So who can you really trust? Well you cannot trust any human it seems, that is to say you cannot trust people. For instance you cannot trust lawyers to steal from you and you cannot trust Judges who are lawyers and you cannot trust politicians who are lawyers and so you cannot trust the laws. Which are made to supposedly allow for a civilized society and protection.

You cannot trust teachers to tell you the truth, you cannot trust clergy, you cannot trust doctors; because any truth they think they are purporting is in essence a relative truth and perception based and often in complete and total error.

Can you trust car salesmen, insurance salesmen or stockbrokers? No, they have a vested interest in fabrication, misrepresentation and manipulation. Can you trust government or those who work in government? No that is a lie and there is enough case history in the writings of mankind since the written record was saved to prove that.

Can you trust reporters, media, newspapers or the Internet? No, obviously that would be a bad idea too. These sources are completely a wash with half-truths, opinion and events blown out of proportion. Can you trust your spouse? Well you tell me, as 65% of all marriages end in divorce?

Can you trust your boss, co-workers or business acquaintances? Well not really as the competition for jobs, ladder climbing and shareholders will always take precedence over whatever was promised yesterday? So who can you trust?

Well you can trust the United States Mail most of the time, but your dog, the only one you can really trust doesn’t seem to trust them? So you tell me is there any human you can really trust? Well I hope you trust what I have written here is truly sincere. Think on it.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

During this incredible time of year I am compelled by my every encounter to do good to all those I come in contact with. This year as in years passed I ask myself, what is it that has unhardened my hart? And not just me, but seemingly all of mankind is brought to consider that which is holy. I have seen mercy extended by the merciless, kindness from the hard man, charity from the miser and peace from the war monger. Radio stations usually dedicated to propitious propaganda and vile content play Christmas music, siblings take on extra jobs and spend hard earned money not on themselves but delight in the joy their gifts may bring to another. Long and festering grudges seem to melt away in the warmth of forgiving kindness. Black sheep are welcomed back into the fold with loving arms. We are led to consider those less fortunate and joy in giving as we see not the dross of society but our brothers and sisters.

What a profound influence that babe in Bethlehem born over 2000 years ago has had on the world and yet continues to have. Surly Christians and non-Christians can appreciate the goodness and peace perpetuated as we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Perhaps the goodness demonstrated during the Christmas season is a reminder to all of us of how we ought to act. Perhaps we are once more the recipients of yet another gift of Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps our souls are lifted up at this glorious time as a reminder of our divine potential.

May God look upon us and see that spark of the divine reflected in our souls as we turn our faces toward our beloved Redeemer and may we carry the Christmas spirit in our harts forever. God bless you and yours and may we all magnify the spirit of the season by giving of ourselves.

http://www.oinksolutions.com/

http://www.oinksolutions.com/cms/

Once upon a time, all beings were summoned to a very special place of the universe, with the purpose of finding the most valuable treasure.

People came from different places, with various and great pretensions. They all wanted to be the winner and to show off their power and wealth.

There were some who brought gold, others brought arms, science and technology. While others brought titles and properties. This event lasted for many months, and was so great, that it practically took all the attention of the universe. Everyone was commenting about the event and all the spectators were asking themselves: What will be the most valuable treasure? What will be the greatest power?

Then, like coming from nowhere, an unknown man appeared. He was rather humble and dressed in a very simple tunic. His face was serene and his step was quiet. But this man brought nothing in his hands, he was not carrying any apparent treasure.

Those, who were in charge of the event and the general public were watching him, with arrogance and scorn. Then, when seeing him so fragile and helpless, they decided to make fun of him. And they said: " The last man from earth, has come, let’s see what important thing, he brings". While, mockingly they were commenting between themselves: "We can see that he has no class or foundation". And they put the man in front of everyone, they call the judges, mainly the wisest ones, even the most old in age, and they said: " Maybe, you have not realized that there are kingdoms, valuable jewels, gold objects, great instruments of science and of great value, shown in front of you. What can you bring? Are you crazy, perhaps? Or maybe, your ignorance, does not allow you to see? Speak, once and for all, so we can laugh and then, we can choose the most valuable treasure"

And the man spoke in front of the multitude. There was total silence. And his words sounded like pearls falling, like angelical harps. And he said: " My brothers, judge by yourselves, because I have not come to show off or for personal glory, but to share something with you, that is really valuable."

