Sunday, February 7, 2010
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
August 5, 2009 12:42pm - 12:49pm
Arturo Caronongan: answer to this one? Money....that's usually the root of such selfish
Arturo Caronongan: Money is actually a huge factor in corruption
Arturo Caronongan: They have jobs, and they want to earn money
Arturo Caronongan: we can't help that, but the fact that they want to make more money than others, because of their "position", it's inevitable that they will resort to other methods to make more money
Arturo Caronongan: though, with their power, they can sometimes abuse it, and cause dishonest practices
Xt: do you know that money is simply an abstract concept
Xt: gaining more money doesn't necessarily involve having others lose any?
Arturo Caronongan: but with their dishonesty, it doesn't matter as long as they get what they want, which is money, right?
Xt: what is money art
Xt: money is simply a representation of resources
Xt: either physical or in terms of human resources, or other forms of resources which can be exchanged
Xt: resources ARE UNLIMITED
Xt: in the human context
Xt: there are untapped resources
Arturo Caronongan: isn't there a saying, "Money gained for you, is money lost for someone"
Xt: meron pero false yan
Xt: because of the fact that i just mentioned
Xt: if you read rich dad poor dad, it's actually the mentality of the poor for him
Xt: there can really be a government close to being ideal
Xt: if people just resort to themselves to feed their selfishness
Arturo Caronongan: But the thing is
Arturo Caronongan: for people to satisfy their selfishness
Arturo Caronongan: they involve others into it.
Xt: sabi ko nga
Arturo Caronongan: wait, wait, wait...
Xt: selfishness is a very generalized term
Xt: you read the article right
Xt: you can be selfish by simply wanting to feel good by doing good
Xt: as the term implies - self-ish
Arturo Caronongan: ah, I get you
Xt: it doesn't require you to do bad to others
Xt: what matters is you feed yourself
Arturo Caronongan: But as long as you benefit from it "feed yourself"
Arturo Caronongan: that's the bottomline
Xt: kaya nga sabi ko, corruption can still be solved
Xt: despite the selfish nature of men
Saturday, August 1, 2009
I just finished the 6th page of Ch25 on Atheistic Existentialism. I just paused for a while to blog about what I was just feeling before writing.
The two chapters dominantly talked about the exultation of personal choice as a pre-requisite to personal freedom. However, apparently, Atheistic Existentialism furthered its argument by ignoring all sorts of external power, which it claims to be superficial and detrimental to the pursuit of self actualization. The state, for instance, is said to be repressing the individuals for the benefit of the societal goal. In effect, the individual power is kept from reaching its full potential.
Another thing, Existentialism in itself states that all people exist without any form of essences. Put into this world, they make their own essences, leaving us to the thought that good and bad are really superficial. Exemplifying this claim, Nietzche considered the Ancient Greek, which had two kinds of morality. First there was the morality of the noble which embodied selfishness, courage, and power. On the other hand, the morality of the slave considered pity, weakness, and compassion. Subsequently, Nietzche associated the slave morality to be the basis for the Christian morality after the slaves gradually toppled down the government of the noble.
The last claim indeed got me very furious and had me to stop for a while. First, in the theory of Power, the acquisition of power exists as a cycle. At one point in time, the people who experience the loopholes of the current power try to reverse the current power structure. This characteristic is then observed by having those that are repressed by the existing power to try resisting it and soon overturn it. Thus, the claim that the Christian morality is based on the slave morality is definitely a clear un-thoughtful generalization. The grouping of pity, weakness, and compassion and subsequently labeling them as the characteristics of the slave is atrocious especially when Christian values are alone based on Ancient Greek phenomena. Clearly, Nietzche is not cautious of historiography that by which the making of the history should take into consideration the subjects, plots, and the specific details employed in a scene, and try not to generalize over it.
Another thing that got me to do this is his second claim on our going against our natural instinct. He said that naturally, humans are to hate their enemies because that is what instinctively they would have done. Loving them, on the contrary, is implementing self repression. But, again, that would have contradicted the Existentialism premise that human beings are without essences. How could he conclude that hating, which is subjective, is a product of instinctual behaviors? Psychologically even, loving one's enemy relinquishes one from the negative thoughts that result from the experience supporting one to achieving the peak of self-actualization even more (having eliminated the hindrances).
