With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility...

Super-heroes and super-villains are the fictional recreations of our society’s dialectic between good and evil and the human condition in its entirety. As I’ve said before, all forms of art are only effective through their ability to reflect a tangible aspect of society back towards the audience. Super-heroes and super-villains hold a place within all of us exactly because of their usefulness in magnifying the fundamental aspects of good and evil, making these abstract concepts more accessible. The three most widely recognizable superheroes are Superman, Spiderman, and Batman. This triumvirate are intrinsically balanced as each of these three super-heroes represents one of the three major types of super-people.

Superman represents the first group, which is the alien super-hero/super-villain. Superman, who was born as Kal-El on the planet Krypton, arrived in Kansas and was raised by farmers and he assumed the identity of Clark Kent. A fundamental understanding of Superman is that he is NOT human. There is an implied philosophical sentiment by Superman supporters that presupposes that, if we are to take Superman as wholly good, then the human condition, even in its most optimistic proliferation, is incapable of ultimate success or ultimate “good” just as humans are incapable of doing the things Superman does. Kal-El is an alien, but he represents what we humans consider as desireable traits. He is strong, fast, and supremely moral. His superpowers are of the best ilk. He can fly, he has x-ray vision, he is faster than the speed of light, he is bulletproof, he has endless strength, and so on and so forth. All of these traits are juxtaposed with his nemesis Lex Luthor. Luthor is viewed as existing in the highest tier of humanity. He is wealthy, philanthropic, and intelligent. Moreover, Lex Luthor is the one that is human, yet he is the embodiment of what humans stereotypically consider evil. Superman does not represent what a man can become, rather he represents what we want to become, but never will. There is the implication that the human is less than perfect in his inability to become what Superman is.

Spiderman represents the second group of super-heroes/super-villains, which are those that are genetically altered human beings. As opposed to Superman, Spiderman is a human being. He is Peter Parker. In order to become Spiderman, though, Peter Parker had to be bitten by a radioactive spider whose radioactive venom significantly altered his genes, thus creating Spiderman. While Superman maintained his powers as an element of his physical construction alone, Spiderman's powers are a mixture of his physical mutations and his pre-existing intelligence. He has "spidey-senses" and he is fantastically agile and much stronger. He also has the ability to defy gravity by climbing walls and by having a supreme mastery over his body. Intellectually his powers are made more prominent as he creates a technological device that allows him to shoot a web-like substance from his wrists in the likeness of a spider. We must note, though, that there is a significant distinction between Peter Parker and Spiderman. Peter is a kind and gentle-hearted individual who keeps his identity hidden, but Spiderman is a lush for the spotlight. Spiderman is received with mixed reviews by the public as some see him as a savior, but others see him as a menace. Since Spiderman is created from a genetic mutation of the human condition, we must view Spiderman similar to Superman, though we are able to relate with the former more than the latter: Spiderman does not represent into what a man can make himself, rather he represents what we might possibly be is we were changed. Again, there is an implication that human beings are destined to fall short of the desired self since they cannot become what Spiderman is without the rarest of circumstances.

Batman represents the third group of super-heroes. These characters are human through and through and their "super"-ego (not Freudian) is entirely consistent with their humanity. Batman is neither an alien, nor have his genetics been altered in any way shape or form. Batman is the multi-billionaire Bruce Wayne, owner and operator of Wayne Enterprises. Batman is not an example of what we want to be or what the maximum human output could be if external influences are introduced, rather Batman exemplifies what a strong human will can do all on its own (and lots and lots of money). Batman captures humanity completely. Unlike Superman, there is no definitive distinction between good and evil. In reality, we do not live in a black and white world. We live in a world of infinite shades of gray. Good and evil ("in and of themselves" - : P) are illusions; the method that Batman operates on, and the method that appears most in sync with reality, is that the situation and the environment and the "before" and "after" determine what is good and what is bad, and that distinction only applies to that specific situation. Batman does not have superpowers, he uses intelligence and grit to establish himself as a super-hero. An awesome car, a trusty utility belt, a resolute mind, and complete fearlessness are Batman's powers. Even Batman's enemies do not have superpowers. They are all perversions of the human form. The Joker is a sadistic, schizophrenic, masochistic individual who is severely detached from rality. The Penguin is a deformed human, abandoned in his infancy, and looking for vindication. Two-Face was the famous politician Harvery Dent who lost the love of his life because of Batman's mistake and now vows to oppose Batman at every turn. Batman represents exactly what a normal, yet determined individual can accomplish if he grits his teeth and decides that no matter what he will perservere.