And then, he opened his tunic and he showed his naked chest. While saying simultaneously:

" You can find here, a heart that loves you. And by this love, I wish you all Peace. You can have great wealth , wonderful powers, but if there is no Peace, then, there is nothing. Peace be with you. Because is the glory of Love and is the presence of God in your hearts"

And then, he stopped. And if there was total silence before, now it was even deeper. And then, the oldest and wisest of all the judges rose and said: " It is very certain, what you just said. How ignorant, we all have been! True wealth is not found in power, or in control, but just as you said: It is Love, which is eternal, true, and which is the promised Peace. You, certainly are the most powerful and the richest man on earth."

And soon, the man answered: " Be it. But the power is not mine, since everything comes from God. And my science occurs because I only trust in Him. "

And the rich, powerful and all the persons, inclined in front of him. Then, arrogance left and Truth was revealed. There is no wealth, if there is no Peace.

Excerpt of the book, "True Wealth" by Mr. Oscar Basurto

Mystic artist and author, Oscar Basurto was born in Lima, Peru and has been living in Miami, Florida for the last years. His art is very well known at the international level . He is also a well known international lecturer, Spiritual Teacher and Healer. Poet and author of innumerable writings related to Self Knowledge, Healing, Art for Good Health, Meditation and Spiritual Science, are some of his subjects. He has been painting since his early years. And has a great knowledge on the ancient science of techniques and designs of the Sacred Geometry, on the Ancient Symbols and on Healing Energy. His art is essence and substance of life. Has received special recognition for his humanitarian work helping charitable and ecological institutions. The exquisite artworks and inspirational writings of Mr. Oscar Basurto are named Mystic Healing Art and may be appreciated in his website.

In continuation of my discussion on infinity and its implications with the divine, I should mention that the concept of there existing infinities beyond imagination is quite difficult to comprehend. If you read my poem, “How Can this Be? you read in verse the proof that shows clearly that there is no such thing as one kind of infinity. (See my ezine article “How Can this Be”) The extension of this most curious fact is that there are actually an infinite number of infinities!

Occasionally I wax metaphysical in conversations with my uncle and the other evening we were discussing some points regarding the spiritual realms. In passing, I brought up the topic of infinity and I asked him his impression of it. His response, which is typical of most people, is that infinity is just that—infinity: something that never ends. But how do we make this vague notion somewhat more concrete? I pointed my uncle’s attention to the set of natural, or counting numbers. This set comprises the familiar numbers {1, 2, 3, …}. The numbers go on and on, falling like dominoes, and never reaching a “biggest one.” This process is easy to grasp and presents no ordinary difficulty for the average person. What does become difficult to understand is why the infinity typified by this set of numbers is not unique.

Now let’s delve a little more deeply into this curious set of numbers and in the topic of infinity in general. This set of counting numbers obviously never ends. If you have ever seen a chronometer counting hundredths of a second, then you have seen how fast the digits representing the hundredths of a second whiz by, not appearing for any length of time sufficient to allow recognition of the appropriate digit. And this is for hundredths of a second. Imagine the same chronometer counting off thousandths of a second. Now imagine this going on from, let us say, ten thousand years ago and continuing for another ten thousand years, starting with 1 and such that each thousandth of a second would represent the next sequential counting number. Think of how far along in the set of counting numbers you would be. We could actually compute the number but we are only interested in trying to conceptualize how large potential infinity could be. Now that we have this huge number in hand, we could do whatever we wanted with it to project ourselves much further out in the set of counting numbers. We could multiply it by itself ten times (the mathematical way of saying we can raise the number to the tenth power); we could multiply it by itself a hundred times, a thousand times, and so on. We could then take the largest product and do the same process all over again. How big is this set?

