this universe that can occupy my mind, all of them, whether good or bad, may be said to be ‘true’. I have a finite time in this life time, so I can’t possibly experience and be attentive to them all. With that said, some must be excluded. Whether I exclude good, or bad, negative, or positive, the argument could be made that I would be ignorant to whatever is excluded, there is no way around that. So why not focus on the positive? Also, I would argue that it isn’t ignorance, as I am aware that negative things exist. I am not denying their existence, rather, I am simply choosing to focus my attention on other ‘truths’, them being positive ones.


Goals for week 20 (week of May 28)

  1. Cook two new meals.
  2. Exercise everyday (that I am not sore).

Cook two new meals

My mom gave me a copy of an Indian recipe book. Since I am becoming quite an Indianophile (is that a word?), I got on board. I am hoping to find two nice and tasty vegetarian meals to add to the repertoire. I am excited for yummyness!

Exercise everyday

I had my nose surgery about 6 weeks ago. For the first 3 weeks I was not allowed to do any yoga, jogging or biking. It was pretty tough, as I was getting into a consistent yoga and exercise routine.

I have been back to yoga for the last couple of weeks, and started some light jogging and biking. I want to start doing some bodyweight workouts in the park near my house now that it is warm and sexy outside. I am going to assume that my body will get super hardcore sore from the period of inactivity, so my goal is to exercise everyday, except on days that I am sore!





Seneca Quotations

I thought that I would share some quotations that I found interesting. Hope you enjoy!

I am off to a bad start, since this first one is from Epicurus (quoted by Seneca) –

“To win true freedom you must be a slave to philosophy.”

I think that I like this because I have found a strength and power in philosophy. Without the ability to think about things, whether it is happiness, justice, morals, ethics, consciousness….whatever it may be, without the act of thinking about it and really giving it some contemplation, your chances of achieving those things are simply subjected to luck and randomness. Chance essentially. I think that it makes sense that you owe it to yourself and your existence to take some time to think over many things, not just what to do tonight, what to do for a living, but to think over the very scaffold that those concepts are pinned to; to think about why must you work, why must you do something tonight, what is it that you are seeking from either of those things, what their purpose is, what your purpose is, your goal, etc. It might appear like over thinking, but without giving concepts/doings proper consideration, it might be the case that life is spent just fumbling around without any coherent reasoning.

Ok, here comes Seneca –

“To live under constraint is a misfortune, but there is no constraint to live under constraint.”


This quotation speaks to me because I think that most people, myself included, feel the pressures of ‘having’ to do something. We might feel pressure from our culture, our peers, our family, or ourselves to do or act in a specific way. It might be to go to a certain school, or simply to go to school at all, to buy a big house because other people have big houses and if you don’t have a big house you might be looked at as a failure, the way you dress, what you do with your free time on the weekends, whatever. We feel that we have to do some things, but there is nothing in this world that we have to do, really. A great many of the things that we feel that we have to do, although they may start from an outside source, they are only imposed by ourselves. It is up to us to choose to maintain those constraints, as Seneca puts it, or to release ourselves from them.

Once again, Seneca is quoting Epicurus –

“If you shape your life according to nature, you will never be poor; if according to people’s opinions, you will never be rich. Nature’s wants are small, while those of opinion are limitless.”

Seneca was speaking about something that I firmly believe, that man has forgotten and ignored his true nature, that he is an animal and just as much a part of nature as any other animal is. He didn’t say it in those words, those are my thoughts, but clearly he was speaking of something along those lines. He believes that whether you heat your house and protect yourself from the elements using a straw roof or expensive marble tiles, you will still get the same result. The difference between the two is that one is natural, and cheap, and the other is unnatural, excessive, and will be your master.

“With some state or other offered Alexander a part of its territory and half of all its property he told them that ‘he hadn’t come to Asia with the intention of accepting whatever they cared to give him, but of letting them keep whatever he chose to leave them.’


Philosophy, likewise, tells all other occupations: ‘It’s not my intention to accept whatever time is left over from yo; you shall have, instead, what I reject.'”


I think this is fairly straight forward. He is speaking of how philosophy and an examined life is his first concern.

This quotation comes from when he is recalling a time when he had to swim to shore from a boat, and felt that he almost drowned.

“Even as I fought for breath, though, I never ceased to find comfort in cheerful and courageous reflections. ‘What’s this?’ I said. ‘So death is having all these tries at me, is he? Let him, then! I had a try at him a long while ago myself.’ ‘When was this?’ you’ll say. Before I was born. Death is just not being. What that is like I know already.”


I found this to be an interesting view of death. Simply non-existence. He claims that he defeated death before by coming into existence. Interesting.

He continues on about death:

“Someone, though, will say, ‘But I want to live because of all the worthy activities I’m engaged in. I’m performing life’s duties conscientiously and energetically and I’m reluctant to leave them undone.’ Come now, surely you know that dying is also one of life’s duties?

He continues on:

“As it is with a play, so it is with life – what matters is not how long the acting lasts, but how good it is. It is not important at what point you stop. Stop wherever you will – only make sure that you round it off with a good ending.”


The concept that dying is one of life’s duties is one that really caught my attention. I think I have to agree. It is any and all living beings duty to die. If no living thing on this planet died, the planet would quickly run out of organic material for usage, no new life could form, and life would become…. limited, less enjoyable, and surely unsustainable. It is any living beings duty to die at some point, so that some other new living thing can come into existence, take up the now dead beings organic matter, so that this process can continue indefinitely. It is a life cycle for a reason. It is quite communal, the idea of death. Almost socialist/communist. You have to give up your life so that the some other living thing can live. It is like a game where you take turns, maybe like a hockey game where you have line changes. If people never get off the ice and let others play, the game itself would suffer.

The second quotation and the writings where I plucked it from, speak of living a life of good quality. What difference is it to live until you are 70, 80, 90, 100, 120, and however long humans are looking to live until, IF the quality of those extra years are lacking. Life is not about quantity, it is surely about quality (and perhaps about increasing the quantity with quality). He also speaks about dying on your own terms, and that there is a quality and strength to it.