We will not all be Superman.

We will not all be Spiderman.

We will not all be Batman.

The thing is this:

We don't have what we need to become Superman.
We don't have what we need to become Spiderman. (Sorry Sam)
But we have exactly everything we will ever need to become Batman: determination and perserverance.

I am the Bat!

The Song Remains The Same...

Life is a song...

A gorgeous blend of rhythm, harmony, melody, tonality, theme, and motif. An antiquated balance between form and function, between studied theory and whimsical talent, between percussive dominance and rhythmic passivity. A continuous interplay between instrumental equivalents finding a voice within a construction and settling into a comfortable role. Think Jazz with me: any instrument can lead the musical arrangement, it just depends on the intended construction and the moment in the song. Sometimes, each instrument has it's time in the sun. Now the lead guitar vacillates all over the musical staff - major, minor, thirds, sevenths, diminished, augmented, pentatonic - the direction is left to the guitar. Now the bass takes hold, the grooving bass that forces you to bob - not nod - your head in calm and collected coolness. Then the drummer kicks it with some rolls, a bit of a high hat, syncopated beats, speed ups and slow downs that beg for toe-tapping.

Life is similarly constructed of a confluence of elements that result in a symphonic and harmonious output. Some lives are psychedelic, some rock and roll, others are classical, and still others are somewhere else. Some people do a lot of talking in their lives, just like some songs focus on the lyrics. Some people do a lot of waiting in lives, just like some songs focus on the music. Some people do a lot of crazy things in life, just like song solos are all over the place. Some people stay very close to the chest, just like some songs keep it very simple. There is no life that is definitively and objectively better than another, just like there is no definitive and objective way to place songs in a particular order.

Though our verses tell the story of the goings-on that make up the fluidity of our lives, it is the chorus that is the real meat and potatoes. Those battle-tested beliefs and ideals that we continuously fall back on. Our cheat-sheet that we use as the basis for all of our decisions. Just like the song, our lives always come back to the chorus or the hook. And just like a good song, if you have no hook, then you have no song. It's the "Bye, Bye, Bye" and the "Oops, I Did It Again" that pulls you back in. It's the "Let It Be" and the "If You Want Blood" that grabs our attention. It's the "Sipping on Gin and Juice" and the "It's Tricky To Rock Around, To Rock Around the Clock" that sticks with us. It's the "Lovin' Is What I Got" and the "Whoa, Amber is The Color of Your Energy" that bobs the head.

A great song is like a beautiful work of art. Whereas artwork stimulates your mind visually, music stimulates your brain sonically. Both are constructed with interconnected complexities that add or subtract various levels of depth. The most important correlation between the two, however, is that the power both have over the individual. Moreover, that power is directly proportionate to the ability of the artwork to impact the audience through the reflecting of life back towards the audience. Every great piece of artwork - paintings, songs, symphonies, sculptures, novels, theater, television, films - is characterized by the ability to reflect an aspect of life back to the audience. Some for humor and some for drama and some for both. This is no matter. The point is to remember that these artistic creations reflect our lives and we are not supposed to make our lives reflect them.

