3.14159 Things You Can Always Depend On
They make up money, they make up burritos, they make up sex, they make up dogs, they make up drugs, they even make up the internet.
By 
Kara Crabb
1. Infinity
Remember in elementary school when you first realized that you couldn’t stop counting? Where did that magic disappear to?
Oh, the possibilities within that childlike wonder! How ignorance belittles us into the opposite–a great feeling of magnitude. What are we next to this infinite world? Nothing! NOTHINNNGGG.
How many stars? How many songs? How many lightyears until the end of the universe? What is beyond the end of the universe? (Astrophysicists now have an ~inkling~ that at the end of the universe is… THE BEGINNING OF ANOTHER UNIVERSE.) When does it ever stop? In the words of the great 21st century philosopher, a truly progressive intellectual, I quote, “We can’t stop. We won’t stop.” (M.R. Cyrus, 2013.)
2. Molecules
Wow. What would we ever do without molecules? Molecules make up all of my favourite things in the world. They make up money, they make up burritos, they make up sex, they make up dogs, they make up drugs, they even make up the internet.
Actually, now that I think about it, MOLECULES are my favourite things in the world.
Remember when your dad left for a pack of cigarettes and never came back? Molecules would never do that.
Nope, molecules are a stand-up dude through and through. You could call molecules the poster-child for dependability. (Except, isn’t it weird that electrons can disappear and reappear if ever they so please?) From what I can tell, being materialistic (literally) will never let you down.
Go forth, be material, be molecular, be physically apparent.
3. Your ego
Okay, is this one ever tricky or what? It’s located somewhere behind your eyes and in front of your spine. It recognizes your body as an object to differentiate itself from the rest of the world, and when you die so does it.
Progressively as neuroscience matures, the concept of “ego” distances further away from the realm of philosophy and situates itself comfortably within the jurisdiction of physiology, making it easier for people to discern from mysticism and science (or perhaps, marrying the two in perfect synchronicity.) Is that too much? Is that too controversial? It shouldn’t be???
Modules (or more specifically, fibre pathways) underpinning the concept of your physical self are located more near the back of the brain, whereas those referring to the abstract self are located more toward the front- and this is where higher cognitive function in general likes to hang out. If problems arise in the physiology of your sense of self, like for example, a giant tumour begins to grow in your ventromedial cortex, or a bus runs over face, then you won’t really be “there” in the first place and so you won’t know the difference between being alive or not anyway. Isn’t it nice to know that you will always be there for you? (Emphasis on “you.”)
(I’m also ignoring the plethora of possible temporal connectivity disruptions, making the psychological arrow all loopy, as within Alzheimer’s or schizophrenia or a good psychedelic trip, in which case, you’re sort of _________ for a while, but does that really count? Does this mean the theme is now broken? Is everything a lie? Yes? Yes.) 
