The current learning model in place across the world is flawed for several reasons. Primarily, it does not recognize the individual needs of each person, but instead attempts to fit every person into the same flawed 'learning model' in order to feed them all kinds of subject matter in the same set of flawed formats.

To elaborate: the learning model in place in the majority of situations is as follows: An expert presents a set of information to a group of people. The most common formats in place are (1) expert lecturing to students, (2) expert writing a document for students to read, (3) expert offers a series of sample exercises for the student to perform. Any or all of these formats can be used in conjunction with one another.

This learning model is found almost exclusively in the education system, replacing every other system out there. The reason this model was chosen over others is that it is the one capable of maximizing the number of students for every expert, meaning that fewer experts are needed to teach a larger number of students. This ability was valued highly in the industrial era where standardization, specialization, synchronization, concentration, maximization and centralization were the core values held.

Now that we have firmly moved into the post-industrial and post-modern era, new values are emerging, including personalization, generalization, individualization, minimization and decentralization. In short, we are breaking out of the 'mold mentality' and once more becoming individuals.

Before the industrial era there were plenty of different learning processes, most taking place on smaller scales. The three models I will present here are the following: The apprenticeship model, the guru model and the discussion model.

The apprenticeship model is regarded as the most efficient learning model from the perspective of the student. Through this model, the student learns the fastest. It consists of a single expert and a single student working side by side in close proximity. The student gets to Observe the expert at work, Listen to his instructions and Perform the necessary tasks with expert guidance. Having only one student allows the expert to adjust the rate at which he teaches to best suit the student, emphasize areas of weakness and gloss over areas of strength. Specific problems can be addressed immediately before bad habits have a chance to form and practical, relevant guidance is given at all times. The biggest drawback with this method is that it limits the expert to a single student at a time, or at the most 2-4.

The second learning method is the guru model. This model continues with the same expert to student flow of information but involves limited interaction between the expert and the students. In this model, the student has a brief, personal interaction with an expert, either once in a lifetime or once in a period of time. During this brief interaction specific and general issues are raised and guidance is offered according to the student's level of understanding and current needs. The guru model is rarely used in isolation but is usually used as a supplement for other methods, the most common one being Independent Learning. Going to a guru can be viewed as a 'tune up' and is usually preceded by the student preparing a list of questions/issues that he feels need to be addressed and is succeeded by the student attempting to integrate the guru's teachings into his own thought process and practices. This model is still more individualized than the Lecturer model, but takes up far less of the expert's time and resources. It also forces the student to do a lot more work in the form of preparations and integrations.

The final learning method I wish to present is the 'discussion model'. In this model there is no expert and there is no student; it exists between two or more people of similar levels of expertise (or perhaps an expert pretending to have less expertise). This model consists of all parties involved discussing, arguing or collaborating in order to develop new ideas, or to achieve old ideas independently. On the surface this seems to be a highly inefficient model, since there is no expert guidance as with most other models, but in effect it has its benefits as well. Because this model involves a great deal more effort and concentration on the part of all parties involved, and because it engages more faculties of the mind in the process, all information learned/invented in a discussion model is known more thoroughly by each party involved. This is also a necessary model to be used in areas where no expert can be found or exists, as in new fields of knowledge.

Now that we have moved into an age which places less and less emphasis on uniformity and more and more emphasis on individuality, every aspect of society must adapt to this shift in paradigm, especially such a fundamental aspect of society as 'mode of learning'. We can see more and more children being frustrated with 'traditional' (industrial era) learning methods. Attention spans are dwindling as desires for personal expression are increasing. Parents who are most aware of this paradigm shift are looking for more era-appropriate environments for their children, such as private schools which offer more personal attention, home schooling or even simply supplementing the education of their children with personal tutors.

With such a massive shift in paradigm occuring as we speak it is a wonder that people are adapting so slowly. Yes, individualized learning programs are becoming available, including plenty of internet resources such as topical forums, wikis, chatrooms or rent-an-expert sites. University professors are getting more and more demand from students for longer 'office hours' where they can sit with their professors one-on-one, so much so that Teaching Assistants are also required to aid with this aspect of the university experience.