Sometimes, even, art can be an even better representation of the realities of life than life:
"And, in the end, the love you take,
Is equal to the love you make." - "The End", The Beatles, Abbey Road

"People used what they called a telephone because they hated being close together and they were scared of being alone." - Chuck Palahniuk

Do you ever feel that when you are talking to someone they are not really listening to you, but really just waiting for their turn to talk? Sometimes they don't even wait politely, right? Those are the people that say "right" or "yeah" after every sentence just waiting for the moment you hesitate too long so they can tell you how what you are telling them is "just like this one time..." I am trying to figure out how it is that some people just always know exactly what you're talking about and, luckily enough, are able to relate it to some story in their own lives. I'll tell you it feels refreshing when someone can relate to what you are going through. At the same time, it's awfully annoying when the person makes it seem as if they are the only ones that have anything interesting to say. Even if they don't believe it, they sure as shit need to pretend a lot better.

Sure it comes from our narcissistic, ego-centric belief that we are the proverbially straw that stirs the drink. Again, we are the star actors in our own lives. It's like a self-help author reading his own book for advice. If you don't want to hear what other people have to say, then talk to the mirror. Although, that might result in You fighting Yourself since neither You nor Yourself would get a chance to talk since the other one will constantly be talking over the other. That's a good way to guarantee split-personality disorder. You will be fighting with Yourself because You won't stop talking over Yourself and You won't be giving Yourself a chance to talk.

People won't even listen to you when they think you're going to die. They really try at that time to convince you of what you should or should not be feeling. I laid in the hospital the night before my brain surgery and had my brother and my future sister-in-law and my parents there. Of course, My Love was there as well. Some close relatives on the low. I told my parents that I just wanted to hang out and stay relaxed. In no time I had a church ceremony taking place in my hospital room. Frankincense and myrrh including in the celebration of "mass." Even a sermon was given in which the participants prayed for a "miracle" hoping that I would come out alive. Goodness, I was nervous, but at least I was confident. Then I hear people praying for the miracle of my survival and I became upset. Pissed off I believe would be the accepted F-ing vernacular. People pretend they want to listen to you when they think you are dying, but really they just want to savor those last few moments to tell you what they really think. I assume they hope to send you up to heaven with their words as your last memory so that you can tell the peoples upstairs how awesome they are.

I don't like to lack faith in people, but sometimes people make it too hard not to lose faith. People don't want to talk to each other. Politicians don't want to listen, they are all a bunch of opportunists. They want the power superstructure to fail so that they have a platform on which to pontificate their equally ridiculous ideals. Many religious individuals don't want to listen, they would rather explain how you and your peers seated around you are spitting in God's face just by enjoying a fine meal or a few glasses of an alcoholic beverage, while they are somehow closer to God because they attended seminary school. It doesn't just float to the top though, even our peers don't want to listen. We all want to be the one to untie the Gordian Knot (or at least be savvy enough to slice through it with our mighty sword Excalibur, thus ascending the throne and running Camelot like a BAMF).

I talk a lot and I sure as shit act like I know what I'm talking about all the time. I hate being wrong. When I am, I will admit it (however begrudgingly it comes). I will also try and see anything from your point of view even if I disagree with it. I really will. No matter how far up my own ass I have to try and put my head. I'm flexible. We don't even really like each other except for the few specials in our lives. Why else would we invent phones to be used between individuals separated by mere rooms. Or the Internet. We would rather text a question than ask it. MensHealth actually had to survey women to see what their reactions are to being asked out through text/e-mail because so many jack-asses seem to be doing it instead of the phone call, which is already distancing in itself.

All I think is deserved is the mutual respect among all of us to shut up and listen when someone else is having a conversation with you. One-on-one we should wait, listen, then thoughtfully respond rather than bite our tongues until it's our turn. Just listen with open ears and an open mind and I promise you will hear new things in old places, and you will gain knowledge where you thought none existed.

Be like water...

