Humancafe's Bulletin Boards: The New PeoplesBook FORUMS: HABEAS MENTEM APPLIED
Humancafe on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 11:43 pm:

How could the ideas in Habeas Mentem be applied to real life? In particular, how can they help in the areas of human rights, legal systems, more democratic governments, interhuman exchanges and relationships? Can the ideas of a greater consciousness elevate the human condition as it exists on the planet now? How can a greater validation of being "who we are" safeguard us from coercion? These are some of the ideas we may wish to explore on this thread. Of course, all ideas are welcome.

Click here to read HABEAS MENTEM text.

By Ivan A. on Sunday, October 5, 2003 - 02:36 pm:


The concept behind Habeas Mentem is multitiered, so often difficult to grasp. To help simply this, to clarify what Habeas Mentem's "isness" is about, I present a six tiered condensed summary as its definition. --Ivan Alexander, author

Definition: Habeas Mentem is how each human being is defined by Who they are in their mind.

This definition is based on the concept that each thing within a whole has an identity within that whole, relative to how and where it is in relation to everything else, in relation to the whole's totality. This concept is called "interrelationship".

From a universal point, each thing is defined in the universe as it is positioned in relation to everything else, and thus has a real definition from that totality, in terms of its place in the totality image of everything else. Thus interrelationship defines each thing in relation to everything else, ad infinitum, which gives it its real identity. This is the "isness" of interrelationship.

For living things, this identity, this "isness", is also expressed in their minds, as well as their bodies, as they had evolved through a continuous chain of living biological reproduction, until they became what and "who" they are. That "whoness" is then an expression of their identity in relation to the whole of existence, to the image that is them in the universe, from the universe's perspective, which made them. This is also true for humans.

For human beings, that expression of identity in the mind, their "Who they are", is best conserved within the universal whole when they are free to associate by agreement, and is damaged when they are prevented from this, and are abused or coerced or oppressed instead. When so coerced, they are disassociated from Who they are and are forced into a dysfunction which leads to unhappiness and other personal and social dysfunctions. Otherwise, when they are free to be Who they are, their personal identity in the mind and that of their universal interrelationship identity match up, so that they are in effect living the life that is in tune with their greater selves, their "whoness" and "isness", as defined by the totality of the universe. Then, their either happiness or unhappiness, success or failure, is truly their own.

That definition of "Who they are", that "isness" of when they are free to be themselves, that merging of being and mind, is Habeas Mentem.

The solution to this universal and historic dilemma of "coercion versus agreement" is then expressed in the Law of Agreement, which says that the only "allowed" coercion is to stop coercion, and that we are free as human beings to seek out our agreements in terms of Who we are. In a society of Habeas Mentem, those agreements are then sanctified, both by human law and by the laws of universal order.

* * *
Lastly, all other definitions of Habeas Mentem are then how you, how we live our lives. It is evident in how conscious we are in all the things we do, how we choose. We are all connected to the universe and each other. --Ivan

By Ivan A. on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 11:45 pm:


Coercion is damage. It is to force another against his or her will or agreement. In so coercing we invalidate the other's right to being who they are. This in turn damages the delicate balance of interrelationships that define that being in terms of who they are in relation to others and themselves. This is how coercion damages, for it corrodes our inherhuman relationships. Habeas Mentem takes it to the next level, that coercion also damages us in who we are in our universal identity, so that when forced against our agreement we cease being who we are.

Yet, in some cultures, coercion is acceptable. It is not to devalue another's culture, if such is their practice, though in the more advanced societies of the world, coercion is considered demeaning and not to be tolerated. An example of a nation where coercion is acceptable would be where its leaders have brought the nation nothing but war and misery since taking power, imprisoning or exterminating all opposition, and yet supported by the people. Coercion becomes the rule. Such a tyrannical ruler demands total allegiance from the whole population. And it must be viewed as a cultural difference that the population there gives this ruler total support, either by failing to resist and thus give tacit approval, or in referendum, where the ruler is legitimized by the populace. This had happened recently in Soviet Russia under Stalin, or Communist China under Mao. Most recently, this is happening in Iraq where on October 15, 2002, all the population which had the right to vote did so 100% in favor of Saddam Hussein, the same man who had offered them nothing by war, misery, poverty, alienation, and repression since taking office in 1979. Some of the voters expressed their support by marking the ballots in their own blood. (see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/world/middle_east/2336091.stm ). However, this is not to illegitimize such a referendum, the fact that coercion is so totally acceptable to this population, even if secretly they do not support him. Overtly they do, so it must be accepted as a cultural difference. The question then becomes, how can such a population be understanding of another culture where coercion is abhorrent? Can they understand instead choosing a government from opposing parties by agreement of the people, as a democracy strives to do, and where individuals are free from being forced against their agreement, they have rights, and that they in turn do not force others? Can an oppressive culture accept one that is not? So this is the dilemma. If tolerance of others and their freedoms is not part of a culture, and that culture lives under total coercion, with a cruelty perhaps rivaling that of great dictators of history, such as Hitler or Stalin or Mao (who never had 100% support); then can such a culture coexist in a world of freedom? I suspect not, and this is why it is an interesting dilemma.

That the population of Iraq lives in misery is an economic and political fact. In part this is due to the economic sanctions imposed on the nation, but in a large part it is due to the disruptive agression of a government against its people. Yet, they support their oppressor. They even call Saddam affectionately the "master of hearts". How can one understand such a thing, that a people would choose to worship and obey rather than resist oprression, and still be reasonable? Can such a people ever choose freedom, or is it beyond their cultural capacity, and instead total obedience, no matter how desperate and repressive, for them is a higher good? Or is it beyond understanding, and merely an historical fact, that human beings who are coerced will love and fear their coercer, while those who live in freedom instead will either love or hate theirs, as is their choice? (I should note, however, that the Kurd population of Iraq, which is under protection of a coalition of nations who fought Iraq, and have free access to outside world information, do not support him at all.) Still, it is curious that the Arab Iraqis, who are not Kurds, should turn out in such unanimous support of their leader though he rules by terror. They are damaged, totally coerced, and yet in this they find comfort, even vote for him with their blood. Only a cultural difference, in my mind, can offer explanation for such a paradox. The other explanation of necessity is that their level of consciousness is retarded in development by their oppression, and thus they simply do not know that they can have a choice, so fail to desire it. Coercion is not an issue with them, for it merely is, or perhaps is even actually seen as a good, much as an abused child will think that their parent hurting them is for their own good, and still love them.

The next question then is, is it legitimate to free such a people? Do we, as a world coalition of freedom loving democracies, make war against the oppressor so that his population may taste freedom? But then, they may not be comfortable with freedom, if oppression is all they have known, and such freedom may be undesirable and unacceptable to them, even confusing. Then to force them to accept democratic principles as we enjoy is a form of coercion in itself. Do we have the right to attack a totally coercive regime, especially if the people there find it overwhelmingly acceptable? This offers no easy solution, because if we do attack and coerce them into accepting our values, are we not then guilty of coercion as well? (Or worse, their repressive regime becomes replaced by one even more oppressive, as happend in Afghanistan under the Taleban.) I offer the following solution to this dilemma: Attack a coercer if and when it is we who are coerced by him, or are in danger of being coerced directly, or indirectly through sponsored terror, with perhaps devastating effects. This does not mean we wait to be attacked, but if we are being coerced, our culture coerced by his culture, then there is a clear and legitimate reason to resist such trespass. This may also be applicable in principle on any culture, secular or religious, that trespasses on the culture of another. If one culture accepts coercion, then it cannot be acceptable that they force others to accept coercion, especially if their target is a culture whose people respect tolerance and personal freedoms. Of course, if the more tolerant culture is victorious, then the door opens to the oppressed peoples to choose freedom, if this is their wish. And if freedom fails, then they remain oppressed, and we become oppressed by their trespass as well. So we cannot fail, and must be very clear and focussed on this to be sure that we succeed. In the past, this change in culture had worked in other countries, such as Germany or Japan. Likewise, it may now be working in some of the former Soviet countries such as Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic nations, and others, though it is not clear that it is working in Ukraine or Russia, for example, where democracy is still struggling with former Communist ideals. Yet, our culture prevents us from removing a tyrant from power if this is who that population had chosen, even if their so-called democratic election is really a sham, and no more than a forced referendum. Therefore, until Baghdad offers us a coercive threat, there is no relief from Saddam's tyranny over his people, unless they themselves ask for help to remove him from power. To do otherwise would set a bad precedent for history. We cannot force our will or culture on another. But nor can we tolerate at all their coercion of ours.

In the end, from my point of view, it would appear that, like abused children, the Arabs who had suffered at the hands of cruelty and abuse, who lived in fear, and who appear to be docile and so affectionate before their abusers, in the future will rise up upon seeing freedom to become more resolute in fighting coercion. In that fight for the preservation of this freedom, to be free of oppression, there will be those who will lead their people towards a new culture of tolerance and respect for human rights. And it should also be noted that we, as conscious human beings who are responsible adults, likewise cannot be coerced by our children, for to give in to that is to fail them. That for them, as for all humankind, is our future hope.

Any supporting or opposing thoughts on this coercion dilemma?

By Ivan A. on Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 10:00 pm:


The headline in BBC News reads "Iranian academic sentenced to death".

This is the prime dilemma for all moderates, intellectuals, free thinkers, lovers of liberty, in the newly developing world of fundamentalist religious fanaticism, whether Muslim today, or Christian or Judaic in the future, or Atheist in the last of the Communist countries: No dissent of opinion is allowed. One is allowed the "freedom" only to obey. Is this not an oxymoron? Yet, freedom of speech, of thought, of being, is all undermined by men who would oppress one another in the name of God, another oxymoron. Peace only through suppression of being is the third oxymoron. Peace can only come from love of freedom and the tolerance to be who we are.

