Translation is a 5-step process of “straight thinking in the abstract” comparing and contrasting what seems to be truth with what you can syllogistically, axiomatically and mathematically (using word equations) prove is the truth. It is not an effort to change, alter or heal anything other than our consciousness.
The claims in a Translation should be outrageous and mind-blowing, but they are always (or should always be) based on self-evident syllogistic reasoning. Here is my Translation from this week.
1) Truth is that which is so. That which is not truth is not so. Therefore Truth is all that is. Truth being all is therefore total, therefore whole, therefore complete, therefore all-inclusive, therefore otherless, therefore one, therefore united, therefore harmonious. i think therefore I am. Since I am and since Truth is all that is, I cannot be anything other than all that is, therefore the beingness of me is Truth. Since there is no being without consciousness of it, therefore Truth is Consciousness.
2) I expected my doctors to comfort me. Instead they made things worse.
Word-tracking: expect: to anticipate beforehand doctor: teacher, scholar, teacher of religious doctrine, professor, docile, teachable, willing to be taught docile: easily taught comfort: assure assure: cure, to take care of, accurate accurate: to take care cataract: to break down, to smite, to dash down worse: to entangle, mix up, confuse
3) Truth being consciousness is therefore knowing. Truth being knowing, cannot at the same time be unknowing or confusion. Therefore Truth is clarity of thought. Truth being all that is there can be no expectation of anything but Truth. Therefore Truth is the expectation of Truth. Truth being all-knowing doesn’t really require a doctor or a teacher to show the way. Therefore Truth is the way. Truth being otherless, cannot be struck down, or stricken down. Therefore Truth stands unopposed. Truth being true is therefore accurate, therefore careful, therefore assuring. Therefore Truth assures Itself.
4) Truth is clarity of thought. Truth is the expectation of Truth. Truth is the way. Truth stands unopposed. Truth assures Itself.
5) Truth is the expectation of Self-evident clarity of thought.
Or, if you have taken Translation class, join us each Saturday for Translation Saturday Meeting at 11 a.m. Pacific time for current, up-to-the-minute Translations on the issues of the day. Email zonta1111@aol.com for the Zoom link.
In a crisis — any crisis — The Prosperos offers Translation. Translation Saturday Meetings is a weekly series of Translation presentations by veteran Translators, live and up to date on the issues of the day.
It is not a Translation workshop, It is not a Translation class. It is not a group Translation in the usual sense, though group participation is encouraged.
It is, however, restricted to those who have taken Translation class. So if you have never taken Translation class, check the calendar tab on The Prosperos website (TheProsperos.org) or get in touch with us and we will schedule a class.
Last week our sense testimony was: SOBOE. Shortness of breath on exertion may relate to restrictions as a kid. And our conclusion was: Truth is the freedom of effortless, confident inspiration.
Popular Philosophy May 17, 2026 Can reason still be trusted after Rousseau’s critique of modernity? Or must reason first learn its own limits? In this episode we turn to Immanuel Kant and the philosophical revolution that reshaped modern thought. After Rousseau exposed the possibility that progress, civilization, and rationality may corrupt rather than liberate humanity, Kant attempts to rescue reason by redefining what it can and cannot know. Rather than abandoning Enlightenment thought, Kant transforms it from within. We explore the three Critiques and the tensions that drive them. In the *Critique of Pure Reason*, Kant argues that the human mind actively structures experience and that we can never know reality entirely independent of ourselves. In the *Critique of Practical Reason*, he develops a conception of freedom grounded in moral autonomy. And in the *Critique of Judgment*, Kant confronts the problem of organism, purposiveness, and reflective judgment, opening the door to later continental philosophy and German Idealism. This episode also shows why Kant becomes the essential bridge between Rousseau and Hegel. By placing limits within reason itself while also emphasizing the active role of subjectivity, Kant creates the philosophical tensions that later thinkers would radicalize. The questions of freedom, history, unity, and meaning begin to transform philosophy into something entirely new. In this video we explore: • Kant’s “Copernican Revolution” in philosophy • The limits of knowledge and the distinction between phenomena and noumena • Freedom, autonomy, and the moral law • Reflective judgment and teleology in the Third Critique • Kant’s influence on continental philosophy and German Idealism • Why Kant becomes the foundation for Hegel’s philosophy This episode continues our journey through the origins of continental philosophy and prepares the way for the next major turning point in modern thought: Hegel and dialectical philosophy. Works Cited: Primary Sources Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Secondary Sources Allison, Henry E. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Allison, Henry E. Kant’s Theory of Freedom. Pippin, Robert B. Idealism as Modernism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Immanuel Kant.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Immanuel Kant.” Longuenesse, Béatrice. Kant and the Capacity to Judge.