Lastly, Stirner's belief on the repressive influence of the state to the individuals is also lacking. First, he did not further explain the benefit the individuals have after having the state imposes some agreements. When the individual is totally broken free, as what he proposed, then, the repression will come from other individuals. Why? He claimed that individuals have to constantly gear towards achieving self actualization. But in order to do this, he has to feel that his power is greater than his environment, and in turn try to surpass them. If all individuals exhibit this characteristic, then no one can indeed achieve self actualization, better yet get near a quarter of it.
I would have to say that the issues posed by Stirner and Nietzche should be thought of carefully and that everyone should not just readily accept them. Else, I would like to hear any support from the two authors for me to get another perspective.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
What is reality?
As opposed to the Matrix's notion of reality, which it defines as simply what is perceived by the mind to be true, I consider it to be external to the self. Without the proof that events happen simultaneously with respect to time, that time and space continuum could be bent, I stick to my belief that a single reality exists.
If we know that the body exists outside of the Matrix, the Matrix itself cannot be considered a reality on its own, but simply a subset of the physical reality. The Matrix cannot be considered a reality in itself because it was a product of the characters in the more external reality. Dualism can never exist and one has to surrender his previous notion of reality after he discovers what encompasses the prior one.
Regardless, only one reality exists, although different people perceive different pretentious realities. The most external space is the only reality that should be considered. Given this notion, the physical world having encompassed the mind of the human subjects, should appear as the reality. However, whether it is the most external one remains debatable, for some have witnessed that which goes beyond the physical.
Though this may soon be proven to be true, the physical world has currently been put into the position of truth. Thus, it would not be irrational if I consider it reality, at least for now. However, I should not be stuck up in absoluteness that this will remain forever, for after I will realize that something external contains this physical world, it shouldn't be hard to accept the change in my concept of reality. For as how we have argued above, a single reality exists, and it is the one that is the most external.
Is a dream real? I would say it is. Everything that happens is real, but a far greater concern dominates our consciousness, requiring us to unconsciously dismiss the things which only exist as a subset of our reality. I do not totality dismiss how the Matrix conceptualizes reality, for it has part of the truth I'm discussing. I'm reaffirming my stand by pointing out that reality is something that we give our focus on because we know we are part of it, and it has a far greater impact on us than what the subsets do.
If supposing we live inside the Matrix, our mind is at work with the computer programs. However, the stimuli are not carried out by the programs alone, but by the physical connections the body has with the external physical world. First, the body has to be nourished by chemical food, that's why the unfreed humans remained enclosed inside the capsules. Without the nourishment, the body will soon cease to exist. Second, although it is true that "without the mind, the body will die", but after being freed, the humans may choose to subject themselves to be delved into the Matrix. This choice happens in the physical world and a physical connection has to be established. Clearly, the power exists in the physical world that exists outside the Matrix. It is thus, what I call, the more external reality encompassing that subset which has the Matrix.
Lastly, this physical world might simply be a subset of the spiritual world as what most people believe. The spiritual world is then the more external reality where the soul is simply taking part in a subset of its activities, such as those in this physical world. If this is true, then we should dismiss our belief that the physical world is what constitutes the reality. However, unless we are certain of it, we are rational to continue believing in the reality which we consider the most external.
There can only be one reality, the one which encompasses everything, and gives the greatest impact to the subjects. By considering our reality, we know that indeed, our focus and energy should be brought to that, live it, and dismiss the petty mini-realities that exist internal to it.
How does one associate freedom to one's concept of reality?
The Matrix defines freedom as being in control. They portrayed it in the movie that it was inherent in human beings to seek control with their lives. However, at a glance, the mere fact that the characters did not know that they were suppressed in the Matrix indicates that either the Matrix program might have limited them which their physical body unconsciously detected or that the definition posed to freedom isn't really about controlling because if we study the latter case, there was nothing to control in the first place since they didn't know their actual bodies were inhibited by the machines.
As the nature of power relations indicate, freedom comes after breaking free from the dominating power through any form of a rebellion. First, there must be acknowledgement of the dominating power before a rebellion can be made.
Looking through the Matrix scenario again, the characters were informed by Morpheus of the existence of the Matrix. This can be said to have led the characters to acknowledging the repressive power that must have lied external to the Matrix. Although the characters didn't know of the external scenario, they were informed of its indications that existed within the Matrix.
