Great Wall Graffiti and Art Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » Post Scripts » Great Wall Graffiti and Art « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  ClosedClosed: New threads not accepted on this page        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rx Postman
Posted on Saturday, January 16, 2010 - 11:02 am:   

Great Wall Graffiti

Berlin wall graffiti; Jackson Pollock painting

We who are bred of lean ignorance leave our hands on this wall like ziggy graffiti tagged with tribal symbols of quiet desperation to rage in the Apocalypse. Bring down this Wall Mr. Gorbachev! We challenge the cluttered ignorance of our times to return to the source our ancestors who down from trees reached for the stars. Give us purity of mind - give us heart - give us art - to fill our walls of reason. Tear down the ignorance of Man of religion of death Mr. G*!


Say something if wanted to leave your print. Or say nothing. But for the love of G*d tear down this bloody wall!
Set us free.

il Postino Rx
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Free Speech on trial
Posted on Thursday, January 21, 2010 - 11:59 am:   

Bring down this Wall of silence and deceits.


2. How Islam breathed new life into slavery and the slave trade in Europe; by John J. O'Neill

3. Geert Wilders's speech at his trial today

"Mister Speaker, judges of the court,

I would like to make use of my right to speak for a few minutes.

Freedom is the most precious of all our attainments and the most vulnerable. People have devoted their lives to it and given their lives for it. Our freedom in this country is the outcome of centuries. It is the consequence of a history that knows no equal and has brought us to where we are now.

I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom in the Netherlands is threatened. That what our heritage is, what generations could only dream about, that this freedom is no longer a given, no longer self-evident.

I devote my life to the defence of our freedom. I know what the risks are and I pay a price for it every day. I do not complain about it; it is my own decision. I see that as my duty and it is why I am standing here.

I know that the words I use are sometimes harsh, but they are never rash. It is not my intention to spare the ideology of conquest and destruction, but I am not any more out to offend people. I have nothing against Muslims. I have a problem with Islam and the Islamization of our country because Islam is at odds with freedom.

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

Lady Justice wears a blindfold, but she has splendid hearing. I hope that she hears the following sentences, loud and clear:

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable? This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech. But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam. I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in my opinion, this would not be an fair trial."

Not to be outdone, Western civilization on trial:

4. How Islam Shaped the Medieval World? by John O'Neill

5. Geert Wilders on Islam vs Islamism at JW (2011), and in National Post article.

6. Geert Wilders: Warning to America.

Post it on the Wall. "Eternal vigilance!"

7. Update: Geert Wilders Acquitted, and vindicated - Front Page, 24 June, 2011:


Wilders remarked: “I am delighted with this ruling. It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people.” He could have added – and for all free people the world over, who can by this ruling stave off at least for awhile longer the attempts to criminalize speaking accurately about a radically repressive ideology that would use our self-enforced silence about its nature and intentions to advanced unopposed. Wilders continued: “Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and resistance against Islamization is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”

Postscript: Read excellent article by Hugh Fitzgerald on New English Review, ISLAM: What Is To Be Done? (July 2010), and pay special attention to blog commentary by Serge Trifkovic, Can the West be Saved? (scroll down)


Islamic Jihad predates the Crusades - Raymond Ibrahim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, January 25, 2010 - 09:52 am:   

End the Jihad doctrine, and there will be Peace on Earth for a thousand years.

We are one planet, one people.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Think peace
Posted on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 12:52 pm:   

The world can end its 'living hell' this century. What we must do:

1. End the world Jihad violence.

2. Offer free psychotherapy to all violent contenders.

3. Teach peaceful interaction from kindergarten up.

4. Outlaw violent religious teachings.

5. End child abuse corporal punishment.

6. End spousal abuse violence.

7. End forced marriage.

8. End our energy dependence on crude oil.

9. Think peace.

Think with prayer all the beautiful things this world can be in our 21st century.

And make it so in peace.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

One Day in Peace
Posted on Friday, February 05, 2010 - 03:37 pm:   

Giant Crystal Cave at Naica, Mexico

DSCN3418.jpg (interactive) (video - 4:57 min)

Also, video: Deadly Crystal Cave - (5:44 min)

World's oldest Christian monastery restored

_47247879_church.jpg (interactive -BBC article)
Saint Anthony's of Egypt

248 year 'seasons' on Pluto, revealed by Hubble

pluto-hubble-100204-02.jpgl (interactive-
New Views of Pluto Reveal Weird Bright Spot
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 - 12:58 pm:   

Street Jihad, coming soon to a neighborhood near you

blow-mohammed5.gif (interactive -warning graphic images}
Blow 'em'up jihad cartoon

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Save Our Planet Earth
Posted on Sunday, February 14, 2010 - 12:00 pm:   

SAVING PLANET EARTH means bio-diversity of all species, if we are to survive as a human species.

Our wilderness natural areas on the planet are shrinking due to human population explosion,
bio-diversity forced into extinction by aggressive hunting, deforestation, and industrial pollution.

BBC_PE_title.jpg (interactive- BBC video trailer)
David Attenborough narrates Planet Earth - BBC TV series

We kill our oceans, our forests, our grasslands, our rivers, our wildlife... we die.

It is that simple. We must save our Planet Earth.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

First 'writings' graffiti?
Posted on Thursday, February 18, 2010 - 01:30 pm:   

The original wall 'graffiti' - circa 30,000 BC. Original universal written language?

(interactive -article & pix - see enlarged pict of Stone Age cave 'Jottings' in article.)
The writing on the cave wall

These 'jottings' have a uniformity that appears universal over time, to all continents. Are these the first scribbles of writing?
Here are more recent pictographs, same jottings: Anza-Borrego desert Kumeyaay "writings"

Some pictographs have similar forms, compared with others from around world. Is this first 'graffiti writing' from deca-millennia into modern times?

jasmine-becket-griffith-camouflage-1--urban-graffiti-fairy.jpg (interactive)

Modern urban graffiti is just more of the same?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

"Mine!" graffiti language
Posted on Wednesday, March 03, 2010 - 02:09 pm:   

Oldest 'writing' found on 60,000-year-old eggshells -- NewScientist

BBC News (click image) article

Probably 'marked' for ownership:


The eggshells were probably used as containers, and the markings may have indicated either the shells' contents or their owner. Texier points out that until recently, bushmen in the region carved geometric motifs on ostrich eggshells as a mark of ownership.

Has human language, especially written language, originated in one's self idea of ownership?

"Mine!" is a form of graffiti language too. Ownership 'designs' may have been used on cog-stones too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

0 X infinity=1
Posted on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 12:52 pm:   

'Theory of Everything' is Simple.

Universe is 'God' computer (click image)

Countdown to Strangeness "10" says this function is what validates the 'variable G' equation, a proof.

Perhaps it is, but more so it is fundamental to understanding a Theory of Everything a priori.

0 x infinity = 1 is the ALL encompassing mathematical equation, the root of all numbers.

In the Bread Crumbs Trail listing, see #3 for an example of how 'one value times its inverse equals one', which in this case is mass, m=1. Viz: 1/c2 x mc2 = m -(g) .

[Also see: "What do YOU think" -regarding TOE in Simple Universe.]

And that's how it started... where the end product was Variable G. Now we just wait for the proof.

:-) Simple! Up on the wall, it's 'axiomatic'. The rest is history.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

23 Dimensions of Being
Posted on Monday, May 03, 2010 - 01:24 pm:   

Life yearning
Pure love energy
Eternal universal love
Eternal love personal identity
Universal eternal mind personality
Universal eternal personalities interrelation
Universal total personality, Life conscious identity
Astral healing life consciousness, Astral dreaming creation
Astral identity personality plane, Astral full colors energy plane
Astral plane of universal existence energy, Total mind consciousness
Pure consciousness, Pure light existence, Gaia consciousness dimensions
Life consciousness dimensions, Life healing, Dream state dimensional existence
Interrelationship dimensions - all philosophies, religious beliefs, physical reality, ideas
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Who we are
Posted on Monday, July 05, 2010 - 02:43 am:   

23 Dimensions of Being



Life yearning

Pure love energy

Eternal universal love

Eternal love personal identity

Universal eternal mind personality

Universal eternal personalities interrelation

Universal total personality, Life conscious identity

Astral healing life consciousness, Astral dreaming creation

Astral identity personality plane, Astral full colors energy plane

Astral plane of universal existence energy, Total mind consciousness

Pure consciousness, Pure light existence, Gaia consciousness dimensions

Life consciousness dimensions, Life healing, Dream state dimensional existence

Interrelationship dimensions - all philosophies, religious beliefs, physical reality, ideas

The idea of '23 dimensions of being' is not an original from me. In fact, I heard it from our wonderful yoga teacher's friend, Ivy's friend Martin Joel, whom we met at 'Visions and Dreams', where she also manages the esoteric spirituality bookstore. Martin is a youngish man, from West Virginia, has the ability to heal with his hands, and over some of C's homemade corn bread, and loquat fruits from our tree, we had a discussion about esoteric things, like those dimensions. I did not query then what they were, which I regret now, but I did have in a kind of flash the 15 tiers above, with the 23 dimensions within them, just a quick schematic. But perhaps I can now flesh that out some, and make sense of what these may be. Constructing such a totem of belief can be spiritually grounding. Though, this is my vision only, and others may have them different, from different personal perspectives, this one feels right for me.

First, I should explain that these 23 dimensions are not positioned within our reality as the rest of existence, but actually exist perpendicular to this reality, so mostly invisible to us, but we can respond to that reality psychically. In effect, this psychic reality is vertically integrated, whereas our physical is laterally integrated. The two meet at a central point, which is in our individual personal identity psyche. We are, each one of us, at the center cross of these two prime realities, of which the physical, with all its energy and atoms, as but a lateral interrelationship, but it connects to the spiritual vertical through us, our minds and being. Here is how this happens, per my mind:

Tier I: Reality
1. Interrelationship dimensions - all philosophies, religious beliefs, physical reality, ideas

This is the dimension recognized by our conscious minds, what we term 'reality'. It is all infinitely interrelated, so nothing within reality ever exists totally alone, but is influenced by as it influences all other aspects of reality in the universe. In effect, the Interrelationship dimensions are the known universe to infinity, however that is defined. It may curl back on itself, self cancel, and gain a new identity within its own bubble of existence, but that identity then too is interrelated to the whole. This is reality as we know it. How we understand it is then part of the rich mythology and science of what we come to believe, what we think is true. It may not be, but if it works, then the reality dimensions will allow us to operate by what we believe. This will be true also of religion or philosophy, and to some extent sciences, because though we may think we understand something, in fact we may be totally wrong. But life's reality is charitably forgiving, to a point. So though wrong we proceed as if right, and it works. This is the reality level we scientifically explore as the 'universe', such as we understand it.

Tier II: Life
2. Life consciousness dimensions

Life is what powers our being in this existence. We are alive, and for all natural living things, they too are alive with that special energy that endows them life. Within each life is then an impetus for survival, procreation, and finding those conditions in existence that will sustain it. In the end, all life dies, but the in between period of birth to death is a very rich energy of existence that is elemental, seminal to life in the universe, of which we too are part. We may not be consciously aware of this 'life consciousness', but it is aware in its own way to itself, is autonomous of our thinking mind, and operates independent of us at most levels. However, if damaged enough, it too will communicate to us in ways we must respond to, often through psychological or physical disorders, some of which can be fatal. Life consciousness dictates for us our being alive. This is the first tier of dimension above the natural world of physical reality: Life.

3. Life healing

Part of being alive is to be healthy. Our bodies are endowed with living energy and know how to do this, so mostly heal themselves. But life is full of risks that damage us, from physical trauma to environmental damages, to bacterial or viral invasions. When the damage or invasion by disease agents is too severe as to overpower a body's immunity or damaged functions, life sickens. If unable to compensate sufficiently to bring us back to health, life ceases. This happens only after life had healed as best it could, in any possible way with its own special vitality energy, before it gives up. Life healing is exceptionally tenuous, but if damage is too great, we die.

4. Dream state dimensional existence

Here in this dimension is a combined state of living, healing, and dreaming. Dreams are where the mind communicates with itself, repairs what frayed parts need fixing, entertains probabilistic possibilities, replays where it had been and where it might go; all these are done at a subconscious level that makes sense to the mind, though most often not to us. We as spectators of our dreams, when we can remember them, are often puzzled by what they meant. But this is 'eavesdropping' on what the mind is doing with itself, in a language we never learned, so cannot understand it. But much important work is done there while we sleep, and why sleep is so important to all living things.

Tier III: Consciousness
5 . Pure consciousness

Self awareness is well developed in human minds, universally. But it also exists in all other living things, some more, others less. This third tier of consciousness is present for all living things, even if they are not aware they are conscious. Nevertheless, they have a sense of self, perhaps more so in the higher order living species like mammals or birds and some sea creatures, squid and octopus, for example; but even lowly insects as part of a large colony network will have some self awareness. This may also be why all species struggle to survive, with either flight or fight instincts, because their self awareness does not wish to be extinguished unnecessarily. Though, we will all die, and some by gruesome deaths, like being eaten alive, so pure consciousness cannot be saved always. But if given a chance, it will assert itself and survive as best it can.

6. Pure light existence

The energy that powers our lives is also that same energy that powers consciousness, even if we are often unawares of it. It is here called 'light' because its origin is in the electromagnetic energy spectrums, what also powers all of existence. To enter the dimension of 'pure light existence' one would have to see reality through the prism of that light energy, as if it were photons of light that powered the thoughts rather than neurological electrical firings of neurons. The brain is well adapted to this 'light' energy and uses it continuously, why we are alive and have consciousness. What happens at this dimension is its pure form, not the modified form of neurological cells at work, but the source of all such work. We exist at this level only vertically, so it is beyond our mental ability to tap into it, except indirectly. But once a person can tap into it, healing and spiritual growth occurs. This is the first level above life consciousness, the one that is the gate to the higher level: pure Light.

7. Gaia consciousness dimensions

The whole planet is alive with this life consciousness, so it becomes in totality a consciousness of its own, which defined as a planetary consciousness is here called 'Gaia'. This is an Earthly term, but the same principle applies to all living worlds, that the body on which this life exists and survives takes on a supra-consciousness of its own. In all, a planet endowed with living things becomes alive. At this dimension, all living species act as one totality of existence, so all are interdependent in their infinite interrelations that powers the eco-sphere on which they live.

Tier IV: Astral consciousness
8. Astral plane of universal existence energy

If we could see into the Astral dimensions, we would see them in vivid colors. They are where light is unblemished by the dulling effects of powering a living reality. In effect, this plane is what drives all the lower planes with life energy. It is mostly accessible, rarely, through the dream state, though it can be viewed briefly in near death experiences, where the light on 'the other side' is intensely beautiful, as reported by those who had seen it. This light is not generated by a dying brain, as some scientists speculate, but is in fact the light that powers the brain. We are conscious at the astral plane level, though we do not know it, and can only access it under extreme stress, like death. But there it is intensely beautiful.

9. Total mind consciousness

The mind, as a mirror of its greater universal mind energy, is the demarkation between being alive, or dead. That totality of mind, what filters to us through the astral plane, is the power source of all living, thinking, feeling, loving beings. We all have the power to love, even if it is expressed poorly at times, and barely at others. But this total consciousness is an inherent fabric of the universe, what holds it all together as one complete living entity, and what manifests in living beings within it. This is a 'mind of God' type force, a totality that encompasses all possibilities of how life will exist. This dimension is also where our 'truth' compass comes from; we all have it, if not suppressed. We are now at the threshold of where we leave behind our connections to the lateral plane of reality, of what we can understand, and enter to that vertical dimension of existence that deals with life after death, and God.

Tier V: Identity
10. Astral identity personality plane

At this fifth tier we have left behind our normal physical existence, and entered into another level of being to which we cannot connect directly. But that is not entirely true, because there is a gate to this level through our sexuality. What we think of as pure sexuality is much more than that. In fact, it is our emotional existence that communicates to the body through its sexual senses, why we desire to be touched or loved, as normal human beings, and why when this natural desire is damaged, we suffer. Because this is Who we are. We are naturally loving, caring, touching, and sexual human beings, as are most other species as well. We all connect to that astral identity personality plane, that which defines us as us, the Who we are common to all living species. As humans, we have the ability to understand this, while most creatures merely experience it. Perhaps this is why this level experience was so frightening to our religious predecessors, and why they tried so hard to put a stop on those emotional feelings, because they are so intense. This is God's beauty expressed in life, in all living things, and in humans who are capable of selfless love as epitome. But we did not understand this power in us, ran from it, and suffered needlessly for countless generations of repression of Who we really are: We are love filled beings. And from that love come the gift of our children.

11. Astral full colors energy plane

Again, if we could glance into this plane, we would die. Not because we would want to die, but because it is so intense with love and feeling that it would literally kill us. This plane is pure energy, not merely electric or light, but truly the full spectrum of life endowed consciousness energy, in all its living colors. And they are most beautiful. Do not despair that we cannot see these, because they power each and everyone of us continually, awake daily, in our sleep, when we love one another, this power flows through us all the time. In its pure form, it is a healing energy, what endows our bodies with life. But as a gate to still higher planes, it is a very important astral plane with which we connect, though we do this unknowingly, and naturally.

Tier VI: Creation plane
12. Astral healing life consciousness

Where does all this energy come from? It comes from the highest source of creative power, the universal living reality itself. And what does this energy do for us? It is what enlivens and heals us; it gives us consciousness existence. So here are the two cross matrix of source and action, that which powers us and creates us. This is the birthing dimension of our individual identities, souls, minds, dreams, and body. Yet, it is here that the matrix crosses over into our other being beyond life, because here we are already dead. What happens on all the dimensions above this one is what some call the 'afterlife', though it is active and alive very much with us in every breathing moment. We are alive with death, where astral healing life consciousness rules us from beyond this existence. We are born into this reality, and we die from it, but we continue. Our astral being continues, because on it is indelibly written Who we are. We are powered in every second of our being by this dimension, though we cannot access it while alive in this reality, except spiritually.

13. Astral dreaming creation

Life consciousness is dreaming us, and from that dream we are created as living beings. It is that simple, that all of existence has already created us to be ourselves, alive, with feelings, both sacred and profane, endowed with beauty, or fallen with despair. All these dreams are already there for us to tap into in each living experience. What we do with these is then our life's path, for better or worse. But once we die, it is all brought back together into that creation once again. It is Who we are. Our lives are the dreams of a universe, and to treat our lives with lesser respect, or disdain, is to turn away the greatest gift given to us. We, each one of us, exists as a beautiful being on the astral plane. Use it, it is a free gift. Dream, and the universe dreams with you.

Tier VII: Universal identity
14. Universal total personality

We can reach into this higher dimension of 'universal' total personality, but only in our hopes, or prayers. We cannot understand it rationally, so must turn ourselves over to the irrational, to an acceptance that the mystery of our Universal total personality is with us totally; it is what defines us totally. Each human being, each living creature, is a part segment of that universal total personality, a being so intense, so bright with light, and life, that we cannot even begin to envision it. But there is a tiny sliver of our being that can connect to it, unknowingly and simply, by praying. When we speak of prayers, it is not the mere rote repetition of words, but a heartfelt need to talk, and to be listened to. The answers from our prayers, even insignificant prayers like wanting some material goods, but more importantly wanting good for others; these are manifest into our reality existence. The universe is unbelievably powerful, trustworthy, and as living beings, we are unbelievably privileged. But this is a gift not to be squandered, but cherished, because it will respond to our needs most when we are most humbled before it. Sacrifice, such as we all had known in life, is a necessity for humility. Sometimes it is chosen, other times it is cast upon us. They are all products of Who we are, and in that identity is fashioned our personality, the Who we know inside as well as the one seen by others. This demands total sincerity from us. Again, this is an unbelievable gift from the universe, and we can use it. At this level we cannot access it directly, but only seek it through prayers.

15. Life conscious identity

Who we are, of necessity, allows for Who 'it' is, the Universal reality of life and consciousness. The identity we feel in ourselves is not something separate from the universal existence we inhabit, but is integral to it. Identity, the Who, goes both ways. What we feel as an internal identity already exists externally as an identity. All life feels this. We are privileged only in that we can verbalize it, understand it, think about it. But it is not merely given to us. It is given to all existence, from the photon of light all the way to our mind, it is all the same. In this there is no mystery. We have living and in death identity because it is endemic to the universe to have a life conscious identity. We did not invent this, it was done for us very long ago, eons ago. We as humans, and all living creatures, are merely fortunate beneficiaries of a universe so old it cannot be reckoned.

Tier VIII: Universal interrelations
16. Universal eternal personalities interrelation

We are all connected. From the smallest bacteria to the largest physeteridae, we are all related into a matrix of personalities. Perhaps not significantly understandable in life, but at dimensions above life, we are inextricably connected together. We all know one another, there. Here, we can only speculate on what that means. But there, we know. Universal personality interrelations are eternal. We had known each other for eons, and will know each for eons more. Until the universe manifests its life forms of consciousness into some other plane, something as yet unimagined, then we are all connected together through eternity.

Tier IX: Eternal personality
17. Universal eternal mind personality

This is esoteric for us, because we do not have the mental tools to understand what it means, except to speculate and give it a name. It is a mystery, because we cannot fathom such a universal eternal mind personality. All through time, in all our mysticism and religions, we called it 'God', or the One.

Tier X: Personal identity
18. Eternal love personal identity

So Who are we? From all the tiers and dimensions given, we are defined not by what we think, or what we had been told, but by a power so vast, and so wonderful, so full of feeling and consciousness, that to be anything less than ourselves to the fullest is a sin. We are a personal identity defined by a universe, alive and endowed with love, and these we must never squander mindlessly. We are so much more than we can understand, each one of us a universe of One, we given in that image. The miracle of all miracles is that we are given this, the Who we are.

Tier XI: Eternal love
19. Eternal universal love

Again, we here venture into dimensions that are far above our capacity, not only to understand it, but even to access it through other esoteric means, like prayer. Universal love, eternal love, is there. All we can do is accept it, submit to this love, because it is there. What does it mean? We do not know. It merely is. Submit to this love. It is all we can do.

Tier XII:
Pure love
20. Pure love energy

Like the pure astral light dimensions, but this is orders of magnitude higher. If we could see pure love, it would stop us from living, so we are not given that privilege. Not yet. The reason we live is because we have work to do in this reality, to bring the living consciousness into being. We are that consciousness, as are all living things with us. This is work we must do. But pure love, though we can experience love at many levels, both bodily and emotionally, in sexual union, affections, or selfless sacrifice, they are all but a small shadow of the source. Pure love, at the universal level, is beyond our human capacity at this time, and perhaps for eons to come. The only consolation is that it is with us all the time. Love is a free gift. Cherish it.

Tier XIII: Rebirth
21. Life yearning

All life wants to live. We are all born into this existence, and we are loath to leave it. We do not want to die. But die we must, all of us. And when on that other dimension above life, we yearn to return. This is universal for us, all living things, and it is involuntary. We must live, so we are born, again and again. It is the way of the universe, that the pure love that created us, and sustains us, leaves us forever on call to life. This is what we must do, to live. And we live because we want to.

Tier XIV: Future incarnations
22. Rebirth

So we come back, and back. We do not know how we do this, but we choose to come back each time. In this body, or another, the interrelations of life and personality consciousness molds each life according to where we left it before, and where we need to go. The future we design for ourselves is erased upon entering the world. We cannot remember. But the universe has it all written out for us, not in the lowest dimension of being, but at the highest levels where we exist. It is all known, but only at higher astral planes. Indelibly, it is written on our soul in Who we are. This will carry on into the far future, as long as the universe exists in its present form, and as long as we evolve as souls to receive this unbelievable gift. Our life is from God.