“Success and failure are both difficult to endure. Along with success come drugs, divorce, fornication, bullying, travel, meditation, medication, depression, neurosis, and suicide. With failure comes failure.” – Joseph Heller
Many people throughout history have discussed suicide. It has been understood both as a form of cowardice and a form of heroism. Aristotle believed that even though suicide displayed bravery in the face of death, it is always the escape of some fearful thing and so it is the love-child of cowardice. Albert Camus wrote about suicide being the only thing that a man can do that is truly taking control of his own life. Phil Donahue believed “suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.” Shakespeare focuses on suicide over and over throughout his plays and, coincidentally they are featured in his most celebrated plays “Romeo and Juliet,” “Hamlet,” “King Lear,” “Othello,” and more. There was even a time in our history that believed that suicide was fashionable as satirically portrayed in the Winona Rider movie “The Heathers.” Dante Alighieri believed the innermost circles of hell were reserved for the abhorrent individuals who chose to commit suicide instead of face life. Arthur Schopenhauer said, “They tell us that suicide is the greatest piece of cowardice… that suicide is wrong; when it is quite obvious that there is nothing in the world to which every man has a more unassailable title than to his own life and person.”
I fall on the side of cowardice. Life is hard. It’s supposed to be hard. It’s hard for every animal on the planet, the difference being our knowledge of the difficulty. I can agree that surviving in life is difficult and the knowledge of our unforgiving existence is regrettable, thus I suppose that suicide, or the wishing for death to come, is a means of relieving the pain and difficulty. But it is not life that we are hoping to avoid through suicide; rather, it is the tribulations and afflictions that confront us in life that we run from through suicide. So, suicide simultaneously delivers us from our pain, but condemns us to never experience the positives that come from life.
We refuse to accept the vicissitudes of life and this is why we are met with adversity that we believe we cannot overcome except through suicide. Some forms of martial arts, such as Aikido, discuss the forces of fighting like the forces of nature, more specifically as the force of water. The key to be truly prepared to endure any attack from an opponent is to remain in a relaxed position that is adaptable to an attack from any angle. Most importantly, one should not attempt to defend the incoming force with opposing outgoing force; rather, the trick is to use the incoming force as a method of avoiding the contact. Is that confusing? Instead of trying to block a punch by forcefully raising your arm, logically it is easier to avoid the punch by stepping to the side and using the puncher’s momentum to put him to his back. Such is the same in life. Instead of fighting against the difficulties of life, which can lead us to take extremes measures to avoid them, we need to work with the forces of nature in order to survive. We say we want to live in reality, that is what “The Matrix” portrays, that if given the choice between a real reality and a fake reality we will take the real one. I agree with this idea, but I disagree that people truly want this. Most people are like Cipher from the first matrix movie, they wish they had taken the blue pill.
Reality is the painful and usually slow realization that your life is not like the movies and books you have wished them to be. Your life is hard and it sucks, but it’s a better option than death I assure you. Our buddy Chuck Palahniuk said, “Reality means you live until you die. The real truth is nobody wants reality.” They want a hyper-reality. They want a life that they believe they deserve rather than the life that they have been given. Suicide may not be cowardice and it may be brave, or the opposite. I don’t know for sure. I can tell you this much: with people trying to hang on to life by a thin thread, clinging on and fighting to endure things unimaginable, even the mere contemplation of suicide, let alone the act of suicide, is a direct slap in the face. Some have lost loved ones against their wills, and when they are confronted with a person who decides that taking their own life is their will, I think it is perfectly acceptable to slap them right back. Draconian laws are acceptable with suicidal miscreants.
“There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance, that imitation is suicide, that he must take himself for better or for worse.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Brave men rejoice in adversity, just as brave soldiers triumph in war...

"Find out what you're afraid of and go live there." - Chuck Palahniuk

Mr. Palahniuk is the author of "Fight Club" that, yes, was a book before it was a movie. The man is a somewhat dark and demented author, but poetic and invigorating and exciting. To really appreciate him you have to peel away the layers of what he writes to find some underlying, deeply buried moral that exists in his writings. If you do, then amidst the animated violence and degradation that we all intuitively associate with a movie like "Fight Club," and so also the author that we may not even know, we can discover soul-searching parcels such as the one highlighted above.