Simple indications build up to convince the person that really, a force exists. Although the force is not known in entirety, figments of it are known, as in the case of the Matrix. This new knowledge creates the repressive force and that the mind would naturally seek to be free from this force. Freedom, seen in this light, is practically getting out of the internal realities and eventually uncovering the most external reality. Freedom is knowing and living the truth, which in this article I would simply claim to be absolute.
Reality exists in many levels, and if only part of the reality is grasped, the human being will continuously seek to understand the whole spread. If the figments of the more external reality are not evident, only the repressive forces of the subset comes into play. Freedom will then be associated only to that subset for the power relations only involve those that exist inside that set. If characters from the external reality joins the subset, which is very logical to think since it encompasses the subset, then the power relations are extended, leading to a deeper thrive for freedom; since it will now involve getting past the external dominating repressive forces.
If one is affected by the external force, then one cannot be truly free by ignoring this force. Take for example the act of freeing the bodies from the Matrix. Though it should be noted that figments of the external world are felt inside the Matrix, seeing the external world is the ultimate act of acknowledging that the external world exists. As Morpheus said, "now that you know about this, will you still have chosen the other pill?" If one knows that his physical body exists outside of the matrix, he will not be able to ignore its existence and will try to make it as secure as possible. When Smith made the treachery to the team, he first tried eliminating all of them and hoped to have his body restored in the capsule. Why the assurance that they'll be eliminated? It is because of the fact that he acknowledges their involvement in the power relations that govern the outside physical world, which simply contains the Matrix.
Moving further, one cannot assume freedom if one believes that he is not acting in accordance to the reality he thinks encompasses where he is now. Spirituality for instance greatly changes the concept of freedom of every individual. Thus, one hopes to know that this greater reality is not repressed from being acquired. Freedom then cannot be separated from the concept of reality. It is dependent to what one perceives of his reality. Achieving absolute freedom is believing to have achieved the most external reality and actively going with the power relations that play in it, and not be repressed by them.
Monday, June 8, 2009
In the oblivion lying beneath the mind, there exists four powerful people, who were previous, current, and prospective rulers, with different brain capacities. The first has a simple and a primitive one, which allows him to have an immediate response given a particular stimulus. The second has a brain that is bigger and has evolved a memory, which allows him to remember stimuli that happened in a previous timeframe along with their respective responses. The third has a more evolved brain, which has allowed logic, or those processing not associated with direct responses. The fourth one on the other hand claims to have more than a brain, which is still subject to the criticism of the other three rulers.
We set our story during the time when the human parts decided they needed a new authority. For the benefit of the story, we can consider them the citizens. The citizens clamored for a major change in governance, thinking they'd be of better use under the direction of a wiser ruler.
At that time, the kingdom Human Being was governed by Rationalism, which was the most preferred ideology of the third ruler himself. Upon coming to know about the commotion, the third ruler was very furious. He gathered both the first and the second ruler to discuss about this catastrophe and to later ask them to join him defend the throne which he thinks is rightfully his.
First Ruler: I'm here as called.
Second Ruler: My friend, I would have immediately refused your request had I not remembered the contract we had agreed upon when I allowed you to sit on my then throne. Had I not remembered the promised benefit....
Third Ruler: Gentlemen, the reason I called you here was because of an apparent threat that is trying to break the bonds I have with my subjects and even with you. With this perceived end to my authority, everything can turn out to be a total failure. I infer with the data I have gathered that this threat has nothing but ungrounded reasons. He claims that our country can experience feelings such as love even if the whole body parts cease to exist. But is it not clearly impossible for them to experience an idea such as this without them coming into beings first?
First Ruler: I think I would agree, my friend. For if the stomach factory is not working, there'll be no food for our subjects. And if there's no food for our subjects, then they'll be hungry. But my friend, I cannot understand what you mean by being able to experience love not thru physical means. I cannot comprehend beyond what cannot be acted upon from direct stimuli.
Second Ruler: Surely brother, that's why I replaced you. Forgive me if you find this offensive but you can't, and I can, know what may seem to you as not existing. What I think about this love is that it is simply a delayed feeling of pleasure, which may still translate to the expectation of a certain greater benefit.
First Ruler: Can you give a more vivid example?