Tier XV: You

23. *

So Who are you? Are you your work, your play? Your dance, your artistic self, your paintings, your music? Are you your cleverness, your joys or fears? Are you the one who loves, and is loved? Your children you adore? Yes! You are all of those. But do you believe in yourself? And if not, why not? Was it what someone else said, to negatively define you in their eyes? No. That does not matter. What matters is you define Who you are and give it your very best. You have control over this: Did you choose a brutish existence, or are you a conscious being? Do not expect to suddenly become infallible, because at times you will fail, and hopefully learn from it. And if not in this life, then there will be many many more. But if you grasp that truth, that you are a magical, miraculous living and conscious being, then you will have answered to the call from the highest dimensions. That is what is prescribed for you, and me, and all living things. Do your very best, and do not squander the moment. Do not fear death. You are alive at levels you still cannot know. But you are here! And we are all traveling here together. God bless you. Really, God bless your being here with us.

Am Being

Also see: ’Interrelationship’ is only part of story
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Art is Life
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 01:45 pm:   

Most Beautiful Page of Love and Light

WHITEROSE WelcomeToTheLight (interactive - click image to view)
Welcome to the Light

Art is Life, the light that heals...

Happy Quince Anniversary my Beautiful
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

'Who Am I'?
Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2010 - 01:52 pm:   

In my soul, Who Am I?

I wrote more than quarter century ago in The Given Word: 'Who You Are', what was important to me then, and is important to me now:


The given word unrolls in patterns of our creation. How we give our word reflects upon who we are as individuals. It signifies how we materialize our being, how we create from within our belief, how we project patterns of our creation into greater and greater dimensions of interrelationship until we can span all reality with our personality. It is the mystery of the soul that how we give our word, how we speak, how we agree, are all how we materialize the reality that reflects the personality we are. We are authors in ways we cannot yet understand; yet, how we name things, how we touch them, how we see our world and admire it or communicate with it through our being, are all how we create from within ourselves definitions that set forth a separate universe. It is the universe of our new being, our consciousness, our new identity. How we give our word, through the infinite manipulations of reality, is how we manifest our being. It is who we are.

Now, two years ago, I suffered an acute cerebral vascular attack (CVA - stroke) in the anterior pons area, which damaged the left side of my brain, with lingering side effects two years on to my body and mind. It left me changed, my right side numbness persists, my higher function mental acuity is faulty, my vision and hearing are somewhat still impaired; but most damaging of all was my emotional states, my personality identities that somehow were lost in the stroke, for which I still search today. "Who am I" became a serious inquiry into my new state of being, into my soul.

I have recovered much, no longer have double vision; with the help of yoga and other therapies I have regained much of my strength and balance, and can function more or less normally, except for lapses in memory and reasoning abilities. But it is in my 'inner state' of mind that I still find voids. Why do I not care about what happens next? This is troubling to know this. Why is there little if any empathy for others? This is so unlike me. Why am I not concerned with the finer things in life, even with my appearance to others, or how I speak or think? I used to care about these. Has my personality, my Who I Am in my 'inner being' changed with stroke? Or have I somehow 'disconnected' with my 'outer greater being', that universal Who that defines me 'out there' in Infinity? How do I learn to care again? I do not know the answers, but hope in time I will regain enough mind to reclaim that person who used to be me, but for now is faulty, or lost. I want to hang on to my being in Who I Am, just a bit longer in this life, and love life. If not for me, then for those who love me, and who had become deeply affected by this loss. It is also what I miss, my true self lost when those brain cells died on that day two years ago, Dec. 17th, 2008 (just as these open forums on Humancafe were about to be shuttered, strange). When those brain cells got damaged, something 'disconnected' at some dimensions of being that affected me down to my inner core.

I then long ago wrote:


Reality moves in and around us like a sea of being that fills every crevice of our existence. This is the energy that is the being of our soul. It is the light that shines from our eyes as personality, it is the handsomeness of our limbs as well as the melody of our speech. It is the creation of the artist or the power of the actor. The soul is intertwined completely with the forces of our being and of personality, forces into which we are born and from which we die. We exist on Earth but for a brief moment, yet how rich and complex our lives can be in that brief span of time. We can have the luxury of loving our children, of teaching others, of building great works, or of creating with beauty and simplicity, of being humble.

How do I get it back, the life energy? How do you hang on? Talking to angels? I want to be me again.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Plato's Legacy transcended
Posted on Monday, January 17, 2011 - 01:46 pm:   

Plato's Legacy Transcended.

Reprint from Humancafe forums: Future of Philosophy - with links added (from Habeas Mentem)
By Ivan A. on Monday, July 15, 2002 - 11:40 pm:
I will aspire to show in this paper that Plato's legacy, as it has come down to us, is no longer applicable to modern philosophical thinking, and needs to be transcended. The following quote is from --Greek Philosophy-- online: "Socrates (469-399 BC) despite his foundational place in the history of ideas, actually wrote nothing. Most of our knowledge of him comes from the works of Plato (427-347 BC), and since Plato had other concerns in mind than simple historical accuracy it is usually impossible to determine how much of his thinking actually derives from Socrates... The fundamental aspect of Plato's thought is the theory of "ideas" or "forms." Plato, like so many other Greek philosophers, was stymied by the question of change in the physical world." , * * *

Plato's "ideas" and "form" may not have originated with Socrates, or his gifted pupil, but they were likely currency in philosophical (abstract) thinking of the times. It was believed God is perfection, hence (by extension) there were ideas and forms that defined this perfection, and in so understanding them, we could hope to glimpse into the perfection of God. Plato's (allegorical) cave is such a glimpse, though it is meant only to illustrate that we fail in this, for we can perceive only this perfection's shadows. Now, this idea is persistent unto today, where we philosophically argue in favor our Absolute Truths, and their essences, as a definition of ontological Being. This is truly Plato's legacy, for his writings persisted until modern times, and one for which we must be truly thankful. Or, as Alfred North Whitehead had said, "All philosophy is a footnote to Plato." However, is this representative of reality as we know it today, 2400 years later? That is what I wish to address in this paper. Does the idea of perfect form still fit into current understanding of reality and being? If we start from a platform of idealized perfection, as did thinkers current with Plato, then we are of necessity driven into philosophical models that demand we establish our truths on this platform. However, not to belittle their great thinking, but perfection is not observable in the real universe. Cosmic reality is messy, space is dirty with dust, the planets do not exhibit geometric perfection in their orbits but chaotic ellipticals instead, and worse, life secretes unsavory fluids. This is fact. The way Plato's contemporaries dealt with this fact was to conclude that reality is merely an 'imperfect' manifestation within God's perfection. Human beings were also as much at fault in their imperfections, so that only an "aristocracy" of the best, philosophically more sophisticated thinkers, can hope to aspire for it, and the rest of us, again of necessity, are forced to obey this aristocracy. Democracy, seen thus, was never meant for the common man, or woman, but for the select representatives of an imagined "perfection". So here was the dilemma: Reality does not fit the ideal. In response, then all intellectual efforts are applied to subvert reality's failure in order to establish a more ideal order. In effect, the human mind has to bring order where there is apparent chaos in the manifestation of an imperfect universe. Put this way, it may seem quaint and a little naive for us moderns, if not egocentric(since we have to "fix" what is a "mess" in the universe), but this is the legacy we inherited today. This is not to belittle perfection, nor Plato's ideas, for there is something in the human psyche that would like to see it realized. However, it should be put into perspective from what we now know of our reality. Even the observer affects the observed, as we learned from Quantum physics, so there are no solid foundations from which we can anchor our minds in this search for perfection. In fact, it would seem that the opposite happens, that we as observers, with an intelligence for which we have given ourselves credit, that it is we create who thought; we should instead be aware that in fact we are also perpetually surprised to find the universe has intelligence designed throughout. The universe in its totality is already its own algorithm, as Paul Davies writes in "The Mind of God", and we are merely the faltering observers within it. It is not that we are imperfect beings in the manner of Plato's world, but rather that our minds are imperfect in our reason's ability to capture the whole. We still cannot grasp all of the intelligence built into the universe's ability to become itself. This, therefore, reverses the process, that it is not we who define perfection, but that it has already predefined itself in some way that to us appears generally chaotic, or imperfect. Hence, the dilemma, how do we built on a philosophical platform on that which we cannot understand in the same way it "understands" itself? And this is where we transcend Plato's legacy, for now the perfection of the universe is not in some geometric ideal, which was created by us, but rather in the messiness it exhibits. Or, as Albert Einstein was to have said, "The universe does not play dice", which becomes understandable in that it is we who are unable to guess its design, not that the universe is lacking in its design. So the chaos perceived is in fact, in terms of itself, exactitude, whereas we as observers can only see chaos as the rule, relieved only occasionally by patterns of order we understand. But as to how the universe interacts with itself, this order is already infinitely determined. What we then see is what it is, as it structured itself. So this is the point of departure we have from Plato's times, that the universe is perfection, but not as determined by our minds, or as imagined in Plato's contemporaries mind, but as determined by its own "mind". That the universe can then somehow assemble itself in such a way as to exhibit, perpetuate, and evolve life, or more specifically, evolve consciousness, is then a miracle that is beyond our comprehension. What it means is that "intelligence" reverts back not on our lack of understanding it, but instead on its infinitely incredible algorithmic capabilities. When seen this way, it is no longer that the universe is some idealized perfection, of which reality is its messy imperfection, but rather that the perfection of the universe is made manifest in what the human mind would call imperfect, or messy and chaotic, though it is perfect within itself. And that is the idea of our times: The universe is perfectly what it is. So this is the point of departure, for here we truly transcend Plato and enter into a new way of seeing reality, and our place in it. The question that arises, of necessity again, is how is man, or human beings, to find a place within such a universe? If we live in a universe that is only perfect in its perceived imperfections, then what hope is there to use this understanding as a foundation of philosophical thought that would in some idealized way lead us to the truth? A daunting prospect, but not insurmountable, and one that leads us away from the errors of Plato's contemporaries into a whole new dimension of philosophical thinking. We are who we are, in the same way the universe is what it is, and from this platform then, again of necessity, requires that we have a better understanding of who we are within this reality. Think of this as being a very modern idea, so much so that it is not yet mainstream. And if so, then how do we interact with each other, so as to not damage that understanding of who we are? How do human beings respect their uniqueness within reality not as imperfect beings, though our consciousness is still far from perfect, but as real definitions of being, of identity? Again, we are not imperfect beings within the manifestations of an imperfect reality, but rather we are who we are within the perfection of this reality. If so, then what, and who, each one of us represents is a true and valid being, one which must gain respect in that same way that we have learned to respect that the universe is what it is. And the only way to do so, to gain this respect, is to show it in relation to each other, in effect, to do by agreement, and not by coercion. This transcends Plato's legacy, for it now places us into a new dimension of philosophical thinking, where each human being is validated, and for whom there are certain unalienable freedoms. These freedoms are then not dictated by an aristocracy of the "best" social Guardians, as posited by Plato's thinking, but rather is embodied in our laws of agreements that safeguard who we are. This new law of agreement, formalized in our social contracts, is universal to us all. If there is to be an aristocracy of social Guardians, it would be only that they are the most conscious of our human rights, and thus they insure our rights' inviolability. None of this was foreseen by Plato, nor his contemporaries, for in his day slavery was accepted. Today, it is not. The universe of Plato's world was run by an ideal (God like) perfection we humans could never aspire to, for we were too imperfect. Instead, the universe of the neo-scientific modern age accepts it is totally imperfect, yet it is a perfection within itself. We are then in the new legacy of that new way of seeing things, that each human being, as an evolved human consciousness within this universe, has value within that infinitely ordered algorithm of reality, as it interrelates within itself. It thus becomes, for each one of us, who we are. I should point out that this way of seeing reality is not yet germane for us, for we are still deeply rooted in the methodology of the ancient thinkers, especially as it applies to religious and moral values (Christian, Moslem, Jewish, etc, fundamentalism). However, this does not negate that a growing body of thought has built up around this new awareness of reality, though predominantly secular, and that from this new platform is growing a new philosophical awareness of human beings as free agents, who then have the right to be who they are. And to do this, they need only to seek to do through agreement with other free agents, as opposed to doing through coercions, and to be protected from these coercions, or trespass, by social (democractic and constitutional) contract. So this is the future of philosophy, that the absolute values of perfection are already built in, into this universe that by appearance is anything but perfect. The challenge is then to validate our existence in terms of how this universal reality has manifest, itself, in such a way that human beings within it have the ability to develop a conscious mind. And from that new philosophical awareness will evolve a journey of a newer consciousness of ourselves, and of the universe, so that 2400 years hence, we will think fondly of our philosophical predecessors as quaint mythmakers, though not the authors of Absolute Truth. In time, human consciousness will transcend the legacy of our past thinkers, and there will be a new awareness of our place in the universe, not according to how our minds define it, but according to how the universe is in the process of defining itself, and us. And that will be a giant philosophical leap forward. Many thanks for your patience with my intellect's imperfect ability to bring to understanding something that is in fact already far more perfect than I am.
Ivan D. Alexander

Also see:
The existence of Self
The Universe is Simple
Emergence takes time
A New Universe - the book
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2011 - 02:26 pm:   

Is Oprah a personality-cult-fetish worship?

There are many personalities who in their lifetimes reach fame of nearly 'cult' proportions with their popularity. Think of Majarashi Mehesh Yogi, Said Baba, Deepak Chopra, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, or even Obama, for some. (Never mind the grand evil dictators or kings!) They achieved nearly instant fame once splashed on the world stage. Or people like Einstein, who deservedly captured the imagination of the masses even if they couldn't understand him, really were great achievers. But the 'cult' figures are usually different from giants like Einstein, or other great minds present and past, because the cult-figures grow larger than life in the masses public's emotional eye, and oftentimes grow fabulously wealthy for it. Great achievers in science and the arts may have fame and fortune, but these are not their qualifying distinctions. Rather, they often work in quiet humility for their craft, shunning such attention, though it may be lavished on them. What makes the 'cult' figures different is that they thrive, cultivate, and ultimately become enriched by all the attention they receive, like rock stars or movie stars, and thus fan their success with their success stories for show and effect. But Oprah is still different, in a category by herself, because she is both a 'cult' figure as well as someone who has done a lot of good, she self-promotes exhaustively herself as a do-gooder, while becoming fabulously wealthy. Many have benefitted from her largess, in terms of book promotions, charities, schools for black girls in Africa, gratuitous gifts, etc., as well as personal gratification in her message to the people: Live Your Best Life - at Viz., "The make-your-dreams-real issue! Yes, you can have your ideal body, a better job, extra energy, more love, less stress, a fresh outlook... The new you begins here." ... We are 'all winners' kind of message.

"Yes, you can have..." - Oprah

On the surface, this kind of popular 'cult' fetish seems harmless enough, beneficial to some, and generally well received as marked by its popularity. But there is something also disturbing about it, something less tangible, more than mere envy of another's success. It is something subliminally disturbing, almost on the edges of reason, that demands greater effort to not be equally swept up by the tide of 'worship' of such popularity cult figures. It is hard to pin it down, because one reason such cult worship exists is because it transcends reason and appeals to some other emotions that drive its popularity. These traits are then shared by most 'cult' figures who grew in larger-than-life popularity, like movie stars. Some of these traits may be, for example:
  • Need for recognition on a large scale
  • Publicly lavish gifts on others with pomp
  • Show of affection and caring publicly
  • Shine in the limelight of promotion
  • Often larger than life self-promoted extensively
  • Employ popular folk wisdom philosophy
  • Multi-cultural appeal for all, while exclusive self-culture
  • Personally avaricious while publicly beneficent
  • Usually tend towards obesity in oneself
  • Appearing mellow outwardly while privately harshly demanding
  • "I did it, you can do it" inspirational message to mass public
  • Mass consumption on a conspicuous level, lavish personal settings
  • Outwardly altruistic, while personally self-protective-acquisitive
  • Loud, lacking in restraint, grace and humility

These are only some of the traits shared in common by 'cult' figures who loom larger than life in the public eye. What is disturbing, however, is the last item on the list, that they lack humility and grace. Instead, their appeal is to the more crass nature of humanity, their avarice and envy of such lavish displays of wealth, a kind of African chieftain's display of power and wealth to impress, rather than the quiet fortitude of true greatness. It is shallow, and though they aspire to deliver a message of hope and success in others, they are actually appealing to avaricious tendencies in us all, the little people. This may at times yield good results in elevating public consciousness and caring, it raises our hopes and 'feel good' about oneself, while it simultaneously reinforces our baser needs for undeserved rewards and recognition. In effect, it is a power play showing off in a "look at what I can do" mannerism to impress. Come to think of it, I first saw Barak Obama on the Oprah show, while he still an Illinois senator... I guess it works! Power begets power?

Maybe that is all this is all about. Power. Rather than reinforcing higher elements of humanity in true achievement and humility, it panders to power, raw display of wealth and power fetish, to impress the masses. Is this all that Oprah really is? ... Sad. If so, it is sad. It is her last season...

'Last day' of Oprah Show, May 25, 2011: Oprah Winfrey: 10 moments that made her (BBC News)

Oprah's web page has video and links to her 'last hour' on television, where she says "Thank You!" for all the wonderful years she spent with her audience: Oprah Takes the Stage for the Last Time.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Stock Market?
Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2011 - 02:46 pm:   

The stock market... fooled you! :-) ... Some anecdotal sage advice from one who's been there.

NYSE trading floor

The stock market is a constant game of "fool you!" Just when you think you have something figured out, it fools you. You think you understand the underlying forces that drive prices? . .. Fooled you! In the end, you end up playing the game badly, you buy when everyone else is buying, then sell when they are all selling. But this has a price, that you will buy high and sell low. I know. I worked the business as a financial advisor/stock broker for over three decades.

The way to overcome this handicap is to peek at the books of the dealers and market specialists. Who's buying; who selling? But this is not allowed. So the next best thing is to second guess them. When there is a trend, you stay with it and hang on. But when the trend reverses, you change directions just as quickly. But you don't have the benefit of their 'book', so you really don't know when these things happen. You could try to buy when everyone is selling; or sell when everyone is buying. But then you miss the biggest trends. And those trends are the real money makers. Remember: "The trend is your friend". Also remember: "Take a profit when it suits you, before someone else does." These are market rules to live by.

So in the end, you have to second guess the dealers and market specialists. What are they doing? What are they thinking? They know what "you" are thinking because they see the influx of buy and sell orders. So they know where the crowd is heading. But then it's more complicated. How to use this valuable knowledge? Do you let them keep buying like lemmings over a cliff? Or do you reign them in at times, faking a sell-off when the price is about to rise, for example? This is not easy to divine. Just as the price is about to 'break out' on the technical graphs, it suddenly sinks again. But then ... fooled you!... it suddenly reverses and breaks out to new highs. This happens on the downside as well. Who controls these prices? In short, it is the mob. The crowds who clamor for a stock and raise its price are doomed to fail; likewise when they sell with abandon, they are doomed to fail. The ironclad law of Stock Markets is the crowd fails... viz. the "buy high, sell low" syndrome.

What to do, if one is to earn wealth on these tricky markets? (Same applies to currency trading, commodities, bonds, options, derivatives, ETFs, etc.) First of all, avoid buying puts and calls (unlike writing them, which is okay). They are a 'sucker' game devised to part fools with their money; there is no way to ever beat the 'house' on their pricing. The time-value erosion of options is draconian, and anyone who thinks themselves smart enough to overcome the handicap will end up paying a very high 'tuition' to learn otherwise. But regular equities, bonds, even commodities and currencies, do have a pattern that can be exploited successfully, given patience and a cool hand. That pattern, often defined by technical analysis of price movements past their 'breakout' or breakdown points usually holds, given all things are equal. Ignore siren songs of nay-sayers, or bears, as they will never make you money; likewise, ignore the raging bulls, they already bought and to hear them talk, your buying now is in effect buying from them. Better to hold your own council, and play it cool. Who's buying? Who's selling?

The overreaching force in all markets is the Federal Reserve Bank. If they are adding liquidity to the markets, they will go up. If taking it out, they will go down. Maybe not immediately, but the 'writing is on the wall' sort of speak, so pay heed. Then comes the "fooled you!" crowd to contend with. They will place their bets against you like they could read your mind. Count on it, they know... they have the books. Then you must contend with the daily jabber of the 'talking heads'... they can for all practical purposes be ignored entirely... they have nothing to add to the equation. The real balance of power is in "the crowd". What are they doing? What are the market dealers and specialists doing? The whole exercise is defined by that equation: read "the crowd" correctly, and you will make money. This is important. Stay with an upward trend until it hurts; avoid a downward trend until you can't believe your eyes (unless you're short). Believe them! They will drive prices to 'bubble or bust' absurdity. Major world banks driven to fractions of a dollar from near triple digit prices... it happens! obscure companies with no earnings and virtually no business driven to absurd heights worthy of A+ blue chips... it happens! No, it is not the madding crowd that gets these absurd results. It is the clever reading of that crowd by dealers and specialists... who see the books. They know which way to bet, and how to push a price up or down to maximum returns... for themselves. Believe them!

I am no longer a license broker, so I can speak freely. Under the compliance regulations under which I labored in my career, such free speech was impossible. (I even once offered to teach younger brokers the 'rules of the game', but management discourage me. "We don't do that kind of business" I was told, so kept my own council.) Now I can speak freely. It is very hard to make money in the market, because others who are very smart, and much better placed than you, are betting against you. They will wiggle prices to lure you in, then wiggle them again to lure you out. This is what you as an independent investor are up against. But there are ways to beat them at their own game.

First off, don't believe what you are told. The information freely flowing out there is riddled with mis-informations, so near worthless. The gamesters who spread it have your wallet in mind. Remember the "Fooled you!" rule. They are there to bet against you, just like the 'house' at the casino. And they are happy with many small returns while you wait for the "big one". Don't let them take it away from you, take your profits, but be ready to jump in even if the price seems absurd, once the trend is established. Hang in there. They will do whatever they can to shake you. Don't let them, be stubborn, even a little crazy, but stay the course once you have a winner. Technical chart information can only go so far; fundamental analysis of sales and earnings, book values, cash flow, EBITDA, expected earnings, all can only take you so far. The real money is made on betting against "the crowd". How? By not being one of them. Think different. Take losses early, but linger with your gains. Don't let fear rule your decisions. Be cold hearted about when to buy or sell, and then have the courage of your convictions. You can make money in the market. But to do so, you have to have the strength to stay the course, even when all the siren songs are screaming otherwise. The best money is compounded on the long run with winners. That's where the money is made. And the 'dealers' be damned. Take your profits and pay your taxes, a much better advice than hanging on until the end where there will be no taxes, once you lost.

But when you have a winner, put ear muffs and blinders on. There is no reason to listen to advice from anyone, least of all the 'dealers' and their proxies, the big wire houses. Stay the course, steady hand on the tiller, until you meet your goals and the company shares are now overpriced by any consideration. Then you sell, maybe sell some on the way up for prudent measure, but leave the bulk until you are ready. Is the company growing business? Does it have a clear future, is it innovative, products in demand, making money? If "yes" then you stay, don't move a god-damned-inch. Such rare finds are indeed rare, but they are out there. Never mind trading in and out of obscure stocks; that game is net zero sum game, if you're lucky. Look for clear winners, and then take positions that are financially comfortable to you. And remember, others are eyeing your wallet. Stay with your winners, abandon your losers, and your wallet will be okay.