What will the future of humanity bring for Human Rights? I see this as a question that transcends all philosophical and religious thinking of the ages. Habeas Mentem (as a concept) is pivotal in how the future world will unfold, though it is still too new and obscure to make a difference. It is not "us against them" but rather "agreement against coercion". Which way will the world go?


By Ivan A. on Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 03:18 pm:


It is in the spirit of Habeas Mentem that agreement is more powerful than conflict, than coercion. It is not 'us' against 'them', but rather 'agreement' against 'coercion'. This starts in our own mind and heart, and thus spreads to others in their minds and hearts. When we cease to view the other as the 'enemy' and instead see them as 'confused' in how they deal with conflict, then the healing process can begin. In this way, we validate the 'who they are' while at the same time being conscious that their being may not trespass on the being of another. Therefore, one must find ways to do things by agreement, so that neither party feels trespassed against, but is validated instead. The result in a social sense will yield a network of relationships that are founded on principles of agreements, of contract and goodwill, which translate into a more harmonious human environment. This comes from like minds seeking like minds, which is agreement, as opposed to minds that would seek to dominate others with coercion, of force or deceit. Then those who persist in coercing must be identified and restrained from confusing the issues, so that in the end it is not us against them, but those who seek agreements against those who coerce. This is the first step, and when it fails, then force is used not against 'them' to prevent coercions and trespass, but against 'coercion' itself. In small incremental steps, the healing of our world will begin. This in its basic form is Habeas Mentem, to be conscious as beings, to have the mind.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, November 12, 2002 - 07:34 pm:

"US" AGAINST "THEM"? -applied Habeas Mentem continued:

In the article below, "The Arab View: The other coalition", from the AL-AHRAM WEEKLY, Egypt, is an example of what is meant by the question "us" against "them?". The writer expresses conflict between those who are of Western ethnocentrism, as expressed by European and American geopolitical forces and values, in effect the forces of "globalization", and the impoverished dispossessed of the world who retaliated with acts of terror, Al-Quaida, for example, against those perceived to still be carrying on a "colonialist missions of civilatrices". In effect, it is "us" the poor, against "them" the rich and powerful. Regrettably, the writer does not show any remorse over the killing of civilians in the attack on the symbols of Capitalism, the New York World Trade Center, or on symbols of power, the Pentagon in Washington, which gives away his bias. He is comfortable with the notion that killing innocent people for a cause is justifiable. He writes:

"But history is shaped by all human beings, not just by the oppressors. And the conflict between the two camps - the oppressor and the oppressed - is destined to sharpen as each adopts the means at its disposal, including warfare.
While the weaker camp does not possess fighter planes, tanks and nuclear weapons, it does possess free will (sic) and purpose. It also possesses the power of supreme sacrifice, or martyrdom, the power that destroyed the twin towers in New York, as power neither the US nor Israel knows how to confront."

This is obviously a call to arms, to war, and to fight against "them" who oppress them. But is this not a projection of "their" own oppression onto the rest of humanity? If they are oppressed by their rulers into a dysfunctional society mired in poverty, where they live in fear, is this oppression then the result of all the rulers of the world, even in democratic states? He then goes on to say in the next paragraph:

"If the globalization coalition is unifying the forces and ideologues of capitalism, so too is the coalition of the underprivileged striving to unify the forces of the people, in all their political and ideological diversity: leftists, Greens, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and simply devout humanitarians (sic)."

Does this not offend the rational mind, that "devout humanitarians" should also join in this struggle against the oppressors through the use of terror? In the mind of the writer, no it does not. He feels that his cause is the just one, the one that should be fought for by all the people, of any faith of philosophical conviction. This is truly an "us" against "them" posture, without love and compassion, or humanitarian values. His sense of "agreement" is only to "coerce" others into accepting his own oppression, of all those who are not in agreement with him, even unto death. His method to achieve this goal is to use terror, martyrdom, self sacrifice, death and killing, and all with a sense of justifiable duty, without remorse. In the end, we are to join into this oppression of all the others who fail to agree with us that we are the oppressed. Again, is this not a perverse projection of ones own perceived oppression unto others?

They who live in oppressive countries devoid of human rights, of democratic principles, of economic and social success, are quick to accuse those of have these rights and successes of being the oppressors. Yet, the oppression they experience is from their own leadership, as well as some from a culture of fear and tyranny that goes back centuries, that keeps them from rising to their full human potential. In effect, they live in fear. And it is this fear that manifests as an attack, often pathetic in its self destructiveness, on the forces that are perceived as responsible (for their own oppression). The result is that if they were to be successful, their "oppression" would now be translated onto other peoples, those same they are trying to enlist into their cause. Is there "agreement" in bringing ones own oppression to others? Yes, if the other accepts it as his own. Is there "coercion" if the other rejects it? Yes, it is coercive, especially if the innocent are killed. Thousands of people die for a perceived "just" cause, maybe millions if atom bombs are used, all because it was "us" against "them".

This is the sadness and regrettable aspect of muddled, confused thinking, though I do not know the writer, nor do I know his pain (which I imagine to be great, given his violent cause). Yet, to project his personal sense of oppression onto all the people of the world (except those whom he perceives as oppressing him, of course, the "them"), is to give into coercing all those who of their own free will do not agree with him. (Yet, this crusade is not directed at his own real causes of oppression.) No doubt, in his land, this free will (to not agree) is limited, if not non existent, yet it is highly valued in those countries he would call oppressors, those same countries with a tradition of protecting its people from coercion. To have the free will to disagree is a value far greater than any material wealth the world can shower on us, and often precedes it. To have the "free will" only to obey is a most insipid form of slavery, against which the cultures of the so-called "oppressors" Western world has struggled for centuries to remove, for otherwise the result is slavery and poverty.

No, there is no agreement where the oppressor would enslave the oppressed. We should all be sheltered by human rights to exercise our free will, as individual human beings. But that is not how this writer sees it. For him, it is a struggle unto death to kill those he perceives as his oppressors, which is simply muddled and misdirected. Therefore, he is an oppressor, a coercer. So it once again breaks down to "us" versus "them", and the concept of "agreement" versus "coercion" is reduced to a complete breakdown in understanding of what is "free will". But this is not a struggle of "us" versus "them", but rather a struggle of preserving hard won human rights, free will, freedom of exchange between human beings, and centuries of western civilization in the face of coercion. To expect "devout humanitarians" to join in a slaughter of innocent people, not soldiers but ordinary citizens, is a prime example of where coercion feels the need to be triumphant over agreement. It cannot happen.


By Ivan A. on Friday, November 29, 2002 - 04:40 pm:


An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set.

It can be said that "one cannot use a negation of a proposition to prove the negation itself". This is another form of an "irreducible reductionism". An argument in favor of a negative conditions starting from a negative premise cannot be used to prove itself. Thus, a negation of itself does not make a positive proof, but rather leads to an error of reason and judgement.

What comes to mind is how latter day self styled fundamentalists use extreme interpretations of their respective laws to prove that others are in negative compliance with such laws, and thus must be punished. In the extreme, these negative compliants are to be killed. (This may be true of ALL, religious and non-religious, zealots and fanatics, i.e, anti-abortionists, assassins, terrorists, computervirus hackers, etc.)

There is a logic flaw here, since all who do comply with their negative interpretations of their respective laws, or ideals, are now under obligation to force their views on others, on those who do not, who are deemed in negation with their interpretation; and thus guilty must be punished. They who do not agree with them must be forced to do so, to agree with their negative interpretation. This is another way of saying that they (fanatic zealots) create their own laws to oppress others who disagree with them.

What comes to mind in recent times are intellectuals, authors, journalists, or anyone, who questioned or criticized such negative teachings and then were condemned to death for doing so. If such judgements are reserved for only the true practitioners of their faith, so be it. But if it is applied to outsiders, those who either never were of their faith, or who had rejected it, then to be subject to such condemnation runs afoul of an "irreducible reductionism" of negative propositions. To thus apply a negative reasoning to judge them, who do not observe "their" teachings, and who had either rejected them or never accepted them in the first place, becomes an example of a negative reductionism, a negative premise to prove that a negation of itself is punishable, even by death. If the so-called guilty party did nothing in relation to their accusers, either in the present or the past, but "failed" to obey some law to which they were supposed to be subjected, then to fail to obey such a law fails to create any disagreement except in the minds of the accusers. In effect, such a negative judgement favoring the coercion of another whose only crime was to have no relationship with the coercers is wrong and faulty reasoning, which makes it a coercion unto itself. To carry out such a judgement with a punishment of death, makes it especially wrong, since now it is a gross trespass on their human rights, and should never be condoned in a court of law, of any nation. Such a punishment is no more than aggression against another human being with no legal basis, and which constitutes an abusive force. To support such abuse is a gross injustice which should be punishable by law. Therefore, negative "thou shalt not" interpretations of any religious or otherwise teachings must be treated with great circumspect, especially if these are applied to individuals who are not members of the sect or order who passes these negative rulings. We cannot be subject to another's belief system, nor to their codes of punishment, without having our human rights violated if this is done without our agreement.

So the true "irreducible reductionism" is that we ALL have a God given right to being Who we are. Anything else is abuse of our human rights and must be stopped.


By Eds. on Monday, December 2, 2002 - 07:11 pm:

With All Due Respect.

RE "What comes to mind in recent times are intellectuals, authors, journalists, or anyone, who questioned or criticized such negative teachings and then were condemned to death for doing so." --from post above

It should be noted here that if such criticism, intellectual or otherwise, is deemed offensive to any party, that such criticism should be muted with a disclaimer which at the very least shows all due respect, and of necessity warrants an apology if anyone takes offense. Though we agree that individuals are sheltered by their right to a freedom of speech, nevertheless it should not be tolerated if such criticism, especially cross-cultural or religious, causes pain or grief to anyone. An apology would then be appropriate. A death sentence, however, or 'fatwah', especially against a person not of the sect making such a ruling, is totally inappropriate, since it is a gross violation of that person's human rights.