This set is so large—never ending in fact—that we should be able to use it to compare to anything else that is infinite, right? Wrong. And in a continuing article on this most fascinating subject, I will discuss how this notion of one universal infinity is completely wrong. Thus, if sets of numbers can shatter our preconceived notions of a concept like infinity, which is more or less universally accepted as something that is real, what more can we uncover by plunging into the mysteries of numbers and mathematics in general? Stay tuned……

Joe is a prolific writer of self-help and educational material and an award-winning former teacher of both college and high school mathematics. Under the penname, JC Page, Joe authored Arithmetic Magic. As a result of this publication, Joe was invited to be a guest on the television show the Book Authority. Joe is also author of the charmingly pithy and popular ebook, Make a Good Impression Every Time: The Secret to Instant Popularity; the seminal collection of verse, Poems for the Mathematically Insecure, and the creator and scriptwriter of an upcoming DVD series that is both visionary and highly educational. The diverse genre of his writings (novel, short story, essay, script, and poetry)—particularly in regard to its educational flavor— co continues to captivate readers and to earn him recognition.

Joe propagates his teaching philosophy through his articles and books and is dedicated to helping educate children living in impoverished countries. Toward this end, he donates a portion of the proceeds from the sale of every ebook. For more information go to www.mathbyjoe.com.

Today’s culture, according to author Allen Armac in his brilliant and thought-provoking new book, is a mass culture. We live, breathe, work and often think as a group. We have mass education, mass entertainment, mass industrial production and mass religions as well. But where did this kind of group culture come from?

Armac carefully traces its creation back to the rise of the middle class, which largely began as a demographic movement in 1870, when ordinary people took on the world of the “royals” and rebuilt it to their taste, stripping the pomp and glory to try to create a braver new world. But in doing so, Armac argues, these same people impacted every aspect of our lives from that day forward – and not always for the better.

From education to communication to public opinion, we live in a global society. Everything we see, say or do is impacted by the masses. Given this, can any one individual improve present social conditions and make a better world for everyone? Can we go beyond our present mass culture to create brand new societal trends and values that we want to succeed and do away with those that we don’t? And can we reclaim the beauty of old artisan traditions instead of mass productions?

Armac answers these intriguing questions and more as he examines mass cultures through history in incisive, thorough and absolutely fascinating detail. The essence of the book reaches its climax in the last chapter that shows us an ideal way out from the dead-end of our age – ennoblement of the entire population. Provocative and pointed and simmering with intelligence, this is one book that should be essential reading for every thinking person.

About The Author

Article by Ellen Tanner Marsh. Ms Marsh is one of the most respected New York Times best selling authors.

Any reproduction of this article needs to have an html link pointing to: http://www.masssociety.szm.com

Tim McCreight, the author of Design Language, wrote: “Our need for wholeness is so great we assemble elements into as large a unit as possible. We will see a row of dots as a dotted line rather than a collection of small marks” (1996). This is just one example of the gestalt theory. It has gained world recognition and has become part of an artist’s formal study. Surprisingly, *gestalt* is not the name of the person who discovered the series of visual perceptions which are now recognized as design laws; instead, the word *gestalt* means “form or shape.”

The gestalt theory originated with Wertheimer, and he believed the human brain predictably organizes and groups forms and shapes by grouping them in certain ways. Gestalt theory includes: “the law of similarity, the law of proximity, the law of continuation, and the law of common fate” according to Paul Martin Lester, the author of the book Visual Communication.

Gestalt psychologists continued Wertheimer’s work which began back in the 1920’s. Artists want to know how the mind sees and organizes visual information. Improved understanding of how designs and patterns are viewed as a whole and not strictly by the parts is helpful to artists, because they can use these laws as guidelines as they work.

Due to the gestalt theory, an artist has a better idea as to how much or how little information should be in their graphic designs and artwork. Not only this, but the knowledge of the gestalt theory allows artists and designers to know where they can take visual liberties as they design. Gestalt theory shows how the human mind completes the missing parts and details by grouping, connecting, and separating the varying shapes and forms.