The trick to making money is to be clear of what you want. What do you really want? To play the game and have fun? Or to make money? The greatest investors, Bernard Baruch, Jesse Livermore, Warren Buffett, were clear headed investors... who also had a few lucky breaks. The biggest lucky break that can come your way is a "winner". Value it like nothing else. Those are the rare golden 'hen's teeth' that show up ever so infrequently. But once they fall from grace, abandon them. Also, do you know what they produce? Have you looked at their products? Do you own one? These are always sensible starting points, know what you are buying. If you are pleased with their fruits, then be pleased with the rise of their stocks. The economy will take care of itself, the Feds will do what they must, but one cardinal rule of economics is that during rising interest rates, except for bonds, all ships rise with the tide. It is hard to understand why, even counter-intuitive, but it works. The currency rises, and ultimately so do bank reserves, which ultimately results in higher stock prices. So this is important background music in which to operate. The rest, once a winner is found, is technicalities. Can you afford to wait a little longer? Do you need the money now? How is your tax situation? Is a college tuition payment due? Small factors will influence big decisions. But when it all works out, you'll have all the money you need. The final test is this: Can you pay off your house mortgage? If you can, you won! Game over. The rest is pleasant entertainment. I know. The rest is fun!

Hand signals on exchange floor

Creating wealth by proxy, which is really all the stock market really is, means riding the coat tails of others. These be the innovators, the producers, the trend setters; but most importantly, for stock market purposes, it is the 'dealers'. They will do whatever it takes to get you into the game, and then to take your money. That's how the system works; they make "the market". Yes, it has beneficial dividends in that the economy works better with a healthy capital market, it raises cash for enterprise; but for you as an investor, you do not have the luxury of the bigger picture. Your focus must be on your wallet, to keep it, and to make it grow fatter. For that, you must 'second guess' all the factors that make up a market, whether stocks or bonds, or anything else. Be aware, and be weary, that there are many players out there who are better positioned than you are, and maybe smarter too, who are out for the same thing. They want your wallet. Screw them! Don't give them anything, and keep your own council. You will be far better rewarded for doing so.

Bonds are more complicated, in that they really are a function of Fed action. If the Feds are loosening money, interest rates fall and bonds rise. But if rates rise, then bonds fall; and other markets take up the slack, they rise. That's the whole game when it comes to bonds, though it is a complicated relationship not merely mathematical, often political; and there are many 'dealers' there as well, not to mention market forces at work; the bottom line is the Feds. Again, like stock markets, put your blinders on and focus on only what is the Fed doing. Ignore the talking heads; then act accordingly. Avoid hyperbole predictions, in any markets, as they typically are almost always wrong. Avoid exaggerated promises of 'systems' that will unswervingly make you money. Stay clear of them. Better to keep a calm head, watch the trends, and stay close to the company you are keeping. If you know what you are buying, and why, you are half way there. The rest will take some luck, and a good positive trend (trend is your friend), but your convictions in the end will pay off. In the background the economy will do what it will. But winners always come out ahead.

I can write a book on this. But I probably won't, as I have other interests. Not that a book would make anyone else money, though it may line my coffers. Better to keep it simple, and humble, as I had done above. It's more fun, and productive. The rules of making money in the stock market are deceptively simple. There are only seven:
1. keep a cool head (steady on the tiller); 2. keep your winners (as long as they are really good); 3 stay the trend (even when it hurts); 4. watch what the 'dealers' are doing (they bet against the crowd.. that's you); 5. avoid panics or euphoria (catch yourself if you feel it happening inside); 6. keep your own council (don't be fooled.. take profits quietly); (and finally, when you made the bucks) 7. don't brag about it.

That's all you have to know. The rest is entertainment, gossip, cocktail party talk, adrenalin rush, and just plain fun... at a price... Watch your wallet! :-)

Options trading screens

Finally, what about computer trading? Without 'brakes' it is a potential disaster. So are mis-named 'hedge' funds. But the rules of the above are the same, except they happen in nano seconds. Everybody plays it, win big, lose big, same game. Remember, the 'stock market' started with stocks and bonds bookmaking in a pub. :-O Most fun I ever had in my life.

And when your grocery clerk just told you he bought a stock your holding... Don't be the last guy... SELL!!

Wall Street bull

Also see World debt problem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Why markets work?
Posted on Thursday, April 12, 2012 - 05:41 pm:   

Why do markets always work… or do they?

istanbul-grand-bazaar_1963_600x450.jpg (interactive)
Grand Bazaar, Istanbul

Markets are as old as human history, and perhaps pre-history, as they reflect a natural human tendency to trade. To do exchange by agreement has proven over time to be more advantageous than to take by force or stealth, in the long run. From primitive markets, to village market fairs (viz., French "Vendredi"-Friday, though named after the "day of Venus"-Venerdi, has morphed into a secularized "market day", vendre means 'to sell' in French, where village markets were usually held on Fridays), to distant caravans, to sea trade, to modern commodity and international financial markets; all these have evolved over millennia as mechanisms of exchange moving goods and services around the world. The enduring principle through the ages is that goods move from where they are valued less, more abundant and cheaper, to where they are valued more, more scarce and dearer. This has been true throughout the world, no matter what culture; yams and pigs in Papua New Guinea, all natural resources, same as stocks and bonds on the NYSE, or futures contracts on COMEX; where the 'perception' of value drives where such economic goods and services, or labor, will go. The end result is a price valuation mechanism that, though unplanned and unbeknownst to the participants on a larger scale, will determine how these markets will perform the basic economic function of "supply and demand'; though more complicated than the old macro-micro economic models of yore. In fact, it is the perception of future valuation that drives how markets behave, more so than the physical supply-demand models. So when Central American exotic parrot feathers were found in Anasazi Indian's Chaco Canyon (northern New Mexico) archeological sites from hundreds of years ago, or abalone shells far from any sea, it was no surprise: They traded them, for a price.

Over time this 'price' valuation evolved from mere barter, where goods were exchanged for other goods, to monetized valuations, where goods were exchanged for some representation of 'value over time', money, which by default became a durable metal commodity: copper, silver, and gold. There may have been intermediate 'moneys' such as copper tools, sacks of grain, or precious stones (or in recent times of war, cigarettes), but the real money was typically minted from metal. As markets progressed from exchange of present goods to future expectations of capital investments, these monetized valuations morphed into stocks and bonds, commodity futures, and other 'derivatives' of valuation, the money used to mark such valuations likewise evolved into bank notes, paper money, and ultimately entries in bank ledgers as debt became monetized. All these 'moneys' became currency to value trade, pricing exchange between willing and able participants who agreed (of their own free will) upon a 'market price' for their goods and services. As always, goods moved from where valued less to where valued more, even when such valuations were "forbidden" by official edict; then such pricing moved to a "black market" to fulfill the same functions (this happened naturally in Communist 'economies' where markets were outlawed). The market mechanism works regardless of whether or not it is officially sanctioned, as long as the basic urge to trade by agreement, a wholly natural human urge, is present. Then price will reflect expectations, both present and future, and the market naturally functions as it is designed to, to "price" valuations.

But why does this work? When allowed to function freely, unhindered by excessive risk (such as war) and operating within a milieu of mutual trust (rather than fraud), markets have proven to be very effective in reflecting correct price valuations, as based on human expectations. Price is, in the words of the Roman Seneca, "Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest - A thing is worth only what others will pay for it." The market has no brain, nor agenda, it merely reflects what everyone thinks it. Taken to large numbers, meaning many participants over longer periods of time, it tends to reflect, despite all its chaotic gyrations, the "true value" of things over time. This is the 'magic' of markets, or what Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations called the "invisible hand"* of the market. The exchange mechanism, in its pure and true form, is merely a pricing mechanism. The reason this works, when it does (when bid-and-ask spread is not too wide to function), is because of the Law of Large Numbers (i.e., Bernoulli distribution), that over time a large sample will more correctly reflect the probability of being what it should be. Markets are in effect large probability functions, so prices while gyrating in the short run will over time reflect what the true valuations are to be, as perceived by the collective aggregate of all participants. Therefore, while it only takes two to agree on a price, barring perfect knowledge of all possibilities, it will normally take many participants to arrive at a 'true price' of what it is worth. The only time this cannot work, however, is if the market is plagued with fraud, manipulations by dominant players, official restrictions (like currency exchange controls), or the risk of exchange is so great that markets freeze (as happened in the recent sub-prime mortgage meltdown), so no meaningful market activity results. When markets freeze, they cease their natural pricing functions. It is for this reason there are government and self-regulation safeguards built into their activities to prevent fraud and monopoly dominations (NYSE, SEC, NASD, now defunct Glass-Steagall Act regulations, etc.), to prevent manipulation distortions that preclude natural Large Numbers participation. But when allowed to function, markets determine price rather efficiently, over time, and money flows from where it is desired less to where it is desired more (usually priced as discounted interest-rates), as do goods and services.

But if markets work, what does it mean for market observers of such activities? For centuries (perhaps starting with candle charts of rice futures in 18th century Japan) market participants had tried to divine market trends using technical analysis to graph such trends. It is the Law of Large Numbers that makes trends analysis possible, that over time a large sample of price actions will tend to plot themselves in discernible trends. Plotting such trends had proved useful, within limits and varying results, when taken over time, so using such technical analysis shows certain 'propensity' of market trends (not predictions) in how prices move. On the stock market, same as commodity, currency, and derivatives (futures, options, ETFs, etc.) markets, there can be found meaningful trends. An example is shown below for the 2 year and 5 year trends of Apple Computer's stock prices (for illustration only, not a recommendation), of what had shown to be one of the most durable stock trends in recent history:

AAPL charts.jpg (interactive - Yahoo Finance)
AAPL, 2007-2012 (illustration only)

Note how connecting upper limits, and lower limits, with trend lines shows a definable pattern of price trends within parallel lines. This is a 'probability' formation describing where buyers (lower trend line) and sellers (upper trend line) seem to come together at turning points in price action. However, there is no pure science on this, more like an art, to figure where those turning points will be. Given the Wall Street maxim that "the trend is your friend", it is usually where for a myriad reasons buyers and sellers will converge. Same as any population curve distribution for any large system, these trend lines illustrate how statistical probabilities fall within a definable pattern. But that is not necessarily what it will do in the future! Price can break formation, so will either break down below a trend line (support), or break through the upper levels (resistance) to establish new patterns. When this happens, technical analysts will then pay attention to what the new trend signifies, whether or not something fundamental changed in future perceptions (i.e., earnings), or if some meaningful change occurred in the market place (bull vs. bear market trends), so new market criteria are spotted. Think of market trend lines as merely a 'road map' of price activity, that to stay with the trend is to remain on the road taken, but dropping below a trend could mean mechanical troubles (warning light on car's dashboard), or having gone 'off road' (usually when price goes ballistic) on the upside, so new evaluations are called for. It is common folklore that efficient stock markets typically discount the future by 6 to 9 months, so what is showing in 'magic' (Invisible Hand of Large Numbers) price actions today is what will become evident six months hence. Is a new trend being established, or is it a false call? We don't know, but must pay attention to what the market is saying, as the reasons will become self-evident over time. Somehow, though it has no brain of its own, the market seems to efficiently forecast (Large Numbers theorem) where it needs to go to fulfill future expectations, and price. When looking at price trends of major US banks some six-nine months prior to the sub-prime credit disaster (mid 2008), lower trends were already being broken (late 2007), though at the time it was not clearly evident of why this was so…. Somehow, 'the market' already knew in advance. Some of these banks have not yet fully recovered in market price, so languished until today. This is not to suggest that charting alone is sufficient to divine market actions, there are other considerations of market forces and fundamentals to be considered, but they can act as an early warning of trend violations, which means we have to dig harder to find out what is going on.

If there is a dominant factor to why markets behave the way they do, it may be that the Law of Large Numbers is somehow "emergent" in its future predictions: the whole market as a total system is more than the sum total of its parts, but becomes emergent in its ability to forecast future trends. In short, this is the whole large system at work, that through the participation of many players over a longer period of time (may not work for very short term price actions due to statistical 'noise'), there is an 'emergent' direction the market economy will take, though it is not yet obvious of why it does so. Markets take price from where it is less perceived, less desired, to more perceived, more desired. This was true for goods moving by land and sea on ancient times, same as it is how money flows in sophisticated financial markets today; trends merely reflect that motion over time, where things need to go. Paying attention to such trends, by whatever chart analysis taken, can prove useful to market participants over time, if followed with prudence and diligence. This is just how markets work, when they do, because they tend to be "emergent."

In the end, it is all about "valuation". Why do things cost what they do? How do we measure value? There are certain rules of fairness that must be observed for markets to function efficiently, not to discourage 'speculation' which is what future perception is by default (evaluation of risk), but to keep a level playing field free of fraud and misinformation, or monopolistic manipulations. A deregulated market cannot be fair play for criminal activities; one cannot 'deregulate' criminal actions. But all participants in markets must to some greater or lesser degree pay attention to the Prudent Man Rule, if markets are to remain free of bubbles from excessive speculations. But even if they are not, the end result over time will price efficiently all the components and contingencies that make up the reality of what is the market: the Law of Large Numbers expressing a collective aggregate of future perceptions as market price. That is what the market does best, as it always had…. when it works. In the end, a realistic and efficient market comes down to ethics, as do most things in human affairs: We are what we believe.

[Above was gleaned from a slide presentation and discussion held by the Group - with no name (13 participants), held 3 April, 2012, Orange County, California. - IDA)

*(“Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily, leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to society... He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention.” - Adam Smith)

Also see: The Stock Market… fooled you!

and World Debt problem
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Quantum Entanglement
Posted on Sunday, January 27, 2013 - 02:27 pm:   

Are Quantum Foam, Quantum Emergence, and Quantum Entanglement all interrelated?

quantum_entanglement.gif (interactive)
Image of Quantum entanglement, in Nature, October 2006

There is a temptation to default to geometric, mathematical relationships when considering Quantum Entanglement, especially its 'simultaneity' at a distance characteristics. How could two photons, or atomic spins, respond to each other at any distance, even near infinite, in real time, so they act instantaneously? Per Einstein's General Relativity's geometry, the universe can only 'communicate' with itself at light speed c. So how could such "spooky action" be instantaneous, if everything, including gravity, must communicate at light speed limit?

The answer, hypothetically, may be odd to our present understanding of physics, since it would violate held tenets. If, for example, the Quantum Foam is universal and, perhaps, simultaneous in all reference frames, no matter at what distance, it would all exist at a uni-dimensional place. Or if, again perhaps, gravity is simultaneously felt in all reference frames at all distances, so the gravity potential is equal for all observers, then the light speed limit, per Relativity, would be violated. However, if Quantum Entanglement is a function of both gravity 'entanglement' and Quantum foam simultaneity, then they may be operating on the same plane, geometrically, so any signal felt in one location responds instantaneously at another location. This is what Quantum Entanglement predicts, and observes. So the concept of Quantum Emergence can also make sense from a Quantum foam, all tied electro-gavitically in a geometric sea of simultaneous potential. Of course, this is not how physics now understands these concepts, but hypothetically they may offer solution to the 'mystery' of instant 'interconnections' at great, perhaps infinite, distances. The universe may be interrelated at infinite distances instantaneously through the Quantum foam and gravitational potential.

Think of the Quantum Foam as space filled with vacuum energy. But not merely electro-magnetic energy, for it also is fundamentally gravity energy, so particles emerge from it spontaneously as the two interact, and then disappear spontaneously. From such a sea of energy, the communications between particles, and photons, exist in a constant state of the present, where all are interconnected instantly throughout all distances. This is a mind bending concept, but not stranger than Quantum Entanglement itself. If this were so, then all Life is instantly interconnected at all distances with this Quantum Foam universe. And if this were so, then the concept of observational consciousness interference with Quantum wave-function experiments is not too far fetched, as both the brain's neurons and electro-magnetic quantum states all operate on the same infinity plane of vacuum energy. And if so, it would all happen instantaneously.

Per this hypothesis, both the universal interactions, interrelated geometrically through all space, and quantum interactions at all distances, all interrelate instantaneously; they both make sense as instant communications, and life-mind interactions, totally in the present at any instant of time, at any distance. So the light speed limit is only applicable to photons and electro-magnetic energy, as observed. But this limit does not apply to other functions in the universe, especially those involving life emergence and consciousness, as these may be all happening in 'real time', or instantaneously, through the Quantum Foam entanglement of gravity and energy. They may be how the universe 'talks' to itself.

Of course, in an 'entangled' universe, the light speed maximum is subordinate, and Relativity is secondary to how it all works. Entanglement then takes center stage in the universe, if it all works instantaneously, ushering in a new era of fundamental physics and simplified cosmology.

Also see:
Zero x Infinty = One

Quantum Entanglement Leaps Beyond Einstein --"New States of Light"

Particles can be quantum entangled through time as well as space

Einstein’s ‘Spooky Physics’ Gets More Entangled

Relativity plus quantum mechanics

Something about light and time…

Controversial quantum computer aces entanglement tests

What is the form of Interrelationship? - an ontological examination

What is Real? - Scientific American article by Meinard Kuhlmann


The structure of the world, reflecting how things are interrelated, is the most enduring part of physics theories. New theories may overturn our conception of the basic building blocks of the world, but they tend to preserve the structures. …
Now the following question arises: What is the reason that we can know only the relations among things and not the things themselves? The straightforward answer is that relations are all there is. …(italic mine)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Proton as a micro 'black hole'?
Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 02:41 pm:   

Proton as a micro-Planck scale 'black hole'?

This idea refers back to What is the Atom (2008)

neutron1.jpg (interactive)

We then wrote:


But what is the atom, exactly? In the above regarding neutrinos, there seems to be a relationship at the femtometer level (lambda = 10^-15 m) of where neutrino wavelength is just slightly under that of the proton diameter. This leaves room to consider something different may be happening inside the proton, though perhaps not exactly the same for the neutron: the electromagnetic energy at femtometer scale may be 'modifying' the proton's strong force, where rather than being F=1, it is modified to a very low inertial mass, so that the proton-to-proton 'gravitational force' is -39 orders of magnitude weaker than the strong force.

The idea then presented was that proton atomic mass, if unmodified by ambient electromagnetic energy, is equivalent to its micro-dimensional 'black hole' on the femtometer scale. Earlier on SMBH (2006), factoring in Variable-G gravity, it was speculated that gravity per the Axiomatic Equation allows for Newton's G to be a variable 'constant' that grows with distance from a hot star, like our Sun (at about 1 G per 1 AU), so when all ambient electromagnetic energy is cancelled (13 Sept. 2002) on a center point (like in a galactic 'black hole'), gravity reaches its maximum value, which approximates the 'proton to proton' gravitational constant g = 1, or the Strong Force. Could this be what is also the proton's 'strong force'?

This is a novel way of seeing the powerful attractive force inside the nucleus, now believed as a gluon strong force, that may in fact be 'gravitic' in nature, where the proton has a micro 'black hole' of supergravity, Strong Force dimensions, which is what holds molecular protons and neutrons together.

Here are some additional papers related: The Proton as A Kerr-Newman Black Hole (Oldershaw, 2008)

The Schwarzschild Proton -PDF paper (Haramein)

Nassim Haramein the Cosmological Constant and the Schwarzschild Proton -video (2012)
...We are Totally interconnected. :-)

The Cosmological Constant and The Schwarzschild Proton -Strong Force or Gravity?


The strong force in the standard model is a force evoked to explain how positively charged protons in the atomic nucleus can remain tightly packed despite their inherent electrostatic repulsion. When physicists discovered the confining force of quarks and protons they were baffled as to explain how these dynamics arise. They invented “the Strong force” and assigned to it just the right value needed for the equations to work out. However, the strong force was not given a mechanical source – it appears without cause and its strength is given as 10^39 times stronger than Gravity!

Note, the inherent inverse of the Proton to Proton gravitational constant, viz. 10^-39*

Also see: Black Hole in a lab?

Countdown to Strangeness

We're looking, if Strong Force and Gravity may be related...?

*The Proton to Proton gravitational 'constant' is dimensionless, but when used to convert to Newton's G 'constant' it defaults to Volts, as per this earlier (2004) post:


By Ivan A. on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 08:04 pm:
THINKING ON GRAVITY G, a possible interpretation in Volts? In my original, I wrote:

G^2 (m)^2 = g (m) c^2 pi^2, which simplifies into: G^2 * m = g c^2 pi^2, where G=6.67x10^-11 m^^-1.s^-2 (Newton's G), g=~5x10^-39 (proton to proton gravitational constant), c=3x10^8 m.s^-1, m = 1 dimensionless (kg implied), pi=3.14...

When you multiply it out and take the square root of G^2, you come up with approx. G = 6.67x10^-11 (m^^-1.s^-2). [Note: it works out to G=7.24x10^-11 with 5.9^-39 value.]

However, these two sides of the equation fail to balance in terms of SI base units. I had used the smallest value for g, where g = ~5e-39 (vs. 5.9e-39), dimensionless gravitational constant for proton to proton, where this constant g is derived after applying 1/137 ratio to the F_gravity/F_electric ratio = 8.1e-37 ( possible that the observationally derived Fg/Fe are inexact?). For g = ~5e-39, the conversion from g to G seems to then require pi^2 as a multiplier to make the numbers work, though SI units are off.

There was something that came up when I rewrote the above gravity conversion, by taking the square root of the equation (m = 1, stays same) as:

G*(m) = (g)^1/2 *c*pi

Now, the SI units became

(m^^-1.s^-2) kg = (g?) m.s^-1

which cancels the kg, so it leaves g as 'm^2.s^-1', not something immediately recognized, except that it might be a Volt expression... here's how:

If amperes are expressed in Newton's per meter (i.e., electron current is force 2e-7 newton's per meter, as per SI base units), then we can say:

A = N.m^-1
N =^-2, so that m cancels and
A = kg.s^-2

Volts are W/A so that W = J.s^-1 = m^^-3 which give us
V = W/A = m^^-3 / kg.s^-2, which simplifies into
V = m^2.s^-1

Now we can recognize m^2.s^-1 as an expression of Volts!

RE: G*(m) = (g)^1/2 *c*pi where mass m=1 (kg/kg)

Can gravity G (a variable), then perhaps be interpreted as a function of "Volts and distance, per kilogram second", where square root of the Proton-to-proton gravitational 'constant' (g)^1/2 is in Volts?

i.e: G = m^3. kg^-1. s^-2 as meters squared per second, meters distance of c, times pi, per kilogram second, or

G = m^2. s^-1 (Volts potential) m (distance c) pi / per kg.s?

(Or, RE: G*(m) = (g)^1/2 *c*pi where mass m=1 (kg/kg) could also be interpreted, to arrive at G=m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, as SI units (g)^1/2=m^2 s^-1 kg^-1, so that multiplied out by c meters equals =G.)

Could it open new fields of inquiry into 'electrogravity' as suggested by Toivo Jaakkola, Action-at-a-Distance… (pp. 70-71), if so?

Also see: Nuclear positive charge of atom modified by electromagnetic energy
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mass of the Universe
Posted on Monday, March 04, 2013 - 02:52 pm:   

Mass of the Universe

mass of universe.jpg (interactive)
What's the mass of the universe?

What is Dark Matter?


It has been observed in clusters of galaxies that the motion of galaxies within a cluster suggests that they are bound by a total gravitational force due to about 5-10 times as much matter as can be accounted for from luminous matter in said galaxies.

Baryonic matter is approximately = 2-5% of the Universe's critical density. Dark matter density is approximately = 30% of the Universe, or roughly 10 times Dark Matter to ordinary visible baryonic matter ratio.

Average density of our Milky Way is about 1 atom/cm^3, or one million atoms (10E+6) per cubic meter.
Total contribution to the baryonic mass from intergalactic space is about = 0.014-.020; or less than one atom per cubic meter.

Note, if 1 atom/m^3 of intergalactic space is multiplied by very high G of about ~100,000 G = 100,000 (10E+5) higher atomic mass (Equivalence) for intergalactic space, which puts it about 1/10th of mass density of space for our Milky Way's 10E+6 atoms/m^3. But times 10, they are roughly equivalent densities, so the universe is balanced isotropy in density (no expansion nor contraction).