Please note there are many controversial issues in the media, and on forums such as this one, and a common courtesy of respect and goodwill towards all human beings, all beliefs, and all religions, is an imperative for our future world.

By Ivan A. on Friday, December 6, 2002 - 06:10 pm:


These are the Rules of Engagement for COERCION:

1. Never extend a hand in friendship or charity, except to confuse your opponent.

2. Break any prior agreement formed to reach your objective.

3. Remain mysterious and secretive, for secrecy is power.

4. Seek your opponent's weaknesses and exploit them.

5. Never reveal your true intent.

6. Seek the company of powerful men and avoid weak men, especially truthful ones.

7. Never confuse the truth with deceit, for deceit is more powerful.

8. Disclaim the use of force, until you use it.

9. Punish severely all dissenters of your power.

10. Promise them liberty but rule severely.

* * *

The Rules of AGREEMENT are in complete negation of the above Rules:

1) Help with friendship and charity whenever possible.

2) Be true to your given word in all agreements.

3) Seek and find common grounds of truthfulness and understanding.

4) See your opponent's weaknesses as signs of confusion, to be clarified into strengths.

5) Establish common grounds of dialogue and agreement.

6) Be weary of powerful men who coerce, seek strength in those who are truthful.

7) Truth is more powerful than deceit, for it establishes what is real.

8) Avoid the use of force until absolutely necessary, to repel trespass.

9) Be slow to punish and quick to reward and reconcile.

10) Promise them liberty, for freedom is more powerful than fear and enslavement.

* * * * * *

These are the two opposing worlds of neo-Machiavellian reality of leadership and government, per Habeas Mentem:

Coercion confuses and negates reality, creates fear, and in so doing manifests what is false which ultimately breaks apart, though sustainable through increased coercion.

Agreement establishes what is real so that what manifests in reality is sustained by reality, by truth, by our faith, and liberates the mind from constant strife and conflict. The prior enslaves and weakens; the latter empowers.

* * * * * * * * *

Rule and government is possible by both systems, but which would you choose? This is a mark of Who we are, how we choose. Coercion is from fear; agreement is from truth. How we choose to do this is then who we are as human beings either unconscious or conscious of our identity. By knowing Who we are, we empower the Truth.


The Prince

By Chris Brown on Friday, December 13, 2002 - 01:31 pm:

I've read numerous scraps of the HABEAS MENTEM text by Ivan D. Alexander and state unequivocally that his understanding of the human unconscious and its control over our world exceeds by a good bit, any that I have found anywhere.

How do I support with authority HABEAS MENTEM? I assure you I do. I could refer the reader at this time to perhaps 200MB of online information spread over six different web sites I've built to confirm my veracity as an authority on the unconscious mind, but the information, I have learned over the last few years, is too much for most people without some discussion in preparation. Even then the person needs very good reason to accept what is presented.

As our world deteriorates in a number of ways before our eyes (what the media lets us see) we gain more and more reason to move away from the societally accepted understanding of our condition or the explanations for it.

I hope this comment will initiate a beginning of an in depth discussion by those here who care and realize the profundity of our mental state that allows the deterioration we witness.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, January 12, 2003 - 01:37 pm:


In Habeas Mentem, it says: Ch. 8, A Person in Agreement:

"Conscious, however, we have the power to either accept or reject an approach. We are more complex now and our needs reflect that more complex existence... A mind aware of its identity has a need that did not exist while still unconscious. It needs the right to consciously accept or reject an agreement. In effect, it needs the right to either agree or to disagree."

This is not the same as having the right to obey, but instead is the right to refuse to obey, within the parameters of one's self, if that self is not impinging on the reality of another. Rather, this is an explicit demand of the right to being Who we are. As it says further: "When fully conscious, however, we have a real need for our identity."

The distinction here between the "right to agree" and "the right to obey" is what separates the conscious from the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind will accept obedience with comfort, even if uncomfortable with the choice to obey; whereas the conscious mind will find fault with obedience, unless it is an obedience chosen of one's free will, in relation to the Who making that choice. This distinction shows most prominently in societies which are ruled either by edict, either dictatorial edicts or those derived from "absolute truths", most often of religious derivation; and those societies ruled by social contract, either by constitutional agreements or common "laws of agreements", most often characterized by contract and choice offered in a democratic process. What may appear at first to be a rather subtle distinction between obeying and agreeing is in fact a vast gulf between what is acceptable to a conscious mind versus an unconscious mind.

In real life application it means that rule by edict, where we only have the right to obey, the agreements had already been decided for us by another, the ruling parties. Unlike the more free societies, where responsibility for agreements (which often are very difficult to achieve) falls on the shoulders of individuals (and their institutional extensions), instead the less free societies take that responsibility away from the individuals. Thus, when this happens, per force, the less free societies keep their individual members in a less conscious mode, whereas those that encourage freedom of choice force their members into a more consciousness mode. For the future, a greater consciousness will require the responsibility of those more conscious to make it so.

This may be very significant in understanding the widening gulf between societies ruled by coercion and fanatical fundamentalism, whether religious or secular, and those societies ruled by contracts of the laws of agreements. Regrettably, this is also historically beginning to shape up as a conflict between the values of the so-called West, the European and American ideals, and those of the so-called East, especially in countries ruled by theocratic fundamentalism, or as well by those ruled by communist fundamentalism. Furthermore, this is a widening gulf that must be addressed if we are to avoid future great wars.

The necessary salvation needed to avert the potentially devastating wars between these two ways of being Who we are, one conscious and the other less so, is that the responsibility of bringing about consciousness falls on the shoulders of those Who are more so. This means that education and communications, consultations on finding ways to form non-coercive agreements and treaties, are the primary responsibility of the Free World more so than those who are not free. Without being overbearing and condescending (and with full respect for the other's culture, what is non-coercive), we of the West have a responsibility of communicating our freedom ideals to those who do not have them, and who are prevented (by their leadership and ideology) from exploring them. This may prove to be a most delicate balancing act which will undoubtedly be misunderstood from the start. Therefore, it will be the burden of the conscious mind to find a way to make it not so. That is the burden of being conscious in a still too often unconscious world, of bringing the rest of humanity up to consciousness.


By Ivan A. on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 09:12 pm:

One Liner on Habeas Mentem:

If I were to write a one liner on Habeas Mentem, it would be this:

"Habeas Mentem is the social and spiritual right to be who you are."


By Eds on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 05:34 pm:


Rule by law in a democracy is not a plebiscite. This is a particularly timely statement when a world group of democracies is about to introduce rule of law into a nation which had been dominated by a rule of fear, hence a tyranny. If the present campaign against its present ruling leadership is to prove successful, when war ends, it must be so. Wars of liberation must be followed close by with humanitarian aid and a secure infrastructure, which is immediately followed by the setting up of a viable government structure that will validate this Herculean effort. However, if they are successful, then what kind of democratic government replaces the toppled tyranny is critical for its future success.

The popular notion of a democracy is one where everyone participates in the policy making of its government. However, that is a fallacy, for a true democracy is more a republic whereby ruling representatives are elected by the general voting populace, for these representatives to act on their behalf in the making of governing policy. This is of necessity, since the skills and the necessary cool headed decision making of rulers must be able to transcend the fears and passions of the general public. That the populace is given to passion and manias is historic fact, often to their own detriment, and though these may also sway the decisions made by their elected representatives, it is nevertheless their duty, nay their profound obligation, to distance themselves from public passions and act in a more focussed, more honest and balanced manner. The risks and rewards, the pros and cons, must be weighed carefully against what it is the public wishes, so that from this will arise policy and statesmen who can see more clearly, as opposed to those whose populist notions would bow to popular will. Sometimes, the two outcomes will not be the same. But it is for this reason that a nation's rule of law be subject to elected representatives who then have the freedom to act, according to law, in ways that may or may not satisfy the mood of the majority, yet to bring about successful policy in their stead.

A democracy is not by plebiscite, but rather it is government by rule of law for the benefit of the nation. This is an important distinction, especially in current times where some of the repressive autocratic governments, as in Iraq, or as recently in Afghanistan, are instead replaced by a more democratic form of national political administration. Plebiscite may augur well for some matters of policy where the public will needs to be consulted, but as a matter of policy, especially as it applies to writing legislation, it has a poor record. The will of the public, alas, is too often on the wrong end of where it needs to be. This is most clearly exemplified in the behavior of capital markets, where the few who are cool headed direct the markets against those who are naively led, to their profit. However, with cool reason and informed decisions, this natural tide of human sentiment can be reversed so that the result is in fact more in the public interest. We may be faced with the same in Iraq, where the new government will be tempted into plebiscite, but the real governing will be in the hands of elected representatives of the people. This was the wisdom passed down to us so eloquently by the founders of our American nation, where they voted for a constitutional republic rather than government by the people. That it is by the people, who through their elected representative are the people, is in the end how they will be best able to serve the people, and thus be for the people.

It is by this reasoning that a government of law, one where non-coercive agreements are validated and where the rights of individuals are protected from coercion, which is the social agreement of
Habeas Mentem, that is the government that will work best as a servant of the public will. When the powers gather to form the new government of Iraq, it is hoped that their cooler heads will bow to reason, and humility, and deliver to the people of Iraq a nation that will not only function well, but also succeed in securing their rights, and in so doing will guarantee for their future generations a legacy for which they will be proud of; and one which will serve as a model to all the other nations who had suffered at the hands of tyranny, so they too may breathe the air of freedom.

For this, we can and must pray. History will be our judge.

Editors, Humancafe.com

By Eds. on Saturday, July 26, 2003 - 10:14 pm:

The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict, Camp David Accords revisited.