On how governance was once just:

“To govern was to serve, not to rule. No one used to try out the extent of his power over those to whom he owed that power in the first place.”


I feel like it is possible that people may have forgotten what governance is. It is intended to be given to someone, willingly of course. A concept of governance is that a group of people, whether it is 10, 100, or 34 million, reach a size where they recognize that someone (or some people) need to administer certain services so that the group can continue on and focus on their doings (living, working, participating in the good of the people by providing a service or good, raising a family, being safe, etc). So the group asks or selects someone to do this administering, this governing. It is meant to be a service that is owed to the group. If it is taken, and that power is used to rule, then this is tyranny, it is dictatorship, it is kingship. This is not what most people want. 

Maybe it is just me, but I feel the point of governance and the concepts around what we expect from it, and the power structure of the relationships have been confused, and maybe forgotten. There is a very good chance that I am wrong, as I am no expert in social theory. I just felt that this quotation contrasts an ideal state of governance, with that of, well, what may or may not be what is actualized for some people.


Again, on nature vs. excess:

“Nature suffices for all she asks of us. Luxury has turned her back on nature, daily urging herself on and growing through all the centuries, pressing men’s intelligence into the development of vices. First she began to hanker after things that were inessential, and then after things that were injurious, and finally she handed the mind over to the body and commanded it to be the out and out slave of the body’s whim and pleasure.


All those trades that give rise to noise or hectic activity in the city are in business for the body, which was once in the position of the slave, having everything issued to it, and is now the master, having everything procured for it. This is the starting point for textile and engineering workshops, for the perfumes used by chefs, the sensual movements of our dancing teachers, even sensual and unmanly songs.


And why? Because the bounds of nature, which set a limit to man’s wants by relieving them only where there is necessity for such relief, have been lost sight of; to want simply what is enough nowadays suggests to people primitiveness and squalor.”

This is pretty powerful to me. Certainly a common theme that I have read from Seneca is that he believes in living quite simply, and that excesses and attachment to possessions and material things are quite damaging to oneself. In this quotation, he recognizes that nature gives us everything we need. But somewhere along the way, we have wanted more. We have created a desire for more than we need, and further along the way, we have created a mandate for this desire, and to want anything but this is viewed as, well, various adjectives for wrong or crazy. (at least by some)

To think that wanting less than is necessary is such a foreign concept that building codes require a minimum size house. This is quite a subjective and silly thing. Average house sizes have more than doubled in the last 40 years in the western world, while at the same time family sizes have decreased. We have GIANT facilities to store our things. We have so much stuff (stuff that we clearly don’t need as we are storing it away) that we actually pay people to just hold on to it for us. This quote really resonates with my personal views, that is for sure.

I think that we, as the people on this planet, have reached a point where we have SO much, and so much technology, data, facts, know-how and abilities, that we don’t need to continue on this path anymore. What I mean by that is, the whole purpose of advancement in technologies, in efficiency’s, was to make our lives easier. At least for most in the west, this is not the case. If anything, we are even more busy, working harder and longer hours, but somehow accruing more debt. This generation of people today is the first generation in many generations to suffer from a lower quality of living than their parents.

Yes, we have an iphone and with it can find out almost anything in the universe that is already known within a few seconds, but what we don’t have is one single parent working a menial job that supports (debt free) a large family.

To want just what you need should be deemed a virtuous thing. Excess is simply that, too much and unnecessary. But to not have a cell phone, let alone the newest iphone, would be weird. To not want to dress in expensive clothes and constantly updating your wardrobe, but rather to own a few simple garments, enough to keep you warm and clean, is unheard of. A small home with few furnishings is the sign of poverty.

But why?


“All the terms of our human lot should be before our eyes; we should be anticipating not merely all that commonly happens but all that is conceivably capable of happening, if we do not want to be overwhelmed and struck numb by rare events as if they were unprecedented ones; fortune needs envisaging in a thoroughly comprehensive way.”


Seneca has some ideas on anger, and how they are to be avoided. He believed that anger results when our concepts of reality are broken by what actually happens. What I mean by this is, when I bump my head on the coffee table while doing yoga and get angry, what happened was that in my concept of reality, people never bang their heads on coffee tables while doing yoga. If I thoroughly held this point of view, then it wouldn’t have been such a surprise, nor a shock to me, which promoted the oncoming emotion of anger. He understood that fortune goes both ways, good and bad, and that we should be aware that this happens, and not to get attached when fortune is in our favor, and certainly not to get upset when it goes the other direction.

One prescription for anger was to meditate, daily, on the things that could go wrong. If you think about all the little things can could go wrong in a day, one, you will be more prepared for them if they do come your way, two, you will be more appreciative when they don’t happen, and three, you will be less angry if they do come about.

It is similar to preparing for a fight. We always practice for worst case scenarios, time and time again. That way, when and if it happens in the fight, I will have been there before, be more calm, less anxious, and better equipped to deal with that worst case scenario. Whereas if I had never trained that worst case scenario, if it were to happen in the ring it would be a fresh new experience and I would have no previous experience, training or abilities to help me cope with it.


So wherever you notice that a corrupt style is in general favour, you may be certain that in that society people’s characters as well have deviated from the true path. In the same way as extravagance in dress and entertaining are indications of a diseased community, so an aberrant literary style, provided it is widespread, shows that the spirit has also come to grief… What you might find more surprising is the fact that they do not confine themselves to admiring passages that contain defects, but admire the actual defects themselves as well.”


This quote hits on something I spoke about earlier here. Feel free to read it if you haven’t. I will leave you to think what this means to you, if anything. lol k thx bye brb lol lmao plz


Have a good one!