Second Ruler: Remember, if you can, that when you were the ruler, you asked your subjects to work based solely on immediate rewards or punishments. When they conquered the Food Island, you rewarded them with authentic Good Hormones and had them and the entire kingdom to work solely based on this pleasurable experience. And remember when an enemy kingdom attacked our borders at the east, you simply tried avoiding them, and when an allied kingdom sent help to us from our western defences, you even tried killing their troops had they not retreated fast enough. Such despicable instinctual behaviours! I pity you that you were not even capable to recognize their flag.
First Ruler: Very harsh words indeed! I would have had my most loyal subjects killed you right there and then had you uttered those words during my reign.
Third Ruler: Calm down my friend, for I have not called you to fight each other, but to aid me in fighting against this more serious enemy.
Second Ruler: Pardon us. As I was saying, love for that matter is nothing more than a word associated with future and indirect benefits. For my brain allows me to think beyond what is contemporary, I see greater rewards in the future from what appears now to be a simple satisfaction, or even a temporary distress. Not to brag about this, but during my reign, I wasn't just able to conquer a variety of Food Islands, but had even transformed my governance to a form not considered as brute. For when we had acquired our first few Food Islands, I urged my subjects not to feel the need to eliminate these islands' previous inhabitants, nor have the greed to feed on all of these abundant resources; for they who had previously ruled these Islands have the ultimate capacity to make it flourish more, which can give us not much resources had we killed them and did the maintenance ourselves. Instead, focus was needed on conquering other Islands, or better said as creating more relationships to the rulers who had created them. And this, my friends, is the most precise meaning of love; that is the expectation of far greater rewards from the rulers we had come to have agreements with. Thus, we then loved these rulers.
Third Ruler: Well said, mate. But my faithful servants who work in the Hypothalamus den...
Second Ruler: Pardon me but what den is that?
Third Ruler: Oh I forgot to tell you; and by the way, don't be insulted that I had forgotten for I tell you that though my memory is still aiding me in my decisions, I have a lot of other agencies that get me to decide on more abstract matters that may not be true to other kingdoms whom we have transactions with; it's called being rational. Anyways, since my reign, I have discovered that Heart is simply an imaginary representation of what was hidden deep in the forest of Science: the den of Hypothalamus. For I tell the two of you, that this brain of mine allows me to question the behaviours of the very subjects I am governing. I wished both of you to have had the same capacity.
Second Ruler: Ha! I'm starting to doubt whether you're even governing this kingdom well despite your petty works that not only does it have no output, it only serves to expand your own logic.
Third Ruler: I only wish that you can be enlightened that my works serve the purpose far greater than having this kingdom to just do something. To keep us back on track, I was saying that my faithful servants who work in the den claim that the hormones they provide are independent of the expectations the citizens have laid in the Bank of Promises. In the near future, this kingdom will forever be united with another kingdom which has stimulating and unfamiliar sexual taverns. The problem again is that I see my citizens getting excited for reasons contrary to what I have; as if realizing that a far greater force is controlling this government.
First Ruler: I would see that the excitement is caused by the provision of hormones, but these workers must have the reason for doing such things, or else they would be as you call them irrational.
Third Ruler: Indeed, and being irrational cannot exist unless there is something that exists beyond what is physical.
Second Ruler: And as far as I can remember, this is what the fourth ruler is trying to embody, his claimed capacity to decide based on what doesn't exist.
Third ruler: And his bases, not only in the essence of love, are hypocritical and even an insult to the way we have ruled the three generations since your time, my friend.
First Ruler: So why not just cancel this whole idea of unity with this kingdom of beautiful rosy taverns, if what you say can lead to a catastrophe?
Third Ruler: That, I cannot do. For if I do such an act, I would be considered a man that doesn't act based on reason; and for what grounds can I convince my subjects not to overthrow me if I have the same characteristics as the fourth, and even less? What the current signals of the Hypothalamus den, my logic, and the battle cry of the citizens tell me cannot be ignored, for in reality, I do not have the freedom to choose what isn't driven by the physical manifestations of this kingdom. My friends, we love because of the interplay of the physical characters of my subjects.
First Ruler: ...at least, as how I governed my people, all are based on the stimuli at the point in time.
Second Ruler: So are you saying that something far greater than us exists to infer independence of thought and actions from what is manifested physically?