New Thinking Allowed with Jeffrey Mishlove May 21, 2026 Edward Hoffman is a licensed psychologist and has been an adjunct associate professor at Yeshiva University in New York City for more than 20 years. An award-winning author, his books include Paths to Happiness, The Wisdom of Maimonides, and The Kabbalah Reader. His books have been translated into more than a dozen languages. His newest book is Lamed Vav and the Power of Mystical Kindness: Awakening to the Presence of the 36 Hidden Messengers. Edward discusses the Jewish mystical tradition of the Lammed Vav — the 36 hidden righteous individuals whose compassion and kindness spiritually sustain the world. Drawing from Kabbalah, folklore, Hasidic teachings, and psychology, he explores how ordinary acts of empathy, storytelling, dreams, and joy may carry profound transformative power. Hoffman also examines the influence of figures such as the Baal Shem Tov, the Zohar, and Martin Buber, suggesting that hidden spiritual wisdom often appears through humble people and everyday encounters. 00:00:00 Introduction 00:03:43 Hidden righteous souls 00:08:20 Meaning of the number 36 00:12:23 Kindness in ordinary life 00:18:39 Compassion beyond religion 00:23:21 Mysticism and the Zohar 00:27:21 The Baal Shem Tov 00:31:10 Joy, healing, and helping others 00:38:27 Midrash and sacred storytelling 00:53:31 Conclusion New Thinking Allowed host, Jeffrey Mishlove, PhD, is author of The Roots of Consciousness, Psi Development Systems, and The PK Man. Between 1986 and 2002 he hosted and co-produced the original Thinking Allowed public television series. He is the recipient of the only doctoral diploma in “parapsychology” ever awarded by an accredited university (University of California, Berkeley, 1980). He is also the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 Bigelow Institute essay competition regarding the best evidence for survival of human consciousness after permanent bodily death. He is Co-Director of Parapsychology Education at the California Institute for Human Science. (Recorded on Thursday, April 30, 2026)
An amazing piece of work … Timely and beautifully written’ Bessel van der Kolk, author of The Body Keeps the Score ‘Clearly articulated science … illuminating‘ Gabor Maté, author of When the Body Says No _______________________________________________________________________ As a society, we push aside stories of remarkable recovery which don’t fit our paradigm of one cause, one cure.
In the history of medicine, we have almost never used the tools of rigorous science to investigate remarkable recoveries from incurable illnesses. But, Dr Jeff Rediger, a world-leading Harvard medic, psychiatrist and theologian, has spent the last fifteen years studying thousands of individuals from around the world and examining the stories behind these extraordinary cases of spontaneous remission.
From retiree Claire, diagnosed with a violent form of pancreatic cancer and given weeks to live, to 23-year-old Matt, given a 2 per cent chance of surviving a lethal brain tumour. Both rejected chemotherapy and radiation, and went home to try to prepare themselves for acceptance and a peaceful death. Both are alive over a decade later, their bodies absent of all tumours.
Dr Rediger doesn’t classify people like Claire or Matt as ‘flukes’ or ‘outliers’ but has analysed what they – and thousands of others – have done to cure themselves and reveals the common denominators of people who have beaten the odds, unlocking the secrets behind the mind-body connection and discovering the immense power of the immune system.
