| Author | Message | ||
     TOE_? |
After all your contemplations, what do you think of the following? #1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe? #2. Have we in the 'simple universe' idea stumbled upon a TOE? #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe? "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." -- Quote Albert Einstein Write what you will, if you will. This is an open ended question from Humancafe. Humancafe - Eds | ||
| Aatman |
#1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe? Yes, the Hindu concept of Brhaman thinks so. http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/beliefs/brahman.htm "The Upanishads describe Brahman as "the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change." (2) Brahman is the source of all things and is in all things; it is the Self (atman) of all living beings." If the universe is filled with life, then it is a living entity infinitely in both Brahman and atman. #2. Have we in the 'simple universe' idea stumbled upon a TOE? Perhaps, but it is odd that the universal constant G for gravity first postulated by Newton, and adhered to by Einstein until present times, was never refuted. A variable G idea is tempting if it in fact unites the basic forces (Standard model) and explains better what is observed astronomically such as brown dwarfs and neutron stars. But is the Pioneer Anomaly enough to call for it? http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/6/23.html#POST300 Are the gas giants of the solar system really evidence of higher G holding their extreme massive atmospheres? The case can be made that since a universal constant G was used in all orbital calculations of mass, there could not have been a way to catch our error, especially since different masses (per different G) would still act the same in acceleration (as Galileo proved long ago) so we did not know the difference. The only exception was orbital gravity assist anomalies and the Pioneers, so we really had no way of knowing if G was a universal constant as assumed. We simply assumed it was and that was that. However, and this is potentially big, if G proves to be variable in some consistent way vis-a-vis the radiational energy where it is measured, then its variability can connect to the other three forces, and that makes it fit. If it is so, then the simple universe idea also fits. #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe? A concept of God can be either personal or impersonal for us, so the Hindu God (One) is an impersonal "Being in itself". But this Being as "atman" can also be a personal god for every being alive in it. An "atheistic" God can exist only on the impersonal level, like a secular God in name only, "In God we trust," but not in a truly religious sense. Religion focusses on God as a personal experience of the spirit with rituals to better understand that relationship. In a simple universe idea, both the religious God and secular/atheistic God can exist side by side. In the end, it is our choice (atman). “Water is life's mater and matrix, mother and medium. There is no life without water.” - Albert Szent-Gyorgyi http://thinkexist.com/quotes/albert_szent-gyorgyi/ I heard a Hindu priest say "The universe is full of water, and water is life, so the universe is a living thing," as proof even scientists can accept as true, that "God is" no matter what your belief. Aatman | ||
| Son of Brahma |
Love, and You Win. Oh Sons of Brahma! The beauty you see in your brothers and sisters is the beauty in yourself; same as the beauty they see in you is already the beauty in them. Their beauty, in their eyes, their voice, the face, limbs, their smile and sereneness is the beauty of all living things through the whole universe of Life. When you see them with beauty, they see you with living beauty, so nothing of death can enter you. And so you win, in this life and for all living things. You win in God. Oh sons of ape! The lusts you feel in your heart are material in spirit, that drive you to steal or lie in ambush, to take by force what is not yours. Your divinity is blackened by your thieving actions, your beauty darkened by lies, by causing pain in others, in all living things. In your eyes you see the world darkly, lust for what is not yours, you fail in the beauty of the living universe. This failure is your loss in this life, and all lives near you, so even the beauty of the animal is lost in you. You are lost in God. Oh children of Man! The love in your heart is not lust but the beauty of all creations of Life, all living things. Cherish this love for all things; from your heart flows Life spirit transcendent. Restrain the lust and find the beauty of your love, and the world of Life will open its heart to you. Love, and you will bask in the love of all living things about you. Love, and you will cheat death, you will win in God. -- In answer to #1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe? and #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe? -- not a religious God, but a universal One, of Love. | ||
| Pilgrim |
Pilgrim's voyage to a new world --- a non-religious "religion" for a secular moral society. (for #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe?) What does religion, or God, bring to our lives? Today we no longer believe the simple "truths" of the religions of our ancestors and question everything, rightly. But we cannot ignore with doubt the moral framework religion gave us. And while we no longer believe in blind obedience to what ancients believed in their superstitious good and evils, we still maintain principles of morality adhered to by modern societies in their 'liberal' tendencies of justice, or right and wrong. Society on a larger scale could not exist without this. When our Pilgrim forefathers came to these shores, they brought with them a hard moral code based on the Christian church (conservative reformed) beliefs of the time, of temperance, hard work, hard justice, and hard piety and sacrifice in the name of God. This was how they built their civilization out of the wilderness, which was a hard life and their morality reflected it. Today that wilderness exists little, or no more, rather we are hoping to preserve what is left of it for future generations, and the foundations of our Pilgrim fathers exist mostly in vestiges of modern sensibilities of justice and right laws, or right living. But what are these right laws of morality reduced to, in final analysis? The modern Liberal 'atheistic God' of moral values is no longer subject to a strict hard code of Puritan morality, though from such a moral base our nation was built, but comes from a softer set of conditions that all citizens of society have more or less accepted as just and morally right. They are on the whole mainly this: 1) Reciprocity, of do onto others as you would have them do onto you, also called the Golden Rule. 2) Equality, that we are equal in each other's eyes and before the law, regardless of race or origin. 3) Tolerance, where our differences are not condemned but even celebrated. 4) Subjective morality, where what you believe is true for you is true, though it may not be true for any other person, as long as your belief does not damage the other. (This is a very modern idea which allows a person to grow.) 5) Punishment commensurate with the crime, not brutal and unusual to the destruction of the perpetrator of the crime, where capital punishment is largely eliminated or restricted. 6) Universality, that what liberates one person or group is equally valid for all others, and what enslaves is equally invalid for all. 7) Truthfulness, where we are true to ourselves and to others, both in word and deed. 8) Freedom, that we are allowed to be in our lives how we will as long as we allow the same for others. (A modern idea of the Golden Rule.) Such ideas are not entirely new, since they existed just below the surface of most world religions, given the Golden Rule. What is new is that these principles had been stripped of their religious overtones, or over cloaks of "God", and distilled simply down to their pure essence, the Universality of Truthfulness and Freedom and Equality. These are now the sum principles of modern liberal ideas of morality, of a moral code without invoking a religious concept but deferring to scientific achievements, more secular in nature; believing in the sanctity of the individual before a greater universal reality than had ever been understood by our ancestral religions, a reality based on scientific discovery and validations. The new Pilgrims of morality are those who act and believe in a liberal moral code regardless of whether they believe in God. Whether or not "God exists" by default becomes entirely a personal, subjective moral choice, one that may not be imposed upon any other person. This is a very modern idea, and one perhaps that our Pilgrim forefathers had never envisioned. Yet, this idea had built the greatest and freest nation on Earth. And for that we must be truly thankful. Happy Thanks Giving. Pilgrim | ||
| Ivan |
Good words, Pilgrim, well said. There is every reason to be awed by the human condition in a Simple Universe, and every reason to be awed by our place in it, as stated above our "atman" within "Brahman". If I were to add one principle to your list of "commandments" above, it would be this: 9) Personal responsibility, where each person carries the responsibility of their actions in relation to existence, and all living creatures within it. This dove tails into our earlier "Opus Rex" idea, that certain things are in and of themselves inalienable to our existence as human beings, even a morality without God. These principles of existence exist independent of us, of our objective and subjective reason, but are a reason universally unto themselves. We are not mere spectators in such a universe, but also active participants in it. This is an extremely rich gift from our Universe to us, the gift of fulfilling Consciousness. God bless. | ||
| Hesperado |
Ivan, Forgive the off-topic question, but were you a participant in the "Examined Life" philosophy discussion forum from years ago? And if so, do you remember that infamous participant named "Anonymous" who also went by the name "Andrew" and a few other names -- and if so, have you ever seen him since? I was a frequent participant of that forum, going by the name "Dr. Pepper" and a few other nicknames. Thanks | ||
| Ivan/ |
Dr. Pepper! Thanks for stopping by, Hesperado. I did a quick word search on Humancafe forums and found your first entry on discussion "Dialogue with a Muslim", going back some years. This led to some good and heated discussion (but where did you go?); but it having steered away from the original intent of Humancafe, a world collective of ideas reduced down to sound universal, philosophical principle; we retired it when the discussions went too far into the problems of Islam's current manifestations (and confrontations with the world through their Jihad). We then decided the discussions lost sight of the bigger picture, especially as it applies to raising world human consciousness, through a too narrow focus on Jihad. Once the at times contentious "dialogues" were systemized into universal principles, the narrow focus of Jihad was deemed restricted and redundant on this site (best handled by sites dedicate to battle such tour de force discussions), so here focussed instead on universal notions of human interactions and philosophical notions of cosmological reality. The final product of that may be "The Universe is Simple" anthology -- continued here. We eventually retired Mohideen's line of thought, with regrets, since he was very informative in his own way. What remains, now that Humancafe is officially "closed" (read only), is these PostScripts, to which all are welcome. But where did you go?  About Andrew or "Anonymous" at the Examined Life Journal, I can't recall the poster. I had stopped going to that site years ago when Mitch Hodges shut it down, but I think it is now reopened again at "The Examined Life On-Line Philosophy Journal", which requires a login. Hope all is well, most welcome to stop by again. Thanks. Ivan | ||
| Hesperado |
Thanks Ivan, I had dimly remembered that "dialogue with a Muslim" from years ago here, but for the most part forgot about it. I hesitate now to even click on the link you provided, lest I become ensnared in following labyrinthine sophistry that only tends to infuriate and lead to ulcers and aneurysms -- Islam-apologist sophistry I have seen, and become entangled in, a thousand times since then. At the time, I was fairly green about this whole issue, though even then I sensed what was likely to be ahead if I stuck around to dig into a "dialogue" with a canny Muslim who would inevitably trot out all the interlocking "arguments" of his Apologetics -- which back then I hadn't even begun to analyze as I have in years since. When I left my brief dip into Humancafe back then, I went on to continue to participate more and more in the comments fields of Jihad Watch and Front Page, and soon after that, when I learned about the curious slaughter of a Christian Coptic family in New Jersey coincident with their heated participation in some vocal chat venue called "Paltalk", I looked into it, and found quite a few Islam-critical chat rooms there, which I went on to participate in rather intensively, and even created a few rooms of my own where lots of debate -- productive and not-so productive -- was sparked between Muslims and non-Muslims. Another thing I've done over the past few years is create a blog, called The Hesperado. I started it in June of 2006, and have written about 300 essays on it, the last one a couple of weeks ago (it's not a daily blog like some, more a place for me to pen more thoughtful analyses that take me time to think about and research). From your brief description of your time at Examined Life, it sounds like you must have missed the long period during which "Anonymous" was most active. I had participated in Examined Life for many years, fairly continuously, I believe beginning in the late 90s. From my admittedly vague recollection, it went through at least three phases, and I believe the phase you allude to, "when Mitch Hodges shut it down" was followed by its reincarnation under some other guy whose name I can't remember, I believe a guy out of the UK whose bio boasted of being a regular runner or jogger. At any rate, if your allusion refers to the last time Examined Life was "shut down", it doesn't seem to gel with my memory and one fact: 1) for it was during at least two years prior to that time that "Anonymous" was quite active -- right up to the very end (he also wrote under other pseudonyms, but all the regulars knew who he was) 2) since that last time, there has been no discussion forum at Examined Life, only a "Journal" website where no discussion or comments at all can be posted. Just a couple of the mischevious deeds of "Anonymous" I could cite out of many, perhaps you remember: 1) For a few months, he disguised himself as a female librarian from Liepzig and embroiled himself in many amazingly complex philosophical arguments with other commenters -- when he finally admitted it had all been a sham, he caused quite a stir, and a whole new discussion was generated all about that. 2) Later, some members suspected he pretended to be a learned female Muslim from Pakistan or Bangladesh, posting a couple of long complex comments defending Islam. Beyond that, Anonymous and I got into frequent tangles about the problem of Islam -- he, needless to say, seeing no problem at all. Anyway, thanks for reading all this, and thanks for responding. I hope all is well. | ||
| Ivan/Hesperado |
Ah yes, 'taqiyya' and 'kitman' - 'war is deception' - and posing an impostor, concepts now better understood by many thanks to JW and Mr Spencer et al. I will look in on The Hesperado. Thanks, Ivan | ||
| Pulling taffy |
In a Simple Universe, the Kingdom of God administration is secular, not religious. (This is in answer to: #3. Is God a non-religious idea, even 'atheistic' idea, in a Simple Universe?)
The Abrahamic faiths have a tradition of the Kingdom of God on Earth. Perhaps the best, most modern example of this is the Baha'i Faith directive(*), as a reformed off shoot of Islam (making it the fourth Abrahamic faith), where the primary work of the followers is to bring in on Earth a God administration, a world order as defined by Baha'ullah and the founders of the faith. This is accomplished by doing good works and prayer, by shunning political involvement with non-religious (non-Baha'i) administration of government, by following the precepts and tenets of the Faith, and by instituting administration of world government based on the moral teachings of the founders, including racial unity, compulsory universal education, equality of the sexes, elimination of extreme poverty (and wealth), a universal language, and a culture of cooperation and discussion rather than competition and confrontation. The idea behind this movement, laudable that it is, is that the whole world eventually submit to this form of religious and moral administration to bring God's Kingdom on Earth through our human actions and right beliefs. Failure to follow these precepts requires moral correction and, in the worst case, shunning by the followers for heresy. Contrast this with our Secular beliefs and administration of government, where separation of "church and state", meaning no religion can dominate our constitutional government; where the moral foundations of our secular society rest in equality and reciprocity, innocence unless tried by law and proven guilty, equality of gender (without restriction on what "gender" means), freedom of choice within limits of the law, private faith and belief unfettered by law, a scientific approach to inquiry and problem solving, economic freedoms; and non-discrimination for our beliefs as long as our actions led by these beliefs do not infringe upon the rights of others (through violence, fraud, deceit, and in other ways intentionally hurtful to others), where all persons are equally protected by the law from such infringements. This form of government administration (followed by most modern democratic societies) is representative in structure, where political involvement is encouraged for citizen voters to participate in. Such a system of governance in society, based on the separation of religion from the constitutional laws of government, is universal for all societies regardless of their belief systems and ideologies, whether or not of the Abrahamic faiths traditions, and solely based on the principles of just and fair government equally for all. Failure to obey the laws will cause legal prosecution, but not of a "moral" nature, rather of a social nature to "re-educate" the perpetrator with personal restriction or fines, or therapy, rather than shunning and cruel punishments (cutting off of hands and feet, stoning to death, or threats of imagined punishments in the afterlife), so the wrong doer is encouraged to once again become a full member of society. There is no "heresy" under our secular freedoms of thought. When 'secular religion' is politicized - Daniel Greenfield This secularized administration of government contrasts with the religious administration in that there is no stigma attached to how one conducts oneself in life as long as a "Golden Rule" applies, that we do not restrict others from their conduct as long as it does not infringe upon us, and society structures itself not according to some master plan (of God or man), but as the collective aggregate of humanity manifests itself in society. Contrast where religion, in particularly the Abrahamic faiths, demands that we obey certain rules of the faith, whether dietary, obligatory prayers, rules regulating many aspects of personal life, a priesthood dictating right from wrong; in effect, where a person's life is managed and prescribed, or proscribed, by the religious rules and dogmas of the faith, or be punished. Man, as a universal being, must conform to these rules or be ostracized by the believers, and possibly punished or banished, even punished unto death. To do "God's Kingdom" in this faith based social environment means one must pull along with the other members to bring about a religious administration according to the rules and precepts of the faith, to make this Kingdom a reality on Earth. Contrast this with a Secular world, where no such demand is made on humanity, but instead is a grass roots principle of reciprocacity in our natural freedoms. But this does not mean the same goals cannot be achieved; rather, it means there is a better way to achieve the same goals without the heavy over-structure of the Abhrahamic faiths.  The main difference between the two ideologies of world government, one religious the other secular, is that where the religious "pushes" man to act according to prescribed tenets of how God's Kingdom is to become reality, to work towards that administratively (social rules of conduct and beliefs) as well as personally (fasting, prayer, right morality, etc.), the whole basis for this action is to do God's work on Earth. Whereas, the Secular option is to give human freedom a chance to create an equitable and just administration of world government, so once in effect each person "pulls" in the greater social structures from the (God's Kingdom) Universe through their personal life and existence, naturally. Think of the difference between a surfer pushing his board into the waves, versus one being pulled by the forces of the wind over the waves; it is something like that. Or in Tai Chi Chih there is a motion called "pulling the taffy" where the motions are not to push, but to pull in the energy of the universe. The goal of a Secular world order is not to push on a string to create God's Kingdom on Earth, but rather to establish a just and equitably fair system of governance, a constitutional and democratic administered government, from which all human beings can draw their own strengths and talents to bring about the best in themselves, and in the aggregate to bring about the best of humanity in our world order, by agreement rather than conflict. That is what "pulling" in God's Kingdom would mean, where each human being is automatically working towards this goal without having to be coerced into doing so, or excluded from it because of their personal beliefs. The drawback and serious flaw of the Abrahamic faiths, even the most advanced versions (such as Baha'i) is that they "push" human beings into being a certain morally prescribed identity, ignoring that human identity is already given by God naturally; and thus forcing or coercing human beings to negate what they already got from their natural state. (This is a subtle coercion because on the surface it appears to have all the same qualities as the secular, cooperation and agreements, but beneath the surface lurks the reality that one must believe as told, or be out of the imagined Kingdom.) Religion is like a manmade exoskeleton, whereas human spirituality is more like an organic skeleton connecting us to the infinite. There is no mystery to allowing humanity find its best. Keep humans from doing harm to themselves and each other, and they naturally rise to the surface of their greater being (in God) to consciously shine as creations of a vast living natural Universe. This is a reversal of traditional religious ideology: where it is not man defining God, but God defining man. That is the Kingdom, but we are not yet there. In such a world order, where the Kingdom of God forms naturally, prayer for each man and woman, and child, is naturally how they live and breathe. There are no rules to which they must be obedient, or submissive, or otherwise failing they will be punished. That is not how God's Kingdom works. Rather, it works on elevating each human being to their best potential, their natural excellence, where we interact on principles of cooperation and agreements, not through force and coercions. All religions already know this, that the best of humanity is to be our very best morally personally, individually accountable of our own free will. This is as true of the Abrahamic faiths as it is of all other world religions: we know the best of humanity is in their freedom to become the best they can be. Where the religious failures occur is that the "interpretations" of how this best is achieved become the same coercive process that disengages the best in humanity. We cannot be at our best when pushed into it; our best humanity is when we pull it in from the Universe, a loving and joyful world, of our own free will. In a Simple Universe, this is naturally how we are. Religion may be no more than an early, primitive form of philosophy. First with spirits and gods, then consolidated into one God, and ultimately rationalized into universal philosophy, it was our efforts to bring comprehension to the whole of existence and our part in it. But it is not the future. We all have a natural spirituality built in, it is hard wired in us. What organized religion did was tap into this natural spirituality and leached into it to control it. However, this control often ended in undermining what is natural and free in our spirituality to control us to its own political ends (to consolidate its monopoly power under ‘One God’ supremacy). While using our highest aspirations natural to us, it brought in its place the machinations of imposing its own agendas, which unfortunately often distanced us from our natural spirituality with fear and punishments to make us obey its agenda. This was wrong. Standing on a philosophical mount and surveying all of humanity below, in a simple natural universe, it is easy to see how theocratic power over us in time will diminish, and have new ideas ultimately better define Who we are as free and natural beings. That is how "God" rules on Earth, because only in our conscious, human freedom are we free to do His will. See also: Natural Universalism The Messiah Paradox Original Guilt? Is the universe conscious? *(Individual Rights and Freedoms—The Universal House of Justice This is Universal House of Justice response on questions of liberty: On Baha'i Liberty - Reform Bahai Faith) | ||
| Macro-microbial Life |
Microbial life may be the key to macro-multicellular life. (This is in answer to #1. Do you think we live in a Living Universe?)    (interactive -various articles- click images) Sodium chloride crystal; bacterium cells; neuron connections We live in a macro-microbial universe where both species co-exist, though microbial life far preceded multicellular life in our world's evolution as a living planet. (See Paper: Evolution of Mammals and Their Gut Microbes, also see NewScientist article: And Life Created Continents.) There is cause to believe that life and evolution of life are all interdependent down to the microbial level. We live in a "bacterial universe", which surrounds and hugs us tightly right down to the gut level, so microbial life is symbiotically macro-multicellular life as it had been for hundreds of millions of years on Earth. Why is this important, or even interesting? The key to answering this question fits into another discussion on how life started in hot pools of crystalline clays. This unsurprisingly dovetails nicely into Wolfram's idea of "cellular automata", which theoretically can mimic life-like cell reproductions. But more importantly, it points hypothetically to a linkage interface between the crystalline world and the microbial world, though this needs a deeper explanation, a very novel idea which necessitates invoking the idea of totality "interrelationship" and correlated "emergence". This is a critical key to understanding the micro-macro life connections, that a cellular structure is both derived from its crystalline predecessor, but also is driven by it through its emergence. How can this work? The most intuitive answer is that atoms and molecules came together in some crystalline 'soup' to form the first bacterial cells, and life proceeded from there into its ultimate evolution of a brain capable of understanding this. However, that is a limited way of seeing it, since it leaves out the connections of why this happens, so in the end we are left with no explanation. A better way of understanding this is to make the connections between an 'interrelated' reality of matter, atoms and molecules, that are responsive to the macro-structure of the universe. As a 'totality' interrelationship, it in turn redefines everyone one of its constituent parts in terms of the totality macro-image of where each part fits in relation to the whole of it. In effect, this is a description of how a macro-universe 'communicates' with its constituent parts at the elemental level. Taken to the next step, this universal system of internal communications (via interrelationship) can direct life's evolutionary process through a bio-feedback mechanism involving emergent cellular DNA. However, this still leaves one more connection missing, that between the crystalline matter and micro-bacterial cellular structures: What connects cellular living matter to the macro-universal structure of atomic matter?   (interactive, click image) How old is life? And this is where Wolfram's idea of 'cellular automata' fits in, that while the elemental structure of micro-baterial matter is self-defined, it simultaneously interacts with its external existence in a specific way which makes it responsive to the universe's internal 'interrelationship' structure. The two worlds of atomic matter, both as physics and chemistry defined by their interrelationship positions within the totality of existence; and the cellular bacterial world, as defined by the cell's interaction with this atomic matter, are intimately connected at the bio-feedback mechanisms that define living micro-life organisms, which in turn interact (after a lengthly period of co-evolution) with the macro-life of multi-celled organisms all the way up to human life forms. (Think of an insect colony 'thinking' as a totality, for example.) And what is important is that this process of connections bio-feedback works in both directions, so what is experienced by macro-life organisms, even ourselves, is once again communicated back through the micro-life organisms, bacteria, back to the interrelated matter of the physical universe, of atoms and energy, to the totality image that defines them. This is continuously a two way process, both in the present moment as well as in all prior history, where each interaction is communicated back and forth. Furthermore, what makes it even more interesting is that this communication between the micro-macro worlds and their atomic totality worlds is registered both in the cellular DNA programing, and ultimately in some manner of consciousness in the organism's living brain. Conversely, through our bacterial connections to our universe, our thoughts and actions are consequently recorded in some totality image stored into infinity. We may learn of the universe with our conscious brains, but the universe already 'knows' us in its infinite capacity for life. And that connection is what completes the circuit, which both explains why we have evolution as well as why we have a brain conscious of it: our Living Universe. So this explanation of a Living Universe goes deeper than a simple intuitive understanding of how first life came into being from a crystalline soup; it delves deeper into how the universe self-organizes itself into a bio-feedback mechanism of life through its micro-bacterial life forms. We are interdependent upon this simple life form to interact at the macro-interrelationship levels of how the universe is self-structured into an infinite living entity; the feedback from this is the evolution of multi-cellular life forms capable of developing a thinking brain; in effect, we are made in the image of our Living Universe through our bacterial connection to all existence. And that makes us special, and divine.  (interactive) We are living beings, intimately connected with a Living Universe, of God Consciousness. Also see: BBC ScienceNews (2014) Deep Earth's crust microbial life found, living off methyl hydrocarbons without light or oxygen, very little water. Lab cooks up sugars from 'comet ice' - BBC This just in: The mystery of microbes that live inside tumours - BBC (4July2023) | ||
| What's it about? |
What's it all about, really? What are we thinking?  One Human Family As I am reading these pages, and thank you to all who wrote here, I am thinking: what is it really we are saying? Are we not in final analysis really all saying the same thing, the wisdom of the ages, that we are somehow intimately connected to all existence? We are all connected to each other in community, this is obvious, though each one of us is a separate identity, a person. We are also all connected to our planetary biosphere for survival, an environment that if too degraded will cause our demise, so we must take care of it. We are all connected psychically to each other in the things that make us human, our smiles, our loves, our fears, our desires for happiness. But in reading this, it also makes sense that we are connected to all existence in a meaningful and totally intimate way, with a universe that acts around us as we act in it. This is still a novel idea, but it harks back to what all religions, philosophies and mysticisms of the past always hinted at, that we are creatures of a God-consciousness; that we are made in that image that makes us uniquely the human species with all its beauty, and at times terror, that had been the humanity of the ages. We are connected to our universe and each other, totally. Isn't this the most wondrous thing? Each one of us is the final thread of a vast infinite tapestry of Life, and we are now coming conscious of it and beginning to understand. Once we know this, begin to truly understand our interconnectedness to the whole universe and each other, what do we do with it? Is this not the portal of our human exploration of the ages, of the stars, that we seek to understand ourselves in Life's existence throughout the universe? Isn't this what HumanCafe was all about? Think about it. I leave this as a thought for the New Year - 2010 - that we are one human family. God bless, and many happy wishes to all. And to all, thank you! Humancafe | ||
| TOE is rubbish |
"Theory of Everything" is an impossibility, hence "rubbish". (In answer to #2. Have we in the 'simple universe' idea stumbled upon a TOE?} There can never be a "Theory of Everything" or TOE given the impossibility of fitting all theories into the matrix of their foundational premises and logic. Take for example the foundational matrix of pre-Copernican astronomy, where Earth was the center of the solar system. The Ptolemaic epicycles worked perfectly within the parameters of the theory, though it was totally wrong. Earth is not the center, so within the description offered by those epicycles, it all made sense and was falsifiable, though in fact it was rubbish. This will be true for any falsifiable theory of reality, because though it will make perfect sense within the parameters of the foundational matrix of premises and logic, it cannot be falsified outside of that matrix. The best example today is whether or not gravity is truly a universal constant or not. Einstein's General Relativity falsifiably proves that it is. Everyone who knows astrophysics knows that it had been verified to decimal fractions. However, since any theory can be 'falsified' within the parameters of its matrix or observational observations, without independent cross-discipline verifications, it is essentially as worthy as those epicycles were, hence rubbish. Another example is the physics of chemistry, or perhaps even quantum physics. Within their domains of verification, they are flawless. But taken outside of their observational matrix and interpretations, they only work for within the parameters to explain the phenomenon. Outside, it becomes rubbish. So even if gravity was proved variable from what it had been assumed, it still could not and would not prove a TOE, because outside its parameters, it reduces down to rubbish. A Theory of Everything, hence, is impossible. Scheptik | ||
| Naive |
Hello All, I have difficulty with the concept that God is love. Love is simply a subjective (but perhaps universal condition [as mercy may be]) state that depends on the definition of the conscious being involved. On the other hand, conscious beings may find that successful coexistence may only occur with peace, mutual respect, and love as qualifying conditions. So perhaps Love is the Way - Dharma so to speak, that intelligence would favor. God is simply possibility - time, space, occurrences, and non-occurrences, as well as the creative energy which provides for these! Naive | ||
| God is simply...? |
"God is Life" is quickly becoming my motto, Naive, though there are aspects to life that are not loving. God is Love is a human aspiration, not a universal given, to my mind. Predatory behaviors dominate too much of the universe, from galaxies devouring each other to meat eaters. But... Are these merely more "possibilities" for Life, or simply "probabilities of energy" in the end? Here is a fairly recent article that shows how Life is much more elementally complex than we had hitherto understood. It is organized right down to the virus level, and had been such from the dawn of evolution: Viruses: The unsung heroes of evolution.