Keeping in mind that we mostly fail to see many forms of matter in the universe, such as dark galaxies, brown dwarfs, planetary dust, cosmic dust, etc., but if we cannot see it, it is still there, same as all the helium and hydrogen gasses comprising (some 98%) intergalactic space. And if that aggregate 'invisible' mass is taken, per Equivalence, at about 10X Earth's gravity G to become 10X more massive than ordinary baryonic matter (out there), it could account for the 90% "missing mass", what is now called 'Dark Matter'.

If all the volume of intergalactic gasses widely diffuse were to be integrated into a much higher G equivalence of cold intergalactic space, then the mass lost is now found, though 'invisible' to us. This then, though a very rough sketch, validates Toivo Jaakkola's earlier assumptions of cosmological gravitational constant at about ~ 10 G. If all the mass of intergalactic space is aggregated at ~5 orders of magnitude greater G than intra-galactic, then the "missing" Dark Matter comes into its own. But as non-baryonic behaving matter, it remains invisible to us. (This is for the visible universe only; if the universe extends beyond the visible 13.7 billion light years in all directions, then for each additional light year the mass of the universe grows exponentially, though invisible to us.)

Though this is a wild jump, comparing cosmic space with galactic space and numbers may be way off, there seems to be at least some validity to the concept that deep space gravity, both inter-galactic and intra-galactic, are some ~5 or 6 orders of magnitude greater than Newton's G measured here on Earth, per Equivalence Principle of gravity and inertial mass. And Toivo Jaakkola's hypothesis, that gravity G is ~ 10X at cosmic distances (think all gas and dust of interstellar space at 3.97e-7 G), may not be far fetched at all, perhaps even precocious! There's enough wiggle room to be just a wee bit skeptical of cosmological 'sacred cows' like expanding universe (not happening), dark energy (not needed), dark matter (not neutrino cosmic mass), and the biggest of them all, the miraculous Big Bang Cabala (why, if Hubble redshift is high G of intergalactic space?)... Ay caramba! :-) Back to the blackboard, and better think again...

Also see: Countdown to Strangeness
and Why Universe is Mathematical

This just in, BBC science news: Cosmic 'web' seen for first time


While the observations support the cosmological simulations' general picture of a cosmic web of filamentary structures, the researchers' results suggest around 10 times more gas in the nebula than predicted from typical computer simulations. (bold mine)

It looks like universe mass is balancing out, with high G in deep space?


Also see: Gravity-G revisited

MOND Revisited, why it is valid

Why Dark Matter appears non-baryonic

Short cut to calculating Proton mass, per universal Gravity - coincidence?

Space gravity 3.96 e-7 G and GUT
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Working the Subjective Mind
Posted on Thursday, September 19, 2013 - 01:43 pm:   

Working the Subjective Reason - does mind create reality? -Part 1

6ebd35b140a5b3afbeMind.jpg (interactive -"What is intellect?" -Russian)
Universal mind interrelated into infinity…

Of the three forms of reason discussed earlier, Subjective, Objective, and Universal, it is the Subjective that is totally enclosed within our self consciousness. It is where we create stories, have a self awareness sensation, perhaps the seat of our ego; in short, subjective reason is where we are ourselves. But is it also where the stories we tell ourselves translate into the lives we lead personally? This was brushed lightly in an earlier (1999-2000) discussion on Micro-infinity-universe, where the idea of our mind working at a micro level directs micro decisions in every aspect of our actions though we may not be aware of it. It was then written (May 23, 1999): "If we are, as individual human beings, the sum total of all our experiences, then our minds are also a sum total of our responses to these experiences as they had affected us through life." In effect, where our Micro-mind takes us, though we are unawares of its activity, is where our lives will go. This is another way of saying "we are what we believe", though the mechanism for this activity is unknown to us. Yet, perhaps it can be understood at some level that is meaningful to our awake conscious mind, and if so, we can perhaps "work it" to better direct our lives in desired paths rather than stumbling about aimlessly on the shoals of life. The subjective mind thinks, and we act either knowingly or unconsciously, in split second decisions, and our lives progress per those actions and decisions we make. If so, then our Subjective Mind is indeed powerful, since it can "create" what becomes for us our reality.

The full spectrum of the subjective mind may range from dream states at one end to intuitive thinking at the other, with many phases in between. It is where our collective belief systems and mythology is created, such as dream interpretations, religious beliefs, popular fads, philosophical musings, and all kinds of human creativity in the arts, music, abstractions; and a general sense of being in this world, this body. It transcends normal reason, is more like the feelings we have, falling in love, afraid of the unknown, love of nature, all of our desires, even the desire to live. It seems the subjective is endemic to our existence, and likely the same for all living species at some level. But we are only cognizant of this mind on the periphery, that which we can access consciously, and then either accept it or reject it, as is our choice. This self reflection is probably largely a human activity, though we cannot know with certainty other species, from squid to apes, have something like it in themselves. They all desire to live, so though they may not be aware of their minds, they nevertheless respond to its existence. Does a whale swimming the vast expanse of Earth's oceans think of himself or herself as "I am"? We don't know. But their subjective mind is operable on the same universal laws as ours, so they too would be subject to the same connections to reality as that of human minds.

The first operable definition of our Subjective mind is "I am", in effect, our personal identity of being. All things start there for us, because that is the universal reference point from which all else follows. In higher evolved species, such as humans, there is also an awareness of other "being" which extends from oneself to the rest of reality, though for most that reality is merely "over there", what is visibly known; in humans this being concept sometimes extends to infinity, though we do not know what that is implicitly and only understand it in the abstract. However, the full spectrum of inner being likewise extends from without our self awareness to that of whatever outer reality being we comprehend or imagine. It is all out there, same as it is all in us. Two worlds meet in our subjective mind, the outer and the inner, to direct all our actions and decisions in every step we take. This is the domain of the Universal mind mentioned earlier, where everything in existence is interrelated back into itself. Earlier we wrote:


We may not yet have evolved the genetic ability to use this form of (Universal) reason, since our minds are not designed to see things as the universe 'sees' itself. This form of reason is founded on the concept of 'emergence', where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and where complex systems evolve from simple interactions. Therefore, this emergent whole then modifies its parts, where a universal totality may actually define them in terms of itself: Everything is exactly 'where and how' it is because of where and how is everything else, in toto, both in time and space... to infinity.

This is an abstract concept, since we cannot feel this in ourselves except very tenuously in our intuitive thinking, but if it is so and emergence plays a part in how works the universal reality, then it is a systemic structure to which our minds, though unknown to us, is connected implicitly. We are the sum total of all our experiences, experiences of our predecessors etched in our DNA, and our responses to these experiences, whether or not we are aware of it. We are all of it, and it is all of us.

The second operable definition of Subjective mind, therefore, becomes that we are "all of being", both in terms of our own existence and that of all other existences around us, again abstracted all the way to infinity. This is our "outer being" experience to which we are intimately connected, though we do not know it explicitly at this level of our normal daily awareness. We are constantly in touch with all of "out there" in every instant of time, all things are, in what may be called a Universal mind, since it operates on its own interrelated terms that are emergent. So any action on our part communicates outwardly to all of that other part of our being "out there", what touches every other being in existence, though we are not aware of it. Likewise, all of their actions, thoughts, dreams, all communicate through the universal back into ourselves. We are really all part of the One, whether or not we wish it, or understand it, since this is endemic to the structure of how is put together the universe. But in this second definition of subjective being is the mechanism for which we can modify our reality, or in effect, where we create our reality with our subjective mind. At this time, this modifying creative factor is still germinal, but in that tiny seed of hope is perhaps a great potential, if we learn how to tap into it.

For most of us most of the time we do not have a clear focus of our being in existence, except as a generally vague sense of "being here". We do not truly see how our inner subjective mind communicates with its mirror image "out there", so for most of us it is dominated by a lack of focus, a kind of haze through which we operate our daily lives. But there is a way to find sharper focus to our lives, something all of us have the capacity to do. It is to pay attention to our lives, to gather into the moment our past experiences as a fuller image of who it is we are, what had formed us into being who we are now. From that image then forms a better understanding of all that had motivated us, had conditioned us from life experiences, including our dreams that powered us, and our abilities to realize those dreams; and from all of that we form an image of ourselves in some idealized state of being, though we may not be there at the moment. This is the germinal formation of identifying Who we are as a living being in this existence. And from that image, once we form a clearer focus of it, comes the potential to better realize that idealized self here, in this moment, and in forward looking time of who it is we wish to become. Naturally, all this is conditioned by the circumstantial states of being that preceded the moment, same as it is preconditioned by our innate talents and abilities to deal with those conditions life had given us, so it is not totally of our making, since life already pre-existed our coming into the world. The circumstances we find ourselves in is the proverbial deck of cards we were dealt; but how we play those cards, by how is defined our personal identity, our Who, is what connects us back into all of the subjective being in its full spectrum, both in the inner and outer mind to which we are intimately connected. It is our being "out there" as much as our being inside "I am". What then follows, when seeking that better understanding of ourselves is to bring into greater clarity a center of our being Who we are, and in that comes an awareness of our consciousness of it: This is when we begin to be true to ourselves, when we better align ourselves with our Who. The more we do this and raise our consciousness of ourselves, the more honest and clear we are about ourselves, the sharper the focus of "Who" we are, which better aligns us with our inner feelings and thoughts, our decisions and actions, to manifest for us our existence reality aligned with that Who identity of our being. From there, we start the process of making our reality, if we are aware of it.

Going back to earlier mentioned Micro-mind, our interconnectedness with all in the universe is already automatic for us, in that some part of our mind, though unconscious, is already processing all the circumstances and the lives of all others around us, at every moment of time. There is a mechanism for which we, and all living species, need not concern ourselves, since it was built into us to have this ability to communicate with all existence, though we do not know it. This is the domain of Universal reason, but it connects directly into our Subjective mind, the Who we are. Operating within this sphere of influence we call our existence is then modified by our objective thinking, so we can maneuver successfully within the parameters of our live's conditions; but it all relates back to our subjective sense of being, as it is there we related everything back to what is meaningful for us. Our Who is always the final arbiter of how we live our lives, our choices and actions, and how life relates back to us with its reality conditions in which we find ourselves either happy or unhappy. It is like an infinite web we must master and negotiate to be successful in it, or else if not true to ourselves, to Who we are, the web becomes a tangled mess where our lives suffer. We cannot expect to avoid all suffering, since even that plays a part in our life experience to drive us, but we can maneuver in ways that alleviates suffering, and seek our inner happiness instead. Then, we begin to untangle the web in which we had become trapped if our lives are unhappy to better find our inner happiness. The micro-mind is already programmed to do this, if we are conscious of ourselves and true to our Who. That is the secret to making our reality, how we create our existence in our image, and how the universe interacts with us at every instant of time. But it can only happen when we are true.

For some this focus is second nature. Perhaps the great minds and talents had all experienced it at times in their lives, when everything they did flowed naturally for them. Think of Mozart writing beautiful music almost effortlessly, Einstein creating his ideas on relativity, or Steve Jobs totally focussed on his Apple technological creations; these were great moments in their lives. But sometimes great minds do this at the expense of the feelings of others. We must always consider that we are not the only living, thinking and feeling being in our personal existence, but that our interactions will encounter countless other beings with the same need to find their Who in their lives. For this reason the laws of agreement (vs. coercion) are so important, because it is how we validate the Who of all other living things without damaging their existence within their realities. Think of seven billion identities of Who out there, and that is the human universe within which we inhabit; and then think of trillions of living 'whos' sharing the planet, in all species; then think of quadzillions of Whos inhabiting our galaxy and beyond… It gets complicated, but the universe makes it simple, though agreement is a law which cannot be violated if it is to work. By focussing on an awareness of the moment in every step, by seeking the truthfulness of Who you are, and aware of all other living things, it all comes into alignment naturally. The universe was built that way. And when life flows happily for us, it is Who we are.

So do we create our reality from the Subjective mind? It appears we can, but only if we are conscious enough to truthfully find that focus of Who we are. Then life will flow to realize our inner feelings and dreams, our thoughts and desires, often in mysterious ways. Write it down, think about it, feel it, work it; and be true to yourself. The rest follows naturally. Then you Create!


Also see:
Who answers to 'Who'?

One vs. Two

(to be continued…)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Working the Subjective Mind 2
Posted on Friday, October 04, 2013 - 10:39 am:   

Working the Subjective Mind (continued) -Part 2

Creating our reality naturally is one thing, something we can do with ease when we are in the subjective mind of Who we are. But creating it as we wish it to be may be a totally different matter. There is no guarantee our lives will unfold in reality as we thought they should. Life inevitably has its own agenda for us. But can we influence the directions our life's reality will take us? There may be simple markers that help us reach desired goals, if we focus our minds on the order of how manifests mind in reality.

The Subjective has broad diversity in what its totality has in store for us, as complex as our Who identity. What we wish for subjectively has influence on what will unfold in our personal reality, provided we manage those expectations within the possibility of events. First order is for us to manage our expectations. The universe is large and can deliver a broad range of possibilities, often with surprising results. But it cannot do the impossible, what in reality is simply not doable. So in managing reasonable expectations, it can deliver conditions reality allows, if we are conscious of what it is we desire.

Second order is to calm the mind and understand what it is we really want. I may think I wish to live in a castle, but my identity, my universal Who, may have a different idea of this. But focussing the mind on our true desires in a calm manner may better lead us to understand what it is we truly want. Life will deliver it when both are properly aligned, even if we cannot see the connections that will take us there. In both the Universal mind and our micro-mind already exist the conditions that will guide us towards our goals, provided we are sincere with ourselves in what that guidance can offer. In effect, we are already positioned in both our mind and existence to manifest our reality, this is by definition. The goal then is to identify what that reality is doing in relation to our mind, our internal Who personality, so that our decisions, both conscious and unconscious to us, lead our actions in a desired manner. In essence it is to listen to our being. A calm mind can better deliver this, there is an internal awareness of ourselves within the parameters of our lives, so reality manifests better. A confused or disturbed mind gets lost in this, same as an agitated mind will miss the mark. If we are troubled, unhappy with our condition, act erratically, disturbed in mind or influenced by drugs, then so will manifest our lives in troubled ways.

This calm can be encouraged from an early age, so the wild energy of youth is better channeled and focussed on Who we are. Yoga, meditation, contemplation and study (as well free play) are all tools to better align us with our internal Subjective, so it works for us rather than against. Then the objective mind learns to choose from within the conditions of our universal possibilities to realize our needs and desires. The mind works to both identify these and manifest them in our lives. What forms in our personal reality reflects the two, and the world unfolds for us what it is we truly are. Does this make us happy? That is a continual challenge for us, when at times we succeed, or at times are disappointed. But if we genuinely know ourselves, we manifest our desires naturally, whether or not conscious of it, to work towards our goals. But there is a third order of our subjective mind-existence we need to consider. 

Think if each person's existence as a kind of existential bubble that manifests reality around us, with our individual identity, our Who, as its center; and within its dimensional periphery are manifest all the events and circumstantial conditions of our physical being. As long as we operate our lives within the dimensions of this existential bubble, close in reality to our Who, the universal manifestations of our personal identity will project a life for us within which we can find stable  footing, even happiness, within the probabilistic conditions in which we exist. If we stray too far from our center, life will find ways to nudge us back, often with amusing results, so we change our live's directions. But if these signals fail to adjust our lives adequately and we stray too close to our existential boundaries, life often will readjust us with a more serious, even violent, reminder. This could manifest as life threatening illness or catastrophic event; if that fails and we stray outside our life bubble, it means death. Now, this is merely a schematic, but it serves to illustrate as a model of how our lives operate within our Subjective reality, all in relation to Who we are in this life. That is how reality unfolds for us. 

For each action there will be an equivalent commensurate reaction from reality. But it can only be done in some manner of stability when we are calm and conscious of our mind to guide it existentially into the reality we wish. We can still surf our life's reality waves even when internally disturbed, but the outcomes will be equally disturbed. You create what you are, and life will generously manifest for you that reality your Who desires and needs. Do we know this, whether or not that is what we want? Only our subjective mind can decide, individually personal for each one of us. Either way, your reality will manifest for you.... But there is more!


(to be continued...)

Also see: Truth Compass

Hearts and souls - our auras
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Working the Subjective Mind 3
Posted on Sunday, October 06, 2013 - 09:09 am:   

Working the Subjective Mind, together - Part 3

We better create reality together than alone. For each person the Subjective mind tells a unique story for ourselves, one that is as diverse as each personality. The reality that forms is from a wide panorama of possibilities, all of which already exist as potential within each one's existence. We then choose, consciously or not, where we wish to go within that panorama. But when two personalities come together, given certain conditions, their realities offer greater potential than alone. Therein lies the possibility of enriching our realities together.

When two minds come together in thought and affection, their realities likewise merge into some form of compatibility, and what is created by their minds enhances their joint experience. When this comes from love, it has the still richer effect; whether or not from affection, their common interests get realized, provided there is compatibility in this. This is the power of agreement between Who we are individually. When we suffer coercion instead of agreement, that reality suffers incompatibility, so both are brought into confusion, where both unhappiness and life's chaos ensues. Thus agreements cannot be forced, or the life manifestations that follow cannot reflect truthfully Who we are.

Was it not Socrates who said "Know thyself"? The ancient Greeks were perhaps first to hold this self conscious maxim, though it was diluted with the dominance of monotheistic religions over the millennia, where it became imperative to obey, and the self's identity subsumed in the dominant dictates of theistic authority. Yet Christianity rediscovered this after Luther's Reformation, where personal conscience once again was made prominent. The Age of Enlightenment further reinforced human individuality with the Declaration of the Rights of Man as a reaffirmation of the individual's right to his, her mind, the 'Who we are'. In that individuality manifests a broad range of personal expression, which if repressed dulls the world we live in. To forbid freedom of human interactions at all levels brings suffering to them, especially if forbidden affection for each other.  We are what we believe. So if believing we need to coerce and be coerced, this the reality we will manifest, sometimes with horrific suffering, mass genocide, world wars, etc.  Is this what we want to manifest in our global reality, such endless suffering that kills our human soul?

Some suffering may be constructive, forcing us to better our lot; but excessive suffering breaks us into despondency, so all suffer the consequences, and what promised to be a rich and productive human existence is dulled into lethargy and social failures. So to find joint compatibility  in ourselves benefits all society, while suffering coercions has the opposite effect, where society flounders. Such is the importance of laboring to find agreements between people, something we must collectively  "know ourselves" to create the social and personal reality we desire. When we come to truly believe this as a global humanity, we inevitably will create a new human paradigm of enriched personal reality.

To achieve this collective self awareness is paramount for society creating a better, modern world. It may perhaps explain why cultures with a tradition of personal freedoms of conscience seem better organized (and with more personal, social  freedoms) than old world societies still laboring under a controlling (often religious) dictatorial paradigm. Society reflects its people, and democratic, constitutional nations protecting rights to be Who we are, our individuals human rights, will better reflect the personal realities our minds create, than those of people oppressed. This has been a historical fact; today it is being proven daily by the mass migrations from oppressed (most still under- developed or developing) countries to more liberal Europe, north America, Australia, and other developed countries. This is the modern reality we must live with, one that will benefit us globally if we understand the magnitude of how powerful it is to have individual rights protected, our freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and belief, freedom of thought and expression, etc. They must be defended forcefully, for they are our collective mind creating our world, and in them is the power of creating together rather than alone. Within each personality 'bubble of existence', when merging into those of others naturally, we grow more consciously into an enlightened global identity. And it all reflects back on our personal reality creation from within our Subjective reason, our Who identity in "I am", within the social context in which we live our daily lives; it all interrelated in a emergent world, which an awareness of, singly and jointly, manifests a global, modern consciousness to aspire for. It is what we believe, as together we tap into the Universal mind, when aware... But there is still more! 


(to be continued...)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Working the Subjective Mind 4
Posted on Thursday, October 10, 2013 - 02:16 am:   

Working the Subjective Mind, what we believe -Part 4

We wrote earlier: "Going back to earlier mentioned Micro-mind, our interconnectedness with all in the universe is already automatic for us, in that some part of our mind, though unconscious, is already processing all the circumstances and the lives of all others around us, at every moment of time. There is a mechanism for which we, and all living species, need not concern ourselves, since it was built into us to have this ability to communicate with all existence, though we do not know it." (Part 1)

Standing back, assessing in toto all said to now, it appears the kernel of creating reality with our mind, our Who, is the existential reality intimately connecting our inner and outer being, our (mostly) unconscious, intimate mechanism of the Micro-mind embedded in our Subjective mind. When addressed with truthfulness, we position ourselves within this reality naturally.

We had also said: " In both the Universal mind and our micro-mind already exist the conditions that will guide us towards our goals, provided we are sincere with ourselves in what that guidance can offer. In effect, we are already positioned in both our mind and existence to manifest our reality, this is by definition." (Part 2)

What does this really mean? It can only reduce to what  in our minds, largely unbeknownst to us, is already anticipated what is to come into our lives. We already 'know' at some level of micro-mind the conditions presenting themselves to us, with all the multiplicity of possibilities it entails, from which we will choose our existential future, even if not doing so unconsciously.  But conscious focus on it brings it closer to us, because in that innate ability to 'listen' to our mind already exist intuitive feelings, educated guesses, and prescience about what is to come, however imperfectly. It is all pre-programmed in our all enveloping Universal mind, and all then is a natural interaction between our anticipation and our reality; what is defining in us our Who, and what will manifest that Who in our existential reality.

We finally also said: "To forbid human interactions at all levels brings suffering to them, especially if forbidden affection for each other.  We are what we believe." (Part 3)

This is the operative human condition,  that our intimate existential reality, one that closely hugs us at every instant in time, must be allowed to interact with its micro-mind predispositions, and that of all others who come into our existence, without damaging either if we are to create our reality with our Subjective. We are what we believe, in every instant in time, so we drive our existence with our deepest part of the mind, the Who we are, to drive the existence before us.

This is an infinitely intimate interaction driving our reality into being. We project ourselves from our total being, of which our thinking mind is merely on the periphery of our existential being, that reality bubble in which we live. It is not enough to think of it, to wish it, but it must be lived intimately. It is how works our personal Who manifesting the world for us, where our micro-mind connects with our existential reality. 

The stories we tell ourselves determines what we come to believe subjectively. And it is that belief that connects with all we manifest for ourselves. We ultimately are, of necessity, what we believe we are, and to change that belief will inordinately change our lives. This change will affect our health, our physical well being, and the being we manifest in out existential reality. Indeed, our belief will even manifest our reality in others. This belief covers everything, from religion to myths, from personality to human interaction, and from our physical reality around us to the circumstances we manifest in them. We are all of it, whether or not aware of it. Change that belief and our lives change with it. This is preordained for us in our Subjective mind interacting with its Universal.

Think about it, and look around what is your reality in this existence. Are you what you want to be? You can change that! Sometimes the change can be dramatic, a product of at times catastrophic events, both personal and collective, even global; sometimes it is incremental with every thought, every step that takes you there. Change your thinking and the world changes with you, for you. Collectively, that change is on a  vast social scale.  Individually, the changes are how manifest your personal existential experience. Focus on it, calm your mind, and approach life with confidence and goodwill, even humor. Your life will take you there, no matter what else is being done around you. It is all in how you believe. Let all of the world's troubles pass over you like a massive wave, and you attend to your personal things in it. Though it requires work from you, to work the Subjective mind is inherent to us;  it is effort, sacrifice, pain, all to bring us into our center of being, as it had been from time immemorial. Thinking, though necessary for conscious minds, is only the periphery of that being. To be in its center you must live it. And that center is how you believe it to be. This is Who you are.

It is really that simple, that inside us, our Subjective mind, Who, is all that is necessary to create our reality. Look around and see who you are in this world. And then... Be it!