In conclusion, the outdated system of running every person through the same set of instructions and the same pace of learning should be relegated to the past, and only hung onto sparingly. Every student should be looked at individually, whose progress and needs should be measured independently of others. Should the time not be available to investigate the needs and means of an individual, then deference to the individual's ideas of what is necessary should be the first instinct, not deference to the 'standard learning model'.

(Originally written Apr. 16 2003)

There are two parts to writing. Finding a topic, and having the time and inclination to expand the topic and put it on paper. These two rarely coincide. When you set asside some time to write, you haven't a clue what to write about. When you go and busy yourself away from a recording device, your mind stumbles upon sheer genius. It's happened to everyone who writes anything I'd expect, and it's a problem that isn't easily solved. How do you get a good idea to coincide with an opertunity to write?

Well, here are a few possible solutions:
1) Orient your day in a fashion that you're always near a pen and paper, and so that you may halt at any time to record your thoughts. This would be ideal. If you can manage this then I'd like to know how you've done it so I can copy you.

2) Keep a pen and notepad with you at all times so that you may record any thoughts briefly for later expansion. This is my method of preference, and it's recommended for anyone. Although it's sometimes difficult to remember a notepad.

3) Keep yourself extraordinarily busy whenever you're away from your writing area. In this way you are blocking all ideas until you are ready to accept them. I can't do this. It's just impossible for me.

4) Attempt to force a topic when you are sitting in front of paper. I think this is what most pop artists do. Force ideas out of your skull, and end up unwittingly with the same garbage every time.

5) Busy yourself when you're sitting in front of paper, in hopes that an idea will come from your toil. This includes writing exercises, juggling, doodling, or whatever. I like this method too. It seems to work most of the time.

6) Stare at your paper and try to make an idea form directly ON the paper. This doesn't work. I've tried.

7) Alter your state of mind with a beverage or substance. This usually works, but I think it falls under #5. It's arguable whether the substance is the cause of your ideas, or the mere act of taking the substance is the cause. You can get comparable effects by cooking pancakes - as is the case with the article I'm currently writing.

8) Take someone else's idea. This can either be pure plagarism, theft of a topic, or criticism of another work. This is an effective way to write, as one of the key elements is taken care of by external energies.

9) Give up after 5 minutes and try again later. This is sometimes a necessary option. You're not always in the right mindset for writing.

10) Give up for a month and then try again. Thos is sometimes an option that is chosen accidentally or subconsciously. It happens that you put down the pen and just don't think about picking it back up again for a while. It's always nice when this happens, because when going back to it you DO have a refreshed view!

Firsts are wonderful. More wonderful than anything else. I mean sure, once you get good at something it may turn out better, but nothing excites like doing something for the first time. Lasts are also good... when you know it's your last anyways. Then all the memories of all the times come flooding back to enhance the experience of finality.

And yet, the first time is still superior. Exciting and wonderful beyond any other time.

I have just created and submitted my first ever flash game. Oh, the first! Oh how crappy and yet, how wonderful!

All is not as it seems.

This is, I believe, the basis of spiritual investigation. Spiritual investigation is looking beyond the physical and into the spiritual, which can be defined as the underlying reality behind the apparent reality. Of course, there is an argument regarding the definition of what the spiritual foundation for apparent reality is, and there is also an argument regarding what the reality we perceive is, but in order for there to be spiritual investigation one must first understand this basic principle, that all is not as it seems.

I think this can be taken one step further as well. The spiritual reality underlying apparent reality is itself based on a deeper foundation. Thus, just as things on the first level are not as they seem, so too are things on the second level not as they seem. One can (and should) go on and on down the line until they find actual reality, which will most likely shock and amaze the investigator. At every level, thus, a person should attempt to avoid the trap of thinking 'this is it, I have found IT' and remember that just as they were once blinded by a veil, so too are they probably now still blinded by just another veil.

Various paths define this principle in different terms. Some say 'reality is an illusion', some say 'reality is a veil', others liken it to the skin of the body - the outermost layer of a deeper system. Some say angels and demons are the background, some say they are impersonal forces, others say it is microscopic molecules and yet others say it is simply varying degrees of unity and separation. All these people have gone through their own methods of investigation and have come to very different conclusions. How to tell who is right and who is wrong? The task seems daunting and possibly even futile. All these varying opinions, however, all have this one rule in common, that 'all is not as it seems'.