So we are "viruses" first? Love second?  And "bacteria" is what holds the universal Life together? As to whether or not "God is Love" really matters to the universe, I think it matters only to us. God is whatever is the universe, all its possibilities and probabilities, and from that we must take what we can, if it is given. That includes Love. Personally? I'll take my chances on Love. Ivan | ||
| Naive |
Interesting, When I was a kid I used to say, "We (humanity) are just fancy germs." I do agree with you about the predatory nature of things. Everything that lives must consume something else organic. If a person eats human flesh we call it barbaric, but we don't feel the same in regards to cannibalism in other species. I think then that we equate the ability to reason with moral responsibility. In turn we assume an omnipotent God is the ultimate in consciousness and thus the ultimate moral force, the ultimate in love. What's really at issue is our "human" concept of love. Ancient cultures used harsh rites of passage to turn children into adults. For them it was an important and necessary step - an act of love on the road to maturity. I believe we need to evolve our moral sense and reconcile it with the realities of the universe. Compassion can be harsh depending on the context. And love is not always the doting pampering and concern that we think it to be. Add that to the idea of an omniscient God . . . and there is just no way our small way of thinking can explain the necessity, inter-connectivity, and causal relationships that comprise universal happenings. The gift is that we have some capacity to understand and explore our environment. The question - do events just happen or are they made to happen, as in a grand plan? Naive | ||
| God not there? |
God is not there?
This is a very good question, Naive. Do events just happen, or is God there in some "grand plan"? I suspect it is something like this: God is not there, there is no one "managing" our human Earthly events, anymore than there was God managing the Hebrews' escape from Egypt, or during the Nazi Holocaust. Nor did these things "just happen". WE made them happen. God is a human creation, a "missing link" between the physical universe and our living human aspirations. Same as in quantum physics it is necessary to theorize missing particles, like the Higgs Boson, to fill in gaps in the models of our understanding, so is it on a vaster scale of human need to understand our existence. God is supposed to be there. But there is nobody there, except the echoes of our own psychic voices. God is us, deep down, our own need to understand and survive the deadly business of life. We die, so to make our lives worthy of living, we invent an order to the universe that has hitherto invoked God into existence. But this is not a fatalistic, nor atheistic point of view. The universe is large, and it is able to accommodate the dreams and aspirations of its living things with surprising ease. If we want it to be God is Love, it can be. But this has to be chosen by us, dreamed willfully and consciously chosen, same as its antithesis can be chosen, and realized. We had done that all too often, and suffered. Why not aspire for the better and higher things, and succeed? Is God there? Of course, if we want it to be. But no, not really there. In the end, what is our Dream? What are our moral and humanist bearings? How well do we understand all the interrelations of reality? What level of our compassion for all life? What does it all mean to us? That is what is God... It is inside us. Ivan | ||
| Naive |
Ivan, I too believe that God is within us. I think this was the idea that Jesus postulated, but perhaps was not able to impress upon his ancient followers due to the limitations in thinking of that time period. And then when the Romans got a hold of him . . . well the rest is history. Hinduism and Buddhism were more successful in transmitting their points about spirituality because ancient Hindu leaders valued the ascetic way and were expected to retire to such a life after their reign was done. It was a positive tradition. It is so unfortunate that our concepts of (respecting) divinity are so contrary to progress. Imagine if people put as much faith and zeal into scientific pursuits. We would have a world wide renaissance. Science, after all, is the appreciation of what God / the universe is. I think the real questions are not related to science or culture or religion at all, but rather to someone's political agenda. Who benefits from keeping the world in the dark? Why don't current world leaders have a tradition of asceticism? And why aren't they held to that standard? When we are brave enough and free enough to impose these standards upon our leaders, then the love you speak of will become societal and global rather than individual. As is, most of our minds are shackled by a mental slavery to gain and ancient dogma. This is a 4000 year pattern that various prosperous individuals continue to exploit . . . and seemingly, no one wants to be free. Naive | ||
| Freedom wins |
BBC report on 'Winners and Losers' in former Soviet states: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14489883  Communism is easy to understand, it is essentially legalized stealing from the rich. As to where the confiscated wealth goes is a question mark. Some of it goes into munitions to maintain a war machine, some goes to maintain officials and their families in comforts of privileges, some goes into the apparatus set up to combat those (counter-revolution) forces opposed to the stealing of wealth, some goes into setting up social programs like schools and hospitals and government directed manufacturing and distribution per Communist ideology, and some of this redistributed wealth will end up on the tables of the needy poor, which is most everybody else. So now, since Communism proved poor at producing new capital wealth, once the redistributed wealth runs out, the economic system fails. This usual takes about three or four generations. But such an outcome for legalized Communism is easily understood and foretold. - Ivan Lithuania leadership Note how in most of the former Soviet republics, democracy and freedoms go hand in hand with wealth, but corruption and oppression of freedoms engender poverty. Same ratios for health. Freedom and democratic governments free of coercions and corruption serves the people's health and wealth. But where these are damaged, so suffers the nation. Russia is an odd case because wealth is surprisingly high considering they are the least democratic, but that is more a function of their wealth of natural resources than economic productivity, similar to many 'Third world' countries. Health suffers regardless. What do you think? Can oligarchy, theogarchy, or kleptogarchy really deliver best government for the people? Or is freedom, respect for the individual, the right to free expression, rule of law protecting human rights, laws of agreement free of coercions (except coercion to stop criminality), and the right of human beings to find their own happiness; are these not better than the former? Freedom wins in all these. Let the record speak for itself. Western civilizational freedoms are best. Also see: Why the West is Best by Ibn Warraq | ||
| Science & Politics collide |
When Science and Politics collide.  The "politicizing of science" has been ongoing since the days of the Holy See tried to imposed its own Ptolemaic brand of science from Biblical sources in Medieval times. Today's politicizing of science is a more recent invention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science . But the aims are still the same, to politically influence scientific thinking with either power or money, or both. Of course, that makes for bad science. When dogma and science collide, it is bad for science. Is this perhaps why the European Space Agency (ASE) dropped its planned "gravity research" probe for the outer solar system's Pioneer Anomaly? After all, if gravity is supposed to be a "universal constant", then why bother? If it's different constant out there than here, think how "destabilizing" this would be for all modern Cosmology thinking. How destabilizing it would be for such research funding, if Newton's G were not a constant! Better to sweep this under the proverbial rug and not examine it further…. There's too much money at stake. So like dogma, when science and politics collide, it is bad for science. Dogma vs Science Also see: Galileo's complaint - fiction | ||
| GMO dangers |
Are GMO Foods Dangerous to your Health? - video shorts with Dr. Oz  (interactive) Genetically Modified Food (GMO - genetically modified organisms) Pesticides injected into plants genetically stay inside indefinitely, even after they had died, so cannot be washed away. Pseudo-science claims at FDA cut short real scientific inquiry, saying GMO is safe to the public, and threaten independent researchers with legal action if they use patent protected GMO products in their experiments. But Freedom of Information and Consumer Protection should demand greater study, and certainly Truth in Labeling GMO products. Where are the legal challenges to this? Right or wrong, the consuming public has a right to know. It's your life, and your childrens' life, so it is your choice. We have a right to demand GMO labels so we can freely choose. Also see: GMO Awareness Week articles Non-GMO Shopping Guide Moms Across America to label GMOs Responsible Technology GMO dangers But what if the GMO patent is dangerous to the public? Viz. Monsanto, saved seed and farmer lawsuits. Should their 'patents' be invalidated if they pose a health risk? Wouldn't Freedom of Information and Consumer Protection warrant a legal challenge to "unlabeled" GMOs? Fair question, as any patent found harmful to public health and safety should be confronted legally: Organic Producers Fight Back Against Monsanto. There is a tendency in GMO arguments to appeal to authority logic, which is a form of logic fallacy. The argument is usually that consumers do not have 'sufficient knowledge' to assess whether GMO foods are safe or not, so do not need detailed ingredients labeling to make their purchase decisions. In effect, the labeling would be 'meaningless' for them unless they were experts on genetic engineering. But this is false, as the decision whether or not to eat a genetically modified food, is not the scientists' but the consumer's. Therefore, omission of such labeling is withholding information from the consumer, which is an infringement on their 'right to know' what they are eating. The decision of choice is the consumer's, not the scientist's, as it is the consumer's body that is affected. Then, whether or not the GMO food is purchased and consumed is a final decision by the person eating it, regardless of whether or not it is safe to eat, or whether they are experts on the matter. Further, if the GMO food is patented, unlike hybridized foods from natural breeding, it is a 'modified' food through an industrial process developed in a lab (injecting a scorpion gene into a vegetable, for example) that must be identified as such. Then it is a consumer's choice whether or not they wish to eat it. Freedom of information does not preclude the right to know what consumers are being sold as food. Patent protection is still in force, whether or not producers label genetically engineered food products, provided they are not sold as "food" to the consuming public. Otherwise, label and they can sell; or not label and they keep them off the shelf. At very least, potentially hazardous products, even patent protected, should be labeled (like tobacco) as potentially hazardous to public health. Product misinformation or 'omissions' should not be protected by law. Fair notice. This just in: Senate approves national GMO labeling standard Addendum: | ||
| How 'intelligent' Intelligent Design? |
How "intelligent" is Intelligence Design?  (interactive - click to visit artist site) Back when we wrote on Intelligent Design (2006), the initial question was if this theory was only a "God" related idea: "Can intelligence be designed into the universe without invoking a Deity?" Can we wrestle it away from the "Creationists"? The common perception, according to Wikipedia on Intelligent design, is: ... No, scratch that. That was 2006. Today, seven years later, the submission to Wiki had been changed to: Therein lies the problem, that "intelligent design", which is essentially an ontological idea, had been moved from philosophical inquiry to a near theistic, politicized absolutism: a form of "creationism"? Is this true? The usual view of present day scientists is that Life started from RNA combinations that created the first living cells, possibly from some clay mixture, that then had the ability to thrive and replicate. From there, once life takes hold, a Darwinian evolution is set in motion, devoid of any intentional intelligent operative, and solely based on undirected 'natural' selection. Anything else, the scientific community cloaks itself in inviolability by calling such ideas "pseudo-science", which ends the discussion. Or worse, the question of "intelligent design" in the universe evokes a negative visceral rejection, borderline hysterical emotional response. But why is that? Isn't Science open to all challenges and ideas, leaving no stone unturned? Obviously, on this issue, the answer is clearly "No." Does the ontological idea of a Universe bearing Life having some "intelligence" to its design lead of necessity to a Deistic idea which cannot be separated from "religious" belief? Is Life's evolution strictly a religious idea prejudiced and monopolized by an a priori concept of God? Can the universe be "intelligent" without invoking a Deity, but be intelligent by Design of its own accord, by how it is put together? Critics of Intelligent Design answer an uncategorical "No." Apparently, in their collective minds, ID equates with Creationism, such as founded by ancient text of Judaic scripture, or promoted today by fundamentalist Christians. But is this the only option? Does God have to come into it, or can a secular Intelligent design be as viable? The same issue came up in a documentary on Intelligent Design titled "Expelled: No Intelligencer Allowed" by Ben Stein et al, where the academic community discriminates against any of its own who even mention in passing the concept, even if only referenced in a paper. The 'punishment' is shunning, being ridiculed, disciplined, losing ones employment, and essentially being "expelled" from academia for having done so. Is this Science? But Stein's documentary falls into the same ontological trap, that it commingles "Intelligent design" with "Creationism", so it becomes an issue of which do you believe? Darwinism or Creationism? However, that is a straw man, because it fails to address Intelligent design on its own terms. Darwinism's "natural" (whatever it means) selection is one possible methodology of "intelligence" in the universe, but not exclusively so. The question is not whether there is a "God" who set all this in motion; rather, the question is if there is "Intelligence" in how life had evolved? The evolution of life may be more complex than the assumed "natural selection" of survival of the fittest, or even of environmental adaptability. Life may be more a complexity of "intelligent emergence" resulting from the intelligent "design" of the Universe, than any deistic prime mover, or any "undirected" process randomly playing genetic dice. In short, Stein's documentary should have been more careful on separating the three into separate and distinct avenues of inquiry. Rather, it would have been better had he brought into the picture how "intelligent design" is actually a metaphysical idea that can exist ontologically without "God", and even with or without Darwin. I had written in a past entry to the Examined Life forum (now closed): "God" need not come into this argument, nor Creationism. Life can evolve (2008) from its primordial clays, or ice, or crystals, or some primordial soup, or undersea volcanic vents, etc., simply by being complex enough, and large enough, so that massive complexity can become an "emergence" (2008) evolving from its own complex system. Given the universe's inherent interconnectedness (to infinity) as an "interrelated" complexity, there would be a natural (whatever that means) emergence of something more complex than itself. Given sufficient time and space, this same emergence can replicate into an organic form that is "alive", and replicates on its own. In Stein's film, he asks the question (paraphrased) "What is the probability of RNA coming together in such a fashion, all 250 proteins necessary, to become life?" No answer can be meaningful, as the probabilities are astronomical, or magical. But they can be meaningful if taken as a probability "emerging" from the universal complexity, focussed and redefining itself (as the concept of a living "interrelationship" posits) so that the whole re-defines itself on any one point within itself. That basically defines "Emergence", and it has nothing to do with a deistic, religious, or creationist ideology. "Natural" in that sense becomes just what it is meant to be, that nature is an "emergent complexity" on an infinite scale. And that, taken to its final analysis, ontologically, is what creates Life. No "God" need apply. The Universe is already "Intelligent" in its inherent design. But it gets better. There is little in the universe that the human mind can find totally devoid of some "intelligence". Everything works within itself as part of a total whole, at every instant of time, in an interconnected interplay of forces from here to infinity. From the Quantum level to the Galactic cosmic level, there is a constant interplay of forces and energies, all commingled into an infinite complexity following intelligible laws (such as discovered by science). There is nothing "dumb" out there, but totally intelligent and understandable to the human mind. It seems that in our eagerness to understand the universe, we switched and reversed roles, that rather than seeing all Existence as intelligently intelligible, we ascribed our intelligibility as the only intelligence out there, in our brains, while the rest of the universe remains inertly devoid of it. But is this not an odd form of reverse anthropomorphism? We claim to be intelligent, but claim that the universe cannot have "intelligence", so we conclude that it must be devoid of our intelligence, as if our human (or alien) intelligence was the "only" one out there. Is it not more sensible to say that our intelligence is an "emergent" quality of Life's already extent "intelligence", one we are fortunate enough to participate in? Other living beings have some intelligence, but we surpass them, as far as we can see, by orders of magnitude. Yet, if all animals display some rudimentary intelligence, then why should our higher evolved consciousness not be inherent of the whole structure, of how it all is put together? Perhaps, taken to its natural extension, our consciousness is merely one "emergent" fragment of a larger, infinite, universal Consciousness, which we have evolved high enough to come to understand it (or beginning to). In effect, it is watching us! And if so, is that not what "Intelligent design" is naturally? There is no "God" deity here, only how the Universe, in all its totality, puts itself together on a higher intelligence plane, of interrelated forces and motion, so all emergent possibilities come "natural" to existence, and the end product of that is Life, or consciousness, or our human identity. Evolution, on such a platform, even the crude evolution of Darwinism, even if devoid of self-adjusting DNA, is still orders of magnitude greater than the simple scientific hypothesis of "random" natural selection, random mutations, environmental random adaptations, predation, etc. They somehow fall short of telling the whole story, and sound rather un-intelligent. It does not have to be deistic Creationism to be Intelligent design. Life's evolution is much more than limiting ideas of ancient creationist mythology, or politicized religion. The universe is already intelligent. It was an arrogance of ignorance that led us to think we are the supreme "intelligence" out there. In fact, we have it turned around. The Design is already out there; we are merely fortunate enough to participate in it. IDA Also see: Does "random" really exist? Universe thinking itself as the Logos? Macro-Microbial Life THE UNIVERSE IS SIMPLE Do we have Free Will? | ||
| Brilliant Mind of Einstein |
The Brilliant, Beautiful Mind of Albert Einstein  (interactive - Einstein's Field Equations) Ricci tensor on blackboard There is ample documentation that Einstein's mind was unusual, which may in part explain his brilliant accomplishments in physics within his lifetime. His scientific career spanned nearly a half century, though most work was done between 1905, when he published his Special Relativity, his 1916 published General Relativity theory of gravity, and 1935, when he worked on Quantum Mechanics and particle entanglement. His later years were dedicated to reconciling his General Relativity, which had been amply proven right through astronomical observations, with Quantum Theory, which had also been proven right. In 1950 he published a paper in Scientific American describing his unified theory, entitled "On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation"; except this reconciliation remained unsuccessful until his death, 1955. But in those years, he accomplished many innovations in how the world of physics works, and astronomical advances, from the Photoelectric Effect (for which he received a Nobel Prize, 1921), to quantized atomic vibrations (particle Brownian motion), to the Equivalence Principle (gravity and acceleration equivalent), to wave-particle duality (photons and energy quanta), to speculations on the nature of the universe (zero point energy, dynamical space-time, energy momentum pseudotensor equations, geodesic equations, wormholes theory, etc.), to a new type of 'heat exchange' refrigeration (patented 1930). His mind was tireless in seeking answers, and towards the end of his life he turned his attention to world events, grimly aware that the invention of the atom bomb was a serious turn in human events. But it was the Entanglement of Quantum states that ipso facto was a potential turning point in Einstein's theoretical developments, what he called "spooky action at a distance". Had he pursued this to its natural conclusion, that the universe interacts 'instantaneously', his phenomenal insights into the workings of the universe might have taken another turn. His theoretical work was based on the workings of electromagnetic energy, light waves as photons, the light speed constant limit as a measuring gage of relativistic phenomenon in the universe, the Riemann manifold geometry as an expression of those phenomena translating into gravity geometry, how mathematics match the workings of the natural universe. It was Relativity that defined how the universe worked mathematically, and from that domain of mathematical idealism, Einstein's brilliant mind saw a totality of theory encompassing both gravity and the electromagnetic world of energy. They were related, mathematically compatible, both restricted by the light speed c limit, which made all electromagnetic energy observation, like light, automatically restricted to its 'relativity' restrictions based on light speed c; all of which invoke time delay, or relativistic 'proper' time, in how space-time became a four dimensional of Lorentz transformation. So 'instantaneous' action at a distance was not a viable alternative, if the universe worked according to the light speed constant limitation, as defined by Special Relativity. Within the parameters of relativistic reference frames, as measured by lightspeed with adjusted time, a century of observations have demonstrated the innate genius of this great mind, with mathematical elegance and precision. If all forces in the universe are communicating at the lightspeed limit, with adjustments for time, then the results of Einstein's relativistic universe are incontrovertible. His brilliant genius could not have made the outcome different, given those parameters. A century of proofs has given ample evidence of this, which is why today General Relativity and all projections from this theory of gravity spacetime have yielded us such a rich panorama of universal observations, from Hubble light redshift to the Big Bang's Cosmic Microwave Background. Within the parameters set, these are the natural conclusions that could not have been derived otherwise. Hence, the complete genius of Einstein's Relativity. However, if the universe operated instead on a quantum entanglement platform, where all forces are not limited to lightspeed, but some forces (i.e., gravitational related forces, atomic strong force et al) operate within instantaneous 'simultaneity' parameters, the universal image now drawn is incomplete. It is correct for all observable radiating electromagnetic forces, but it fails on the gravitational arena, unless, and only unless, hypothesized gravitons (undetected to date) actually do travel at the lighspeed limit. If they do, then relativistic gravity GR is of necessity correct; but if gravity forces exceed the lightspeed limit, then GR is inconclusive. And this is where "spooky action at a distance" possibly tripped up Einstein's brilliant mathematical computations to give a potentially false reading on what is happening on the cosmological scale. If Quantum Entanglement is real, then the 'instantaneousness' of its action at a distance creates a totally different scenario. Einstein, having theorized Relativity as universal, could not have envisioned this otherwise, since his theories are entirely lightspeed dependent; it is not his fault. He put together a beautiful theory within the parameters framework he envisioned, supported by countless observations (within relativistic domains of applicability), but one which, unbeknownst to him, was flawed on its basic premises; so both his first and second postulates would have read differently from how they were said. The axioms instead would have postulated faster than light, perhaps infinitely faster, forces communicating at infinite distances, and that different reference frames communicate with each other instantaneously, not at the lighspeed limit; and the isotropy of the universe would have yielded a very different gravitational backdrop than theorized by GR. But this would necessitate an axiom of where Newton's gravitational constant G is not a universal constant. Of course, Einstein had no way to know that, as neither did other cosmological theories of his time. So within the parameters set, his work was perfect; but within a different theoretical set of axioms, it would in the end prove incomplete. Still, what Einstein did was absolutely beautiful. His was a truly beautiful, great mind.  (interactive) Einstein's last years, diary chronicles IDA Also see: What would big data think of Einstein? - BBC Gravity, the perfect illusion The Mass of the Universe Gravity Waves Found? also: Einstein’s exploration of a steady-state model of the universe - Einstein had doubts on the Big Bang Theory?