Twenty-five years ago an agreement was reached for a framework for peace in the Middle East. It was witnessed by then President James Carter, and signed by then Egyptian President Anwar Saddat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Missing from the negotiations, unfortunately, were the Palestinian people. Today, this accord has yet to take shape in the affairs of the region, and in the struggles between the Israeli and Palestinian people for their homelands, so the war still continues. People can interact with each other either by pushing or by offering their hand. The Camp David Accord, ushered by President Carter, was an offer to bring together all hands, which it did at the signing. Unfortunately, those who would interact by pushing have once again reasserted themselves, so that the agreement has largely been obscured by recent history of suicide bombings and home demolition retributions, or assassination attacks on both sides. So the killings continue.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is complex. In part it is the result of bad policy when Palestine was turned over by the British, and in part the aggressive nature of the parties who took over the land as well as of those who either left it for Jordan to return later, or remained.  Coercion has been endemic to that territory from the start, so that it has turned into a kind of vicious tit for tat.  However, there are always solutions to problems, even when the coercion on both sides seems so well entrenched.  One solution is time, where in a thousand years the descendants will have forgotten why they are fighting, though this is not a very viable solution.  The other is more negotiations, where both parties give something up in exchange for something else, with the result being an eventual peace.  The other solution is an outright payoff, where the world turns its resources to resettle the Palestinians and helps form an economy, though I suspect this would not work here, for the help will not be accepted.  Then there is the religious equation, that both sides believe they have been ordained by God to be there, which is not subject to negotiations, since neither one will reasonably give up their beliefs.  So where does that leave the intense hostility, and how can it be resolved?

Historically peace came about when people had a common interest that would be served by this peace.  Often it was in response to some outside enemy, where former enemies combine to fight off the new threat.  The Arab world had demonstrated this in the past where tribal differences were forgotten to face a common enemy. The enemy around which they are united today is also complex, in part the cultural values of the West, in part Israel and what are perceived their extensions in the form of an economically successful Jewry in America and Europe. It was not so long ago that nations of Europe were likewise warring against each other in an alignment of the Allied powers against the Axis powers, so nations on both sides united to fight a common enemy. Yet today these same enemies are combining into a unified confederation of states, a United Europe.  Perhaps what had motivated Europe to overcome its old hostilities into a peaceful union can be somehow transplanted into Palestine-Israel.  This is not to in any way belittle the terrible suffering that has occurred there, and may continue for a long time to come.  But the point is that there must be some common ground where peace can take seed, perhaps in like minded people on both sides, perhaps in having them bring their grievances to a third party of their mutually accepted choosing, or perhaps an inevitable conquest by one side or the other.  These had been the solutions to such problems in the past.  Civilized societies usually refer to a third party for conflict resolution, perhaps a United Nations led effort for example, though there may not be enough will there to carry this out.  Of course, it has become the vogue of late to call on the United States, but this would not be acceptable to many because the political interests of Washington, both in Congress and the Executive offices, may not be aligned with an impartial resolution in Palestine.  There is a current effort by President George W. Bush's administration to find solution, to offer economic aid to the Palestinians, to force Israel to stop occupying more Palestinian lands. But will this work, or will the two sides continue to find ways to foil any effort towards peace? The grievances run deep on both sides, so this is a deep problem, but one which suicide bombers will not bring to solution, nor the persistent attacks by a nuclear power on an economically impoverished people.

If Palestine were occupied by an imperial power, the way India was occupied by the British, then perhaps enough self-sacrificial resistance would eventually force them out.  But the people of a post Holocaust Israel are at home, in the same way the people of Palestine are at home, so a very different solution will need to be found to bring about peace, and to rectify the grievances that had built up around this war.  Truly, short of some miracle from God, there is no way to know what the eventual peace will be, except to be fairly confident that the two peoples, Israelis and Palestinians, will eventually find a way to live side by side.  One possibility is that it will happen from pressures of their neighbors, when they stop taking sides, stop providing weapons, and instead push them together to a negotiating table to work out their grievances.  Would a free and democratic Arab world lead to such a solution?  Would a free and powerful democratic Iraq, or Iran or Egypt or Syria, be instrumental to bringing peace to that region?  Would Russia or China have an interest in peace there? When Europe is finally united into a powerful social and economic block, will they help? Only questions, no real answers...  

So the pushing will not give way to an offer of open hands. That is the coercive equation, that coercion will continue and no agreement can be found. This has mostly been our planet's history, with only fleeting moments of agreement and peace. The Camp David Accord was a momentary lull in this persistent coercion, but it too gave way to the forces that have been so endemic to how human beings aggressively interact on this world. The thesis of Habeas Mentem says that for the world to rise in consciousness, to progress from its present impasse, will require that we learn to do through agreement rather than coercion, for this is the only way to validate who we are as free individual human beings. Yet there is so much deeply ingrained pain on both sides. How can this pain be stopped? It can only stop when the two warring parties make a free choice to come to agreement on peaceful terms.  And for that to happen, it will take very strong and wise minds who can see the other not as an enemy but as another human being. Then the Peace Accords at Camp David may finally bear the fruits of its intent, of a peace in the Middle East.

Editors, Humancafe.com

By Eds. on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 11:28 pm:


Here is a man,
Prof. Abdolkarim Soroush, an intellectual of science and philosophy, who at risk to himself is willing to help bring his people into the New Millennium. The voice of freedom will ring, for it must be heard. As human consciousness rises, the love of truth not cowed by submission, intellectual honesty, a world of agreement over coercion, these all will be. Truly, this is our future.


By Ivan A. on Sunday, August 24, 2003 - 01:58 pm:


Intelligent men and women will ask questions and seek answers. The first question that will be addressed is "why is it forbidden"?

Human beings have been asking questions from prehistory, and though social taboos had forbidden inquiry on certain topics from the beginning, nevertheless answers surfaced through time. Gradually, humanity shifted from worshipping terrifying gods demanding blood sacrifice to a One God of love and compassion, of forgiveness. This is a major step forward, same as it is a consistent trend. We all will gravitate towards understanding human life as hinged on love and compassion. This is our future.

In ancient times, appeasing the gods and all social taboos came from fear. Ignorance of the truth of why things are gave rise to this fear. And from this ignorance formed the ultimate taboo "it is forbidden". This was further complicated with preoccupations with the devil and evil, which further kept humanity in fear. However, as human consciousness rises, some would say towards God, then all that is forbidden is that we do harm to one another. This is the ultimate law, that we do not trespass against one another, whether physically through violence, mentally through dishonesty, or spiritually through loss of freedom. History will not allow a reversal of these trends that show we must progress towards human beings no longer ruled by ignorance, but by truth. That is our future.

What was written hundreds and thousands of years ago, or ten years ago, does not constitute the ultimate universal truth, if it came from ignorance and fear. That any religion could consolidate warring tribes into a constituent whole is the great achievement of the prophets of ancient times. To modern prophets, men and women who will do this again, will do so by once more consolidating all the warring nations into a planetary peace. This is the great challenge, to bring God's love and compassion to our planet. It has not yet happened, so this is an open ended opportunity for humankind. This may be the future of the two billion people who are true believers.

Human beings are open minded when they are free to inquire and find the truth. They are closed minded if "it is forbidden", so the truth has no entrance into their souls. To live by lies is extremely damaging, for this forces human beings from being who they are, which causes much unhappiness. The nomenclature on how to best serve God is the private domain of any religion. Same as no individual human being can be forced to see the truth, nor can a world religion. Islam will not change from outside interference, but rather change from within, when its men and women pure of heart challenge why "it is forbidden". In the place of fear and ignorance will rise a deeper understanding and love for the truth and for human honesty. Then, the great religion that once united the tribes of the desert will rise again, not in violence, but in its spirit of love and compassion. A new Islam will show the world that every human being is worthy of God's Love, and in God's Will is every single thing they do, not because it is "forbidden", but because they do it through the Truth of Who they are, with love and compassion. In this will be a great future.

Why was it forbidden? The control over the tribes had to be such that they could not question. That will drop off. Intelligent open minded men and women will demand this from within their hearts. That is the great future truth for all the world's great religions: "Truth is never forbidden."

* * * * * *

Though written by my hand, I do not take credit for what was written here. --Ivan

By Ivan A. on Saturday, September 27, 2003 - 01:16 am:


Congress has enacted a national "Do Not Call List" which is to take effect October 3, 2003, to allow those households who do not want to be called by telemarketers at their homes. This enactment has been challenged in court on the legal basis of it restricting the telemarketers's First Amendment of free speech. Of course, this brings up the issue of whose rights are being protected by the First Amendment? Is it the telemarketers's free speech right to call anyone anytime? Or is it the personal right of individuals and households to have their "do not call" wishes respected? Therein lies the problem.

If the "do not call" list is likened to a "do not trespass" list, then the grayness of the issue becomes more clear. It is not that a national law had been passed that no one may call, only a law that states that should individuals choose to not be called, they can register this, which then makes calling them a punishable crime. Of course, to be totally fair, their should also be a "please call me list", but this is redundant, since all those not on the "do not call" list are automatically on the "okay to call" list. So the analogy to trespass is a valid one, since a person's privacy may be invaded by telemarketers calling them at their home, as is their right, unless that person has requested to not be called, in which case the call becomes a trespass. This could be compared to someone making an objectionable loud noise, which is a form of trespass, against which another would express disapproval and request it stop. Within reason, this is not an unreasonable request and mostly laws protect us from such noise.