People have been asking me about the whole reincarnation idea. Is it right? Is it wrong? Is it good? Is it bad?

Here are the 4 leading theories regarding reincarnation.

1) It doesn't exist. Reincarnation is a load of ruminant excrement and has no factual basis in reality.

2) Everything recycles, including souls. The natural and eternal order of existence demands that we get reborn over and over eternally. It's just the way of things.

3) This world is one of many worlds and after we die we can choose to return to it for another go, or wander off into other planes of existence and live there. It is up to us.

4) Reincarnation is a 'second chance', in a way, of doing a better job and raising our spiritual level. The ultimate goal should be to break free of the cycle of reincarnation and join/rejoin the 'Godhead'/Spiritual Community/Ultimate Existence.

People continue to injest a substance daily without actually knowing what it is. In fact, there are many ingested substances whose origins are unknown or uncared about. It is unclear why people continue to be ignorant regarding what they put in their mouths but it is something I intend to rectify. Starting with Butter.

It all starts with cows. Cows are creatures of the Ruminant family. They eat grass and digest it by regurgitating it and swallowing it again in order to transfer it from stomach to stomach and get all the nutrients out. Essentially they eat their own puke. This is a very efficient way to eat as they get all the nutrients out of the grass possible. We can't eat grass because our stomachs, and entire digestive system in fact, is horribly inefficient. But basically, a cow is built from grass (or hay, if you want to be technical). It is incredible if you think about it, cows eat grass. Cows are made of grass. Cows are seriously transformed grass. That's it. Well, also water. Grass and water. They don't look very much like grass and water, but that is what they are. Grass and water. And everything that comes out of them is also grass and water. That includes their urine, excrement and of course, milk, of which a part is butter. That means that the only difference between cow urine and butter is which parts of the grass come out of which hole.

The cows we have today aren't the original cows. They were bred the way they are by farmers over hundreds and hundreds of years through a process known as 'Animal Husbandry'. It basically means people kept choosing the best cows out of their herd over and over again and bred them with each other until they came out with the absolute best cows and bred a whole herd of them. Anyone who tells you the idea of evolution is new obviously hasn't heard of Animal Husbandry, which was done literally thousands of years ago. It is a process of 'Artificial Selection' to make a breed better. Darwin didn't invent this theory, that's just dumb to say that. What he did was revive it and spin it to 'natural selection'. Basically he just said that nature does Animal Husbandry all on its own, making different breeds grow up in different ways to get different results.

So how were cows bred? They were bred in two kinds: Meat cows and milk cows. We're only dealing with the milk cows here. Animals generally only produce milk when they are near the end of pregnancy or with a newborn child. This is so that their child can drink milk and grow up without having to feed on its own, since newborn children aren't able to do that yet. It's a really weird mammal thing. Of course, the other species' aren't any better; birds, for example, pre-eat food for their children and then throw it back up right in their babies' mouths, so that their babies really eat bird puke. Milk is the mammal version of bird-puke. It's a predigested mixture of all the basic food stuffs needed to survive, ready to be taken in by babies.

The cows we have nowadays, however, were mutated (through a semi-natural process) to produce milk year round no matter what. In fact, it is so bad that cows need to be milked EVERY DAY or they get sore udders and cramp. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but I heard that if they go too long without being milked their udders actually explode.

Milk cows are NOT natural. Not in any way. No animal is supposed to produce that much milk. No animal is supposed to be dependent on being milked to keep them from exploding. No, milk cows are mutants. We are thus drinking milk from mutant cows.

Now getting to milk itself. Milk is mostly water. About 87% water. The remaining 13% is made up of various solids. about 2.5-6% is fats (which is the part that butter is made out of). About 3.4% is protein, 4.8% is a chemical called 'Lactose' and the remaining 0.8% or so is made out of various minerals.

Remember that all of this stuff originally comes from GRASS. Picture the cow as a kind of factory that takes grass, breaks it down to tiny little microscopic bits and reforms it into flesh and blood, then takes some of that blood and transforms it into a white puss-like liquid which we call 'milk'.