Also see: Einstein's Relativity carousel The Origin of the Equation E = mc2 | ||
| The Big Picture, Cosmic Relativity |
The Big Picture - Special Relativity and General Relativity incompatible?  photo from Hyperdesk page Does Dark Matter gravity redshift? Galaxy Redshifts Reconsidered by Sten Odenwald and Rick Fienberg, February 1993 It may be that our 'proven' and tested understanding of General Relativity, though mathematically beautiful and elegant, may not be self-consistent, and may not describe reality. Or as the above authors stated:
These are limiting factors of the 'Big Picture' of our universe, to restrain it within dimensions human minds can understand. However, the universe may be both simpler and bigger than our minds now comprehend. And thus continues the adventure saga of understanding our enigmatic cosmological universe… As such current beliefs are the neo-Creationsim Cosmology.  =  ? Also see: Mass of the Universe Oh Einstein... Whert art thou? | ||
| Natural Universalism |
Natural Universalism.  (interactive) Symbol of historic Universalism We are all programmed to connect with the Universal Mind, though mostly we are unconscious of it. Natural Universalists are those men and women who already tell the truth naturally. It is an involuntary urge to so so, when it is safe to not harm others. They will be those who do not intend to coerce others (which is an error, what entangles our respective realities the wrong way), and rather in a spirit of goodwill and community will help instead. Universalists are people who naturally connect with their higher consciousness in all things they do, whether or not aware of it. They are easily identified by their courteous good nature and joyous aura, for they eschew negativism and do not give into their fears. The individuals who are comfortable in their belief, whether or not true (for life will correct us if wrong), are true to their principles and find courage in them. Universalists are persons who bring all things to the good, such as they believe it to be, who are tolerant of others (not permissive), who reconcile differences rather than divide; nor do they force others to believe as they do. These are natural human tendencies that better center us in our natural being of Who we are. We are what we believe, so if we believe we live in an all inclusive universal, interrelated reality that defines for us our being's identity, our Who, then we are naturally drawn to better occupying that reality in terms of Who we are. This is a fundamental principle of the freedom of us occupying our being without coercion or deceits, with the right to be who we are, and with reciprocal freedoms for all others equally. This is a fundamental human right in this existence, one that no morality belief system can take away from us. As free human beings we are better occupying our natural existence to manifest our lives as we are designed to live them, with our dreams and aspirations, and with the freedom to seek our own beliefs and beauty in life. Then we naturally manifest our lives with happiness and joy for ourselves, and for all who come in contact with us. When we believe this, a natural peace comes into our lives, and those of others, as our lives become beautiful with love for all things. We can choose to live in competition or in harmony. Friendly competition, where parties agree to compete, is healthy for us, and stimulating as well as fun. But coercive competition is damaging to our universal being, as it promotes predatory behavior, strife and injury causing suffering. Human history is replete with the latter, but it was the prior that led to our long legacy of achievements. As Universalists, we become conscious of how we choose to live our lives. The choices we make, both consciously and unconsciously, are driven by our innate beliefs, and those are determined by how our lives unfold for us. If we seek beauty, we will find it. And if we are driven by energy to succeed, to explore, to progress in life, we will achieve it, without necessarily having to fight for it. In a Universalist belief world, the universe already works to position us within our natural being of Who we are. As more people come to understand this, the world will change for the better in surprising ways. Our future as a planet composed of conscious, Universalist beings, is a world driven by truth and harmony, and joyfulness. It is a world of gratitude and consideration, a legacy for our future generations to be thankful for. IDA Also see: The Kingdom of God, secular Masters of the Universe - Deconstructed Universalism | ||
| Devil sugar, salt |
The Devil Sugar, demon Salt  (interactive) American per capita sugar consumption - 1822-2005 World facing cancer 'tidal wave' on horizon, warns WHO
We eat too much sugar, on average 100 pounds a year (vs. ~10 lbs in early 19th century), which is detrimental to our health. Complex sugars like fruit or found in natural foods, which also contain important dietary fiber, are not detrimental in same way as processed foods with sugar added; why whole grains are healthier than refined carbohydrates like white flour and white rice. BBC News: Sweet tooth linked to heart attacks
Read the ingredients labels for added sugars like sucrose, high fructose corn syrup, grams of sugar, etc. Raw sugars found in food are preferred to added sugars, including artificial sweeteners.  (interactive) How addictive is sugar? And then there is salt: High-sodium diet linked to obesity in teenagers High salt intake linked to higher stroke risk
Young and old should read labels for salt content, same as sugar content. It's a matter of life and health. (In fact, per research sited by Gary Taubes, below, salt intake has a minimal effect on hypertension, whereas sugar is the greater culprit.) Also see: Science writer Gary Taubes' richly informative book, "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (2007), available at Amazon.com
Just in: Sugar worse than salt? - BBC Health news Also see: Grain Brain - by Dr David Perlmutter, MD Yoga for Hormonal Health This just in: Immune discovery 'may treat all cancer' | ||
| Passing of an Age |
Passing of an Age  The Beatles It may only be me, but it feels as if this new Twenty-first century is surrendering its former age. Same as the Twentieth had in turn surrendered the Victorian age, we are now ending what I would call an age of Optimism. Where the Twentieth century was rich in happy future enthusiasm, despite two horrific world wars; remember nuclear energy "too cheap to meter?"; today it seems falling towards an age of a depressed, grim realism. All is not well in the world as we examine our new century. The bright expectations of the past century where, for example, it was believed the world would better itself by ending European world empires, in Africa and Asia, had not produced meaningful gains for peoples of these former colonies as expected. Perhaps parts of Asia experienced some hoped for progress economically, but the same had not happened for Africa, where endemic wars, poverty and social displacements are rife. It was thought that the passing of an era of Colonialism would give way to an age of independence and social progress, but as mass migrations show, mass desperation came instead. There are many reasons for this, most from warring factions and corrupt leaders, the future looks grim; but there are also systemic reasons for Africa's failure in its post-Colonialism reality, with decaying infrastructure, limited education, petty official corruption, and persistent regressive cultural habits, especially towards women. The same in Asia or South America, where human rights are subsumed to a neo-medieval mentality run by strong men and corrupt officials, even in Russia after the fall of Soviet Communism. This last century may have been cynical, but it was also an age full of hope and optimism, medical miracles for universal health, a positive 'can do' age of executive attitude in society, universal education, science, space exploration, corporate commerce, environmental awareness, ending hunger and malnutrition, even vast technological progress. These were not by 'divine intervention', but products of human ingenuity. Yes, progress happened, but it was uneven, tenuous, and the backsliding forces of social dysfunctions still kept surfacing to temper our optimism. The grim reality is that our new century is plagued in ways we had not foreseen. Granted this new century is short on nations attacking nations. Israel may be the glaring exception, as it must defend itself against a persistent enemy from Islamic Jihad, Gaza not yet a nation. The rule is nations do not war on nations in the Twenty-first century, but a more sinister attack has claimed dominance against peace in the world, what had been dubbed by media as "terrorism". In fact, these attacks are the new world war, and it originates globally from one group that wants to dominate all civilization. With its peculiar form of theocratic form of Medieval government, devoid of basic human rights and democratic process, or rule of law based on equality and universality, it wants world dominance to undo all modern achievements of humanity's Age of Reason. Their persistence in these attacks, often suicidally self destructive and driven by theological fanaticism, is the new plague on the world's humanity, and one that has caught us short. We as a global humanity did not expect this, certainly not in a progressive 21st century! But where our world view was one of Jetson-like future optimism, theirs was one of perceived moral decadence. Hence they war in us, to save themselves from our corrupting influence on their world. In their eyes, our modern freedoms and achievements count for little if it corrupts our youth, our women, and it must be routed out by force. It matters to them even less that their form of jurisprudence, the Sharia as inspired by the Koran, yields disastrously poor results where practiced, and where odious forms of punishment, enslavement, discrimination against women, minorities, homosexuals, and endemic poverty and disease plague their world; they see themselves in the right, and we in the wrong, according to their 'God's law'. This is the new reality of our century, that our former optimism is being tempered by those who do not share in it, cannot share in it, are even fanatically hostile to it, so force us to reassess where we had been, and where we are going. The optimism of our past century may be most exemplified by our music, Jazz and Rock'n'roll, or by America putting the first humans on the Moon, or by virtual elimination of pandemic diseases such as polio, typhoid, tuberculosis, small pox, cholera, malaria (though some are making a comeback), and by a new world view of ourselves as part of a global community, exemplified by easy jet travel, instant communications, and the overwhelming information on the world Internet. Never had humanity achieved so much in such a short span of time; Caesar and Alexander would have been envious. But that was not enough. First, it did not affect the world equally and universally; second, it is tripped up by growing in-city violence, drug wars, new pandemics like deadly viruses, Ebola, SARS, AIDS, MERS, (now Covid-19) and growing environmental cancers, old age dementia (life expectancy may be dropping). Our 20th century optimism is being tarnished, and with it the passing of an age where our innocence is being suppressed by an uncomfortable realism. All is not well in the future of the world. Who in the glory of Rome, or Nineveh, would have guessed the collapse of their civilization, and a return to more primitive barbarism? Probably few, but there may have already been a shift of mood, that some things were not holding right. This is how I see today's civilization, that the security of our built world, the social theories which we have come to believe, the foundations of our common beliefs, all have somehow given way to doubt. I do not forecast the end of civilization, since I believe we live in different times from the Romans and Assyrians. But I forecast a shift in our Age of Optimism towards something more real, less cynical, and more down to Earth. Families will still raise their young to function as worthy adults, schools will still educate students to become productive doers and thinkers, and cities will still be built to house the engines of our civilization. People will still build their homes and tend their gardens, mostly in sprawling suburbs, to raise their families in peace and relative comfort (if possible), a world filled with gadgets of technological abundance. These will not perish, same as the self-assured Victorian world did not perish with the First World War; it only changed, and with this change ended an era. Today's change will likewise see the passing of an era, and the age of giddy optimism will give way to something new, more sober. It will be uncomfortable at first, whole segments of a self-assured society feeling ill at ease, doubting both church and tradition, more insecure in their future; perhaps even physics may undergo change, where the age of Einstein will give way to a surprising new science. Environmental degradation, species extinctions, and world overpopulation all weigh on us, globally. Did someone say Global Warming? But things change, and same as grand, aristocratic estates of past centuries gave way to more democratic estates, there will be social changes that will make such ostentatious grandeur less secure. The world will be a simpler, humbler place, but at the same time not poorer, rather it will be richer in spirit and less arrogant, more real. People will care more for one another, for that is how all societies survived and vanquished common foes. And where religion had anchored morality in the past, a new human global awareness will guide our future. We are challenged in this century, and in that challenge will come responses that will lead to new optimism, but not the naive optimism of this past century. Rather, it will be a renewed optimism of realism, that decadence is a dangerous pursuit, and arrogance its bankrupt handmaiden. I believe we as a civilization will persevere, just different than before, and hopefully wiser and sadder, and more mindful for the better. Yes, an age may have passed, but a new age has begun. Though, we may still not know what to call it... Perhaps we will "come together" as a human family. IDA Also see: Erosions of our moral values Have the Happy Days gone? Are we losing our sense of ‘liberty’? | ||
| Ebola virus escape |
The Great Ebola Virus Escape.  Medicins sans Frontieres, Sierra Leone Though not fond of conspiracy theories, nor urban legends on the net, there may be possibility the Ebola virus escaped from one of West African research facilities: Accidents in Germ Labs and the Ebola Pandemic. This is a frightening prospect, though natural infection from species jump, where either apes or fruit bats are suspected, has the higher probability; where first cases were reported in 1976 in Zaire and Congo. Since then it may have mutated, in 2010 new cases were reported in West Africa, the latest outbreak in 2013 evident in Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Guinea. Now with near 5000 deaths reported, it has been labeled a world pandemic, a human tragedy with frightening consequences. Though the virus' reproduction numbers are comparably low (to other pandemics, such as Spanish Flu a century ago), there is the counter fact that Ebola virus needs but one spore to take hold of a new human host, which makes it potentially exponential if it spreads. This, of course, is not assured it will spread, but given modern modes of mass transportation, especially air travel where all aboard breathe the same canned air, and if the virus can be transmitted without direct contact with agent's body fluids, then a whole new dimension opens in terrifying proportions. Imagine all air travel halted, along with other forms of mass transport? Drastic measure, but if serious enough it could happen. There is another dimension to consider: religious pilgrimage. The October Hajj to Mecca just completed did not make news, no Ebola reported, but the potential consequences of infected pilgrims could have devastating effect of transporting the virus back to their home countries. Many Muslim pilgrims on the Hajj come from poor countries, or crowded nations like Pakistan or India, which could vector exponentially the number of infected people in close contact with active disease. This could vault into unimaginable suffering and deaths, where whole villages could fall at risk. Fortunately, this had not happened. But such infection could catapult amongst all groups, including Hindus and Christians who also do religious pilgrimages. There are treatments available, but any vaccine is still in the early stages of development. Blood transfusions from survivors have been successful in curing Ebola, but this is a limited response, unless such transfusions are done on a mass scale. Large pharmaceutical companies are developing Ebola vaccines, still awaiting human trials. The hardest hit areas, especially West Africa, are poor areas with many uneducated persons, so other than quarantines, there is not much that can be done to contain spread of infection if the people don't understand how the disease spreads. Some people affected may not believe the disease is a serious risk, so may ignore efforts to contain it. Worse, they may fall to conspiracy theories blaming the West and its doctors, or pharmaceuticals, cynically believing they brought Ebola to them. This is as absurd as believing it is the 'wrath of God', and it hinders proper containment and treatment. Families die, children orphaned, and the disease unchecked grows exponentially with tragic results worldwide, not only lives lost en mass, but also social paralysis and economic devastation. These are the real consequences of unchecked pandemics. No casting of blame, nor superstitious fears, can reverse the spread of this malicious disease if it is not properly treated. It will take coordinated action, good medical science, and a will to fight both the disease and the ignorance of those who fail to understand the seriousness of risks involved. Education is an important weapon against its spread, as is medical assistance, with serious dangers for those who come to aid, who not only face the risk of infection but also the wrath of the people they have come to help. In the end, it will take science and the coordinated actions of all nations, and able people of good will, to reverse the spread of Ebola so it does not grow exponentially into a devastating world pandemic. At the height of Europe's Black Death in the Middle Ages, over a third of the population perished. It can not be allowed to happen again, in Africa or anywhere. We cannot allow this devastating disease to escape; we can beat this, as we must. This just in: Virus-hit Wuhan has two laboratories linked to Chinese bio-warfare program - Washington Times (1/2020) Is the Coronavirus a new Deadly Chinese Bio-Weapon That Escaped from a Research Lab? - Wall Street Rebel (2/2020) Also see: Stop the world... we have a new pandemic (19 March 2020) | ||
| What about illegal immigration |
What to do about illegal immigration.  Refugees Tomorrow President Obama is to announce his Executive vision on the American illegal immigration problem: Obama to announce major US immigration changes - BBC Will it be realistic? Same as is happening in Europe or Australia (but not in Asia), desperate people are fleeing their countries for hope to a better life for themselves and their children in the American land of opportunity. After all, this was a country largely built by immigrants, from all over the world. Whether they flee their homelands for political repression, or organized gangs criminality, or for a crushing poverty from which they see no escape, they are all classified as 'refugees' in the real sense of the word. As long as they themselves are not criminals, they should be treated as refugees. These are desperate people who risk life and treasure to escape their homelands because something is broken there. And same as war refugees, they must be handled in some humane manner rather than be allowed to starve. But there are conditions. First of all, the borders should be secured in order to account for who is trying to get in. As well, there should be facilities to process the refugees once they arrive. If they pass certain tests, are not known criminals or fanatic terrorists, and express a desire to assimilate into our way of life, there should be a probation period for them to find meaningful work, employment that will facilitate their economic condition so they are not falling back on public welfare, and show a propensity for adapting to an American (or European) way of life. If, let's say, a three month probation is required and the refugees have found employment, where they are issued a work card, then an automatic review should be established to track whether this condition is still active, say every three to six months. After one year, they then can be issued a regular residency identification card, so in effect they are no longer on the same probation roster as before, but now are on a new post-follow-up roster. All this requires human and financial capital, but as a rich nation, we must find ways to make it affordable. They have come to us as refugees, and it is our duty to help them. Since it is unlikely they will land high paying jobs, rather menial work no one else wants to do, they are not a drain on our economy, but a benefit. Charging them same taxes as normal citizens, including retirement Social Security, does not detract from our economy, but rather adds to it. This is how America was built, that if they are willing and able, let them work. There are other ways to help the refugees fleeing their countries. Of course, it would be ideal if their economies and political systems were righted so they would find no need to flee. But realistically, short of a Colonialism styled take over of their countries to secure investments and political stability (something no one wants today), there is a limit to what financial investments, in factories or other enterprises, could be made self-sustaining, or profitable; if the criminality is high, or government oppression crushing, then investments and natural economic and market activities have poor chance of success. The Chinese, for example, have tried to create jobs in Haiti, or African countries, but their success seems to have been marginal. (Chinese experience in Haiti was they fired the local workers and sent in their own nationals to work, claiming the indigenous were not productive enough workers. The Korean efforts may be having better results.) Will these work conditions approximate 'sweatshops' where wages are barely sufficient for survival? Perhaps, and if so, this is not a viable investment solution, as it brings back Colonialism conditions. In the end, refugees will continue. Another concern regarding refugees is those who come for 'benefits tourism'. They are not a contribution to our economic well being and should be weeded out within the three month probation period. If they cannot find suitable work in that time frame, then it is imperative they return to the misery from which they fled. It is hard hearted, but America was not built on charity, but hard work. For the refugees to come here and then live off the welfare benefits offered, they send back the wrong message to those still waiting at home; it encourages a migration of the lazy who cannot contribute to our society. The qualifying factor for the refugee (or illegal immigrant) is that it is temporary, that the men and women are given a chance at a start in life; the other qualifying factor is that they will contribute as productive future members of society, and add to our way of life. So this is a critical divide that separates those who are true refugees seeking a better future, from those who are opportunistic and care nothing for the land in which they landed. Criminals are automatically cast out, as they care not; but families with children, parents who care and want to work, they should be welcomed and helped; and their children must be educated. I speak from experience, because as a ten year old boy, I and my little sister came to America stateless, our parents had only two valises and $100 to start with. It was a grim beginning, we did not live in a style I would have hoped for, but both parents worked menial jobs, and saved, skipped having a car for many years, but within four years had enough to put down a deposit on a home. That is how America was built. The new refugees should be given the same chance. This is not charity, nor empathy, but a good investment. And given that chance, it may be a better investment than we think. Let's see tomorrow what Mr. Obama has to say. IDA * * * And then, the next day, here is the Full text of Obama's immigration speech. | ||
| Reverse-racism? |
Reverse-Racism?  Ferguson riots Racism is not an exclusive domain given to any one group; all humans have potential for racial bigotry. But neither is racial tolerance forbidden to any one; we all have the ability to not be racist. The recent events in Ferguson, Missouri, where a Black teen was shot and killed by a White police officer has inflamed the Black community into Ferguson's riotous behaviors, which may be excusable given the passions and pent up anger the community harbored over decades. That the Grand Jury later found the policeman acted within his rights only further inflamed the community, especially given the jury was predominantly White (9), a minority Black (3), so injustice had been called, even by the UN Human Rights Group. So it seems the jury, or the police, had been 'racist' in their actions, where a more powerful race had once again oppressed a less powerful race. This is a pattern that had been called not only in America, but also in South Africa, Australia, and increasingly in Europe, where officialdom embodied in the police had acted as what has been called repeatedly 'racist'. However, where racism is an odious term, one that inflames passions and mass social resistance, even violence, there has been little explored in how this racism has come to be. It has become so politicized that it has now taken on a life of its own, whereby the very mention of 'racism' is enough to condemn a person, no matter how prominent, into a silence that is tantamount to social 'censorship'. When this happens, to even approach any ideas regarding race or racism is to invoke a kind of self-imposed silence so it cannot be intelligently discussed. Systemic ‘white racism’ has become a new cult conspiracy. For example, Dr. Watson's stupid gaffs about race and intelligence had, though a highly acclaimed scientist, basically cast him out of the scientific community. For his foolishness, this may have been justified, but lost is anything he might have said that could have been true, that it cannot be discussed, that it becomes 'prohibited'. Under this racist Prohibition, we cannot speak of anything about it without invoking racial passions, racial guilt, and risk racial profiling, or condemnation. No matter what is said, it falls under that dome of silence when racial issues are discussed, and so no discussion can take place. This is a tragic consequence of Racism, that it both invokes politicized, often irrational passions, while at the same time it silences any possible discussion that could help alleviate the consequence of racism. You have a problem, you must be able to discuss it intelligently, if solutions are to be found. The media, government agencies, academia, and even the man on the street, is essentially silenced and too cowed to discuss this, short of excusing it, because of the stigma of being called a Racist. But is this not in effect a 'reverse-racism', where any meaningful discussion on the issue is shut down automatically, because it becomes 'racism'? So if, for example, it is found that Asian students excel other racial groups in scholastic achievement? Is this not racist? Of if found that statistically Black youths commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes versus other racial groups, is this not racist? Or that polls show Muslim men disproportionately abuse their women de facto racism? Of course it is. But the insipidness of reverse-racism is that such discussions cannot take place on any level without invoking 'Prohibition', so all discussions on the issues are driven underground (or discussions on "reverse racism" default to racial power rather than equality). That is the tragic end result of calling out Racism, is that it shuts itself off from intelligent discourse or examination, and intelligent people are forced to be deaf and mute, or blind to what is actually happening. People have grievances, and it is right for them to voice those grievances, even if their passions cannot always be contained. But to silence the voice of examination and understanding works counter productively, so the issues remain raw nerves but never resolved. That is Reverse-racism, that nothing can be said about issues that involve race, whether it be economic, or cultural, or perhaps even genetically. So if a discussion touches on the tribalism, racial gangsterism, gross disrespect for individual dignity and safety, group or mob violations of our natural human rights, rioting and looting by a racial group, then it immediately gets labeled ‘racism’; and the discussion becomes taboo in a kind of ‘Obsessive racism’ where everyone is ‘racist’. We are shut out of the discussion, period. Discussion must be intelligent and open, if we are to come to terms with what Racism is really all about. Is there a ‘white’ privilege, or Black privilege, or brown or Asian privilege? No, there is only ‘human’ privilege, that we have conscious minds aware of our racial problems (does ‘race’ really exist?) and are able to address them. Is it predominantly an issue in the West, where such discussions of racial issues are silenced? Or is the same encountered in other countries, in Africa or Asia? For example, how do the people of China, or Japan, deal with race? What about race issues in Kenya or Morocco, or Saudi Arabia, or India? Or Mexico, Brazil? How are they dealt with there? Is there racial discrimination in other parts of the world we should examine? Should racial statistics be allowed into discussion, or are they taboo? In many societies, outside the Western European models of ‘equality’, there is no strong antipathy to ‘racism’, either because the society is largely homogenous, or because they tacitly accept the non-European model. In Black American literature, for example, there is a strong sense of White people being distinctly different from Black people, in their culture, in appearance, in their motivations and social norms. Does that make them ‘racist’? Does the whole world have to identify with the Western models of equality? Or is that itself inherently ‘racist’ to expect them to? Reverse-racism says no, you cannot do any of this, but must maintain a studied silence. Reverse-racism is not being able to talk about race freely. A mature mind recoils from this imposed silence, but that is the reality we face in today's political environment, that open discussion is not politically correct. Reverse-racism shuts down discourse. Are we not Human Beings first? The unfortunate result is without such discourse, solutions to problems, especially race related problems, as well as socio-economic, educational, health problems, nutrition problems, all these become no-go areas, so nothing gets resolved. Furthermore, because these issues are not resolved, the people take matters into their own hands, they gather in large crowds, and if the anger is there, they riot. That is the tragic end game for those who are angry, and have nothing to lose. In short, 'reverse-racism' causes riots such as we saw in Ferguson. It will not stop there. Also see: List of riots, 17th to 21st century The Left’s Destruction of Inner-City Communities Gun control and violent firearm deaths Race and violent crimes in US
UNDERMINING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT in major inner cities' public schools.