Fight Club is not about fighting, neither the book nor the movie. It's about an ideology other than the materialist one to which we all mindlessly abide. More than that, it is about a polarizing new ideology that forces us to confront the choices that we have made in our own lives and whether or not they are the appropriate ones. The message to me really seems to focus on what can happen when we accept ANY ideology without paying close attention to ensure that we are in control of our ideology and not that our ideology controls us and inevitably leads us to commit random acts of vandalism and possibly incinerate credit card buildings in an attempt to erase the national debt and wipe the slate clean.

My focus today, though, wants to stay on the quotation above. As Colonel Kurtz aptly puts it in Apocalypse Now in 1979 (which was also based on a book written before the movie came out, The Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad) horror has a face and you must make a friend of horror or else it is truly an enemy to be feared. Confrontation to the ultimate degree is our chance to prove ourselves, our bank-like stress tests in a sense. The first Century Roman philosopher Seneca wrote, "Fire is the test of gold; adversity, of strong men." We are defined by our battle-hardened bodies and psyches much like the soldier receives adornment beside his lapel for his struggles. We have our sniper medals, and purple hearts, and medals of honor, except we don't place them neatly on our chests, nor should we. Because the knowledge is won internally so too should the knowledge remain. We find out something about ourselves by going to battle in our lives, and there is no reason to boast or brag about our accomplishments by putting them on display. We cannot assume that we know the battle tested hearts of the people walking past us.

The sentiment in the quotation, then, follows: we must find exactly what it is we are afraid of, and then set up camp until we overcome that fear. A man must be willing to face his fears or else he does not know of what he is truly afraid. I'll tell you, cancer was not something that I was excited about, but it was something that I had to confront. I have done as best I could. If you bring yourself to the challenge and do not run from your fears, and you do the best you can, then you have already won. A tragedy is an opportunity to do something special.

"I wanted to write about the moment when your addictions no longer hide the truth from you. When your whole life breaks down. That's the moment when you have to somehow choose what your life is going to be about." - Chuck Palahniuk

Our Matrix...

"I think, therefore I am" holds that being able to think is both sufficient and necessary to knowing that one exists. That is, you must be able to think in order for you to possible know that you exists and if you are not able to think, then it is impossible to know for sure that you exist. Further, if it is true that you are able to think, then it is guaranteed that you exist. Let us forget postulated arguments to this position and accept the standard belief. We will not bother with the brain-in-the-vat dilemma or the moral implications of the statement for beings that lack the capacity to reason in a rational way.

When Descartes said "I think, therefore I am," he attached this to a theory that everything that exists outside of the mind is perceived through a perceptive sensory organ that renders the individual incapable of directly interacting with the object outside of the mind. Without being directly in contact with an object, our minds are susceptible to misinterpret or misunderstand the object. The support for this is that when we look at an object from a certain position it appears to be a square, but as we move we are enlightened to the idea that the object is in three-dimensions and is actually a rectangle. In essence, our perception of the object through our sensory organs of our eyes caused our mind to pervert the actual nature of the outside object. Even our sense of touch can be deceived as in cases that have been reported of amputees feeling pain in the limb that has been removed through operation. In any event, what we understand through the words of Descartes is that everything that exists outside of our minds - including our bodies - are unreliable in their truths, and so are open to subjective interpretation.

Through our interaction with the world over time the number of levels that we are removed from outside reality has continuously grown. This phenomenon can be understood by reading the post-modern philosophy of Jean Baudrillard perhaps most notably in Simulacra and Simulations. According to Baudrillard, technology and philosophical and intellectual elitism has constructed a world of hyper-reality in which simulations for reality have been created ideologically, metaphorically, and realistically in order to take the place of actual reality. Our every interaction with reality is actually an interaction with a created reality - a simulation of reality. The things we see, read, hear, and learn are filtered through a measured and exact narrative that is intended to perpetuate a particular message, image, or idea. 

Former reality television show characters (and indeed characters is the correct term) wage their biggest indictment against the shows themselves by claiming that the producers will edit video in order to convey a certain perception of reality. This is one thing with which I agree with Amaya from The Real World Hawaii house. It is called reality-tv, but we all know it's not and that's why we like it. We see two cast members meet on move-in day and hear "Bleeding in Love" by Leona Lewis and I know that during the season one of the characters will express an unrequited love for the other, maybe like Melissa excessive crush on Jaime from The Real World New Orleans. 