Seneca, Socrates and Katy Perry

I thought that this was interesting. In a letter, Seneca, a philosopher born around 1ad, writes:

“You ask me to say what you should consider it particularly important to avoid. My answer is this: a mass crowd. It is something to which you cannot entrust yourself yet without risk. I at any rate am ready to confess my own frailty in this respect. I never come back home with quite the same moral character I went out with… Associating with people in large numbers is actually harmful: there is not one of them that will not make some vice or other attractive to us, or leave us carrying the imprint of it or bedaubed all unawares with it. And inevitably enough, the larger the size of the crowd we mingle with, the greater the danger. But nothing is as ruinous to the character as sitting away one’s time at a show – for it is then, through the medium of entertainment, that vices creep into one with more than usual ease.”

Later he goes on to say-

“A single example of extravagance or greed does a lot of harm – an intimate who leads a pampered life gradually makes one soft and flabby; a wealthy neighbour provokes cravings in one; a companion with a malicious nature tends to rub off some of his rust even on someone of an innocent and open-hearted nature – what then do you imagine the effect on a person’s character is when the assault comes from the world at large? You must inevitably either hate or imitate the world. But the right thing is to shun both courses: you should neither become like the bad because they are many, nor be an enemy of the many because they are unlike you. Retire into yourself as much as you can. Associate with people who are likely to improve you. Welcome those whom you are capable of improving.”

There are two messages in this letter that interest me. The first is this idea of guarding yourself from others. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with ‘others’, but that other people might have less than virtuous qualities, and if you want to uphold your good qualities, then you must minimize your time spent around people that might make bad impressions on you. This is something that I’m sure most of our parents tried to impart on us as kids, albeit through control. Not to associate with ‘bad apples’ as rottenness is contagious. This, I can fully subscribe to. If you imagine a person of 100% virtuous character, and this person always associates him/herself with 100% virtuous characters/doings/etc, then the chances of that person remaining virtuous are fairly good. But, what if that 100% virtuous person then starts to spend 1% of his/her time with less than virtuous people/events/doings? These things represent vices; undesirable qualities/traits. What if he/she started to spend 5% of their time around these vices? 10%, 20%, 50%, 99%, 100%? What is the probability that this once 100% virtuous person would remain 100% virtuous?  Now, just because someone is exposed to vices, does not mean that they will take part in these vices. That is true. But, surely it would increase there chances of taking part/adopting these vices

The real reason why this letter caught my attention was the similarity it struck me with, to a part of Plato’s Republic. In book IV, Socrates is speaking with Adeimantus about a perfect city state (one that is just), and comes upon the topic of education and ultimately, music (entertainment).  Here it is:

“Then to sum up: This is the point to which, above all, the attention of our rulers should be directed,–that music and gymnastic be preserved in their original form, and no innovation made. They must do their utmost to maintain them intact. And when any one says that mankind most regard

’The newest song which the singers have,’

they will be afraid that he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; for any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him–he says that when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the State always change with them.

Yes, said Adeimantus; and you may add my suffrage to Damon’s and your own.

Then, I said, our guardians must lay the foundations of their fortress in music?

Yes, he said; the lawlessness of which you speak too easily steals in.

Yes, I replied, in the form of amusement; and at first sight it appears harmless.

Why, yes, he said, and there is no harm; were it not that little by little this spirit of licence, finding a home, imperceptibly penetrates into manners and customs; whence, issuing with greater force, it invades contracts between man and man, and from contracts goes on to laws and constitutions, in utter recklessness, ending at last, Socrates, by an overthrow of all rights, private as well as public.

Is that true? I said.

That is my belief, he replied. Then, as I was saying, our youth should be trained from the first in a stricter system, for if amusements become lawless, and the youths themselves become lawless, they can never grow up into well-conducted and virtuous citizens.”


This part of Republic stuck out to me the first time that I read it in September. It blew my mind. Here is why:

When I moved back from Montreal to Ottawa around August 2012, I immediately noticed that the oc transpo bus stop shelters across the city had an advertisement that I was disgusted with. It was a hot 89.9 ad, and on it was Katy Perry with an unreal ‘thing’ on, that I wouldn’t call clothing, as seen below.



I immediately wondered to myself, ‘what kind of person does this? what does this even mean? what does this imagery represent?’ but most importantly ‘what are the psychological effects that seeing this ‘costume’ have on younger boys and girls that are fans of Katy Perry? What does a girl who looks up to Katy Perry think when she sees this? how does she rationalize this and make sense of this? When a kid sees that this behavior is rewarded (rich, successful diva, “hot” celebrity status), what does that do to their value system? How does that affect their behaviour, how they see themselves, and how they see sex?’ A million more issues can be brought up.

At the end of the day, I just felt sickness for the ad. I felt ashamed that as a culture we encourage this, I felt ashamed that she was doing this, I felt ashamed that hot 89.9 would promote such an ad, I felt ashamed that oc transpo would put these poster up in their shelters just for a few dollars, and I felt ashamed that I was doing nothing about it.

I started to talk to people about it, always asking them first “do you happen to know what the ads are these days on the oc transpo bus shelters?”

Of all the people I asked, only one knew.

That right there tells you something. It tells you that this sort of behaviour, media and entertainment has become normalized.

Could you imagine putting up some ads like this in a Amish or Mennonite town? Or go back in time and put this up in 1850 or even 1950? Would people not notice this? Would people accept this as normal? Would people welcome this and not raise concerns about this imagery? I can’t accept that it would considered OK in those times/places.  And yet we here today in Ottawa in 2012/2013, have no complaints about it. Even thinking about it seems out of place. Why is that? What does it mean? What are the consequences?

I would argue, after thinking about this katy perry ad, that we have to protect ourselves from media. That all sorts of negative things (vices) enter our consciousness, imperceptibly, under the guise of ‘entertainment’. And whether anyone likes it or not, it affects them. It alters their views, behaviours, morals and ethics. Maybe only slightly, maybe drastically. Maybe it only increases the probability of them becoming changed. But that, in itself, is a change.

Enter Socrates, and his attempt to build a perfect city state. The quote above, upon reading on a bus ride home from Ronin, one night, blew my mind. I couldn’t believe it, and the instant I got home I read it to my girlfriend and she instantly recognized why I was so excited over it.