Race-Baiting Lies About Cops Do Real Damage To The Black Community Apple's Tim Cook sends memo to employees on the death of George Floyd
Also see: Fear in Politics - a hard commentary Blackout vs. White Fragility - Candace Owens shows what real anti-racism looks like. The Federalist -2020 U.S. Riots Are Linked To Black Lives Matter Oppressors and oppressed This just in: How Civil Rights Made America a Critical Race Theocracy - critical article on ‘racial theocracy’ Mathematics Is Now A Racist Equation: White Privilege Vs Black Privilege The inequality of ‘Equality’ Alarming rise in youth gun deaths breaks down very differently by race (April 2003) -Black youth are disproportionally represented in gun deaths. 'Colorblind Constitution': Supreme Court wrangles over the future of race in the law (1 July 2023) | ||
| One Hundred Years War |
The Hundred Years War - from 1914 World War to 2014 World at War.  German soldiers surrendering The short op-ed in TIME magazine titled From Gaza to Ukraine, the Effects of World War I Persist, the author says:
Of course, the war was not over in a matter of weeks, but dragged on for four bloody, devastatingly destructive years, with more than 17 million casualties, both civilian and military. By the time of the 1918 Armistice signing Europe's map had been redrawn, but also affecting other parts of the world. Germany's influence in Africa faded; the Ottoman Empire's partition ended its influence in the Middle East; Britain and France filled in the vacuum. America ended its isolation with the war, first by President Woodrow Wilson supporting the League of Nations (US did not join), and second by becoming a military force to be reckoned with. The Great War, like a stone dropped in a pond, continued to ripple its effects for decades, Armistice partly responsible for the rise of Hitler's malevolently vengeful Nazi Party, and the rearrangement of national borders which either cemented together the people into greater nationalism, or splintered them into factionalism. So the "War to end all wars" was just the beginning. The century that followed had a whole string of wars: World War II, the Korean Conflict, Vietnam War, the endless Cold War, the Algerian War, multiple modern wars in Africa (including Biafra), Russian civil war and rise of Soviet Communism, Mao's China Communism, Castro's Communism Cuban revolution, East Timore, wars between Israel and Arab states, Persian Gulf War… And then the 20th century ended, ushering in the 21st with Al Qaeda's 11 September, 2001, massive attack on New York Twin Towers and the Pentagon in Washington. The game changed, from a world conflict of wars to a world of war conflicts, small guerrilla wars in a declared 'Jihad' against the West. However, the West would not grace that declaration of war (by a band of hard scrabble rebels from the hills of Afghanistan) with a counter declaration of war; what followed instead was military action and intelligence, arrests and prosecutions, in response to degrade the enemy through attrition, what had been policy ever since 9/11. Of all the wars, this one is proving the most intractable, even gruesome, with the enemy's total disregard for civilian lives, using civilians as human shields, firing rockets and artillery from schools and hospitals, or mosques; while respondents from the West still try adhere with efforts to shield civilians when firing back, if possible. It is an uneven war, but one that spells the path the ripples of war will take in the future. Oil is not even in the equation. These wars will be essentially 'undeclared' but fought by proxy, or denial, as is happening in Ukraine; or by disaffected young men and women from Western nations who zealously join religious wars abroad, to support a cause that would retrovert 21st century modern civilization back to the 7th. Now, one hundred years later, how did it come to this?  Europe 1918 Wars are always a wild card. You never know how they will turn out. When victorious France and Britain partitioned the remnants of the Ottomans, did they give consideration to the religious sentiments and passions of the people whose borders were drawn? Did politicians and ministers think about tribalism in Africa? Were the borders of these new, post Ottoman, post Colonialism, states drawn with any foresight of what would come of them? In retrospect, it appears the answer is not much. After a period of relative calm, often enforced by autocratic rulers (some of whom were democratically elected), the old grudges and hostilities resurfaced, as now seen in post-Arab Spring, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Kurdistan, or Somalia, the stability and progress hoped for failed. What followed was that as these strong men autocrats were forcibly deposed, they became replaced with war lords who are even more brutal. In South America, autocratic governments fight drug lords, sometimes as powerful as themselves. In Africa the war lines are constantly shifting making societal normalcy virtually impossible. In Central Asia and the Middle East, all these are laboring under corrupt officials, unreliable armies, and a cowed population terrorized by religiously motivated insurgencies. The massive failure of intelligence in the West failed to identify Bin Laden as a cruel tactician, who would use civilian airplanes full of people as living bombs, to take down the West by attacking major symbols of progress, where the fall of the Twin Towers virtually paralyzed our economies, airlines stopped flying, markets closed temporarily; though all since have returned to normalcy (except for heightened airport security), it was beyond initial comprehension. Who in our progressive, enlightened humanist times would do that? Well, they did. It is a war without armies, without uniforms, nor governments, but a war filled with ill will and shadowy figures, and mean tactics. This is the new World War, one that stretches from the Philippines to Africa, and one that despite best efforts at establishing viable states in the Middle East, or North Africa, builds on fear and loathing, such as displayed by the gruesome beheadings and killings of civilians by the self appointed Islamic State Caliphate. The wild card is that no matter how we fight them, and degrade them, and kill many, their war is unending; they will find new blood, and fighting continues. It all started one hundred years ago, and its long shadow continues still today.  Countries where Islamic terrorists attacked - add Australia (2014) Faced with this grim reality, we have no leisure to entertain that there is some simple resolution to this war. Surrendering on any level simply emboldens them more. Blaming Israel is disingenuous in the least, since Hamas and their supporters, from Iran to Turkey, to Arab states, all have sworn to destroy them; peace negotiations have yielded no results, no matter what concessions are made. Russia will do all in its power to regain control over Ukraine, more as a matter of national policy than a real economic need, fueled by the latent imperialism of a slowly failing state. Whether any of these will actually win is not much worth speculation, since they most likely will not win. But the cost of constant warfare is debilitating to all parties, and those who could least afford it are foremost at the front of these conflicts, and so their people suffer the most. So how does it all end? The unfortunate model for ending these wars is that Arab Spring was in vain, and with the exception of Tunisia (where it started), and perhaps some hope in Egypt, the end game will be for strong men to once again take control of their people. This reverts back to the old ways of war lords commanding repressive regimes, backed by their armies, who then posture to impress, though their countries are backwards and failing. Young lives are ruined, or lost, and families lament, lives pointlessly suicidally wasted. And when the borders stabilize amongst themselves, without interference (other than humanitarian aid) from countries of the West, or Asia, they will eventually run out of steam, supportive funding dried up, and they stop fighting. This is how wars end in all primitive societies, that they just stop because they are worn out, and continuing fighting gives them no pleasure. In the end, their losses will be their gain, that though failed to improve their lot, they could no longer fight. But their world is left no better.  Refugees fleeing war It is sad that our new millennium should start on such an inauspicious beginning, but that is the reality of the world. The West fought big wars, and in so doing they destabilized backwards and impoverished places in the world that did not know their own lack, and so now unleashed their misery on the rest. From millions of war refugees, to torn families, homes and cities destroyed, young men and women killed, all for the arrogance of war, one started one hundred years ago. But we live in a new world now, one that is intimately connected with jet travel and electronic communications, so the same messages now used to inflame religious, or national, passions to send young people to war will in time work against them, and the mullahs and imams, or war czars, will find their words falling on deaf ears. At some point the bravado will be overcome by exhaustion, and the wars stop. One hundred years ago, the Kaiser did not know how wrong he could be when, in 1914, he told his troops, "You will be home before the leaves have fallen from the trees." Of course, it did not end then, a century hence, it still continues. But like all wars, this too will end. And we rebuild. Peace is a better solution. Also see: UN Refugee Agency, Europe THE TRUTH ABOUT WESTERN 'COLONIALISM' Iran after the Deal Bassem Eid: Israel ‘The Best Place To Be an Arab’ - (Israeli Arabs show peaceful and positive coexistence between Jews and Arabs is possible.) Putin in Ukraine | ||
| New World Confederation |
A New World Confederation.  UN General Assembly A new world confederation for the Millennium is a natural evolution of cooperation between states and nations in our modern environment of greater communications, rapid world travel, and interdependence, where no part of the globe is in isolation from any other. We live in a totally interconnected social, economic, and political reality the world had never known before. Given this backdrop of international interdependence, it only follows naturally that all states and nations should come together in a world confederation. Confederations have existed since ancient times, when tribes and administrative regions united together to form partnerships, usually in common defense and economic administration. Examples were the Mayan confederation (10-15th centuries, CE), Swiss confederation (13th century-present), Hanseatic League (13-17th century), United States of America under the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789), Iroquois Confederacy, Canadian Confederation, and many others. The more recent confederacies formed are the African Union (2001-present) and the European Union (1993-present), and of course, the United Nations (1945). It is the same with the formation of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1949), which established an intergovernmental military alliance for European and North American nations. All these alliances had to a greater or lesser degree rendered cooperation between states and nations, some in uneasy relationships, to better achieve practical solutions to the world's many problems, from world malnutrition, to endemic wars and diseases, to mass human migrations, to climate change, in order to meet the growing needs of peoples everywhere. Isolation is no longer tenable in today's world reality. All political, social, or economic organizations have their strengths and weaknesses. For example, the United Nations has proved effective in international humanitarian aid, feeding the hungry and giving disaster relief, but had been largely ineffective in achieving peace between warring factions. The European Union has achieved a stable currency and economic cooperation, but its laws are believed arbitrary and bureaucratic. The African Union has been instrumental in combatting militancy on the continent, but thus far had not yet established economic growth, nor a common currency. Confederations may have different agendas and responses to existing human problems, but where each has its strengths or weaknesses, together they may counterbalance these shortcomings in future cooperations. Working towards a common purpose and backed by non-intrusive laws and policies, more can be achieved in union than separately, so all members benefit. There are gaps in organizational alliances. For example, the ASEAN, Association of South Asian Nations (2008), largely an economic association, does not include China, which is a large player in the region; the EU does not include Russia, which has chosen to stand alone; the Arab League (1945) largely excludes non-Muslim nations, so are insular from their inception. All these world organizations can come together for a common goal, a kind of commonwealth of nations, to work cooperatively towards solving global problems, from environmental to socio-economic issues. But to date this had not happened, though potential for such cooperation now exists. A NATO like cooperation of all states could help solve the many wars on the planet, for example, in ways no single nation or league could otherwise resolve. But this cooperation necessitates forming a world confederation to coordinate and ameliorate cultural (and religious), as well as political, differences between member states. The easiest cooperation is economic, where the common interests of market exchange pave the way for finding solutions; the hardest is political, where national or cultural passions hinder finding reasonable agreement. These differences are not insurmountable when not unreasonable, but prove serious obstacles where parties involved are unyielding. For example, the Arab League's call for the elimination of Israel has blocked every effort at a roadmap for peace in the Middle East, not least of which is changing Arab Palestinians from permanent refugee status to nationhood. But for conflicting parties, common interest solutions can be found, if the will exists, and if all parties agree to their benefit.  Gibraltar The natural evolution of these organizations of confederacy, given the growing interdependence of the world, is that in future they find means to merge together into a functional World Confederation, where all sub-groups are involved. One possible location for headquarters of the World Confederation might be Gibraltar, which is located at a cross roads of Europe and Africa, straddling both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, a fulcrum of humanity's civilization historically symbolic. Paramount for a working Confederation would be a fundamental observance by all members the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which would be foundational to how all members would be mutually and reciprocally respected in their interactions with each other. Most probably, the Confederation would be administered by democratically elected officials from the member states, akin to how is organized both the United Nations and the European Union, where elected officials would then select a chair person to oversee organizational matters. Each year the elected officials would be up for review, as to whether serve an automatic second term or their seat be up for election, to discourage entrenched interests that might run counter to the Confederation's primary goals. These goals should be spelled out in advance, agreed upon by consensus, and adapted to changing world conditions. The purpose of the World Confederation would be to coordinate world efforts at establishing peace and universal well being for all peoples of the world, of all race and ethnicity, within the context of their respective nations and laws. It should be understood the World Confederation is not a world government. Rather it is an association of world organizations working together towards common goals and interests, where the sovereignty of nations and the rights of individuals are protected, for the common good.  World family The initial goals of the new World Confederation should be modest, more to insure the workability of the organization than sweeping world projects. For example, adequate universal nutrition (already addressed by the UN's World Food Program), the eradication of world pandemic diseases (AIDS, Ebola, Polio, Malaria) should be in focus; as well perhaps arbitration of world conflicts, the Middle East and Africa (including militant religious fanaticism) especially, and the humanitarian support of massive refugee migrations to Europe (North America, Australia) should be considerations. Once initial success is achieved, the Confederacy can begin to tackle other world concerns that cannot be resolved unilaterally, climate change and rising sea levels, international copyright and patent infringements, violation of territorial waters and atmosphere (global air and water pollution, terrestrial and oceanic species degradation and extinction), international neutrality of certain global regions (Antarctica, international waters sub-sea mineral rights, outer space), eliminating human trafficking and sex slavery, for example. These issues are already being addressed in ad hoc fashion, but could be better resolved with concerted efforts in a coordinated manner overseen by a confederate body. All this represents a pooling of efforts and resources, and intelligence, that we as a human species can excel at in unison rather than separately. Large scale projects are beyond the scope of individual nations, but in pooling our knowledge and actions they can be resolved. In effect, this is the prime directive of the World Confederation, that we can achieve more together than separately. The successes or failures of this world group effort can be examined by all involved parties, debated academically, reviewed in popular media, and communicated world wide through the interlinked electronic communications the world enjoys today, something not possible a century ago. We as a planet have evolved into a new world consciousness and in confederating as a planet-wide organizational body, incorporating existing world bodies, we can better our world in ways to date never achieved. An Earth that can present itself as a consciously intelligent, universally tolerant planet, with the ability to come together as a global people united in our common goals of peace, health, and good will, is a legacy we can leave for our children and grand children to be proud of. As a confederated united world, rather than one fragmented and factional, we are better. Our emergent Universalism is based on a principle of a conscious human respect and reciprocity. The ultimate success of a World Confederacy reflects a positive light on us all. We can do this. IDA Thank you 2014, best wishes to all for New Year 2015! Also see: World taxation - Is it viable? | ||
| Yoga hormonal health |
Yoga, for our hormonal health.  Human hormones dictate the balanced interrelationships that promote good health. In the book by Dr. David Perlmutter, MD, "Grain Brain", it says: He then describes leptin, a hunger hormone, as key to thyroidal hormonal health, the importance of sleep to reset our hormonal balances, and how all hormones, from those produced by our pancreas and adrenals to hormones in our fat cells, are all necessary for good health. He also stresses the importance of exercise. But this same hormonal health is also achievable through gentle exercise, such as yoga. As in sleep, an important factor in hormonal health is exercise, daily and consistent, to achieve the body's hormonal balance. One such exercise that benefits the endocrine production of hormones is described by yoga instructor Tracey Kelly: Best Yoga Postures for Balancing Hormones, she says: Hormonal balance is key in helping the body function properly in controlling production of insulin and ketones that regulate how our cells' intake of glucose and proteins, and fatty acids (important fuel for the brain and other organs), for maximum health to avoid degenerative disease and to control our metabolic weight. Kelly lists the following glands benefited by yoga: Yoga does not have to be intensely complex, as even simple positions such as in Restorative Yoga can have beneficial impact on hormonal production. Among the benefits of relaxation yoga are: In addition to adequate sleep and exercise, such as the ancient Vedic practice of yoga, there is also the practice of consciously mindful eating. It is best to avoid refined products such as white sugar, high fructose corn syrups, hydrogenated oils (trans fats), and highly refined carbohydrates, such as white flour, pasta, and white rice (whole grains in moderation are okay), which have been proven to spike our blood sugar without the nutritional values of nutrients taken out of refined carbs. Spikes in blood sugar stresses our hormonal system by spiking insulin production to convert sugar into the glucose energy the body's cells use as fuel, including the brain, which if prolonged leads to insulin resistance, production of excess cholesterol and triglycerides, which when not used in physical work turn the excess sugar into fat cells (also a hormone, which out of balance leads to obesity), or plaque to clog our organs and arteries. As a whole balanced system, the body's hormonal system works to maintain ideal weight, and metabolic health; but if out of balance, the excess triglycerides and cholesterol production leads to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and a list of degenerative diseases such as heart disease, ischemic stroke, Alzheimer's, ALS, Parkinson's, and cancer. This long term dis-ease further degenerates our body's cells, including the brain (dementia), accelerating our aging process and systemic decline. So to maintain optimal health into our old age it is important to watch what we eat, consume adequate protein and healthy fats, and cut back on refined carbohydrates and sugars (often found in processed foods); a high fiber diet rich in vegetables and natural fruits (not stripped of fiber) all contribute to our physical well being (and bowel health). Yoga, and any form of gentle exercise such as walking, including meditation, complete the body's ability to self regulate and do what it was designed to do, to keep us active and mentally alert. Here are some gentle yoga poses that help in restoring hormonal balance: Restorative Yoga poses. Combined with mindful eating, we can enjoy our body's longevity into old age, and do so in an enjoyable and healthy way. Good health can be enjoyed for the duration of our natural existence, without having to over rely on the wonders of modern medicines. Natural health is a hormonal balance that is a free gift of life available to all of us. As our population ages, this can be a good thing. As the Kundalini Yoga blessing says: "May the long time Sun shine upon you, all love surround you, and the pure light within you guide your way on. Namaste." ADDENDUM: In a recent experience, while resting in savasana after yoga, reclining on my back comfortably on the mat, I had a suddenly spontaneous mental vision of a white and sky blue light ‘bubble’ forming over my head, it dancing in ripples of blue light, like a fluid suspended. This manifestation then entered my cranium, swished around in my head, then at my direction entered into my eyes, ears, throat, washing them with a playful light, then proceeded into my lungs and shoulders, lingered around my heart, then descended into my lower torso, all the time shimmering with its blueish light. I directed it down my legs, into my calfs and feet, before it rose back up into my arms and lingered on my fingertips. This was a pleasant experience, the light playful and radiating pure joy, as if it were happy to visit me in my reclining state, exploring my body and its health, a divinely friendly visit. I felt as if I knew it, like an ectoplasmic manifestation of some part of myself which lives both inside and outside of me. It felt healing, that bubble of sky blue light shimmering in and around me. Then when the visit was over, and savasana was coming to an end, it again returned to my cranium, lingered there briefly before exiting through the top of my head. ‘What was that?’ I thought. Was it some visit from my Universal mind, a kind of connection in its own form from my greater being? I rose and felt refreshed, an inner happiness that stayed with me awhile before rising to a sitting position. I felt I had been visited by a benevolent astral entity, one that was already known to me. 16 August 2019 Also see: Devil Sugar, demon Salt Stilling the mind - your portal | ||
| We are what we eat |
We are what we eat.  (interactive) New food pyramid vs old On our 62nd meeting of discussion Group (GWNN) we met to talk about nutrition for healthy aging. Thirteen participated in our tri-weekly meeting held in Costa Mesa, CA, with myself (volunteered) as presenter. After my half hour presentation, as per my outline notes below, I opened the floor for questions, then an hour long discussion followed. The topic centered on the following: Good Nutrition for Healthy Aging. Some of the discussion focused on how we came to this point, where there is a tight correlation between increased consumption in sugar and refined carbs and the increase in modern Western diseases, especially type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and obesity. Most of us remembered how in our childhood obesity was more rare, especially among children. With the introduction of high fructose corn syrup (1978), these diet related diseases increased dramatically. (Sugar is everywhere! Sugar and salt are added by manufacturers to increase addiction, make the consumer want more. Take steps to cut them out, and the addiction lessens, keep ingesting them and you want more.)* Also discussed were the former misconceptions on the ill effects of cholesterol and fats, now with better research understood to not be at root cause of degenerative diseases, unlike refined carbs and sugars, which are. Each of us had a chance to contribute what we knew on the matter, giving examples. In Japan, for example, the older generations remain thinner and healthier; they consume a traditional diet starting the day with a protein rich broth, small amount of rice, unlike the younger generations eating a more Western diet, and suffer obesity and related diseases. We talked about being more mindful of what we eat, eating in moderation, and reading ingredients labels to check for sugar and salt content; whole foods are best, lots of vegetables and whole fruits; lean meats and healthy fats are best. To be avoided are processed foods, highly refined carbs like white bread and pasta, and sugary drinks. (Beware of whole grain breads, cereals with sugar added!) We talked about Canola oil, not a health food; it had been highly processed, chemically deodorized, and the rapeseed from which it's made has high GMO content. We also talked about why 'diets' failed except on a temporary basis, with the weight regained and then some when stopped, which is frustrating. Low fat, high carbs diets don't work! There was some concern on GMOs, as well as advice of doctors and nutritionists who still follow the old 'cholesterol - low fat' paradigm. How much exercise do we need to be healthy? Not so much, even half hour walk or yoga is beneficial, but need 'boot camp' to burn sufficient carbs if overeating sugars. How do we break the sugar habit? We all were born into this era of bad food, bad advice, but now we have the ability to make better nutritional choices. The meeting ended on this positive note, that forewarned is forearmed, and then we turned to 'healthy' deserts made by some members, mindful of how good things can taste without too much added sugars. It was a fine evening, and hopefully we all gained something worthwhile and fulfilling from our talk. Thanks to the hostess for making her home welcome for our Group's discussion, a very fine time, nice eats. ;-) Ivan Alexander [Some additional notes: 1. First time in Human History since Civilization has domesticated starchy grains millennia ago, that there is such an abundance if food. Early grains were coarse ground and eaten whole with fiber. The introduction of highly milled refined flours and sugar around the beginning of 1800s led to the rise of many modern degenerative diseases, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, various cancers and the beginning of obesity. By the mid 20th century, these easily available refined carbs and sugars had become standard in Western modern societies but still lacking in underdeveloped societies. To your health - Salute! *(from Pauline's excellent summary of discussion) Also see: Post-Pasteurization in our food and health | ||
| Deductive Ontological Existence, and past-lives infinite regress |