It is worse, though. Even our news is filtered and constructed around a particular narrative. The narrative arc spans further than just republican and democrat, right and left, conservative and liberal. The arc follows a certain pattern of attention grabbing imagery and language in addition to a subtle selection, by producers and executives, about what constitutes as news. During the democratic primaries, The media made a disproportionate amount of news fodder from the fact that Barack Obama did not wear the American flag pin on his lapel; meanwhile, there was nearly zero discussion regarding the beginning of the economic decline (or depression). Even when we watch shows like "Planet Earth" on the discovery channel or live footage of animals in their natural environments, what we are seeing is distributed through so many different levels - the presence of the film technician, the transition of the film to the studio, the editing of the film at the studio, the transmission of the film through the television, the narrative tone that is displayed from the opening credits of the show until the moment that I am viewing the moment in question, the music in the background, the juxtaposition of frames and angles, the script of the narrator or on-air personality, the time of day the show appears, the show's targeted audience, and even the actual audience that tunes in to watch. Of course, there is also our perception of what we see and our processing of all the relative information in our minds, which we know is often deceived by the things that exist outside of it, not to mention its ability to be deceived when people are influencing a thing in a manner that is different than how that thing might be without interaction or interpretation.

One of the most often levied criticisms of left-wing documentaries is that they are so prejudiced in the content they elect to provide that it negates the content itself. This is a method of arguing called poisoning-the-well. In essence, instead of addressing the content given to me directly, I refute the argument based on either the manner it is presented or on the individual or group presenting it to me. For example, if a convicted murderer said that they believed that free market economy was the best way to guarantee free trade principles, it would be improper argumentation to say that the person must be wrong because he is a jailed murderer. This is what happens to Michael Moore. He makes a documentary and it appears so radical to some people that it is refuted without giving consideration to its merits. On the other hand, at times it is indoctrinated based on its having been made by Michael Moore. Neither approaches are logically sound arguments. You don't like Michael Moore because of "Fahrenheit 9/11" that's okay because it deals with a very difficult subject matter. Have you ever needed a surgery that you didn't get because your insurance didn't cover it, or because you didn't have insurance? Watch "Sicko" and perhaps your opinion may change. 

I used to think that their was good and bad, right and wrong, moral and immoral, light and dark, love and hate, night and day. Even the most basic investigation yields that these are but two extremes of extensive spectra. Life and the individual are not made to contain either one or the other; rather, they are suited to - even created for - exemplifying some combination of the opposites. There is lightness and darkness within us all, but it comes down to deciding which we choose to follow in a given moment. Night and day appear separated, but there are the moments as the sun begins to go down and the sky is painted orange, red, and magenta where the night comes to join the day, the light comes to join the dark, and the two hold hands above our heads. And we can see all the gradient in-between of light and dark. It is living ideology. It is philosophy personified and we see this every night. Since the classical times of Greece and Rome, the greatest thinkers of the world have tried to find a universal code of ethics and none has developed one that has not been refuted on firm grounds. Logically, your moral codes would be determined by the subjective ethics you choose to follow. 

And so I return to the thought that I can only be sure that I exist because I am sure that I am thinking. Reality is contained in the mind. It is not contained in the body or in the bank or in society. It does not seem reasonable to surrender our minds to those who wish to uphold the convictions of their own. Let us be inquisitive, but let us be resolute. Power lives in the mind, and the subjective reality lives in power. Be not afraid of the world, nor anything that comes in your way. No obstacle, no force, no situation is too much for you. Descartes' dilemma works in both directions. If you cannot really interact with the things outside of your mind, then likewise those things cannot really interact with you. If they can't do that, then they can't affect you. So, I say again: color the duck your way.

It's Some Good Advice, That You Just Didn't Take...

