(Source: snuh)

Is this for real?
Unicorn City — New Trailer
After winning some festival awards, looks like that movie I worked on 2 summers ago is going to theaters after all. Cool!
Yosemite HD
Amuse yourself for a moment and think of a person you find disgusting. I don’t mean “disgusting” as in someone who picks his nose, forgets deodorant, or farts in a college classroom accidently, but someone who really violates, in an important way, what you believe are the rules of correctness, the rules of human decency. This person should be someone who values what you think is evil or praises what you deem inappropriate. Someone who you believe is character flawed.
Immediately, I assume, many of you will gravitate towards the stereotypes: murderers, rapists, junkies, hookers, thieves, fornicators, you know the rest. Maybe some of you were a little more thoughtful and specific: in politics, maybe you thought of pro-choice/gay marriage activists; in religion, it might have been anyone who doesn’t belong to yours; in art, perhaps it was your friend who watches R-rated movies, plays only “mature-rated” video games, or reads and enjoys books on Charles Manson or the anarchist cookbook. Whoever you have in mind, I will label him for the purpose of this thought experiment as the “R-rated person.”
I want you now to think about your R-rated person very carefully and I want you to imagine yourself standing as his attorney before a tribunal of eager judges who desire to imprison him for his R-rated crimes. The sentence, should you fail to get him off, will involve not steel but social prison. Your client will be socially ostracized from society and barred from feeling the affections of his friends and neighbors.
While you may find him guilty on all charges and even disagree with his lifestyle, you have been asked to defend him in a court of law, to dig up his past, learn why he’s flawed, why he behaves as he does, and present his case as justly as possible. How will you defend him? What will you say to establish his innocence? Really focus on your R-rated person, put him on trial and ask yourself: what evidence would I need to stir compassion for him within myself and those who seek justice?
There is a tension—mostly healthy—within contemporary Mormonism. Mormons both want to be distinctive and to find full acceptance within American society. Striking that balance has proven difficult. For the most part, Mormons have been distinguished by their distinctiveness.
Internally, this distinctiveness fosters vitality within Mormonism. Mormons participate at high rates in their faith and take care of their own. This is a religious group that, in many ways, resembles a tightknit ethnic group.
But, externally, this distinctiveness comes at a price.
Nonetheless, I hold that Mormons—and the whole country—will be better off for having this national conversation about Mormonism. Increased exposure means short-term pain but a long-term gain in greater understanding and knowledge about the Mormon faith. Other religions have gone from the fringes to the mainstream—Catholicism and Judaism most notably—and there is no reason why the same can’t be true for Mormons as well.
There are hints that Mormons themselves sense the potential for greater acceptance of their religion. The Pew survey finds that 63 percent of Mormons believe Americans are becoming more likely to see Mormons as mainstream, including 70 percent of the most religiously committed Mormons.
However, if Mormons do meet with greater acceptance, it raises an important question. Does a place in the mainstream mean sacrificing distinctiveness? And if so, would diminished distinctiveness threaten Mormonism’s vitality?
spider-womannn said: But, existence is so raw, so lovely. I think to merely exist is enough, that creating a reality is like taking the blue pill. I suppose picking a reality is a bold move, but I see existence as something so pure, when you exist, you need nothing else.
———————————————————
There’s something romantic about the kind of pure existence you’re describing, like reverting back to a time when people were closer to nature and each other and not surrounded by digital screens. Things were less manufactured, more “raw” in those days, and I agree—it is lovely. But I would also say there’s a difference between existing and living. “To merely exist” is not enough for me because the very phrase brings to mind someone who’s bored, perhaps dehumanized. It’s too easy to just exist. Anyone can do it and often without effort; but, to live, and live deeply, is wonderfully hard. Living implies that you’re not just existing but that you’re making something of your existence; you’re moving somewhere both with purpose in mind yet not forgetting to enjoy the journey along the way.
(DMS)
A friend of mine believes that reality cannot be changed, that it sets limits on human ingenuity. In our conversation we thought of several examples: fire burns, planets orbit, tides ebb and flow, gravity gives weight to objects, etc. These kinds of things don’t give a damn about our thoughts; they seem to represent things as they are in spite of our wishes, values, attitudes, and preferences about them.
While I entertained my friend’s view, I told him that I believed reality could be changed; that in fact by believing passionately in what does not exist we create it. We thought of some examples like aircrafts, photographs, computers, BCI’s—these things used to be dismissed as mere fictions, things extant only in myths and fairytales. Now they’re the premiere products of science and are things that cause us to be discreet when ruling out of court, beyond serious discourse, a wide range of uplifting images, thoughts and wonders, once assumed too irrational to be real.
With these two differing but credible views of reality, I began to think that it might prove helpful to distinguish between reality and existence.
For the sake of semantics, I find my friend’s view to lean more towards a kind of bare-bones definition of what “existence” has always meant to me. Existence is the broad, unchanging, eternal canvas from which humans paint the drama of their lives. You cannot alter existence by sheer whim, but you can learn about its constituent parts and elements, correctly identify how those pieces fit together; manipulate them, poetisize them, and even use them creatively to build your own kingdom, your own reality.
I see “reality” as more of a social construct. It is the dazzling, dreamy dimension of existence that is impossible without intelligent observers. Take away intelligence and you have only existence—something that is godless, barren, and silent. Reality is contingent upon you and me, and so if I had to coin a maxim it’d be that reality is the product of dreams, existence is nothing but what it is.
But who cares about existence. Who cares about a world without intelligence. Existence is only meaningful to the extent that intelligence can use it to create reality, and hopefully a heavenly one too. I’m not saying we shouldn’t learn to correctly identify existence, only that existence means nothing unless, for us, it can yield a flourishing reality.
My friend and I are right about reality when we define what we mean. Reality is changing and unchanging, transforming and unforgiving, subjective and objective, artistic and scientific. But in my view the demarcation of terms helps. You conform to existence, less you suffer, you play with reality, less you’re deemed unintelligent. There is no changing existence. There is nothing but reshaping and revising reality.
When approaching the truth of who we are, both statements are true: existence is whatever has power to constrain our thoughts; reality, in virtue of being human, is born from our thoughts as we dream unseen, unspeakable fictions into existence.
IMPOSTURE
[noun]
1. the action or practice of imposing fraudulently upon others.
2. deception using an assumed character, identity, or name, as by an imposter.
3. an instance or piece of fraudulent imposition.
(via theuniverseworks)