YoYo's and the Problem of Possession

A yo-yo is a simple object consisting of an axle connected to two disks, and a length of string looped around the axle. It is played by holding the free end of the string known as the handle (usually by inserting one finger in a slip knot) and allowing gravity or the force of a throw to spin the yo-yo and unwind the string (similar in functionality to a pullstring). Once the yo-yo reaches the end of the string, the rotational energy associated with the movement propels or winds the yo-yo back up as it lands comfortably back in one's hand. 

The problem with the spatiotemporal-continuity-of-yo-yo account of personal object identity is that it seems conceivable that a spatiotemporally continuous object might have different particles inhabiting it at different times and places. In this respect, the yo-yo might be one object as it leaves your hand, but return as a different object after having traveled through a given time-space-location.

Let's look to Dr. Who for some examples of personal identity without spatiotemporal continuity of body, as well as spatiotemporal continuity of body without personal identity. 

In the 1976 episode "The Hand of Fear" (the second serial of the 14th season of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who), the Doctor's enemy Eldrad goes through five bodies in six episodes: first an unseen alien in a spacecraft, then a disembodied hand, then the body of Sarah Jane Smith, then a female body made of rock and finally a male body made of rock. 

Similarly, in "New Earth" (2006), Cassandra possesses the body of both the Tennant Doctor and his companion Rose. 

The point here is that spatiotemporal discontinuity isn't essential to our conception of personal identity. In the same respect, spatiotemporal discontinuity isn't essential to our conception of personal object identity. An object need not be the same object upon returning to our hand after having traveled through any given space-time-location. 

If this little alien creatures holds onto his yo-yo and then propels it downward with the right spin so that the yo-yo returns, there is no guarantee that the yo-yo which left his hand is the same yo-yo that returns to his hand. Exactly how many particles (that make up the yo-yo) have changed is unknown without measurement, but this suggests that when the yo-yo returns, spatiotemporal continuity isn't part of the concept of personal object identity, so personal object identity isn't a matter of spatiotemporal continuity. 

What Moves Forward

If I understand quantum mechanics correctly - which, of course, I'm sure I do not - quantum particles, the stuff under all the turtles, is essentially the "stuff" from which we all are fashioned. If these particles cannot be destroyed, then, theoretically, the particles that belong to each and every one of us, will simply transition from particles held in our current material combination (i.e., you or me) into free floating or wave surfing particles when we're done with this particular material configuration... forever rejuvenating in a Dr. Who'vian like multiverse. 

The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a "multiverse" composed of mostly independent parallel universes.

The crucial question here is "Why?" While the physics of rejuvenation is not entirely difficult to wrap one's mind around, there still remains an unanswered metaphysical question: "Why something and not nothing?" and, as it is the subject of this post: "What moves forward?"

For most people, it would appear that this rejuvenation process destroys the majority of the particles associated with self-identity, short- and long-term memory, and conscious awareness. However, what about those individuals whose particles align in a fashion from which spontaneous Dr. Who'vian like recollection occurs? 

"Doctor?" To which he haughtily replies: "You were expecting someone else?" 

This article is not being written for quantum theorists ... they are far too busy reading science articles. This article is for those individuals who surf Internet fodder to entertain themselves whilst waiting in a dentist office, waiting for their wives to finally emerge from the bedroom in time for date night, or just plain waiting or not having anything better to do with their time but surf around the Internet for non-bizarre tales, like this one. 

Enough of that ... let's move on. 

For me, life itself is funny. The fact that we exist is funny. The whole wikepedian thing is funny. And all that funniness causes me to ask questions, the kind of questions we philosophers recognize as philosophical. 

With that being said, and assuming your brain hasn't yet been seized by a Pop-Up ad, upon which you clicked and are now shopping on Amazon, let's continue. Let's jump off Max's planck and hypothesize just exactly where particles go.

If we are held in a mostly closed multiverse (with a tiny leak), then hypothetically, these particles don't go far, at least not initially. They would have to travel from one space to another space (or at least that's what my linear brain tells me). But let's expand our mindset and presume that these particles could simultaneously appear, disappear, and reappear anywhere or nowhere, depending on the theory you embrace, they might be inclined to do one of the following: 

1. Gather enough needed particles to rejuvenate into the same but differently configured material being
2. Find themselves in a bad neighborhood of the multiverse and quickly need to rejuvenate, suddenly finding themselves rejuvenating into a stop sign or alarm clock. 
3. Travel around the multiverse until they have gathered enough of their old particle buddies and rejuvenate again in an amalgam-like, previously constructed material configuration fashion.