No doubt about it, the gestalt theory is fascinating. To learn more about it, take time to read information about “the law of similarity, the law of proximity, the law of continuation, and the law of common fate.” (revised 2/15/2006)

Debbie Jensen, Graphic Designer and Photographer http://www.debjensendesigns.com

The law of similarity is one of four visual perception laws as theorized by gestalt psychologists. Paul Martin Lester, the author of Visual Communication, an expert in the field wrote: “The law of similarity states that, given a choice by the brain, you will select the simplest and most stable form to concentrate on. This law stresses the importance of basic shapes in the form of squares, circles, and triangles.”

What does this mean? We tend to group similar shapes together and often times, we try to attach some type of meaning to them. For instance, if we see a row of small triangles, we tend to perceive them as a row or line. We are less inclined to regard them as separate triangles, but we are more inclined to view them as a line of triangles.

Another factor about the law of similarity has to do with what we identify first when viewing shapes and forms. We are prone to notice matching shapes, colors, and forms (as opposed to looking for what isn’t similar). Our human minds quickly identify patterns faster than the separate parts of the pattern. We like to look at how the pattern flows together. We love designs with repeating shapes, forms, colors, and textures.

The gestalt theory refers to how we see things in general. The gestalt laws refer to how we typically assimilate visual information particularly from the onset. This does not mean that we do this all the time and never wish to look at things more in depth either. However, understanding the gestalt laws are of benefit to graphic designers, because this knowledge teaches us to incorporate similarities in our layouts.

Another place where the law of similarity is at its peak is seen in retail stores. When retailers set up displays where the same product designs are repeated over and over, it looks really smart to us. In fact, sometimes the repeated patterns look grand! When consumers separate the product from the display and throw it into their carts, most often, the magic is gone!

Graphic designers are concerned with how information is received. Many of us receive visual information quickly and effortlessly as we gather information. If a graphic artist understands the law of similarity, they can anticipate what their viewers are noticing at a quick half-hearted glance. Graphic designers will anticipate how the product will look when grouped together in the store where the law of similarity is capitalized. This information can improve visual communication and save corporations millions of dollars on their advertising campaigns. (revised 2/15/2006)

Debbie Jensen, Graphic Designer and Photographer http://www.debjensendesigns.com

The law of proximity is one of four visual perception laws as theorized by gestalt psychologists. Paul Martin Lester, the author of Visual Communication, an expert in the field wrote: “The law of proximity states that the brain more closely associates objects close to each other than it does [when] two objects are far apart."

We love to see people and things grouped together. Groupings and togetherness appeal to our inclination of wanting things to be neat and organized. Artistically speaking, by grouping people and things together, we are not only conforming to the law of proximity, but we are making room for other interesting information to be added to a layout that wouldn’t fit otherwise.

There are other aspects to the law of proximity too. For instance, when we see two people next to each other in a photograph, we look to see what their relationship is or how they are communicating with each other. When birds are flying, we love to see how they group and fly in a *V* form together. At social gatherings, people tend to group together (even if there is plenty of space to spread out). Then again, we like to see groupings of the same species of plants in landscapes and find this to be visually pleasing.

In knowing about the law of proximity, designers, photographers, and artists are better able to create interesting, memorable images. When the law of proximity is used, viewers are more apt to take notice and interest in the visual messages being conveyed, because they are looking for underlying messages within the images and responding to them. The law of proximity somewhat overlaps with harmony. Harmony is "the pleasing interaction or appropriate combination of the elements in a whole" as described by Tim McCreight, the author of Design Language. When an image is in harmony, it is pleasing to us because the elements or objects are supporting and complementing each other. We view this as positive energy. This type of image gives us closure and peace void of anxiety. It is no wonder why most people prefer harmonious artwork in home decor.

The law of proximity is another way humans organize their world. Look in the produce section of a supermarket and notice how this law takes on practical application. Visual clusters of stars are beautiful to view in the same way as seen with repetitive patterns and textures. At home, we have a place to stack our dishes and another place to hang our clothes. The law of proximity indicates that humans prefer to see group’s of similar objects together. This explains why patterned material and grid-like designs are visually appealing. (revised 2/15/2006)

Debbie Jensen, Graphic Designer and Photographer http://www.debjensendesigns.com

How well can we impose our paradigm or hypotheses upon nature when we now know anti-gravity exists and Einstein’s cosmological constant is just at the beginning of being integrated into a set of laws that cannot explain the fact of its existence? How can we continue to reject the reality of spirituality when all materiality and its laws are wrong and produce immoral constructs? Sartre addresses this long before the massive knowledge of quantum physics became instrumental to the computers and realities we now face.