"Memories are meant to fade. They were made that way for a reason." - Strange Days (1995)

Today we speak and the words forcefully pass our vocal cords, are bounced against our palates by our tongues and forge through our teeth and out of our lips only to sputter a few inches in front of us and smack against the floor with the vigor of vomitus. We live at a time when a mid-90s musician writes a song called "Ironic" that reaches number one on the billboards and the song does not contain a single example of irony (no, rain on your wedding day is not ironic, nor is a free ride when you've already paid, though some might say these are unfortunate occurences). We have also witnessed one of the most celebrated presidents say on national television that the interviewer's question depending "On what your definition of is is."

"Cogito ergo sum."
"Je pense, donc je suis."
"I think, therefore I am."

These words spoken by the same man, here presented in three different languages have significantly altered the trajectory of human philosophical and mental development for approximately the last 500 years. These words, and the other writings of Rene Descartes have given people the ability to make the world whatever they have wanted to make it. They have allowed people to take the notion that the only thing one can say is true is that they exist and transform it into the contract labor oppressing capitalist ideology and from there into the will to power that states that all things are permitted. All things, apparently, really mean all things.

There is a shot that is administered to chemotherapy patients that bolster the white blood cell counts after the chemotherapy drugs have diminished them. there are different such shots, but the one that I know of is Neulasta (pegfilgrastim). The dosage is recommended to be a single 6-mg injection per chemotherapy cycle (www.neulasta.com). This amounts to about 2-3 seconds. The drug is considered imperative to many patients who undergo agressive chemotherapy cycles as it prevents life-threatening infections that can stall the administration of chemotherapy, which can allow for the spread of the cancer. You see, though the drug cost can grow as high as $7,000.00, which is good if it's your two-week paycheck, but less good when it is part of your two-week expenses (www.neulastainfo.com). Certain healthcare insurance companies do not believe that neulasta is a necessary drug and so many refuse to for it. Nine months I was on a treatment that required me taking the neulasta shot. since, I don't like when people say "You do the math," I'll do the math: 9 months X two treatments per month = 18 times the neulasta shot is given. 18 x $7,000.00 = $126,000.00 and remember that this is with insurance.

There is a basic difference between something that is necessary and something that is sufficient even though many people do not understand that difference, including insurance companies. A condition is necessary if and only if it must be true in order for some situation to possibly be true. Or if the necessary condition is not true then there is no way that the situation can be true. For example, being a mammal is a necessary condition of being a human because you have to be a mammal in order to possibly be a human and if you are not a mammal then there is no way you can be human. A condition is sufficient if and only if in some situation if the condition is true then the situation must be true. For example, being a human is a sufficient condition of being a mammal because if you are a human then you must be a mammal. The difference is subtle. Because the sufficient condition is not also a necessary condition. That is, being a human is sufficient to show that you are a mammal, but it is not also the case that being human is a necessary condition of being a mammal, for instance you can not be a human (you can be a marsupial) and you can still be a mammal.

The insurance company decided, without consulting me, that the shot was not a necessary condition for my survival because perhaps, without it, I would still live. They also decided that it wasn't sufficient because perhaps, with it, I still might not live. In translation to formal logic, the quotation above says that memories are designed to fade because they are meant to fade. If we were using Microsoft Excel we would get an error reading saying "Circular Reference." The quotation believes that knowing that memories are capable of fading is sufficient to knowing that memories are meant to fade. This logic, however, begs the question by assuming as a premise exactly what it aims to prove.

I still remember the first smell I ever smelled: snow.
I still remember the first time I ever saw my fiancee.
My friend Andrew still remembers so many things about Susan.
My cousins Michael and Timothy still remember everything about their mother.
My fiancee still remembers what it was like when I called her on July 6, 2006.
My sister-in-law still remembers both of her cousins so well.
My mom still remembers the times of each of her three childrens' births.
We all still remember a lot of things

Memories are not meant to fade or else they would all fade. No, memories are meant to be remembered, forever. The ones that fade away are replaced by the ones that never will.

Remembering is a sufficient condition for surviving... And I can't wait to remember what it feels like to hear the good news of a clean bill of health once more...

Peace...