Oakley and colleagues (2021) suggest that a classic scale – HGSHS:A, aiming to measure hypnotic suggestibility – can be used to measure direct verbal suggestibility (DVS). According to the authors, DVS is a trait that can be measured both with and without hypnosis. I find this initiative highly welcome. However, I wish to give several examples why it is time to develop entirely new scales instead. Rather than trying to explain more phenomena with a single scale or concept, researchers should take a cue from research that points to a far more nuanced picture of suggestibility than a construct like DVS allows. There may be no single, unified phenomenon that can be measured with a single scale. The old, time-tested scales should be treated neither as sacred nor final. They require up-to-date, critical analysis of what exactly they measure, with an eye to how they can be further improved.
The Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility Form A (HGSHS:A, Shor & Orne, 1962) has, for almost 60 years, been used as the initial (and still often the only) test when recruiting participants for hypnosis experiments. It has been translated into a number of languages; the latest norms for its use in the United Kingdom were published in 2020 (Oakley et al., 2020). The scale has had an enormous impact on what researchers in the field and participants in hypnosis experiments think that hypnosis is. Despite its ongoing popularity, HGSHS:A has been criticized (e.g., Woody, 1997). Also Acunzo and Terhune (Acunzo & Terhune, Preprint) discuss several of its shortcomings, along with those of other, similar contemporary measures of hypnotic suggestibility: e.g., having binary scoring and single-trial sampling (see also Kirsch et al., 2011).
My comment is two-fold. I will mainly focus on the problems with how the HGSHS:A instructs participants to respond to suggestions along with the kinds of suggestions it includes. Oakley, Walsh, Mehta, Halligan, and Deeley (2021) propose some changes to HGSHS:A; however, at the end of this comment I will point out why these changes do not fix the problems.
Organizational access
Get full-text access by signing in with your organisation
By the end of the 19th Century, researchers (e.g., Binet, 1900) had started becoming interested in suggestibility more generally: i.e., without connection to hypnosis. That interest has continued and grown. Gheorghiu et al. (1989) are typical in concluding that the phenomenon of suggestibility finds applications across many areas, including medicine (e.g., via the placebo effect), education, psychotherapy, and marketing.
Unfortunately, too few devices are available to measure waking.
Defining core terms
“Suggestion” has been defined in many ways (for a review, see Gheorghiu, 1989). The following three definitions give an idea of what is meant while revealing why further clarification is sorely needed. McDougall (1908, p. 100) defines “suggestion” as “…a process of communication resulting in the acceptance with conviction of the communicated proposition in the absence of logically adequate grounds for its acceptance”. Sidis (1898) defines “suggestion” as an intrusive idea1
The evolution of HGSHS:A
Development of the currently available scales such as HGSHS:A began in the late 1950s when Andre Weitzenhoffer and Ernst Hilgard developed metrics for hypnotic susceptibility. Their research culminated in the development of three scales in particular, known as the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Forms A and B (SHSS:A, SHSS:B, Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959) and the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Form C (SHSS:C, Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1962). These scales were largely based on
Problems with HGSHS:A
The first problem with HGSHS:A is that the instructions for responding to suggestions are quite ambiguous. In the beginning of the induction, participants are asked to test how it feels to respond to suggestions when not hypnotized (pp. 4–5):
As you know, thinking of a movement and making a movement are closely related. Soon after you think of your head falling forward you will experience a tendency to make the movement.
Several suggestions of the head falling forward are given so that
Conclusion
What has happened to suggestibility closely resembles what has happened to many other constructs in the history of science: the more researchers learn about them, the more complicated they turn out to be. Consider how the construct of memory has come to be understood as a complex cluster of memory systems, some of them working independently of each other (e.g., Bower, 2000).
I have taken up many concerns that I have regarding the Harvard scale in its current form. While noting similar concerns,
Acknowledgements
This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. I wish to thank Joel Parthemore and Oskar MacGregor for commenting on the manuscript.
Acunzo, D. J., & Terhune, D. B. (Preprint). A critical review of standardized measures of hypnotic suggestibility.…
M. Andersen et al.Predictive minds in Ouija board sessionsPhenomenology and Cognitive Sciences(2019)
A. BinetLa Suggestibilité(1900)
G.H. BowerA brief history of memory research
P.G. BowersUnderstanding reports of nonvolitionBehavioral and Brain Sciences(1986)
P.G. Bowers et al.The experience of hypnotic suggestionsInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis(1988)
R.P. Easton et al.An experimental analysis of the Chevreul Pendulum IllusionThe Journal of General Psychology(1976)
H.J. EysenckIs suggestibility?