"The source of this unfortunate approach is well known: as Whitehead said, a law begins by being a hypothesis and ends by becoming a ‘fact’. When we say that the earth revolves, we do not feel as though we are stating a theory, or that we are relying on a system of knowledge; we feel that we are in the presence of the fact itself, which immediately eliminates us as knowing subjects in order to restore us to our ‘nature’ as objects of gravitation. For anyone with a realistic view of the world, knowledge therefore destroys itself in order to ‘become the world’, and this is true not only of philosophy but also of all scientific Knowledge. When dialectical materialism claims to establish a dialectic of Nature it does not present itself as an attempt at an extremely general synthesis of human knowledge, but rather as a mere ordering of the facts. And its claim to be concerned with the facts is not unjustified: when Engels speaks of the expansion of bodies or of electric current, he is indeed referring to the facts themselves - although these facts may undergo essential changes with the progress of science. This gigantic - and, as we shall see, abortive - attempt to allow the world to unfold itself by itself and to ‘no one’, we shall call ‘external’, or transcendental, dialectical materialism." (6)

Does Sartre actually think science and the hypotheses of the prevailing paradigm are an "abortion" of the potential of man and his creative soulful potential? We leave this thought in your mind. Be careful to allow knowledge not "to destroy itself" and you will admit that is one of many possibilities. In the process of evaluating the immanence of Divine spirit in all things and the multiplicity of the totalized universe you will alternately wax parallel and alternative until the absurdity of our KNOWing will seem elegantly if not eloquently amusing. But Harold Pinter will never reach my funny bone and Camus will still be left saying suicide is the only alternative to incorporation. But before total ‘dis’-corporation into a void of pure rationality occurs let us revisit the absurdity of a unified transcendent field in the words of Sartre. Remember also, that truth is convergent, congruent (affinity applies) and growing, despite the Heisenbergian ‘uncertainty’ or ‘observer’ that Schrödinger’s ‘cat’ entails.

"Altogether, these observations enable us to attempt a critical assessment of rationality (as a rule of understanding) at the level of the group. Common ‘praxis’ is ‘dialectical’, from the most basic level on (that of the fused group): it totalises the object, pursues some total aim, unifies the practico-inert field and dissolves it in the synthesis of the’ common practical field’. If common ‘praxis’ is to be a form of rationality, it must be dialectical rationality. And, since it is always intelligible, we are compelled to recognise the existence of this form of rationality…

{But must we surrender our soul in response to the Hobbesian/Hegelian rather than rise to the promise of the Socratian? Plato was a control or top down oriented person but he mourned the loss of Socrates with the best of them, ‘they’ say.}

… Moreover, it should be noted that in itself it does not display the specific characteristics of the ‘individual’ dialectic as the free development of a practical organism. Although - as we have seen, and as will soon become clearer - a dialectical relation may insert itself between a common ‘praxis’ and an individual’s ‘praxis’, a common ‘praxis’ is not in itself a mere amplification of the ‘praxis of’ an individual. As we have seen, the interiorisation of multiplicity is one of the essential characteristics. And the organism is undoubtedly comparable in some ways with interiorised inertia. But, when applied to the organic individual, these words have only a ‘metaphysical’ and uncertain meaning in relation to its biological being, in so far as it eludes apodictic, dialectical investigation and manifests itself, beyond reach, in the milieu of the transcendental dialectic. In fact, dialectical investigation shows us, the action of the individual as unifying itself in the unifying synthesis and in the transcendence of the practical field, but it ‘never’ reveals it to us as ‘unified’.