(to be continued...)

Also see: Living Universe - why we worship it

The existence of ‘Self’
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Working the Subjective Mind 5
Posted on Saturday, October 12, 2013 - 03:08 am:   

Working the Subjective Mind, pilgrim journey -Part 5

From ancient times social cultures have had some form of 'rights of passage' for its youth coming of age. Often these initiations were a personal trial or vision quest. For Native Americans of the Southwest, for example,  young men and women had to undergo a ritual initiation of learning their traditions and taking a substance to help them dream of their spirit animal, their alternate identity; all aboriginal societies seem to have some such rites for their youth; in modern developed societies this coming of age ritual largely is lost, except for perhaps the rite graduation after years of learning, or the right to vote, or drive. In such rituals of passage the young people were groomed by their elders with clan stories and preparations to help them focus on themselves as new adults, to in effect find their personal centers within the greater group identity of the clan. So this was an inner journey, looking inward while cementing roles within their greater society, so each individuals could find their place, their Who, in the greater whole.

Another common human activity from ancient times persisting into the present is the ritualistic pilgrimage. Many societies still have this practice of visiting shrines and holy sites, places of miracles and saints, precessing either singly or in groups, to experience the place of their devotions. In modern times this has included tourism to visit great basilicas and famous temples around the world, pilgrimages to places of worship and wonder, both man made and natural, of sanctuary for wildlife, places of great natural beauty, sometimes just for the joy of world travel. All these pilgrimages, whether or not religious, serve to reenforce personal wonder and striving to redirect our being in a desired setting. For some they are life long dreams realized, for others an object of adoration. In all they help us break from life's daily routine with the experience of place, some place our heart desires, to redefine our being in the physical world.  This is in effect an outward journey to reestablish our personal center of something greater.

What both journeys share, the inner journey and outer pilgrimage, is they both focus our minds, however indirectly, on centering us in our subjective reality identity, sometimes with discomfort. Maybe suffering and anticipation are meant to center us. It is a form of communication with our Subjective that transcends the rational, something only myth and stories can address, entering a domain where reason often falters. The Subjective responds to this supra-rational communications with its internal logic, largely unconscious for us, but is real in how it communicates with its outer existential reality. This is where mind meets ritual, and in those rituals are the vestigial elements of how our consciousness communicates with the primordial mind, and thus what creates our existential reality.

Like deep in prayer or meditation, or focus on work, study and thought, the pilgrimage focuses the mind introspectively. Though it is an external activity, its act of walking communicates internally into our Subjective in ways that better centers us inside our being. For some it is achieved with a good book. It is not reasonable nor understood by the conscious, but it connects the Universal with our subjective. By acting out our inner desires, we cement better our Who, and play out on a world stage what it is we believe in ourselves. Even if only peripheral, semi-consciously, it directs us with its flawless inter-logic. It is like a parallel universe where our inner beliefs and being get manifest in every step of that simple act. Walking is the ancient tradition of the pilgrim, but any form of getting there acts upon the same subjective part of "I am". All this is universal and totally natural for us. We are pilgrims deep down on our personal journey, and if it suits us we are travelers of the worlds. We go!


(to be continued...)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Working the Subjective Mind 6
Posted on Monday, October 14, 2013 - 04:54 am:   

Working the Subjective Mind... Listening -Part 6

Energy, universal infinity inter-connectivity, thinking inner-consciousness personal identity,
inter-logic creating being existential; 

One, micro mind reason subjective belief, center truthfulness "I am", listening to Who.

...feel the change... Freedom!

Listen, listen... breathe, dream,  Hypatia... devotion, love,  listen to your mind... Who!

Shaman knows, nothing, but is right...  
Know... Your journey. Choose.

To be continued... by the One in You!

Isola Tiberina, Rome

See also:
23 Dimensions of Being
Natural Universalism
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Messiah Paradox
Posted on Tuesday, February 18, 2014 - 12:35 pm:   

The Messiah Paradox

This paradoxical problem goes back to an old discussion: 'Messiah' dilemma: Would the Messiah admit he's the Messiah? (2008) where Nozick's solution wbas that "he doesn't remember". This dilemma harks back to another post: Original Guilt? (2012) where the premise was that if "original sin" was a man made fiction, there was no real reason justifying the need for a Messiah to redeem mankind. Regardless, if someone claimed to be the awaited Messiah of the Abrahamic faiths, would we know it true?

That depends on some assumptions on Messiahood. First, every Messiah ushers a paradigm shift in human religious beliefs and actions. Something new is created that was not there before, so the world changes in how humans interact, both morally and materially. But this category would include many great men and women who never claimed Messiahood, nor even religious. Great minds like Jefferson, Franklin, Maxwell, Edison, Newton, Einstein, Currie, Hobbes, Galileo, Copernicus and many others would all be there, but not Messiahs. So second, he or she would have claim to represent the word of God. But God had remained silent on all such matters, so no confirmation of Messiah's claims ever happened, and we are once again thrown back into pure faith to believe or not. Obviously Atheists and Agnostics need not apply. Another possibility would be that the claimed Messiah would be put to popular vote. But that becomes a fallacy of large numbers, since no matter how many would agree, it would remain a titular label without proof of its truth. So a True Messiah would have to surpass these obstacles, if his or her claim be believed as true, or we are left no wiser.

In effect, the True Messiah is an oxymoron. The dilemma is that no matter how claimed or what proofs presented, such claim is spurious. Why is this important? Because all scholars and clerics who act in His name are wrong to do so. This is especially true for those who punish others for not accepting the claim as true. We are then thrown into an infinity loop: that to fail to believe the claim invalidates our right to believe or disbelieve. And this is important because it then invalidates all religions grounded in the Messianic tradition, which is a grave result, because it would invalidate any Messianic claim by anyone. If so, except for secular human rights, society would be made morally and spiritually rudderless. Given the circumstances, the best solution for any future Messiah figure would be to remain silent on the matter, and never make the claim.

Therefore, if true, then Nozick's suggestion that the Messiah asked reply "he cannot remember" is the lesser path. The ideal is that any Messiah of God remain anonymous, and let the world change of its own accord, without the benefit of clergy and their religious retinue, or himself. In effect, he (she) Prophet remains unknown, a Prophet X, if you will. That anonymous man or woman would indeed be the True Messiah.

It is not that the Messiah cannot exist. It is only that He (or She) cannot be known. Anything else invalidates the Messianic claim, and once found is lost. In short, any Messianic claim is paradox, as it cancels itself.

Also see: Kingdom of God is secular

Who's Covenant of God?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Three Meditations
Posted on Friday, May 30, 2014 - 02:16 am:   

Three forms of Meditation.

There are three basic forms of meditation. Though they all come from the same source of mind they are succinctly different in how they manifest.

The First is Conscious meditation: This is where we consciously choose to meditate, where we sit still in a comfortable position, close our eyes and relax the mind. We may or may not be guided in this. In this time we may experience thoughts, but the primary focus is on the breath. We fix our mind on some point in the body, the frontal lobe, or heart center, or some chakra desired for this meditation. Thoughts that appear while sitting still may be recognized, consciously acknowledged, but they are let go immediately, bracketed and held aside. Then at some point, the mind finds calm and thoughts no longer manifest. We are then ready to enter another level of mind.

The Second is Subconscious meditation: This is a world of two phases, our likes or dislikes. This is where our emotions play, and where our hopes and fears manifest in the underlying strata of what we truly and deeply feel, or believe. There is no judgment here, no real reasonable evaluations, for those are still of the First phase. In this Second we are stilled into simply feeling, allowing our feelings to play as they will for us without criticism. This is the level where life talks to us, and we talk back, though we may be unawares of it. We can spend all our time here, and there is no judgment of it. At its simplest it is either joyful or painful, but a necessary phase to enter the third.

The Third is Unconscious:* This is where we enter a world without words, without reason, of pure bliss. It is a frightening world, because it feels so alien, and yet this is the world of the mind talking with itself in its own language. This Third phase manifests as multiple dream states, or bursts of lights, a vortex of being beyond comprehension, for they are truly unconscious states. But it is also where the mind talks with the universe to create our reality, same as we create it. Here is Who we are! It is at this Unconscious level that meditation takes us to the Source. This is Life. Enjoy it!


[These thoughts entered my mind during meditation at the Kadampa Buddhism meditation center of Rome, in the house generously offered by Romina Powers in Trastevere for their use, a truly meditative, beautiful places, beautiful group.]

*(the term "unconscious" is a popular misnomer, as this is where the mind is most active in a kind of "supraconscious" not accessible to our minds except in meditation, and there only illusively; this is the state of mind that connects with all reality, an extremely active "unconscious")
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Islands of Peace
Posted on Monday, June 09, 2014 - 03:23 am:   

Personal Islands of Peace - Three meditations continued

Imagine if every person were an 'island of peace', where each one from childhood to maturity strove for peace in their lives. What would the world look like then? If every child was taught to seek inner peacefulness while it is seeking its life identity, and every adult whose life identity has formed sought change to make their lives peaceful, would it not usher in a world of peacefulness? This would become of necessity a world of emergent universalism that could spread to all around them. In time such 'islands of peace' would be the norm rather than exception.

Today's world struggles with this, where inner peacefulness is rare and cherished. But if each person sought this individually as a personal experience, as a personal sanctuary, through meditation, good works, giving helpfulness when it is needed, seeing the world with love, the resulting reality would be so different from the world we now know! It would be a world of mature, conscious human beings, liberated from unnecessary coercions; where what is now rare and uncommon would instead be the norm. We are all able to do this, and often in our travels have found such islands of peace. Why not spread this in how we interact with others? Why not make it ours?

Puy en Velay & Riom, France
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Math is a language
Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2014 - 05:54 pm:   

Mathematics is a language easy to understand, once you know the grammar.

e6.gif (interactive)
Euler's number e represents one of the math constants

In How to understand formulas, it says:


a. Understanding math is like understanding a foreign language: Say you are a native English speaker and you come across a Japanese newspaper for the first time. All the squiggles look very strange and you find you don’t understand anything.

In fact, math is easier than learning a foreign language, because it is already built into our brains to understand it naturally, which like syntax is a biological process using logic to understand what is being spoken. We are all mathematical, just most have not learned its language and grammar properly, so think themselves deaf and mute, when they are not. When taught properly, mathematics can be surprisingly easy.

The hypothesis of grammar is that language is a natural process of the human mind; same as it is in the logical language of mathematics, that it is already in us. But to teach a child, or adult, to uncover this natural language is the challenge to our teachers and educators. What is the most natural approach to unlock a mind to its natural mathematical abilities? Let us see if it can be simplified so anyone can understand:

First, math is a language with nouns, verbs, and adjectives or adverbs to modify nouns and verbs. The nouns are definitions of terms, so something like "logarithm" ln(2) (pronounced "ell-en-of-two) means a natural log that is base-2; an example of which is: the binary logarithm x=log2n which is same as <==> 2x=n. That's it! You just learned a mathematical noun called a "Binary logarithm". This is the same as learning a noun called locus, or matrix, or equation, or polynomial, or probability, or sum, or constant, algorithms, etc. These are starting points of a language, terms are defined, sometimes simply, like sums, numbers, equations; or complex, like logarithms, exponentials, quadratic equations. But they are only nouns, not anything more. What the nouns mean, however, must be learned as any vocabulary word must be learned to speak and write the language.

Second, math language is made up of verbs, action words, which represent relationships, or ratios. So action terms like multiply, or divide by (or sometimes add, or subtract) are all words depicting actions to be taken, same as verbs depict action in language. In fact, the starting point of mathematics should not be adding and subtracting as most young school children are taught, but ratios, fractions, dividing an apple pie, for example, to cement in the concept that mathematics is made up of ratios that either divide or multiply, how things are related to each other as proportions. Addition and subtraction are mostly adjectives later added to modify the ratios, and should be taught second, to complete what becomes a mathematical formula. Formulas are the process, the mechanism that makes these relationships work, more formally called algorithms. All this means is this is action described, how things are in proportion to each other, in what relationship they are to each other, to complete a full expression using mathematical symbols and terms (nouns). Once these relationships are known, written as an equation (noun), then it is simply a matter of plugging numbers and, like a machine, the formula cranks out an answer. It is that simple.

That these action terms are then modified by adverbs and adjectives, such as added to, or subtracted from, or faised to the power, is how the language is spoken, but the primary function of mathematics is the action verb, how things are in proportion to each other. So if we see a term like this formula for spherical volume: V=4/3 pi r3, it can be spoken as what these ratios represent: "Spherical volume equals four thirds times pi times the radius cubed." The action is described using mathematical numbers and symbolism, and that's it. The fraction 4/3 is merely a constant relationship of ratio (noun), whereas the whole expression is a multiplication (verb) of terms. Pi (noun) is the natural relationship between a circle's circumference C as divided (verb) by its diameter d, whereby Pi=C/d, which is a constant no matter what size the circle, and is always equal to pi=3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510... (though mostly pi=3.14159 for practical purposes), which mathematicians discovered going back to Ancient Egypt, that it is a constant (noun). In the formula the radius of the circled r is further modified by being cubed (adverb), so it is multiplied by itself three times. That whole expression (algorithm) is then how volume of a sphere relates to its internal dimensions, modified by pi, that's all.

220px-Pi-unrolled-720.gif (interactive)
Pi derived

Third, these nouns and verbs, and adjectives or adverbs, are further modified with prepositions or objects of prepositions, and conjunctions. The same rules of language apply for geometry (relationship of lines and angles), as it does for algebra (equations of how things interrelate), as it does for calculus (derived slopes of a curve on a point), or any higher mathematics. Assumptions "if" and conclusions "therefore", or conjunctions "equals to", are all expressions to bring the mathematical formula (a machine) into a sentence that describes what the language is trying to say. Mostly, mathematical language is exact, except when it gives us ambiguous answers (could be positive or negative), or imaginary answers (square root of a negative number), or defaults to probabilities (where an exact answers cannot be found), so to speak and write mathematically one must learn the proper terms, their proper relationships to each other, and their grammar of how these expressions form into an equation or algorithm. So if we look at a quadratic equation, for example, we can understand it grammatically:

0c4913db725b72609d4825124dda12aa.png (interactive)
Quadratic equation

The rules of mathematical grammar says that term a multiplied by x but squared, added to term b times the same x, further added to c will equal zero. That is all it says, but to solve for this equation requires an additional rule of grammar called 'factoring', which by the rules allows one to break up the equation into two parts, so it can be solved, for example:

x2+5x+6=0, which can be said by the rules to be, solving for x:

factoring makes it equal to (x+2) times (x+3), so multiplied out we get: (x2+3x) plus (2x+6), which then is broken down as: x(x+3) + 2(x+3), same thing, which multiplies out into: x2+5x+6=0

Now, if both sides of the factors are equal zero (allowed by the rules): x+2=0 and x+3=0, then the answer for x is both (carrying a number over to the other side of equation makes it change sign) so here it goes from a positive number to negative, per the rules of grammar, so that x=-2, and x=-3, which yields the answer to this quadratic equation.

This may appear difficult at first sight, but once the rules of grammar are known, and the terms are defined, and the action verbs understood, then the rest is easy. And like any language, the more we practice it, the more we become at ease with it, so that once well practiced in mathematics, we can 'speed read' equations, same as any literate person can speed read print. It is the same thing, just a matter of learning the language.

Same as in written language, there are rules of grammar, but in mathematics these rules are exact. They have to be logically consistent, not merely reasonable as in ordinary language, but must be obeyed exactly. This makes math more difficult, perhaps, in that one is not allowed to bend the rules. But if a student is made to understand early on that the language of mathematics is first and foremost a language of relationships and how they interact together, the equation becomes merely a machine that can be used with any number values to reach an answer to the problem. Algorithms are merely formalities of how this machine is put together. First it is made up of nouns, the terms used; then it is made up of verbs, how these terms will interact; and finally it is made up of modifiers, what else needs to be done, whether added or subtracted, or factored as in example above. That's how it works, and once known, it is as easy as riding a bicycle. And though we may forget over the years how to do this, once we are shown again, it comes right back, because it is both logical and built into our human brains as a language. Once you know the grammar, you will always know it, and what is forgotten comes right back, just like riding a bicycle.

So is it the same with Euler's equation for number e at top, that the language says that this number (used in computing compound interest, for example) is equal to the infinite summation of number 1, plus 1 over its factorial number "n!", which if taken as an infinite series happens to work out to be a constant e=2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369995... which can be expressed in different language representations. That is all it is, nothing more, than the grammatical language of how these proportions interact, in a word: Mathematics. It is that simple.

Natural fractions

The failings of schools teaching large numbers of students mathematical proficiency, in my opinion, is that we start students with learning simple addition and subtraction, rather than starting them with the basic concept that mathematics is relationships, of ratios and divisions, multiplications and equations. That is all math is, an equation of how proportions fit together to balance out on both sides. Most of applied math is Algebra, which is solving for missing parts, and the study of rules on how to do this using symbols. Addition and subtraction is a modifier, what is needed to fill in the missing pieces of the proportions that are interrelated into the equation, to make both sides equal. So no matter how long and complex an equation, it can be further reduced, simplified with cancelations and substitutions. When seen this way, mathematics is no longer threatening to young minds, because they innately understand proportions. How many piece of pie do you see? Eight? Then what is one piece worth of the whole pie? An eighth? That simple! Then you can add the pieces together, four pieces makes half a pie, for example. We learn it the other way around, starting with addition and subtraction, and then by rote multiplications, but that confuses the young minds, and unfortunately often turns them off. We damage young minds by teaching them backwards, and lose them. But if we use the natural processes of the brain, that we understand relationships innately, that it is hard wired in us, then learning the language and grammar of mathematics becomes simple. Math is simple, once understood with that "ah ha!" moment; we are natural mathematical beings. It should always be like that.


Also see: Why universe is mathematical
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Campanella, Telesio, Bruno
Posted on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 - 10:39 am:   

On the works of Bernardino Telesio, Tommaso Campanella (Stanford), and Giodano Bruno (Britannica) as prime movers of the Italian and European Renaissance.

Before the Renaissance took firm hold on the intellectual minds of the time, there was a 'transition' period where thinking was slowly shifting from the Catholic Church's endorsement of Aristotelian philosophy; of how the world was differentiated between the perfection of the heavens and corruption of its creations, what in us manifests as the nous; to a new kind of empiricism studying God's universe not from Scripture or disputation but directly from observations of nature with the senses and reason. This was not a direct transition, but one that waded through the murky waters of metaphysics, speculative philosophical ideas, and even magical and mystical ideas (Newton dabbled in Biblical occultism), Bruno's metempsychosis, including astrology (Campanella), on the path towards a new empiricism, such as endorsed by Francis Bacon and Galileo. The world had already been influenced by Copernican heliocentrism, albeit critically and grudgingly. As René Descartes' scientific mathematics implied, there was a growing acceptance of a differentiated world between the observer, meaning us as reasoning and spiritual beings, and the observed, as the natural world objectively separated from our subjective existence in it; this rather than existence as an expression of Divine Will. This led of necessity down the path of empiricism to study the world objectively, i.e., scientifically, such as we have inherited in modern times.

But this was not an easy transition, fought bitterly at times by the then 'mainstream' Aristotelians, and of course by the intelligentsia of the Church. For this battle these thinkers were often in hot water with the Church, Giordano Bruno would burn at the stake. However, the gates of free inquiry had been opened, and a new era ushered in, at first striving to integrate religion with science (Telesio, Campanella), but ultimately divorcing the two, where science became fully separate and ultimately secular. Therefore, though riddled with baseless speculations, such as our nervous system and brain being made of white semen (per Telesio), and some curious philosophical thinking (heat and cold as primal forces of creation, per Telesio and Campanella), or that God first created the Earth and Sun at optimum distance so neither would annihilate the other (Telesio), or in Bruno the battle between light and dark, man's connection to the infinite embodied in the finite; it was a beginning towards a genuine Renaissance which allowed for empiricism and the foundations of modern science. To these early Natural Philosophy Renaissance thinkers and successors of that time, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Thomas Hobbes, and all who followed, we can be grateful.

Here are some interesting passages from above linked texts:

On Campanella :


Campanella's first printed work, Philosophia sensibus demonstrata, was written when the twenty-one year old Dominican friar was living in a monastery in the Calabrian village of Altomonte. It was published in Naples in 1591. The work is divided into eight disputationes (‘disputations’), in which he defends Telesio's new philosophy of nature against the attack of the Aristotelian Giacomo Antonio Marta. In the preface Campanella traces the course of his intellectual development and presents the “new” aspects of his own thought. It is no accident that these pages begin with the word “truth,” depicted allegorically on the title-page as a sphere floating on water, as winds blowing from all sides threaten to submerge it and a young friar swims out to reach it. Truth can be hidden and persecuted, Campanella maintains, but it cannot be held prisoner by injustice; in the end it emerges from the darkness and is once again resplendent. These introductory pages offer us a lively account of the doubts of the young friar who, recalling the years he spent in Dominican monasteries in Calabria, cannot conceal his disillusionment. The works of ancient and modern philosophers have convinced him that human knowledge had become ever more obscure and confused because it had distanced itself progressively from the direct experience of nature and had turned instead to reading and commenting on books written by human beings. This attitude was particularly evident in the followers of Aristotle who directed their energies toward the words of their master, without attempting to compare them to the natural world. In this way philosophical research had degenerated into sophistical disputes and a series of pointless battles over words. Reflecting on all this, the young Campanella formed a conviction that he would never abandon: an adequate knowledge of things is one that comes from the things themselves, which we must investigate on the basis of sense experience.

This forms the context for his fundamental encounter with the philosophy of Telesio. Reading the first edition of De rerum natura iuxta propria principia, Campanella intuited, right from the beginning, the novelty and cogency of Telesio's approach. In accordance with Campanella's own aspirations, Telesio believed in deriving the truth from a direct examination of natural facts, so that the correct connections between words and things, which had gotten lost in the Aristotelian tradition, could now be re-established. Reviving and developing, in an original manner, a time-honored metaphor, Campanella affirmed that the philosophical investigator must read and study the “book of nature.” In a famous sonnet—he was also the author of an extraordinary collection of philosophical poetry—he stated: “The world is the book on which the Eternal Wisdom / wrote its own thoughts” (Poesie, 1998, p. 46). In order to construct an authentic natural philosophy, a continual comparison between the books written by human beings and the infinite book of nature was necessary, so as to correct the errors in the human “copies,” that were inevitably imperfect, partial and consequently in need of revision. In another sonnet, Campanella rendered homage to “Telesio from Cosenza” (“Telesio cosentino”) for having used his arrows to pierce and kill Aristotle, described as the “tyrant of minds”, and for having in this way restored to mankind the libertas philosophandi (freedom to philosophize), which is inseparable from the truth (Poesie, 1998, p. 278).
In his own treatise, Philosophia sensibus demonstrata, Campanella produced a systematic critique of the axioms of Aristotelian philosophy, bringing to light their limitations and incoherence on the physical, cosmological and metaphysical level, by drawing on Telesian principles integrated with notions deriving from other philosophies. Campanella had a secure knowledge of Aristotle's works and those of his commentators and followers, whether ancient (Themistius, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Philoponus), medieval (Averroes was frequently cited alongside Thomas Aquinas and, above all, the “divine” Albertus Magnus) or contemporary (such as Agostino Nifo). He re-evaluated the Presocratic philosophers, who had been criticized by Aristotle, and was well acquainted with medical writers from Hippocrates and Galen to Pietro d'Abano, Jean Fernel and Vesalius. He had read the works of astronomers and of natural philosophers—Pliny the Elder's Natural History played a role of primary importance for him. One of the authors most cited by Campanella, in close conjunction with the philosophy of Telesio, was Marsilio Ficino. He quoted in particular passages from Ficino's commentaries on Plato (especially the Timaeus and Symposium) and on the Enneads of Plotinus.

