William is my best friend at this point of my life. He has an uncommon developed talent for understanding processes, though I don't think he fully realizes it yet. He gets close when he says 'they could learn it,' but he misses the point that 'he sought the information and figured out how to use it in practical application.'
William, as most people who think commonly, dreams of seeing the world from new heights in his life. He is, however, a very large man who carries the load of his responsibilities admirably.
The reason I love William, though, is because he is a man of conscience. He is very benevolent despite that he could be very intimidating.
William should probably not think about 'flying to those heights' he dreams of. The Spruce Goose flew, but not well and certainly not safely, yet he would need that design and has (conceptually) wood to work with.
William could build a ladder with the wood, and carry his family up the ladder with him. There is probably even a visual demonstration in some Laurel and Hardy flick. There is too much danger to everyone for William to ascend to the heights he dreams of. Even scaffolding would be safer than a ladder.
The best design I can envision with the resource of wood is the 'stair step.' He could build one step, and just ask his family to step up with him. When everyone is stably on the first 'stair step,' he can build a second one.
He need not cart a load of wood with him for, unless he plans to descend the stairs, he can just use the stairs he has at any point to build another 'stair step' that is upward.
Stairs are not built fully upward. They are both upward and lateral.
So how does one 'step up' and 'step forward?' PLEASE, go walk the stairs and figure it out!
Don't mind the emphasis, please; I've told him what I believe is the 'next step' for him to build!
------------------------------------
So, William tells me this joke his boss told him. It was something about a computer programmer not being able to count past one.
I grabbed a pen and paper and wrote '100' on it. I handed it to William and told him to give it to his boss and tell him his friend has four figured out, but is struggling with five.
He just smiled, and offered up 'you know what he meant.'
-------------------------------------
What he likely meant: in binary systems, there are only two options like 'on/off,' 'yes/no,' or, in numbers, '0/1.'
In the 'common numbering system' (the base ten), the whole number closest to the decimal point is 'ones,' the second is 'tens,' the third is 'hundreds,' etc.
Binaray number systems are similar, but there are no symbols except for 0 and 1. The series, instead of being (1,10,100,1000 . . . ) as in base ten would be (1,2,4,8 . . . ) when considering in which spot either a 0 or 1 would be placed for counting.
He likely meant 'I can't use a symbol greater than '1' for counting.'
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Schrodenger's Cat Paradox: The Problem With Controlled Testing
Deja vu! Not really, I've read about this before, but I was unable to relate to it at that time.
While Einstein was proving that light is really a particle that interacts with atoms creating luminescence, theories that light acts as a wave still seemed to be true. So how could one be 'true' if the other were also 'true.'
The Cat Paradox was proposed to illustrate wherein conclusions derived from controlled experiments with quanta could be erroneous. I would have PETA all over me if I were to demonstrate 'the uncertainty of that which we can prove being certain.' I'll just try to explain it.
If you have an element that will die if exposed to a second element inside a box that we are unable to see through, an error in logical conclusion could occur if we presume that which we see when the box was opened actually was reality when we were unable to see inside the box. It leaves open the possibility that 'the result we saw' was 'because we opened the box.' 'That the state of the living thing was dead when exposed' 'does not determine' 'what the state may have been when the life was contained in the sealed box.' The conclusion is that the state of life inside the box is 'indeterminate.'
When I consider vacuum, if atomic structure is vacuumous, it may be exponentially more erroneous to 'draw conclusions based only on what we see and can prove.' To take it even further, that which we know about the necessity for vacuum for a light bulb, it is even logical to conclude that it was the breaking of the vacuum seal that caused 'air' to be the only ingredient needed for 'fire.'
Also, if atomic structure is vacuumous, we should also be able to logically conclude that the state is 'not indeterminate,' but 'virtually impossible to be anything other than breaking the seal caused the death' as the gas would not disperse in the vacuum (is that correct?), nor would the 'living thing breathe oxygen or any other element comprising air.' In fact, exposure to air seems to kill that life.
Hmmmmmm.
While Einstein was proving that light is really a particle that interacts with atoms creating luminescence, theories that light acts as a wave still seemed to be true. So how could one be 'true' if the other were also 'true.'
The Cat Paradox was proposed to illustrate wherein conclusions derived from controlled experiments with quanta could be erroneous. I would have PETA all over me if I were to demonstrate 'the uncertainty of that which we can prove being certain.' I'll just try to explain it.
If you have an element that will die if exposed to a second element inside a box that we are unable to see through, an error in logical conclusion could occur if we presume that which we see when the box was opened actually was reality when we were unable to see inside the box. It leaves open the possibility that 'the result we saw' was 'because we opened the box.' 'That the state of the living thing was dead when exposed' 'does not determine' 'what the state may have been when the life was contained in the sealed box.' The conclusion is that the state of life inside the box is 'indeterminate.'
When I consider vacuum, if atomic structure is vacuumous, it may be exponentially more erroneous to 'draw conclusions based only on what we see and can prove.' To take it even further, that which we know about the necessity for vacuum for a light bulb, it is even logical to conclude that it was the breaking of the vacuum seal that caused 'air' to be the only ingredient needed for 'fire.'
Also, if atomic structure is vacuumous, we should also be able to logically conclude that the state is 'not indeterminate,' but 'virtually impossible to be anything other than breaking the seal caused the death' as the gas would not disperse in the vacuum (is that correct?), nor would the 'living thing breathe oxygen or any other element comprising air.' In fact, exposure to air seems to kill that life.
Hmmmmmm.
A Ripple in Time
If solids, fluids, and gases all behave the same when something is dropped onto it, then why, considering that it would continue exponentially having more effect, is it inconceivable that this 'dimension of time in the universe' is really just a 'ripple in time?'
If the concept were to be true, then what is beyond the 'outer edge' of the universe is the preceding universe compressing into all its precedent universes, from older ripples in time, and that which would be beyond the 'inner edge' of the universe is the universe that will succeed this one.
The rippling effect just seems to relate best to 'time is infinity.'
Then, it would make more sense that 'the purpose for this life is to unburden one's 'life light/soul/whatever' sufficiently to retain 'whatever will be life' in the next universe. Those 'energies/souls/whatever' that do not 'enlighten themselves sufficiently' in this universe will be doomed to remaining in it 'as it compresses into 'all the other universes' that may have existed before this one creating an immense amount of heat,' perhaps similiar to that described as 'hellfire' in the Bible, and, of course, that would be for ever!
It is the complexities of life that one must resolve in order to rise. Why do people not relate this to the 'higher life,' and realize that 'one rises' by simplifying complexities? Simple algebra. I was a tutor in simple algebra. I wonder if anyone I tutored learned anything, or if they just used it to 'pass that hurdle man puts there for us.'
It all seems so futile.
What's the point?
Damn it, what's the point?
The univers's speed limit is the speed of light. Einstein seems to have proven pretty conclusively that nothing exceeds that speed ever.
So, it isn't that which is bigger than us that is important; it seems be importance lies in that which is smaller than us. That's easily relatable to children, the poor, and the weak, at least in the 'human concept.'
Einstein felt his theory on photoelectricity was his most important research. I need to see if that goes beyond the creation of photons, or if that's even where the photonic theory comes from.
Time to read.
If the concept were to be true, then what is beyond the 'outer edge' of the universe is the preceding universe compressing into all its precedent universes, from older ripples in time, and that which would be beyond the 'inner edge' of the universe is the universe that will succeed this one.
The rippling effect just seems to relate best to 'time is infinity.'
Then, it would make more sense that 'the purpose for this life is to unburden one's 'life light/soul/whatever' sufficiently to retain 'whatever will be life' in the next universe. Those 'energies/souls/whatever' that do not 'enlighten themselves sufficiently' in this universe will be doomed to remaining in it 'as it compresses into 'all the other universes' that may have existed before this one creating an immense amount of heat,' perhaps similiar to that described as 'hellfire' in the Bible, and, of course, that would be for ever!
It is the complexities of life that one must resolve in order to rise. Why do people not relate this to the 'higher life,' and realize that 'one rises' by simplifying complexities? Simple algebra. I was a tutor in simple algebra. I wonder if anyone I tutored learned anything, or if they just used it to 'pass that hurdle man puts there for us.'
It all seems so futile.
What's the point?
Damn it, what's the point?
The univers's speed limit is the speed of light. Einstein seems to have proven pretty conclusively that nothing exceeds that speed ever.
So, it isn't that which is bigger than us that is important; it seems be importance lies in that which is smaller than us. That's easily relatable to children, the poor, and the weak, at least in the 'human concept.'
Einstein felt his theory on photoelectricity was his most important research. I need to see if that goes beyond the creation of photons, or if that's even where the photonic theory comes from.
Time to read.
Mother Teresa: A Saint Amongst Saints
When one considers that a grading curve does not assign grades based on arbitrary points at which a student's grade increases, but, rather, that those in the 'top ten percent' get an 'A.' From that group, the student who did the best gets the only 'A+,' Mother Teresa gets the 'A+' as the 'student who did the best' in the class of those who 'factored in human suffering' of any human who has lived during my lifetime.
When one considers the huge philanthropic and humanitarian contribution Bill Gates has made to 'factor in human suffering,' he still hasn't given it all, and certainly not for his lifetime. The portion of Mr. Gates that is 'selfless' (not amount of money, but the portion of which he contributes back to life) is huge relative to the portion of income that the average person contributes back to life.
Mother Teresa gave everything she had all the time. She left nothing behind. She took nothing with her.
There is no greater balance, nor greater purity, in a life that existed in 'my dimension' of e=mc2. If Jesus was misunderstood when he said he would return, and he really has returned again and again but hasn't been recognized, I would suggest that Mother Teresa was Jesus incarnate. Her soul has to be that pure.
She didn't even consider that which she did as sacrifice. She regarded it as her purpose and duty. She did it enthusiastically. When the world took notice, she accepted what she was given to further what she did.
Her degree of goodness and purity is way beyond my understanding. I'm only up to trying to understand what Mr. Einstein left behind on how light works. He knows what I mean about her. So does Bill Gates.
She probably took only her sub-quanta with no attachments, and gathered no 'life baggage' to shed, if that's how it works.
Dr. MacDougall may not have noticed any weight loss!
When one considers the huge philanthropic and humanitarian contribution Bill Gates has made to 'factor in human suffering,' he still hasn't given it all, and certainly not for his lifetime. The portion of Mr. Gates that is 'selfless' (not amount of money, but the portion of which he contributes back to life) is huge relative to the portion of income that the average person contributes back to life.
Mother Teresa gave everything she had all the time. She left nothing behind. She took nothing with her.
There is no greater balance, nor greater purity, in a life that existed in 'my dimension' of e=mc2. If Jesus was misunderstood when he said he would return, and he really has returned again and again but hasn't been recognized, I would suggest that Mother Teresa was Jesus incarnate. Her soul has to be that pure.
She didn't even consider that which she did as sacrifice. She regarded it as her purpose and duty. She did it enthusiastically. When the world took notice, she accepted what she was given to further what she did.
Her degree of goodness and purity is way beyond my understanding. I'm only up to trying to understand what Mr. Einstein left behind on how light works. He knows what I mean about her. So does Bill Gates.
She probably took only her sub-quanta with no attachments, and gathered no 'life baggage' to shed, if that's how it works.
Dr. MacDougall may not have noticed any weight loss!
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Positive Side of Light: Is that Heaven?
If we correct some adages from long ago and far away, we might be able to understand what others who didn't have historical reference to Mr. Einstein have realized.
We've heard that 'our eyes are the windows to our souls.' I suspect that adage is older than the cameral lens, and, because whoever said it 'saw the light,' but didn't have the theory of refractory to reference, 'mistook the camera lens he was really seeing for a window.'
When one considers the inspiration Lewis Carroll had to 'take Alice through the looking glass,' just beyond that material that absorbs all light that hits it, 'causing our minds to deduct the image as positive reflection,' also occurred prior to Einstein's e=mc2, did 'he just mistake the mirror for that fine line that divides a light particle's positive cycle from its negative cycle?
We only see the negative side of light. Our gravity, will weigh us down when it is subject to a larger object's gravity.
Everything we know about the mind is that we subtract to think (deduce) and our brains necessarily needs to be cross-wired.
Dr. MacDougall attempted to prove that the soul was the same in every person. His results were consistent that there was weight loss, but it occurred irregularly between subjects. That has bothered me, but that irregularity may be theorized within a life concept that takes into consideration that others have seen this, but they just didn't have today's science to refer to in order to 'know that which they saw.'
Here is where I'm at: our minds work deductively; we see color by subtracting what is missing (I think); our eyes work through refractory of light; we know that science depicts light through a spectrum that appears to begin and end, but is really infinite (I think); we know if one continues an arc infinitely, we really just 'keep going around in a circle.'
Who wrote the Wizard of Oz, and what inspired that? That story also depicts a dream or near-death-experience, or halleucination, or whatever one prescribes to with their principles, in which there was a more colorful realm.
Folks, if this is adding up, you better look up to the light and try to find it, because, if you don't, you're bound for a place the Bible conceives as hell! However, if you're not too bad, you can stay in a place the Catholics conceive as Purgatory, which, if it is as it seems right now, would be a reincarnation without ascent or descent, as in . . . here? Who knows? I don't.
So is everything we see really here and out there? Yes, but 'we see it in only in the negative light.'
I would suggest that had Dr. MacDougall not been prejudiced on his first study, he may have detected a much smaller departure, with 'most of the weight leaving at once and finally.' Perhaps that subject had a 'lighter soul' having shed 'his life's burdens;' whereas, those with more balanced departures had heavier, more laden souls, and shed less of "their lives' burdens."
Dr. King may have been referring to this phenomena when he said that unjust suffering is redemptive.
Is what the Bible describes as Heaven really 'that which exists/is visible on the positive cycle of light?'
While we understand through nature that a rodent's main 'purpose in life' is to be food for predators, and how important flies are to the eco-system, we tend to want to regard humans as 'the highest form of life,' because, of course, 'we are at the top of the food chain' 'where we are at in' 'the cycle of life.'
If this were to prove out to be true, then, logically, our physical form's purpose here is for the soul's use/consumption to lighten its load, become more emburdoned, or remain about the same. A ghost could really exist if one soul were to amass sufficiently to be barely visible. Aside from the purpose, ghosts and angels are both 'mythical manifestetations of dead people.' Could it just be that soul's lighter load the reason those images which allegedly have manifested as angels appear to fly, relative to the heavy load of the souls that are the rather morbid and scary images described in alleged manifestations of ghosts?
If this were to prove out to be true, conceptually, 'those alive here are really the lives that are in the graves from the higher form of life,' and 'we are living on the other side of the looking glass!'
One could then conclude that 'life on the negative side of light' is the 'illusion/halleucination/reflection' of that which is reality! People may be those who died in a higher life form, and carried too much burden from that realm; the ascending souls of that which have shed sufficient burden from lower life forms, and those who just keep going around the proverbial circle. It has the essential balance of positive, negative, and neutral.
Whether we ascend, descend, or stay the same would then be determined by how much of life's baggage we are able to shed while we are here!
-----------------------------------
Mother Teresa, you must be next to study, but I am nowhere near worthy to be in the light you must see. Thank you for the comfort and love your image brings to me. I know of no one from my lifetime who has been as beautiful as you are.
We've heard that 'our eyes are the windows to our souls.' I suspect that adage is older than the cameral lens, and, because whoever said it 'saw the light,' but didn't have the theory of refractory to reference, 'mistook the camera lens he was really seeing for a window.'
When one considers the inspiration Lewis Carroll had to 'take Alice through the looking glass,' just beyond that material that absorbs all light that hits it, 'causing our minds to deduct the image as positive reflection,' also occurred prior to Einstein's e=mc2, did 'he just mistake the mirror for that fine line that divides a light particle's positive cycle from its negative cycle?
We only see the negative side of light. Our gravity, will weigh us down when it is subject to a larger object's gravity.
Everything we know about the mind is that we subtract to think (deduce) and our brains necessarily needs to be cross-wired.
Dr. MacDougall attempted to prove that the soul was the same in every person. His results were consistent that there was weight loss, but it occurred irregularly between subjects. That has bothered me, but that irregularity may be theorized within a life concept that takes into consideration that others have seen this, but they just didn't have today's science to refer to in order to 'know that which they saw.'
Here is where I'm at: our minds work deductively; we see color by subtracting what is missing (I think); our eyes work through refractory of light; we know that science depicts light through a spectrum that appears to begin and end, but is really infinite (I think); we know if one continues an arc infinitely, we really just 'keep going around in a circle.'
Who wrote the Wizard of Oz, and what inspired that? That story also depicts a dream or near-death-experience, or halleucination, or whatever one prescribes to with their principles, in which there was a more colorful realm.