Deductive Ontological Existence, and past-lives infinite regress.  Totality ontology The dictionary definition of Ontology is: noun From an existential point of view, all things in existence reduce ontologically down to its point of existence. This is deductive reasoning reduced from the basic principle of interrelationship, which says: So in sum, all of existence reduces down to a point, what gives it its 'identity'. It is what and where, and how, the pressure of the rest of existence has allowed it to be, of necessity. Therefore, from an infinite web of interconnected, interrelated existence emerges a definition of each point within that existence: this is what it is. Taking this to our human existence, we can apply the same ontological principle to deduce what it is that gives us our 'identity', what emerges from our existence in an infinite web of interrelationships. But what does that mean? On an existential level, we are the sum total of all our experiences, all of them, from life events and our responses to them to events predating us, to infinity. As an infinite regress, because we are both biologically and existentially connected to all our past, we are the point product of all these events, what in effect defines us in the totality of our being. We are all of it, from birth, but also of necessity from all the lives that predated our birth, as we had been connected to their sum total from some ancient past to the present. That is our timeline of existence, same as it is etched in our genetic makeup, and in the ontological being that defines our present. Or, in sum, we are the final ontological deduction of all that predated us in our present, not only in the events of our lives, but in all lives, again to infinity. Think of an infinite fractal existence of which we are, in its finality, the interrelated product, the deduction of all existence, from here to billions of galaxies, all defined in us. And who is that 'identity'? It is of necessity 'Who we are' in our being in this existence. Ontologically, we are deduced down to Who we are, naturally and existentially, because of how is designed the universe, and because all life is interconnected over time to infinity; some may call this phenomenon the One, others call it God.  Fractal universe So, if we are in this life a product of an infinitely interconnected existence, what defines our Who, are we also a natural product of our past lives, in some infinite regress of all existence? Some things are bigger in our lives than others, same as some people are bigger for us than others. We naturally gravitate around those events and persons, and find our lives influenced by them, that they are important to us. It seems in the nature of a fractal universe existence, some influences, and our responses to them, will be more concentrated, while others minimal in our lives. We are drawn to what is intense, not as drawn to others, so in effect we have more focus on some parts of our lives, and people in them. But the influences are nevertheless infinite, though uneven in how they effect our ontological existence. All these influences ultimately end up in producing our Who in life, even if only subliminally. But is this an effect only in this life? Can this phenomenon of variable influences be extended into our existence before birth? Such an extension of our identity's existence is obviously a speculation, something more in the domain of religious ideas, as found in all religions, on the nature of the soul. Do we know we existed in some past life? We do not with certainty, though in an infinitely interrelated universe, there can be cause for our human identity, our Who, to be existent over great periods of time. Our soul may indeed be eternal. In a fractal universe, such eternity may be multileveled, again influenced more by some events, or past human encounters, than others. This could help explain why we are drawn to some things or persons more than others, or why a person's personality may exhibit unique traits or innate talents. We are the sum product deduced from all existence focused on a point, ourselves, so in the nature of how we manifest these traits in our life could easily be understood as a function of our past existence, and encounters, and of how we had responded to them. They are all universally in sum total of Who we are. And if so, though this is a speculation, it may help explain why some things, or places, or people feel so familiar. The deduction is that our ontological existence is already known to us, at least on some subliminal level if not consciously. We continuously recreate our reality. In every thought, every choice, each action, we refashion our existence with our being. But this is taking place at much larger dimensions than observed in the presence of our immediate sphere of influence; in the fractal nature of an interrelated universe, this takes place throughout infinity. And what is created by us is universally created by everyone else on the planet. So we are continuously recreating our realities, universally. When these personal realities connect, we then form human bonds in this life. Now, stretch this into infinity in both space and time, and we have human bonds that predate us to distant antiquity. Lost are those connections to our conscious awareness, but they are remembered, perhaps subliminally, in all our being. In some ancient forgotten past we encountered, may have shared a mammoth tusks shelter in Paleolithic times which bonded us; or we may have fought in battle, or loved. The universe is impartial, so ancient enemies may have bonded into today's friendship. In the fractal nature of reality, past connections extend out to our infinite dimensions and reflect back ontologically on our personal lives now, what defines for us our mutual beings. And these continue to recreate our realities, encounters, loves and fears, into the future.  All of it, interrelated We are all of that. In an infinite regress of our lives now, pre-dating us in past lives, connections reflecting back on our present existence, both directly and subliminally fractally, all are written on us universally. There is no isolation in existence, only constant interconnections overlaying our mutual lives; in fact, we are all connected, to all life. So when two people meet, what in appearances may be by accident, there already existed a whole panorama of being for them. They were not unknown to each other, but rather had recreated our mutual realities, unaware of it, to come together. This may be in friendship, or hostility (might have to work on this), as they choose to be; but our sense of 'knowing' the other already pre existed the contact. In the infinite regress of our past lives, it had all been there already destined for us to meet.  We are all connected How many times had we met someone and felt as if we already knew them? Or in some déjà vu moment we felt we had been somewhere? Did we find them beautiful? These are but clues, since we are not yet equipped to see things in a Universal Mind context of our existence. Still, something in us responded, that we were not strangers. Then, whether this feeling continues or is lost in the fog of time will determine our future actions. Have we fallen in love? Could this be a replay of some distant bond lost to time? Or are we repulsed, and must retreat from the encounter? All this was already predisposed, so it surfaces as a subliminal feeling, a hint, a clue to Who we are together, for better or worse. The universe does not judge, and what follows is of our own creation. And how we choose to respond will influence our future being. This is totally natural and inevitable, that we will create our futures, universally, and there is no escaping it. We are our creations, same as ontologically we are the deduction of all our existences. This is now and forever, both in past and present, that we are Who we had made ourselves, both personally and universally, together.  Universally together So, does our deductive ontological being prove we had past lives? Not necessarily in any readable manner. We are still not equipped to know our past lives, so we have no meaningful way to read this. But we can speculate, based on the fractal nature of an infinitely interrelated universe, that we at least had fractional influences of past lives, our own as well as those of others. It does not mean we can claim heritage of great past personalities; we cannot all have been Julius Caesar, or Mary Queen of Scott's, for example; but we can infer that if we are deeply attracted to great past existing personalities, or historical places, we had some contact with them. Remembering that not all past influences carried the same weight, nor same intensity, there could be room to think that even tenuous past connections, like faint fractals of existence, had effect on us in this life, so we are naturally drawn to them. Whether saints or sinners, at some level they are already a part of us. But for now, these are merely comfortable speculations, which may offer a sense of friendship with our past and them, in that they are not totally unknown to us. Perhaps in some future we will know them, as we are all connected, and we each personally strive for their greatness. After all, in the fractal nature of the universe, they are all still with us, and perhaps even in us. IDA Also see: Talking to your universe The existence of 'Self' | ||
| Reformation lost |
The Reformation that could have been, but wasn't. Some people have trouble with religion. They think it is outdated or superstition, or that it breeds violence, inhumane punishment, bigotry, fear and death. These will remind us of the Crusades, Inquisition, conquests and forced conversions, slavery, now the Jihad. All are negative connotations of what they see as religion, which in their opinion no longer belongs in a modern age of science and reason, and humanist sentiments, such as those protecting our human rights. And they are right, except for one thing; it was religious sentiments that thoroughly dominated history over millennia, and what fashioned for us the world we have today. True, Europe had a Reformation, after which the hold of Catholic orthodoxy weakened, which in turn allowed formation of progressive, new secular ideas following the Renaissance: equality, freedom of belief and conscience, abolition of slavery, secular rule by constitutional law, democratically elected government, development of institutions of science and art, freedom of expression, and humanistic ideas. Since, these past four centuries have yielded civilization as the world had never known. But it happened only in one small part of the world, which later spread this new socio-philosophic idea to newly discovered worlds, as well as Africa and Asia. Religion, or a sense of belief in God, and our relationship or covenant with God, was an important message carried by the spread of civilization as we know it. But this did not happen in all parts of the world. In a large portion of the world, there is still little progress, whether in terms of medicine and science, philosophy and humanism, freedom and equality, or socio-economic development, so spread of civilization has not fully penetrated there. Rather, they are experiencing still what some people have trouble with in religion: religious intolerance, bigotry, enslavement, inequality, fear and punishment, violence, including an obsession with hell, and death. There is reason to see religion in a negative light, but there is also a positive light to be seen. All religions at their foundation have an article of faith. Judaism has Abraham's covenant with God, man's fall from the Garden of Eden; Christianity has original sin, that Christ is the Son of God, or God, to redeem that sin; Islam has that God spoke to Mohammed through Angel Gabriel, and that Koran assembled* by Calif Uthman is the ultimate word of God. These are irreducible, incontrovertible fundamental beliefs, they must be accepted on faith. Who can argue against them, yet still be called a believer? These are rock bottom foundations that are at core of reason within the contextual structure of their beliefs, and unfalsifiable. But it need not be structured this way to still believe in what is universal to all religions, that it is man's, and woman's, covenant with God, what powers human relationship with our spiritual side of existence. We may be more than what orthodoxy of religion had given us as a message from God; rather, that each human being has a spiritual relationship with a universal, eternal consciousness that defines for us all Being, that our being is at its root divine. This too is an article of faith, that our divinity is sacred, and it must be nurtured and protected with respect and love for humanity in all we are. Is this not what in its finality represented the Christian Reformation, that we each of us has a gnosis in our conscience as our covenant with God? What if, instead of accepting sacred text on faith, following the letter of the text, we sought the universal message of all faiths, that humanity has a covenant with God, that it defines for us our universal divinity? Imagine rather than obeying in submission socio-philosophical ideas set in the distant past of tribal warfare, taking women and slaves as war booty, absolute obedience to religiously sanctioned norms, ensuring tribal survival with a procreation imperative taking multiple wives and excluding males of competing tribes from taking wives, infanticide of children born to slaves, women kept as household property and made to obey their males, religious demands to war on competing tribes; imagine instead that modern values of gender equality, universalist equality before the law, rule by written constitutional law, abolition of slavery in all forms, protecting women and children from exploitation, the personal right to choose how we live life with mutual reciprocal respect, freedom of belief and expression; and we have two absolutely opposite ideas on how we are to enact God's covenant with a right to personal freedoms and respect in our spiritual existence. These are the two worlds whose paths diverge in the extreme, one ancient, the other progressively modern, which cannot co-exist side by side without generating conflict and war. Think about it. The reason for the Christian Reformation was to break free and allow for questioning the dogmas of the Church. This lead to opening up the Renaissance. Nothing like this ever happened in Islam, where still today questioning the faith is forbidden, and may be punished with death. So Islam never had a Reformation, and consequently never entered a period of Renaissance. In the same way the Reformation surpassed orthodoxy of the traditional Christian church, or how other religions have reflected more modern norms, for example, Baha'i equality of gender and universal education, Yazidis and Sufis incorporation of personal spirituality, and angels, into their beliefs; of Christian ideals of charity and compassion, or Judaism's evolution beyond temple animal sacrifice; all these reflected in their own way a reformation of their original Islamic, Christian, or Hebrew orthodoxy. Yet none abandoned their original intent. Now imagine that rather than warring on competing tribes and beliefs, there is instead a progressive intent of helping humanity inclusively and universally, building of hospitals for all peoples, charity aid given to all where there is need regardless of their religion, that of a kinder spirituality tolerant of how people worship, that gives them freedom in how they believe; is this not the rock foundation of all moral values, the same covenant, or gnosis, with God? What changed? The letter of holy texts had not changed, only how we read this text in a new light of wisdom and progressive vision had changed. We need not be blindly wedded to norms of past centuries, if we are to fully reach our universal spiritual potentials. That was then, this is now. Same God, same religion. Some say that Islam failed at its reformation, and instead got frozen into a Medieval mode of worship, one which forbids questioning its orthodoxy. They say the brutality we witness today is inherited from that faux reformation, a Reformation lost, when it took its sacred texts more literally. But this is false. A reformed version would incorporate more modern values and freedoms, not more orthodoxy, by definition. Islam's call to obey in submission would be for each person to find in their heart and conscience their relationship with God, and obey that; the strict rules of the faith would instead be strict inner discipline to live a virtuous life; the demanded modesty of women would be their mindfulness when in public presence, and how to honor themselves for their beauty God gave them; and the way of prayer is to bring us in our minds closer to who we are in the eyes of God into our own lives. These are the true meanings behind the fundamental teachings, not the ignorantly unenlightened notions of obeying ancient texts as if they were written today. That was then, this is now. Of course what was written millennia ago is outdated today. This is true of all human knowledge, including our religious beliefs. We have been given intelligence to not remain ignorant, slavishly memorizing ancient texts as if it were meant for all time. Evolution of ideas is as real for humanity as is its cultural, physical evolution. Were this not so, we would still all be living as primitive, subsistence hunter-gatherers, existing meagerly only to survive and procreate. We are so much more than this, as history has proved. So why not religion? Why not improve on knowledge and education, on the arts and sciences, our understanding of the unverse, on our spiritual, and technological know how? Is this not humanity as God made it? Why hold this back with fear and punishment, threats of death, and obsession with the next life, or hell? Reformation is a direct result of an evolving humanity. Nothing is sacrificed in our spiritual pursuits, in our covenant with God, but the ignorance of an ignorant past. To reach for a higher order is intimately human in us, and any religious reformation must encompass that reaching, or it is regressive and false. The beauty of religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, is that the original impulse of man to reach for a higher spiritual level, of worshipping God, in peace and serenity, is universal in all religions, what brings about a more gentle, thoughtful, loving and courteous existence, all fundamental moral virtues, into our personal lives. Is this not the best of all religion? That is what an Islamic Reformation would have brought about in its full, spiritual beauty, centuries ago. But God is all knowing and foregiving, and infinitely patient... Also see: The Most Great Peace Who's Covenant of God? *(If Uthman had compiled the Koran from the then known sources and finalized it into the proper version to be accepted for all time, then had he not imitated the role of Saint Paul, who formalized Christianity as it had been known for subsequent centuries? While the Gospels had been studied and debated for centuries, such scrutiny of the Koran was forbidden by Uthman’s decree, however, hence it had not been debated, until now. Is Islam in effect not truly Mohammedism as such, but as Uthmanism, if the latter laid out in incontrovertible detail what future generations were allowed to believe? Both accomplished their mission within the first century of their religion’s founding, so were as close to defining their religion as were any founders of their faiths.) | ||
| Lord's Prayer, new |
The Lord's Prayer, new universalist. The world knows it as the Lord's Prayer: Matthew 6:9–13 (ESV) In a Universalism, secular modern context, this iconic prayer may be one that helps center us consciously in our being: Amen. | ||
| What manner 'god' this be? |
What manner of 'god' this be?  In the ancient Epic of Gilgamesh, the gods deprive him of his search for eternal life with the admonition that "when the gods created man, they let death be his share." Hence man was created to die. Yet through the ages men had tried to cheat death, and on their worship of the gods they sought eternal life. It is now and always had been the central core of our worship, to achieve eternity in some imagined paradise or heaven, where our souls reside forever outside time, in all the splendors promised there for eternity. And so we worship our 'god' with the hope we will be entered into paradise for eternity. Now imagine this 'god' worshipped is a demanding god, one that expects all his worshippers to do exactly his bidding as he revealed it to them, and that to fail in this bidding is to be punished, not only in this life but for all eternity without pardon; the converse is if one does all as bid, in minutest detail of how it was revealed, then paradise awaits them for eternity. That seems a fair trade for an eternity of bliss. But the devil is in the details, that to achieve paradise one must follow them to the letter, or be punished. Now further imagine that when the 'god's' bidding is done faithfully, the outcome may disappoint in this life, much sacrifice testing our faith; but it enhances the promised paradise in the next. To an adolescent mind is promised carnal desires in unlimited satisfactions, doe eyed virgins to serve his every wish no matter how perverse, rivers of milk and wine, fair haired boys to serve your desire... Is this not worthy of paradise for eternity? Otherwise you are punished with never ending fire eating your flesh for eternity. But the reality is this 'god' demands sacrifice in real terms: if a woman, she is subservient to a man; if a healthy man, he must fight for this 'god' to make all submit to him; if he dies fighting, paradise is guaranteed, but if he fails, it is hell fire; he must eschew wine and certain meats to keep his fighting body pure; he must obey every command of this god's priests, in every prayer, or be punished here and thereafter; he must hold the book of holy revelations as high as the 'god', or be punished. The end is always justified as paradise for the worshippers, no matter the pain and cruelty of the means to achieve this end, for paradise is assured when all demands are obeyed. This is the reality the worshippers must accept if they are to be 'true believers' in this god. They must obey without question, for the god has revealed himself for all time. And in this revelation is a world where fighting is a way of life, to enter paradise. It is a world where all who come close to it will know strife, where its borders are alight with war. It is a world of worship where failure to worship correctly is punished: where homosexuality is death; where men and women may not interact freely; where children are educated memorizing the god's revelations, not what makes the world; where women must be covered, or risk rape; to worship only him and no other, all demanded as revealed. These are not man made ideas (for this god freedom is mischief and reason tightly circumscribed), but are all mandated by this god in his revelations; and all who obey achieve paradise, while those who fail the hell fires. This is not some human fantasy but an absolute demand from the god's revelations. Obey in full surrender or suffer for eternity. What would Gilgamesh do in this choice? Obey in submission to achieve eternity, or fail? This 'god' (who goes unnamed) is no stranger to us, as he has revealed himself, and he answers to some deep atavistic chord in all of us. Perhaps a distant, mysterious cousin of Kali or Ba'al, his world is one of creation and destruction, in the final 'end of days' where all humanity is tested as to whether they believe in him, or not. To worship this god is to sacrifice all that is human in love, in the arts, and in freedom to achieve paradise, with all its glory of wine and sweet gardens, and women. In this world, as the men fight to spread the word of this god, they are promised women as war booty captured in battle; the men slain, boys castrated, women and girls enslaved, unwanted slave children killed; the promised eternal paradise is predicated on this 'holy' order. Failure to obey is hell fires. What young men hot in their groin could resist such offers from a 'god'? And if conquered in battle, there are three choices: obey the god and submit, pay a severe tax and suffer servitude, or die. Most will submit somewhere along the way, or their daughters will submit, or their grandchildren (who had forgotten their free heritage) will submit to ease their life, the god demands all this. Gilgamesh in his earnest quest for eternal life would be posed with same choices. Which would he choose? What manner 'god' this be who promises paradise eternity at such high cost? Is it worthy of worship? Gilgamesh would weigh the cost of paradise and decide: is death better than paradise? Why not choose both? Death and paradise, a final suicidal act for the god! ... Death or eternal life? Gilgamesh must choose his share. What manner 'god' this be? Accepting Peace plan is betrayal -Grand mufti PLO | ||
| 'Happy Days' gone? |
Have the 'Happy Days' gone?  Happy Days It started in 1979 when the Shah of Iran was deposed by a popular revolt against his repressive rule. But the hopes and aspirations of democratic reform soon fell to the religious powers of the Ayatollahs, so the liberal revolution was suppressed by the Islamic revolution, crushing the pro-democracy opposition mercilessly. This was the first shoe to drop, followed by suicide bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut 1983, followed by a string of Islamic attacks, murder on the Achilles Lauro cruise ship hijacking 1985, a string of Islamist attacks on US embassies, Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie 1988, bomb attack on New Yorks World Trade Tower in 1993, suicide bombings of USS Cole in Yemen 2000, and culminating with the world shocking 9/11 Al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Towers in 2001. This changed the world and a 'war' had been declared against the United States and the Western world by extremists in Islam. This was a one sided declaration, as the US wisely did not declare war on Islam as the extremists hoped for. Rather America's response was in measured retaliations against the extremists factions, Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, the war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, Islamic piracy at sea, and now Syria. Whether or not declared, the second shoe had dropped and the world was at war. It all started even before the Iran Revolution, going back to the mid '50s and '60s, during those 'Happy Days' under the Eisenhower administration, when American economic and political power was at its best. Americans were enjoying a post war economic boom, a large middle class was experiencing unprecedented wealth, where they had cars, refrigerators, home appliances, televisions, and material goods. Though there was inflation, incomes were also rising, as was the GDP. In this sheltered environment grew up a whole generation of kids 'spoiled' with the largess of a successful economy, but all was not well. There was growing discontent with traditional American values, young people took the streets in protest against the 'establishment' and its moral values, which gave way to student revolts and mass demonstrations. There was discontent with Civil Rights violations of the colored minorities, segregation policies in the South, some resulting in riots, the unpopular American involvement in Vietnam, and the draft. This was against the backdrop of a Cold War with the Communist half of the world, the Soviet takeover of most of Eastern Europe, the Berlin Wall, Mao Tse Tung's China Cultural Revolution. Soviet Russia's brutal repression of peoples' aspirations for independence in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, China's incursions into Southeast Asia all strengthened Communism; while Castro's Cuban revolution brought Communism to the Americas. Eisenhower's diplomacy failed to stem the Red tide of Communist aspirations, as have subsequent presidents, often accepting a stalemate position with partition of nations, such as Korea. The apparent Soviet and Chinese Communist strategy was to 'divide and conquer', where a half position was established between East and West, as seen in Germany, or North-South as in Korea (Truman), and later Vietnam. The idea was that once partition was established, the remainder would be attacked and fall to Communism. It worked in Vietnam, but not Korea; East Germany was later dissolved and reabsorbed into the West with the fall of the Soviet empire. As Dr. David Keith Adams wrote in his book America in the Twentieth Century (1967), European and American interests and policies were tapered by a policy of 'containment' to avert another world war, especially nuclear war. However Stalin's successors backed away from American overtures, such as the establishment, at first favored but later rejected, of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission 1956, so it only included members of the Free World. Eisenhower's diplomacy efforts failed, and though nuclear war was averted the Cold War continued during those 'happy days.' There were more confusing American and European policies in the Middle East yielding mixed results. The creation of Israel neglected Arab sensibilities, so relations between the Eastern world and the West remained strained. France and England carved up the former Turkish Ottoman Empire into new Arab states, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, which were predominantly Muslim, and Lebanon. This unhappy Middle Eastern state gave Communism a wedge with which to drive influence on the region, with little reaction from European powers fearful of the 'colonialist' label. Dr. Adams writes: The primary interest, besides Israel's survival against Arab aggression, was safeguarding the West's supply of oil from the region. The Suez Canal debacle, through which three quarters of Europe's oil flowed, closed by Egypt was a wake up call to Western diplomatic policy. Against the constant pressure from Soviet expansionist ambitions in the region, Americans and Europeans forged alliances to protect their interests and stem the Red tide. This included supporting Shah Pahlavi of Iran, despite his autocratic heavy handed rule of his people, especially against Islamic sedition. American CIA placed their bets on him, more so to thwart Soviet ambitions from infiltrating Communism into neighboring Arab states. Of course, 1979 changed all that and the Ayatollahs took the Iran revolution in a whole new direction. We now live in a world of horrific news headlines, Boko Haram abducting Christian school girls for selling them as sex slaves, Al Shabab harassing shipping off the Horn of Africa, Al-Qaeda operating in various parts of Africa and Asia, and of course the (so called) Islamic State: Bloody, destructive, capturing and killing those who disobey, or beheading apostates, taking captives for ransom, suicide bombings wherever they can find soft targets, using human shields, firing artillery and missiles from schools and hospitals, often with women and children inside, attacks on civilians with butcher knives, trucks and cars, massive desperate human migrations from extreme-Islam occupied territories ... And one begins to wonder...oh the horror. Where are those Happy Days now? The United States is still a respected world power, but the heady optimism of the last mid-century is now hollow, replaced with sober reevaluation of who is America. Are we still a united people facing a world wide crisis of confidence: post colonialism corrupt dictators, fanatical religious Islamic extremism, misdirected and imprudent financial management, excessive debt both domestic and foreign, job loss to overseas competitors, quality degradation to conserve low prices; are we still driving our future or is it being driven for us? Have we fallen so far from our confused policy and diplomacy since the victory of World War II? It all started to unroll with the Ayatollahs toppling the Shah. How red is their hand in what followed, not only in the post-revolution anti-democracy repression in Iran but throughout the Muslim world? Is it still their world ambition now, to spread their Islamic Revolution until the cataclysmic End of Times? Do we have the high caliber leadership in the West needed to manage aggressive ambitions of belligerent world players today? What exactly is America's position on the Iranian Bomb, when it is built? Then there is the growing awareness that the world will not spiral into a predicted population time bomb by the end of this century, but that by mid century may be entering into a worldwide population implosion. Add global warming, rising oceans, food resources disruptions, mass human suffering... Are we ready for this? We may never recreate that naively endearing time of the mid '50s, those Happy Days, but we may yet rise to the world threats facing us as a nation, and Americans as a people. This struggle is not only in the West but also for all peoples of the world who yearn for liberty and the freedom to find their way in life, unencumbered by coercions and political repression, and religious fanaticism. The world may be ready for this next stage of its universal development, protecting the sanctity of all humanity, men and women equally. We have the intellect and sophisticated technologies to do this. Can we right the past wrongs, not with self castigation but with positive planning and execution of clearly defined ideas? This is where we are now. 'We the People' can do this, if we choose. But it may be a long dark winter of discontent before we once more enjoy those Happy Days. Also see: UNDERMINING ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Reverse Racism Passing of an Age Are we losing our sense of ‘liberty’? Iran after the 'Deal' One Hundred Years War Trump's cabinet to target Iran's war ideology Short video of Muslim women then and now | ||