In his attack on the Aristotelian tradition, Campanella criticized the doctrines of form and of privation; of the four elements as principles of the sublunary world; of matter as privation; of the derivation of celestial heat from the friction of the spheres; and of the distinction between natural and violent motion. The culmination of his efforts to dismantle the Aristotelian system was a radical critique of traditional cosmology, with regard both to the nature of the heavens and to the trajectories and mechanisms of celestial movements. In parallel to the destructive side of Campanella's argument, the constructive element consisted of defending the doctrines of Telesio's philosophy. According to Telesio, all being derived from modifications resulting from the actions of the two principles of hot and cold on matter, which he did not regard as an abstract ens rationis (an entity existing in the mind) but rather as an inert corporeal mass, dark and entirely formless but capable of receiving any form. From the subtle and detailed argumentative structure of the eight weighty disputationes emerges a powerful unitary notion: the centrality, nobility and primacy of solar heat, that connects all beings and confers life on them. It is within this context that the assimilation of solar heat to the World Soul acquires a particular significance, a theme that is at the heart of the third disputation, entitled “De coelo et mundo” (“On the heavens and the world”). Campanella here transcribes verbatim a passage from Ficino's commentary on Plotinus's Enneads in which he dwells on the World Soul and its “vital and sensual breath” (Philosophia sensibus demonstrata, pp. 322–23). Ficino associates this hot breath, that penetrates and is infused into the entire world, with a well-known line from Virgil's Aeneid (VI.726: “spiritus intus alit”; “the spirit nourishes from within”) and also with the divine spirit of Genesis 1:2: “the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”. The heavens are composed of this breath and divine word, that vivifies and nourishes everything.

On Telesio:


Telesio dedicated his whole life to establishing a new kind of natural philosophy, which can be described as an early defense of empiricism bound together with a rigorous criticism of Aristotelian natural philosophy and Galenic physiology. Telesio blamed both Aristotle and Galen for relying on elaborate reasoning rather than sense perception and empirical research. His fervent attacks against the greatest authorities of the Western philosophical and medical traditions led Francis Bacon to speak of him as “the first of the moderns” (Opera omnia vol. III, 1963, p. 114). He was perhaps the most strident critic of metaphysics in late Renaissance times. It was obviously due to his excellent relationships with popes and clerics that he was not persecuted and was able during his own lifetime to publish his rather heterodox writings, which went on the index shortly after his death. His principal work is the aforementioned De rerum natura iuxta propria principia (“On the Nature of Things according to their Own Principles”), which in the last augmented edition of the author's hand appeared in Naples in 1586. The De rerum natura is a huge treatise in nine books which deals with cosmology, biology, sense perception, reason and ethics. Another treatise of major importance is Quod animal universum ab unica animae substantia gubernatur. Contra Galenum, in which Telesio critizised central conceptions of Galenic physiology and psychology. This work was never printed, but circulated in manuscript copies (De Franco, 1981, p. XXII). Smaller treatises deal with a variety of themes such as colours, dreams, geology and meteorology, some of which were published in Rome in 1565 (De iis quae in aere fiunt et de terremotibus; De colorum generatione; De mari). Telesio's philosophy was disseminated by friends and students such as Tommaso Campanella, whose writings contain long paraphrases of Telesian ideas; by Sertorio Quattromani, Telesio's successor as head of the Accademia Cosentina, who published a synthesis of his predecessor's philosophy in 1589; and by Antonio Persio, who gave lessons on Telesio's thought in Venice and published a collection of smaller works, the Varii de naturalibus rebus libelli, in 1590. Giordano Bruno speaks of the “giudiciosissimo Telesio” in the third dialog of De la causa, whilst Francis Bacon based his own speculative philosophy of nature on a blend of Telesian and Paracelsian conceptions (Giachetti Assenza 1980; Rees 1977; 1984). Thomas Hobbes followed Telesio in the rejection of species (Schuhmann 1990; Leijenhorst 1998, p. 116ff.) The physiology of René Descartes in De homine shows close similarities to Telesio's physiological theories as they are presented in De natura rerum (Hatfield 1992). Telesio also had some influence on Gassendi and on libertine thinkers (Bianchi 1992).
Telesio's vision of the genesis of nature is simple to the point of being archaic, yet at the same time astonishingly modern in the sense that he seems to have been one of the very first defenders of a theory of natural evolution without metaphysical or theological presuppositions. According to his De rerum natura, the only things which must be presupposed are passive matter and active force, the latter of which Telesio thought of as twofold, heat and cold. These principles were meant to replace the Aristotelian metaphysical principles of matter and form. In order to explain how all natural beings came into existence by these opposing forces, Telesio presumed that in the beginning God had created two primary globes, the sun and the earth, the sun being the seat of heat, the earth that of coldness, and that He had separated them with such a distance in space that they could not extinguish each other (DRN book I, ch. IV). All natural things result from the battle of these antagonistic forces for the possession of matter. The main region of that creative battle is the surface of the earth, where they create metals, stones and animate beings. The primary activity of warmth is to move fast and to dilate and rarefy matter, whereas that of cold is to hinder movement and to condense matter. Things differ according to the amount of heat or cold they possess (and therefore according to their density and derivative qualities such as velocity and colour). The quantity of matter is not changed through the action of these forces upon it. The role of heat, cold and matter as ‘natural principles’ had been highlighted before by Girolamo Fracastoro in the first version of the Homocentrica and in the dialogue Fracastorius sive De anima (Lerner 1992), as well as by Girolamo Cardano in his Liber unicus de natura.

On Bruno:


Bruno’s theories influenced 17th-century scientific and philosophical thought and, since the 18th century, have been absorbed by many modern philosophers. As a symbol of the freedom of thought, Bruno inspired the European liberal movements of the 19th century, particularly the Italian Risorgimento (the movement for national political unity). Because of the variety of his interests, modern scholars are divided as to the chief significance of his work. Bruno’s cosmological vision certainly anticipates some fundamental aspects of the modern conception of the universe; his ethical ideas, in contrast with religious ascetical ethics, appeal to modern humanistic activism; and his ideal of religious and philosophical tolerance has influenced liberal thinkers. On the other hand, his emphasis on the magical and the occult has been the source of criticism as has his impetuous personality. Bruno stands, however, as one of the important figures in the history of Western thought, a precursor of modern civilization.

To them we owe gratitude of the first order.

Also see: Giordano Bruno e la Filosofia del Rinascimento - Michele Ciliberto (2011 -Italian)

Infinity has no center - Bruno
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

The Art of Vladimir Kush
Posted on Sunday, August 23, 2015 - 01:16 pm:   

The Art of Vladimir Kush

Kush homepage

When is art beyond art? Vladimir Kush takes us into his mind, giving us an inner journey where the imaginary becomes real. He calls it "metaphorical realism", though others call it surrealism. But this journey beckons us into our own mind, where the real becomes dreams of our creation. The genius within is released from whatever cages we had built around them, and our metaphorical dreams take wing. That is 'art beyond art' a genius mind creates for us, and it takes us to new dimensions of being.

Vladimir is affable, yet self effacing while very present when explaining his art. The prodigy son of Oleg, an artist and mathematician, who says the two were related in Ancient Greece, he was raised in Moscow when it was Soviet Russia. Vladimir admitted that his first art tool was a well used paintbrush made of squirrel fur. The son inherited the father's love for art, mathematics has its own beauty, and elevated it to metaphor, into new dimensions of the mind beyond rational thinking. The beauty of his art takes us directly into the heart.

photo-1.JPG (photos 'fair use' - interactive)
Art goddess?

To watch the guests at an art gallery opening is to witness the true admiration this fascinating man elicits, almost unconsciously. What does he dream of at night? "You don't want to know," he laughs. Kush gives a great party, generous with his charming presence, yet a master of his art, doubtless important keys to his success. He is there both as a man and masterful artist, charming us with his creative aura. This is art worth seeking, and having, for those who want to see with their soul. Every generation leaves its mark in the world with its art, and Vladimir Kush has much to leave for ours.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Two Faces of Ego
Posted on Friday, August 28, 2015 - 09:02 pm:   

The Two Faces of Ego.

Janus statue on ancient Roman bridge, Ponte Fabrizio, Rome

There are two egos: the ego of 'pride' and the ego with 'humility'. These two reside in our self consciousness, each pulling us towards greater 'self love' in varying degrees, to either be egotistically self centered or more openly aware of others, depending on our level of personal consciousness. The more aware we are of this dual ego, the more we can work with it to bring out the best in ourselves, to either be an asset to our existence and humanity, or to degrade it. When aware, we then have the ability to choose which. At its basic level, ego is simply an identification of self.

We must love ourselves to love others. So the ancient religions' call to "drop the ego" may be more confusing than enlightening. We need the ego to love, same as we need it to survive as a consciously living identity, so the 'ego' in itself is not the issue facing our choices in life. In fact, we cannot make conscious choices without it. So when Christians demand surrendering the ego to Jesus, or Islam's doctrine of submission, or kowtowing to power, or Eastern religious ideas of dropping the ego to achieve bliss and Nirvana, they may be obscuring the ego's Janus-like dual nature. Our ego is not monolithic. Rather, it is a necessary element of our human existence.

The confusion over the ego is that it was viewed as a negative influence in our lives, recalling images of greed, excessive narcissism, or disregard for the well being of others. But it is the 'pride' side of the ego which should be checked and reigned in; the pride of ego is not a constructive side of human nature. Conversely, it is the ego's positive ability to focus our lives on important things, like love of beauty, love of life, and love of others as well as ourselves; this ego comes with 'humility', in that we value the other equally as ourselves without sacrificing our identity of Who we are. This is an important distinction, a conscious choice to be made by us, in understanding the nature of our ego. What drives us? How do our actions and choices help rather than hinder; in short, how do we add in a positive way to our lives to elevate ourselves and others rather than bring them down? The ego is instrumental in how we self consciously do this, and surrendering it to some self-sacrificial, or religious ideology does not elevate humanity. Rather, it confuses pride with humility and brings us down, leaves us confused with guilt, and renders our choices and actions impotent in how we are in the world.

Beauty of ego

The key is humility. First, we must love ourselves with all the beauty and love our being elicits in this life. We are Who we are in an infinitely complex way, and with humility we need not suppress our beauty, but celebrate it. Love all life, all beings, and that is the ultimate love we can have for ourselves. This is ego! We need this to be fully human. But it is of a higher order than the self love of pride. We do not impose, rather we validate. While pride tramples on the beauty of others, humility enhances them. Always, the choice is ours. Choose gently, be open to your dreams, and those of others, and the ego will serve you, rather than demanding it be served by you. That perhaps is the distinction of ego ancient religions, however imperfectly, tried to instill in humanity; rather, they made the ego something 'evil' instead, when it is not. The 'dual ego' is a better way to understand this, because this is Who we are. Be of service in positive ways to others, and your ego will generously serve you in humility. That is choosing wisely.


Also see: Working the Subjective Mind
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Renaming Earth
Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2015 - 12:30 pm:   

Renaming Earth, we give you "(T)Hera".

Animation2.gif (interactive)
Her Noble Majesty, (T)Hera

Naming planets has always had a romance attached. Beautiful Venus was a Roman goddess of love. As were other planets named after the gods, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus. Distant Pluto when finally discovered was named by a young girl, in following ancient mythology of gods, after a dwarfish god of darkness in the underworld. So why not Earth? Shouldn't our beautiful living world be also cloaked in the name of the gods?

Earth's acronym is "heart"; and Terra, her other name, has a resonance to "Hera", wife of Zeus, majestic goddess of women, Queen of the Gods. Would this not be a fitting name? Her name rhymes with Terra, and at her heart has an "earth" acronym (Thera)? It should be done, that our Sol and her consort Luna, after beautiful Venus, and before war god Mars, that we should be graced by Hera, the Queen of Olympus, goddess of love and marriage, as our home planet.

We who are the heart and mind of our solar family of worlds, from Mercury to distant Pluto, and the worlds beyond, we whose marble blue world graces infinite space, we give you beautiful and loving water and earth, a Queen goddess gracing the heavens, whose feminine spirit with Venus balance the male planets. We give you Her Noble Majesty, (T)Hera.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Information Revolution changed the world
Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015 - 02:23 am:   

How has the Information Revolution changed the world?

Information started with primitive clans meeting, if not attacking each other, talking and exchanging news, rumors and gossip, shared storytelling and songs, of what their clans were doing, tool making, the hunt. This was the way of news for thousands of years, trade caravans passing on information of their distant travels, returning warriors from far off campaigns, tribal jamborees, village festivals, all exchanging verbal information and trade of what was going on in neighboring or far away places. With the invention of writing, and later machine printing (c. 15th century), the information spread was formalized, where written letters, sent by post or messenger, and printed books became more commonplace. By the 19th century, letters, journals and newspapers were the main vehicles for everyday news, with mass printed books for intellectual education, or entertainment. Given mass printing, the Information Revolution had begun.

In the 20th century, information expanded technologically to telephones, cinema, radio and television, lately with portable cellphones and computers; glossy picture magazines competed with journals, popularizing news for common consumption. But it was the World Wide Web that exploded information in ways never seen before, where any information, or news, was posted electronically for instant world consumption; anyone with a desktop computer or hand held device could access information globally, or create it. Letters once written with grace and elegance were reduced to cryptic emails or SMS; web social networks, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Skype, etc., further expanded dialogue electronically, or constricted it to some parody of itself. Not all information on the internet is newsworthy, however, as it has both information and mis-information (BBC), such as witnessed in the grim wake of the vicious Paris attacks by ISIS. The information spread on social networks can be brutally frank at times, pictures graphic with bloody dead, body parts, survivors hurt, victims crying, people suffering, but the news (or rumors) on the attacks are unscrubbed; unverifiable, they may not always be reliable as news. It seems we have come full circle, where exchange of information, now again in a (larger) common people exchange, has returned to 'rumors and gossip', telling each other stories on a mass scale of what is personally perceived; now these are shared on keyboards, news and views of the world instantly wherever we are. In the 21st century, information has thus evolved beyond official news into mass popular networks, where the truth in reporting (always a precious commodity) must now be filtered more diligently, as many mistakes share the web with facts. We are now in a full blown, mass 'Information Revolution', and it comes both with benefits and liabilities. Billions of people have access to the Web, which can be either empowering or abusive, sometimes both, as rumors and opinions, or photos, fly around the world at light speed, unchecked.

What have we wrought? Information uncensored can be garbage-in-garbage-out. But information censored is automatically disqualified as 'the truth', as it is manicured or doctored to support a particular point of view, that of the censors. To censor so-called Jihad web pages, for example, may have a benefit to limiting radicalization of Muslim youth, but it would restrict access to all parties interested from seeing what is being said, and how to confront it. Which is better, free access to information and freedom of expression, or censored information where information and dialogue stops? The prior has served well, though it may be restricted during times of war; the latter is suitable in a crisis, but unsuitable in a sustainable manner over time, if our human rights of free expression are to be preserved. This is the major dilemma facing society in the Free World today, especially with regards to popular mass information: how to manage 'freedom of information', something demanded by the Information Revolution, in a fair and reasonable manner, while protecting society from its adverse effects?

This is the revolution engendered by modern information, how it changed the world, that there is power in information, and that we manage it in a way that does not empower those who would control it to their ends, with propaganda and censorship to control people; while at the same time make this information diversely available so all can access it freely to their own ends, which is information of shared ideas, facts, and a greater consciousness on a global scale. That is the challenge the informational revolution has brought us today, that we wrest away from dictatorial authority the 'power of information', what is now universally available, while making it responsibly available to all readers of the planet, so they can make informed choices and ideas.

The absolute exception to this free access to universal information is where it advocates seriously anti-social behaviors. There is no room on the Web or social media, same as commercial and official media, for information advocating murder, rape, child molestation, sexual enslavement (even if they are religiously inspired), cannibalism, financial scams, theft and other coercive behaviors depriving individuals (of both genders) of their natural human rights, as it is self negating. We are all equal before the law to preserve justice and personal dignity, which automatically disqualifies any efforts at degrading our rights as being counter to our freedom of information and expression. This includes need for limiting dictatorial powers that violate our human rights to live life responsibly as we choose it. No easy task, but the dividends of doing this right are immense: if we succeed, information available globally and instantly has the power to check those whose intent is mis-information, to override censorship attempts to shut down dialogue, and thus it liberates ideas to judge the value of what information is presented. This is a powerful tool, one that can unite people in a common cause, while qualifying the information available as truth or fiction, for each person. We are, individually and collectively, the final arbiters of truth. This is in our power to do, and no amount of propaganda or censorship can take it away, as the World Wide Web has empowered us.

This is the power of the Information Revolution, that it can free us, or it can enslave us. We collectively and individually are at the receiving end of this power, one that will be countered by every authoritarian, dictatorial power, because our freedom of information threatens them; so we must choose carefully how we exercise this freedom. If done right, meaning the information is better than mere gossip and rumors, that we filter it intelligently, then those who wield power will be constricted in what they can do; they may have atomic weapons, but our free information will not let them use them. We can spread the alarm with facts before the dictatorial forces can counter with deceit and propaganda. Weapons are only useful to those who wield them; if the ultimate weapon is information wielded by us, which is more powerful? Keyboards, or atomic bombs? There it takes courage, but the power is in free information.

So the dictatorial powers can be expected to do all they can to limit information (starting with journalistic censorship of criticizing regime), to deprive us of a voice, of dialogue, of exploring ideas; in effect, new and free thoughts, which are anathema to them, would be silenced. But it is not in their power to do this unless we allow it; that is the power of the Information Revolution, that we collectively control information presented. Like on Wikipedia pages, where citations and disputes are highlighted, so is it on the Web, that misinformation must be flagged, and disputed. That is how we arrive at the truth, with dialogue and disputations, cross-checking facts, listening to all sides of the story. In fact, modern information is beyond common gossip and rumors, as we can cross-check objectively what is being said. And in that rests the ultimate power of the Information Revolution, that it is universally available, and all who cry "foul!" can be heard. Then it is a matter of listening to what is being said.

That changed the world, that we call for truth in what is being said. It is no longer meek acceptance of storytelling, theater, and mythical legends; we now demand confirmation as a path to finding the truth. That has power in itself, that it makes propaganda weak if not laughable. Information is power, and that is the lesson learned from this informational revolution, though it is still formative, emergent, that we personally and collectively have the power of truth. We need to better understand how our access to information, when truthful and accurate, whether from official media or popular Web, is what empowers us. And it is this mass empowerment that must be guarded, protected from falsehood and corruptions of truths to entrap young minds, and what liberates us globally from dictatorial, extremist controls. We are as free as our information is true, and that in itself is revolutionary; that we are free if we choose to be.

So having come full circle, where the multitudes chatter online, whether giving useful information, vastly abundant on the web, or chatter gossip, our collective world consciousness recreates itself continuously, fashioned in our image what we collectively and globally wish to be. It may appear chaotic at times, like flocks of migrating starlings in great clouds flying this way and that, or the swirling movements of schools of fish that appear to be without purpose. But each participant had a goal, or followed others in theirs, or just went about aimlessly; nevertheless it all coalesces into a pattern visible from a distance that manifests purpose, one that in time is understood. That is the way of universal order, that it may appear chaotic when free, but in the end a greater goal, and in us a greater awareness, arises from the apparent chaos and change. Our Information Revolution will yield many surprises, but in the end, it will reflect and empower us universally and globally in Who we are. And that is a good, a truth we can work with.

IDA Rome
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aliens built Pyramid?
Posted on Monday, January 25, 2016 - 01:13 pm:   

Did Aliens build the great pyramids of Egypt? - Probably not.

photo 1.JPG (images interactive)
Aliens fantasy

There had been speculations that Aliens had helped ancient Egyptians build the great pyramids. Though this idea is easily debunked, there remains the nagging fact that the Great Pyramid of Khufu had incredibly complex mathematics embedded in its construction, as discovered by Eckhart R. Schmitz and others. In his book, The Great Pyramid of Giza, Schmitz describes how the pyramid is a repository of complex mathematics betraying an incredibly accurate knowledge of Earth's geodetic data and scientific facts, including the gravitational constant, Lagrange points in space, and the speed of light. How could these ancients have access to such knowledge, things we discovered only in the last couple of centuries, without the help of an advanced race of Aliens? The answer is perhaps more fascinating than the Aliens theory. What makes it so much more interesting is that it offers us a glimpse into the ancient Egyptian mind.

In Schmitz's paper, he takes us from how the ancient Egyptian Pyramid inch was 1.0011 British inches (p.4), to the precise pyramid measurements made by Prof. Flinders Petrie and other archeologists, to how the inclusion of certain numeric constants, we can arrive at incredible facsimiles of current understandings of scientific and astronomical constants known today. Per Schmitz: "In the early 1900's, D. Davidson, a Civil Engineer by Profession, investigated the hollowing in of the sides of the Pyramid and calculated that if the Great Pyramid had casing stones which were equal in thickness to the measurement of the hollowing in of its sides then the Base Perimeter would have been 36524.2465 Pyramid Inches." (p.5) This leads to his concluding this represents a surprisingly accurate, if divided by 100, reading of Earth's annual 365.2421895 solar days. Beyond coincidence? Probably yes. With precise observations of the heavens, Earth's annual diurnal duration, ancient Egyptians could have arrived at this number. Next, Schmitz describes how the Great Pyramid's base perimeter translates into 86,400, if the number 43,200 times 2 is considered (p.10), which is roughly equivalent to seconds in one solar day. But it is not clear why '43,200' was chosen by the ancients, except that it is a constant used in the Pyramid's calculations. He then considers that the base perimeter divided by 2Pi yields the pyramid's height, which leads to understanding the ancient Egyptians had a particular fascination with Pi, which they rounded out to 3.14 (22/7 vs 3.14159..), and used it repeatedly in their dimensions as Schmitz points out. No explanation, however, as to why Pyramid builders used our seconds as basic measure of time, times two. (Perhaps the ancient Egyptian 'second' was twice ours?) Schmitz then takes this Egyptian constant 43,200 and multiplies it by the external base of the Pyramid: "The measurement of 40,121.434 km (the External Base Perimeter of the Great Pyramid multiplied by 43,200) is of particular interest as it relates to the shape of the Earth. The Earth has a Transverse Radius of Curvature at the Equator of 6378.137 km (which is identical to the radius) and a Polar Transverse Radius of Curvature of 6399.5936 km which is identical to the Meridional Radius of Curvature at the poles. It should be noted that the Polar radius is 6356.7523 km as per WGS 84 Data. " (p.19) This is in effect an allusion to ancient Egyptians knowing the average of both the equatorial and polar radii of the Earth (though Schmitz makes it a geodetic radius in his paper). Then he shows how the Golden Ratio (1.618...) is incorporated. "The Golden Ratio in geometry is given, by example, in the division of a line whereby the ratio of the long segment is to the total length as the short segment is to the long segment. Algebraically this may be expressed as follows:
a + b/a= a/b. Where a = long segment of line b = short segment of line. An equation that solves for the Golden Ratio is as follows:
a/b= ( 1 + sqr root5 )/2= 1.618033989...
" (p.21). Apparently this was known to ancient Egyptians, and used in the Pyramid's dimensions. But that is only the beginning.

On page 24, Schmitz then shows how the number 2400 is recurring, including how it multiplied by 1800 (?) and divided by 100, we come back to 43,200, which appears a Pyramid scaling constant. By page 34, we get the idea that the ancient Egyptians already had figured out the Pythagorean Theorem.