Third Ruler: Yes, and imagine that this kingdom had been governed not by us after all, but by someone who by all means physical proof can't back. This is totally absurd! I cannot let this pass. My friends, my best plan would be to lure them into thinking that independence of thought can exist without acknowledging the totality of what doesn't exist in the physical realm. Of course, you can help me with this.
First Ruler: But you cannot act based on what doesn't exist. It's contrary to your belief!
Third Ruler: Then, we have to at least convince the fourth to be appointed under my jurisdictions. He practically cannot argue against me, for I have all the reasons and them alone to back my claims, and he has what, a revolutionary consideration of what might exist and cannot be proven to exist?
Second Ruler: So what exactly is your plan?
Third Ruler: Simple, my subjects want independence of the manifestations of the other body parts? Then I'll put up an institution of Free Will.
First Ruler: But how can you not consider that such an institution can lead to the realization of this great foreign existence?
Third Ruler: Did you forget how you once governed the citizens based on hormonal rewards alone? Combine that with the institution itself. Sooner or later, they'll feel that the provision of this institution has allowed them to doubt the existence of everything. There may be chaos, but alas, I'll resolve this issue once again, and use the very institution I'll be putting up to let them destroy it, for they'll doubt that they even have the independence of thought.
Second Ruler: I hope this works, for I cannot think how the fourth will not think through this plan.
Third Ruler: Good thing he'll be under my command then.
The kingdom, so advanced and complex that we cannot even know how the plan turned out to be, closed his gates from any wandering mind who wanted to spy on it and divulge the whole plan. Even at this time, we are left wondering as to whether or not they have succeeded, whether or not the third ruler was overthrown, and whether or not the whole story even existed at all.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Xt: lam mo, may theory ako
Xt: wala pa akong better term
Kausap: it isn't christian kung walang theories
Xt: every persn is selfish
Xt: sorry for the term selfish
Xt: na disprove ko na ung term na selfish
Kausap: no i agree
Xt: pero wala pa akong alternative word
Kausap: and i suppose selfish is the only term
Kausap: ewll might you consider self-serving
Kausap: which still boils down to being selfish
Xt: and how would that fit my description? what does self-serving mean? I mean how different is it from being selfish?
Xt: so wala na palang argument, si you already agree with me
Kausap: kasi medyo less harsh siya
Xt: ah icic
Kausap: yun lang
Kausap: pero ang meaning parehong pareho lang hahaha
Xt: wait, let me clarify
Xt: does your point extend to "afterlife"?
Xt: or some consideration of afterlife benefits?
Kausap: not really go lang
Xt: naconsider ko kasi un
Xt: sige, my argument starts here
Xt: let us first assume that every person is in need of resources
Xt: so etong worldly stuff: food, water, shelter etc
Xt: and we do of course know that these resources are limited and have respective owners, kaya di ko na eexpound
Xt: dadagdag ko na lang na biologically, we are able to perceive what is good and bad through our senses and hormones, which are vaguely termed "feelings"
Xt: We then infer that we need to get these good sensations by feeding ourselves with the right amount of food, shelter, clothings
Xt: and these characteristics are also exhibited by low-level animals
Xt: so permit me to introduce memory into our argument
Xt: if we know that by doing a thing, it directly or indirectly gives a consequence, either good or bad
Xt: we then respond accordingly, such that doing what we should do to get the good consequences
Xt: as I mentioned, we do keep track of these things, the actions that we do and the consequences such bring, through our memory
Xt: so kung tingin natin na if we can delay the short-term benefits and expect greater benefits in the future
Xt: gagawin natin in such a way na ung cummulative actions natin would not harm us more than what that benefit can compensate for such harm
Xt: hmm. ayus pa ba?
Xt: nakukuha mo pa ung gusto kong sabihin? or medio malabo na ako?