I’m sure if you go back and re-read the quotations above, you will see it too. Both Seneca and Socrates were giving us this idea (and perhaps even a warning), that our forms of entertainment (shows for Seneca, and music for Socrates) must be guarded, whether it is self control or mandated by those who govern us. For scientists this would be seen as bottom-up vs top-down. In either case, both argued (Socrates and Adeimantus more in detail) that through entertainment, values, morals, ideas and thus behaviors seep into our consciousness imperceptibly. Perhaps they won’t alter our behavior or character, but certainly it will affect us in a way that alters the probability of our behavior or character being changed.

Imagine a person of a certain moral character. Imagine this person never saw an episode of two and a half men before. Imagine then, that person watching an episode, a season, a few seasons, etc. Is that person (as a man) more likely to find it amusing and acceptable to degrade women? To view women as objects and not as people with emotions? Is that person less likely? Has the likeliness changed? As a woman, is that person more likely to accept such behaviors from men, or less likely? Perhaps when the woman encounters such behaviors in real life, it will be seen as no big deal, as she has been presented with it repetitiously in a comical and entertaining manner. The same can be said for the man.

I am not saying that someone watching two and a half men WILL necessarily become a womanizer, no, but I believe that through the guise of entertainment, the behavior becomes normalized, and thus, is more accepted and simply the probability of that behavior being more accepted and played out in real life MUST increase, whether that is by 1%, 50%, 0.00000000000000000000000001%, no matter the number, it must increase.

So what of it? Why does it matter?  Are we going to censor everything and not let people make entertainment just because some people are affected by tv? Shouldn’t people understand that it is ‘just’ entertainment? If people can’t understand the difference between real life and entertainment then they need to ‘get a grip’.

Those are good points and questions. I guess what I would say to them, even when watching something that you know that doesn’t promote virtuous characters, but actually promotes and normalizes vices, even if you sit there and consciously think “this is gross and bad behavior, just keep remember thing” I believe that the vices will still enter your consciousness, and that is if you are conscious of them. But how many times when watching tv or movies are you actually thinking that? It surely takes away from your level of enjoyment, from the joke, and then that defeats the purpose of the entertainment.

And if you think that your consciousness and perceptions aren’t affected by tv, let me ask you a question: If you shoot a bullet into a tank of gas, will it explode?  Your first reaction might be that yes, it does. Maybe you re-think the question over, seeing as I’m clearly looking to trap you to prove a point, so you might answer no it won’t. Most people think that it will produce an explosion. It is incredibly improbable that it won’t create an explosion. So what? It is just a simple example of how our views of reality can be normalized through repetition through exposure to entertainment. Just food for thought.

For me, I have been developing my own philosophy. If I apply it to this issue, this is what I would say it all boils down to –  It all depends on what our/your aim is; if our aim is freedom of expression, then censorship would be wrong; if our aim is money, then there is nothing wrong with this; but if our aim is to develop good morals, and virtuous people, then this is wrong, and entertainment and what we deem entertaining needs a major overhaul.

I am coming closer and closer to adopting the belief that there is no such thing as absolutely wrong or absolutely right, I truly believe it all depends on what the aim is.

Is eating health right or wrong? It all depends on your aim. Is saving lots and lots of money right or wrong? It will depends on your aim. Are all forms of entertainment right or wrong? It all depends on your aim.


“It is not the man who has too little who is poor, but the one who hankers after more. What difference does it make how much there is laid away in a man’s safe or in his barns, how many head of stock he grazes or how much capital he puts out at interest, if he is always after what is another’s and only counts what he has yet to get, never what he has already. You ask what is the proper limit to a person’s wealth? First, having what is essential, and second, having what is enough.”



Free Education

I found this really great resource that I really want to share with as many people as possible.

This website, found here, contains over 700 FREE online university courses, 300 university certificate courses, ebooks, movies, text books, audio books, language training courses, and much more. It is all FREE!

The courses and certificates are put on from top universities, from Oxford, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, to UC Berkley, Georgetown, Notre dame, and more.

They have university courses from law, physics, molecular thermodynamics, math, political science, philosophy, art appreciation, history, finance, engineering… pretty much anything you can think of.

The hard part for me is deciding where to start. I have decided to pick a course and do it with my brother. I am going to do a certificate course (after completion you get a signed certificate of completion) with my girlfriend, and I will probably do a couple more to start.  Some courses can be taken whenever, but the certificate courses have specific start dates.

There is no reason to stop learning throughout ones life, and this valuable resource should be taken advantage of. Just think of how there are people around the world that would sacrifice so much to have the chance of receiving an education, and here, all you need to do is have internet access and sit down and enjoy.

I think this is awesome. Free knowledge!  I hope people take advantage of this and increase their brain working thinking thoughts.

The certificate courses I am looking at starting in the next couple of weeks are between:

– Internet, history, technology and security from U of Michigan

Archaeology’s dirty little secrets from Brown

Growing old around the world from U of Pennsylvania

Climate literacy from UBC

Hippocrates challenge from Stanford

and then either a history or philosophy course that my brother and I plan to do together.  I am thinking maybe 3 courses to start. It should be fun.


happy learning!


Goals of the week (week 18)

Goals of the week:

  1. Keep that garbage bag empty
  2. Yoga + Meditate morning and night, each weekday
  3. Start my first garden in the history of moi!

Garbage bag anti-full

My kitchen garbage bag has not budged much since last week, maybe a twist tie or aluminum foil (not sure if I can recycle that or not.. I guess so, it`s just aluminum).

Yoga and peace

Last wednesday the surgeon who did my nose surgery gave me the ok to start exercising lightly again. So I have started to jog and do yoga. A month without yoga, I see the differences in my progress, but I will survive.  I want to start getting back to my old routine of jogging, yoga and meditation first thing in the morning, and then a shorter yoga and meditation session at night before bed.  #livinginmyhead #everytimeiusehashtagsifeellikeiamcontributingtothestupidificationofourculture


This mothers day our family went to a garden center to hook my mom up with all sorts of plants for her garden. That is a common mothers day event for us. This time I thought I would try my luck at growing a couple of things. Over the winter I saved organic butternut squash, acorn squash, and other seeds, but I decided to give them to my mom since she would probably have more success.