| Flu is good for you? |
Flu cold is good for you? Have you ever wondered why flu season* comes with such regularity and seems to strike most of us. This year flu got us in February, hit us like a Mack truck, and after five days of misery in bed with fever, full body aches, coughing up mucus, lack of appetite, trying to drink often, sleeping a lot, and we're still not recovered. Of course we never considered flu shots, so were wide open for flu season. But could there be a sensible reason why we get flu? *(not to be confused with Flu Pandemics) After a cursory search online, past all the food supplements to boost our immune system, I came across this interesting article by Dr. Ben Kim: What most doctors won't tell you about colds and flus.  Recovering flu, could be worse Dr. Kim says: This advice makes sense per his explanation that the cold and flu viruses attack weaker sickly cells first before the body can mount a meaningful response with high temperature, which eventually kills the virus. In effect, this is a process of reboot of the body's immune system while at same time cleaning off cellular debris accumulated over the year. Considering our less than ideal life styles and diets, this body reboot is a necessary step to keep us healthy over the long term. Or per Dr. Kim:
So with this necessary (but unpleasant) housekeeping performed on us by cold and flu viruses, why would we want to hinder it? Sure the flu is miserable, still not recovered and I feel my pain, but in a way it is something for which I should be grateful. In a sensible universe, this explanation (unsupported by pharmaceutical studies... why would they?) is one that makes a lot of sense, that it is a regular, more or less annual, housecleaning and rebooting of our natural organism to face another year. (Probably another inherited gene from our long ago Neanderthal cousins.) Would I take a flu shot? At times during the height of fever I might have succumbed. But the flu did not kill me, so the answer is most likely not. However neither am I in a high risk group, so my decision is not right for others. But next time I suffer the miseries of flu and colds, in some secret recess of my fever impaired consciousness, miserable as can be, I'd have to whisper a little "thank you" to the universe for keeping me clean. It’s my immune system flexing its muscles. All that yukky stuff blowing out my nose, or coughed out of my lungs, it's a good thing! A cure for the common cold? I'd raise a cup of hot tea with lemon and honey as a toast, "No thank you!" IDA This just in: Million-year-old viruses help fight cancer, say scientists - viruses help us fight cancer? BBC | ||
| Human-animal bonding |
When humans and animals bond.  (interactive video) Wild Thing pet buffalo Couple Has House-Trained Buffalo Named 'Wild Thing' as a Pet: 'He's Really a Gentleman'
More on human-animal bonding Human-canine bond - Wiki The bond between pet and owner - Psychology Today BBC video of Wild Thing Also see: Birds ‘feel’ the air with their wingtips | ||
| Life on Europa? |
Is this life on Europa?  (Interactive-video)
Some candidates for Extraterrestrial life in our solar system: Europa, Enceladus, Ganymede, Callisto, and possibly Mars. Also see: Microbial life may be the key to macro-multicellular life A Universe of Life | ||
| 'Free will' made easy |
'Free will' made easy.  Free wi! Do we have free will? This is an eternal question asked by philosophers, and nearly every common man. We all have an intuitive awareness of self and a sense of freedom of choice, so we naturally presume to have 'free will'. But can it be proven? Empirically, we can say positivism dictates that there must be some observational methodology to prove free will. What do our sense and empirical data say of free will? In fact, virtually nothing, as free will is as elusive as our sense of 'self' awareness. No matter how deep we probe into our brain, consciousness remains mysterious. So positivism, other than being 'chosen' by us as an idea, cannot resolve the question of whether we have 'free will'. It is then left to determinism to decide if we have a true free will. But there too, other than defaulting to a compromise, such as the compatibilism concept, where hard predeterminism is modified by our 'freedom' to act and choose, we are left with an unsatisfactory solution. Why should freedom of choice, and speech, or actions, be validated if free will is undetermined? Doesn't predetermination trump any idea of free will if the universe, down to the quantum level, is already pre-ordered a priori to infinity? Then any choice made is merely a predisposition enacted, over which we had no real control. We 'chose' as we were predetermined to do. We had explored earlier how Goedele's incompleteness theorem may explain how determinism is a flawed concept. Same was explored in the concept of emergence and the second law of thermodynamics, invalidating strict predeterminism, since the universe is in a constant state of flux and apparent life emergence. Therefore, the 'predetermination' argument against free will is flawed, and ultimately inconsequential. So this leaves by a process of elimination that our intuitive sense of Free Will is in fact a real phenomenon, though we are unable to prove it empirically or positively. But there is a philosophical 'trick' that makes this proof of free will easy: Take two philosophers and ask them "is there free will"? Either predeterminism is universal or it is false. If true, then the question can only have one 'predetermined' answer, that it is universal, and the answer must be 'yes'. But if it is not true, then any answer to the question is equally valid, as they answer of their own 'free will'. So if one answers 'yes' while the other says 'no', then there is your proof that 'predeterminism' does not exist! As a self contradiction, they can't both be right in a unified universe, so the proposition is false. Therefore, by default, predeterminism is fiction, and free will must exist. | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
What is China afraid of?  What is China afraid of? The post-Mao nation has a history of perceived siege, wrapping itself in a policy of self protection as if some external or internal enemy wants to send the country into dissolution and turmoil. For example, in Huffington Post:
Is this a valid fear born of legitimate grievances, or is it an inherent fear shared by the Chinese people? Is the current Party system of Communist China, despite its policies of introducing market exchange type economics, highly successful, really threatened? Or is it its perceived self paranoia brandished in its policies against the Western world, and its people? Apparently it had its result in creating an atmosphere of fear, as the article points out:
Remember this is a people who have the great Chinese Wall in their history. So a self protective wall of fear is already in their national character. All the Party has to do is fan it and keep the Chinese people from seeking their natural freedoms, their universal human rights, to keep itself in power. Is that all it is? A nation afraid? Nowhere is this national fear better expressed than in China’s attitude towards Tibet. How is a greater autonomy for Tibet a threat to the Chinese nation? Clearly neither Tibetan military ability nor the character of its people can be considered threatening. After a millennium of Buddhism, Tibet is a peaceful place, not belligerent in any stretch of imagination. Yet Chinese policy towards Tibet is one of absolute control. Nor can Tibet be seen as a buffer against India, or Russia, the two powers it mistrusts most, nor the United States (which has no stake in Chinese geographic dominance, except right of free passage in international waters). It cannot be for fear of invasion through Tibet. In a world of intercontinental nuclear missiles, the idea of a ‘buffer’ state makes no sense. It belongs to a past century when armies marched, not war waged with sophisticated air power, missiles and remote controlled drones. In this century, no part of the globe is beyond reach of the Super Powers’ military might. So China’s fears over Tibet are outdated. Perhaps the fear is internal, that greater Tibetan autonomy will embolden those who seek greater democratic reforms in China. Tibetans are less that 0.5% percent of China’s population, so their influence on the future is miniscule. But as the Dalai Lama demonstrated through decades of preaching a peaceful philosophy for Tibet, great freedom is a powerful legacy the Party may not wish to engage. So repression is institutionalized instead, with greater Chinese immigration, overwhelming Tibetan culture with demographics, and rigid internal controls. Foreigners may not freely talk to Tibetans, or both face condemnation and criminal prosecution. To bring a photo of the Dalai Lama into Tibet is a crime. These are manifestations of fear the Chinese Communist government display consistently. The same applies to its reabsorption of Hong Kong and Macau, and endless dreams of expanding into the South China seas regions with building manmade islands. These are ecological disasters. Are they necessary? What is the fear? Philippines, Vietnam, or Taiwan? Does anyone in the world really care about military or expansionist campaigns against China? The simple answer is No. The world can live with an ‘isolationist’ China if it does not trespass on its neighbors. The greatest fear in China is within itself. And fear means geater control. China lives in fear, so it must control more and more of its territory. It is a super power with a vast standing army, modern technological capabilities, a viable space program, and a fantastic cultural history. China is a great nation. But it is afraid, keeps an imperial expansionist program, has the rogue North Korea in its back pocket, and really should be more afraid of Iran than India. But the real fear is internal. The Communist Party regime is afraid of its people. This is why its Constitution had been changed to make the Party Secretary of the Communist Party, Xi Pinjing, leader for life. They are afraid of Western styled democracy, multi partied elections, and universal personal freedoms. In this China is on the wrong side of history. If pushed too far, like a cornered animal, China will bite back. But despite all its prowess, it may discover it is a weak power. Its feudal one Party authoritarian government is as out of step with the times as North Korea is out of step with the South. Gaining more islands in the South China Sea, or tightening hold on Tibet, and Hong Kong, will not relieve their fears. They have locked themselves in a bunker mentality, afraid of their own people. That policy can only go one way in the future, to strong man rule, repressive dictatorship, and ultimately cracks from their self imposed rigidity. China’s future does not look promising if they continue their current policy of fear. Better if they experiment with social models that embrace gradual social reforms. Same as greater market exchange, pseudo-capitalism has economically elevated their nation beyond their wildest Marxist dreams, so will greater freedoms of human rights and democratic reforms elevate the nation beyond its constraining fears. That can make them a true Super Power, one that can contain their biggest rivals, of an Imperial Russia, and the socially regressive destabilizations of Iran, or Qatar. We will know which way it will go in Tibet. Watch Tibet. Watch Taiwan. This just in: US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lands in Taiwan amid threats of Chinese retaliation (2 August 2022) China fires missiles near Taiwan after Pelosi visit China is seen as a local bully nation, but like Russia more bluster and posturing than substance. Their military maneuvers are being closely watched. And like other autocracies, North Korea, Russia, Cuba; China needs fear of an external enemy to power their control over their internal populations. For dictatorial autocracies, Fear is a win-win. | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Where are our Wonder Heroes?  Where are our Wonder Heroes? Every nation and people need heroes to look up to as their super models, living or imaginary legends who show us the way we would be as a fair and admirable society with “liberty and justice for all.” Are these not the call all Wonder Heroes, to fight crime and injustice the American way? Wonder Woman, Captain America, Green Lantern or Thor, Superman or Spider-Man, Spider-Girl or Batman and Robin or Flash Gordon, they are all heroic men and women who fight for us with their superpowers to keep us safe from villainous evil. Where are our Wonder Heroes today? Do we still need them? Every nation, every generation, must have its heroes. But more importantly, every generation must have its quests. The young men in their twenties of the Eighteenth century in the American colonies had principles and ideals, and they thought they could form a better nation than one of monarchy, so they wrote a charter, and created a new nation. Their heroes were Washington and Jefferson, Adams and Franklin, who fought the injustice of colonialism and created the greatest nation on Earth. This greatness was tested again in Lincoln and Roosevelt, but the American nation prevailed. Young men and women need their quests, same as our Wonder Heroes had theirs, to fight the bad guys, to right wrongs. Our War generation fought Nazism, war heroes who brought us a world safe for Democracy. A generation later heroes for freedom watched the fall of the Berlin Wall, and soon after the Iron Curtain. That was our collective Quest then. What is it now? We need our Wonder Heroes to remind us that we are more than mere watchers, but that we are engaged in this fight for right and justice just as they are. Our present generation fought for equal civil rights, environmental awareness, restraining nuclear weapons, energy and oil consumption with renewables, and we fought for the right to self expression regardless of gender or origin. These were our quests, and with them we had our heroes. The new generation, in any national or international arena, will have their own quests, and heroes. They may be quiet ‘Clark Kents’ who in truth are Superheroes, fighting to right the wrongs and stop the Super-villains. Our new generation faces the stark reality of gun violence, knife violence and vehicular mass murder, as well as crimes against humanity, rape of women, sexual slavery, child soldiers, and suicide attacks called by religion-perversions. These are the big Quests facing humanity today, along side with environmental, global warming dislocations, and ocean pollution aquatic collapse, and their possible world famines, and subsequent pandemics. They will need their Wonder Heroes to grapple with these villains, same as we in past generations had grappled with ours. Do we really need free access to mass killing weapons, or machine guns? No! Why should we? Restrict them. The human Quest is ongoing, with grit and determination, talent and intellect, to right the wrongs that assault us. Whether it be in China, or Africa, Europe or the Americas, the Quest calls for our best of our Super Heroes, to make the future safe for humanity. Who will answer the call? Will we know them? IDA | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Universal freedom’s counterintuitive slavery.  We all strive for universal freedom. But what if slavery is being peddled as freedom? What happens then? In every well organized society there are provisions to care for the poor and helpless. In modern society it is handled by social contract, that no one should go hungry and homeless. Though not always successful, it is a mark of a civilized social order that such services are available to those in need. To some degree these social services are a legacy of a time when famines were common, labor was impunitively exploited, and social safety nets were largely absent save those offered by charitable institutions and churches. Such were the political times Karl Marx wrote in, while composing his Das Kapital, along with other thinkers and social reformers of Industrial Age 19th century. Today we have inherited much of those earlier socialist sentiments, some outdated but others timely, to bring about a more just and equitable society. Not all Socialist liberal ideals are workable, as Communism’s spectacular failures and grinding genocides attested, but the idea of social contract to care and provide for those most in need is a worthy cause offering most of us a safety net welcome during difficult times. While we all wish to live our lives free, free in a Classical liberalism to pursue our own abilities and happiness, nevertheless there are times when our universal freedoms are restricted by circumstances beyond our control, and we seek help. The philosophical idea of a universal safety net by social contract is now well accepted in the Western world. No modern society would relinquish its ability to care for its poor, nor would we think of abandoning the institutional mechanisms that make such care possible. Social assistance in housing, food vouchers, retirement and pensioner’s benefits, unemployment security, child welfare services, and now considered minimum income security; these are all valuable services we would not dream of dismantling, all are important social safety nets provided by government. In fact, our freedoms depend on their services to insure society works free of chaos and coercions, such as found in underdeveloped worlds of gangs warfare, human trafficking, and slavery. To have a truly free society, where universal freedom rules over coercions that make us unfree, is the necessary foundation of a society built up on agreements rather than dissolved by strife. Witness the massive migrations of people seeking relief from war and poverty, risking life and limb for themselves and their children for a better life in Europe and North America. One society is free and works, while the others are unfree and failing. So dismantling socialist inspired social services in exchange for some unrestricted freedom ideals is not a solution, but more likely a recipe for social failure. But there is one aspect of this social guarantee to lift us from poverty (a poverty that has had socially destabilizing effects, fed criminal activities, which paradoxically created a kind of social slavery for its beneficiaries) that can be instituted. This paradoxical, counter-intuitive condition of social slavery is found in generational dependence on social welfare, such as found in impoverished inner cities or amongst the rural poor. The social welfare system was not designed as a permanent solution for those being helped, but rather envisioned as a helping hand, a stepping stone to self reliance until the beneficiary found his or her footing in life. However, after decades of services offered, it has become apparent that there are those unable to lift themselves up of their own volition but remain trapped in cycles of poverty from generation to generation. That is clearly a failure of social contract, that families and individuals should remain dependent, in effect slaves, of a social system which ensures their remaining in poverty. Where are the failings in this? The issue is complex, and the reasons for this social failure many. The paradoxical condition of helping people by making them dependent on that help indefinitely is unsustainable and unjust. Keeping people in perpetual poverty is a case of a socialist idea gone bad. This should have been foreseen, that there would be consequences to the social safety net if improperly administered. What was not factored into policy is that fathers abandon their families, extra children generate extra income, lack of work incentives leads to lack of willingness to work; and worst of all, though perhaps not intentional, is the lack of equality for people of color in rural and inner city settings, them relegated to perpetual second class citizenship (with perhaps the dubious distinction they may become vetted as a political voting block) relegated to a permanent inferior status amongst equals. Is this not a form of social slavery? Is it not cultivating a sub-class of dependent peoples who, in the name of freedom and equality, are being kept in perpetual poverty dependency generation after generation? That is institutionalized slavery which must be stopped. The better way is to give the means of self determination and education to rise above a permanent dependency on the welfare of the state. If they are people of color, let them develop their own cultural wellness and confidence without forcing on them European-American social values, give them freedom to choose; and let them have their own schools to achieve their goals. We all learn differently and at our own pace, by our own efforts, and these should be encouraged at the social level by helping fund schools (even if culturally-ethnically segregated, the Amish do it) that will achieve excellence. We should encourage policy that unites families together rather than separating fathers, leaving mothers to raise families alone. And we should reward those who are able to end their cycles of poverty, who become independent of the social welfare system and become productive members of society. Education is the first step, but it must be followed by recognizing positive results if ending a cycle of socialized slavery is to find permanence. In short, we need to recognize there are no justifications for peddling dependency slavery as economic freedom, or dependency as an end in itself, for that peddles socialized slavery of a people permanently trapped in poverty with no hope. Their hope to rise from permanent slavery can only come from personal empowerment, that they are valued and productive members of society. Then, when no longer wards of the state, their slavery can truly end. Also see: Are we losing our sense of ‘liberty’? | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
The inequality of ‘Equality’.  We all think we understand Equality, though we may have different opinions of it. Egalitarianism, which is how most of us think of ‘equality’ in a social context, harks back to the Age of Enlightenment and French Revolution, where “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” were their rallying cry. Though back then this was for equality between men of privilege, of the aristocracy, and the common man, the rest of us. The slogan became extended to apply to other aspects of ‘equality’, from the right to work for equal pay, to racial equality, to sex gender equality, as well as equality before the law, which the latter may have been the original philosophical social intent in addition to equality of privilege. Under Socialism there was the additional ‘equality’ of ownership of wealth and manufacturing, which led to land redistribution from the rich and government ownership of means of production, allegedly for the common good, though in reality (see Communism) it hurt the common man more than inequality. So what have we really got in our common social consciousness of Equality? Is it fairness, or equal opportunity, or equal expectations? The issue is complex. It cannot be denied that on many levels we humans are seriously un-equal. I can state with fair certainty that I will never be an Einstein, or that you will never write Shakespeare; likewise I will never be as rich as Bill Gates, and you will never be as famous as Oprah; these are facts of nature, that we are both intellectually, socially and economically, unequal. Yet, equality is a socio-philosophical ideal we aspire to. We want to have equality before the law, and we would like to see more equal opportunity for all people regardless of race or gender. But the obstruction we run into is the inequality of origin, of intellect, and of ambition. We cannot all be high achieving if we do not have the same drive and skill to do so, even if born into a privileged social or economic class, or race. Being a ‘white anglo-saxon male’ is not guarantee to economic and social success;* in some cases where ‘equality’ is being used as a cudgel against a perceived privileged class, or race, it can be as oppressively coercive as inequality. When equality means equal opportunity, it is a moral good, for it offers hope; when ‘equality’ is meant to show equal results, it is a moral dysfunction, one that leads to envy, apathy, and greed. Which is more moral? Ask the Kulaks of Soviet Russia who lost all their properties, or ask Asian students turned away from Harvard because they were smarter than competing students from other ‘minorities’, or corporate executives passed over in promotions because of race and gender quotas. Inequality or equality? We cannot all be great athletes or jazz musicians, nor can we all be intellectual giants, so we are inherently ‘unequal’ of necessity. We can all strive for the best we can be. But same as we cannot fall back on some perceived privilegeness to raise ourselves above our abilities, nor can we call on quotaism without sacrificing that sought after excellence, because then we are cheating both ourselves and others. If you cannot afford to lose, you should not play. Same as refusing to accept defeat in a democratic process is petulant and compromises the agreement entered by social contract; failure to accept the outcome is unfair to the concept of equality. To raise oneself through quotas, or perceived victimhood or self declared privilege, leads to a delusion of equality instead of promoting it. To raise issues of sexism or racism, or Fascism, or Leftism, or Islamism, or any political isms, is to circumvent the equality desired, which is an inherent danger promoting the opposite effect of what is being sought. Such so-called equality leads to dysfunctions of further inequality. That is the human reality, that we are all inherently unequal, every one of us, and calling us ‘equal’ in any sense other than our rights before the law is delusory. Society is built up of many levels of agreements, from social agreements to contractual agreements, all built up into the socio-political networks governed by the rules of law. The origins of law date back to tribal chiefs and kings who ruled their subjects by agreeing to protect them in exchange for their obedience. People exchanged their freedoms for the favors of the court and sought protection. Only in recent times has this exchange been reversed, where our natural freedoms and human rights were safeguarded by constitutional government, so the rule of law applied to everyone, at least in theory, applying to all including rulers and their officials. In less developed countries this exchange is still malformed, with dictators or strong men taking a greater share of rights than those beneath them, so even a benignly benevolent dictator is superior to the rights of others. We in the Western world have democratic and constitutional legal safeguards against such privilege, but even there it is not always equal. People of wealth, for example, seem better positioned to work the law to their advantage than those less fortunate. Still, that is the ideal, that we are all ‘equal before the law’ as constitutionally agreed by social contract. Where we run afoul of this agreement is when we try to stretch this equality to include our personal or social expectations. Redistribution of wealth and income, for example, where not to ameliorate conditions of social poverty, is to transfer the concept of equality to suit our moral expectations of what we deem right and just. But equality of wealth is an illusion that if enforced often leads to social and economic dysfunctions. Ask displaced land owners who lose their property to forced distribution as happened in Zimbabwe, where everyone lost as their economy collapsed. An equal distribution of wealth other than to rebalance economic activity for the greater good, such as income maintenance or social insurance funded by taxation, can only work if acceptable by social agreement, or else it is coercion and leads to greater inequality of wealth and dire consequences undoing the original intent. We cannot be coerced into equality any more than we can be forced to be equally successful and smart. Some of us are just not meant to be as well off as those who are more lucky and smart. Unless agreed upon socially, where social and legal pressures remove barriers of inequality to give everyone a fair chance, forced ‘equality’ leads to the opposite of equality, with greater inequality being the end result. Even if religiously mandated by holy scripture, the end result of forced redistribution is greater inequality and poverty. Same as with racism or sexism labels of equality, cultural equality can be vastly misrepresented. In a society where its members are respectful of the law, industrious and well educated, will be dramatically different from one where there is hostility to law, fatherless homes, poor work ethics, and streets ruled by gang violence and a culture of drug abuse. They are extremes of inequality, same as cultures given to violence and corruption, or a social culture of petty theft and endemic cheating, are unequal to others; and to call all cultures equal is a drastic denial of their inherent inequality. Not all cultures care about equality, some for religious reasons find our secular notion of equality odious; and as the massive migrations of desperate peoples escaping their societies’ dysfunctions of violence and poverty have proven, people have unequal expectations of their society’s ability to deliver wellbeing. Mass migrations never go the other way, from well off countries to those more desperate, which proves their cultural inequalities. We all have different notions of what is ‘equality’ and they in the end prove highly unequal. The inherent inequality of Equality is the greater reality, that the human condition is far more complex no matter how we wish it to be otherwise. Only equality of opportunity, and equality before the law, are with due diligence socially achievable. The rest is delusory, with most often giving us the opposite effects. Real egalitarianism is where we accept our inequalities with magnanimity and grace, and where we respect those differences that make us who we are. *(“Being a ‘white anglo-saxon male’ is not guarantee to economic and social success...” When you think this through, being called of “privilege”, whether racial or gender or religious, is not necessarily implying that the other, not privileged, is in anyway inferior, or unequal. It is a label, and like any label can be worn with dignity or scorn. If dignity, then the “privilege” label verifies a fact, that one is privileged, and with that privilege comes the responsibility and obligation of living up to that label: has he or she acted on the expectations of privilege, and have they accepted their labeled roles graciously? “Job well done!” But if the label is scorn, then the “privilege” is denigrated, so no more obligation or responsibility is expected than that of the caller’s (to make it equal). And if scorned, the person has no need to respond further in any way of excellence or expectations. Or perhaps the label is irrelevant. Do we care what we are called? The label may be no more than the prejudiced ‘subjective’ of the caller. And then?) Also see: DARING TO SUGGEST THAT ALL CULTURES AREN'T EQUAL by Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Presumed innocence and the rights of the individual.  