In order to make butter, farmers need to take the milk and get all the fat out - the 2.5-6% that's in it. To do that they let it sit out for a while until all the fat, which is lighter than the rest of the milk and stays separate since it is insoluble, floats to the top of the milk and settles into what is called 'Cream'. Cream is basically milk-fat, with a bit of milk left in it. They then take this cream and churn it, meaning they pound and mix it really fast and hard until the fat part and the watery part mix together in an UNNATURAL way. Think about it like this. Water and oil are naturally separate. They don't mix. Water hangs out with water and oil hangs out with oil. Oil always floats to the top where the oil hangs out and water stays low where the water hangs out. Like Jocks and Geeks. Jocks hang out in the weight room down in the basement acting all gay sweating together, while Geeks hang out upstairs in the computer room playing crappy computer games while the teachers aren't looking. They don't mix. Then imagine someone takes the school and pounds it and shakes it until the computer room and weight room merge, mingling the clever Geeks with the gay Jocks. More than that, every gets gets somehow chained to a couple jocks so that they become inseparable, what a nightmare! How's the geek supposed to play crappy video games if he's chained to a couple gay jocks doing their workout?

It's not natural I tell you, NOT NATURAL!!!!

So basically then, what is butter? Butter is parts of grass that has been transformed into part of a mutated cow, then excreted through udders that could explode at any time, shaken up and chained together in an unnatural mixture that is usually smeared on a thin section of a bleached wheat-extract conglomerate in order to make it taste wetter.

Many people in this world are seeking the truth. Well, guess what, I HAVE IT! Yes, I do indeed. It's both simple and extremely complicated at the same time so read carefully and consider everything written. I swear, this is as close as we can get to ABSOLUTE TRUTH!

Ok, so first, check this. There is a single Ultimate Existence that Is Was and Always Will Be. This ultimate existence is a single unified conglomeration of everything else that exists, but exists purely and simply as both everything and nothing at the same time. This means that all of existence basically adds up to zero - which in divine mathematics is somehow equal to infinity.

This ultimate existence is all that is really real. Everything else is less real than that, and it gets worse until we make it down through the four worlds and ten major emanations to this world, which is only kinda real.

So this world, right, it was created because the Ultimate Existence has to create. That's just this thing about Him (and note that I call the Ultimate Existence a Him because people exist more than things, meaning anything that really exists must be a Him and not an it). So He created this world. If I were Him I would have done things a little differently, but that's only a sign that I can't fully appreciate this world because obviously the Ultimate Existence is far smarter and more capable than I am and so if He created the world this way then it must be for a good reason. No, the Greatest Most Perfect of Reasons.

And what is this Greatest Most Perfect of Reasons? Why, to give of course! Didn't we already say that? the Ultimate Existence HAD to create - He HAD to give! That's not saying that He was compelled to do anything of course, because The Ultimate Existence can do anything He wants, being so super and ultimate and everything. So really it's that He WANTED to give, really really badly! And since He still exists exactly as He always has, being eternal and endless and always perfect in every way, this means that He STILL Wants to give so badly that He just can't help Himself! So that's what He does - constantly spewing forth... whatever He gives.

And what is it that He gives? Well, He gives what is best to give of course, or at least He wants to. Being all perfect and everything He will of course give the best thing in the universe. And what is the best thing in the universe? Didn't we already say that? It's Him of course! That's right, He wants to give Himself to the universe! But... well... that's not really possible even in divine logic because He is Him and He is intrinsically Him and there can only be one of Him. And he's so frikkin huge and inconceivable that if He were to give Himself to... wait, what's He giving Himself to again? Well that's another question we have to answer first I guess - how can we talk about what He gives if we don't know what He's giving too?

Ok, so the Ultimate Existence needed to make something the get what he wants to give. So we'll call that the Perfect Vessel. But see, he wants to give Himself. It's a fact that anything He would create would be inferior to Him and even by divine logic something inferior can't hope to contain something superior, the Perfect Vessel would shatter! And just to prove that that's what would happen, He did exactly that - He made the perfect vessel able to contain the most of anything and everything, and BOOM! it shattered! He even made more than one, 'cus He can do that, and tried to give Himself to all of them. Not part of Himself to all of them because He doesn't have parts, being singular beyond oneness and absolutely simple and perfect beyond simplicity and perfection.