Therefore, telemarketers are free to call anyone, provided the person being called had not chosen in advance to not be disturbed by such calls. They may also call those individuals or households who had requested information in response to other advertising. What is objectionable to most people, which is why this list got such popular support, is that a telemarketing call requires an act of response, even if only to get up and pick up the phone to hang up. This means that the service you subscribe to, to communicate with the outside world, is now being used against you in an invasive way. We must remember that telephone service is not a free service, that it is service we pay for, so that as telephone, or fax, or e-mail customers, we have some rights. One of these rights, other than receiving good service, is that we are free from invasion and abuse. Thus subscribers, as paying customers, should have the right to either accept unsolicited calls, or not. If not acceptable, and Congress has made a provision for a "do not call" list, which seems to express the people's sentiment regarding excessive volume of unsolicited calls, then such a list should not be challenged in court on the grounds of the First Amendment, since it is also the right of each household or person to express their First Amendment, to not be called. In effect, this becomes a battle of wills between telemarketers's rights and those of individuals, which inevitably pitches free speech against the right of individuals to be protected from an invasion of privacy. Which should be honored? Under terms of Habeas Mentem's Law of Agreement, it would seem that if individuals are willing to receive such calls, they should not subscribe to the "do not call" list and be allowed to receive unsolicited calls, whereas individuals who do not want to be called should have the right to be exempt, and have these rights respected by law. To do otherwise is then a violation of the Law of Agreement, since a trespass is being forced on individuals against their agreement, those who had requested not to be called. What of the loss of information provided by telemarketers to those who do not wish to be called? That is their personal loss, or gain, as is their choice. No one is being forced to subscribe to this list, so it is a voluntary act. By the same token, no one may allow telemarketers to force their will on those who do not wish to hear from them.

The next step will be to tackle the same principle regarding unsolicited spam e-mails and faxes. Faxes are easy, since the same telephone number on the "do not call" list may also be used for a "do not fax" list. E-mails are more complex, since many are not for pay and thus not regulated by a specific telephone numbers, except in the case where the e-mail address is the same as on the account of the internet provider granting access. In the latter, the same principle should apply, that an internet access from a given "do not call" telephone should be likewise protected with a "do not spam". What does this leave for telemarketers and unsolicited spams? They may contact those who do not wish to subscribe to a "do not call" list, or call those who had requested information. In effect, telemarketers may contact households who have a genuine interest in their products and services, otherwise they should cease and desist.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 02:46 pm:


There are three chapters within the greater philosophy of Habeas Mentem,
http://www.humancafe.com/titlepage.htm , which explain how the economy is a function of interhuman exchange, which works best when we are allowed to barter and exchange via agreement, and works most poorly when this is hindered by coercion. Whether at the simple village open market place, or in complex contracts of agreements to goods and services, or to the futures markets of currencies and financial instruments, the same principle of agreements and exchange apply. Then, whether or not society wishes to modify these with social contracts to redistribute income, or support social infrastructures, or maintain insurance for everyone's welfare, such as pension income, they all become a function of what are our social agreements. Of course, if these social agreements are too burdensome on the mechanisms of economic exchange, the system fails, in the same way coercion and manipulation of market forces causes the market system to fail. In the end, what economy we wish for is our choice.

To see the three chapters reference, please go to:

Ch. 12: In a Mechanism of Exchange, http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-twelve.htm
Ch. 13: How Do We Measure Value? http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-thirteen.htm
Ch. 14: Wealth is a Conscious Act, http://www.humancafe.com/chapter-fourteen.htm

Please feel free to comment with your ideas. All ideas are welcome.

By Xpost on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 10:46 pm:


Cross-post from Space-Talk/Astrophysics/'Purpose' of the Universe, Jan. 28, 2004:


Originally posted by Coppernicus2


Originally posted by sanger01
Did the bee evolve for the flower or the flower
for the bee? The interrelatedness of everything is
a bit too complex to be caused by chance. Mutation
generally does not lead to beneficial changes
(i.e. cows or frogs with an extra set of legs). No
disrespect intended here, just my two cents.

Worthy 2 cents! Is there a way to impute
meaning to a universe that has evolved into what
it is, mainly with living and, at least in some
cases, thinking beings? Mutation, random
selection, chance, Existential just 'isness',
don't satisfy with meaningful answers. Humans had
been theorizing the 'what is it all about' for
thousands of years, perhaps the foundations of
most of today's surviving religions, and certainly
of all such philosophical debates. Usually these
debates are reserved for philosopher types, but if
Astrophysics wants to deliberate the meaning of
that big universe out there, and in here, no harm
in that.

So here are my 2 cents: "The Universe is a system
that transforms itself from within into what it
'just is'."

This statement has greater depth than at first
appearances. It is contingent upon the theory
that it operates as a 'closed' system (though it
may be both expansionary and evolutionary), where
any part of itself is in touch with every other
part of itself, no matter how infinitesimally
small or astrophysically large. Think of any
closed system, say molecules forming in a crystal,
or an ocean habitat, or planet. For every part of
that system to change, if it has no locomotion of
volition, requires some influence from the state
of every other part within the system. Ocean
currents, air currents, crystal structures,
planetary formation and erosion, all have their
position or movement determined by conditions
within which they exist. In a closed system, this
of necessity forces things to be as they are in
relation to everything else, which in effect gives
them some 'meaning' or definition as to where they
are, or how they are, by the totality of the
system. Taking this thought to the next step
would then translate into that 'totality meaning'
is what defines each thing within a system in
terms of all the other factors that make up its
totality. In effect, the totality system is
totally 'interrelated', and defines every part of
itself, down to its minutest 'isness'.

Now take this totality system and stretch it out
to incorporate a whole universe, and what have you
got? It would follow that each thing within that
totality system has some definition, or 'meaning',
in terms of everything else that comprises the
whole universe. But, and this is important, if
each thing within the universe has some
characteristic definition of what it is, say has
two legs, one nose, two eyes, two arms, and even a
brain, then this is not something that had
happened purely by chance, since it is the result
of a totality system in how it defined itself down
to the smallest detail, in terms of everything
else. And before anyone cries "fah, foul, this is
impossible!", think of the fact that this system
never ever experienced any discontinuity, that all
things are the product of events through all time,
and that even living species all descend from
living parents, back to some primordial ooze from
which they sprung. So, therefore, this 'just is'
is in fact a very complex totality system that is,
and had since whenever, always redefining itself
not only in response to local conditions, but in
response to the state of a totally interrelated
being, or 'isness', throughout the whole universe.

So next time you look through your telescope, or
just out over the horizon at a rising star,
remember that you are looking not only at the
wonder of a universe, not only back through time
as ancient photons reach our eyes, but you are
looking at a totality of being that had made not
only all the things around you, in terms of
itself, but you as well. That star's light, or
passing breeze, or wave on the sea shore, is as
much a part of you as the 'I am' you feel within
your self. Of course, this is also true for the
flowers and bees. Is it all 'just what is', or is
it indicative of necessity what is at the greatest
universal dimension the same as what we are in
ourselves? In other words, if we are conscious,
can the Universe also be a priori conscious as
well? My 2 cents: Yes, of course, totally.

What is its 'purpose'? To be all it can be, just
like us.

Ivan A. on Monday, March 1, 2004 - 10:39 pm:


We will know when we are ready to go off into the Universe when secrecy becomes less important than truth, when human beings no longer seek to kill one another, when we have learned to live by agreements rather than coercions, and when all life is honored as sacred and beautiful. Then we will have entered the mind as defined by Habeas Mentem, and live at last in the true image of Who we are.

Should any royalties, funds, gifts, come in the future through the efforts of Humancafe.com and these ideas, let them be earmarked for future distributions to promote human enlightenment, a safe and respectful natural environment on Earth and in space, dedications to tolerance and human rights for all people, with peace on the planet; the elimination of all discriminations for gender, races, nationalities, religious beliefs, and for the protection of children. Let us leave a future legacy of clean air and water, unspoiled lands, pristine oceans and rivers, and love for all wild life that shares the planet with us. Such future funds should never be for our own aggrandizement, but for the promotion of the health of the beautiful planet we live on.

Most important of all, let us not lose sight of where it is we came from, that we too not long ago were like the wild animals in our passions and fears, and that our distant ancestors had first focussed on something higher, which they called God, to raise our vision to a Universe that is alive and beautiful in ways we have yet to discover. They had failed often, and mostly groveled in the darkness of war, of cruelty, of coercions through force and intolerance, abuse and predation, but some fine light had shone through it all, to now look beyond the pain and towards the healing instead. We are the children of a Living Universe, and when we have finally arrived, when we are ready to take on our mantle of conscious Human Beings, we must remember our great fortune in having been chosen for this honor. Let us respect one another, and the lives of all living things in the plant and animal world, for in making the planet they have traveled this great journey with us. We will know we are ready to join in all the conscious beings of our Universe, to travel freely into the deep of space, when we can do this. Then, we will have finally understood and physically embodied what it means to love one another.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, April 17, 2004 - 09:28 am:

KILL COERCION, Habeas Mentem's prime directive.

Coercive behavior must be neutralized at any cost, everywhere, always. Period. Then we can have compassion and forgiveness. And then we can have a better world.

This is a seminal first step for all civilization built on a principle of agreement, rather than a regressive world built on the power of coercion. The future will demand this of us, to be conscious in all we do. We need to know when we are coercing or being coerced, and kill it then. Then we will be free to be Who we are.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, July 8, 2004 - 07:28 pm:


(as posted on the Examined Life Discussion Forum:
Unfree will, moralism, and homuncularities, July 8, 2003.}


Henning: But this definition of life would still be very different from the "received" one we have today, since it would have to allow for future artificial constructs as being alive.

And there is also the common biological definition if life, as reproducing and whathaveyou. That definition too allows for true, artificial life.

The future is speculative, or course, so we do not know "future artificial constructs as being alive" to be fact at this time. Perhaps using bio-photons, for example, it may be possible someday to duplicate life artificially, though not done to date, so blue sky for now. What remains is a very simple one way process for turning living things into inanimate ones, you kill them. To reverse this process, however, is a lot more problematic. This same problem applies to free will, where it can be killed, but not created.