The definition of Presumption of Innocence (per Wiki) is: “One is presumed innocent until proven guilty.” This is the operable definition for many countries observing Rule of Law. It says further: This is the operable definition in all countries that respect the rights of the individual, as a basic legal and social guarantee, where presumed innocence is the right to protect our privacy, and freedom of expression and belief. In effect, it is the right to be Who we are. Under Roman law it was: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat—"Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies". Under Talmudic law it is understood as: “every man is innocent until proved guilty.” Also under Islamic law, per the hadiths and later jurisdiction: “Avert the prescribed punishment by rejecting doubtful evidence.” And now in the Western world’s civil law: “it is the most general concept that everybody (suspect, accused, or not) must be considered innocent until a final judgement finds the person guilty.” This law dating back to Roman times is now, with exceptions in political systems inimical to personal freedoms and human rights, the universally accepted maxim, that we are “innocent until proven guilty.” In more recent times, dating back to the Marxist revolution, the idea of “presumed innocence” has been replaced with labels of group accusations, that if you fall into a class or population group accused of mass guilt, viz., the kulaks and bourgeoisie of Communist Russia, or alleged sexual misconduct of Catholic priests, or systemic “racism” against people of color by those of Caucasian descent, there is a new ideological concept of “group guilt” that negates the basic concept of presumed innocence. Here all is needed is an accusation, or labeling, to cast anyone in that group to be guilty until proven innocent. This could apply to religious fanaticism as well that sees anyone not of their belief as “infidels” and thus condemned guilty by definition. Naturally, at the hands of a vigilante mob, presumed innocence does not exist. This presumed guilt absolutely goes against our human rights to freedom and social responsibility, to protect our freedom, our right to be Who we are, when the rule of law is negated by presumed guilt. If the individual is stripped of his or her right to choice and personal responsibility, then the end result is they are cast into a “group” that then either defines their guilt or innocence. By this reasoning, for some people, for example, all people of color are automatically innocent of racism, while White people are automatically guilty. But this subverts presumed innocence, so is inherently unjust when applied against others, or those with whom we disagree. In Communist Cuba, or Mao’s China, it took merely a denunciation by suspicion to lead to arrest and imprisonment, or worse. In modern America, racial tensions have once again resurfaced in “white guilt” broad brush against a large section of the population labeled “racist” so no meaningful dialogue on race, crimes and violence, underachievement by the “discriminated” group, could ensue. In effect, with the blanket labeling of “guilty until proven innocent” we have a self imposed censorship on interracial or inter-religious dialogue. Then burning and looting riots, or tearing down statues, becomes the socially acceptable norm. This is the bottom line of rejecting presumed innocence, that we are cast into an unsupportable situation where any attempts at reasonable examination, or discussion, is reduced to inflammatory accusations that condemn a priori, overriding the rule of law. In the end, it is violence and war. When was first penned Habeas Mentem, it was this condition fundamental to our individual human rights, of presumed innocence, the freedom to be ourselves, that was uppermost in mind. These are the templates we must work with if to have a just and functioning society. If the rights of the individual are abrogated by group think, labels of group psychology, or tribalism identity, and dictatorial fiat, then the connections the individual has with his or her greater universal definition is severed. All are tyrannies against a free human mind. Personal responsibility, and right of choice or belief, are then abrogated by demands of allegiance to other than oneself. In effect, without the right to personal freedom of choice and responsibility, one no longer has a right to oneself, we lose our identity as human beings. We then are no longer in possession of our mind. This is an absolute loss of freedom, the loss of having the right to be Who you are, when abrogated by a subservience to the group think. Viz., do as you are told or be punished. Not to be confused with the social contract upon which are based constitutional democracy and rule of law, how we arrive collectively on agreements and laws by which we are governed and live. Rather, it is a dissolution of such agreements, so that individually and socially we become coerced into being something we are not, by being forced to obey directives by others. In principle, when we lose our presumed innocence, we become enslaved to others, and we lose our liberty. IDA Also see: Cooperative individualism The Power of Freedom | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Who will govern?  In his scholarly book, Pluralist Democracy in the United States: conflict and consent, Prof. Robert A. Dahl asks early in his text: “Who ought to govern?” His thesis begins with various forms of government debated over two millennia from aristocratic to autocratic governance, to democracies and philosophers governing. However all these end up pulling for their own factions, so no real general consensus, the kind that would be acceptable to a large majority, result, except to pull for one’s faction or sect. He wryly notes that the only consensus on philosophers ruling is held by philosophers. But the serious question of who should govern is at bottom of how governments are formed to, ostensibly, serve the greatest good for the people. In the American experience since the founding of the Republic by the Founding Fathers cobbling together after much debate, and dissension, the US Constitution, the conclusion reached over two centuries ago was that a governance by rule of law administered by elected representatives is the best system to ensure that our individual rights not be trampled. Hence, we have a constitutional republic, and not a plebiscite democracy as our form of government. Nor do we have a sovereign, a king or dictator, nor theocracy, but instead democratically elected men and women to speak and act in our behalf; except for a burgeoning governmental bureaucracy of unelected officials who act like a government within a government. Presidential elections were to be decided by an Electoral College.* This is not a perfect system, often challenged and contested by minorities who are forced to abide by policy passed, but it is the only way that the general consensus of the majority who wins the election can govern without violating our constitutionally protected personal rights, no matter how much we may disagree. In the above Presumed Innocence it was shown that this is an absolute fundamental right we have to protect our individual rights. In the same vein it is how our government is designed to protect our individual rights, regardless of who comes to power. Each election will bring new faces, but they cannot act autocratically over us without violating our constitutional rights. If they do, there are judicial and legal restraints on authority, audits and checks and balances, as well as acts of Congress to modify existing laws or write new ones. However, none of this takes away our right to vote with our knowledge and conscience, nor take away the privilege of our freedoms with being either overruled or contested. An exception can be made during times of either local or national crisis. Then summary actions can be enacted by government while the crisis exists, such as mandating rationing in times of war, or everyone wearing protective face masks in times of epidemic; however, these are temporary measures to be repealed when the crisis is resolved, to not overstep the bounds of government denying us our rights, or they are oppressive. The other exception is mass violence, where the inherent coercion resulting is summarily dealt with until the crisis is resolved. In all, government by our consent and consensus is best fitted, when elections are fairly done**, to preserve our right to agree or disagree with one another. The majority places their candidate, but the minority continues to work for theirs. Democracy’s constant is flux. These are not Utopian ideas, that we be free to agree or disagree, but the natural outcome of a free people, regardless of race or gender or sect, who have a right to their own mind, which insures the right to be Who we are. Is this not the absolute, fundamental idea of Habeas Mentem? If each one of us has a right to their mind, to agreement and disagreement, then it is self contradictory to have us forced into disagreement by coercion. There is no fundamental right more basic than this, along with presumed innocence, to safeguard our right to be Who we are as an individual human being, conscious of those rights. And if so, then the correct form of government ‘who will govern’ is that which can safeguard with guarantees our basic rights. It does not matter what party wins, nor even what philosophical ideology wins, as long as presumed innocence and the right to agree and disagree free of coercion are sacrosanct and constitutionally protected for all. That is the right form of government, the rest is politics. *(The Electoral College was a constitutional compromise between states rights, the Congress, and popular vote.) **(When elections are free of fraud, or free of suspicions of fraud, they can be determined fair and honest. Unfortunately, without voter verifications, the kind used at banks to guard against fraud, for example, picture ID and signature, the election results will continue to be suspect, which detracts from the confidence that the election is free and fair, as had been witnessed in the 2020 presidential election. Without universal voter IDs, it is very difficult to prove, or disprove, election fraud.) IDA Also see: Are we losing our sense of ‘liberty’? The Authoritarians: Their Assault on Individual Liberty, the Constitution, and Free Enterprise from the 19th Century to the Present Defending the Constitution by Jason D Hill | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
How free is ‘free speech’?  In his fine analysis of attack on ‘freedom of speech’ in modern America under the guise of combating ‘misinformation’, Daniel Greenfield writing for The Point in Frontpage (online anti-Leftist, anti Socialism, commentary site) shows how there is a groundswell movement afoot (by New York Times and Left leaning scholars) to ‘legalize’ free speech. But as he astutely states: “When the government determines what speech is legal, it's not free.” There are times when expression should be illegal, such as child pornography, which the writers of the US Constitution likely did not have to deal with in their time, being more concerned with the freedom of political speech and writings than moral issues. However, since the First Amendment in modern times has been stretched into personal expressions, regardless of whether morally acceptable, the courts have ‘liberalized’ freedom of expression to the point where it has become so diluted as to be rendered meaningless. Clearly where coercions are proffered, as child pornography is coercion of immature lives, there must be restrictions on such coercions. But this reasoning does not apply to discussions and writings by consenting adults, no matter how insulting it may be to some. Nor should the government be in the business of ‘legalizing’ personal expressions and actions that may be distasteful to some or somehow socially unjust, unless they are overtly coercive to them. Taking the examples of ‘misinformation’ in the media, even social media blogs and online discussions, or in cases of so-called ‘hate speech’ critical of either persons or groups, should they be ‘legalized’ because such expressions and their actions violate the ‘free speech’ of others, or lead to clear coercions (viz., consumer fraud, libel) against them? We are free to listen, to speak, to assemble, but are not free to coerce. This likewise applies to government actions that oppress individuals in their freedom to live their lives. For example, is a human body the property of the government, or not? Is a woman free to own her body, or her reproductive organs, or are they the property of government? Does the First Amendment protect her, in body and mind, in her free expression, even if she makes the difficult choice to end a pregnancy? Does her fetus belong to her, or her government? If she is free to have sex, which may result in pregnancy, is she now forbidden her freedom to end her pregnancy? Freedom or legalization by the government? These are difficult questions challenging our social contract as embodied in our Constitution. Who decides what are our freedoms? The State? Or are our freedoms defined in principles transcending government approvals? Of course, in a dictatorship the answer is easy: the Government. But in a free republic it becomes a judicial matter as to whether our social contract extends to our natural rights, such as presumed innocence, or right to our body and mind. If our natural rights are ours in principle, then the government’s rights defined by social contract are severely curtailed as to how they may or may not ‘legalize’ those rights. Freedom of speech and expression fall into the latter category, that like presumed innocence they are freedoms in principle, what our Bill of Rights strove to protect. So how about ‘misinformation’? That is for the reader or hearer to decide. True or false? Caveat lector! Only then, when speech is NOT legalized, can we truly have ‘free speech’ protected constitutionally. IDA Also see: Should Bill of Rights be restricted? | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
History in the making, fall of Kabul to Taliban. Lessons from Winston Churchill: Withdrawal from Afghanistan  Now that the US has abandoned Afghanistan to the Taliban with devastating results and human tragedy, it must be reviewed what Winston Churchill wrote about the region over a hundred years ago. It had not changed…
And in Sir Winston’s own words: WINSTON CHURCHILL on the Tribal Territories
Where raw power and war rules by cultural imperative and religious sanction, the prospects for peace and human rights are dim to infinitesimal. | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
 Henry Kissinger, why America failed in Afghanistan - The Economist, London (25-8-2021), by subscription.
Henry Kissinger may have bungled the Vietnam peace process, but he seems to understand our Afghanistan involvement. We failed to understand that a fiercely independent feudal society, and antithetical religious theocracy, is not conducive to a Western styled secular democratic constitutional government. So after 20 years of sacrifice in brave men and women, and wealth spent on a failed enterprise, America abandoned its ill founded nation building in Afghanistan. After destroying Al-Qaeda and witnessing the installation of a Sharia based Afghani constitution (2004) we should have withdrawn and abandoned them to their fate. The Obama era troop surge (2009) and subsequent ‘nation building’ was a grave mistake. It is regrettable that the Americans were dismissive of history in Afghanistan, thinking their superiority in arms and wealth would change history. But had they paid more attention to Britain’s humiliation over a century ago in Kabul at the hands of the treacherous emir Akbar, the disastrous British retreat from Kabul 1842, and the Afghani bloodthirst, they may have charted a different course. Instead of ‘nation building’ which is a defacto colonialism, they might have achieved their military objective with force and then withdrawn. The religious fanaticism of the Taliban is no different today than what it was over a century ago. IDA Also see: The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
The power of power is Power.  Sounds like a slogan, “The power of power is power,” but it could be a truism that perhaps sums up what power is really all about: Power. There are many forms of power. The power to persuade, the power to coerce or deceive, the power to inspire and lead others. The kind of power that pushes or pulls is easily dealt with, with either acceptance or rejection. But the power that coerces, that forces us against our will, is a destructive and oppressive force against which we then must push back. The easiest way is to say “no” and thus disempower it. But if a negation is ignored and the coercion continues, sometimes with violence, then we are faced with a power that is only itself, raw power. That is the power we most often encounter in the world, and one that causes us the most distress. Going way back to ancient times of empire, the Babylonians, the Romans, this coercive power has been the force of nations. Those who wielded it controlled people, conquered them and enslaved them, forced them to pay taxes and tribute, captured young men and women, or killed them, all to empire and the forces of the king or caesar. This Power had been the way of the world, as much for petty chiefs as for emperors of great nations. It was not until recent times that the mold of power had been broken, though it revives over and over again. The dream of the founders of the American democratic republic was that a free people can rule themselves, based on European Enlightenment ideas, with minimum coercion by government. In fact, government power was viewed with suspicion as it could easily regress into authoritarian tyranny, why the US Constitution has separation of powers written into it, they counterbalanced against each other as well as separated from theocratic powers. But this ideal was always tenuous, suited only to an enlightened free people who understood their strengths in freedom. Those who do not cannot support these ideas, and in their ignorance will support a gradual reinstatement of power again. Whether it is gangs warring each other in welfare inner cities, or primitive mountain tribesmen in Afghanistan, or Papua New Guinea, the idea of raw power is paramount, their social imperative, where ideals of personal liberty, and the right to be Who you are, are subjugated to obedience to the strongest lord or tyrant, in complete submission, or death. That is raw power. So the giant wheel of fortune has taken another turn, and what had been kept at bay with enlightened education, intelligent government structure, democratic expression of the people, and constitutional law has been overwritten with confused education, race baiting, vocal and destructive social demands, and more money spent on maintaining a kept population of under performers in ghettos riddled with crime. This is a recipe for power tyranny, as the people subject to their own destructions lose their freedoms, so they are kept more tightly in the confines of their ghetto mentality. No amount of goodwill, or money spent, can relieve them of their oppression because they had accepted their servitude to power of their own free will. The system failed them, trapped them in their poverty, undereducated them, and now progressively relieved them of all social responsibility by demanding less self discipline, less family structure, and excusing them from punishments for their crimes. In short, power wins and their freedom is lost, as their social order regresses into barbaric chaos. So where is the truth in all this? Does power rob us of the truth with deceits and force? The answer is a necessary “yes”. Raw power has no use for truth, and is severely hindered by it, so it will do all it can to deceive, to obfuscate in sophistry, and convince the unweary that the lie is true, to keep itself in power. This is the most damning part of raw power, that it feeds on ignorance, weaves self serving fantasies instead of truth, so to keep the people in a perpetual state of imbalance. The more feeble of intelligence will be easy prey for this, but in time even the greatest bastions of learning and mass communications, and politics, will adopt the lies as truths. There is comedy in watching this ‘progressive’ masquerade of social regression, except for the harsh penalty society and its free people will be forced to pay. They will be subjugated to raw power and tyranny, and in time economic decline, moral and military dissolution, which could end in loss of civilization to barbarism. It was something the founders of the American Republic may have cautioned, they knew about Rome, but they in all probability never envisioned an enlightened nation could so quickly regress in its loss of freedoms. Alas, nor had they envisioned a ballooning authoritarian welfare state, oppressive government edicts and taxation, dangerous inner city welfare ghettos, dismantling of crime punishment and policing; nor that the people themselves had demanded this, for their own enslavement. The power of lies vies with the power of truth. That is the dismal truth of raw power, where the truth is a lie, and where only the power of power is Power. IDA | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Do the gods wish to be invisible?  They say the best camouflage for the Devil is for us to believe he does not exist. If everyone believes so, then he is free to do his mischief without anyone’s suspicion. Most likely few in the modern world believe in the ‘devil’ as a real entity, though in some ancient religious traditions he does exist. If the devil does not exist as a real character in the universe, then he is merely the figment of human imagination. That said, his existence does serve for the simple and superstitious as a kind of morality, where he entices errant souls into his underworld upon death to be tortured by fire for all eternity. That is meant to discourage deviant behavior, even if childish, so for those who believe in ‘the Devil’, he is a real force. However, for most modern cultural beliefs, whether scientific or merely secular, the devil is a fictitious character meant to frighten rather than enlighten. Of course, a case can be made that the gods, spirits and demons, are of a higher dimensional vibration, unlike our corporeal bodies, so are invisible to us. In effect, like the Pagan gods of old, they are actors hidden, manipulating our earthly events to their own ends, like powers behind the throne to either make kings if favored, or reduce us to misery if not. It made for interesting tales of heroes and villains. In that respect, the gods’ invisibility serves their needs; better we do not see them in their mischievous manipulations. Still, unless they materialize for us in a corporeal body, the gods and demons are merely creations of our imagination, since we cannot see them, nor measure, nor prove their existence. Perhaps more like a spiritual ectoplasm that only shows in some photographs, to frighten us with ghost stories, or amuse us, but there is no reality we can sink our secular teeth in. In some cultural traditions, such as the Navajo for example, one may never mention the name of the dead or they might come in visitation to cause us troubles, bad luck to do so. What cultures actually image the gods? The Hindu have statues representing them, as did ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc. But in truth, no one ever saw them, so only imagined what they looked like. In other cultures, portraying anything of spirits or revered entities is strictly forbidden, as for example it is forbidden to make images of Allah, or his Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), so they remain forever invisible. Did the ancient Hebrews ever see Yahweh? No, only allegorically, as a burning bush to Moses, or a pillar of smoke followed forty years in the desert, to Ezekiel and the wheel. In fact, the gods wish their invisibility, whether from being of higher vibrations, or figments of our imaginations, they remain hidden. If we cannot find them, in a paradoxical way, how can we disprove them? So it is with the Devil. Unless he materializes a corporeal body, we have no way to check on his reality. Nor can we check on the reality of any of the gods, or angels and spirits, or demons, because there is nothing to check on. Either we accept them as an article of faith, which means we accept them in our consciousness imagination, or we earmark them as a mere superstition curiosity which had been accepted by some cultures since ancient times, but with no proof. Which would the gods, or devil, find more useful if they wish to keep their identity hidden? Is it forbidden to see them? Or simply that they do not exist? Either way, they remain forever invisible to us. Thus cloaked in their invisibility, we can neither prove nor disprove them, modus tollens. As they say in Italy, meglio cosi. IDA | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Should the Bill of Rights have some qualifying restrictions?  