Kausap: wait lang
Kausap: yup i think i sort of get what you mean
Xt: ok proceed
Kausap: but i do not concede with limiting emotions to mere hormonal activity
Kausap: i mean hormones don't just come out
Xt: so yung concepts of pride, glory, shame, embarrassment, and others, all root to that fact na cinoconvert natin subconsciously ung short term benefits sa long term benefits
Xt: so how do you suppose hormonal activities happen? i could have included this in the argument prematurely hehe
Kausap: i honestly don't know what stirs hormonal activity
Kausap: and sometimes emotions cannot just be downplayed
Kausap: kasi it works both ways
Kausap: there are moments when hormones do affect our emotions
Kausap: and there are moments when we just feel
Kausap: i have no explanation for it
Kausap: just as i believe not everything can be rationalized and defined
Kausap: though we try to
Kausap: so going back to your main point
Kausap: that humans are naturally selfish
Kausap: i do think we are
Kausap: but not at all times
Kausap: we are selfish
Kausap: but we can choose not to be
Kausap: and sometimes we do things without thinking
Xt: 'we are able to perceive what is good and bad through our senses and hormones, which are vaguely termed "feelings"; so kulang pa ung pag differentiate ko ng origin ng feelings, which can both be from senses, and hormones? hehe
Kausap: so not everything can be attributed to the workings of the mind
Kausap: i don't know
Kausap: because it's merely a conflict of opinions
Kausap: i refuse to accept that feelings are just hormones and senses
Kausap: i think there's something more to them
Kausap: look at it this way
Kausap: when people are selfish they're usually not happy
Kausap: and so they stuff themselves with worldly things
Kausap: hoping that would bar out the sadness/emptiness they feel
Kausap: but it doesn't
Xt: sige, please give me an example for which hormones and senses and memory can't be the factors for a particular feeling.
Kausap: it just covers it upt
Kausap: actually i can't give an example
Kausap: but at the same time science has not proven everything
Kausap: because even if we say that our emotions are a product of a secretion of some hormones
Kausap: the question is what triggers these secretions?
Xt: oh. no. i don't know how to convince you if we can't even define the alternative "hypothesis". haha
Kausap: and if that were true why don't people react to the same things differently?
Kausap: provided that we have more or less the same genetic make up and the same body system
Xt: so end of argument? haha
Kausap: well if you're main point is that people are selfish
Kausap: it can be proven through other things
Xt: no i mean selfish ALWAYS. haha
Kausap: well i'd have to say
Kausap: that if you're going to a debate
Kausap: and you want to prove this
Kausap: like in a real debate
Kausap: you'd have to research on this
Xt: kahit ung concept na, do good now, and reap your rewards in heaven
Xt: still characterizes the selfish nature of men
Kausap: because you're not the only one who has conceived this thing
Kausap: but see
Kausap: i don't think that people who do good things to go to heaven go to heaven
Xt: so if they can't grasp or visualize this idea of heaven and the rewards that come with it, then they'd rather stick to these worldly rewards
Kausap: kasi sabi nga sa isang book sa high school
Xt: but in both cases, they are still selfish
Kausap: "gumawa ka nang mabuti hindi dahil may langit kung hindi dahil sa mabuti ang mabuti"
Kausap: but you have approached this topic in such an absolutist manner
Kausap: it' like there are only two options
Kausap: but you have to consider that there are different and infinite possibilities
Kausap: and there's no need to apologize i'm not scolding you or whatever
Kausap: and you're not the only mind at work
Kausap: there hundreds and hundreds of people who think over such things
Xt: haha, yea, and it's quite bothering
Kausap: you have to consider how these things work as well if you want to convince people
Xt: isipin mo, i'm 18, just barely 70 years to go
Xt: tas wala pa akong concrete belief
Kausap: you have beliefs
Kausap: it's just that you haven
Xt: no i meant concrete
Kausap: 't defined them all
Xt: yeah and i haven
Kausap: but you do have them
Kausap: it's built in your system and built in your subconscious
Kausap: but like what i said not everything needs clearcut definitions
Kausap: but things need clearcut actions
Kausap: that reflect what you believe in
Xt: clarcut actions from unclear definitions
Xt: pano un?
Kausap: when i say definitions
Kausap: i mean verbalized things
Xt: ahh icic
Xt: kala ko ung concepts themselves
Kausap: you know deep inside what you believe in but you just don't have the words for it
Xt: like how Plato differentiated the ideas vs their worldly manifestations
Kausap: i haven't read plato
Kausap: so i don't know
Xt: un nga lang, baliktad, the ideas are concrete, yet the worldly manifestations fall short from their corresponding ideas
Xt: kala ko you meant that
Kausap: hey have to go na
Kausap: nice talking with you
Xt: sige had fun too. but just ended ip in a manhole