There is a quote in particular I would like to share with you. It is from a 2001 Linklater film: Waking Life. 1. The quest is obviously your willingness to live your life and you want to be freed from the negatives that sporadically arise in your existence. Ok he starts off good. In life or the "quest" of life from the eternal void of nothingless, which often happens there exists many ways to be liberated from negatives that they come across in everyday occurence. For example, the media can paint a bad painting on things and pass it off as progess. This could be considered of the Iraqi war on terrorism. Lives our lost daily but the news correspondents and the White House continue to belive progress for Democracy in Iraq is being accomplished. But, we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world. The government and media are passive observers. Anyway back on the topic at hand. The idea is that this man is false in my opinion. He fails at the last sentence. The second last sentence or the 'set-up' sentence is: "It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit." By saying this I think he is concluding or de-concluding that saying a 'yes' to one instant or a 'no' to another will manipulate our lives entirely. I can come up with a counterexample that won't follow this hypotheisis. 1)By saying a 'yes' or a 'no' to an instant doesn't mean we "ruin" our lives from the negative, maybe it just means we are set off course or a manipulation happens that are conscious "says" is the right option or opinion. By setting up affirmations in no way means that no limit will be met. Then he follows by saying, "To say yes to one instant, is to say yes to all of existence." I think we do have control over the future, for example, I'm atheist and I don't believe in what I call "chess-fate" I belive the decisions we make dictate the way our lifestyle gives in return. By saying 'no' to one instant or 'yes' to another doesn't mean we 'alter' our lives entirely, just manipulates it and set's it off course. This conclusion he made doesn't really fit into life. Unless of course nuclear weapons comes into the equation, thus the decision he made wouldn't fit any other instance. You can make a judgment that will ruin your life, and this is by killing yourself. But otherwise for those two instances no other conclusion I can think of by saying 'yes' would make a 'chain of affirmations' to life, itself. Even so, even introducting nuclear holocaust weapons in the system doesn't mean we change or evolutionize the "instant" of our existence. You can make 'bad' decisions that affect your life in some way plausible but a burst of affirmations that knows no limit is ridiculous. Here's an analogy for you: Ok, when a religious person often sins - they go to confession and pray for forgiveness, by doing this they "think" or "believe" that they've commited a 'sin' and got rid of it by confessing that they were wrong to do so. Thus they believe the sin is uplifted from their sould and washed way by Gods judgment. My washed away example plays into this by saying and disrupting this mans philosophy. By doing this, all based on opinion, saying a 'yes' or 'no' to an instance doesn't change your life -- only sets you off course, I then give two examples in which a way that this 'yes' or 'no' analogy could ultimately play in the roll on how your "life" turns out. By either a) You commiting suicide or b) a nuclear holocaust. I then, say that the nuclear holocaust can't be done by a 'yes' or 'no' from one person, but has to be done by many. So my theory still stands in agreement with my purpose. Comments? Agreements? Arguments? Venting?