My mom gave me some lettuce seeds, but yesterday at the garden center I bought some hot pepper plants, some jalapeno pepper plants and some yellow onion plants. I will assume that they will all fail miserably. My goal is to get a minimum of ONE vegetable, from these plants, into my belly this summer.



News of the day – May 8, 2013

Canada’s Economic Action Plan for 2013 was released about 7-8 weeks ago.

It can be found here.

Page 144-145 is of interest to me. Feel free to read it first before proceeding, so that you can have an objective look at it, and what it means to you first. Feel free to then close this website, or read about my thoughts on it.

Pages 144-145 talks of “Establishing a risk management framework for domestic systematically important banks”

What is proposed are ‘bail ins’ for banks that deplete their capital to be able to quickly return to viability through the ‘very rapid conversion of certain bank liabilities into regulatory capital’. Bank liabilities include bank deposits (checking, nontransactional deposits like savings accounts), and of course their own loans.

This is essentially bringing Cyprus style bank bail ins to Canadian policy. If you weren’t paying attention 8 weeks ago, feel free to read here.

It is interesting to note that this economic action plan was put forward by Flaherty on March 21, 2013, just a few days after the Cyprus style bail-ins came about. One has to wonder how long before March 21st Flaherty was considering this policy, and how it may or may not relate to Cyprus.

So why don’t I like this?

I don’t like this because, it means that my money would be less safe sitting in a bank. The reason why I leave my money in my bank, whether it is checking, savings or investments, is because I have confidence that when I go to the bank and get it, it will still be there. I don’t leave it in my freezer, or under my mattress, not because of the 1 or 2% interest I get from my tax free savings account, no, it’s because of the lack of confidence that I have in the safety of those other spots for my money. A fire, a house intrusion or forgetfulness of hiding all my money, like a squirrel with its nuts, might mean that my money isn’t as safe as I believe it is to be sitting in a bank.

But now, with the advent of bank bail ins, banks will be mandated by policy not to fail. Too big to fail, or too important to fail, this will now be the rule, not the exception.

One problem with this, is the confidence issue. There is ONE factor that allows stock markets to go up, and that drives them down: confidence. If you are confident that a company, investment, security, etc will do ‘well’, then you invest in it, and this confidence drives its value up. If the market has lost confidence in a certain company/stock/investment/etcetc, then they will sell it, as its value will decrease. It is just a measurement of confidence.

Now, if people lose confidence in their banking institutions, lose confidence that their money is secure, what are the consequences? Do you think that the citizens of Cyprus having lost some of their equity, having gone through the terrifying experience of their banks closing down, separated them from their money and life savings instills, or removes confidence? Do you think that today, almost 2 months later, the citizens have forgotten, and are now confident in their banks again? Or are they less likely to put/keep their money in these banks? Again, what are the consequences?

A second problem that comes from this, is that the banks now have a new safety net. It is comical that this is called a “risk management” (Establishing a risk management framework for domestic systematically important banks), when all it does it soften the consequences of a bank depleting its capital. Ask yourself, if there were less consequences to becoming bankrupt, let’s say that it was Canadian policy to never have “no” money, would you be more or less likely to take risks? These bank bail-ins cushion and soften the consequences of a banks failings, reduce their responsibility, and pass this responsibility to their customers, not by choice mind you. Risk management, that is one way to put it.

In my opinion, the whole thing is a recipe for disaster. Some will say that in our Western way of life, and current economic culture we NEED these banks to exist, the consequences of them failing would be too great.

What do you think?

Happiness and means for its acquisition

I think that the most likely final aim of life is happiness. I cannot reduce happiness to a means for another end, other than happiness. Perhaps you can? I would be interested to hear it if you could.

All means lead to happiness. You seek love for happiness. You eat a nice meal for happiness. You want success for the happiness it brings. Happiness is why you buy a nice car, watch your favorite show, or read an interesting book. It isn’t the tv show or the car you are after, it is the happiness. Even a collector that wants some rare collectors item doesn’t want it just for the sake of having it, as having it brings happiness, it brings satisfaction.

Then I think of someone who might believe that the ultimate aim of life is knowledge and the pursuit of knowledge. But here, the acquisition of knowledge brings satisfaction and enjoyment, and these are types of happiness.

When I think of someone who may want to do good and bring love to the world, even at the expense of their own happiness, they too do so for the ultimate aim of happiness. They do this not out of selfishness, but because they believe it will bring happiness both to the people they help, the world as a whole, and both directly and indirectly to themselves. One finds satisfaction, warmth and happiness when one does good. Can someone not be satisfied upon making another person happy, especially if that was their original intention?

Then I thought I really found a hole in the proposition. I thought of ascetics. Renunciates. I think of Hindu ascetics and Buddhist monks. I think of people who renounce all attachment to the physical world. They want no attachment; not to sensual pleasures (that is, pleasures of the senses, not just sexy time), not to human relationships, not to desire, not to anything. But even they do such things and live such a way for a purpose, and to have a purpose is to have reason and desire. For them, it is, mostly, to achieve moksha, the release from the endless cycle of birth, death and reincarnation, and to become united with their true self, Brahman.

But surely, even this would be for happiness, or a type of happiness. As being in samsara, this birth, death and reincarnation cycle, is seen as being ‘stuck’, and not your true self. Thus, being released from this cycle and achieving your souls purpose, must surely bring happiness, or something that comes under the realm of happiness.

So, if happiness is truly the ultimate aim  (there can be others, but each still ends at happiness) of existence, then what does that mean for how we should live our lives?

If the ultimate aim is happiness, then perhaps the quickest route to it is best? Why take a long, convoluted and difficult route to the same place? Perhaps indulging in your senses, seeking cheap thrills while leaving behind the things that bring happiness through time and effort or that require a disciplined mindset may be the best way to live life. It is quite attractive, that is for sure. But then we should think that in doing some things that bring happiness, there could be things that bring unhappiness too, and this would take us further away from our ultimate aim.