In the above posts, I leaned towards 'free will' as being 'chosen' by us, of our own conscious minds, our will, our reason and thoughts, even feelings, which are not evident in inanimate things. A living thing that cannot make this choice is doomed to not having a free will. Their actions, if any, are products of a predeterminate reality within which they exist. The stone on the beach did not get there of its own volition, but had to be brought there through the innumerable actions of existence around it. However, a living thing has parameters that allows it action beyond that which is predetermined for it, if it chooses to act on this. Thus, it is willed, or chosen, or acted upon through some agency of its internal parameters that grant it some level of free will. Is this choice a 'predetermined' choice? Not if it is willed, unless through some reasoning of infinite regression that all thoughts and actions are the result of the sum-total of inputs from reality, from the beginning of time, condensed into that point of where the decision is made. But that is blue sky again.

So we live in two worlds, one inanimate where no conscious will is ever observed; and the other is the animate where a conscious will is sometimes observed. In my opinion, this 'conscious choice' definition is what determines for us 'free will, in that it is how we choose it. How we choose to define free will is one more indication of whether or not we have it, so that to choose free will is to give it definition. Once defined by us, chosen by us as a reality, it then has a reality within ourselves which it did not have earlier. If not chosen, then 'free will' remains merely a potential within the infinite products of everything else in existence, but not yet real within a living thing. Evolution has endowed us with an ability to seek free will, to stake it out for ourselves, and even to declare that we are free beings, with certain inalienable rights, etc. Once so staked, this free will is surprisingly durable. Can non-living matter, or pure artificial intelligence machines, make such a choice? I would put the odds at infinity-to-one that they cannot.

It is a most interesting observation, which we cannot deny its reality, that those who had chosen free will will defend it, sometimes sacrificing their lives, which in a way is a paradox. Which inanimate material thing had done the same?

(In a way, this is the argument of Habeas Mentem, as to why we must have the freedom to 'be who we are'.)

Ivan A. on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 10:45 pm:

Our best defense against coercion?

I suspect the strongest defense anyone can prepare against coercion is just one of awareness. This calls for foresight, vigilance against unnecessary trespass, an awareness of when we are being coerced or forced against our will, against our agreement. In a society where laws of agreement dominate our daily activity, where the law is designed to protect us from coercions, it falls to each individual to be cognizant when this protection is somehow being usurped. We like to think this is how our society is structured, by agreement and inherent it its social contract, but such a social agreement is never assured.

I believe that our first duty is that we do not coerce unnecessarily, since coercion starts with us. On the other side of this is an equal awareness when it is we who are being victimized by coercions. For agreements to be enforced, where the laws's policing functions protect us for being forced against our agreements, it falls to us to equally police both our own activity as well as those activities of others that concern us. This is especially true where agreements are formed to coerce another, or where a person not guilty of coercion is being victimized by third party agreements. Such agreements of necessity are null and void, and should never be allowed by anyone. If such an awareness is in place, then there is less chance that we are caught unawares of the dangers facing us, so that coercion has a lesser chance of taking root. If coercion does take root, then it becomes more difficult to undo the damage, whether legally through a third party arbitration, or court of law, jury and judge, or through fighting to regain our rights. This is especially true of current geopolitical conditions where certain factions of extremism or fanaticism think it is their duty to coerce us, to force us against our will to do theirs. This is never so, and none should ever feel they are justified in such coercions. However, if we are not aware of their designs to coerce, then we are in effect defenseless until such time that the coercion had taken place, an damage done. It is a better defense to be aware of it before hand, so that those who want to coerce are not empowered to do so. As soon as such coercive conditions become manifest, a little bell should go off in our heads: "Warning - coercion!"

So the philosophical principle here is one of awareness to not empower coercion, even before it starts. Any population of individuals who are more vigilant in this respect will be more difficult to coerce than those who are unawares. It becomes more difficult to coerce if people are conscious of it. When we are more free to interact with one another through a process of agreements instead, sanctified through laws that protect our property and contracts, then society as a whole becomes dominated more through agreements than coercions. This is a more desirable state of affairs than a society where individuals are constantly being victimized by coercion. Then, where coercion is necessary is only in that state of affairs where it is coerce itself, self negate, so that it has no power to do damage. This awareness of coercion runs the gamut from terrorists who want to blow themselves up to kill us all the way to subtle coercions that infringe upon our human rights. In final analysis, awareness of coercion may be the best way to disempower it from being itself.

How do we empower people to be conscious of coercion, so to disempower it? I would think it should come from education at the earliest possible age of a child's understanding. Conflict resolution, personal rights, social human rights, should be taught earliest in school, as a matter of self preservation of our society built up on the power of agreements.

* * * * * *

Can we ever be sure we are not coercing another, or that they are truly coercing us? The answer again falls back on one's level of awareness, of our consciousness, of that inner knowing that something is wrong. Then it takes reason to correct it, and that takes work. But the 'knowing' it is wrong is already inborn in us. What had failed us to date is that we had been taught to NOT recognize coercion, but to go along with it, to accept it 'for our own good' without complaint. It is this awareness that needs to change.

Ivan D. Alexander

By Anonymous on Monday, October 18, 2004 - 06:20 pm:


Vatican condemns EU 'inquisition'
Anglican leaders welcome report

The above links happen to be ecclesiastical in nature, but that is not the focus here. Rather, it is temporal: Mr. Buttiglione's remarks on 'gays' sent a ripple through EU courts, right up to the Vaticano. The question raised civil liberties within either a secular or moralistic context, including individual gay rights, rights to same sex marriage, and whether high servants of Christian churches, bishops, can be openly homosexual. Along with the a growing worldwide issue of whether or not to legalize gay marriage, this question of civil liberties has gained enough social momentum to force people to take a stand on the matter. This forum, however, is not a place where we can address the religious, moralistic aspects of this issue, except as a secular question.

This question transcends politics and is philosophical in nature, since it touches directly onto whether or not one's sexual orientation is a coercion to others, if consensual, in agreement amongst adults; and whether the legal system, as enshrined by the land's constitution, should recognize such agreements. If the same sex relationship is consensual amongst adults, then it poses no threat to society at large, and remains a personal matter of sexual preference. If it were instead aimed at children, for example forcing them, or introducing them to homosexual behavior, because they are not yet of age to make consensual agreements, then it would be tagged as coercion, but this is not the case. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman throughout history, so accepted same sex marriages are a relatively modern phenomenon. Otherwise, as it regards their personal agreement to choose to marry, this matter is truly personal. Society at large may then elect to either agree with this personal decision or not, meaning that it will either acknowledge such union legally, or it will not. That is an agreement formed by the greater society in how it had chosen to structure itself in its laws. But the fact that two human beings of the same sex have enough feelings for each other to further commit themselves in matrimony, in and of itself, is not a crime, meaning it is not designed to coerce anyone. No law should ever be passed that would make it a crime, for that clearly would be a trespass against them.

Homosexual, 'gay', men and women should have the same rights in society as heterosexuals, guaranteed to the same safeguards the law offers everyone. If society is offended by overt displays of sexual behavior it considers wanton, or 'unnatural', or otherwise in some way 'indiscreet', then it has the right to restrict such behavior, such as public nudity for example, but it does not justify condemning it legally. So it becomes a matter of either being socially 'correct' or not, with the consequences that those who are incorrect will either gain praise from some, but criticism from others. Gay men and women, provided they do not impose their actions on others, should remain legally immune from legally enforced codes of behavior as long as they remain private, though they would most likely be condemned if made in public. That some societies are more tolerant towards homosexuality is a natural outgrowth of that social awareness, as it pertains to this otherwise private affair, but not all societies are the same. In sum, one's sexual orientation is a private affair that should neither be condemned, nor condoned, by the legal structure of society at large. In effect, government has no place in this in the same way the founding fathers of the American Constitution had the wisdom to separate church from state. We do not have laws that either support or deny the right to religious belief, as long as such belief does not coerce others, and so it should be with laws regarding the engagement and marriage of gays.

Gay bishops, as a hierarchic function of church structure, should likewise be left to the organization where this issue is addressed. We can all offer opinions, and by right all have the right to our opinions, but we cannot impose those opinions on how a church, or temple, or mosque, wishes to structure its internal organization. It is not a matter of public policy. Those who are public figures and express their either approval or disapproval of gay rights, marriages, gay bishops, etc., can do so only if they at the same time say that this is a personal-opinion-only and not a matter of state. To make gay issues into a matter of state is to take them where they do not belong, anymore than issues of the church are a matter of state.

So Mr. Buttiglione's statements, or others response to them, should be neither condemned nor applauded if made in a private manner, but should not be encouraged if made as a public figure and commissioner. Gay rights should include equal protection under the law for all individuals, including those individuals who either through their genetic selection, or as a matter of choice, are predisposed to same sexual relationships. They are not criminals, so their personal choice should not be legislated either for or against, as long as it is not publicly offensive to anyone else.


By Ivan A. on Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 10:33 pm:

Some thoughts:


If the same sex relationship is consensual amongst adults, then it poses no threat to society at large, and remains a personal matter of sexual preference. If it were instead aimed at children, for example forcing them, or introducing them to homosexual behavior, because they are not yet of age to make consensual agreements, then it would be tagged as coercion, but this is not the case.

Children are innocent by nature a priori. Any sexual advances against them are of necessity a sex crime, no matter the sexual orientation, since they are not yet developed either physiologically or psychologically to know their response to this approach. Any adult who sexually abuses children, whether they accept their advances or not, are criminals. Period.


In sum, one's sexual orientation is a private affair that should neither be condemned, nor condoned, by the legal structure of society at large. In effect, government has no place in this in the same way the founding fathers of the American Constitution had the wisdom to separate church from state. We do not have laws that either support or deny the right to religious belief, as long as such belief does not coerce others,...