Schmitz then discovers the Pyramid's (35th course masonry) geometry has a clever set of relationships in relation to the Golden Ratio: "The Golden Right Angled triangle is found in the symmetry of, among other things, the shape of Nautilus shells and remarkably in the shape of Spiral Galaxies. The Value of Phi the reciprocal of Phi (1/Phi) and the square root of Phi are all related in a perfect, indeed in a Golden symmetry." (p.48). This is further expanded on the measurements of the Queen's Chamber, where he discovers another numerical constant, 2400: "Since there are four corners in the chamber one can multiply 600 by 4 = 2400.
The so-called Queen’s Chamber can be associated with the numerical value of 2400. We shall see that the number 2400 is the “Code Number” which is used to decipher the relevance of the principal measurements of the Great Pyramid’s Internal Passage measurements."
(p.54). Showing the King's Chamber dimensions with Pythagorean relationships (3,4,5) he arrives at another significant constant of 43,200,000, and where the Great Step of the Great Gallery chamber works out to be square root of Pi. (P.56) This further works out to geodetic latitude of the Giza Pyramid: "In order to have determined the precise Geodetic Latitude appropriate to locate the Great Pyramid which would satisfy the equations as noted, mathematical equations named “Quartic Equations” would have to be solved. Conversely, if this was not done then trial and error calculations would have to be made to determine the ideal location to have the equations work out." (p.63)

All these calculations show how the Great Pyramid was a repository of mathematical relationships which were known, at least to some royal scholars, by ancient Egyptians and incorporated, for some reason, into the construction dimensions of the Pharaoh's final resting place. Calculations then start to become more esoteric, where Schmitz discovers relationships of the Queen's Chamber bridge slab to Earth's velocity around the Sun: "In this case we may add its dimension to the length of the Bridging Slab whereby 238.92 + 5.326 = 244.246 B”. The width of the Bridging Slab is 2 Royal Cubits which may be considered as simply a numerical value, therefore we might multiply the value of 244.246 B” x 2 to arrive at a value of 488.492 B”. As before this value should be multiplied by the Queen’s Chamber Associated Value whereby 2400 x 488.492 = 1,172,380.8 B” which equals 2,977,844 cm or 29.778 km. It is of great interest to note that the Average Orbital Velocity of the Earth in its orbit about the Sun is 29.783 km per Second. " (p.65) And so it goes, as Schmitz finds more esoteric relationships embedded in the Great Pyramid's dimensions. So what is going on here? Were ancient Egyptians brilliant mathematicians who stumbled on their 'Rosetta Stone' that explained the universe and the heavens, and worked it into the construction dimensions of Khufu's Great Pyramid? Probably yes. But also no, in that they may not have known what their mathematics showed.

photo 2.JPG
Pharaoh worshiping Osiris

When we pause to consider how the minds of that long ago antiquity worked in Egypt, we must factor in what powered their thoughts and being. In Schmitz's book, he writes on page 6: "The Ancient Egyptians worshiped a Sun god Re (Ra) who was the "Bringer of Light" and in other incarnations, the Creator of the Universe.(13) The Egyptians built great Monuments and Temples to honor Re (Ra)." (In fact, the Old Dynasties were more focused on Osiris.) This is more than admiration for, or adoration of the gods; this is absolute obsession with them, and the afterlife guarantees right worship would offer. This is big, as big as the ego of a Pharaoh building himself a pyramid, and who sees himself, as do his subjects, the living god. At court are whole crews of priests, royal workers, scribes, and most likely astronomers and royal mathematicians, all working to make their living god the success the heavens had promised, and his afterlife guaranteed. This way of worshipping the gods was intense, because if they did it right, all would be right with Egypt for eternity.

We cannot truly relate to the mentality of the times, us being more detached, objective, goal oriented, but not as obsessive, except perhaps in our modern astro-physics (Big Bang) astronomy. But back then in antiquity, mathematicians same as today were devising the workings of the universe, finding Pi and Phi everywhere, relationships that balanced the heavens, what became their mathematical 'theory of everything'. If they practiced vocational nepotism, which is likely, by the time of Khufu, these inbred geometry geniuses had devised a model of the universe they were eager to incorporate into the largest tomb possible for Pharaoh. In the Great Pyramid, brilliant royal mathematicians gave precise instructions to their master builders to erect a kind of 'life machine' to preserve for eternity Khufu's body, and quite literally his soul. And the workers did it gladly, with precision and reverence.

photo 3.JPG
Pharaoh's eternity god-portal

But nothing happened. Pharaoh died and did not resurrect. In time the enterprise was forgotten, and future Pharaohs merely built tombs. Yet the mathematics survived, if not in the successive knowledge of the royal mathematicians, it remained locked in the Great Pyramid of Khufu. So when Schmitz and others rediscovered its spectacular universal mathematical relationships, taken to jaw dropping conclusions of known modern universal constants in physics and astronomy, from what they were able to extrapolate, Schmitz et al were once again unlocking ancient Egypt's brilliant royal mathematicians' ambitious plan to build an 'eternity' machine in stone (Aliens might have built it of crystal?), one that would have incorporated all their knowledge on how works the universe; in effect, they were recreating Creation, one that was meant to keep alive the living god. Did the ancient Egyptians really know the speed of light, or gravitational constant, or Earth's mass (pp.82-89)? Probably not. In their mathematical universe, these constants and universal relationships were already imbedded, though they probably did not know it. But nothing happened.

So did Aliens built the Great Pyramids? Probably not. They were built with Egyptian antiquity's dream of an Eternal Time Machine to keep their living god alive for eternity. But in the end his body too decayed, and all that was left were the memories.


Also see: Building the Great Pyramid
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Golden Rule revisited
Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2016 - 03:58 pm:   

The Golden Rule revisited.

The Golden Rule, also known as the 'law of reciprocity', is usually said:


the biblical rule of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Matt. 7:12)*.

But this may not be generally, universally understood. In a recent inter-faith council meeting (Irvine Interfaith Council, held June 2016) shows the Golden Rule may be expressed differently for different faiths, though generally understood to mean the same in spirit. Later in the discussion session, a Muslim from Irvine, CA, Kashif Z., expressed his interpretation of it as "In Islam the Golden Rule is that 'Not one of you truly believed until you wish for others what you wish for yourself'"(Bukhari & Muslim). This was followed by "When it comes to humanity, Islam doesn't discriminate against anyone based on their color, creed, and ethnicity."

One must listen carefully to what is being said. On the surface, at first glance, this expression of the Golden Rule seems to echo the ethos as expressed in Matthew's, which is a rule of reciprocity. "Do not do unto others...", which is expressed in the preclusive, while "until you wish for others...", which is expressed in the assertive. Are they the same?

When stated in the assertive, then what I wish is what I should wish for you. For example, if I am Catholic, then I should wish the same Catholicism for you; if I am Atheist, I should wish same atheism for you. That is not exactly what "do not do" means, which in essence is "do not force unto others" what you would not want forced on you. In fact, this is not so subtle a difference, though at first glance they appear the same. One is a de facto proselytizing (imposing ones wish), while the other is respecting the other. How is that the same? Reciprocity is not achieved by "wanting for others" what one wants for oneself. That is projection rather than reciprocity. And if so, Kashif is not quoting the Golden Rule, but a subtle inverse of itself. Caveat: Not all 'golden rules' are equal.

*(Matt. 7:12, can also be expressed as "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you," which is the traditional form.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chiara d'Assisi -book review
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2016 - 12:35 pm:   

BOOK REVIEW - Chiara d'Assisi: Elogio della disobbedienza (Italian, 2013) by Dacia Maraini

Dacia Maraini's book is written in part as a narrative of letters and introspections exchanged between the author and a young woman, a student, in Sicily named Chiara (Claire, or Light). This exchange of letters dialogue reveals young Chiara has a passion for Santa Chiara (Saint Claire), a Medieval saint who was a contemporary and close associate, devotee of Saint Francis of Assisi. Her letters on Santa Chiara lead to many questions for the author, who herself confesses not knowing much about saints, since she is a secular person and not well versed in the mysteries of the church. But Chiara's persistent questions leads her into explorations of who was Santa Chiara and what her world was like. As the letters progress it becomes increasingly clear that there is a depth to Chiara's interest in her namesake saint, and it becomes apparent this takes Maraini into the history of how women had been treated in past times, from early Christianity unto today, that women are subservient to men.

The author mentions some of these ancient sentiments taken from historical writings: For example, in Ancient Greece (Pg.100) Aristotle, 384-322 BC, wrote:*


"Le donne sono 'maschi sterili'". (Women are 'sterile males'.) .... "La donna, poiché non possiede sufficiente calore naturale, e incapace di 'cuocere' il suo liquido mestruale fino al punto di raffinature col quale diverrebbe sperma. Perciò il suo solo contributo all'embrione e la materia." (The woman, because she possesses less heat, is incapable of 'cooking' her menstrual liquid to a point of refinement to make it into sperm. Therefore her sole contribution is her embryo and body.)

Or as written by Saint Paul in the first Letter to the Corinthians:


"Le donne devono coprirsi la testa perché non sono ad immagine di Dio..." (Women must cover their heads because they are not in the image of God.) ... "Nessuno infatti può sostenere che la donna sia ad immagine di Dio quando si può dimostrare che essa è soggetta al dominio dell'uomo e non ha alcun genere di autorità. Poiché essa non può insegnare, ne essere testimone in tribunale, ne esercitare la cittadinanza, ne essere giudice, certamente essa non può esercitare alcuna autorità." (In fact no one can support that a woman is in the image of God when it can be shown she is the dominion of man and has no gender of authority. Since she cannot teach, nor give testimony in court, nor exercise the rights of citizenship, nor give judgment, certainly she cannot hold any authority.) -pg.95 ibid

Other such demeaning examples are found in the letters to Chiara. Dacia Maraini's letters make it clear how women were regarded in a woeful light, subservient to men from ancient times, including the early Christian church thinkers.

It becomes more intriguing, considering Santa Chiara's close association with Saint Francis, that though both were from wealthy families, they chose poverty and charity as their expressions of devotion to Christ. This was a radical idea of the time, one already expressed by other groups, but considered heretical by the church. In fact some religious groups (i.e., Cathari) in the 13th century were severely persecuted for their disobedience challenging the Church authority with their vows of poverty in emulation of Christ, Cathari were violently persecuted and massacred into extinction. Why was poverty so threatening to the church, so much so that such 'heresy' launched the Inquisition? And why did both Santa Chiara and Saint Francis choose poverty as a statement of liberty? These are questions that find their way through the odyssey of a secular writer stepping into the world of the mystical, the mainstream religious authorities of the times.

But it was the women who suffered most, their equality denied and suppressed by church authorities. And this is what makes Maraini's narratives so powerful.

Santa Chiara is in fact a book about women, how they were persecuted, neglected and rejected, both in ancient and modern times. Even today their fight for equal rights with men is still a question, realizing progress in some of our societies, but still suppressed in most others. Ancient prejudices die hard, but Santa Chiara becomes an inspiration for women's natural liberty, and equality.

Dacia Maraini is an eloquent and powerful writer. Why did Santa Chiara and Saint Francis choose poverty as a voice of freedom? That they loved their faith, and all life, in the spirit of sacrifice? Perhaps that is the mystical mystery Maraini and Chiara ultimately lead the reader to observe, and challenge us to understand.


*(Regrets there is no English version of Santa Chiara, my apologies if my translations are sub par, for which I take full responsibility. -Ivan)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Resolving Paradox
Posted on Sunday, January 01, 2017 - 02:33 pm:   

Resolving Paradox

Tea leaf paradox

A paradox is "a statement that, despite apparently sound reasoning from true premises, leads to a self-contradictory or a logically unacceptable conclusion." There is something seductive about paradoxes that teases the mind into resolving an obvious contradiction, where two opposing answers can be true and false at the same time. The most famous is the liar's paradox, where he says he is a liar. Can you believe him? The simple answer is "yes", he is a liar. So anything else said is nonsense, whatever the liar says is dismissed a priori. But if one gets drawn into the lie, they are left with paradox. The key is not to get drawn into the paradox if it is a lie.

It gets more complicated when paradox is used to clarify a position where the result is itself paradoxical. Some paradoxes have a logical explanation, such as the "tea leaf paradox" (click image above), where the solution, solved by Einstein, has a simple mechanical explanation. But it gets more complicated when it involves articles of faith. In religion the play on paradox is not uncommon, as it invokes a sense of mystery. For example, without passing judgment, can God be Himself and the Son of God at the same time? It gets tricky, because one answer would violate a basic tenet of the faith, the other leaves us with the unresolved paradox. Another religious paradox is the omnipotence of God. Can God do something He cannot undo, for example? The usual answer is that the question is irrelevant, not even a question. It falls back on either being semantics (wording implies a contradiction, viz., can God do something he cannot do?), or an article of faith. Also a religious paradox is that only one's religion is true, while all others are false. The simple solution to resolve this religious "supremacism" is either all religions are true, or none. One answer leads to religious tolerance, the other to atheism. Of course there is the ubiquitous "having to die to gain eternal life." But these are hypotheticals which can be dismissed, as they require an a-priori acceptance of the original premise, that God exists. Anything other than accepting this premise leaves the paradox meaningless. Otherwise, accepting the premise leads to more paradox, so the issue remains unresolved, merely an article of faith, or "not even a question."

The other great ethical paradox is that in existence there is both beauty, truth, goodness, while there is also ugliness, violence, malevolence. How could ' good and evil' exist together if there is a benevolent God? The natural answer is that the universe is indifferent, and that God is merely the living consciousness of a self organized interrelationship universe; hence God is an 'indifferent' observer. And if so, then everything reverts back to our subjective existence, that it is we who judge good from evil, not God.

Mostly paradox is amusing, something to tease us while we while away the time. For example, the famous Twins Paradox, where one twin travels in a rocket in space while the other remains on Earth. From relativistic effects, the space twin ages more slowly than the Earth twin. However, this presupposes certain conditions of Einstein's relativity that must be accepted a priori: Atomic clocks traveling in a gravity field slow down, so per Equivalence principle anything accelerating in space is same as traveling in a gravity field, so the twin "accelerating" in space will age more slowly. Now, there is an assumption here that the slowing vibrations of atomic clocks are equivalent to "time" slowing. But if this is disqualified as merely an artefact of atomic oscillating in an accelerating (gravity) field, and that if an old fashioned tick-tock clock was on board, assuming acceleration was not strong enough to damage its ticking, the space twin would have no experience of slowing time, and thus would remain same age as his Earth twin. So this is merely a matter of logical explanation, though highly entertaining (and a topic of heated discussions on online physics forums!). But as a "paradox" it can be amusingly problematic, or just a thought experiment, so merely hypothetical.

However, there are real life conditions where paradox affects us directly, often associated with matters of faith. One example is where a religious mandate is that we must obey the law of God to be free. This is usually worded that "true freedom is obeying God's teachings." The difficulty is that any interpretation of God's teachings may not be agreed upon universally. The other problem is that the definition of "freedom" is thrown into doubt, since it is predicated on submission to "obedience." To resolve this paradox requires either to suspend one's idea of what is "freedom", since this freedom is now an a priori act of obedience, or to suspend the interpretation of "God's teachings," which may land us in trouble with our religious faith. So this is a real life paradox that can do us damage, one way or another, that we suffer servitude as freedom, or risk the wrath of the religious powers.

There is a corollary to this where religious teachings proscribe certain human behaviors, so they are forbidden. For example, homosexuality is a charged topic for most religions. Often it is strictly forbidden, where in the extreme the punishment for being gay is death. But where there is religious tolerance towards gays, the issue becomes paradoxical. On the one hand, being gay is against the teachings of God, but on the other hand the religion's revelations as taught by God's representative, or Prophet, teaches progressive acceptance of one's personal identity. How to resolve the paradox if one's identity is gay? In a recent HuffPost article, LGBTs Rejected by Their Faith, this issue is addressed by the authoritative Universal House of Justice (Baha'i Faith, with the published original letter addressing this issue). The long letter's detailed argument is, in short, that our "human identity" is spiritual, while our earthly sexual appetites are temporal. The implication, quoting holy scriptures of the faith, is that one can be gay but not express it, and thus be spared religious sanction. Conversely, someone expressing their homosexuality is not in the higher spiritual attainment and could be ostracized, though they are still respected for their "spiritual" identity. So in this case, the paradox for a gay person remains unresolved, unless they either accept religiously sanctioned silence, or suffer ostracism, which causes a real life dilemma for gays.

In all of the above cases, and there are many other paradoxes (see list below), the resolution is one of subtle hierarchy, where the gross answer to paradox is rejecting the premises; but at some point one must suspend one's assumptions if one is to accept the paradox. In the case of liar's paradox, the assumption is he is a liar, which once accepted no further discussion follows. In the Twins paradox, or tea leaf paradox, there can be a logical explanation, a higher hierarchical position where underlying assumptions are shown to be logically false, which invalidates the paradox. Or in the omnipotent God paradox, the basic assumption is an article of faith, thus putting it higher than mere rejection. But in real life paradoxical conditions, the ones that affect us personally, there is no simple suspension of assumptions. There, rather, we are forced to make a choice, one that will determine for us how the paradox plays out. Do we accept submission to obedience as freedom? For most of us, the answer is "no." Should someone who identifies with being gay remain silent, in the closet? For most of us, the answer is again "no." But these are conscious choices made by us, which in their subtlety places them at the peak of paradox hierarchy. At this point, we choose to accept the paradox.

So what is it about paradox that is so problematic for us? Is a paradox in fact a lie? Should we have an immediate response to paradox with doubt? But what of paradox based on faith, that which we are to believe without question? Religious paradox is in that category: you must die to gain 'eternal life.' Do we then doubt our faith? Is this not itself a paradox, to doubt what is believed on faith? Earlier it was said that accepting the premises of unresolved paradox leads to more paradox, in a kind of infinite regress of paradoxes. But if we check our premises and find them in error, we can spare ourselves getting caught up in the paradox trap. Unfortunately this often means suspending our faith in what is being done or said (as in magic tricks), and that we once more fall back on default to the ultimate paradox: the lie is the truth.


Also see: List of paradoxes
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jews and Christians as friends?
Posted on Friday, January 20, 2017 - 02:01 pm:   

Do not take Jews and Christians as friends?


There is a Sura in the Koran that states:
"O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends: They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust." -5:51

On the surface this mean spirited statement means what the words say, that Muslims who are true to their faith cannot be friends with people of other faiths. By extension this would also mean Hindus, Buddhists, Ahmadi, Baha'is, and others. But is this what Muhammad meant?

It is not uncommon in religion to employ paradox. So what appears obvious may not be as it seems. According to this fatwa from Islamic scholars:
Islam teaches us that we should be friendly to all people. Islam teaches us that we should deal even with our enemies with justice and fairness."

So both statements are in contradiction. Since we cannot be 'friendly with all people' while at the same time 'not take friends' with those of other faiths, some resolution must be found. If both statements are true ontologically, then it leaves us with an unresolved paradox. We cannot be both in our existence. Are there other paths to resolving this paradox?

In its historical context, this Sura forbids having friends amongst 'enemies' of Islam. When Muhammad's prophethood was rejected by Jews and Christians, a state of war existed between them. So the directive was to fight the enemy. But in modern times this state of war is seen differently. The Judeo-Christian world does not see itself in a state of war with Islam. Some Muslims may think they are in a state of war, especially amongst their extremist factions, like the IS. But the extremists are longing to revive a past that no longer exists. Today's relations between Arab states and the West is one of mutual coexistence. They are not shy of sharing knowhow, such as Western technology and trade. The benefits of oil found and developed by Western science and engineering, including building refineries, or modern cities like Dubai, is a modern reality. Without this coexistence, there would be greater underdevelopment in the Arab world, for example. So modern realities are very different from those of ancient times. However, this does not resolve the paradox of friendship as opposed to non-friendship.

As shown in the earlier discussion on paradox (above), there is a hierarchy to how it is resolved, where choice is superior to paradoxical negation or rejection. Taken at face value, the paradox has no solution. But invoking a choice of which is more important will eliminate one possibility over another, so it can be resolved. In the above paradox, it is a matter of choosing the historical context, or the modern one. We as humans have the ability of consciously choosing one over the other. The extremists have made one choice, the rest of humanity can make the other. If so, then the paradox is more transparent, and how we choose to evaluate the Sura and the subsequent fatwa makes more sense. One choice is for war, while the other is for peace. Which do we choose?

So can Muslims befriend Christians and Jews? As long as a Muslim is true to his or her faith, the answer is 'yes.' They may befriend one another, marry, fall in love, but only in the modern context. In its ancient context, such liaison of friendship can only occur if the non-Muslim accepts the other's faith, so it remains an unresolved paradox. One way is that both parties are equal, so they may keep their faith and respect that of the other; the other way is unequal, where the faith of the non-Muslim is invalidated by religious supremacy. This too is a modern reality, where a conscious choice must be made. Are they equal or unequal? We are all one humanity on this world.

Going forward as the world becomes more interdependent, there is no going back to ancient times when people lived in isolation. If we are to be true to our human nature as conscious human beings, both worlds must accept the equal right of choice. Anything less relegates us back to our more primitive past, where fear and superstitions ruled. And if so, if we choose rightly, we can enjoy peace and universal well being rather than revert to endless war and suffering. We can be better.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Are walls necessity?
Posted on Friday, February 24, 2017 - 01:31 pm:   

Sometimes walls are necessary.

Pope Francis condemns building walls

Sometimes in a world not a perfect place walls are a necessity. Such are the new realities ushered in the new millennium, that walls around national borders become the new normal. But there is historical precedence for this, when people had to protect themselves from predatory attacks. This included Pope Francis' Vatican, where in the ninth century Saint Peter and Saint Paul basilicas were raided by North Africans in search of booty and slaves. The Vatican responded by building a 40 foot high wall.

Vatican Wall

From the linked article, some history:


According to the most authoritative and contemporary Muslim chronicles—those of al-Waqidi, al-Baladhuri, al-Tabari, al-Maqrizi, etc.—all this was done because Islam calls on its followers to conquer the lands of “infidels.”
It was in this context that, in 846, Muslim fleets from North Africa landed near Rome.  Unable to breach the walls of the Eternal City, they sacked and despoiled the surrounding countryside, including—to the consternation of Christendom—the venerated and centuries-old basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul.  The Muslim invaders intentionally desecrated the tombs of the revered apostles and stripped them of their treasures, including a large golden cross.  Pope Leo IV (847-855) responded by building large walls and fortifications along the right bank of the Tiber to protect the sacred sites from further Muslim raids.  Completed by 852, the walls were in most places 40 feet high and 12 feet thick.
Further anticipating the crusades against Islam by over two centuries—and thus showing how they were a long time coming—Pope Leo decreed that any Christian who died fighting Muslim invaders would gain heaven.  After him and for the same reasons, Pope John VIII offered remission of sins for those who died fighting Islamic invaders. Such was the existential and ongoing danger Muslims caused for Christian Europe—more than two centuries before Pope Urban’s call for the First Crusade in 1095.  
Today, many Muslims, not just of the ISIS-variety, continue to boast that Islam will conquer Rome, the only of five apostolic sees—the other four being Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople—never to have been subjugated by jihad.  Similarly, Muslims all throughout Europe continue exhibiting the same hostility and contempt for all things and persons non-Islamic, whether by going on church vandalizing sprees and breaking crosses, or by treating “infidel” women as theirs by right for sex and rape.
In short, Pope Leo’s walls prove Pope Francis wrong on both counts: yes, walls are sometimes necessary to preserve civilization; and yes, Islam does promote violence and intolerance for the other—far more than any other religion.  This fact is easily discerned by examining the past and present words and deeds of Muslims, all of which evince a remarkable and unwavering continuity of violence for “infidels.”

So are walls a necessity in these troubled times? Contrary to the Pope's call for bridges, walls may be less idealistic but more prudent. These are once again the times we are living in.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Once and future Barbarian wars
Posted on Tuesday, May 16, 2017 - 10:40 am:   

The Once and Future Barbarian Wars.