An example would be eating cheesecake all day and night. It brings me happiness with every bite, this is true. But at some point, when my mind isn’t in bliss with the cheesecake in my mouth, those moments between the bites, I will eventually start to feel gross and like a big fat fatty that hates himself. So at that point I will have mixed feelings of happiness and  non-happiness. It is not sustainable, as if this was my sole source of happiness, I would eat myself until being sick.

Thus enters the idea of a “net-happiness”. The amount of happiness averaged out from all the good and the bad that something brings to us.

If having $1000 makes me happy, but I have to rob someone to get it, this means that my feelings of guilt and shame will be mixed with my feeling of happiness. Depending on the amount of guilt and shame that exists, my ‘net-happiness’ might increase or decrease relative to before the robbery.

Now we have to take into account morals and ethics. If my net-happiness from that mugging is to be maximized, I must not care about the other person, the victim. I must not think of the consequences. I must be ignorant. If my ultimate aim in life is happiness, why should I care about others if it gets in my way? Why should I care about the happiness of other people?

This is an interesting thing to think about. As dangerous, sad or immoral it may appear, it is worth thinking over as it still may be a sound argument.

Quickly, I can think of at least two reasons why it might be in ones best interest to be moral. The first being, being good can pay off. Imagine a web of possibilities. The size of the web represents the possible ways to bring happiness. At each node of the web is a decision, which can be either moral or immoral. If you are immoral and live a cold and ruthless life, surely your web must shrink in some areas (but grow in the areas where selfishness pays off), as others will be less likely to willingly bring happiness to you. Surely, the more moral and loving and outwardly good one is, the more their web grows, as others around you are more likely to return the happiness that you brought them. So for the individual who cares only of happiness and wants it in the easiest way possible, this person will have to recognize that perhaps there will be instances where their net-happiness will increase when being moral/ethical as opposed to looking out for #1.

Another reason that stands out is something that I came to terms with in the fall, that happiness isn’t some power bar at the top of our screen like in a video game that measures your characters life or health. It isn’t simply a matter of more or less. Essentially, it isn’t purely quantitative. It is qualitative as well. The happiness you get from having a great conversation is different than the happiness you get when you learn to make an organic cheesecake (and cheap too!). It isn’t necessarily that one brings ‘more’ or ‘less’ happiness, but rather that each brings a different feeling of happiness (perhaps one that you prefer over the other, or not). It is for that reason that despite having experienced incredible amounts of happiness throughout my life, I can’t possibly imagine the happiness that fathering a child would bring. Because it is a different type of happiness. And so in this respect, an argument for being moral and ethical makes sense. I say this because if happiness was purely quantitative, then I don’t think that you would need many sources of happiness. You could just have a few, and increase the volume of them. Eventually you could reach your 100% happiness, whatever that even means. But if there is a qualitative aspect to happiness, then the idea of having a maximum (ie. 100%) happiness becomes nonsensical, and the path to more happiness would be to experience as many types of happiness as possible. Since being moral and ethical surely can bring happiness, joy and satisfaction, it becomes advantageous in your pursuit of happiness to consider moral and ethical actions (at least to a certain degree).

Yes, taking the $1000 from that person would bring you a quantity, x, of a certain type of happiness, y. But knowing that you don’t need that money, and would never rob another person in order to get that money brings with it a quantity, a, of a certain type of happiness, b.  Perhaps xy is preferred over ab, perhaps not. I suppose that is for each person to decide.

And yet another tangent, I would like to invoke the idea of ‘use it or lose it’. Or simply, the mere exposure effect: that the more you are exposed to something, the more you accept it (and enjoy it). Perhaps much like taste, happiness is acquired. I mean this in the sense that, if you only eat sugary foods, you only identify tasty yumminess with sugary foods. However, if you ate veggies and only veggies for a finite amount of time, your tongue/brain/mind would acquire enjoyment and thus happiness from eating those things. You acquire the taste and will begin to like it. With this being said, perhaps someone who has lived a life of only seeking cheap thrills, only knows that cheap thrills bring happiness. At first glance and first attempt, doing something of substance seems devoid of happiness. I think the opposite is true as well. I truly believe that someone who solely does the opposite, let’s say, only ever gets happiness from doing good, could not possibly imagine achieving happiness through doing something immoral, even if it brought them $1000 as in the mugging scenario.

So where am I? Happiness is the ultimate aim of life. There can be different amounts and types of happiness. Happiness can be ‘acquired’, in the sense that what your perception and experience of happiness is can be affected by what you have previously associated happiness with. It is possible that happiness can be acquired through both immoral and moral actions, though I should give thought as to what the consequences of each are, and how these consequences in turn affect happiness.

Ok, now to actually get to the part that I wanted to talk about which popped into my head now over an hour ago. Philosophy.

We each have a life philosophy. Whether you acquired one from someone else, or just kind of fell into one, whether  consciously thought of one or not, etc etc… we all have one, or at least live by one, that is, unless you live your life completely randomly, but even that could be a philosophy. And so, if one were to arrive at the idea that the ultimate aim of life is happiness, and if one were to subscribe to a specific philosophy or world view, and such a philosophy or world view was negative, or acted as a reducer or limiting factor on that persons happiness, then whether this philosophy is logical to that person or not, that person should forgo their original views/philosophy, abandoning them for something that is more conducive to happiness, as that is their ultimate aim.

Imagine a person who views the world as gloomy. There is much injustice and evil. Everywhere you turn there exists wrongness. Now perhaps all of those things are true. (That is not to say that the world isn’t also beautiful and home to goodness and morals, both views are simply parts of a greater truth) They are factual. They do exist. Having this field of view can limit happiness. Does having this field of view increase or decrease the happiness web? It is a good question.

Imagine a person who holds a negative philosophy. It could be that man is inherently evil, or that there is no meaning to life, there is no purpose, existence is simply an accident and the result of random, meaningless collisions between balls of energy; that pain and suffering is the baseline for human existence. Whatever, just think of a really shitty and depressing philosophy. There may or may not be truth in these philosophies. I don’t agree that man is inherently evil, but one can imagine a truthful and negative philosophy. No matter how logical that philosophy is, no matter how truthful it is, if it limits your happiness, does it make sense to continue subscribing to it?

I suppose what I am asking is, is it logical to be logical if it limits your happiness? Is it better to be ignorant if being ignorant can bring more/a better type of happiness than not being ignorant?

It seems contradictory. I suppose it depends on what your ultimate aim is. I suppose it depends also on if you care more about the aim (the end) than the means of acquiring the aim/end/happiness.  I may or may not come back to this later.

I’d like to come back to the issue of morality and ethics. Previously I had come to the idea that there are going to be some instances when being moral will bring more happiness than being immoral. That whole xy vs ab scenario. It is a subjective measurement and decision, based on how a person interprets and evaluates the happiness from xy vs. the happiness from ab. There is something I would like to explore. I have a belief, based both on simply theory and both real life experience, that the more positive (good/moral/etc) energy you put out into the world, the more that will come back. The same is true for the opposite (evil/immorality/etc).

If I smile a lot, am polite and treat others with respect, then the people I interact with will be more likely to return that to me. That is to say, nothing guarantees that those positive/moral attitudes will be reciprocated, no, it is not definite or assured by any means, but the probability of it being reciprocated is raised. Perhaps by 50%, perhaps by 5%, perhaps by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. In any case, I believe there must be an increase in the probability that the good that you put out, will come back.

So, if this is true, then the more moral you become, the more good you do, the more happiness you bring to others, you are in effect raising the possibility of happiness, and all those positive things, coming back to you. Likewise, the complete opposite is also true, with regards to being evil, unjust, immoral.

Taking this with concepts of quantum theory, or even 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon, that everything in this universe is a web of connectivity, would it not be best to be good and moral, if your ultimate aim is happiness? From person to person, country to country, atom to atom; everything is connected to everything. Ok… and if doing good and being moral can bring happiness, and doing this good/moral action increases the net levels of goodness/morals/happiness in the universe aka your web of connectivity aka your life, and this increase in goodness/morals/happiness in turn increases the chances/probability that it will come back to you and be reciprocated, then is it possible that as the net level of goodness/morals/happiness increases (due to your action and the resulting reaction of every other thing in the universe that you are connected to), the probability of it being reciprocated back to you increases non-linearly, as it is compounded over and over, throughout the web of connectivity?

Ok, I know I have lost people. It is hard sometimes for me to get what is in my mind out in actual words. Take this example- imagine a universe where there is only 1 person. You. Being moral/immoral is absurd, it simply doesn’t exist. Ok, now imagine the universe now has 2 people, yourself and one other person. That’s it, that’s all. Your web of connectivity involves you and that other person. Well, if you do good to that person, the likeliness of it coming back to you is whatever that percentage(probability) of returning it is. Like we said before, it might be 50%, it might be 5%, or it might be 0.0000000000000000lotsof000000000000000001%.  Ok.  Now imagine if there was one more person in that universe, 3 people. Yourself, and two others. That is it, that is all. Now, let’s say you do some good/moral towards person 1. This brings them happiness. Now, with that same probability (whatever it is), they are now more likely to return that happiness back to you AND they are more likely to bring that happiness (pay it forward) to the other person, person 2. NOW, that person in turn is more likely (whatever that probability is) to both return it back to person 1, or to send it back to yourself. So now that probability of receiving happiness has increased, despite the fact that all you have done was 1 good/moral deed. The net result is more happiness could be produced from the same action that you did when the universe only had one other person.

Again, I am not saying that doing good WILL result in happiness coming back to you, but the probability of it does exist.

And so, by extension, one can see that as you had a 4th, 5th, 10th, 10000th, billionth, etc etc person into this web of connectivity, you see that a single good/moral action that brings happiness to someone increases the chances of your happiness (and the happiness of others), and thus potentially increases the net happiness that you will experience downstream in your life, both in terms of quantity and quality. Quantity, I believe is straightforward to understand, quality, because the ways that happiness will be brought to you in return will be varied, and thus, the quality associated will be varied.

Continuing with this thought, it becomes quite clear that it functions almost like an investment. If you had $100,000 today, you could enjoy it right away, use it all up, or invest it and with the interest, collect a larger sum in the future. (Now I have to wonder if there is such a thing as inflation of the currency of happiness, that the more happiness that enters circulation, the less it is valued- I’ll leave that for another day) In the same sense, if one puts him/herself first and seeks instant happiness at the expense of others (immoral actions), then one isn’t making a deposit into the happiness connectivity network, and thus can’t reap the compounded interest on their happiness, and actually makes a deposit into the unhappiness connectivity network, which has the exact opposite effects.

So, I think there is a case for being moral and being a ‘good person’, whatever that means. It doesn’t mean that you can’t experience happiness in the moment. Unlike the monetary example, the money has to be either invested or not. But happiness and being good/moral/ethical isn’t like that. You can find happiness in being moral, if you have the right mindset. That would be like spending $12 on shawarma and somehow that $12 also goes into your investment portfolio. Likewise, you can find happiness in the moment outside of being moral or immoral. Things like little h’s, like when I am alone and notice that from the time that I started writing this, to now, that a tulip has gone from completely closed to almost completely open, I get a sense of interest, perhaps wonder, and maybe a hint of joy (happiness). It is a little h. That happiness is for me. It was outside the realm of morality. I’m not sure if there is anything to compare it to with the monetary analogy. I guess it would be like if the universe gave you physical gift, like a shawarma that just popped into your kitchen. I dunno.

So where am I now? Happiness is the ultimate aim of life. There can be different amounts and types of happiness. Happiness can be ‘acquired’, in the sense that what your perception and experience of happiness can be affected by what you have previously associated happiness with. It is possible that happiness can be acquired through both immoral and moral actions, however with every good/moral action you do, you raise the probability of bringing to yourself happiness (as the size of your web of connectivity increases), and with every negative/harmful/immoral action you do,as you increase the the probability of bringing yourself unhappiness (again, as the size of your web of connectivity increases).