Laws do not support or deny what one should believe, but laws are not for or against the right of belief, or hence sexual orientation, but against their ill use. We all have the right to believe as we wish, provided it does not in some manner damage the belief of others. I would think it is the same with sexual orientation, where it is one's personal matter provided it doesn't damage anyone else's personal life. (Indeed, this is how works the agreement versus coercion theme of Habeas Mentem.) This should apply, I would think, to all human conditions.


Ivan A. on Sunday, January 2, 2005 - 02:35 pm:


OS Guinness writes in his "Time for Truth":

"It is often said that to have fulfilling life, three essentials are required: a clear sense of personal identity, a deep sense of faith and meaning, and a strong sense of purpose and mission." (Baker Books, 2000, pg. 71)

In the post-modern world, these three are ignored. Relativism of truths dominates over universal truths: A clear sense of personal identity is subordinated to a collective identity; faith is meaningless except in a hypocritical faith in there being no faith; a strong sense of purpose is politicized, so the strong dominate over the weak. And it is this last that sinks post-modernism into a kind of neo-Fascism, where the strong dominate over the weak, so any political agenda forcefully pushed will subordinate our rights to being ourselves, the identity of Who we are, to the will of whatever ideology is in vogue at the time. If anyone stands up to this politicized agenda with a call for fairness or truth, they will be coerced back into the collective identity, either shunned or barred from being productive in society. Truth is then acceptable only in the context of what is politically correct, for we are forced to accept whatever had been told to us as true, even if it is a patent lie. The Fascists, Nazis, and now a whole horde of modern revisionists find coercive behavior justified because there is no real truth for us to fall back upon. What we think we know, or believe individually, is no longer based on a truth, or the right to be who we are, but rather on a relativistic-truth of accepting what the collective believes. The Nazis believed they were a superior race, and so they coerced mercilessly all who were seen as inferior. That was the tragedy of ideology without faith in truth. Post modernism is more insidious than Fascism, however, because it uses the same tools that define for us who we are, our freedoms and personal right to truth, to make it relativistic so that it becomes indefensible. By what right do we have to argue that our truth is real when all truth is relative? This is the dilemma, and in this dilemma lies the future outcome of our personal freedoms, our human rights: Will they be taken away by the same force that protects them? Will coercion become the norm for future politicized interhuman relations? Will human agreements be protected only when they serve the collective-will rather than personal needs? Will our personal fulfillments be gauged by an impersonal collective rather than by an inner sense of personal identity? How conscious will we be of when our rights are trespassed by the relativism of truths? What will it mean to our human freedoms? What will be our sense of mission if our truths have no reality base? These are all questions that will define for us whether we are still able to tell truth from falsehood, and whether we can become as free human beings rather than men and women in bondage to false ideals. The universe is, and in how it is is the truth of it all. If we fail to grasp this truth, we already know what will be ready to step in to take the place of human freedom, as society rolls back history. Do we want fundamentalist religious oppressions to redefine for us our freedom based ideals?

That is what is at stake with post-modernism, for this is how it becomes in its subtle forms a new kind of oppression. To stop ceorcive-neo-Fascims from trespassing our rights to truth will become the purpose-of-mission for all free and conscious minds. If so, Habeas Mentem, in protecting the right to being Who we are, may be forced to become the first line of defense for our hard gained freedoms. That is the sublime sublety of relativistic postmodernism, that it can take your truths to invalidate your truths, and take your freedoms to take away your freedoms. If oblivious to these, we will have to fight for them all over again.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, January 15, 2005 - 12:52 pm:


If we take Modernism as an extension of the Scientific pragmatism of the post-Enlightenment era, where the universe was improbably an existential existence devoid of its past theological moorings, what I would call the 'metric era' standardized into a kind of unmetaphysical realism; then the post-Modernist age was in some ways rebellious to this 'soulless' era of metrically standardized human beings. This post-modernism seemed to culminate in the 1960s era of free expression at all levels, where even history was rewritten to suit our modern personal feelings, which is an oxymoron. The perpetual question of human beings is "Who are we?" and it gets answered in its own way for each age. The Modernists basically admitted they existentially "are not", or simply not ask, except as improbable accidents of a universe. The post-Modernists entered an age of anxiety and uncertainty, perhaps launched in part by the Lorenz-Einstein-Heisenberg crowd, so that our philosophy was likewise colored by this anxiety of a Big Bang created universe, as opposed to the pre-Modern 'certainty' of God creating the universe in six days. But this was still an unsatisfactory answer, as if any would ever be, and we found ourselves into an evolutionary 'neo'-post-Modernism somewhere in the 1990s where the universe became an 'organic whole', environmentally holistic, and in which we are but one more evolving culture on its evolutionary curve.

In his book "What is Post-Modernism?" Charles Jencks follows its development from past ages from Socrates to all the various 'isms' to the present, where he says that in the end "Post-Modernism chooses us". Perhaps already evident in the early 1980s, there was a movement towards greater individual freedoms from the oppression of Marxist-Leninist inspired socialisms worldwide, which had become too burdensome on their economies, and human rights, viz. Gulag. With that movement came a greater sense of freer competition, and especially a greater sense of society as more open to our individual human rights. It was within this milieu of fair and open competition by free human beings that the old 'neo-Fascist-like' post-Modernism, where history was rewritten to suit our more modern sentiments, at the price of sacrificing truth, to a newer post-modernism, what I would call a neo-Post-Modernism, where the individual as a free agent is now more responsive to the truths of a universe that has evolved into being what it is. Within this universe now each human being plays a part in relationship to it and to each other, so that we are connected universally as human beings not only by the social reality alone, as in socialism, but by a greater universal reality still, that of a whole universe. In this neo-Post-Modernism, the Truth is how the universe connects with itself and with each one of us. That same Truth then becomes for us how the universe defines our lives and culture in terms of what it is we do within it. Ultimately, all we do consciously or unconsciously, with thought or without awareness, reflects back on us as a human species striving to survive and thrive on our small and fragile planet. This happens to dovetail rather well into the philosophy of
Habeas Mentem as well, since there the philosophy shows how each human identity is defined within this greater universal reality through a process of interrelationship, ad infinitum. Of course, this definition culminates with "who we are" within the cultures we had created for ourselves.

In the end, it is we who had chosen ourselves to be who we are, knowingly or not, and that may very well define for us who we are in our Neo-Post-Modernist era of the New Millennium. Or as Jencks put it: "We can even, when modernity is over, get rid of the label Post-Modernism - and that will be a relief." I think the same, that we are headed towards a world connected to a universe so intimately that even in our cellular structure is already evident in how crystals form, how life procreates, and how galaxies hold together, not only within ourselves, but with all around us, and with all of life throughout the Universe. That will be the science of a Neo- of the new Millennium, that we are all connected not only to each other, but to all of Existence.


By Ivan A. on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 12:32 am:


Think of how every cell in your body knows what to do. You have no direct knowledge of this any more than you can know your heart beating, or your digestive tract separating nutrients, or how your glands know what to do. We know of these in the abstract, that we more or less understand how the endocrine or cardiovascular system works, but we have no direct intellectual connection with these. They do the work without our conscious interference with them. Yet, they are all connected within our body to keep us alive and, hopefully, in good health.

It is the same with the outside world beyond our bodies. Each thing with which we are in some form of contact is itself in some form of contact with other things, like cells within our body, but now connected to the rest of existence in the universe. There was never a moment of disconnect, to where we could step outside of our reality in this life's existence, and so remain constantly minutely connected to all of existence all the time, to infinity. In this way, each one of us is a universe of one, a life connected to all of reality, to the stars and galaxies, though we are as unaware of this as we are unawares of what each cell in our body is doing. But they are doing what life is about, our life, and existence is doing what reality is about, our universe. In this connection, the two, the inside ourselves, and the outside ourselves, are all connected, forever, from the moment of our birth until the moment of our death. And thus is had been for all of our predecessors, our parents and their parents, right back to some primordial time when first bacterias populated our planet. We are all connected through space and time, to infinity.

Now, this is the most important and interesting connection. If each one of us is a living reality, a separate universe unto ourselves that is connected to all of being out there, then when two human beings come in some form of contact, touch, words, thoughts, ideas, love, then it is as if both of those universes come together. Each human contact is as loaded as all the cells in our bodies are connected with the rest of existence in reality are connected. That 'who' who touches you is not merely another person, but it is another universe. How precious, how sublime, and how totally divine it is. When we touch, we are connected not only how we interact, but also connected how our separate universes interact, right down to each cell in our body. And that is Divine in the ultimate form of the word.

So next time you shake hands, or hug, or kiss, or come together in a joining of love, think about it. It is not just who you are connecting with who is the other person. It is rather your universe connecting with the other's universe, to infinity. And that is a Grand design. So be respectful, careful, filled with awe, and consciously aware of who you are, and who they are, because you are two universes coming together as one. Life of each one of us is that precious, and that beautiful and Grand. We are universes connected together, and together we are all connected.


By Ivan A. on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 03:48 pm:

CONNECTED, a follow thru:

If "each one of us is a living reality, a separate universe unto ourselves that is connected to all of being..." then what happens when we die?

A natural follow through on this is that each one of our 'separate realities' is already totally infused in all of existence. This infusion is not only in the energy that defines our universe, right down to each one of our existence realities, but also psychically to each other 'separate reality' with which we are connected. This includes all the people we know, and those we also do not know. If it is all connected, then what happens when that 'separate universe' in which we inhabit while living is no more? Where does it go?