Roman aqueduct

Societies rise, and societies fail. This is an enduring civilizational cycle since recorded history. Some civilizations lasted millennia, while others centuries, and at times mere decades. Ancient Roman civilization, as did its predecessors and successors, went through stages of rise and collapse. The early period was constructionist and republican, then came the age of Empire when Rome was at its peak, followed by decline in the early Christian era, until its final economic and administrative collapse when faced with Islam's expansionism. All told, the Greco-Roman world lasted over a thousand years, though it changed over the centuries. Similarly were experienced civilizational changes in ancient Egypt, or China, as well Japan, India. These were mega civilizations dwarfing their smaller neighbors, not without civilizations of their own.

Today in our modern world, we can say we are facing a global civilization, a mega structure of world order as never seen before. Since the advent of science and objective reason, with its technical advancements of communications and travel spanning the globe, our world civilization expanded exponentially, though to a large degree it can be held in the palm of our hand. We are that interconnected with commerce and media, music and intellect, and of course tourism and jet travel, computing technology and internet. The world never had this, and doubtless few today envision this present state of affairs changing dramatically, perhaps cataclysmically over a short period of time. Yet, like the Romans and others before us, civilizations do rise, and then fail, sometimes spectacularly. And usually, there are 'Barbarians' somewhere in the works.

Taking Rome as a well known example, think how jaw dropping, mouth gaping ancient Rome must have looked to people traveling in from the conquered provinces, often brought as slaves. Here were fabulous temples and palaces, freely running water and baths, great roadways to all corners of Empire, commerce and foodstuffs and wines in unimagined quantities. Laws and order were strictly enforced. The Romans never dreamed it would all end. Of course all this required cheap labor to execute Roman administrative and building skills, but labor was easily available from the Barbarian lands, both men and women, so a constant flow of talent and muscle flowed into Rome. How could this lauded state of civilization not be admired, despite some of its violent cruelty? Why not envied? In fact, the Barbarians did admire and envy Rome. During the late imperial era, and early Christian era, Rome became more universal, populated by people from other lands, armies enlisting foreign fighters, and at one point Roman citizenship was given to all foreign peoples of the Empire (Caracalla 212 AD), those not slaves. This included the Barbarians. Imperial Rome was at its height, but it was expensive to maintain empire, so granting universal citizenship was a means of ensuring tax revenue from all the provinces. Think akin to today's Europe allowing large influx of immigrants to help pay with their taxes for the comfortable retirement of the establishment. Romans saw it something like that. But it had a downside, that the tight republican values of earlier Rome gave way, especially during the early Christian era (from Constantine 313 AD) to a kind of loose indulgence in the goods of empire without commensurate sense of duty and order valued in their earlier times. In effect, Rome became soft, not as violent, gladiator fights were banned, leaders got more corrupt and incompetent, complacent to the changes within their societies. Later Roman armies dominated by foreign recruits became ill-disciplined and less willing to fight, especially when their pay was insecure. By then, the covetous Barbarians from beyond Roman provinces had gotten word of how good things were in Rome, and they wanted in.

But how to conquer the most advanced and successful, grand civilization of all time? No doubt, over many glasses of wine and mead, the Barbarians discussed it into the wee hours when they fell into a stupor sleep. Eventually a plot was hatched. See all that water flowing into Rome, those grand bathes and fountains? Cut them off! Easy! Let the people suffer thirst as the Barbarians suffer, and the grand city will be theirs. And that is exactly what they did, first by attacking and destroying the water aqueducts feeding Rome (537 AD), and then attacking their weakened and ambivalent armies protecting the city. After that, it was a simple matter of carrying off booty and slaves to pay for the whole campaign. Easy! Those clever Goths figured it out. Cut off Rome and you have the Empire. Christianized emperors were by then less inclined to fight, so tried to appease, or negotiate, perhaps hoping Christian compassion will change the Barbaric hearts. But the damage was done, and Empire weakened from within led to fracturing. Rome's population entered a long period of decline, dropping from a million at the height of Empire down to about 10,000 by the end. In addition to lacking water, there were malaria and yellow fever in the now undrained swamps of the decaying city, strings of plagues and famines, as well as failure of transport and trade by land due to brigandry, failed infrastructures of roads and bridges from loss of maintenance, and failure by sea due to piracy. Travel became unsafe. In the end, by the time of Islamic invasions, Roman civilization was done, finito, it had ended. First fell the Eastern provinces, then all of North Africa to the attacking hordes. All that was left of the Empire was inherited by the Papacies of Rome and Constantinople, a mere shadow of its former glory.

Now transpose those numbers on our world civilization today. A similar population collapse of two orders of magnitude would bring the total global population of 7 billion down to a catastrophic 70 million people. That is a huge heart wrenching drop! Can it happen? Well, let us consider some hypothetical similarities of today's world civilization to Rome's under pressures from the Barbarian world.

First off the bat is that there is a covetous barbaric force hostile to modern civilization, as evidenced daily by terrorism, acrid preaching imams, and delusional followers who wish to bring back their imagined seventh century 'golden age' upon the world. And they are willing to use any barbaric means to do this, though their chances of success are virtually nil. But suppose, let's just suppose, they succeeded in destroying our infrastructure globally as the Goths had destroyed Rome's. For example, a successful attack on our interdependent internet communications structure by sophisticated malware could slow its use, even sabotage it. Think no ATMs, no commerce, no point of sale credit card use, no data storage, no administrative records, not even GPS, all down. Compound this with a successful malware attack on world electricity generation and transmission, shutting down huge swaths of power grids, manufacturing coming to standstill, no air travel, no communications, smartphones going blank. Oil deliveries would stop, no fuel for vehicles at the pump. It would be disastrous. Unless there were redundancies built into the system, even the military would be hamstrung, reduced to using radio for communications. If a rogue state then launched a preemptive nuclear strike, or worse, a nuclear EMP strike, the defense missile system would be unable to respond. Once the power grid is down, we would be sitting ducks, and subsequent destruction horrific. Think how that would play out on a global scene, bombs and nukes flying all over, terrorism without end, massive insurrections... It would be global 'checkmate' for modern civilization.

If this were to happen, electricity and world wide web inoperable, would this not equate to Rome's loss of water? The same dislocations would follow, disease pandemics, cholera, ebola, dysentery, plague, all would begin to decimate the world's populations. Without properly functioning infrastructure, finance and commerce would come to a grinding halt, as would learning, skills and knowledge lost. With famines and riots on masse, inner cities' poor blaming the 'privileged' establishment would set cities on fire, murdering in the streets. Forget effective policing. Gangs would roam the countryside, warlords taking no prisoners, and trading women and children like cigarettes. Forget human rights or rule of law. The barbarians already derisive of our civilizations built over centuries on principles of freedom and trust would launch attacks to fulfill their prophecies. Modern neo-socialist, liberal-progressive responses from authorities and academe might try to appease these forces, but like in days of failing Rome with deleterious effects, attackers taking territory and slaves. We would have entered a new era of 'Barbarian' wars.

All this could happen quickly, only stemmed from sudden collapse by fail-safe redundancies in power grids and communications systems, especially for the military to remain functioning. The rest of us could survive for a time on salvage, both in food and equipment. Rationing would be severely imposed, but the backbone of modern civilization would be broken. Like Rome, to bring back normalcy, or any hope of economic and societal systemic recovery, would become a herculean task. Could we bounce back? Will the attackers win back their mythical 'golden age' and impose their theocratically driven, illiberal 'end of days' rule on the world? It could happen if we don't learn our history. This is not a prediction of things to come, but a heads up, just sayin'.

It could take centuries to rebuild what we had, most of us taking it for granted that this is a normal state of affairs. And like the Romans, we never dream it could all end. But it is fragile if our 'aqueducts' of life are destroyed. If we fail to learn from history, we may be reduced to relearning how to flake stones for a sharp edge. And if we don't value our constitutional, legal and functioning, freedom based democratic establishment and rule of law, our 'privileged' civilizational accomplishments, it could be that bad. The splendor and grandeur of Rome fell from complacency and incompetence, and then attack and neglect. It took a thousand years for the knowledge, the arts and sciences, the beauty of civilization to come back. Seventy million 'survivors' need not be our fate.

'Just sayin'.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Thursday, February 01, 2018 - 12:59 pm:   

The hidden words.


There is a supermarket near where I live called Sprouts. But when I look at the word, I see the French novelist’s name Proust instead. This happens naturally, so cannot help it, but it made me think, “can it be that all words have a hidden word in them?” Take for example the anagram for ‘wonder’ which has in it the word ‘downer’. Rather odd hidden word, meaning sort of the opposite, but most words have some facsimile of themselves hidden in them. Taking more examples:
Stop/post/pots/opts/tops/spot, or see how anagrams can be fun.
For example:
Astronomer/moon starer, debit card/bad credit, classroom/school master, eleven plus two/twelve plus one, decimal point/I’m a dot in place, Halley’s comet/shall yet come, etc.
There is something in language that enjoys inverting itself into anagrams. Some are complex: To be or not to be: that is the question; whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.../ In one of the Bard’s best-thought-of tragedies our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten... But we digress.

The real intrigue of how words lend themselves to their anagrams is how the mind ‘sees’ such words, whether spelled literally or phonetically, as hidden words of themselves. Does the mind find these subconscious hidden words innately by how is wired the brain? It is an intriguing idea. Same as we had posited the idea of a universal language to be used as a future international language, there is something in our languages that may find a common ground upon which words can migrate from different languages naturally. If the brain is wired to ‘see’ such anagrams, it could more easily assimilate these ‘natural’ words into its vocabulary, which could in time merge all languages together into one. For example, single word anagrams would be the first to migrate into each other’s languages:
listen/silent, paternal/parental, discriminator/doctrinairism, deductions/discounted, angered/enraged, etc.
These can be humorous or playful, where the mind naturally enjoys their amusing results, i.e. Elvis/lives.
Something in anagram constructs teases the mind into an inherent playfulness.

Languages evolve, same as they had always evolved, all of them. From thousands and thousands of dialects we had merged into national languages. Had some ancient scholars or monks reworked our words into today’s vocabulary that lends itself to natural constructs, some words chosen over others because they better lent themselves to anagrams? Or did it happen naturally how some words survived over others? We can help the process reducing all vocabulary to an anagramic language pleasant to the ear, and mind. Over time, perhaps centuries, we could actually evolve a future language that is universal to us. Imagine all humanity speaking the same/mesa/seam/as me language!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2018 - 04:23 am:   

The Automatic writing connection.


Do we really understand the ideomotor effect, or how automatic writing works? In a rather clever study of Ouija board test of participants, the study concluded:


Our study solves the apparent paradox that participants on the one hand are producing the Ouija responses themselves, while they on the other hand are unable to predict those very same responses at an individual level. In that sense, you could say that the “spirit” is actually a representation of the collective ‘we’,” he says.

Does this explanation suffice, that it is a collective “we” that results in an ideomotor effect, what is also called ‘automatic writing’?

Automatic writing, called Fuji by the Chinese, had developed independently of its European cousin, sometimes known as planchette writing. If the Chinese had used the Ouija boards by 1100 AD, and Europeans discovered it independently some five centuries later, does this not prove a very large footprint of automatic writing globally, perhaps discovered in other parts of the world as well? This would point to it being a universal phenomenon. And as the scientific study above showed, it may not have been as much necromancy communicating with the occult world as it being the “we” factor, that we collectively have a ideomotor effect which manifests as automatic writing. It may be a cultural derivative, what we believe, to call it “spiritual”, but the reality is more mundane, that we are able to use this ideomotor technique to tap into a collective human energy of what appears to our interpretation as speaking to the spirits of the dead, while we are in truth speaking to ourselves. There is no moral judgment of this, in that it is neither good nor bad, but the psychic babble of our unconscious minds. And since we are as yet unable to fully connect with our Universal mind, we are left with a somewhat confused facsimile of the interrelated cosmic mind reality to which we are all connected. That the message ‘received’ in automatic writing is often confused, though answers sought proved more efficacious than random chance, it is nevertheless but a natural phenomenon of our collective mind.

So the automatic writing phenomenon may not be ‘spiritual’, nor the work of angels or demons, but an imprecise derivative of mass ideomotor “we” consciousness, it may still be valid as a source usable in our creative works and ideas. Artists and thinkers as diverse as David Byrne, of Talking Heads, and Jane Roberts’ channeling, Seth Speaks, or A Course in Miracles, or Nikola Tesla; all have used it in their works, sometimes to productive ends. And even if these results are filtered by the conscious mind to make automatic writings ‘babble’ something useful and recognizable (same as temple priests interpreted the babbling of oracles advising supplicants), it may in the end prove but one more channel to access the mysterious and unattainable workings of an infinitely interconnected reality. If so, then automatic writing stripped of its spiritual (good bad) occult trappings may yet yield knowledge that is somehow useful to us. It may be just one more voice in the unknown wilderness perhaps sometimes generating something meaningful.

Also see: Trans-Consciousness connections
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2018 - 01:37 pm:   

Eternal Questions, Eternal Answers.

Philosophers school of Athens - Raphael

There is something in human nature that needs to know: What is it all about? Are we living in a great universal lottery, where we are either lucky or unlucky? Our ancient ancestors wrestled with these questions, ascribing magical forces and spirits ruling our lives, supplanted by gods and goddesses, later the one God. They ruled us at their whims. The Vikings had an old saying, “those born unlucky die young.” Voodoo or Ju-ju magic is still real for many populations in the world. Only within more modern times have these eternal questions deferred to reason. The Ancient Greeks, who entertained ideas of all kinds, began envisioning a universe where questions could be answered with reason. Today’s post Renaissance intellectual reality is descended from those early philosophical musings, that the universal reality can be understood, within limits. The modern world no longer defers to chance and magic, rather defined by reasonable theories and hypothesis to explain the world we live in. Though many cultures still default to God as the prime mover, a more secular approach to understanding “what is it all about” has taken hold of our intellectual pursuits, described by science and empirical measurements, mathematically, statistically derived theories, and algorithms to explain all that is. We humans are better served by certainty, their cause and effects, as our technological achievements prove. When we know it right, things work.

Yet, the ancient quest for understanding the big questions, especially as it concerns human existence, still defer to the perpetual answers found in religion. God decreed, and so we are. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, so we are all sinners in need of redemption. The Laws have been passed down to us from the Prophets, so must we obey in submission to them, in morality, in our matter of living, following prescribed rules, punished if we fail them, or rewarded in some heavenly paradise if we conform. Such is the eternal answer for many in the world, that we must obey the sacred texts. But is this the truth for everyone for all time? There is the eternal question that hovers over us. Do we obey in submission, or do we question in our quest for understanding, no matter what had been written or believed, for all time?

Even science is not immune to the ‘eternal answer’ paradigm. We want to know with certainty for all time. It is not a matter of luck or magic, but a matter off assessing reality with certainty, that we can understand it with observation and reason. The cause and effects of our world are understandable in a reasonable way. We now believe, unlike our superstitious ancestors who cowered in fear, that there are eternal laws governing all that is, the mystery being only in our discovering them. If the universe is understandable and totally interconnected, our hypothesis tested against reality, it will work independently of our understanding it, with confidence it is discoverable by us. But even here our belief in this system of universal order is subject to change. What we believe to have understood today may not be what we will understand in the future. For example, the Ptolemaic thesis of terra-centrism with cycles and epicycles predicted planets’ retrograde, mathematically reasoned and correct, but it was wrong. The reality was that Earth was not at the center, but merely another planet circling the Sun. So it may prove with our current understanding of Einstein’s relativistic universe, that observation may prove it correct, but a future hypothesis will prove it wrong. Eternal truths are subject to future revelations that will change our understanding of them.

This same principle applies to all our other social and religious beliefs. God may not be the prime mover, and prophets did not prove eternal truths. Morality, what drives proper human actions, may not be the same for all time, but subject to a better understanding of human nature. Sociological understandings, political doctrines, and psychological theories, are not for all time, as human awareness and consciousness change with time. Certainty is a variable thing, and to harness a population to its teachings, sacred or secular, is a disservice to humanity if it is punished for failing to believe the accepted beliefs. Whether sent to Gulags, or socially ostracized, psychologically ‘reeducated’, or otherwise punished for believing incorrectly ‘eternal’ truth has no place in advanced societies of higher awareness of our human being in universal reality. It is all subject to change. The answers to eternal questions have only variable answers that hold for a time, and then reach for new truths as our understanding deepens.

The questions are eternal, what it is all about, but the answers never are. Some truths may serve us for a time, basic principles guiding humanity may be right for us into the future, but even these will evolve with our awareness of them. We appear to live in an emergent universe, which takes time, and what appear as ‘truths’ today may prove error in the future. Can we say that only Change is eternal? But that is a contradiction of terms. Only the eternal questions remain, and we must learn to adapt to our understandings of them.

Also see: Why is there something rather than nothing?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2020 - 03:01 pm:   

When cryptocurrency is ‘virtually’ forever, sort of.


As we grind to the end of a dismal year, a ‘virtual’ year with coronavirus Covid-19 having us hunkered down to a virtual existence, we can reflect. We spent more time in front of our screens than face to face. We even celebrated our ‘Christmas party’ in Zoom rooms, all safely socially distanced on our computers, singing songs and doing games, or chat. Such is the new virtual reality world of 2020. Who would have believed it but a short time back?

That same virtual reality has now been part of our economic reality, that we can transact business through ‘mined’ Bitcoins (2009) and their ‘virtual’ offshoots rather than with hard cash or bank transfers and credit cards. This is a new world we’ve entered of cryptocurrency created in that strange new world of computerized data bases and blockchain cryptography as a medium of exchange, i.e., money. But this mysterious cryptoworld has also been accused of being a Ponzi scheme, just another variety of grift, though it has gained enough currency to be used to buy coffee at Starbucks, or as donations to the Red Cross, or buy a Tesla. Is this new cryptocurrency for real, or is it but another commoditized, hence tradable, computerized version of a Pyramid scheme? This is where people at the bottom of the pyramid do not make money, while those who joined early and are at the top do. This game was a popular medium back in the eighties when it was called the Airplane game and made money for early entrants but lost it all for those who came late. (I personally knew people who made thousands of dollars in Airplane and had been offered to join, “it’s so easy!” but I never played.) Could ‘mining’ Bitcoins, for example, be a similar but much more sophisticated and opaque (secret) version where the ‘pilots’ of Airplane are today’s ‘miners’?

There is no direct comparison between cryptocurrency and the Airplane game. The algorithms defining mining cryptocurrency are far more sophisticated than ‘selling’ seats on a fictitious airplane. As long as new ‘seats’ were sold the game played on, and earlier entrants made money; but when there were no more seats sold the game ended, and all latecomers lost their money. The Bitcoin game, for instance, is not open ended like this but has a capped limit on how many coins can be created (now at 21,000,000 Bitcoins, with about 18,355,000 circulating), so in that respect they are different. But once the cap production is reached (if cap not increased) then the only possible outcome is for the price of Bitcoins to rise, making all the holders richer (as seen of late). However, what happens when the new entrants, for whatever reason, stop coming into the game? Whether from official legal restrictions, or fear of hacking and fraud, the demand for ‘mining’ drops off, or goes into reverse with liquidations, what is left for their holders? There is the question. If it is merely another pyramid scheme, then when no new money is coming in, no matter how sophisticated the algorithms, or how secure the cryptology, the game must wind down. And if so, like the late comers to Airplane, the holders of any cryptocurrency must experience a loss. How much? That depends upon the velocity of how fast the game unwinds.

There have already been instances of cryptocurrency fraud. A recent example was the Bitgrail platform collapse (2020), where the founder failed to reveal to holders and authorities that Bitgrail experienced a massive hack in 2018, that left it with a $150 million loss. Per the referenced article: “The announcement seems to indicate that Firano withdrew 230 Bitcoin (BTC), worth 1.7 million euro, or about $1.9 million, at the time, just three days before reporting the larger theft of Nano that occurred in prior months.” So there was an unreported breach and the founder drew down on his cryptocurrency. Subsequently the whole operation was shut down, with holders (including the founder, Firano) unable to withdraw their Nano currency. Where is the money?

Cryptocurrency scams can come in many forms, from phishing to fake exchanges, and from hacking theft, so holders must always be weary. But as long as there is growing demand for this ‘virtual’ currency, some of it dirty money in need of a wash, or from need to hide transactions and avoiding taxes, there will be a market for this secretive form of virtual money ‘commodity’ driving prices higher. That said, cryptocurrencies can also be substitutes for hard assets during times of inflation or currency instabilities, provided they are traded and held safely and free of fraud. But the risk remains that it could unravel at any time, or officially shut down, and leave the holders ‘holding the bag’, with regrets. Unlike a real commodity where one can take delivery, with cryptocurrency, when the end comes, holders cannot take any delivery. The product is ‘virtual’ and with its ending they end up with air.

Caveat emptor! Can virtual currency exist forever? Possible. But be warned. Most pyramid schemes end badly.

This just in: Bitcoin vs Ethereum update (May 2021)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan Alexander
Username: Humancafe

Registered: 12-2017
Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2021 - 10:12 am:   

Taxing capital is a bad idea.

Los Angeles, USA

Taxing capital is like taxing planting seed, where the farmer’s seed is reduced and the crop’s yield is likewise reduced, but by a multiple. It is the same with taxing savings and capital, where the end result is reduced yield from investment, not merely to the holders but for the economy at large, as production and productivity descend in a slow spiral. It may not be evident initially, as taxes are levied on capital to pay for government expenditures, such as the recent Covid related economic stimulus spending, or social programs to relieve poverty; but over time it has a cumulative effect of reduced yield, which is then followed by shortages, which in turn begins an upward spiral of inflation. The result usually ends in stag-flation, the kind witnessed in the 1970s, followed by persistent high unemployment and, if not checked with tight monetary policy, ends tragically in hyperinflation, the kind witnessed in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Taxing seed capital, whether unrealized stock market gains or outright savings, ends in having a deleterious effect on the economy, making everyone less productive, and poorer.

If the government’s taxation were only on production, such as the European VAT, or on income and consumption, which is more equitable, then the economic drag of taxes would be merely a function of tax on the economy’s value-added productivity. Then, if the tax revenue is used for new capital investment, the more productive would be its usage, which is an economic benefit. But if such revenue is spent on consumption instead, and income redistribution, then it becomes squandered and not reclaimed by economic or productive activity, thus it is a net loss.

Brought down to its basic common denominator, taxing capital, like reducing a farmer’s seed, merely reduces the final economic output, same as it would reduce a farmer’s crop yield. President Biden’s current proposal to increase taxes on capital gains would have the same multiplier effect of reducing economic productivity, though the tax is initially expedient to alleviate economic burdens, especially of higher government debt; but it would soon lead to investment decline in future productivity, and ultimately reduced economic output. The market does not judge, it being merely an aggregate of human decisions in the marketplace, but its prices and activities would soon reflect what taxing capital will become, a slowing economy followed by higher inflation. Especially damaging would be US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen’s suggestion to tax ‘unrealized’ capital gains, which would punish frugality and prudent investing, to replace it with tax evasion and capital flight. This flight of capital would then necessitate financial restrictions, which would politicize economic activity and further spiral the stag-flation phenomenon. All economic activity, in the end, would have to be governed, regulated to reverse the damage done, price controls distorting market activity, all of which would lead to still greater underinvestment and economic slowdown, as all long term socialist economies had experienced. Once capital is taxed, the slow downward economic spiral becomes irreversible, until draconian monetary policy and belt tightening is forced upon us. In the end, all economic activity winds down and we are all poorer for it. This is not a political opinion, but merely reflects the hard economic reality: Taxing capital is a bad investment.


Also see: Why do markets always work... or do they?

World tax - is it viable?

Homeless in America

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration