1.  
  2. anyskin:

    Verdel - French 1912 Board Racer - 750cc 5 Cylinder Rotary - Sammy Miller Museum - UK

    (Source: facebook.com, via searchofweird)

     

  3. ludimagister:

    We, humans, receive sensory expressions, extract evidence from them, form and refine our beliefs, and then use our beliefs in simulating scenarios and regulating our behaviors. So, what then is a belief? A way of compressing information. Born out of practical necessities, not of epistemic ones. Storing the entirety of our sensory expressions throughout our lives and processing the entire archive at any given moment in order to regulate our behavior was infeasible because of the computational and storage limitations of our limited brains; so evolution invented “belief.” Beliefs, thus, are not to be evaluated in relation to “truth,” but in relation to what information they contain and what prediction they can make.

     

  4. "He who jumps into the void owes no explanation to those who stand and watch."
     

  5. "The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."
    — H.L. Mencken (via laliberty)

    (via libertariantaoist)

     
  6. nellucnhoj:

    What do you see?

    Tumblr TwitterFacebookBuy my book

     
  7. lileks:

    That’s right, Tom! Laid a coil like a firehose, thanks to Bran. And you thought it was sex! Ho ho. No, it was the confident, steady, effortless evacuation of my bowels. Let me tell you more! As soon as I put on my special “Bran-Chat Slippers.”

     
  8. fossilbird:

    blondeisawesome:

    A wave viewed from underwater

    waaa

    (via chiarc-morn)

     

  9. "Let me explain a little about suppression of evidence. What I am talking about here is not some conspiracy to suppress truth. Instead, I am talking about something that historians of science and philosophers of science have understood for a long time, namely that theoretical preconceptions often influence how scientists respond to evidence. I call this process “knowledge filtration.”

    Evidence that conforms to a dominant theory passes through this intellectual filter very easily, but evidence that radically contradicts a dominant theory is filtered out. The scientists who are doing the filtering do not think that they are deliberately suppressing true evidence, which if known would cause people to reject their theory. Instead they think they are just being responsible scientists, ignoring evidence, which to them seems like it could not possibly be true."
    — Michael Cremo
     
  10. (Source: apanelofanalysts, via rrrick)

     

  11. "Albert Camus wrote that the only serious question is whether to kill yourself or not.
    Tom Robbins wrote that the only serious question is whether time has a beginning and an end.
    Camus clearly got up on the wrong side of bed, and Robbins must have forgotten to set the alarm.
    There is only one serious question. And that is: Who knows how to make love stay?
    Answer me that and I will tell you whether or not to kill yourself"
    — Tom Robbins, Still Life With Woodpecker (via thegirlwiththelittlecurl)

    (Source: writingwillows, via writingwhateveridk)

     

  12. "For language to have meaning there must be intervals of silence somewhere, to divide word from word and utterance from utterance. He who retires into silence does not necessarily hate language. Perhaps it is love and respect for language which imposes silence upon him."
    — Thomas Merton, “Disputed Questions” (via mirroir)

    (Source: litverve, via movieonyoureyelids)

     
  13. (Source: johnnythehorse, via rrrick)

     

  14. "Attributing dissent to personality disorders is hardly an American invention. Soviet dissidents were routinely institutionalized in psychological hospitals, and Chinese dissidents are still often forcibly treated for mental illness. There are obvious reasons for launching personal attacks on critics of the status quo. As noted, one is to render the critic less effective: few people want to align themselves with someone crazy or weird. Another is deterrence: when dissidents are cast out of society and demeaned as emotionally imbalanced, others are given a strong incentive not to become one.

    But the key motive is logical necessity. For guardians of the status quo, there is nothing genuinely or fundamentally wrong with the prevailing order and its dominant institutions, which are viewed as just. Therefore, anyone claiming otherwise—especially someone sufficiently motivated by that belief to take radical action—must, by definition, be emotionally unstable and psychologically disabled.

    Put another way, there are, broadly speaking, two choices: obedience to institutional authority or radical dissent from it. The first is a sane and valid choice only if the second is crazy and illegitimate. For defenders of the status quo, mere correlation between mental illness and radical opposition to prevailing orthodoxy is insufficient. Radical dissent is evidence, even proof, of a severe personality disorder."
    — Glenn Greenwald — No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA and the Surveillance State (via antigovernmentextremist)

    (via libertariantaoist)

     

  15. "Expecting a romantic partner to be fully satisfactory doesn’t just damage existing marriages, it can preempt them. A person who assumes that their spouse should fit seamlessly into his or her life may pass up several good partners while waiting for the perfect one.

    In the meantime, they’ll be missing out on the best part of marriage—the presence of a partner in the ongoing project of becoming better versions of yourself. The spouse you pick shouldn’t be the one who makes you happiest, but the one who makes you more kind, prudent, and generous, and to whom you can give the same gift. You join to grow, not to accommodate the desires of your present self."