Wherever, whenever our quantum particles travel, they are sure to be encoded with every memory, thought, and/or sensation we have ever experienced. Like Dr. Who, each material manifestation or "new" incarnation might come with its own set of physiological problems, such as the Fifth Doctor's gas allergy ("The Caves of Androzani"). 

The question of who or what moves forward was initially a joke that is now occupying my philosophical brain. For some time I was of the opinion that there was enough "stuff" in the material multiverse(s) that we didn't need to recycle our component parts, but for the last couple of years I have begun rethinking that idea. 

Examining Eastern Mythology, Western Philosophy, Quantum Mechanics, and a splattering of other lesser known metaphysical theories, I have come to same conclusion that I have come to time and time again: that we cannot know. 

That's when things get funny. Our serious attitudes, our knowing, our believing, our professing, our arguing over who's right and who's wrong, over which direction is up and which direction is down, over how things should or should not be... this is the fodder for good jokes, but not necessarily for good philosophizing, the kind that allows one to question without being attached to the answers. "The questions themselves are the answers we seek," I wrote in a poem twenty-some-odd years ago. 

With nothing more to add on this subject this morning, here's some cool Dr. Who pics for your brain: the amalgam that it is 

Casper the Friendly Ghost and the Notion of Existence

Casper the Friendly Ghost is that cute little ghost-child who lives with the gluttonous ghostly trio (Stretch, Stinky, and Fatso) who enjoy scaring the living. Casper, however, is a pacifist, a nonconformist among ghosts: he prefers to make friends with people. 

There are a number of stories as to how Casper became a ghost (he went sledding all day and caught pneumonia or he was born to ghost parents), but one thing that is consistent is that Casper is, indeed, a good-natured, friendly ghost. 

Casper is thoughtful. He tries to understand others, is open-minded, and has a sense of connection with everyone. Casper is open to new ideas, believes that what he needs comes to him, considers everyone to be his teachers, and is guided by an inner wisdom: love. 

Western civilization is founded on the belief system that spirit and matter are separate and distinct. The Earth is treated as an inanimate object to use at our own discretion, science examines the world rationally and methodically, and corporations are built to enhance their economic prowess.

Just as Casper, who enjoys interacting with the living, exists on the fringes of the spiritual world, so, too, do people who give spirituality a high priority exist on the fringe of society. While some attitudes, such as Casper's, can lead to unity or wholeness (between the spirit and material worlds), other attitudes can lead to a contradiction steeped in dualistic thinking: material existence is here, spiritual existence is there.

All existence lies everywhere, irrespective the form it takes. What Casper teaches us is that wherever we are at any given moment in space-time-location, we exist ... and what best to do with our existence than spend it creating, enjoying the company of others, and learning about both our inner and outer worlds as much as we can. 

The petty concerns that occupy the bulk of our waking life need not distract us from the notion that we exist, plain and simple. Self-identity (our careers, our physical appearance, our attainment of wealth, knowledge, or privilege), as we see with Casper's example, persists beyond the material world, it can drive us to scare the living or interact with them in harmony and from a place of good-will. 

The Ghostly Trio, like many of the living, focus on the mythos of separation that supports the belief that we are disconnected from the source from which we came, that between us and the origin of our existence is an great big emptiness, delegating our existence to the ordinary rather than extraordinary. The mere fact that we exist - that anything exists - is what is extraordinary. 

Considering existence as a whole rather than separate parts according to our tendency to compartmentalize existence makes existing easier. This concept has nothing to do with the notion known as "spirituality" nor does it advocate any given "religious" doctrine, it is merely a logical, rational thought stemming from the act of observation. 

How can a flower bloom without roots? Who planted the seeds? Perhaps the answer to these and similar questions is that there is nothing but existence. 

Whatever the answer, an aspect of our present existence is sensory awareness. This awareness allows us to perceive of our own existence. In this perception, we can choose to hold onto notions of separation and division so that we can put everything, including ourselves, into nice little boxes, independent of one another and/or grouped together by likeness, or we can simply acknowledge that we all exist, that all of "this" exists, and that existence, irrespective the form, is all there is. 

There is a nourishing aspect to this conclusion that connects us to the entirety of existence rather than to the ground (i.e., our bodies, our lifestyle, our hopes, aspirations, talents, needs, desires, etc.). It isn't about renouncing all worldly pursuits in order to pursue or obtain enlightenment, we need not cloister ourselves off from the world to be closer to the world (i.e., the notion of a creator), we need not seek to transcend the body and become nothing but light (though, admittedly, that possibility exists in a world of seemingly endless existence possibilities), all we need do is allow ourselves to be ... and from that, explore existence. 

Psychologically speaking, there are challenges associated with the notion of being connected to everything and everyone. In this vein, the burdens of others instantly become our own and the happiness of others is no longer something envied ... it is celebrated. 

We need not find or invent a creator, we need not seek to unravel the mysteries of the universe (as our ability to do so is limited by human perception), and we need not limit our minds to the particular energetic or material combination that makes up our own very existence. All we need do is be. 

To be or not to be is indeed, as Shakespeare wrote for Hamlet to contemplate, the question. Whether we can not be in a world where everything is ... is an interesting question upon which to philosophize, but even in not being we somehow exist, even if only conceptually. 

Each day people think of those who are "no longer with us" ... each day people conceive of creators (who go by different names) ... each day people conceive of cartoon characters (Casper, for example) ... none of these things exist until they are in our minds, in our perceptions, in our own inner realities. 

Whether the so-called spiritual world is empty or full, purposeful or existing without purpose or direction, all we can know is that we exist, and in that existence we can see what we choose: connection or negation, ghosts, Pokémon, angels, fairies, scientific insights, etc. 

Becoming aware of our own existence reminds us that we all exist in a world of existence. There is no here or there, there is only existence.

How Very Antediluvian

Every generation speaks of change. Every generation prides themselves on being different from their predecessors: more advanced, smarter, and wiser in every conceivable way. As these same individuals advance in age, the forward-looking aspect of self-identity via progress can sometimes take an opposite course and reverse itself back toward stick-in-the-mud-ism. 

Instead of looking toward the new, individuals begin holding on for dear life to the past. Expressions such as "in the old days" or "when I was a kid" take the place of "Look at that! (in reference to something new). Isn't that extraordinary?!" Culturalisms such as "How very English" or "How French" roll off the tongue as if intended to make one feel better about oneself for the simple fact that one belongs somewhere in a vastly changing world. 

Referencing the weather, for example, as being "very Scottish" or "English" is a form of self-deprecating humor when one is Scottish or English. However, if one is from the United States, Africa, or Sweden, for example, one feels excluded. At best, culturalisms are an antediluvian form of excluding others by referencing one's own participation in a specific group. 

While this is not uncommon, it is not necessarily progressive. Expressing oneself via culturalisms does not speak to the progressive nature of a modern society focused on dissolving outdated mindsets. True, the majority of the world prides themselves on "belonging" to one group or another, to one culture or another, to one gender or another, to one time period or another, but if one wishes to become a Citizen of the World, or better yet, a Citizen of Existence, it is important to shift one's self-identity from one's environment toward a higher purpose: progress. 

It is difficult to progress when one cannot adjust to changes in the world. The English or Scottish are not the only ones who must contend with large amounts of rainfall. Take a trip to the Tavoy, Myanmar, Kikori, Papua New Guinea, Henderson Lake, British Columbia, Andogoya, Colombia, Waialeale, USA (Hawaii), or Mawsynram or Cherrapunji, India, and you'll soon find out that the English do not have a monopoly on rainy weather. 

For those who consider the croissant to be "Oh so very French" ... the Kipferl, ancestor of the croissant, has been documented in Austria as going back to at least the 13th century. In fact, the "birth" of the croissant itself - that is the adaptation of the plainer form of Kipferl, before the invention of Viennoiserie - can be dated to 1838 (or 1839), when an Austrian artillery officer, August Zang, founded a Viennese bakery ("Boulangerie Viennoise") at 92, rue de Richelieu in Paris.  

There are hundreds of examples of "Oh so very..." something or another having their roots in cultures other than those to which they are associated. The fact that attitudes or foods become associated with any given culture is again an example of individuals wishing to exclude others or of wishing to belong to something rather than being content in the notion that every being is part of a grander concept called existence.

It is a very antediluvian mindset that cannot embrace the totality of existence without classifying people and things into categories. While it is a rational activity to sort and classify objects according to their classes or genus, it is dangerous to treat people in the same way. Look around the world for examples of peoples fighting over cultural identity as proof of the validity of this statement. 

On the news this morning I listened to how the Supreme Court is backing Michigan on Affirmative Action in higher education. Rather than deem one perspective right or wrong, I wondered to myself why we still live in a world focused on separation when we claim we are focused on progress and innovation. If we wish to be honest with ourselves, do we not all have the same origin? 

In reality, people are arguing over random cut-off dates associated with early migration patterns of our common species, which is, of course, in and of itself utterly ridiculous. Instead of solving problems, adhering to random moments in the history of existence propagates problems. (Some may claim knowledge or faith in a specific origin, but until that is proven, these are only personal beliefs.) 

When a comedian makes a cultural joke, often times it is made in jest, making fun of those who believe or act in one way or another. The difficulty with this type of joking is that the concepts proliferate to a point when common society can no longer differentiate between a joke and real life. 

I do not foresee antediluvian notions of culturalism changing any time soon so long as people hold onto antediluvian values, but I need not participate in it. In our personal household, we incorporate a number of global niceties associated with a myriad of environmental origins. Rather than refer to our preference for a larger midday meal rather than "dinner" or "supper" as being "Very Mexican" we recognize that many people around the world, including people living in Mexico, prefer to eat their main meal in the afternoon and lighter fare in the evening for health purposes. Rather than refer to our love of cheese as being "Very French" we pride ourselves on understanding the cheese-making process and on being familiar with the fact that cheese predates recorded history. (The origin of cheese-making can be traced to Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Sahara. According to Pliny the Elder, cheese-making had already become a sophisticated enterprise by the time ancient Rome came into being.) 

Our existence is far grander than limitations imposed upon it by present-day borders and limited mindsets. I would like to think that I am not a minority in my thinking that we are all beings born to the same planet and in appreciation of existence should not be focused on our differences or even our similarities, but rather on our two most important goals in life: sustenance and progress - the result of both leads to an increase in global happiness (as well as in things not yet even conceived or imagined). 

Kamikaze Bunnies and Easter

The origin of Kamikaze Bunnies is a work in progress. Every generation has to make sense of their past for itself. The facts may stay the same, but the work of interpretation goes on and on. This brief post glimpses at the cutting edge of this process. Culled from eyewitness accounts and hearsay, it is an authentic voice of our generation's viewpoint on the nature and meaning of Kamikaze Bunnies. 

I have taken the liberty of weaving their cute little tales into a more-or-less coherent fabric, but the words and Easter-egg bullets belong to them. The spelling might be avant-garde and the logic experimental, at best, but no one can fault me because I do not ascribe to the notion of fault - so there! 

At its best, this post illustrates the ingenious and often comic ways we all attempt to make sense of information we cannot understand because we have no context or frame of reference for it - either that, or we've never seen or heard of Kamikaze Bunnies, in which case I'd have ask: Where in the world have you been hiding... in a rabbit hole somewhere?

One source for this post has been the work of my own blog because I have mentioned these little critters before. The bulk of the raw material comes from after having juiced far too many carrots this morning on account of it being Easter. 

Kamikaze Bunnies: early 17th century (originally used as a term of endearment for one's beloved who embarks upon a Kamikaze mission, later a pet name for rabbits who exhibit an extraordinary appetite for the flesh of carrots).

Bible legend states that the trouble with Kamikaze Bunnies started after a rabbit ate the Golden Carrot of Discord. This was the forbidding vegetable, the naughty cultivated feathery-leaved plant of parsley that yields Kamikaze Bunnies. A miffed God sent forth his wrath. Bunnies fell from the space of grace. It was mostly downhill skiing from there. 

Prebunnyhistory, a subject mainly studied by bunnypologists, was prior to the year 1500. When bunnies were not available the people ate carrots. Social division of labour began when a tribe would split into hunters and Easter worshipers. Crow Magnum man had a special affinity for this. Advances were most common during the inter-rabbitic periods. 

Early carrot agriculture was known as "hide and seek." One origin of hiding Easter eggs, according to Kamikaze-Bunny-ologists was worry about hungry little critters eating up all the carrot flowers during the months of June to August. The umbels made tasty treats and hence early humans began hiding them from pesky varmints who insisted that the bright white and rounded flowers were Oh so delish! 

We are fortunate that early Kamikaze Bunnies were there to guard the crops. 

Stories of Kamikaze Bunnies woozing out of the Nile about 300,000 years ago lead to legends whereby the Nile was supposedly originally filled to the brim with Kamikaze Bunnies. It is true, according to Kamikaze-Bunny-ologists, the Nile was a river, it had water in it, and every year it would flood. Whether Kamikaze Bunnies emerged from it is still a matter of heated debate. 

The Sumerian Kamikaze Bunnies, which are reportedly the oldest known Kamikaze Bunnies, began about 3,500 years before Christmas, which is why Easter is way more important than Christmas and Easter Bunnies way more important that some guy who may or may not live in the North Pole, which of course, is somewhere in the South Pole. 

Eventually, Kamikazee Bunnies were allowed democratic freedoms like hiding eggs one day per year, blowing them up so that they could post cool YouTube videos in the hopes of going viral, and taking an egg for an egg and a chocolate bunny for a chocolate bunny. 

One totally bizarre tale associated with Kamikaze Bunny lore is that of King Nebodresser, a man who loved to dress up as the Easter Bunny and hand deliver eggs to his subjects. According to some Kamikaze-Bunny-ologists, he hung the eggs in his gardens. 

Hammurabi was a Kamikaze Bunny lawyer who lived a very long time ago. He defended Kamikaze Bunnies against the onslaught of Kamikaze Bunny persecution. He held his hands over his mouth with three eggs as a sign of prayer to the Kamikaze Bunnies. This became known as the Eggs of Hammurabi. 

Zorro-kamikaze-bunny-ogism was founded by a Kamikaze Bunny named Zorro. According to legend, he was allergic to carrots, which is why he did not celebrate Easter. Following in this tradition, current day Zorro-kamikaze-bunny-ologists study Easter but they do not partake of Easter candies or carrots in honor of Zorro, the father of Zorro-kamikaze-bunny-ism. Instead they eat Protest Bunny cakes. 

Freshly baked 'Bunny Protest Cake'

The history of Kamikaze Bunnies, as you can see, is convoluted and totally farcical, but if you would like to know more about Kamikaze Bunnies, their origin, or their belief systems, you can take up the totally made-up, as are all notions of examination, science of Kamikaze-bunny-ism and compare notes with Zorro-kamikaze-bunny-ologists and see what else you can make up on the subject. 

Happy Easter!

What's For Dinner?

In Plato's (427-327 BCE) Apology, Socrates is brought to trial for: (1) impiety (false teachings about the gods) and (2) corrupting the youth of Athens. Whether or not Socrates could have won his case is less important than what was conveyed that fateful day: That it is easier to push aside that which we do not realize is beneficial than it is to sit down and think about the merits of any given opportunity. 

Take dinner with a toddler, for example. 

Not recognizing that the carrots and broccoli are beneficial for her, this little girl pushes her mother's hand away, just as the jury pushed Socrates away from Athens. Socrates refused to be something he was not, he refused to leave his beloved Athens, and he refused to conform to the social norms of an ignorant society just to appease them. In similar fashion, carrots and broccoli refuse to become sugar coated ideals of vegetables, making themselves more savory to palates who do not recognize value unless it is sugar coated or prepackaged according to their ever-changing, flippant ideals. 

Socrates: You say you have discovered the one who corrupts them, namely me, and you bring me here and accuse me to the jury ... All the Athenians, it seems, make the young into fine good men, except me, and I alone corrupt them. Is that what you mean? 

Meletus: That is most definitely what I mean. 

Socrates: You condemn me to a greater misfortune. Tell me: does this also apply to horses do you think? That all men improve them and one individual corrupts them? Or is quite the contrary true, one individual is able to improve them, or very few, namely the horse breeders, whereas the majority, if they have horses and use them, corrupt them? Is that not the case, Meletus, both with horses and all other animals? ... It would be a happy state of affairs if only one person corrupted our youth, while the others improved them. You have made it sufficiently obvious, Meletus, that you have never had any concern for our youth; you show your indifference clearly; that you have given no thought to the subjects about which you bring me to trial. (Apology)

Socrates' use of the analogy with horse training highlights the illogical the accusations against him. However, to illuminate a concept for those who cannot see just blinds rather than shinning forth a light toward a direction in which one might embark upon a lifetime journey of leguminous understanding. Since only a few good trainers improve them (Athen's youth), so too is it likely that only a few individuals will truly relish the merits associated with eating vegetables (vegetarians excluded). 

Like exercising virtue, eating vegetables involves sitting in front of a plate of veggies (jurors) and recognizing that vegetables require no defense, no apology, no justification beyond what they are: beneficial to our health and well-being. 

What is the moral of this post? 

Not eating one's vegetables is akin to drinking hemlock, which according to some sources is not as tasty as a plate full of carrots and broccoli. 

The Bothersome Question of Existence

Existence bothers me. I question whether it is morally appropriate to laugh about life when we don't know a thing about how it really came about.

(Sure, we can speculate and formulate, and pinpoint moments back to the Big Bang, but how is it that at first there was nothing and then it blew up ??

Who blew up the nothing?

Thankfully, Existence bothers other people even more. Unafraid to lampoon the extremists fanatics associated with any social, political, ethical, economic, or religious viewpoint, Existence is the most important topic in the world.

The fact of the matter is that people who think they have a "corner on truth" need to have their head examined.

After all, people's perceptions of truth are just that, perceptions, and it's OK to examine them. What some people say about Existence is not anything new, but I think it is something interesting to consider. Ask any number of people about the meaning of life via the phenomena known as "existence" and you'll get a zillion different answers (yes, a zillion). What about the people in the middle who think about these questions but offer no answers? Where do we put them? 

Part of being a philosopher means never holding any belief so sacred that we are never, ever willing to dress up in Superhero costumes... *ahem, I mean, never, ever willing to doubt it - or laugh at it - or blog about laughing at it. In other words, we need a healthy dose of skepticism (even if you're an optimist) about any belief, and this is one of the most important lessons that Existence, along with philosophy, teaches us. 

Are YOU bothered by Existence? More importantly, are you bothered by the real life *&^%$#@! people, events, and situations that Existence  throws at us? 

I have to admit, I've been turned off of Existence by certain hostile actions or insensitivity shown to a person or group. But I must also admit that there is value in existing, if only to have the opportunity to think about stuff. 

You see Existence, just like philosophy, is misunderstood. People think that Existence is all about shock value for the sake of some other being who created all this Existence in the first place in the same way that they think that philosophy is all about thinking about Existence for the sake of thinking about useless ideas that cannot be solved. Nothing could be further than the truth. 

Believe it or not, the goal of both Existence and philosophy is to give people something to do with their "existence" ... which makes Existence a whole lot more fun and interesting. Just like people ask questions about who they should marry, what they should become, and how they should live, Existence, on occasion, begs us to question the bothersome question of why exist vs. not exist at all. 

Is there a choice in the matter? In some ways, yes. We can choose to unexist in corporeal form, but whether we persist in our "existence", well, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe we cannot unexist ourselves. I mean, think about it, if Existence exists, and we are held in that Existence, whether we are breathing or not, it doesn't seem like we're going anywhere "outside" of Existence. Maybe Existence  is all there is... 

If Existence is all there is... Do we have an obligation to exist? What are the laws (other than physics) governing Existence? Can we break them? Are certain forms of Existence truly better than others? Did we sign up for Existence? Did someone create us and place us in their Existence? Are we such things, as Shakespeare says, that dreams are made of? 

Can we censor Existence? 

Can we boycott Existence? 

Can we protest Existence? 

The author of this blog is bothered by Existence in a good way. This blog has given the author a platform upon which philosophical reflection can be presented ... and then, like the Big Bang, blown up and made incomprehensible. 

Why, you ask? 

For giggles... 

By the time you get through reading this blog post you should have formulated a few bothersome questions about Existence of your own.

Such as ...

Why think about Existence? 

Is Existence funny? 

Is Existence serious?

Must we Exist?

What should one do if one finds oneself in a state of Existence?

What should one think about Existence?

Can we unexist ourselves?

Would we want to unexist ourselves?

Does the Easter Bunny Exist?

Does Santa Exist and, if yes, does he have to file for Obamacare?

If I make up a ridiculous story about Existence, how many people will believe it?

What does nonexistence look like?

Where did Existence come from?

What language does Existence speak?

Does Existence have a personality?

Does Existence like everything about itself?

Does Existence ask questions? 

Does Existence have a choice in existing?

Is human questioning a form of Existence questioning its own "existence"?

What can we learn from questioning Existence?

Why do some beings Exist seemingly just to annoy other beings?

If we are all part of Existence, why must we have conflict?

Does Existence dream?

Are we the dream of Existence?

If we are the dream of Existence, why does it hurt when we stub our toe?

Does Elvis still Exist?

That's enough questions on the bothersome matter of Existence for one day. Now, I'll go back to my daily life Existence and wrestle the controversial topic of "What's for dinner?" a question everyone asks, and yet few can provide satisfactory answers for ...