So what now? How could The Ultimate Existence give its Divine Supernalness to an inferior something? If it were me, I'd give up right then and there. It's a tough problem and really doesn't make any sense to me. But not Him. Oh no, the Ultimate Existence wouldn't give up - He had to give, and the only direction he could give was down!

So He tried again and this time He didn't give Himself to a vessel, but rather to a channel! What brilliance! If He could somehow give Himself little by little to something else and that something else could experience it then let it flow through, then eventually He could give all of Himself to something!

OK, that's great, but there are two problems with that idea. The first is that He is infinite and what ever He makes would have to be finite, or at least less infinite than He is. Whatever the case, it would take infinitely long for Him to give Himself to anything. The second problem is - where will He go after He passes through the somethingness? This isn't even mentioning the problem of how His Ultimate Simplicity can be made to pass through something slowly without being made to differentiate Himself or split Himself up, since He has no parts or gradients to Him. Well, that last question is actually the easiest to answer - He does it by making the something change and differentiate while He remains static. Yeah, that's a confusing paradox but it's all we've got.

As for the problem of infinite length of time, that's a problem we're dealing with and have been dealing with for about 16 billion years, or 6 thousand years depending on how you wanna look at things.

Now regarding the problem of where he would go... well, the answer to this question is coupled with the answer to another question: if He created a channel, it would be a channel to where? And another question, what is this somethingness channel anways?

All the questions in the universe eventually have one ultimate and unified answer. It's hard to see it though. But these three questions actually have an easy common answer. Well, relatively speaking that is.

The answer is that this somethingness channel is the thing most similar to The Ultimate Existence as He could make. We'll call it the penultimate existence. So this penultimate existence is similar to the Ultimate Existence. How? Well, it too wants to give! How do you like that? The major difference between the two is that the Ultimate Existence intrinsically has what to give (being Himself), while the penultimate existence only has what to give extrinsically (being that which the Ultimate Existence gives to the penultimate existence, namely Himself). So the penultimate existence gives what it's got and gives it to the tertiary existence. The three gives to the four, the four gives to the five, and so on down the line.

In the middle there things start to get confusing (as if they weren't already), but somehow in all that giving things start to differentiate from one another, at first only by degree of reality (The Ultimate Existence being the most real existence and all other existences being proportionately less real as His Essence gets passed down from layer to layer) and later by other factors such as by who His Oneness gets passed down, how long it takes for His Oneness to get passed down, and other simple concepts like that. Things start to get extremely convoluted and yada yada yada, until they get to a level of complexity similar to the physical universe as it is today, with all kinds of complex differentiations based on extremely simple ones. And the greatest thing is that things get exponentially more complex as the convolution moves down from level to level, until what is really a very simple unity gets to a plethora of discriminable objects. It just so happens that this level of extreme complexity is very close to the edge of what can be considered to have any degree of reality whatsoever, because at this level things are so confuddled and convoluted that existence has decided to start taking instead of giving - and something that keeps just taking and taking will eventually shatter and not exist (see above). So this level of existence is basically the final one. At least, that's what everybody thought (who could follow this kind of stream of thought until about this point) until computers and virtual realities came around... but that's another topic altogether.

So anyways, here we are. At this level of differentiation it's possible for something or someone to start taking and stop giving. It's also possible to keep giving - mostly to the takers, which is a moral paradox in and of itself. That means that at this level, existence has gotten so convoluted that it can actually CHOOSE to keep existing or not! That's right, we (at this level of existence) can choose to live (by continuing to give and be generous) or die (by not giving but instead taking, making us opposed to The Ultimate Existence and thus different enough from Him that any semblance of existence we would have from similitude would be gone).

And here we see the ABSOLUTE GENIUS of The Ultimate Existence!

Up until this point we've seen things as a random evolving purposeless process that just happened to get to this point. But no, you see, it was this point that was aimed at when the whole confusing process began! Or rather, it's the next point. Which, incidentally is where I'm heading with this article/post/topic thing as well. No, in actual fact THIS WORLD is the whole point of existence (or rather it will be in the timeless future which already exists somehow somewhere else since it's timeless).

You see, one of the things that makes The Ultimate Existence what He is is the fact that He is completely and utterly intrinsically self-determined. Everything else is not self-determined, but rather has been determined by Him in His Great Wisdom. In fact, Him being everything in actual fact makes everything else completely determined by Him. Until this point of extreme convolution! Any more real and things MUST give, making their actions predetermined entirely. Any less real and things MUST take. We are balanced in the middle where we can choose to either give OR take! We exist at the exact point of confluence between good and evil, ego and submission, life and death, truth and falsehood. This being true, we have the ability to choose good, life, existence over evil, death, non-existence. By choosing good we are choosing to exist over not exist, meaning we are essentially CAUSING OURSELVES TO EXIST! That means we are SELF-DEFINING OURSELVES (at least partially), making us more similar to The Ultimate Existence than any other level of existence that exists.

And now we have reached the point, the end, the culmination of the whole process of creation and writing. The whole point of existence is having us lowly choosers choose to exist, making us more similar to The Ultimate Existence than anything else that was created. By becoming similar to The Ultimate Existence we are essentially partaking of The Ultimate Existence, both because He is giving us the experience and because we are becoming the experience. The latter is because of a principle I've only hinted to up until now, which is that in spirituality closeness and similitude are synonymous with each other. So paradoxically, by being so far away from The Ultimate Existence, we have the potential of coming so close, of partaking so directly of Him.

In a nutshell, that's the basics of everythingness. Beyond this is a whole bunch of specifics of HOW to choose life/good/giving/selflessness/truth/ex istence/eternality. The specifics include generosity, gratitude, inspiring generosity(aka. learning to receive instead of take), the process and principle of transmition of goodness etc. But essentially it all boils down to the following statement: "Do not do to others what you yourself abhor. Everything else is commentary - go and learn it!"
And if you can understand why this statement is both different and superior to "do unto others what you would have done unto yourself", then you truly have a grasp on The Ultimate Truth.

It is I, The Peasant, here at last writing a blurb for the perusal of the general public. Oh truly 'tis a glorious day, when words typed by the very fingers of The Peasant himself do appear on the screen and become read by one other than he. Verily 'tis a time for rejoicing! Verily it is a moment for cheer! But in truth, all the sparrows do fly, and fly away they do.

So long sweet sparrows! Oh mournful, mournful time... mournful it is! Oh, and I do mourn for mourning is what is to be done.

But alas, no time for regrets! We must forge on my friend! Forge onwards into a new time, for the future is coming! Oh wait - there it goes... no, it is still coming! Oh, no, wait... it just became the past again... ha! But there is more future to come! You cannot foil me forever, Past! Some day I will defeat you and you will stop eating my future, stop dimming it with your incessant gorging. Leave my future alone! 'Tis bright! 'Tis marvelous! So full of potential! Not like you, oh past... perhaps that is why you crave it so, because you lay there, stagnant and spent, gazing longingly at all the potential you once had... envious of your youthful days. And as time passes, you grow stronger... while the future it weakens... Oh will the battle lines ever reverse themselves! Will the future ever again be given a chance for victory??

If I have anything to say about it, YES it will! We must DESTROY the past and return it to the future! That is the only way to defeat this solidifying sorrow, that is the only way to go back to how the universe once was.

Who is with me??? in this war of time, where all sides are drawn and the battle continues to rage unabated? Who dares to dream the impossible dream and chase it to the end?? We will reverse the flow, you can be guaranteed of that! Don't think you've won, Past, don't think you've won! We are mighty... we are so full of potential! We are the future!!! Or, I guess we WILL BE the future. Because the future hasn't happened yet... Or maybe WE WERE THE FUTURE? No! That's admitting defeat to the Past! WE WILL BE! There, place us squarely in what is to come.

WE WILL BE THE FUTURE! WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS! UNLIMITED POTENTIAL IS AT OUR FINGERTIPS, AND THAT POTENTIAL WILL INCREASE!