So I think I will stop here. I will give the idea of happiness inflation some thought. At first glance I will state that unhappiness implies happiness, and one can’t exist without the other. They are two sides of the same experience. So it is a natural part of existence, and is required in order to maximize happiness (as odd as that sounds) – but I will give it more thought later.


I suppose the practicality of what I have just examined could be stated as such:

If you want to experience as much and as many types of happiness as possible, one should try to do as many different experiences as possible, but more than just once. As happiness is acquired, and there are different qualities of happiness, each new experience brings with it a possibility of a new type of happiness, and these experiences should be repeated as, like the first time you drink a glass of wine, or the first 28 years of your life you don’t enjoy onions, if you try it enough times, you will start to enjoy it and thus, extract the happiness from that given experience.

Additionally, being of moral character (and thus implies moral action) is one of the strongest ways to ensure happiness comes your way from factors that are seemingly out of your control. This should be noted under the caveat that the larger your web of connectivity is, the more your good/moral actions will compound themselves and thus dramatically increase your chances of being happy. In terms of practicality, this means that if you only have one friend in the world, you will be less likely to reap the benefits of the web of connectivity. The more nodes you connect yourself to (the more people you interact with, the more friends you make), the more probable it is that the benefits (and I suppose negatives) of pay it forward will come back to you and bring you happiness. In order to offset the negatives of this web, it is important to increase the benefits, and this means being a good, moral and just person.



photo (5)







Goals of the week (week 17)


Alright.  So today is tuesday, and generally I do my goals from monday-sunday.  I have been being lazy when it comes to thinking of my goals on sunday, and starting monday morning. I need to start getting back to starting my goals for monday morning.

This weeks goals:

  1. More meditation!
  2. Try to write a minimum of two of my ‘thoughts’ on here.
  3. Plan out and research some diet goals.
  4. Keep my garbage bag empty.

More meditation!

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Or how it actually usually sounds when I do this mantra – aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmm.

Now that I am without roommates, I have gone into one of the spare bedrooms to try out my meditation. The room is empty and bare. I leave the window open, just because. It is a nice little closed off room in a way. It is nice to have a little space dedicated to meditation.

I have been maintaining the mantra meditation, as well as an internal (not out loud) mantra meditation, meditation where I focus on simply my breathing, meditation where I simply focus the sensation of air passing through my nose as I breath and just try to focus on that and nothing else, meditation where I simply just sit there and while in the moment, just observe whatever comes into my mind through my senses. This is usually sound, and sometimes the feeling of touch (like my belly rising/falling from breathing, my rib cage expanding, air going through my nostrils, etc). One funny part of that meditation is that while I often start cross-legged with my hands on my knees, palms facing upwards, with my pointy finger tip touching my thumb tip (forms a circle), I can’t tell if my fingers are touching or not. My mind drifts away and then when I focus my attention on these finger tips, I literally have no idea whether they are touching or not. It is quite interesting.

Another new form of meditation that I have tried recently is quite a mental exercise. I have no idea if this is what people who do astral projection practice or not, I really didn’t research it. Rather, I just thought it would be interesting to try. Essentially as I am sitting there, meditating with my eyes closed, I envision in my mind what things would look like if I were to open my eyes. Then, once I have that down I stand up (in my mind- throughout this entire process my physical body always stays seated in meditation), and basically walk around the house, again, always trying to perceive as I would from my own eyes, from first person perspective. I have to think about the level of my eyes, field of view, and of course, what is actually there in as great of detail as possible.

I tried this yesterday, it was quite difficult just trying to ‘walk into my kitchen’.  It was very involved, more difficult than simply sitting and just paying attention to my breath, but it was enjoyable too.

I want to start meditating consistently longer. I would love to do 20-30 minutes, twice a day. Right now I am sitting at about 10-12 minutes once a day. My goal for this week will be to increase my practice to 20 minutes, and maybe once or twice this week to add in a separate 10 minute session in the evening.

Write my stuff on here

As I am writing now, I am sitting outside in my backyard at the picnic table my dad and I built a few years ago. This is a nice little h.

I have come to enjoy writing, and find that when I write stuff like my thoughts, it gives me a chance to think about my thoughts and try to express them clearly.

Diet research for future goals

So, I want to do some diet related goals in the near future. Some things like eating paleo for a week, eating only raw for a week, eating vegan for a week, etc. A week is a short amount of time, but it will definitely give me an idea and a certain level of understanding of the difficulties, challenges, benefits and other aspects that might not come to mind, of these different diets. 

Generally, I try to eat only organic. However it isn’t 100%. I try to eat unprocessed food, and stick to the idea of ‘if it was alive, then it is food’, ‘if it has more than a few ingredients, it is not food’, and ‘if it can go bad, then it’s food’. I think those are decent things to go by, but I am open to trying out various specific diets as well, just to see what the big deal is. I don’t know if I will ever evolve my eating style to anything like a specific diet, but I wouldn’t be against having a ‘paleo day’, ‘vegan day’, every once in a while.


Go away garbage

When my gf and I had roommates I was the one that always brought out the garbage. Apparently that was covered in their rent. I was amazed at how quickly the garbage bags would fill up, and almost always with stuff that could have been recycled, or with food.

Now that we are roommate free, my goal is to not even have a garbage can. For the last few days the garbage bag has just had a handful of stuff in it. I’d love to keep it that way.

I would say somewhere between 99 and 100% of my throw away stuff is either recyclable, or food (food being the end of a carrot, the outside of an onion, the leaves of celery, etc. I don’t waste food, my dog Ninja makes sure of it). The problem is I don’t have a compost, and I am not even sure that my condo board allows it. So I have been storing my ‘garbage’ food in a large tupperware bin in the freezer. I have been doing it for about a week now, and today when I took my dog for a walk, I simply just chucked the organic matter into the treed area by my house (I wouldn’t call it a forest). Easy as that.

So with no recyclable materials in the garbage, no food scraps, I’m hoping shortly that it will come to be that the garbage can become obsolete.


Have a sexy week!