Folks, if this is adding up, you better look up to the light and try to find it, because, if you don't, you're bound for a place the Bible conceives as hell! However, if you're not too bad, you can stay in a place the Catholics conceive as Purgatory, which, if it is as it seems right now, would be a reincarnation without ascent or descent, as in . . . here? Who knows? I don't.
So is everything we see really here and out there? Yes, but 'we see it in only in the negative light.'
I would suggest that had Dr. MacDougall not been prejudiced on his first study, he may have detected a much smaller departure, with 'most of the weight leaving at once and finally.' Perhaps that subject had a 'lighter soul' having shed 'his life's burdens;' whereas, those with more balanced departures had heavier, more laden souls, and shed less of "their lives' burdens."
Dr. King may have been referring to this phenomena when he said that unjust suffering is redemptive.
Is what the Bible describes as Heaven really 'that which exists/is visible on the positive cycle of light?'
While we understand through nature that a rodent's main 'purpose in life' is to be food for predators, and how important flies are to the eco-system, we tend to want to regard humans as 'the highest form of life,' because, of course, 'we are at the top of the food chain' 'where we are at in' 'the cycle of life.'
If this were to prove out to be true, then, logically, our physical form's purpose here is for the soul's use/consumption to lighten its load, become more emburdoned, or remain about the same. A ghost could really exist if one soul were to amass sufficiently to be barely visible. Aside from the purpose, ghosts and angels are both 'mythical manifestetations of dead people.' Could it just be that soul's lighter load the reason those images which allegedly have manifested as angels appear to fly, relative to the heavy load of the souls that are the rather morbid and scary images described in alleged manifestations of ghosts?
If this were to prove out to be true, conceptually, 'those alive here are really the lives that are in the graves from the higher form of life,' and 'we are living on the other side of the looking glass!'
One could then conclude that 'life on the negative side of light' is the 'illusion/halleucination/reflection' of that which is reality! People may be those who died in a higher life form, and carried too much burden from that realm; the ascending souls of that which have shed sufficient burden from lower life forms, and those who just keep going around the proverbial circle. It has the essential balance of positive, negative, and neutral.
Whether we ascend, descend, or stay the same would then be determined by how much of life's baggage we are able to shed while we are here!
-----------------------------------
Mother Teresa, you must be next to study, but I am nowhere near worthy to be in the light you must see. Thank you for the comfort and love your image brings to me. I know of no one from my lifetime who has been as beautiful as you are.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
The Diamond that Shouldn't Exist
Imagine a horizontal line. Above it is 'positive,' and below it is 'negative.'
For this, positive shall represent 'that which is empirical,' and negative shall represent 'that which is natural,' and the line shall be 'life.'
If we were to simulate almost every 'measurement of life,' logically the 'flow of life' would look like a wave.
From that line and waval flow, remove one complete wave (zero - intersect zero - zero).
If we were to draw lines from '0' to points at 'empirical 1' and 'natural 1' such that the lines intersect at ninety degree angles with similar lines intersecting '1' on the life line, the 'entire wave' would be inside 'what may appear to be a diamond,' but is really a 'square on end.'
Now, imagine that Aristotle is at the top of this square at the highest point on the 'empirical side of the line,' and Charles Darwin at the bottom of this square at the deepest point of the 'natural side of the line.'
---------------------------------------
Since we have 'one complete wave,' we'll start at '0' to represent atheists who contend that to be the number representing God, and end at '1' to represent monotheists who contend that to be the number of God.
Let's now consider what these two believed they knew about God:
Darwin, himself, didn't 'believe or understand' that there was no God; he claimed that 'he didn't know' (agnosticism). He claimed '0' 'knowledge (science) of the empirical.' If we consider what one thinks of himself as worthy of one-half the gravity as public perception, Darwin ascends, but, remains in the natural at -.5, or 'about where the bottom of the wave should be at its lowest point in the flow.'
Aristotle regaled at being lauded as 'the man who knew it all.' He believed he had the answers, so he regarded himself as '1.' Since Aristotle gave himself negative gravity (levity) at 1, his personal factor would raise him to empirical 3.
We now have a 'diamond,' and:
Those at '0' contend 'Aristotle is incorrect because Aristotle is correct;' those at '1' argue back 'Aristotle is correct because Aristotle is incorrect.'
To the natural side, those at '0' contend 'Darwin is correct because Darwin didn't know.' Those at '1' argue back 'Darwin didn't know because Darwin is correct.'
Why don't people see that?
--------------------------------------
Aristotle is the father of biological science, which those at '0' contend proves there is no God; he is also the source for some of the scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, which those at '1' contend is proof of God. Each side uses his 'flawed conclusions' to prove 'both' 'that God exists and doesn't exist.'
Darwin's theory of natural selection is given more gravity to 'proving there is no God' by those at '0,' while those at '1' also give more gravity to it as they 'believe Darwin's theory includes that there is no God.'
----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider how many times these two guys' conclusions have been proven flawed:
Aristotle: (1) the universe is far larger than a 'mere millions of miles,' (2) there is an abundance of atomic, particle, and sub-particle movement outside the human body, (3) we do not all see the same thing just because we look at the same thing, (4) women have the same number of teeth as men, (5) protecting the female gender within a species is not because males are empirically dominant, but, more likely naturally, because females are that much more important to continuation of a species than the random need for the male gender, (6) Earth is in a solar system.
Darwin:
-----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider a possible manifestation (including commentary from these two men).
Atheist: Darwin proved there is no God. (Darwin: no I didn't.)
Monotheist: Darwin's work was inspired by the devil. (Darwin: Actually, I went well out of my way to disprove wholly natural theories once my own prejudices about monotheism were challenged.)
Both: Darwin was an atheist! (Darwin: I was not!) Prove there is/is not a God.
Monotheist: The Bible says that God exists, and explains it. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: All one has to do is understand biology. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Monotheist: Heaven is in the sky. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: There is no life outside our physical bodies. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Hopefully, you get the point.
------------------------------------
In the end:
Darwin: died suffering personal guilt and utter despair for 'realizing' the exponential odds negative familial traits common between he and his wife/cousin, who he adored, were inherited by their children, as 'the truth unfolded for him.'
Aristotle: encountered death trying to run from it.
-------------------------------------
Conclusion: if one will step back from the line so 'depth' can be seen, it is possible to see that Darwin is both given more gravity by those at '0' and '1' than 'he gave himself;' whereas, the source of contradictory empirical arguments eminate from Aristotle are given 'the same levity' by those at '0' and '1' 'as the source gave himself.'
Darwin was correct, or, at least, more correct: 'the truth of life lies at the zero intersect' and 'that his work does not prove the existence, or non-existence, of a godlike concept,' 'except to the degree' that 'Aristotle was incorrect' on 'both contradictory accounts.'
Though diamonds may have great value, this diamond should not exist.
=============================================
Afterthoughts:
7/9/07 - Though diamond shape, it is upside-down from the way one would normally display or mount a diamond. The 'brilliance' of this diamond' would eminate from that portion which is in the natural. However, I am starting to see a strong correlation between the 'flow of life' and the 'flow of light.'
Consider light as a fifth dimension; explain the ripple effect in application to the theory of the universe - it gives us the answer to what lies beyond the edge of the universe, and beyond that.
For this, positive shall represent 'that which is empirical,' and negative shall represent 'that which is natural,' and the line shall be 'life.'
If we were to simulate almost every 'measurement of life,' logically the 'flow of life' would look like a wave.
From that line and waval flow, remove one complete wave (zero - intersect zero - zero).
If we were to draw lines from '0' to points at 'empirical 1' and 'natural 1' such that the lines intersect at ninety degree angles with similar lines intersecting '1' on the life line, the 'entire wave' would be inside 'what may appear to be a diamond,' but is really a 'square on end.'
Now, imagine that Aristotle is at the top of this square at the highest point on the 'empirical side of the line,' and Charles Darwin at the bottom of this square at the deepest point of the 'natural side of the line.'
---------------------------------------
Since we have 'one complete wave,' we'll start at '0' to represent atheists who contend that to be the number representing God, and end at '1' to represent monotheists who contend that to be the number of God.
Let's now consider what these two believed they knew about God:
Darwin, himself, didn't 'believe or understand' that there was no God; he claimed that 'he didn't know' (agnosticism). He claimed '0' 'knowledge (science) of the empirical.' If we consider what one thinks of himself as worthy of one-half the gravity as public perception, Darwin ascends, but, remains in the natural at -.5, or 'about where the bottom of the wave should be at its lowest point in the flow.'
Aristotle regaled at being lauded as 'the man who knew it all.' He believed he had the answers, so he regarded himself as '1.' Since Aristotle gave himself negative gravity (levity) at 1, his personal factor would raise him to empirical 3.
We now have a 'diamond,' and:
Those at '0' contend 'Aristotle is incorrect because Aristotle is correct;' those at '1' argue back 'Aristotle is correct because Aristotle is incorrect.'
To the natural side, those at '0' contend 'Darwin is correct because Darwin didn't know.' Those at '1' argue back 'Darwin didn't know because Darwin is correct.'
Why don't people see that?
--------------------------------------
Aristotle is the father of biological science, which those at '0' contend proves there is no God; he is also the source for some of the scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, which those at '1' contend is proof of God. Each side uses his 'flawed conclusions' to prove 'both' 'that God exists and doesn't exist.'
Darwin's theory of natural selection is given more gravity to 'proving there is no God' by those at '0,' while those at '1' also give more gravity to it as they 'believe Darwin's theory includes that there is no God.'
----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider how many times these two guys' conclusions have been proven flawed:
Aristotle: (1) the universe is far larger than a 'mere millions of miles,' (2) there is an abundance of atomic, particle, and sub-particle movement outside the human body, (3) we do not all see the same thing just because we look at the same thing, (4) women have the same number of teeth as men, (5) protecting the female gender within a species is not because males are empirically dominant, but, more likely naturally, because females are that much more important to continuation of a species than the random need for the male gender, (6) Earth is in a solar system.
Darwin:
-----------------------------------------
Now, let's consider a possible manifestation (including commentary from these two men).
Atheist: Darwin proved there is no God. (Darwin: no I didn't.)
Monotheist: Darwin's work was inspired by the devil. (Darwin: Actually, I went well out of my way to disprove wholly natural theories once my own prejudices about monotheism were challenged.)
Both: Darwin was an atheist! (Darwin: I was not!) Prove there is/is not a God.
Monotheist: The Bible says that God exists, and explains it. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: All one has to do is understand biology. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Monotheist: Heaven is in the sky. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Atheist: There is no life outside our physical bodies. (Aristotle: yeah, that's my work.)
Hopefully, you get the point.
------------------------------------
In the end:
Darwin: died suffering personal guilt and utter despair for 'realizing' the exponential odds negative familial traits common between he and his wife/cousin, who he adored, were inherited by their children, as 'the truth unfolded for him.'
Aristotle: encountered death trying to run from it.
-------------------------------------
Conclusion: if one will step back from the line so 'depth' can be seen, it is possible to see that Darwin is both given more gravity by those at '0' and '1' than 'he gave himself;' whereas, the source of contradictory empirical arguments eminate from Aristotle are given 'the same levity' by those at '0' and '1' 'as the source gave himself.'
Darwin was correct, or, at least, more correct: 'the truth of life lies at the zero intersect' and 'that his work does not prove the existence, or non-existence, of a godlike concept,' 'except to the degree' that 'Aristotle was incorrect' on 'both contradictory accounts.'
Though diamonds may have great value, this diamond should not exist.
=============================================
Afterthoughts:
7/9/07 - Though diamond shape, it is upside-down from the way one would normally display or mount a diamond. The 'brilliance' of this diamond' would eminate from that portion which is in the natural. However, I am starting to see a strong correlation between the 'flow of life' and the 'flow of light.'
Consider light as a fifth dimension; explain the ripple effect in application to the theory of the universe - it gives us the answer to what lies beyond the edge of the universe, and beyond that.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Aristotle and Atheism
I was reading today, and came across a line that contended that the concept that nothing exists past our senses, the basis of atheism, is also from Aristotle. On that, he disagreed with 'Plato's other students' (and likely Socrates as a consequence) who contended that our senses act as filters to give us the 'illusion of reality.'
Both poles of religion are embracing the same person's thoughts, and challenging the thoughts that eminated from him in contradiction to those they are told to believe!
Is that not wild?!
It's at the bottom of page one.
Both poles of religion are embracing the same person's thoughts, and challenging the thoughts that eminated from him in contradiction to those they are told to believe!
Is that not wild?!
It's at the bottom of page one.
One Hot August Afternoon, . . .
. . . probably around 1923, the kids had gathered at the swimming hole there in North Dakota. 'Freed from church,' it was time for some fun.
The Titanic had long settled on the bottom of the Atlantic, the problem with exposure to gas during the war had mostly died out, and America's 'Teddy Bear' was but lore and history. That day would be of no danger to those whose day had already passed.
Young Cyril jumped into that swimming hole, and didn't come up for a while. It was the most dangerous day in the history of the world - at least from Cyril's perspective. It was a sad day for his family, but it wasn't anybody else's 'most dangerous day;' at least nobody in their family or sight.
In Chicago that day, a child got caught up in some cross-fire. No one was aiming at her; it just happened for no rhyme or reason. In Kansas, a father misjudged the speed of the train, and he, his wife, and their four children are all killed at the intersection. In London, a lamp is tipped over, and three children die in the resultant fire.
The lineage ends for those children, and, in Kansas, for the parents, too.
In many other places, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers.
The lineage continued.
Today, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, who were only babies on the world's most dangerous day for Cyril; the day they were taken to the funeral so their parents could pay their final respects to their grandparents.
Today, there are no families to gather for those children who died that hot August afternoon in North Dakota.
The story has been over for them for decades.
The Titanic had long settled on the bottom of the Atlantic, the problem with exposure to gas during the war had mostly died out, and America's 'Teddy Bear' was but lore and history. That day would be of no danger to those whose day had already passed.
Young Cyril jumped into that swimming hole, and didn't come up for a while. It was the most dangerous day in the history of the world - at least from Cyril's perspective. It was a sad day for his family, but it wasn't anybody else's 'most dangerous day;' at least nobody in their family or sight.
In Chicago that day, a child got caught up in some cross-fire. No one was aiming at her; it just happened for no rhyme or reason. In Kansas, a father misjudged the speed of the train, and he, his wife, and their four children are all killed at the intersection. In London, a lamp is tipped over, and three children die in the resultant fire.
The lineage ends for those children, and, in Kansas, for the parents, too.
In many other places, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers.
The lineage continued.
Today, families gathered to pay final respects to great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, who were only babies on the world's most dangerous day for Cyril; the day they were taken to the funeral so their parents could pay their final respects to their grandparents.
Today, there are no families to gather for those children who died that hot August afternoon in North Dakota.
The story has been over for them for decades.
Edison's Voice Machine
Edison not only determined how to convert electrical particles into superior light particles, he also did amazing things with sound. He figured out how to record what was said, which had always been accomplished through writing, and play it back to create 'new sound waves' that were actually 'replications of past sound waves.'
I've heard that Edison, at the time of his death, was working on an invention with which he could 'record Jesus.'
It is not logical that he was trying to 'go back in time' lest his research would have been on materials to withstand friction. He also lived before Einstein, so he wouldn't have known how Einstein defined time.
So, 'if Edison thought he could record Jesus,' it makes more sense that he thought 'he could go out and retrieve it as a sound wave.' Edison had to understand gravity, so what would make him believe that he could 'find the words of Jesus amongst the mass of noise, especially the words other people have spoken?'
It is logical, then, that he believed the waves that are 'commonly spoken' would 'amass,' 'creating physical weight or gravity.' That which is 'uncommonly spoken,' would amass only with that which others have 'uncommonly spoken,' thus having little physical mass, and, consequently, drawing no matter to it and so small as to create weight to attract it to larger masses.
First, was Edison really working on such a machine?
I've heard that Edison, at the time of his death, was working on an invention with which he could 'record Jesus.'
It is not logical that he was trying to 'go back in time' lest his research would have been on materials to withstand friction. He also lived before Einstein, so he wouldn't have known how Einstein defined time.
So, 'if Edison thought he could record Jesus,' it makes more sense that he thought 'he could go out and retrieve it as a sound wave.' Edison had to understand gravity, so what would make him believe that he could 'find the words of Jesus amongst the mass of noise, especially the words other people have spoken?'
It is logical, then, that he believed the waves that are 'commonly spoken' would 'amass,' 'creating physical weight or gravity.' That which is 'uncommonly spoken,' would amass only with that which others have 'uncommonly spoken,' thus having little physical mass, and, consequently, drawing no matter to it and so small as to create weight to attract it to larger masses.
First, was Edison really working on such a machine?
The Quantum Leap
Einstein said, 'reality is an illusion - albeit a very persistent one.'
The quantum leap is a phenomenon that occurs with some, maybe all, sub-atomic particles. (A light particle is an example of something that is sub-atomic.)
It has been observed that, at least some (my lack of research, not that others don't already know), sub-atomic particles 'appear to be one place at one moment,' and 'then another place at the next moment,' 'with no lapse in time.'
Simple. It's moving there 'at the speed of light.' No time lapses to us, but it actually 'aged' 'relative to the time it took to get there.' 'If it actually took no time,' 'then its age remains relative' to 'how much we aged in no time.'
Since we see this phenomenon occur as 'the light was here at one moment' and 'there the next moment' with 'no lapse in time,' we presume that the second event happened 'later in time.'
I can think of two phemomenna that may be actually happening if these particles are really 'moving faster than the speed of light.'
1. There may be fewer of these particles than we believe exist because the same particle may actually give 'an illusion' that 'there are many of these particles,' though 'it is really just the same particle in different places at the same time.'
2. The second event actually occurred first, and the particle actually is 'aging in reverse to time.' As such, 'when we see that the particle is created,' 'we are actually seeing its death.' Paradoxically, 'that which we see as its demise,' 'would actually be its creation.'
Please Mr. Einstein, is the relative heat presence factor increasing or decreasing?!
The quantum leap is a phenomenon that occurs with some, maybe all, sub-atomic particles. (A light particle is an example of something that is sub-atomic.)
It has been observed that, at least some (my lack of research, not that others don't already know), sub-atomic particles 'appear to be one place at one moment,' and 'then another place at the next moment,' 'with no lapse in time.'
Simple. It's moving there 'at the speed of light.' No time lapses to us, but it actually 'aged' 'relative to the time it took to get there.' 'If it actually took no time,' 'then its age remains relative' to 'how much we aged in no time.'
Since we see this phenomenon occur as 'the light was here at one moment' and 'there the next moment' with 'no lapse in time,' we presume that the second event happened 'later in time.'
I can think of two phemomenna that may be actually happening if these particles are really 'moving faster than the speed of light.'
1. There may be fewer of these particles than we believe exist because the same particle may actually give 'an illusion' that 'there are many of these particles,' though 'it is really just the same particle in different places at the same time.'
2. The second event actually occurred first, and the particle actually is 'aging in reverse to time.' As such, 'when we see that the particle is created,' 'we are actually seeing its death.' Paradoxically, 'that which we see as its demise,' 'would actually be its creation.'
Please Mr. Einstein, is the relative heat presence factor increasing or decreasing?!
Magnetism
Magnetism is a physical force in which ions within a mass are super-actively moving from the positive pole to seek the negative pole. We can extend a magnet by placing the positive pole to the negative pole of another magnet. Though physically two magnets, the ionic movement flows from the positive pole of the first magnet, and seeks the negative pole of the second magnet, as if it were one mass. The strength of the 'magnetic field,' then, is calculated on the 'number of ions relative to the mass which comprises that which is magnetized.' If the second magnet is the same size, but has a greater number of ions, then its addition to mass containing fewer ions, will 'increase the power of the magnetic field,' and the 'new magnet' will be 'stronger than the weaker, first magnet, but weaker than the stronger, second magnet.'
Once in the 'magnetic field,' it seems logical to me that the magnet would then 'bear the physical weight of the attracted mass' 'in relative proportion' 'to the density of ionic content in that which it attracts,' and 'to the distance between the source of magnetism and that which is attracted to it.'
Let's get into sub-atomic particles.
Once in the 'magnetic field,' it seems logical to me that the magnet would then 'bear the physical weight of the attracted mass' 'in relative proportion' 'to the density of ionic content in that which it attracts,' and 'to the distance between the source of magnetism and that which is attracted to it.'
Let's get into sub-atomic particles.
So, If One Object is Larger Than Another Object . . .
. . . will the larger object always have more gravity than the smaller object?
Not necessarily. Gravity is based on the 'mass' of the object. The mass of an object is created not only by an object's size (area), but also by its density. For example, a bowling ball has more mass than a balloon the same size because a bowling ball has more density than a balloon.
How does an object's mass work within another object's gravity? It becomes weight.
'When two objects the same size,' 'but with different densities,' 'are both subject to the gravity of a third object,' 'the one that is more massive' 'will weigh more.'
The differences in densities, and therefore the 'relative weight,' causes air to float above the more massive water, and water to float above the more massive minerals.
Not necessarily. Gravity is based on the 'mass' of the object. The mass of an object is created not only by an object's size (area), but also by its density. For example, a bowling ball has more mass than a balloon the same size because a bowling ball has more density than a balloon.
How does an object's mass work within another object's gravity? It becomes weight.
'When two objects the same size,' 'but with different densities,' 'are both subject to the gravity of a third object,' 'the one that is more massive' 'will weigh more.'
The differences in densities, and therefore the 'relative weight,' causes air to float above the more massive water, and water to float above the more massive minerals.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Vacuum
Because the physical force of vacuum is applied to a common household cleaning utensil, most people think vacuum is 'something that creates suction.' It isn't and doesn't.
Vacuum is 'space without air.' A vacuum cleaner does not 'suck air in.' It creates uneven air pressure by removing air from a canister. Air, then, rushes in through an orifice to fill 'the void of air in the canister.' The air entering the canister is not pulled in; it is actually pushed in by the air behind it.
A more common household item that uses vacuum is the light bulb. Inside the bulb of glass, there is no air. It is essential that there be no oxygen around the filament, because, otherwise, we would have all the necessary elements for 'fire' (ignition, fuel, and oxygen), and the filament (fuel) would last about as long as someone holding the string of a kite if the kite is struck by lightning. When a light bulb breaks, it does not 'explode;' rather, it 'implodes.'
The largest vacuum that is visible to the human eye is in the sky just beyond the atmosphere, a.k.a. space or outer space.
So, why doesn't the air in Earth's atmosphere rush to fill that vast void?
It tries, but the Earth's gravity pulls air particles toward the center of Earth against the vacuum of space. The air within the gravitational pull creates the atmosphere.
That's how powerful gravity is.
Vacuum is 'space without air.' A vacuum cleaner does not 'suck air in.' It creates uneven air pressure by removing air from a canister. Air, then, rushes in through an orifice to fill 'the void of air in the canister.' The air entering the canister is not pulled in; it is actually pushed in by the air behind it.
A more common household item that uses vacuum is the light bulb. Inside the bulb of glass, there is no air. It is essential that there be no oxygen around the filament, because, otherwise, we would have all the necessary elements for 'fire' (ignition, fuel, and oxygen), and the filament (fuel) would last about as long as someone holding the string of a kite if the kite is struck by lightning. When a light bulb breaks, it does not 'explode;' rather, it 'implodes.'
The largest vacuum that is visible to the human eye is in the sky just beyond the atmosphere, a.k.a. space or outer space.
So, why doesn't the air in Earth's atmosphere rush to fill that vast void?
It tries, but the Earth's gravity pulls air particles toward the center of Earth against the vacuum of space. The air within the gravitational pull creates the atmosphere.
That's how powerful gravity is.
Ladies, It's Been Out of My Control
I'm aware that mothers are far more important than fathers.
I'm aware that the matriarchal concept of Mother Nature makes much more sense than the patriarchal concept of God as to the birth of life.
I'm aware that the person deserving the most gravity in my lifetime has been Mother Teresa.
Thank you for exercising that extraordinary gift of patience, which God so wisely thought to give you, while I rambled about those from the least important gender. I'm just following where my thoughts lead as my thoughts lead me there.
Women: you can't live without them for women are the source of life.
I'm aware that the matriarchal concept of Mother Nature makes much more sense than the patriarchal concept of God as to the birth of life.
I'm aware that the person deserving the most gravity in my lifetime has been Mother Teresa.
Thank you for exercising that extraordinary gift of patience, which God so wisely thought to give you, while I rambled about those from the least important gender. I'm just following where my thoughts lead as my thoughts lead me there.
Women: you can't live without them for women are the source of life.
An Interesting Paradoxy
Had Robert E. Lee accepted Lincoln's offer to lead the union, there would likely have been much less blood shed during the war. Lee's strategic genius allowed an inferior army from a land with little industry and vulnerable resources drag the war on for four years, and the death toll to over a half-million people.
Robert E. Lee is also misunderstood. Those of 'southern white heritage' often demonstrate their 'disgust with Dr. King's holiday' by declaring it 'Robert E. Lee day.'
Anyway, when Robert E. Lee finally surrendered, he also promised to live with the terms of that surrender.
One Sunday shortly after that, a black man had the audacity to leave the seats in the back of the church reserved for the lesser people, and was the first to arrive at the altar to kneel and receive communion. No one knew what to do, not even the minister; this was not to happen, but it was in a church. They couldn't lynch him there, for God's sake.
A white man broke the awkward silence by standing, walking forward, and kneeling next to the black man so he would be the second to receive communion that day. Soon, the congregation followed Robert E. Lee's lead, knelt, and took communion as a united congregation.
So, while most of America celebrates the memory of a black man who would walk with white people for the cause of equality, some prefer to celebrate a white man who would take communion with black people for the cause of unity!
We should all be so principled as General Lee and Dr. King to demonstrate, as leaders, that which we espouse.
Robert E. Lee is also misunderstood. Those of 'southern white heritage' often demonstrate their 'disgust with Dr. King's holiday' by declaring it 'Robert E. Lee day.'
Anyway, when Robert E. Lee finally surrendered, he also promised to live with the terms of that surrender.
One Sunday shortly after that, a black man had the audacity to leave the seats in the back of the church reserved for the lesser people, and was the first to arrive at the altar to kneel and receive communion. No one knew what to do, not even the minister; this was not to happen, but it was in a church. They couldn't lynch him there, for God's sake.
A white man broke the awkward silence by standing, walking forward, and kneeling next to the black man so he would be the second to receive communion that day. Soon, the congregation followed Robert E. Lee's lead, knelt, and took communion as a united congregation.
So, while most of America celebrates the memory of a black man who would walk with white people for the cause of equality, some prefer to celebrate a white man who would take communion with black people for the cause of unity!
We should all be so principled as General Lee and Dr. King to demonstrate, as leaders, that which we espouse.
Abraham Lincoln: A Life and Death of Conflict
The climb to President was not an easy journey for Honest Abe, but he was a tremendously determined and hard working man. From the humblest of beginnings, Lincoln just started learning. He worked hard at it, and became a lawyer. His political career was mixed with success and failure.
What we must factor into the myths we learned in school about Mr. Lincoln is that he did not like slavery, but he also regarded black people as less than equal to white people.
This is evident in the text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates: "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Another factor about Lincoln's e=mc2 as President, is that he succeeded James Buchanan who succeeded Franklin Pierce. Pierce and Buchanan are so lowly regarded as Presidents that many historians consider William Henry Harrison to have been a better President. (Harrison gave his inaugural speech, went to bed sick, and died three weeks later.) The country was in tremendous turmoil, and the masses had gathered at the ends.
His marriage lacked harmony. His brothers-in-law lived in the south. He lost children to illness. The greatest general in the land turned down his offer to lead the union so he could lead the southern forces against him. The tremendous internal pressure was added to by outside threats.
Nothing was easy for Lincoln, and yet he kept a 'divided nation whole.'
Then, about a week later, he was killed while taking a moment to relax.
Even his death was confliction.
Lincoln defied gravity his entire life through his dedication, hard work, and constant thirst to learn and understand. Life returned to him some of the most complex problems any President has ever had the misfortune to face, and the complexity was constant.
Even today, many people consider Abraham Lincoln to have been our greatest President, but, to some who choose to view him from a different perspective, he is regarded as the worst. Either way, he's at the 'lineal end' one way or the other, which is tremendous conflict.
During his entire Presidency, there was less than a month of 'no war,' and even that was not anywhere near 'peace;' more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other war, perhaps any other two wars; the country was in conflict when he entered office, and it was in conflict when he died in office. Despite all that, he still defies gravity and rises to the top of the list of those who have ever served the office.
When one ponders how differently things may have ended about four score years later had the wholeness in division not been maintained, one might better appreciate how much Lincoln means to humankind even today, even if he didn't regard black people as his equal.
Oh well, nobody's perfect.
What we must factor into the myths we learned in school about Mr. Lincoln is that he did not like slavery, but he also regarded black people as less than equal to white people.
This is evident in the text of the Lincoln-Douglas debates: "I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man."
Another factor about Lincoln's e=mc2 as President, is that he succeeded James Buchanan who succeeded Franklin Pierce. Pierce and Buchanan are so lowly regarded as Presidents that many historians consider William Henry Harrison to have been a better President. (Harrison gave his inaugural speech, went to bed sick, and died three weeks later.) The country was in tremendous turmoil, and the masses had gathered at the ends.
His marriage lacked harmony. His brothers-in-law lived in the south. He lost children to illness. The greatest general in the land turned down his offer to lead the union so he could lead the southern forces against him. The tremendous internal pressure was added to by outside threats.
Nothing was easy for Lincoln, and yet he kept a 'divided nation whole.'
Then, about a week later, he was killed while taking a moment to relax.
Even his death was confliction.
Lincoln defied gravity his entire life through his dedication, hard work, and constant thirst to learn and understand. Life returned to him some of the most complex problems any President has ever had the misfortune to face, and the complexity was constant.
Even today, many people consider Abraham Lincoln to have been our greatest President, but, to some who choose to view him from a different perspective, he is regarded as the worst. Either way, he's at the 'lineal end' one way or the other, which is tremendous conflict.
During his entire Presidency, there was less than a month of 'no war,' and even that was not anywhere near 'peace;' more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other war, perhaps any other two wars; the country was in conflict when he entered office, and it was in conflict when he died in office. Despite all that, he still defies gravity and rises to the top of the list of those who have ever served the office.
When one ponders how differently things may have ended about four score years later had the wholeness in division not been maintained, one might better appreciate how much Lincoln means to humankind even today, even if he didn't regard black people as his equal.
Oh well, nobody's perfect.
The Honorable Thurgood Marshall: Working the System
In my opinion, Abraham Lincoln gets way too much credit for freeing black people from slavery. Slavery existed because economic necessity made the notion of one human owning other humans 'common sense.' Slavery was becoming 'economically unnecessary' with Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, and the onslaught of other machinery that 'could do the work of many men.'
As industry progressed, owning slaves started becoming economically unfeasible. Liberia was purchased, so unnecessary slaves could be dumped off in a homeland foreign to them, when Lincoln was just a child.
All black men got after the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, if you prefer) was forty acres and a mule; black women didn't get that much. Black people didn't get rights, educational opportunities, or even a fair shake in business. They would, with thier 'newfound wealth and freedom,' combine their land, build a bunch of shacks on part of the new whole, and live as sharecroppers, because that was the only way the knew how to live here. Believe me, this was better for the 'white economy' because 'white society didn't even have to care if they lived or died' like it did when it needed slave labor the next day.
When you do the math, the freed blacks were better off as slaves! They not only didn't gain anything by being freed, they actually lost social status!
For many decades to come, blacks were lynched for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the right time (or the right place at the wrong time). They were relegated to a status of 'separate but equal,' but nothing was really equal; even in the north where they were more accepted, they had the status of 'integrated but not in white neighborhoods.'
'There was no true justice' until . . . (enter Thurgood Marshall).
To say Thurgood Marshall was the most significant black person in the 20th century does not give him sufficient gravity. Thurgood Marshall is one of the most significant people in American history.
'One argument from Thurgood Marshall' rocketed education for blacks to unbelievable new heights, and educational opportunities for blacks has never stopped accelerating since his argument. Imagine that in physical concept. Now consider the 'exponential benefit' of 'adding that ascending level of knowledge' to the 'whole of knowledge.'
Thurgood Marshall did not just help black people get equal opportunity in education. 'His one argument' will benefit 'all of humankind' 'from that point forever.' (Math works like that.)
Regardless of whatever motive he may have had, Lynden Johnson's greatest decision as President was to nominate The Honorable Thurgood Marshall for the 'highest court in the land.'
Thomas Edison, given better resources and tools, failed 10,000 times before shedding his light on the world; Thurgood Marshall shed the light of justice on his country, and the light of education on the world, with one argument. He should probably be given similar gravity as Edison.
As industry progressed, owning slaves started becoming economically unfeasible. Liberia was purchased, so unnecessary slaves could be dumped off in a homeland foreign to them, when Lincoln was just a child.
All black men got after the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression, if you prefer) was forty acres and a mule; black women didn't get that much. Black people didn't get rights, educational opportunities, or even a fair shake in business. They would, with thier 'newfound wealth and freedom,' combine their land, build a bunch of shacks on part of the new whole, and live as sharecroppers, because that was the only way the knew how to live here. Believe me, this was better for the 'white economy' because 'white society didn't even have to care if they lived or died' like it did when it needed slave labor the next day.
When you do the math, the freed blacks were better off as slaves! They not only didn't gain anything by being freed, they actually lost social status!
For many decades to come, blacks were lynched for the crime of being black in the wrong place at the right time (or the right place at the wrong time). They were relegated to a status of 'separate but equal,' but nothing was really equal; even in the north where they were more accepted, they had the status of 'integrated but not in white neighborhoods.'
'There was no true justice' until . . . (enter Thurgood Marshall).
To say Thurgood Marshall was the most significant black person in the 20th century does not give him sufficient gravity. Thurgood Marshall is one of the most significant people in American history.
'One argument from Thurgood Marshall' rocketed education for blacks to unbelievable new heights, and educational opportunities for blacks has never stopped accelerating since his argument. Imagine that in physical concept. Now consider the 'exponential benefit' of 'adding that ascending level of knowledge' to the 'whole of knowledge.'
Thurgood Marshall did not just help black people get equal opportunity in education. 'His one argument' will benefit 'all of humankind' 'from that point forever.' (Math works like that.)
Regardless of whatever motive he may have had, Lynden Johnson's greatest decision as President was to nominate The Honorable Thurgood Marshall for the 'highest court in the land.'
Thomas Edison, given better resources and tools, failed 10,000 times before shedding his light on the world; Thurgood Marshall shed the light of justice on his country, and the light of education on the world, with one argument. He should probably be given similar gravity as Edison.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Fighting Peacefully and Dreaming Aloud
Dr. King is lauded as the most significant civil rights leader of his era, and very rightfully so. Dr. King sought equality for all. His e=mc2 and race lent nicely with the civil rights movement for our black sisters and brothers, but he led 'anyone willing to walk with him,' much like Jesus, for the cause of 'equality for all.' Also similar to Jesus, those who sought to silence him gave him the added immortality of martyrdom. Unlike Jesus, though, we get to hear what Dr. King really said, not what others said he said, in his own beautiful and resonating voice.
His dream is both beautiful and timeless. The 'vision' he gave us with 'his dream' is one we all ought to see and strive for.
There is no more need for additional commentary from me on Dr. King's dream. He said it himself:
I Have A Dream
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
---------------------------------------
ed. note: Dr. King gave this famous speech on August 28, 1963, the hundredth anniversary of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 1964 would be the the first Presidential election in which black people in every state had the right to vote. Dr. King would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, also in 1964.
His dream is both beautiful and timeless. The 'vision' he gave us with 'his dream' is one we all ought to see and strive for.
There is no more need for additional commentary from me on Dr. King's dream. He said it himself:
I Have A Dream
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.
But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.
As we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied, as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.
I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair.
I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.
This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.
This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."
And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!
Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!
But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when this happens, When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
---------------------------------------
ed. note: Dr. King gave this famous speech on August 28, 1963, the hundredth anniversary of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. 1964 would be the the first Presidential election in which black people in every state had the right to vote. Dr. King would be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, also in 1964.
So, If the Universe is Expanding . . .
. . . wouldn't it have to be created, or at least begin, at some point?
That seems logical.
So, why wouldn't that be the beginning of time?
Because time already existed, it has always existed, and it never began. It's bigger than the universe. It affects whatever is beyond the edge of the universe, and whatever is beyond that.
If you can't imagine that, then you're starting to 'get a picture' of infinity.
That seems logical.
So, why wouldn't that be the beginning of time?
Because time already existed, it has always existed, and it never began. It's bigger than the universe. It affects whatever is beyond the edge of the universe, and whatever is beyond that.
If you can't imagine that, then you're starting to 'get a picture' of infinity.
My Guess at the Number One Cause of Death Today
My guess is live birth.
I'll almost certainly be wrong if Wyoming erupts today.
I'll almost certainly be wrong if Wyoming erupts today.
Nostalgia Isn't What It Used To Be
I wish I could take credit for this profound statement; almost, but not as much, I wish I knew who to credit for it. That adds up to, I wish I could take credit for the profound thought, and, but less importantly, to know who I would have stolen it from.
Back to the topic: nostalgia is something that has the integrity of a daydream, but is limited only to 'reflection/dream/recollection of the past in which negative lights/thoughts/facts are subtracted from the reflection/dream/recollection resulting in a reflection/dream/recollection that eliminates peripheral and precipitant events that would make the reflection/dream/recollection more historically accurate.'
The phenomenon of thought that this evokes in us is that 'the world used to be safer than it is today.' It isn't, nor is it safer today. It's just different because of time. The ultimate consequence of danger is death. If you are lucky enough to survive 'the dangers of the time in which you live,' you are entreated to dying naturally.
It has always been that way, and, as far as I can imagine/see into the future, it always will be.
What gives us the 'appearance' or 'illusion' 'that time was safer than this time' is merely that we survived that time, and, at some time, we won't survive 'this time.' Time will keep going, and people will, in the future, long for the days when we sent our young to faraway lands to die unnaturally trying to find and kill those who would cause us to die unnaturally believing 'we have the might so that makes it right,' just as we do today, and just as humankind has always done.
We may reflect nostaligically on the 1950s by removing the Cold War from the periphery and WWII as a 'precipatory/causal event.' That we may have survived doesn't mean we didn't go through 'atom bomb drills.' The 1950s would have been different had so many people in the early to mid 1940s not receive notice that their sons wouldn't be needing jobs and houses in the 1950s, and whatever children they may have had would not be born.
One day, if 'I' don't get the natural death that life promises me first, the world will be 'too dangerous for me to live in,' and 'I will be killed.' To me, personally, 'that will be the most dangerous day there ever has been or ever will be.' Maybe one of my last thoughts will be a nostalgic longing for the days that were the most dangerous days for other people, but not me.
Back to the topic: nostalgia is something that has the integrity of a daydream, but is limited only to 'reflection/dream/recollection of the past in which negative lights/thoughts/facts are subtracted from the reflection/dream/recollection resulting in a reflection/dream/recollection that eliminates peripheral and precipitant events that would make the reflection/dream/recollection more historically accurate.'
The phenomenon of thought that this evokes in us is that 'the world used to be safer than it is today.' It isn't, nor is it safer today. It's just different because of time. The ultimate consequence of danger is death. If you are lucky enough to survive 'the dangers of the time in which you live,' you are entreated to dying naturally.
It has always been that way, and, as far as I can imagine/see into the future, it always will be.
What gives us the 'appearance' or 'illusion' 'that time was safer than this time' is merely that we survived that time, and, at some time, we won't survive 'this time.' Time will keep going, and people will, in the future, long for the days when we sent our young to faraway lands to die unnaturally trying to find and kill those who would cause us to die unnaturally believing 'we have the might so that makes it right,' just as we do today, and just as humankind has always done.
We may reflect nostaligically on the 1950s by removing the Cold War from the periphery and WWII as a 'precipatory/causal event.' That we may have survived doesn't mean we didn't go through 'atom bomb drills.' The 1950s would have been different had so many people in the early to mid 1940s not receive notice that their sons wouldn't be needing jobs and houses in the 1950s, and whatever children they may have had would not be born.
One day, if 'I' don't get the natural death that life promises me first, the world will be 'too dangerous for me to live in,' and 'I will be killed.' To me, personally, 'that will be the most dangerous day there ever has been or ever will be.' Maybe one of my last thoughts will be a nostalgic longing for the days that were the most dangerous days for other people, but not me.
Let's Forget History so We Don't Have to Relive It
I was reading that the colored people over at that national association for their advancement want to bury the N-word. Then, I guess, we can all forget it ever existed, and get on with our current pursuit of treating Muslims, and people who look like they may be Muslims, like crap.
I wish I had more time for this, but I have go buy some more apples. The last bunch spoiled when I found a bad one.
Oh Ben, Go Fly a Kite
And he did. And he discovered electricity.
Yeah, sure.
Ben Franklin was an amazing person, but he really discovered a principle about lightning with that experiment. The finding was put to use in the form of an invention that makes life much safer in electrical storms. Since lightning is an electrical discharge, the discovery of the principles of 'the ground' and 'resistance' apply generally to electricity. His discovery of these 'principles of electricity' enabled us to make electricity safe and practical.
First, let's consider the historical aspect of the story. Ben Franklin tied a 'key' to a string of a kite. In today's language, we think of a 'key' as something that operates a lock. It's more likely, considering the e=mc2 that it was 'the key to a gear mechanism,' or maybe the 'key to a wheel.'
What Franklin suspected and verified with that experiment was that 'lightning will seek the ground through the highest point, in its proximity, that it can strike to reach the ground with the least reistance.'
Folks, if you want to try this at home, bury the key, and DO NOT - REPEAT: DO NOT - hold the string (or light wire). You will become the least resistant course for at least some of the electricity! (If you don't bury the key, you will be 'the course of least resistance.')
An easier way to see this concept work is to watch lightning strike a lightning rod. That was what Franklin used the experiment to invent.
Yeah, sure.
Ben Franklin was an amazing person, but he really discovered a principle about lightning with that experiment. The finding was put to use in the form of an invention that makes life much safer in electrical storms. Since lightning is an electrical discharge, the discovery of the principles of 'the ground' and 'resistance' apply generally to electricity. His discovery of these 'principles of electricity' enabled us to make electricity safe and practical.
First, let's consider the historical aspect of the story. Ben Franklin tied a 'key' to a string of a kite. In today's language, we think of a 'key' as something that operates a lock. It's more likely, considering the e=mc2 that it was 'the key to a gear mechanism,' or maybe the 'key to a wheel.'
What Franklin suspected and verified with that experiment was that 'lightning will seek the ground through the highest point, in its proximity, that it can strike to reach the ground with the least reistance.'
Folks, if you want to try this at home, bury the key, and DO NOT - REPEAT: DO NOT - hold the string (or light wire). You will become the least resistant course for at least some of the electricity! (If you don't bury the key, you will be 'the course of least resistance.')
An easier way to see this concept work is to watch lightning strike a lightning rod. That was what Franklin used the experiment to invent.
From Darwin to Franklin: a Coincidental Segue
I was supping at my sister's house for the 4th. She told me about a Darwin Award candidate. The story is some electrician wanted to try Ben Franklin's kite experiment for himself. He didn't think it through.
Some Conceptual Thoughts From Steven Wright
"Black holes are where God divided by zero."
"It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it."
"There is a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot."
"It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it."
"There is a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot."
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Something Else About Infinity
The concept of infinite sets is mind boggling. A demonstration of how an infinite set would accommodate an infinite subset was illustrated as 'The Grand Hotel.' In the illustration, a hotel with an infinite number of rooms receives an infinite number of guests. The author uses room numbers, and seat assignments in the endless number of carriages, each with an endless number of seats, arriving to drop off the endless number of visitors, in logical combination, to demonstrate how one might continually move guests who already have assigned rooms so the lower numbered rooms can be filled by the never-ending line of guests. Of course, the hotel will never run out of room despite that it is also always full.
That seems like it would take a lot of time. Though you get to see the numbers growing in the concept, it seems like it would be more efficient to just send the first guest as they continue never beginning arriving down the endless hall to the final room that will never exist. Of course, you'd probably want to start building the hotel at that end, so the first room that was passed will never really exist, but, by the time it's needed, the workmen will never have arrived at the other end to even begin the project.
It would save a lot of money on labor and construction, plus you'd save all the time wasted shifting rooms and assigning numbers.
When you consider only the time saved 'not counting,' which too would be infinite, it would make no difference in how much time is left as there would still be an infinite amount left regardless if an infinite amount of it is subtracted, nor would it make any difference if an infinite amount is added, to it.
The point is, regardless of how you do it, you're only going to make what you collect upon arrival. That HAS TO BE considered in the business plan!
That seems like it would take a lot of time. Though you get to see the numbers growing in the concept, it seems like it would be more efficient to just send the first guest as they continue never beginning arriving down the endless hall to the final room that will never exist. Of course, you'd probably want to start building the hotel at that end, so the first room that was passed will never really exist, but, by the time it's needed, the workmen will never have arrived at the other end to even begin the project.
It would save a lot of money on labor and construction, plus you'd save all the time wasted shifting rooms and assigning numbers.
When you consider only the time saved 'not counting,' which too would be infinite, it would make no difference in how much time is left as there would still be an infinite amount left regardless if an infinite amount of it is subtracted, nor would it make any difference if an infinite amount is added, to it.
The point is, regardless of how you do it, you're only going to make what you collect upon arrival. That HAS TO BE considered in the business plan!
The Evolution of Darwin's Belief in God
Darwin was raised in an environment of Unitarian beliefs of his mother. His father also was publicly Unitarian, but really was a freethinker. The Unitarian concept of God differs slightly from the Judea-Christianity concept of God in that the former believe God is just God, while the latter believe God is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (the Holy trinity). Unitarian belief holds that Jesus Christ was a prophet, and not the Messiah.
In a seeming paradox to van Gogh, who wanted to be accepted by the church but wasn't, Darwin excelled at Theology in secondary school, and was embraced by the leaders of the church. His father's frustration, also paradoxical to van Gogh's father's frustration, was that young Charles wanted to go beyond the church. After achieving the credentials necessary to stop and earn his living, he kept going on with his studies in the natural sciences.
He assisted on a couple of voyages to South America to chart land and study animals and plants. One of those trips was a five-year journey aboard 'The Beagle.' It was on this journey that Darwin's eventual natural selection model began. He found fossils of sea life in the mountainous regions. He found fossils that resembled current animals, but were different in size or some features. He noticed that similar types of animals had different characteristics or features seemingly based only on the region they live in.
Darwin, at this point, still believed in monotheism, but he must have started realizing that the 'concept of God' worked 'mysteriously differently' than what was common belief, and certainly not how the Bible says it happened. He recognized this, and worked diligently to prove neither theory was totally correct. He found and cited anomoles that conflicted with the wholly natural 'we lose that which we don't use' theory of evolution, which atheists contended proved there was no God. He cited 'beautiful and colorful fish' in the oceans that seemed to serve no wholly natural purpose for being kept 'out of sight.'
At some point, he may even have thought 'this is all created by time.'
As he aged, and his findings began morphing into mathematically sound theory, and very conscious that he had found truths in what were commonly regarded as theories of atheists, he went to great lengths to devise counter-arguments both for those who believe in God and would consider it blasphemous, and for those who were sure to claim this proved there is no God.
His own prejudice, at least by considering his childhood environment, was that there was a God, but not in the conventional Judea-Christianity concept of God. He struggled to find the truth, but the truth just kept getting older and older and older . . . kind of like if one were to search for the origins of infinity.
Darwin was very successful and very busy as a young man. He married when he was older than typical marrying age, and he married his cousin. He loved his wife dearly, but he also would tend to blame himself any time one of their children would become ill. He understood that by marrying his cousin, any condition common between he and his cousin, his children had, not twice, but squared the chance to acquire it.
When his ten year-old daughter died, he said, seemingly from nowhere, that he no longer believed in 'a beneficent God.' If you succumb to post hoc ergo propter hoc, you would conclude 'his daughter's death immediately and suddenly caused him to denounce God.' I think that's very highly unlikely. Things don't happen that way, but, rather, most often 'only appear to happen that way.'
After that, he declared that he was agnostic ([not understanding/inconclusive about] God), not atheistic (belief in no God).
Let's consider the 'series of events.'
We know that his prejudice was that there is a God, but with some environmental latitude to believe in God as a concept and not as 'The Man.' We know that he was the tenth best student in a class of 178, and Theology is what he did best in. We know that he passed up the opportunity, at that point, to earn a respectable living telling the world that The Bible is THE Word of God. We know that he was very careful in developing his natural selection theory 'so it would not be construed as evidence of no God.' We know that he found conflict in the 'totally natural theory' when he put forth effort to locate it. We know it bothered his conscience that he had given his children exponential odds at acquiring any negative family trait common between he and his wife. We know his child died, and he declared his belief in 'no beneficent God.' We know he died agnostic in his religious belief.
This 'series of events' leads me to believe that the traumatic episode of the death of his daughter was really 'the last straw the camel's back could hold' before launching his long-developing belief that God is not 'The Man,' but, rather, that he just doesn't understand the concept of God (though I find it more likely that he really held his own concept, and didn't share it because of the scientific standards he would have expected himself to meet to prove his beliefs).
If you would contend that Darwin were truly an atheist, and only said he was agnostic because of his prejudice, then how would you be able to rely on his research if he were willing to lie to be popular?
It seems far more likely that he had been 'lying for popularity' up to the point of his daughter's death, and he really only disclosed that which he had 'developed belief in' at the point of the traumatic episode.
He didn't have Einstein's theories to work with, but he had 'uncommon sense' about time. To wit: he noticed that fossils of ancient land animals in the proximity of fossils of more modern sea life, in what was now mountainous regions. Just imagine finding something, and understanding that it really means 'everything we thought we knew is way bigger and way older than we've ever imagined.'
It was a tremendous load lofted onto the shoulders of one person to assimilate and dispense for the world to learn from. Instead of getting his 'just rewards,' he is mistakenly lauded to have proven there really is no God, and being equally, but oppositely, mistakenly chastised for being the 'father of Atheism.'
Simplicity made complicated with irrelevant and incorrect factors that lead to illogical conclusions: the suffering of Darwin.
In a seeming paradox to van Gogh, who wanted to be accepted by the church but wasn't, Darwin excelled at Theology in secondary school, and was embraced by the leaders of the church. His father's frustration, also paradoxical to van Gogh's father's frustration, was that young Charles wanted to go beyond the church. After achieving the credentials necessary to stop and earn his living, he kept going on with his studies in the natural sciences.
He assisted on a couple of voyages to South America to chart land and study animals and plants. One of those trips was a five-year journey aboard 'The Beagle.' It was on this journey that Darwin's eventual natural selection model began. He found fossils of sea life in the mountainous regions. He found fossils that resembled current animals, but were different in size or some features. He noticed that similar types of animals had different characteristics or features seemingly based only on the region they live in.
Darwin, at this point, still believed in monotheism, but he must have started realizing that the 'concept of God' worked 'mysteriously differently' than what was common belief, and certainly not how the Bible says it happened. He recognized this, and worked diligently to prove neither theory was totally correct. He found and cited anomoles that conflicted with the wholly natural 'we lose that which we don't use' theory of evolution, which atheists contended proved there was no God. He cited 'beautiful and colorful fish' in the oceans that seemed to serve no wholly natural purpose for being kept 'out of sight.'
At some point, he may even have thought 'this is all created by time.'
As he aged, and his findings began morphing into mathematically sound theory, and very conscious that he had found truths in what were commonly regarded as theories of atheists, he went to great lengths to devise counter-arguments both for those who believe in God and would consider it blasphemous, and for those who were sure to claim this proved there is no God.
His own prejudice, at least by considering his childhood environment, was that there was a God, but not in the conventional Judea-Christianity concept of God. He struggled to find the truth, but the truth just kept getting older and older and older . . . kind of like if one were to search for the origins of infinity.
Darwin was very successful and very busy as a young man. He married when he was older than typical marrying age, and he married his cousin. He loved his wife dearly, but he also would tend to blame himself any time one of their children would become ill. He understood that by marrying his cousin, any condition common between he and his cousin, his children had, not twice, but squared the chance to acquire it.
When his ten year-old daughter died, he said, seemingly from nowhere, that he no longer believed in 'a beneficent God.' If you succumb to post hoc ergo propter hoc, you would conclude 'his daughter's death immediately and suddenly caused him to denounce God.' I think that's very highly unlikely. Things don't happen that way, but, rather, most often 'only appear to happen that way.'
After that, he declared that he was agnostic ([not understanding/inconclusive about] God), not atheistic (belief in no God).
Let's consider the 'series of events.'
We know that his prejudice was that there is a God, but with some environmental latitude to believe in God as a concept and not as 'The Man.' We know that he was the tenth best student in a class of 178, and Theology is what he did best in. We know that he passed up the opportunity, at that point, to earn a respectable living telling the world that The Bible is THE Word of God. We know that he was very careful in developing his natural selection theory 'so it would not be construed as evidence of no God.' We know that he found conflict in the 'totally natural theory' when he put forth effort to locate it. We know it bothered his conscience that he had given his children exponential odds at acquiring any negative family trait common between he and his wife. We know his child died, and he declared his belief in 'no beneficent God.' We know he died agnostic in his religious belief.
This 'series of events' leads me to believe that the traumatic episode of the death of his daughter was really 'the last straw the camel's back could hold' before launching his long-developing belief that God is not 'The Man,' but, rather, that he just doesn't understand the concept of God (though I find it more likely that he really held his own concept, and didn't share it because of the scientific standards he would have expected himself to meet to prove his beliefs).
If you would contend that Darwin were truly an atheist, and only said he was agnostic because of his prejudice, then how would you be able to rely on his research if he were willing to lie to be popular?
It seems far more likely that he had been 'lying for popularity' up to the point of his daughter's death, and he really only disclosed that which he had 'developed belief in' at the point of the traumatic episode.
He didn't have Einstein's theories to work with, but he had 'uncommon sense' about time. To wit: he noticed that fossils of ancient land animals in the proximity of fossils of more modern sea life, in what was now mountainous regions. Just imagine finding something, and understanding that it really means 'everything we thought we knew is way bigger and way older than we've ever imagined.'
It was a tremendous load lofted onto the shoulders of one person to assimilate and dispense for the world to learn from. Instead of getting his 'just rewards,' he is mistakenly lauded to have proven there really is no God, and being equally, but oppositely, mistakenly chastised for being the 'father of Atheism.'
Simplicity made complicated with irrelevant and incorrect factors that lead to illogical conclusions: the suffering of Darwin.
My Prejudices
Much of what I've studied about various religions is what my father led me to. My own personal experiences include a very short stint 'as a Buddhist,' my confession to the Pentacostals, and my subsequent thoughts about how it all relates.
I have never believed in atheism, but I consider myself now agnostic about God.
My problem with the 'religious concept of God' is that He seems to personify, and talk to people who conveniently have TV shows. I don't believe life or God works that way. On the other hand, I find tremendous correlation between the concept of God and the definition of time. THIS IS A SERIOUS PREJUDICE. If it is to be proven, it must be proven logically and mathematically.
I must keep in mind that my task is not to answer the ultimate question, but to further that which is known.
The world is physical, but what is known about physics is not complete. It is, considering how time works, just in its infancy.
Why did the geniuses I mentioned come to mind? What was I to learn from that?
I encountered Hawking's theory on the evaporation of black holes. Even black holes seem to have logical balance and 'shelf life.'
Besides time and God, what else is defined as 'infinity?'
Because of my prejudice that souls exist, I must give additional consideration to concepts that explain that no soul exists.
Darwin is the starting point.
I have never believed in atheism, but I consider myself now agnostic about God.
My problem with the 'religious concept of God' is that He seems to personify, and talk to people who conveniently have TV shows. I don't believe life or God works that way. On the other hand, I find tremendous correlation between the concept of God and the definition of time. THIS IS A SERIOUS PREJUDICE. If it is to be proven, it must be proven logically and mathematically.
I must keep in mind that my task is not to answer the ultimate question, but to further that which is known.
The world is physical, but what is known about physics is not complete. It is, considering how time works, just in its infancy.
Why did the geniuses I mentioned come to mind? What was I to learn from that?
I encountered Hawking's theory on the evaporation of black holes. Even black holes seem to have logical balance and 'shelf life.'
Besides time and God, what else is defined as 'infinity?'
Because of my prejudice that souls exist, I must give additional consideration to concepts that explain that no soul exists.
Darwin is the starting point.
Human Electricity
There are small atomic charges with the cells. These will die at the point of death known as cellular death, the final phase of human death. At this point, fingernails and hair stop growing, and there is no cellular growth. The body is fully into decomposition at this stage.
The antiquated thought of the point of death was when we stopped breathing and our hearts stopped beating. There is a cessation of another measurable human electricity, but those waves can be regained if restarted soon after the waves stop. It would stop oxygen flow to the brain, which would set off the natural survival instinct or will to survive.
Today we recognize the point of death to be the cessation of brain activity, which is also a measurable wave.
Chronilogically, most natural death, the exceptions being those who have artificial heart stimuli and respiratory aids, would likely occur in the order of heart/respiration, brain function, and, finally, cellular death.
Those are known electical impulses that eminate from within our physical structure. What about those charged particles that are around us. Is it possible that our 'forces' of magnetism and such actually tie some of the particles to us auch that our bodies would bear the weight of these particles?
For it to be a 'soul,' these particles would also need to be tied together somehow to form a mass so immense that its density has never been noticed.
The spectrum of light is so immense, and only a small portion of it is visible.
Atheists explain the 'illusion of light' as an interpretation of the ocular portion of the brain as brain cells die. If that is the case, then there should be a correlation between 'how much light is seen in an NDE' and the number of dead brain cells from the oxygen deprivation during the alleged NDE.
Another mathematically sound concept is that of traveling faster that the speed of light. It would, it seem, create the same illusion as one gets from the split lines in a freeway, in that the faster one goes, the less noticeable are the points that have no paint. The line doesn't 'disappear;' it 'appears to become a solid line.' If it were haphazard, one would occasionally notice the blank spots as the solid. It seems to be a constant factor in that scenario. Since light rays are waves, we would pass through the waves if on a plain. The light, no light, light, no light pattern would be very similar in design to the freeway line.
Another consideration is whether all lights within the spectrum travel at the 'speed of light,' or if the speed of light varies throughout the spectrum.
I need to google what has been researched on the correlation between the amount of light claimed to have been seen, and the number of victim brain cells.
The antiquated thought of the point of death was when we stopped breathing and our hearts stopped beating. There is a cessation of another measurable human electricity, but those waves can be regained if restarted soon after the waves stop. It would stop oxygen flow to the brain, which would set off the natural survival instinct or will to survive.
Today we recognize the point of death to be the cessation of brain activity, which is also a measurable wave.
Chronilogically, most natural death, the exceptions being those who have artificial heart stimuli and respiratory aids, would likely occur in the order of heart/respiration, brain function, and, finally, cellular death.
Those are known electical impulses that eminate from within our physical structure. What about those charged particles that are around us. Is it possible that our 'forces' of magnetism and such actually tie some of the particles to us auch that our bodies would bear the weight of these particles?
For it to be a 'soul,' these particles would also need to be tied together somehow to form a mass so immense that its density has never been noticed.
The spectrum of light is so immense, and only a small portion of it is visible.
Atheists explain the 'illusion of light' as an interpretation of the ocular portion of the brain as brain cells die. If that is the case, then there should be a correlation between 'how much light is seen in an NDE' and the number of dead brain cells from the oxygen deprivation during the alleged NDE.
Another mathematically sound concept is that of traveling faster that the speed of light. It would, it seem, create the same illusion as one gets from the split lines in a freeway, in that the faster one goes, the less noticeable are the points that have no paint. The line doesn't 'disappear;' it 'appears to become a solid line.' If it were haphazard, one would occasionally notice the blank spots as the solid. It seems to be a constant factor in that scenario. Since light rays are waves, we would pass through the waves if on a plain. The light, no light, light, no light pattern would be very similar in design to the freeway line.
Another consideration is whether all lights within the spectrum travel at the 'speed of light,' or if the speed of light varies throughout the spectrum.
I need to google what has been researched on the correlation between the amount of light claimed to have been seen, and the number of victim brain cells.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Is the Soul Physical?
Socrates talked of the soul, but it was Rene' Descartes who is credited with the theory that the 'mind is not physical,' and is a 'separate entity from the brain.' There are some physical problems with this theory, like how does 'non-matter' affect 'matter.' Well, there are all sorts of explanations that do everything but fail at one thing: the explanations don't answer the damn question.
This is where 'blind faith' in both polar religions needs to be dropped.
The scientist who conducted the inadequate and prejudicial tests for the loss of weight at death was Dr. Duncan MacDougall.
There is no question that MacDougall's work is not scientifically reliable, and he likely came up with an incorrect conclusion about animals not having souls because of the method of death. The soul in a euthanized animal would react more like a soul might in the case of a murder or accidental death. I believe that his prejudice that 'human life is more sacred than animal life' led him to accept that which could be explained differently to confirm his own prejudice.
Consider that the aural lights, the nervous system electricity, and other beliefs that involve real matter in conception are the physical particles, and that the weight of these particles is borne by the body to which they are attached.
The biggest issue I can see is that weight of the amount that Dr. MacDougal cited would be substantially greater than the small amount of electricity in the body. How much of it might be ionic that results in our magnetism? How far would we have to project light, magnetism, and electricity such that it isn't noticeably attached? How can that much energy leave at death and not be noticeable? Why are we not able to see the physical particles interact with the physical brain cells?
How would a fifth dimension work? Is light a dimension? Nothing is visible without it.
How do black holes work? Time to google.
This is where 'blind faith' in both polar religions needs to be dropped.
The scientist who conducted the inadequate and prejudicial tests for the loss of weight at death was Dr. Duncan MacDougall.
There is no question that MacDougall's work is not scientifically reliable, and he likely came up with an incorrect conclusion about animals not having souls because of the method of death. The soul in a euthanized animal would react more like a soul might in the case of a murder or accidental death. I believe that his prejudice that 'human life is more sacred than animal life' led him to accept that which could be explained differently to confirm his own prejudice.
Consider that the aural lights, the nervous system electricity, and other beliefs that involve real matter in conception are the physical particles, and that the weight of these particles is borne by the body to which they are attached.
The biggest issue I can see is that weight of the amount that Dr. MacDougal cited would be substantially greater than the small amount of electricity in the body. How much of it might be ionic that results in our magnetism? How far would we have to project light, magnetism, and electricity such that it isn't noticeably attached? How can that much energy leave at death and not be noticeable? Why are we not able to see the physical particles interact with the physical brain cells?
How would a fifth dimension work? Is light a dimension? Nothing is visible without it.
How do black holes work? Time to google.
Research on Eral Perspective
My search with the phrase 'eral perspective' turned up computer-related problems. Conceptually, a computer is most closely related to the brain when compared with human physiology.
'Eral Blindness' turned up physical ailments in the eyes of the elderly, notably cataracts and other conditions that 'block light' preventing full vision. Conceptually, if we block light, we lack color reflection. Consider that this condition is not a longing for no change, but really a longing for 'color in life.' It isn't that there isn't a colorful world out there, but, in its relatively dim light, it doesn't appear as colorful as the world once was.
A search with 'aging' and 'change in perspective' returned a fascinating article/editorial from 1989 by Irving Kenneth Zola entitled "Aging and Disability: Toward a Unified Agenda". It deals more with 'society's perspective' on aging and disability, but it's intriguing to me because it brings to light some factors that have really never before been relevant, but are relevant today, the most significant of which is 'one's own perceived purpose for living past previous life expectancies.' The conclusion of the conclusion is a 1964 quote from Erik Erikson: "Any span of the life cycle lived without vigorous meaning at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end endangers the sense of life and the meaning of death in all whose life stages are intertwined."
What I have so far: the phenomenon of the mind which I will call 'eral perspective,' may be the manifestation of a feeling of a loss of purpose combined with a loss of enlightenment one seeks, resulting in a seeming 'inability to see current reality.'
I need to paint a closet - mom's closet. She needs purpose and light.
No wonder her walls are always white, or close to white. No more complaints about white paint from me because now I see that white actually 'brightens her world,' which makes it more colorful.
'Eral Blindness' turned up physical ailments in the eyes of the elderly, notably cataracts and other conditions that 'block light' preventing full vision. Conceptually, if we block light, we lack color reflection. Consider that this condition is not a longing for no change, but really a longing for 'color in life.' It isn't that there isn't a colorful world out there, but, in its relatively dim light, it doesn't appear as colorful as the world once was.
A search with 'aging' and 'change in perspective' returned a fascinating article/editorial from 1989 by Irving Kenneth Zola entitled "Aging and Disability: Toward a Unified Agenda". It deals more with 'society's perspective' on aging and disability, but it's intriguing to me because it brings to light some factors that have really never before been relevant, but are relevant today, the most significant of which is 'one's own perceived purpose for living past previous life expectancies.' The conclusion of the conclusion is a 1964 quote from Erik Erikson: "Any span of the life cycle lived without vigorous meaning at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end endangers the sense of life and the meaning of death in all whose life stages are intertwined."
What I have so far: the phenomenon of the mind which I will call 'eral perspective,' may be the manifestation of a feeling of a loss of purpose combined with a loss of enlightenment one seeks, resulting in a seeming 'inability to see current reality.'
I need to paint a closet - mom's closet. She needs purpose and light.
No wonder her walls are always white, or close to white. No more complaints about white paint from me because now I see that white actually 'brightens her world,' which makes it more colorful.
Does Eral Perspective Distort Current Reality?
Define Eral Perspective: eral perspective, for this purpose, shall be the phenomenon that seems to frequently eminate from many people as they age that seems to blind them from accepting current reality as if time should not have progressed.
Nostalgia differs in that it is distorted reflection of the past, but, perhaps, part of 'eral perspective' lies in a distorted view of the past.
Mom seems to be affected by eral perspective. She often asks 'what's happening to the world today' as if it's worse today than during the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, the Korean War, presidential assasination, the Vietnam War, presidential resignation, out-of-control inflation, the Iranian hostage situation, discovering we're selling arms to terrorists to assist them in reigning terror, record deficit spending, and on and on . . .
Is she just more aware of problems in the world today because of the technological advances? That doesn't seem logical to me. We have what we have; they had what they had. They just had to gather their news from fewer sources, but to presume 'more sources' means 'more awareness' seems to have the flaw by presuming people read those 'more sources.'
Did she feel safer because there were older generations there to protect her? This seems much more likely to me. As children, we are insulated from the world's problems by our parents and grandparents. Our great-grandparents may still be alive, but they also need caring for; they are not effective for protection. We are critical of our parents as children, and commonly promise to not do what they do to our children.
Time progresses to the next generation. Our grandparents now need care, but our parents are still there to help protect us. We've gained some 'wisdom of experience,' and become parental. Our parents now rely on us to help protect those on the poles of life. Our children promise to not do to their children that which we do to them.
Time progresses to the next generation. Our parents, the only people who have always been there for us, now need help. Our children have their children to tend to. We've now been around long enough to realize that we are slipping into the generation that needs help. We start questioning why we must die, and wonder how we will die; really, we hope that we are the exception to death. That fear is added to 'current reality' in addition to everything else that has always happened. This may cause an exponential fear, or it may just be additional fear.
Mom is now in the generation that needs help again. Is she really longing for the world to be safer, or just to have the opportunity to do it again while she watches her great-grandchildren promise to not do to their children what her grandchildren do to them.
She has the wisdom that can only come from aging, that of experience or something closely related: it boils down to the 'wisdom gained from having been there.'
Similarly, Mrs. Hutchins seems unable to release the past to live in the current reality. She does things that made economic sense long ago, but doesn't make the same sense today.
Both desire something in common: no change.
Is it just the fear of death (growing old) that causes them to hang onto such things as old mayonaise jars and typewriters?
This is far too narrow, and far too subjective, to lead to any meaningful conclusion, but I need to watch for signs of this in myself and try to recognize signs of it in others.
I also need to google some combinations to see if others have noticed this type of blindness, and what they think it may be.
Nostalgia differs in that it is distorted reflection of the past, but, perhaps, part of 'eral perspective' lies in a distorted view of the past.
Mom seems to be affected by eral perspective. She often asks 'what's happening to the world today' as if it's worse today than during the Great Depression, WWII, the Cold War, the Korean War, presidential assasination, the Vietnam War, presidential resignation, out-of-control inflation, the Iranian hostage situation, discovering we're selling arms to terrorists to assist them in reigning terror, record deficit spending, and on and on . . .
Is she just more aware of problems in the world today because of the technological advances? That doesn't seem logical to me. We have what we have; they had what they had. They just had to gather their news from fewer sources, but to presume 'more sources' means 'more awareness' seems to have the flaw by presuming people read those 'more sources.'
Did she feel safer because there were older generations there to protect her? This seems much more likely to me. As children, we are insulated from the world's problems by our parents and grandparents. Our great-grandparents may still be alive, but they also need caring for; they are not effective for protection. We are critical of our parents as children, and commonly promise to not do what they do to our children.
Time progresses to the next generation. Our grandparents now need care, but our parents are still there to help protect us. We've gained some 'wisdom of experience,' and become parental. Our parents now rely on us to help protect those on the poles of life. Our children promise to not do to their children that which we do to them.
Time progresses to the next generation. Our parents, the only people who have always been there for us, now need help. Our children have their children to tend to. We've now been around long enough to realize that we are slipping into the generation that needs help. We start questioning why we must die, and wonder how we will die; really, we hope that we are the exception to death. That fear is added to 'current reality' in addition to everything else that has always happened. This may cause an exponential fear, or it may just be additional fear.
Mom is now in the generation that needs help again. Is she really longing for the world to be safer, or just to have the opportunity to do it again while she watches her great-grandchildren promise to not do to their children what her grandchildren do to them.
She has the wisdom that can only come from aging, that of experience or something closely related: it boils down to the 'wisdom gained from having been there.'
Similarly, Mrs. Hutchins seems unable to release the past to live in the current reality. She does things that made economic sense long ago, but doesn't make the same sense today.
Both desire something in common: no change.
Is it just the fear of death (growing old) that causes them to hang onto such things as old mayonaise jars and typewriters?
This is far too narrow, and far too subjective, to lead to any meaningful conclusion, but I need to watch for signs of this in myself and try to recognize signs of it in others.
I also need to google some combinations to see if others have noticed this type of blindness, and what they think it may be.
Time as the Fourth Dimension
This should have been more obvious to me.
In order for our eyes to see something it must have four dimensions: 1. width, 2. depth, 3. height, and 4. exist now. That is why I cannot see the house that burned down before this one was built. It had three dimensions, but it does not exist now. Paradoxically, the building that will be here when this house burns down will have three dimensions, but cannot be seen because it hasn't yet been built, so it, too, does not exist now.
So what about this seeming eral perspective?
In order for our eyes to see something it must have four dimensions: 1. width, 2. depth, 3. height, and 4. exist now. That is why I cannot see the house that burned down before this one was built. It had three dimensions, but it does not exist now. Paradoxically, the building that will be here when this house burns down will have three dimensions, but cannot be seen because it hasn't yet been built, so it, too, does not exist now.
So what about this seeming eral perspective?
Monday, July 02, 2007
So, If Two Negatives Make a Positive . . .
. . . do two wrongs make a right?
Not as a rule, but it has exceptions.
One must consider the functional limitation of two negatives making a positive. It occurs when we multiply and divide. It can also happen in subtraction, but a prerequisite is that the negative being subtracted is larger than the negative from which it is subtracted. Addition by subtraction may have a positive result, but subtracting a negative has the same result as if you were to add a positive of equal value.
This question poses an additional negative to an original negative. You will end up with a larger negative (wrong) as a whole, regardless of how small the 'added negative' appears relative to the value of the original negative.
Now, if the second wrong is something like shooting a criminal who is threatening your family or property, then the second wrong has the added element of actually subtracting a negative. Society may benefit for the 'second wrong.' On the other hand, it's pretty difficult to conceive of protecting one's property and family by killing someone attempting to harm or steal your property or family as 'wrong' when it is really 'your right.' To me, it doesn't seem to apply.
However, one's reality is from his or her perspective, so, if, to you, killing a criminal threatening your family or property as 'wrong,' then 'it is possible for a second wrong to really be a right.' In that case, you would need to change your perspective because it still doesn't apply, and you'll be better able to see reality.
Not as a rule, but it has exceptions.
One must consider the functional limitation of two negatives making a positive. It occurs when we multiply and divide. It can also happen in subtraction, but a prerequisite is that the negative being subtracted is larger than the negative from which it is subtracted. Addition by subtraction may have a positive result, but subtracting a negative has the same result as if you were to add a positive of equal value.
This question poses an additional negative to an original negative. You will end up with a larger negative (wrong) as a whole, regardless of how small the 'added negative' appears relative to the value of the original negative.
Now, if the second wrong is something like shooting a criminal who is threatening your family or property, then the second wrong has the added element of actually subtracting a negative. Society may benefit for the 'second wrong.' On the other hand, it's pretty difficult to conceive of protecting one's property and family by killing someone attempting to harm or steal your property or family as 'wrong' when it is really 'your right.' To me, it doesn't seem to apply.
However, one's reality is from his or her perspective, so, if, to you, killing a criminal threatening your family or property as 'wrong,' then 'it is possible for a second wrong to really be a right.' In that case, you would need to change your perspective because it still doesn't apply, and you'll be better able to see reality.
So, If Boiling Water Freezes Faster than Cold Water . . .
. . . does ice come to a boil faster than cold water?
No.
Hot, which is arbitrary depending on the application, is acheived by the 'presence of heat.' Cold, which is also arbitrary, is acheived by the 'absence of heat.' Since they are both just arbitrary points on a line, 'hot' and 'cold' are not opposites. Regardless of how cold something is, it can be made colder if whatever heat exists is removed. One is not the opposite of the other, but rather just points on a line indicating the degree of heat presence.
The molecular structure of water at temperatures along the line is not itself a line. It expands when it is boiled, and it expands when it freezes, so it really is an arc. The expansion is really just a molecular reaction, but it has the effect of adding 'surface area' to the molecule. As heat is removed from the expanded molecule which is already consistent with its molecular shape in a frozen state and has increased surface area, the heat present in the water molecules dissipate more quickly. The molecule seems to solidify without the step of contraction and re-expansion.
In reverse, the addition of heat does not affect the 'inside molecules' the same as the extraction of heat does. Though heat can be subtracted through dissipation, it is added through radiation. As the heat radiates, the surface of the ice will melt until it becomes a puddle of cold water, and re-expands as the heat presence factor affects the puddle.
I've never tried it, though, so I could be wrong.
===========================================
Afterthoughts: radiant heat radiates from a source; the type of heat transfer in this example would be conductive, not radiant.
No.
Hot, which is arbitrary depending on the application, is acheived by the 'presence of heat.' Cold, which is also arbitrary, is acheived by the 'absence of heat.' Since they are both just arbitrary points on a line, 'hot' and 'cold' are not opposites. Regardless of how cold something is, it can be made colder if whatever heat exists is removed. One is not the opposite of the other, but rather just points on a line indicating the degree of heat presence.
The molecular structure of water at temperatures along the line is not itself a line. It expands when it is boiled, and it expands when it freezes, so it really is an arc. The expansion is really just a molecular reaction, but it has the effect of adding 'surface area' to the molecule. As heat is removed from the expanded molecule which is already consistent with its molecular shape in a frozen state and has increased surface area, the heat present in the water molecules dissipate more quickly. The molecule seems to solidify without the step of contraction and re-expansion.
In reverse, the addition of heat does not affect the 'inside molecules' the same as the extraction of heat does. Though heat can be subtracted through dissipation, it is added through radiation. As the heat radiates, the surface of the ice will melt until it becomes a puddle of cold water, and re-expands as the heat presence factor affects the puddle.
I've never tried it, though, so I could be wrong.
===========================================
Afterthoughts: radiant heat radiates from a source; the type of heat transfer in this example would be conductive, not radiant.
That Damn Rap Music
Kids today just don't appreciate that good old music our parents hated; music that had messages of the e=mc2 factor that would represent our youth.
'They would not listen; they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will.'
Okay, I'm getting how time is the fourth dimension. We really do see things from eral perspective. People do not lose elements of time in perspective, causing a distorted view of current reality.
'Reality is just an illusion - albeit a very persistent one.' Albert, I think I understand better what you meant . . . er . . . what you mean. You're not so old like most of those other people screaming to be heard and not making sound.
Besides, who could hear you over those kids there who seem to be screaming just to be heard.
Is Bernie Taupin still alive?
'They would not listen; they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will.'
Okay, I'm getting how time is the fourth dimension. We really do see things from eral perspective. People do not lose elements of time in perspective, causing a distorted view of current reality.
'Reality is just an illusion - albeit a very persistent one.' Albert, I think I understand better what you meant . . . er . . . what you mean. You're not so old like most of those other people screaming to be heard and not making sound.
Besides, who could hear you over those kids there who seem to be screaming just to be heard.
Is Bernie Taupin still alive?
Philosophical Funk
Whatever suffering I see or hear about that relates to others, and most of my own suffering, is fairly easily explainable. Most commonly, these sufferings are related to an event or series of events.
Certainly some 'mental illnesses' have known causes such as injury, chemical imbalances, metabolic disfunction, and such. Some, however, seem to defy explanation, but eventually will become understood as science (read as common knowledge) progresses.
So, am I mentally ill?
What I encounter frequently that leaves me bewildered is the questioning of my motives, and not believing me when I go to the length of proving it to them. It's almost as if my efforts are counter-balanced with 'becoming invisible,' and not the 'expected or probable result.'
I would have to get overly personal to explain how this phenomenon has affected me, but I suspect that van Gogh, with his relative lack of success and acceptance, would have experienced this phenomenon to a greater degree than I have.
Howard Hughes comes to mind as someone who seems to have succumbed to 'philosophical funk,' and whose personal success and acceptance would put my level betwixt the two in measurement.
Hughes was publicly accepted and lauded, but he ran into something similar to Ricardo: others with equal or better qualifications disputed his theories. Hughes made a couple tons of wood fly - one time. His principles would not allow him to earn personal reward once he determined his objective was unsafe. That wasn't failure, but history rather regards it as such. To wit: the Wright brothers are highly regarded aviation geniuses. In reality, they merely beat other people to success. Hughes, on the other hand, defied gravity that even Leonardo da Vinci may not have been able to imagine. No one has ever done what Howard Hughes did - no one!
Was it the constant confrontation with 'rock-solid constitutions' and 'Aristotlean know-it-allism' that finally led to his 'apparent mental collapse.' I had to throw a recycling can at my garage to get my solitude; he would obviously have to farther, whereas van Gogh had solitude cast upon him.
Mathematically, sharing enlightening information should result in a brighter world, but it seems to result in a 'type of invisibility,' which seems mathematically logical: as the source of light becomes more distant and less visible, so, too, would the light from source be ineffective for brightening that which it cannot reach.
Does the world really just turn 'blind eyes' toward the light of genius? Keynes experienced it in his final years. Einstein had to die wondering, or knowing, if the theory of infinite atomic splitting will destroy anything that passes through 'that time' later, and we merely sped away from it at the speed of light. They were both very highly regarded, and explained it all to important people. Both of them had their limitations and subsequent appeals ignored. It's as if the world accepted some light, but then started doing its 'invisibility thing' to them.
Though the soul is where I should be analyzing this from, doing so will only end up with the likely result of angering others. My body transformation will have to suffice for now.
The last time I saw a doctor, I was told that I was starting to leave the 'overweight' category, and heading into the 'obese' ranges. I heard that, and started analyzing how and what I eat. I cut out a few of the fattier parts of my diet, and increased my vegetation consumption. My weight hovered, but didn't rise or fall noticeably.
Last October I finally had my teeth pulled and purchased dentures. I could feel toxins leaving my body; I suspect those led to some metabolic changes, but what really changed was what and how I eat. Suddenly chocolate lost the part of the flavor that no longer could get to my upper palate, and it left a gooey mess in my mouth. Fruits became much more satisfying. I have more time to prepare meals now, so I do.
Since then, I've lost substantial weight. I have no idea how much because I don't know what I weighed, and I don't know what I weigh now. The number is unimportant; what is important is that the weight loss is highly noticeable. My former size 38 pants have been reduced twice to a current 32 inch size. People are amazed, but are also concerned. They tie extraordinary weight loss to illness. They ask me if I'm sick and if I'm eating. I lift my shirt to show them that I'm fit, not skinny. I show them that I've increased my flexibility to the point that I can bend sufficiently to put my forehead on either of my knees. I show them the food I've prepared and preserved, and offer to prepare a meal for us. If they accept, they are usually amazed at the well-balanced meals I throw together.
Then they say 'wow! Are you sure you're not sick and that you're eating?'
Even proof isn't sufficient to ease suspicion of my motive for the weight loss, which is simply because I want to feel better and it's worked in accomplishing that end.
At the other pole are those who think that my 'apparent zeal for health' should mean that I would quit smoking cigarettes. When I tell them that my motive is to 'feel better,' and not to achieve 'optimum health,' they don't seem to understand. They want to run with the lineal concept of 'if one is good, two is better.' They cannot accept the 'conceptual thought' that 'if one is the objective, two is excessive and will use energy/resources that I prefer to use differently.'
Others cannot seem to accept simple motives. They want to add complexity to the equation, and begin trying to figure out 'why, if the line goes further, don't I want to as far up the line as I would be able to.'
If I try to explain how gravity would likely affect me if I did that, they try to get back to numbers. Even smart people, and even really smart people, don't get the correlation between physical laws and, well, everything. Worse yet, they don't even seem to want to understand so they can progress through the educaional scale (1. not knowing and not knowing we don't know; 2. not knowing and knowing we don't know; 3. knowing and not knowing we know; 4. knowing and knowing we know). They are willing to reside at one, but why?
It gets really depressing. It is often frustrating. It is so common that it progresses to an 'apparent reality' that effort to enlighten is futile.
People don't understand how I can walk away from 'a good job' merely because the employer puts numbers ahead of concern for human suffering. I don't understand how others can do those jobs. 'It pays well' or 'it pays the bills' are common reasons that can be combined to form 'for the money.' They will accept money in exchange for their conscienses?! Do they understand how this affects one's soul?!
Of course they don't. They don't even accept gravity except to the degree 'they think' they see its force, when, in fact, they don't really think much or often.
The integrity of conscience is such that consciences tend to bruise. It is less painful to just not confront the rocks with which people build their figurative walls and figuratively throw at others with the intent to harm. Reclusion becomes the only place a genius can insulate himself or herself from the perceived realities of common thinkers. It comes at the cost of companionship, but companionship doesn't matter so much because it lacks intellectual stimulation.
How about Ben Franklin? He died famous and revered. He also died before he could see much of the manifestation of his governing genius, but he was well aware of what time would do as is exemplified in his final speech to Congress. Ben Franklin is still well loved, and is still regarded for his genius. However, his 'timeless thoughts' about liberty are rationalized as 'not applicable' today because we're facing different variables than those which, with historical perspective, we can see were just. We think that without much regard for what happened to the native 'Indians,' how the country expanded on the backs of negroes and Chinamen enslaved for the 'benefit of all,' or how Columbus could possibly have 'discovered' land that was already inhabited.
And yet, many of the ancestors of the slaves and Indians feel that, in order to achieve equality, things must go out of balance the other way for a while. How does that work? Isn't racial blindness achieved by not seeing races?! Isn't gender blindness achieved by not seeing genders?! Why is that level of simplicity so complex to common thinkers? It seems to be that they want to complicate the equation to find the 'hidden motive.'
Are they looking at their own reflections? They have to be drawing off the subconscious for the decision to 'not see that which is visible.'
Mark Twain said he never let education get in the way of his learning. Some people don't even let it get in the way of their ultimate demise.
God, it seems so futile.
Back to the project; slow progression is good for common thinkers, and God knows common thinkers are slow. Perhaps God, or time from my perspective, just requires genius to go through complete concepts with the 'pre-design' of 'life' accepting only minescule portions of the whole for its slow progression.
Here's a relativity example that keeps coming to me. I presumed it was meant for a discussion on what appears to be photographic memory, but it is being persistent. If I were to run a footrace against my granddaughter, I would 'appear' to be very fast. If I were to run that same footrace against a world-class sprinter, I would 'appear' to be very slow. In that example, I not only would be the same, but I even qualified it as 'the same footrace,' making it exactly the same.
There, it's now written. What was the point?
It's time to think. Bye for now.
Certainly some 'mental illnesses' have known causes such as injury, chemical imbalances, metabolic disfunction, and such. Some, however, seem to defy explanation, but eventually will become understood as science (read as common knowledge) progresses.
So, am I mentally ill?
What I encounter frequently that leaves me bewildered is the questioning of my motives, and not believing me when I go to the length of proving it to them. It's almost as if my efforts are counter-balanced with 'becoming invisible,' and not the 'expected or probable result.'
I would have to get overly personal to explain how this phenomenon has affected me, but I suspect that van Gogh, with his relative lack of success and acceptance, would have experienced this phenomenon to a greater degree than I have.
Howard Hughes comes to mind as someone who seems to have succumbed to 'philosophical funk,' and whose personal success and acceptance would put my level betwixt the two in measurement.
Hughes was publicly accepted and lauded, but he ran into something similar to Ricardo: others with equal or better qualifications disputed his theories. Hughes made a couple tons of wood fly - one time. His principles would not allow him to earn personal reward once he determined his objective was unsafe. That wasn't failure, but history rather regards it as such. To wit: the Wright brothers are highly regarded aviation geniuses. In reality, they merely beat other people to success. Hughes, on the other hand, defied gravity that even Leonardo da Vinci may not have been able to imagine. No one has ever done what Howard Hughes did - no one!
Was it the constant confrontation with 'rock-solid constitutions' and 'Aristotlean know-it-allism' that finally led to his 'apparent mental collapse.' I had to throw a recycling can at my garage to get my solitude; he would obviously have to farther, whereas van Gogh had solitude cast upon him.
Mathematically, sharing enlightening information should result in a brighter world, but it seems to result in a 'type of invisibility,' which seems mathematically logical: as the source of light becomes more distant and less visible, so, too, would the light from source be ineffective for brightening that which it cannot reach.
Does the world really just turn 'blind eyes' toward the light of genius? Keynes experienced it in his final years. Einstein had to die wondering, or knowing, if the theory of infinite atomic splitting will destroy anything that passes through 'that time' later, and we merely sped away from it at the speed of light. They were both very highly regarded, and explained it all to important people. Both of them had their limitations and subsequent appeals ignored. It's as if the world accepted some light, but then started doing its 'invisibility thing' to them.
Though the soul is where I should be analyzing this from, doing so will only end up with the likely result of angering others. My body transformation will have to suffice for now.
The last time I saw a doctor, I was told that I was starting to leave the 'overweight' category, and heading into the 'obese' ranges. I heard that, and started analyzing how and what I eat. I cut out a few of the fattier parts of my diet, and increased my vegetation consumption. My weight hovered, but didn't rise or fall noticeably.
Last October I finally had my teeth pulled and purchased dentures. I could feel toxins leaving my body; I suspect those led to some metabolic changes, but what really changed was what and how I eat. Suddenly chocolate lost the part of the flavor that no longer could get to my upper palate, and it left a gooey mess in my mouth. Fruits became much more satisfying. I have more time to prepare meals now, so I do.
Since then, I've lost substantial weight. I have no idea how much because I don't know what I weighed, and I don't know what I weigh now. The number is unimportant; what is important is that the weight loss is highly noticeable. My former size 38 pants have been reduced twice to a current 32 inch size. People are amazed, but are also concerned. They tie extraordinary weight loss to illness. They ask me if I'm sick and if I'm eating. I lift my shirt to show them that I'm fit, not skinny. I show them that I've increased my flexibility to the point that I can bend sufficiently to put my forehead on either of my knees. I show them the food I've prepared and preserved, and offer to prepare a meal for us. If they accept, they are usually amazed at the well-balanced meals I throw together.
Then they say 'wow! Are you sure you're not sick and that you're eating?'
Even proof isn't sufficient to ease suspicion of my motive for the weight loss, which is simply because I want to feel better and it's worked in accomplishing that end.
At the other pole are those who think that my 'apparent zeal for health' should mean that I would quit smoking cigarettes. When I tell them that my motive is to 'feel better,' and not to achieve 'optimum health,' they don't seem to understand. They want to run with the lineal concept of 'if one is good, two is better.' They cannot accept the 'conceptual thought' that 'if one is the objective, two is excessive and will use energy/resources that I prefer to use differently.'
Others cannot seem to accept simple motives. They want to add complexity to the equation, and begin trying to figure out 'why, if the line goes further, don't I want to as far up the line as I would be able to.'
If I try to explain how gravity would likely affect me if I did that, they try to get back to numbers. Even smart people, and even really smart people, don't get the correlation between physical laws and, well, everything. Worse yet, they don't even seem to want to understand so they can progress through the educaional scale (1. not knowing and not knowing we don't know; 2. not knowing and knowing we don't know; 3. knowing and not knowing we know; 4. knowing and knowing we know). They are willing to reside at one, but why?
It gets really depressing. It is often frustrating. It is so common that it progresses to an 'apparent reality' that effort to enlighten is futile.
People don't understand how I can walk away from 'a good job' merely because the employer puts numbers ahead of concern for human suffering. I don't understand how others can do those jobs. 'It pays well' or 'it pays the bills' are common reasons that can be combined to form 'for the money.' They will accept money in exchange for their conscienses?! Do they understand how this affects one's soul?!
Of course they don't. They don't even accept gravity except to the degree 'they think' they see its force, when, in fact, they don't really think much or often.
The integrity of conscience is such that consciences tend to bruise. It is less painful to just not confront the rocks with which people build their figurative walls and figuratively throw at others with the intent to harm. Reclusion becomes the only place a genius can insulate himself or herself from the perceived realities of common thinkers. It comes at the cost of companionship, but companionship doesn't matter so much because it lacks intellectual stimulation.
How about Ben Franklin? He died famous and revered. He also died before he could see much of the manifestation of his governing genius, but he was well aware of what time would do as is exemplified in his final speech to Congress. Ben Franklin is still well loved, and is still regarded for his genius. However, his 'timeless thoughts' about liberty are rationalized as 'not applicable' today because we're facing different variables than those which, with historical perspective, we can see were just. We think that without much regard for what happened to the native 'Indians,' how the country expanded on the backs of negroes and Chinamen enslaved for the 'benefit of all,' or how Columbus could possibly have 'discovered' land that was already inhabited.
And yet, many of the ancestors of the slaves and Indians feel that, in order to achieve equality, things must go out of balance the other way for a while. How does that work? Isn't racial blindness achieved by not seeing races?! Isn't gender blindness achieved by not seeing genders?! Why is that level of simplicity so complex to common thinkers? It seems to be that they want to complicate the equation to find the 'hidden motive.'
Are they looking at their own reflections? They have to be drawing off the subconscious for the decision to 'not see that which is visible.'
Mark Twain said he never let education get in the way of his learning. Some people don't even let it get in the way of their ultimate demise.
God, it seems so futile.
Back to the project; slow progression is good for common thinkers, and God knows common thinkers are slow. Perhaps God, or time from my perspective, just requires genius to go through complete concepts with the 'pre-design' of 'life' accepting only minescule portions of the whole for its slow progression.
Here's a relativity example that keeps coming to me. I presumed it was meant for a discussion on what appears to be photographic memory, but it is being persistent. If I were to run a footrace against my granddaughter, I would 'appear' to be very fast. If I were to run that same footrace against a world-class sprinter, I would 'appear' to be very slow. In that example, I not only would be the same, but I even qualified it as 'the same footrace,' making it exactly the same.
There, it's now written. What was the point?
It's time to think. Bye for now.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Vincent van Gogh: a Look at How Genius Suffers for Principles
There is enough written about Vincent van Gogh that most people should know who he was, and what he left behind for us to learn from. Most people, however, seem satisfied to know that van Gogh was an artist who was crazy, cut off his ear over a woman, and that he killed himself.
He did not suffer execution like Jesus or Socrates. He did not die naturally like Swift, Ricardo, Marx, and Keynes. He shot himself in the chest, though some wonder if he really intended to actually die. I don't know. I suspect he did not fear death, and may have needed the experience for his own personal growth, at least from his perspective.
Vincent was not noticeably different from other children, except for his insatiable thirst to read. His father was a minister, so he read much about religion. His mother was an art dealer, but he had little interest in art both in the creation or sale of it despite having some success as a late-teen, early twenty-something.
Rejected in love as a young man, Vincent turned his desires toward religion. He used some familial connections so he could be accredited for knowing which number goes on which line. He failed. Though his environment as a child included religion, and despite reading insatiably on the subject, he could not get the answers 'correct.' He suffered for his inability to have blind faith.
He sought missionary work. He was sent to some very poor places. He would sleep on straw in huts just as the people who lived there would. He would sometimes be heard crying all night. He was told by those who sponsored him that he could not sleep on the straw as it did not give proper respect for the word of God. He thought is unconscienable to belabor those others saw as lesser for his own reward, and he did not stop sleeping on straw. He was fired. He suffered for his inability to violate his principle of compassion despite the opportunity for personal reward.
After that, he decided on art. He developed his talent by imitating styles of the great artists of the day; later he would add uniqueness. His famous works were done within the last couple of years of his life.
To others, Vincent appeared to be self-destructive. He would become extremely depressed such that his family sought medical attention for the depression. He smoked and drank despite doctors and family urging him to stop both. He cut off part of his ear to demonstrate the equivalent physical loss to the emotional loss of losing companionship with a fellow artist upon whom he thought he could rely. (He gave the portion of the ear to a prostitute; it is often mistaken that she was the cause. She was only the recipient.) He eventually would shoot himself in the chest, and just go back to bed. A couple or a few days later he would die from his injury.
The only person who was always reliable for Vincent was his younger brother Theo. Very shortly before he killed himself, Vincent wrote a letter to Theo. It is not the ramblings of a madman; it is a concise, well worded demonstration of his innate knowledge of economy, efficiency, use of time, and sincere regard for the welfare of Theo and his family. Vincent could not be understood by anyone, not even his doctor as he alludes to in the letter.
No one recognized that Vincent van Gogh was a genius during his lifetime, except for one writer for a periodical about art about six months before he would be dead. I doubt the author knew how 'right on' he was about Vincent's genius. It seems that Vincent didn't even recognize his own genius, but he did recognize that he was different in every conceivable way from 'normal people.'
Don MacLean wrote that Vincent 'suffered for his sanity,' and that 'they would not listen; they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will.' Think about those words in relation to the things Vincent suffered for.
He was unable to come up with 'correct answers,' yet he seemed to understand life and time. He personified that which Socrates, Jesus, and Swift had urged us to do: factor in human suffering. He was rejected for factoring that in.
The lineal conclusions we can draw from individual episodes from Vincent's life form another entity in itself, that of futility. Genius operates independent from convention. It is often not publicly recognized unless one can present credentials, and credentials are not evidence of genius. It creates a vicious cycle of self-examination and calculated attempts to persuade others, which, predictably, will not be accepted for violating conventional thought.
It is met with rock-solid arguments and constitutions from those who are not patient enough to notice that rocks don't grow, but, to the contrary, rocks erode.
It seems like such a simple concept to relate, but most people won't take as much time to contemplate the comparison as they will in deciding which shirt to wear today. What's the point? Why try? My own experiences in futility would have to be magnified many times to come anywhere near the futility that van Gogh experienced in fewer years. The degree to which he experienced futility notwithstanding, the lesson would seem to be about genius that is not recognized. That seems relatively unimportant compared to the lesson on futility.
-------------------
I've slept on this now. The doctors were never able to 'pinpoint' Vincent van Gogh's 'mental illness.' Doctors even today disagree on what his mental ailment truly was.
In addition to some of the finest art of his day, Vincent left a study on 'unrecognized genius,' and a basic suffering genius is forced to endure. It is a suffering of futility at trying to get others to factor in human suffering. For the sake of giving it a name, though it likely is already known as something else, I'll call it 'philosophical funk.' I've experienced this feeling; in fact, I've been in one for several months now, and people around me are concerned.
They just don't believe what they see, and they don't believe what I tell and prove to them. It's as if math doesn't work at times; of course, it does: I'm just missing the factor. I've considered planetary retrograde, but I haven't figured out how that would explain it.
Maybe it's always been this way, and odds are just catching up to me. If that were the case, though, it seems more like something would finally work!
This project seems to be a factor. I receive rewards if I do it; I am frustrated if I don't. It appears to be external, but there haven't been enough experiences to determine if it's really just an internal perspective manipulation.
He did not suffer execution like Jesus or Socrates. He did not die naturally like Swift, Ricardo, Marx, and Keynes. He shot himself in the chest, though some wonder if he really intended to actually die. I don't know. I suspect he did not fear death, and may have needed the experience for his own personal growth, at least from his perspective.
Vincent was not noticeably different from other children, except for his insatiable thirst to read. His father was a minister, so he read much about religion. His mother was an art dealer, but he had little interest in art both in the creation or sale of it despite having some success as a late-teen, early twenty-something.
Rejected in love as a young man, Vincent turned his desires toward religion. He used some familial connections so he could be accredited for knowing which number goes on which line. He failed. Though his environment as a child included religion, and despite reading insatiably on the subject, he could not get the answers 'correct.' He suffered for his inability to have blind faith.
He sought missionary work. He was sent to some very poor places. He would sleep on straw in huts just as the people who lived there would. He would sometimes be heard crying all night. He was told by those who sponsored him that he could not sleep on the straw as it did not give proper respect for the word of God. He thought is unconscienable to belabor those others saw as lesser for his own reward, and he did not stop sleeping on straw. He was fired. He suffered for his inability to violate his principle of compassion despite the opportunity for personal reward.
After that, he decided on art. He developed his talent by imitating styles of the great artists of the day; later he would add uniqueness. His famous works were done within the last couple of years of his life.
To others, Vincent appeared to be self-destructive. He would become extremely depressed such that his family sought medical attention for the depression. He smoked and drank despite doctors and family urging him to stop both. He cut off part of his ear to demonstrate the equivalent physical loss to the emotional loss of losing companionship with a fellow artist upon whom he thought he could rely. (He gave the portion of the ear to a prostitute; it is often mistaken that she was the cause. She was only the recipient.) He eventually would shoot himself in the chest, and just go back to bed. A couple or a few days later he would die from his injury.
The only person who was always reliable for Vincent was his younger brother Theo. Very shortly before he killed himself, Vincent wrote a letter to Theo. It is not the ramblings of a madman; it is a concise, well worded demonstration of his innate knowledge of economy, efficiency, use of time, and sincere regard for the welfare of Theo and his family. Vincent could not be understood by anyone, not even his doctor as he alludes to in the letter.
No one recognized that Vincent van Gogh was a genius during his lifetime, except for one writer for a periodical about art about six months before he would be dead. I doubt the author knew how 'right on' he was about Vincent's genius. It seems that Vincent didn't even recognize his own genius, but he did recognize that he was different in every conceivable way from 'normal people.'
Don MacLean wrote that Vincent 'suffered for his sanity,' and that 'they would not listen; they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will.' Think about those words in relation to the things Vincent suffered for.
He was unable to come up with 'correct answers,' yet he seemed to understand life and time. He personified that which Socrates, Jesus, and Swift had urged us to do: factor in human suffering. He was rejected for factoring that in.
The lineal conclusions we can draw from individual episodes from Vincent's life form another entity in itself, that of futility. Genius operates independent from convention. It is often not publicly recognized unless one can present credentials, and credentials are not evidence of genius. It creates a vicious cycle of self-examination and calculated attempts to persuade others, which, predictably, will not be accepted for violating conventional thought.
It is met with rock-solid arguments and constitutions from those who are not patient enough to notice that rocks don't grow, but, to the contrary, rocks erode.
It seems like such a simple concept to relate, but most people won't take as much time to contemplate the comparison as they will in deciding which shirt to wear today. What's the point? Why try? My own experiences in futility would have to be magnified many times to come anywhere near the futility that van Gogh experienced in fewer years. The degree to which he experienced futility notwithstanding, the lesson would seem to be about genius that is not recognized. That seems relatively unimportant compared to the lesson on futility.
-------------------
I've slept on this now. The doctors were never able to 'pinpoint' Vincent van Gogh's 'mental illness.' Doctors even today disagree on what his mental ailment truly was.
In addition to some of the finest art of his day, Vincent left a study on 'unrecognized genius,' and a basic suffering genius is forced to endure. It is a suffering of futility at trying to get others to factor in human suffering. For the sake of giving it a name, though it likely is already known as something else, I'll call it 'philosophical funk.' I've experienced this feeling; in fact, I've been in one for several months now, and people around me are concerned.
They just don't believe what they see, and they don't believe what I tell and prove to them. It's as if math doesn't work at times; of course, it does: I'm just missing the factor. I've considered planetary retrograde, but I haven't figured out how that would explain it.
Maybe it's always been this way, and odds are just catching up to me. If that were the case, though, it seems more like something would finally work!
This project seems to be a factor. I receive rewards if I do it; I am frustrated if I don't. It appears to be external, but there haven't been enough experiences to determine if it's really just an internal perspective manipulation.
So Does a Tree Falling Make a Sound . . .
. . . if no one is there to hear it.
No. However, it would emit the sonic waves necessary to be heard if someone with auditory function were there to receive those waves into his or her logic center, which it would then translate the wave pattern as sound.
The proper, or at least adequate, auditory function is essential. It would also not make sound if the person you put out to hear it were totally deaf.
No. However, it would emit the sonic waves necessary to be heard if someone with auditory function were there to receive those waves into his or her logic center, which it would then translate the wave pattern as sound.
The proper, or at least adequate, auditory function is essential. It would also not make sound if the person you put out to hear it were totally deaf.
Something about Infinity
You probably know that the 'string of threes' in 1 divided by 3 is infinite. It never ends. However, because it starts, it is not infinity. It is only forever.
'Always' plus 'forever' equals 'infinity.'
Even that is distorted because 'always' and 'forever' are often misused to add magnitude to 'a long time,' and both, except either the end of always or the beginning of forever, are also 'unimaginable.' Infinity is unimaginable in both directions.
People will never understand infinity. It's a good thing we have more than enough time, but then we already have had as long as forever to get it.
It's so unimaginable that if you get it, you don't get it; it goes beyond that.
Don't worry about it, though. There isn't enough time in which to envision it, even though there is. Now do you get it?
If so, you don't get it; it goes beyond that.
'Always' plus 'forever' equals 'infinity.'
Even that is distorted because 'always' and 'forever' are often misused to add magnitude to 'a long time,' and both, except either the end of always or the beginning of forever, are also 'unimaginable.' Infinity is unimaginable in both directions.
People will never understand infinity. It's a good thing we have more than enough time, but then we already have had as long as forever to get it.
It's so unimaginable that if you get it, you don't get it; it goes beyond that.
Don't worry about it, though. There isn't enough time in which to envision it, even though there is. Now do you get it?
If so, you don't get it; it goes beyond that.
Who Would I Appoint as King of the World?
I would narrow it quickly down to Chris Rock and Adam Carolla. They both, from my perspective, appear to be geniuses.
Chris Rock has a much deeper understanding of time and human nature than most people notice. Even if he is a bit crude, he's brilliant. If you consider his 'crudeness' as 'flippant explanation,' he gives you the answers to a lot of life's, and society's, questions.
Adam Carolla has very humble beginnings. He, like Mr. Rock, understands time and human nature. His 'poor taste' usually lies in exaggerated conclusions. He differs from Mr. Rock in that he has experience in structural development of such things as houses, garages, and other buildings.
It's such a difficult selection that I wish there were just something that would make it black and white for me. Even then, would no reflection or full reflection be correct in that polarly opposed, binary option series?
I've probably wasted enough e=mc2 on that question already.
Chris Rock has a much deeper understanding of time and human nature than most people notice. Even if he is a bit crude, he's brilliant. If you consider his 'crudeness' as 'flippant explanation,' he gives you the answers to a lot of life's, and society's, questions.
Adam Carolla has very humble beginnings. He, like Mr. Rock, understands time and human nature. His 'poor taste' usually lies in exaggerated conclusions. He differs from Mr. Rock in that he has experience in structural development of such things as houses, garages, and other buildings.
It's such a difficult selection that I wish there were just something that would make it black and white for me. Even then, would no reflection or full reflection be correct in that polarly opposed, binary option series?
I've probably wasted enough e=mc2 on that question already.
Three Commonly Misunderstood Economic Philosophers
I've chosen three economic philosophers whose theories are often challenged. I find a common denominator as to why the theories of each don't work in today's world, but it's not a problem with the theories they presented. The common denominator is 'human nature.' Each presumed that human elements of greed, power, sloth, vanity, et al would somehow diminish into some sort of utopic world in which people would live at a 'conscience,' not 'conscious,' level.
The three economic philosophers I've chosen are David Ricardo, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes. Marx is possibly the only recognizable name, so I'll start with him. (Sorry to those who think I should start with the first name in the series - that's chronologically ordered.)
Karl Marx
Many people I talk to think of Marx as 'the father of communism,' and, in ways, he is. His idea of a 'communist economy,' however, was one in which everyone's needs would be met from the labor of all. There would be no need for ownership for, in Marx's concept, each would produce what they could, consume what they need, and share the excess as common wealth. It's a seriously flawed theory in that it inherently requires absence of challenge. Marx's utopia manifests in totalitarianism, and vast individual separations in both wealth and power.
The genius in Marx isn't in his economic concept, but in his prediction that this was about to happen. Marx didn't draw up a very good blueprint for an economy, but, where ever all the factors that he said were essential for 'Marxism' to happen, it has happened.
In gross oversimplification, he said that anywhere a true capitalist economy exists, and the mass of those who 'don't have' grows sufficiently, that the mass of 'don't haves' will rise in revolt and take that which those 'who have' have and commonly own it.
Testing it: consider you, and a hundred other people, were told to take your families and starve to death, by one person who had plenty for all: would you (a) take your families and go starve to death or (b) gang up on him, take that which he has, and share the spoils? If I were a gambling man, I think I'd put my money on you all working cooperatively and eating. It seems to be true.
What I derive from Marx's genius: society needs to care for the welfare of its least, ideally to the point of no need, but, to the very least, sufficiently to prevent the mass from growing to the point that gravity shifts to thoughts of revolt becoming 'common sense.'
What I do: every once in a while, I give a bum a buck. I give the mail man food on postal food drive day. I produce sufficiently for my own family, and help out when I can.
-------------------------------------------
David Ricardo
Ricardo is, by those who know of him, regarded as 'the father of free trade theory.' He, like Marx, failed to take into account that those who 'have' really don't concern themselves too much about those who 'don't have.' In his defense, Marx's e=mc2 factor had not yet begun, so Ricardo didn't get that 'historical perspective' that we now enjoy.
If one can neutralize his or her 'protectionist instinct,' we can get to the math. If two countries each produce two things its people consume, there is economy in each focusing on one that will result in reduced costs or increased production, and by trading what the other doesn't produce for that which it produces at reduced cost or increased production, both economies get more than if they had each produced both. Even in disproportion, a country that is superior in both will benefit by focusing on that which it values most accepting back that which it could have produced more efficiently.
Testing it: if two countries both consume and produce milk and bread at the same rate and for the same cost, the increased production/reduced cost of each focusing on one or the other will create 'lower cost' or 'more to consume' for people in both countries. That seems to be true. If one country produces milk and bread more efficiently than another country can produce either, but that country produces bread more efficiently than milk, the increased production of milk will remain for that country's people to consume, and sufficient bread would be traded for sufficient milk. That also seems to be true.
The lesson I derive from Ricardo's genius: if we can rise above our instinctal level, and look at results for all concerned rather than just our own wealth and consumption, we can create greater efficiency resulting in growth in overall wealth from which we all consume.
What I do: I trade things I have for things I want or need more, and I (minus-sign) shop at Wal-Mart. I am more inclined to help those who are willing to help themselves than to do something for somebody (unless there is sufficient other reward to justify compromising that principle). I don't consider only my own personal reward, but also how I best contribute to the benefit of the whole.
-------------------------------------------------
John Maynard Keynes
To say 'last but not least' about Keynes is not to give him sufficient gravity. If Marx and Ricardo together comprise the mass of the moon, Keynes is Jupiter; he's that much more significant regardless of how you compare them.
Of the three, Marx had the least range of influence in life; Ricardo had influence in his local area; Keynes had global influence.
Marx exiled himself and wrote what he wrote; Ricardo was elected and argued against opposing views; Keynes was included in those who would negotiate the Treaty of Versaille, and resigned his position as Chief Economist of England proclaiming that which would happen would be worse than which we just resolved.
Marx's genius was recognized after his death; Ricardo was recognized during his lifetime, but opposed by others who were similarly recognized; Keynes was recognized as a genius such that he had celebrity-like fame, and his opinions were sought by heads of states.
Marx couldn't get anyone to listen; Ricardo couldn't get people past instinctal arguments; Keynes got people to listen and he got people to conceive, but he couldn't get people off the lineal concept that 'if one is good, two is better.'
He resolved the Great Depression - sort of.
The common thought that economies rise and fall, similar to a pendulum swing or a bouncing ball, fails to account for gravity: eventually the pendulum or ball comes to rest. It was Keynes who arrived at the conclusion that the economy was in 'perfect balance' in total depression: there is no supply and there is no demand.
Keynes suggested to FDR that 'anything to create some artificial demand' could be the outside force to nudge the economy out of inertia. He said it, something to the effect of, 'if you make some bank notes, and bury them in mines filled with rubbish, the overall demand for those few notes would create true supply and, as consequently, true demand. However, there are probably better ways to do it than burying money in mines filled with garbage.'
After listening to, applying Keynes' theory, and seeing the slow swing start up again, FDR ran wild with it. Keynes spent the rest of his life trying to persuade FDR that he was using it far in excess of what he had intended. They don't teach you that part in history.
Keynes, who is easily one of the hundred most influential people of the 20th century, is today regarded as somewhat mad or insane. He was so brilliant that Bertrand Russell would discuss philosophy with him! He amassed his own personal fortune with the time from waking until going to work. Then he would go to work running England's economy before finally relaxing to intellectual discussions with the world's greatest minds of the day!
Lesson I derive from Keynes' genius: everything is affected by physical laws; reducing it beyond that is not necessary.
What I do: I often, and I mean really often, wonder why people don't get that. Plus I'm amazed at how few people, even economists, understand what Keynes had discovered for us about physical laws and economies (or life if you care to go 'outside the box' of economies).
The three economic philosophers I've chosen are David Ricardo, Karl Marx, and John Maynard Keynes. Marx is possibly the only recognizable name, so I'll start with him. (Sorry to those who think I should start with the first name in the series - that's chronologically ordered.)
Karl Marx
Many people I talk to think of Marx as 'the father of communism,' and, in ways, he is. His idea of a 'communist economy,' however, was one in which everyone's needs would be met from the labor of all. There would be no need for ownership for, in Marx's concept, each would produce what they could, consume what they need, and share the excess as common wealth. It's a seriously flawed theory in that it inherently requires absence of challenge. Marx's utopia manifests in totalitarianism, and vast individual separations in both wealth and power.
The genius in Marx isn't in his economic concept, but in his prediction that this was about to happen. Marx didn't draw up a very good blueprint for an economy, but, where ever all the factors that he said were essential for 'Marxism' to happen, it has happened.
In gross oversimplification, he said that anywhere a true capitalist economy exists, and the mass of those who 'don't have' grows sufficiently, that the mass of 'don't haves' will rise in revolt and take that which those 'who have' have and commonly own it.
Testing it: consider you, and a hundred other people, were told to take your families and starve to death, by one person who had plenty for all: would you (a) take your families and go starve to death or (b) gang up on him, take that which he has, and share the spoils? If I were a gambling man, I think I'd put my money on you all working cooperatively and eating. It seems to be true.
What I derive from Marx's genius: society needs to care for the welfare of its least, ideally to the point of no need, but, to the very least, sufficiently to prevent the mass from growing to the point that gravity shifts to thoughts of revolt becoming 'common sense.'
What I do: every once in a while, I give a bum a buck. I give the mail man food on postal food drive day. I produce sufficiently for my own family, and help out when I can.
-------------------------------------------
David Ricardo
Ricardo is, by those who know of him, regarded as 'the father of free trade theory.' He, like Marx, failed to take into account that those who 'have' really don't concern themselves too much about those who 'don't have.' In his defense, Marx's e=mc2 factor had not yet begun, so Ricardo didn't get that 'historical perspective' that we now enjoy.
If one can neutralize his or her 'protectionist instinct,' we can get to the math. If two countries each produce two things its people consume, there is economy in each focusing on one that will result in reduced costs or increased production, and by trading what the other doesn't produce for that which it produces at reduced cost or increased production, both economies get more than if they had each produced both. Even in disproportion, a country that is superior in both will benefit by focusing on that which it values most accepting back that which it could have produced more efficiently.
Testing it: if two countries both consume and produce milk and bread at the same rate and for the same cost, the increased production/reduced cost of each focusing on one or the other will create 'lower cost' or 'more to consume' for people in both countries. That seems to be true. If one country produces milk and bread more efficiently than another country can produce either, but that country produces bread more efficiently than milk, the increased production of milk will remain for that country's people to consume, and sufficient bread would be traded for sufficient milk. That also seems to be true.
The lesson I derive from Ricardo's genius: if we can rise above our instinctal level, and look at results for all concerned rather than just our own wealth and consumption, we can create greater efficiency resulting in growth in overall wealth from which we all consume.
What I do: I trade things I have for things I want or need more, and I (minus-sign) shop at Wal-Mart. I am more inclined to help those who are willing to help themselves than to do something for somebody (unless there is sufficient other reward to justify compromising that principle). I don't consider only my own personal reward, but also how I best contribute to the benefit of the whole.
-------------------------------------------------
John Maynard Keynes
To say 'last but not least' about Keynes is not to give him sufficient gravity. If Marx and Ricardo together comprise the mass of the moon, Keynes is Jupiter; he's that much more significant regardless of how you compare them.
Of the three, Marx had the least range of influence in life; Ricardo had influence in his local area; Keynes had global influence.
Marx exiled himself and wrote what he wrote; Ricardo was elected and argued against opposing views; Keynes was included in those who would negotiate the Treaty of Versaille, and resigned his position as Chief Economist of England proclaiming that which would happen would be worse than which we just resolved.
Marx's genius was recognized after his death; Ricardo was recognized during his lifetime, but opposed by others who were similarly recognized; Keynes was recognized as a genius such that he had celebrity-like fame, and his opinions were sought by heads of states.
Marx couldn't get anyone to listen; Ricardo couldn't get people past instinctal arguments; Keynes got people to listen and he got people to conceive, but he couldn't get people off the lineal concept that 'if one is good, two is better.'
He resolved the Great Depression - sort of.
The common thought that economies rise and fall, similar to a pendulum swing or a bouncing ball, fails to account for gravity: eventually the pendulum or ball comes to rest. It was Keynes who arrived at the conclusion that the economy was in 'perfect balance' in total depression: there is no supply and there is no demand.
Keynes suggested to FDR that 'anything to create some artificial demand' could be the outside force to nudge the economy out of inertia. He said it, something to the effect of, 'if you make some bank notes, and bury them in mines filled with rubbish, the overall demand for those few notes would create true supply and, as consequently, true demand. However, there are probably better ways to do it than burying money in mines filled with garbage.'
After listening to, applying Keynes' theory, and seeing the slow swing start up again, FDR ran wild with it. Keynes spent the rest of his life trying to persuade FDR that he was using it far in excess of what he had intended. They don't teach you that part in history.
Keynes, who is easily one of the hundred most influential people of the 20th century, is today regarded as somewhat mad or insane. He was so brilliant that Bertrand Russell would discuss philosophy with him! He amassed his own personal fortune with the time from waking until going to work. Then he would go to work running England's economy before finally relaxing to intellectual discussions with the world's greatest minds of the day!
Lesson I derive from Keynes' genius: everything is affected by physical laws; reducing it beyond that is not necessary.
What I do: I often, and I mean really often, wonder why people don't get that. Plus I'm amazed at how few people, even economists, understand what Keynes had discovered for us about physical laws and economies (or life if you care to go 'outside the box' of economies).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)