It would seem that ‘conditions’ of freedom in the US constitutional Bill of Rights should have no restrictions. These innate conditions of liberty would include: freedom of speech (article #1), no self incrimination (#5), right to a speedy trial (#6), no cruel and unusual punishments (#8), implied right to privacy (#9,4); and of course presumed innocence, which is fundamental to all. But when the Bill of Rights addresses ‘events’, such as right of assembly (#1), the right to bear arms (#2), journalistic reporting, entertainment on stage and film or internet (#1); these have conditions where to preserve a just and safe society, it is important at times to reign in behaviors. In this latter category could also be included exercise of worship: whereas the freedom of religious belief is sacrosanct (#1) and is a ‘condition’ of personal conscience, the exercise of worship as an ‘event’ under some qualified circumstances may be proscribed; for example, human sacrifice, sati, murdering infidels, cannibalistic rituals, abduction and enslavement, satanism and cruel and unusual practices. Society has the right under its social contract, agreements that manifested as our democratic constitutional rule of law, to temper constitutional ‘rights of events’ if they are activities that prove injurious to society at large. For example, destructive or deadly riots cannot be protected by our right of assembly (#1); nor can deviant perversions, such as pedophilia be protected by our first amendment; likewise slanderous and libelous journalism cannot be endorsed by freedom of the press as they injure others; nor could our right to bear arms (#2) protect the right to have and use military grade assault weapons, bombs and artillery, designed to kill or injure en masse. That is always the final test: Who is injured, who coerced? If it is the party themselves who are affected by their actions, the Bill of Rights protecting those conditions of freedoms exist as stated, that they are not proscribed if it involves only themselves, their beliefs, their actions on themselves, of their own free choice. But if injury is to others, through violence, or deceit or fraud, through destruction of property, or causing panic and political anarchy, racial and gender discrimination, call for violence, etc., then these actions fall under the category of events that must be addressed with restrictions on their behaviors, as these affect the wellbeing of others. The Founding writers of our Constitution, especially later under the influence of James Madison, felt the full document should include specific areas of concern where government powers and authority could be abused. Both under English law and experiences of the Old world, abuse of prolonged imprisonment, dungeons and torture to extract confession, threats of censorship, religious persecution, tyranny of rulers and kings, as well as the Magna Carta and Enlightenment ideals were very much on their minds in forming their government. They seem to have purposely written these rights in as brevity of structure as possible, probably thinking future minds will better interpret these ideals for themselves. They had envisioned a Supreme Court, as a third part of government (though not fully clear on its function), so did not feel obligated to spell out each right in detail to secure our liberties. However, times change, intellectual beliefs change, and the distinction between ‘conditions’ and ‘events’ were not then thought necessary to spell out for future generations, perhaps to not overburden the document. Yet, with a progressively growing government presence embracing our lives in a welfare state, something they could not have envisioned, these distinctions now appear necessary. Especially where our welfare efforts are failing, in the poverty of our large inner cities, or drug and gang driven violence, waves of immigrants desperately fleeing conditions at home but entering without regards for our legal conditions here, etc., and now endemic homelessness, there grows a need to reinterpret the Founders’ intentions in drafting our Constitution. The welfare state is failing in delivering its promises, has broken down the cohesion of family, fatherless children suffering high teen pregnancy and uninhibited crimes, so the deficiencies of government, especially a big and overreaching government, had impinged on our social and moral values to the dilution of our social well being. There is a failure, and it must be addressed, by our rights. Pity the Bill of Rights had not spelled it out further. It is not that we necessarily need less government, though many venues are better served by private sector enterprise than a socialist format, but that government better protect our human rights. No one wants to revert back to Dickensian poverty and poor houses, nor debtor’s prisons and mass homelessness. We want our social safety nets, especially insurance for the disabled, retired elderly, and those margenalized whose luck ran out for a time. But it was never meant to be a permanent support system for those who do not try to earn, nor for those who know how to game the system and live on welfare benefits, for decades or generations. That is an abuse of privilege. Economies will always have their good and bad cycles, so support during unlucky times is a socially desirable insurance. Perhaps even a limited national income is doable if our economic productivity warrants such a dividend. But to develop social and economic systems that impinge upon our natural human rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights, which rob us of our hard won fruits of labor and talent to be squandered on those who are undeserving is coercive; that is wrong. The Founders’ Bill of Rights had not envisioned this dismal state of affairs, more concerned with state rights and a balance of powers within government. But if these balances fail? Then a clarification of our rights as either ‘conditions’ or ‘events’ can help move us on a better path to understanding which Rights may need to be restricted, without sacrificing our hard earned achievements; that it is our right that we are protected from confiscation. Equally, censorship is universally undesirable by free people, as it restricts our right of freedom of speech. But it may prove needed as an ‘event’ driven right, where certain restrictions are socially desirable, those expressions that damage us. Deceit and fraud are not protected by our freedom of speech, same as looting and rioting are not protected by our freedom of assembly. We cannot assume that future generations will be equally well educated and reasoned, so abuse of censorship, or assembly, must be guarded against, as should abuses of all our inalienable freedoms. There are limits, not to the conditions of freedom, which are not modifiable, but to the events of these freedoms, which are modifiable. It should be very simple to discriminate one from the other, so even lesser educated men and women should understand the difference, of what we are and what we do; that they are either ‘conditions’ or ‘events’ driven rights: If events are coercive to others, they should be restricted. This distinction ensures the integrity of our fundamental human rights. IDA | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
When image is more important than substance.  There is a common thread that runs through neo-empires in the twenty-first century, that their courting the right image is more important than the substance of what they say or do. This seems to be more evident in the former Communist empires, the great Russian Soviet and Chinese empires, or in smaller latent Communist states, Cuba, North Korea, that posturing and feigned threats are their communiques to the world. They must appear strong and potentially dangerous, should any state threaten their internal affairs, so to discourage any interference. That image of strength may not bely the underlying reality, that they are not as strong as perceived, but an image that must be preserved over substance (that all is not as it appears). We had seen a vivid example of this behavior by neo-imperialist, neo-communist states such as Russia’s persistent denial in early February 2022 that they had any intentions of attacking Ukraine, an obvious lie by Lavrov and co; same as we see belligerent responses by China to American delegates visiting the democratic state of Taiwan, which evoked military posturing in the south China sea, firing missiles over the island nation. Obviously Lavrov and co lied about their intentions on Ukraine, that Putin gave the order to invade a sovereign state, so when they invaded it was understood by the world (which then resisted with sanctions on Russia and military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine) that it was a lie. But to Lavrov and co, he was not ‘lying’ in his denials; rather he was being true to the ‘image’ Russia’s Putin was putting forward: Russia is a great empire in possession of nuclear weapons, not a failing state, and the world should fear it. This was the ‘truth’ Putin wanted to portray the world, not the substance of what was being said, obviously a lie, but the image as propaganda that he wanted the world to hear. So for Lavrov and co, “not invading Ukraine” was not lying but the image to which he was being true, not the reality of what Russia was about to do. The truth of substance, of course, was that Putin did invade Ukraine. This same reasoning could apply to any neo-imperialistic former (or current) Communist state, that they will court image propaganda over substantial truth, because it is the image that matters to them, not the reality. In fact, Russia never really abandoned its former Soviet Union ambitions of world dominations, but was merely put on hold by their economic failure; the oligarchs and co merely carried the torch without the communist flame, but with raw power instead. Something like this happened in China as well, where the communist flame had been tempered by their acceptance of a market economy, what saved them from a Soviet styled failure, so the new powers, soon to be dictator for life Xi, pursued their neo-imperialistic power domination of the region by posturing image over substance. This included aggressive military exercises, threats to Taiwan’s existence as a free democratic state, and continuing to expand into south China sea. This is not to be interpreted as devious behavior on their part, that they are lying in saying they have no intention of militarizing those islands they have occupied; in their minds they are defending their ‘image’ over the substance of truth, very important to the Chinese psyche. And while other former Soviet states of Europe were eager to drop their neo-communism in favor of a free democratic model of government, what has rendered them successful as modern states, where substance of truth counts over image; the main communist players, those who held the reigns of power, are loath to give up their image of dreams of former greatness, where image is defended over substance. For the oppressed, the powerless, the enslaved, lying is the only power they have. For them their propaganda image is their substance.* So what is the common thread here to all this posturing? It is the image presented to convince the people, both internally and out, that the neo-empire is well and strong. As long as this is merely narrative, no harm. The problem is when the proponents of this image believe their own story and act on it. It is a safe story to tell (though a lie) as long as they merely hide the substance of truth behind the lie; but if the lie dominates decision makers’ actions, then the reality sets in. If the image is a false narrative, the end results are disastrous, as Russia is finding out in Ukraine, and China will discover in Taiwan: Image is not the substance. Any ‘victory’ claimed in Russia’s ‘special military operation’ will be as illusive as its image, its propaganda of any ‘win’ needs to have no substance in reality. *(Postmodernism may explain the power of Russian propaganda on its approach to ‘truth’, since it is seen by their thinkers a relativism, and subjectivism to control power, where objective truth is considered ‘naive realism’ so far down on the food chain of power. In a self created world of where human reason is both lauded and suspect, this kind of postmodern acceptance of subjective reason as power is a logical conclusion, for both the Russian propagandists, and primitive tribal chiefs; full circle.) | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Irredeemable and unrepentant, Russia is breaking itself apart.  It is shaping up as a ‘forever’ war between Russia and Ukraine as Putin’s unprovoked attack on a neighboring country stretches into its tenth month of destructive war. Russia had no reason to invade a peaceful democratic nation but for one man’s ambitions of reestablishing a Russian empire. In attacking the people and infrastructure of Ukraine, Russia has proven itself unable to defeat the will and resistance of a nation that courageously wills itself to remain free. As winter descends the cruelty and deaths endured by Ukrainians has shocked a world into understanding that the so-called great power of Russia is all facade without substance, unable to defeat Ukrainian resistance militarily, so it has demeaned itself to killing citizens, destroying homes and schools and hospitals. This is no victory but failure on a massive scale of a once great nation reduced to savagery, looting, murder and torture and rape terrorism, guilty of a multitude of war crimes. Yet the people resist, and will continue to resist, to not be shackled under Moscow’s yoke. As the cold of winter darkens and a whole population suffers missiles fired by Russia against their electric power stations and energy infrastructure, to freeze them into submission, still they valiantly resist.  Ukraine is darkened by Russia’s blackouts Russia remains unrepentant in its attacks and has shown itself irredeemable for its war crimes against an innocent population. Women, children, the elderly are forced into a subsistance existence or killed while the whole civilized world gathers around them with aid and military assistance. This is not a war, it is butchery. Yet their spirit remains unbroken. Russia has isolated itself from that world, subject to sanctions as a pariah state shunned by the world community. And this will be their undoing, that a nation so isolated cannot persist, but is likely to break apart as a functioning socio-political, economic reality.* While Ukraine is made to suffer by Russia’s unconscionable attacks, the aggressor suffers in turn, with no gains but increasing losses for their people and culture as their sons are killed. Putin is failing and has been unmasked, holding onto his power by sheer brutality and force, deceit and fear. But if Putin’s war on Ukraine is not stopped, this will be a ‘forever’ war. What is to be gained but the disgust of a world horrified to see such barbarity in the twenty-first century? Do we want another Korea with a perpetual DMZ? This would not serve the cause of peace, but only prolong the agony to serve the profits of a military-industrial complex on the backs of a suffering people. Do we want this? Would breaking up Ukraine appease the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions? Absolutely not, it would merely embolden them for their next ‘annexation’ adventure. And where would it stop? To help Ukraine win against Putin’s war is the only meaningful solution if we wish for a peaceful and free world, one ruled by law rather than brute force. Russia’s war on Ukraine is irredeemable, and unforgivable. What Ukraine needs is to win, and to do this it will need superior air power to stop the debilitating missile strikes hitting its infrastructures and civilians. While striking back on their in-Russia missile launches would be seen as escalatory, not so for taking out their Black Sea naval fleet also capable of launching artillery on Ukraine. The so-called ‘annexed’ regions of Crimea and southern Ukraine are not Russia, so fair play to target. Ukrainian pilots and ground forces have proven themselves capable of repelling the enemy, so their success should be strengthened, with modern aircraft and anti-missile systems if possible. To keep this from becoming a ‘forever’ war, they must be allowed to win. We can do this. *(A broken Russia may substantially shrink in size, with far East and Siberia falling under China influence, and the Islamic Caucasus reverting back into Ottoman Turkey’s sphere; leaving European Russia a rather small post-Ukraine country.) IDA Also see: Putin just fought the ‘last’ war, and lost This just in: Is this a coup? What Prigozhin is doing in Russia - BBC (24 June 2023) | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Russia failed to colonize Ukraine.  In Prof. Paul Dibb’s essay, “The geopolitical implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine”, he stated reasons why Putin felt he had to attack “Little Russia” (as he saw Ukraine) to bring it back into the fold of Greater Russia. In effect, Putin wanted to re-colonize Ukraine as it had been for past three centuries. Ukrainians, however, had a different vision of themselves, as a separate and free nation striving to shake off 300 years of Russian domination. Ukrainians had their own language, a separate culture and history from Russia, a separate literature, and had the will and vision to embrace democratic ideals of the West, as opposed to the corrupt oligarchic practices of their former colonizers. They were dreaming of a bright and free future for themselves and their children to engage their intellect and creativity into a modern progressive nation, ruled by a democratic constitutional government. Putin offered them a dictatorship, a failing autocratic kleptocracy, which Ukrainians rejected. They are not part of Russia. But contrary to Prof. Dibb’s conclusions, the war brought on by Russia against Ukraine was not inevitable. The West did not push Russia into a coercive autocracy devoid of natural freedoms and human rights, no free press, no free political parties (in opposition to Putin), and no personal freedoms of expression, all hallmarks of progressive modern states; Putin allowed none of this. Rather, we are witnessing the raw power geopolitics of the 19th century, of a more powerful state coercing a weaker one into submission to its rule; Ukraine rejected this colonial aggression. The only inevitability in our view is that a slowly failing oligarchic autocracy had to attack a more successful democratic nation to bolster its prestige in the world, to prove that its violently coercive form of government is superior to that of free democratic states. But this is doomed to failure. Ukraine will not be colonized, but emerge victorious as a free progressive state part of Europe. IDA Also see: The Postcolonial Moment in Russia’s War Against Ukraine - (May 2022) - by Maria Mälkso The War in Ukraine Is a Colonial War - the New Yorker (28 April 2022) This just in: Volodymyr Zelensky’s speech to Congress (Dec 2022) The ‘Putin Principle’ could bring peace to Eurasia - BY Alexander J. Motyl Fighting Wagner is like a 'zombie movie' says Ukrainian soldier Ukraine war: Life in Mariupol under Russian occupation (13 March 2023) BBC Mother Tongue: The Story of a Ukrainian Language Convert Pope's call for Ukraine's surrender receives criticism from Scholz, Stoltenberg - Kyiv Independent (11 March 2024) | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Putin has secured his place in history, as a mass murderer.  In the annals of 20th century mass murders Communists killed the most, followed by fascists, and these were augmented by an assortment of dictators who murdered their people, from Fidel Castro to Idi Amin. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, were first in line for their genocidal murders, counting their victims in the millions, but even Turkish genocide of Armenians, Greeks, Islamic genocides of Christians and Hindus around the globe, lesser genocides in the Balkans, parts of Africa’s tribal genocides, all figure in the grim history of our past century. So many millions killed, not even counting battle deaths, that it makes the Twentieth a truly murderous century. But the 21st is not to be outdone, if president Vladimir Putin will have his way. Now we are counting the Russian, Putin’s war deaths in Ukraine. Battle deaths may exceed civilians deaths, for now, though already over a hundred thousand, possibly for both sides, but the innocent civilian deaths, from bombardment and missiles incoming, hitting homes, apartment blocks, schools and hospitals, and of course Ukraine’s energy and electric grid infrastructures, all figure to raise the number of deaths into the tens of thousands. The world watches in horror, the United Nation bodies condemn but are powerless to stop the murders, and at this point, short of Ukraine’s valiant army and air-force resistance of a complete victory, no one is able to stop Putin’s war of genocide. Not even mothers within Russia losing their sons can stop him from killing, nor any political opposition, which he systematically eliminated, can stop Putin. He is still the king killer, the czar murderer without compassion, on his way to earning his legacy as a master mind mass murderer.* Can he surpass his kill rate in Ukraine? It is possible that he could reach into the hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million of deaths, if he unleashes his nuclear dogs of war. Think Putin’s private little army, the Wagner group, holed up in their Soledar salt mines awaiting radiation levels to subside, so they can resurface ‘victorious’ on a scorched landscape for their master killer’s pyrrhic victory. That could increase Putin’s nuclear kill rate of civilians, one that would catapult him into the mega-class of murderers, perhaps matching his Stalin-Hitler predecessors. It is a truly ugly legacy Putin is after, but what choice does he have?…. Putin imagines himself at war with the West in Ukraine, that he is a world player like Stalin or Hitler; but in fact his dreams of a great Russian empire built on a neo-Soviet Union model is laughably unrealistic, a small man's grandiose dream doomed to failure. His support from small rogue nations like Iran, or North Korea, or Yemen, with a nod from Communist China, will not offer him the victory he craves if the world stands against him. Putin is a tragic figure in history, for despite all the lies and pain spread, he is doomed. *(Putin’s assets abroad should be confiscated, like those of a common criminal, or murderer, and mothballed without maintenance. If they are held wrongly, let the rightful owner come and claim them, or else they return to nature. The Romans had a saying, “the law ends where war begins.” Putin started this war, so for him laws of rightful ownership ended.) Also see: Is Russia preparing for ‘war with the West’? - Newsweek (12/14/2022) International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant for Putin over alleged Ukraine war crimes (Mar 17, 2023) Opinion: Weakness is lethal. Why Putin invaded Ukraine and how the war must end - Kyiv Independent (October 2023) This just in: Russia’s Lake: How to Liberate the Black Sea - CEPA (April 25, 2023) - Russia’s strangle hold on the Black Sea needs to be addressed by NATO allies. What lies behind Russia’s acts of extreme violence? Freudian analysis offers an answer by Peter Pomerantsev (11June 2023) How Russia Became a Fascist State (August 2023) Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny dies in prison - Murdered in Putin's Gulag (16 February 2024) A cornered rat... time to put him out of commission, fast: Putin issues nuclear warning to the West over strikes on Russia from Ukraine (25 September 2024) | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
“Chinatown” - How dangerous is China’s ‘challenges’ syndrome?  There seems to be an increasing incidents frequency of China’s military challenging ships and aircraft passing through international waters of the Straits of Taiwan, and other areas in the South China Sea, where Chinese fighter jets and naval destroyers acted in ‘unsafe manners’ when approaching foreign vessels. In a recent security meeting at Singapore between Asia-Pacific region nations, China’s General Li Shangfu expressed his nation’s policy that the US and Canada were “deliberately provoking risk” by sailing and flying through international waters and airspace around Taiwan, to which the response from US and allies was they are free to pass through international waters. ( Li Shangfu: War with US would be unbearable disaster, says China defence minister) So from this side of the Pacific, General Li’s claim that the US and allies are “deliberately provoking risk” and have a “Cold War mentality” is a spurious assessment of the reality, that in fact it is China that is provoking risk with challenges and unsafe maneuvers to passing foreign vessels and aircraft in international waters. However, one must step back from the rhetoric and assess the situation in South China Sea areas with a clear eyed realism: China’s posturing with challenges to international shipping and airspace is a provocation which they thought they could gamble on. But rather than seeing China as a majestic monolithic world power, it serves better to understand it as a world “Chinatown”, at times chaotic, made up of many competing sectors, urban, provincial, ethnic, religious, and economic, all vying for power and advantage, much as one would find in any Chinatown. The power boss of the Chinese district and his entourage maintains order and dispenses favors in exchange for allegiances to him and proper submissive deference. In China, this structure is on a much vaster scale, where the Chinatown ‘boss’ is General Secretary Xi Jin-Ping and his entourage the People’s Chinese Communist Party, to which all must defer proper submission. So General Li’s contention, though strangely inverted since it is China challenging (not the other way), is but one mouthpiece of the larger Chinatown power structure, to which they internally must defer, but which for the rest of the world is merely their local affair (not to mention the threat of their internal democratic reforms). How much do we of the West need to respond to their posturing Chinatown syndrome? If it is their dilemma, not so much. But neither will we tolerate their belligerence in international affairs, or international freedoms of passage. When General Li says “War with US would be unbearable disaster”, he is referring as much of his own country’s internal struggle as with the reality of what devastation would follow if there were a war with the West. Both considerations must bear heavily on his mind, and those of the Communist Party entourage. Indeed, a war with the US and our allies would be an unbearable disaster for China, for it would break up their Chinatown syndrome, dangerously pitting competing factions against each other, and threatening national dissolution. Then even party boss Xi Jin-Ping might not hold it all together again. IDA Xi Jinping’s Endgame for America - The Diplomat (opinion, September 2022). China is still hanging onto the 19th century paradigm of Marxian manifesto. | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Rule of law by Agreement, versus rule of force by Coercion.  There is a fundamental principle at work in government by Rule of Law, that the laws of the land are based upon the constitutional agreements formed within the democratically accepted frameworks of society’s social contract, what is the Law of the land. By contrast, in an autocratic government, what is known as a dictatorship, the governing law of the land is predicated on the power of one man, or oligarchic clique, that rule the people, even if ‘democratically’ faux endorsed (i.e., 99% support) to rule by coercions to enforce the ruling powers, that all opposition to their rule is suppressed, or eliminated, so fear and coercive forces rule the land. This is largely evident in the contrast between Western democracies, where debate and multi-parties are encouraged in government, and the so called ‘people’s governments’, dominated by one party in obedience to ideology or autocratic rule. There is a vast difference between U.S. President Biden’s form of governing, with Congress and judicial balances, versus Russian President Putin’s form of tsar like governing. One is based upon laws formed of agreements by social contract, the other based on fear and coercions perpetrated by the dictatorial powers of one man. The same can be said of Prime Minister’s Sunak’s government, or President Zelensky’s, where agreements and free dialogue are sought; whereas the governments of JinPing Xi or Kim Jong Un answer to no dialogue, as freedom of speech is suppressed, and only answer to their Communist party, or themselves. (Similar governing formats exist for religious autocracies that imagine themselves ruled by the ‘law of God’ as defined by their clerics, where no dissent is tolerated, or possible if against their holy scriptures.) Where people are not free to speak, or choose how to believe, or dissent with the governing structures, then no meaningful agreements can exist, and the default is a coercive form of power structure as found in all dictatorships. These are fundamental principles that are defined by a progressive humanity conscious of its inherent freedoms, as it is Who they are. It is unfortunate that such human consciousness is still far from universal in our world, where in some societies, even technologically advanced ones, the people still favor a tough leader, a strong man who rules on the principles of force as opposed to seeking agreements. These are fundamental differences, for example between the people of Ukraine who identify themselves with the European West, that they are a free democratic nation, as opposed to the large plurality of Russians, who identify themselves not with a democratic West but with an autocratic East, dating back to the Tsars, or even further back to Mongol conquests. Where one nation seeks a progressive Law of Agreement, the other seeks the comfort of a Medieval structure of power, where coercions rule the masses. The two can never be resolved, and unless resolved by force, they will forever be locked in conflict, on principle. IDA Also see: Presumed innocence When human knowledge shifts the power structure The power of power is Power New direction for the World Putin's kleptocracy will not win in Ukraine This just in: Opinion: Russia’s defeat must be democracies’ goal - Kyiv Independent (October 2023) For Humankind’s Survival, Does Ukraine Matter? -( Video)- Why Ukraine must win over Russia's imperialist invasion. | ||
| Government best, least, equal |
Government governs best Government that best protects the interests of free people in ways agreeable to the common good; is government that governs least; that where constitutional protection for all individual human rights from criminal coercion is its prime directive; with equal protection for all. irrespective of gender, spiritual beliefs, ethnicity or race, equally before the law. |