Eysenc, H. J., Arnold, W. J. & Meili, R. (1975) Encyclopedia of psychology: Volume two L to Z. Bungay, Suffolk:…
H.J. Eysenck et al.Primary and secondary suggestibility: An experimental and statistical studyJournal of Experimental Psychology(1945)
J.W. Friedlander et al.The depth of hypnosisJournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology(1938)
V.A. GheorghiuThe development of research on suggestibility: Critical considerations
E.R. HilgardHypnotic susceptibility(1965)
E.R. HilgardSuggestibility and suggestions as related to hypnosis
E.R. HilgardHypnotic susceptibility scales under attack: An examination of Weitzenhoffer’s criticismsInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis(1981)
E.R. Hilgard et al.A tailored SHSS:C, permitting user modification for special purposesInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis(1979)
C.L. HullHypnosis and Suggestibility: An Experimental Approach(1933)
S. Kallio et al.Hypnotic phenomena and altered states of consciousness: A multilevel framework of description and explanationContemporary Hypnosis(2003)
S. Kallio et al.Seeing blue as red: A hypnotic suggestion can alter visual awareness of colorsInternational Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis(2016)
S. Kallio et al.Synaesthesia-type associations and perceptual changes induced by hypnotic suggestionScientific Reports(2017)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.
This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.
Wednesday, May 20, 2026 (DailyKos.com)
Still valid after all these decades
The LBJ quote in the title image was alledgedly said to his press secretary Bill Moyers in a hotel room in Tennessee while on a campaigning in 1960. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Moyers veracity.
Flash forward 60+ years later. In an article on the website Alternet, a research study posted in Sage Journals shows the following:
Research reveals that white people appear to support social safety net programs unless they perceive those programs as also helping nonwhites…“This effect only appears when people compare their political standing directly to that of racial minorities…
While it is nice to have scientific verification of something I believed since I first read that LBJ quote, it is still somewhat disheartening. Again the article:
…in many developed nations, high levels of income inequality usually lead to increased public demand for these programs…the U.S. is different in this regard…University of Delaware scientists Sumeyye Mine Iltekin Gocer and Joanne M. Miller learned…that hostility to safety net programs appears to be…primarily with White people — even those in poverty — because they fear the programs give nonwhites a boost.
Or to use the less technical version, we can not have nice things (h/t Digby). 1/3rd of our fellow Americans would rather be poor and homeless because they would be force to share with Persons of Color. As Chris Hayes argued on his program All In, T*ump’s base, approximately 37% of the voting population, is effectively “holding the rest of the country hostage”.
It is insane, but it is also reality. All this talk about the price of groceries and gasoline, important as they are, do not even come close to the hatred that White Nationalist feel toward minorities. Whether it is the soft version by gerrymandering black voters or the direct action of shooting up an Islamic Mosque, the results are the same: fear of the other. And that fear permeates a large portion of the voting public, even as they swear on a stack of (insert religlious or secular book) that they are not prejudice.
As we approach the mid-terms, we should never lose sight of this. The election of President Obama has shown that if economic conditions are bad enough and the Candidate has the ability to talk to people, White resentment can be temporarily overcome.
But it will not be eliminated in my lifetime.
Google AI Overview
University of Delaware political scientists Sumeyye Mine Iltekin Gocer and Joanne M. Miller published a study exploring how White Americans’ feelings of political loss shape their economic and racial policy preferences. The research found that when White Americans perceive themselves as losing out to racial minorities in the political arena, they become significantly more likely to oppose wealth redistribution and public welfare programs. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key details of the research include:
The Framing Effect: White respondents who felt their group was losing in politics were less supportive of general welfare, but only when the survey explicitly compared their economic standing to non-White demographic groups.
Spiteful Policy Views: When these cross-racial comparisons were made, these “loser” perceptions drove White respondents to oppose both general economic redistribution (programs to reduce the gap between rich and poor) and targeted policies (programs specifically aimed at reducing disparities between White people and minorities).