I think the answer is 'nowhere'. Nothing happens to that 'separate being', except that it no longer exists in its present living form. All the connections, in terms of energy both electromagnetic, of which the universe is composed, and psychic, which is how we are all connected, are not lost. They are merely redefined, so the being is no longer 'alive' here, but continues to be in some form undefined for us. We do not know what we look like once our life ends here, but that is not the same as saying that we do not exist. Our 'separate reality' continues to exist, but we cannot see it from here. In that 'follow thru' of our separate being, connected to all, is something of us, the Who we are, and the who 'we were' in this life. Interestingly, I would venture that in fact, there is as much if not more life in that 'follow thru' than experienced here. Not to hurry, but the fear of our ultimate 'non-existence' is highly exaggerated. This may in fact be, though impossible to prove, a very open ended deal, where all those infinite connections that define Who in us are eternal. We may be much more 'here' than we know.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 12:01 pm:


Habeas Mentem's interrelationship is the matrix of how all existence is interconnected into a total and self defining whole. That matrix is also what is your mind, not just your thoughts, but all of you right down to Who you are, who is your identity. When these identities interact by agreement, it is their universes interacting by agreement, into an interconnected unity of that totality matrix; when we interact through conflict and coercion, it is the discordance of that matrix we materialize in our world. We know from experience that agreement works better than coercion: personal protection from predation, agreement by democratic process, respect for personal human rights and property, equality under rule of law, right to free exchange of goods and service, freedom of speech and exchange of ideas, freedom of religion and beliefs; the freedom to be Who you are. Where these have surfaced on our planet, within their societies we have seen great progress and abundance. Where coercions and conflicts rule, where men and women are not free, we have seen a regressive tendency towards poverty and unhappiness; and ultimately self destruction. Freedom is not rule of anarchy, but rules of agreements, where each human being is protected from coercion. This will be the world's greatest challenge in the coming centuries, to choose one or the other. If the world chooses freedom and agreement, its success will be great; if chosen coercion and slavery, we will self destruct. The ideology of Habeas Mentem, and its matrix of interrelationship, merely explains why this will be so.


By Ivan A. on Saturday, September 17, 2005 - 06:21 pm:


This post was put into the Philosophy Discussion at The Examined Life Philosophy Journal, under the thread: "Heaven-Earth;Spirit-Flesh; Form-Matter; Mind-Body; Philosophy-Science:The Bifurcation of Nature", in answer to Marcus. I list it here for the record, or for any comments.

-Ivan Alexander, editor


Leibniz and Whitehead actually believed that matter was alive in some sense (that the universe as a whole is organic) and that this accounted for its ability to combine and reform and to be known through experience. For Leibniz the "Monads" have perception, for Whitehead the fundamental "things" are atoms of experience.

I suspect that there are not a great many idealists around but I can't stress enough the difficulties of realizing this position of organism, of an organic universe. In my opinion it shouldn't be confused with religion, or culture or politics for that matter.

Marcus, there is a way to show the organic whole of philosophy as it applies to science and politics, and epistemology itself, but it requires the invention, or discovery, of an idea that can "think itself". I know this falls strangely on the ears, but there is a way to do this, and it has to do with each thing's identity within the context of a greater whole.

It took me some three decades to write something I called "Habeas Mentem", to have the mind (formerly published under title "Man in All that Is"), which attempts to show how this "identity" idea works. The concept invoked was one of interrelationship, an idea that all things are somehow interrelated, ad infinitum. The objective was to show a definition of what it is to have a mind, a consciousness that defines who we are, or our identity in physical terms. The inspiration dates back to Whitehead, and perhaps Will Durant, or Henri Bergsen, that where science can take things apart and give us a good description of its constituent parts, it takes philosophy to put it all back together again into a comprehensive whole. In the case of an interrelated totality, the whole is the "idea" of the entire universe, whatever that is. Infinity is an unknown to us, incomprehensible except as an abstract idea. Yet, it does have a methodology to how it interacts within itself, that all things are interconnected somehow, intimately down to the subatomic particle level, where all energies of the universe are likewise interconnected, so there exists a complete whole at work within itself. The interrelationship itself is the mechanism by which the universe "thinks" in terms of its internal structure. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy reduces this level of energy over time, but there is a counter-entropy system at work, which is known to us as Life. So as the universe (allegedly) winds down in energy, the difference is taken up conversely in the increased complexities of living things, with the end result being more order rather than less order. As part of that reversed entropy system, we exist within this universal totality with some function in ourselves that reflects this reverse order, which I suspect is the mind. In our brain are the functions evolved over the eons to reflect a greater complexity within existence, to the point where we are now just becoming conscious of it. That is our identity, if you will, what is in our minds, even if we are not fully consciously aware of what is that identity, the who we are, to truly represent its (interrelated) universal context.

To get from a universe of energy and matter to human consciousness is no easy task, even on an evolutionary track that seems to be going there over great periods of time. The universe would need a system within itself to make this possible. And that is where interrelationship comes in: Each thing (monad like thing) in the universe has its place within the interrelated (interconnected) reality of existence, so that taken in toto its place is also its identity in relation to everything else, a reflection of some kind of "image" of that totality that defines it at any moment in time. What this means is that no one thing can exist without the support and connections to everything else; but more than this, it is what and where it is because that is how the balance of everything else has "allowed" it to be. If one could step outside this system and view it independently, each thing within an interrelated totality would be seen as a reflected image of the whole of interrelationships surrounding it. Nothing can be anywhere but where everything else has allowed it to be. That, in effect, is its identity within the whole, in a kind of reverse of that whole, defined at that point in space and time. It is this interrelationship concept that is the "idea that can think itself", if not an oversimplified explanation here. (See chapters 2-5 in above link for better explanation, about 40 pp.) This would imply that from all the (random) energies that powered some early universe, there arose an order of interconnections, or sets of interconnections, that were able to rearrange themselves through their interrelatedness into greater complexity, no longer random, which at some point in (universal) time became alive and self perpetuating. The evolution of this order of interconnections, or interrelationships, gave birth to an increasingly powerful receptor, the brain, in response to this order. In the end, it became conscious of itself. And it is that consciousness that now defines everything in the universe for us, what we have come to understand. It is also this human consciousness that connects the invariably disconnected parts within our universe that seem to exist as separate entities, such as knowledge, science, history, politics, philosophy, and so on. At the level of our consciousness, in who we are in our minds, is reflected back into the universe's self ordered interrelationship all the way back to its totality. In effect, we live in an interactive, interrelated universe that both gave rise to our consciousness, and from which we reflect that consciousness back into its reality. This is the indentity that holds our universe together as a living entity, right down to the monads, as a reflection of a universe that "thinks" itself.

Before I am accused of Pantheism (for which Giordano Bruno, a Copernican, got burned at the stake), let it be clear that I do not worship streams and rocks, or mountains, but that there is some element of the infinite interrelatedness of things right down to each atom and photon. Each thing within the universe reflects back its interrelated position within the organic whole, through the process of interrelationship, so that what is the totality is also how that totality reflects back on any one thing's point in space and time, or any collection of things, any sets. Some of these sets are alive, like us. Each thing is what it is because how everything else has allowed it to be, through the eons. Is each molecule alive? Only in a very contained sense, that it reflects a totality capable of creating life; but the molecule, or stone, or stream, is not alive in the sense that it has a self-consciousness ability to be alive, like we and most animals do. What the process of interrelationship does is define, or identify, each thing within the context of its greater whole, which lends it certain characteristics within that whole. For us humans, it means that what is in our minds already exists outside ourselves, within the context of what had been through time the interrelationship of an interrelated totality (evolution), so that for us the universe is alive. Our minds in effect reflect the aliveness of that totality. That is our connection to the inert materials of science, that though they themselves do not display aliveness, because we are alive within a universe that made us alive, the totality is organically alive, right down to the atom. And that, really just that, is what makes philosophy important, because it reveals how this aliveness of reality is possible, and may be sought after. Can that be done easily? Hardly, barely. We are not even consciously aware of it, except in some abstract sense. This next level of our human consciousness, to identify the aliveness of what appears to be an inert universal reality, may yet prove to be the greatest frontier of the mind, both within what happens in the brain, and how the whole mind is connected to the reality which gives it its identity, its personality, its being. Consequently, far from being done, Philosophy is just beginning.

So Marcus, and everyone reading here, there is a ton of work to be done in philosophy to connect with All that Is. J And that could take eons.

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 09:15 pm:


Parameters of Condition is a term coined of interrelationship itself, meaning that things can exist only as the condition of everything else allows it to exist, its inherent parameters.

There had been discussion of late of Intelligent Design as an alternative to Evolution. This implies that some greater cosmic intelligence exists that guided the evolutionary path of all life, rather than such evolution being due to simply a Darwinian survival of the fittest, or accidental genetic randomness. But all evolution takes place within the Parameters of Condition, since nothing can take place outside how these parameters had defined themselves within the conditions of Totality of an interrelated reality. So the condition of Totality, relating back upon itself, is the cosmic image that redefines itself within these parameters of condition, what defines that Totality. So as this condition changes, the evolution of all things within this "total image" changes with it, with the end result as an evolution of living things. As each living thing occupies its own space in time, per the interrelationship thesis, it simultaneously reflects its greater image within Totality, as this Totality exists for it within its parameters of condition. That is its connection to Intelligent Design. So all things, living or not, reflect its parameters of condition at any moment in time, since each thing is infinitely connected to the Totality of these interrelationships, its Totality Image. What distinguishes living things from non-living is that their Totality image, per their parameters of condition, is a living definition; whereas for non-living things, their definition is ordered but otherwise inert.

That is what Intelligent Design is by definition, the design of each thing within its defined Parameters of Condition. This is an idea not contrary to Habeas Mentem, but rather defined by it: we who have a mind are conscious within the parameters of our condition.


Add a Message

This is a public posting area. If you do not have an account, enter your full name into the "Username" box and leave the "Password" box empty. Your e-mail address is optional.
Post as "Anonymous"