Independence of Bias: The researchers found that this behavioral pattern held true regardless of the respondent’s income, employment status, political ideology, or underlying racial attitudes.
Implications: The authors link their findings to the rise of right-wing populist movements and white protectionism, suggesting that political messaging often weaponizes feelings of relative deprivation to sway public policy. [1, 2, 3]
The full study, “White Americans’ ‘loser’ perceptions and redistributive policy preferences in the United States,” is available on the SAGE Journals platform. [1, 3]
“White Americans’ ‘loser’ perceptions and redistributive policy …Mar 5, 2026 — Specifically, we find that whites who perceive themselves to be on the losing side of politics are more likely to oppose governmen…Sage Journals
White Americans oppose federal programs to spite other races: studyMay 20, 2026 — Both groups were then asked to rate their support for two specific types of economic proposals, reports PsyPost. “The first was an…PressReader
“White Americans’ ‘loser’ perceptions and redistributive policy …Mar 6, 2026 — “White Americans’ ‘loser’ perceptions and redistributive policy preferences” – Sumeyye Mine Iltekin Gocer, Joanne M. Miller, 2026.Sage Journals
“Everything can be taken from a human being but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
Victor Frankl (1905 – 1997) Austrian Psychologist
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DAILY REFLECTION BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE SCHOOL OF PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
ARIES (March 21-April 19): If you’re a professional photographer, now is an ideal moment to invest in the higher-end lens you know would expand your best work. If you’re a committed chef, it’s a perfect time to spring for a precision knife set that elevates your craft. If you’re a devoted yoga or meditation teacher preparing a new series, you might decide to purchase an upgraded sound system to share your vocal offerings more crisply. And if you are none of the above, consider this your sign to obtain a key instrument or tool that will help you move to the next level of professionalism in the work you’re called to do.
TAURUS (April 20-May 20): When we hear people described as having fertile imaginations, we may assume they are artists, writers or musicians. But the truth is that many creative visualizers are engineers, city planners, inventors and the like: those who design and build functional wonders. Of this group, you Tauruses make up a disproportionately high percentage. Your tribe is often most imaginative when vitalizing concrete details and transforming practical matters. In the coming weeks, this will be a vibrant X-factor in your relationship with the world.
GEMINI (May 21-June 20): When many people reflect on their early years, they focus on the alienation and wounds they endured. Few recall, in vivid detail, the moments of joy, triumph and breakthrough. It’s a symptom, I suppose, of our era’s compulsive cynicism, and not necessarily an accurate account of the past. So many good things happened, too! This isn’t to dismiss the real pain that shaped us in our tender years. Still, I want you to know that you are in a season when it’s essential to recognize and celebrate the blessings of your beginnings—the fun, guidance and grace that helped you flourish. Update your gratitude!
CANCER (June 21-July 22): Of all the zodiac signs, you have the most potential to cultivate robust emotional intelligence that’s helpful in practical situations. More than everyone else, your feelings are less likely to render you vulnerable and fragile and more likely to make you a powerhouse. The coming weeks will be prime time to deploy these talents to the max. I encourage you to summon gleeful exuberance as you provide your sensitive, heartful nurturing. Practice the ingenious art of keeping the world emotionally literate and spiritually alert.
LEO (July 23-Aug. 22): I am pleased to predict that you will be less egotistical and narcissistic in the coming weeks than you have ever been in your life. In saying that, I don’t mean to imply that you’re any more egotistical and narcissistic than the rest of us. I’m simply saying you can get a liberating reprieve from the excessive pride and selfishness that regularly debilitates us all. Congratulations, Leo! This grace period should enable you to deepen your attunement with your soul’s blueprint, the design of destiny you chose before birth. I bet you will enjoy a period of vibrant, exciting tranquility.
VIRGO (Aug. 23-Sept. 22): Consider this a friendly heads-up to your inner critic, your gloomy side, and any voice in your head that expects too little from life. Upcoming astrological omens are influencing me to predict a stream of auspicious omens and fortunate events. So if you’d rather cling to tired stories about not being good enough or strong enough, you might want to skip my forecasts for a while. But if you’re ready to vivify your faith in your power to eagerly create what you desire, stay tuned. Karmic blessings are coming.
LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 22): To be blunt, dear Libra, I think you need soul medicine that’s most available in frontiers, borderlands and thresholds. Some of these might be bright, shiny places, and others may be akin to mazes and tunnels. Please keep in mind that your main motivation, as you seek adventures in the outskirts, should be the quest to have fun as you blow your own mind. For the sake of your lust for life and joie de vivre, you really must explore power spots untouched by trivia and pettiness: sanctuaries where vastness, freedom and raw vitality can wash away at least some of your fixations and habits.
SCORPIO (Oct. 23-Nov. 21): Giant Pacific octopus dens are identifiable by the “gardens” of debris outside. They include shells and bones, arranged like ornamentation around the entrance. Are the creatures trying to decorate? Scientists don’t know. But it’s clear they are leaving evidence of their appetites. The result is distinctive, artistic and revealing. With this scenario as your metaphorical meditation, Scorpio, I invite you to look at what you have been pursuing and consuming in recent months. Contemplate the stuff piling up in your sphere. What do your finished experiences reveal about your quest for meaning? Does this pattern reflect your deepest intentions? Is this who you want to be? Make sure the story you’re telling about yourself is the right one.
SAGITTARIUS (Nov. 22-Dec. 21): Advising a Sagittarius to be patient is like asking a bonfire to burn slowly and politely. Still, I will give it a try. Because I love you, I will dare to be frank. So here goes: If you want to align yourself with astrological currents, practice being reverently at ease with life’s madness as you watch and wait. See if you can take genuine pleasure in resting within a field of calm trust. Imagine, with fearless delight, the rewards that will find you as you nurture a steady, unhurried confidence in your intuition, which will ultimately tell you exactly what you need to do.
CAPRICORN (Dec. 22-Jan. 19): In 1994, immunologist Polly Matzinger revolutionized her field with a radical theory. She discovered that our immune systems don’t focus on distinguishing “self” from “non-self,” but rather responding to threats. The body puts less emphasis on asking “is this me?” and more on “is this harmful?” Her breakthrough transformed our understanding of immunity, autoimmune disease and transplant rejection. According to my analysis of the astrological riddles, you Capricorns could benefit from a similar adjustment. Don’t worry about whether any particular influence harmonizes with your identity or aligns with your history. Instead, ask, “Is it nourishing or harmful? Supportive or useless?” As you refresh your approach to guarding and protecting your precious self, new options will become visible.
AQUARIUS (Jan. 20-Feb. 18): According to my interpretation of the astrological signals, you have run into an obstacle to your creative flow, or may soon do so. Though this could feel discouraging at first, I think it’s a promising sign. It indicates that a hidden bug is surfacing. An inner saboteur is no longer operating in the shadows. You’re being given the opportunity to repair an unseen energy leak that has been sapping your vitality. To illuminate this process, consider the wisdom of author Joyce Carol Oates. She says that writer’s block arises when a writer subconsciously believes that what they’re trying to create is false, misguided or harmful to themselves, which results in a temporary creative paralysis. Be brave and relentless in hunting down the glitch in your self-love, Aquarius.
PISCES (Feb. 19-March 20): Maybe you’ve been having thoughts like this: “I’m too scrambled to do what’s necessary to get unscrambled.” Here’s another snag that may be tangling your mind: “I’m too mixed up to know what questions to ask to sort out my confusion.” If this is true, Pisces, I’m here to offer advice. Imagine calling a timeout on the whole noisy world and slipping free of the habitual trance. Consider retreating to a sanctuary where time doesn’t oppress you and complications subside. Let your mind be empty, give your ambitions a rest, and immerse your tender attention in the deepest part of yourself you can find.
Homework: The most beautiful thing you’ve done? The most beautiful thing you’ll do? tinyurl.com/333×999
Consciousness, spirituality, biography, sexuality, androgyny, futurism, space, the arts, science, astrology, democracy, humor, books, movies and more