The practical organism is the unifying unity of unification; thus the investigation refers us (as if to its first, most abstract intuition, and as to its limit) to man as the ‘biological unit’ on which every ‘praxis’ is based (and which every immediate ‘praxis’ realises as a temporalisation towards an end). The interiorisation of multiplicity, however, is a moment of collective action and the group constitutes itself ‘by it’ (as by the other factors already mentioned) as the means of the common ‘praxis’. {This is the kind of thing that allowed Ed Kyle who was in the bunk next to me and refreshing his existential knowledge, to open me or me to open him as our bond in Sartre extended our intuition into actual and certain ESP. I learned more that two days than in any year of school to that point in my life.}In this simple form (the fused group), we are in fact forced to admit that the group is initially a ‘means’, in which the organism is agent, end and means all at once.

{He goes on to express the necessary loss of fear ["means of defence"] and giving of oneself with reduced concern that rational or intellectual knowingness must achieve potency over the "free affirmation of freedom" yet he leaves room for more in the "hyper-dialectic" which might relate to Spirit and World Mind.}

In our example, the grouping, still in a primitive state, is the ‘invention of everyone’ in so far as everyone is personally threatened by a danger which presents itself as common. {Is this conflict in self and group part of a natural right of all humans to allow each other the access to go beyond?} And everyone can invent this new instrument ‘in so far as’ the practical organism can already totalise multiplicities in a practical field, recognize the ‘praxis’ of developing common totalisations and create a group as a reinteriorisation and practical inversion of a totalising signification of negation (the ‘praxis’ of total annihilation). {It goes beyond mere nihilism I know, now; but at the time Nietzsche seemed to me a lot like Sartre - I was wrong!} Thus the practical creation of ‘means of defence’ is a resumption in freedom, as a new relation with men, of an exterior unity, or a dissolution of the serial relation of impotence by the free affirmation (through circumstances) of freedom as a human relation in a new ‘praxis’ (which comes to the same thing).

This does not mean, however, that ‘either’ the interiorisation of the multiplicity in me, ‘or’ the affirmation here of ‘my’ freedom as a recognition of all ‘our’ freedoms, ‘or’ totalisation as the constitution of a means for ‘praxis’, or the synthetic and common character of the original urgency and of ‘our’ objectification in the victory, are capable of constituting a new statute of hyper-organic existence, as ‘being-in-the-group’ - any more than the specific characteristics of common action (in particular, the utilisation of multiplicity and the differentiation of functions) succeed in making it a hyper-dialectic whose intelligibility lies in its synthetic transcendence of individual dialectics." (7)

Direct inference or the formulation of constructs and hypotheses are not true observation and therefore don’t employ real science. Our right to be stupid and impose our values on nature is a reality but the reality has little congruence and creative potential. Without fear and in full acceptance that whatever actually is God or the spiritual and metaphysical intelligence that creates and allows chaos of gravity and anti-gravity to exist (along with all other apparent incongruities); we are able to find a commonality and enabling ability to accentuate the positive beyond mere authoritative deterministic and reductive models. Our soul does not use our retina as much as it uses our visceral and interiorized cosmic interfacing thalami. This is now being proven in research and we must prove it in our social exchanges and institutional environments such as school. We did not bargain to have new names for our maleficent overlords through ending the Dark Ages. We bargained for a new wisdom and brotherhood - we think! What do you think? Are you free to think such thoughts with certainty that no social repercussions will occur?

Author of many books available at Lulu and World-Mysteries.com

Do you have an invisible friend to help guide you through life? Most people do and they call them God. These Gods are plentiful and in so many different cultures, for instance we have Allah, Buddha and God. In some religions there are three Gods or many Gods for instance Hindus have a God for the Creator, Protector and Destroyer. The Greeks, well they had so many Gods that you might lose track of them all if you were not paying attention. These Gods have helped mankind explain that which he cannot know during his period of his life experience.

Many Agnostics and Atheists simple say that there is no god. They say that they cannot believe all the weak-minded humans out there. They even ask us; “So, is that how you cope with life; an invisible friend?”

One recent Agnostic who I had the pleasure to meet at a local coffee shop was debating with a firm Christian Believer and Youth Director at a very large non-denominational church; I believe it was called the “Living Verse” or something of that nature. In fact the pastor youth director even said he use to be an Agnostic himself once, even though his body language and all the touching of his face and itching his ears said he was misrepresenting himself.

He explained well just because you cannot see it, does not mean it is not there. He explained we cannot see air, but we know it is there and we for sure know when it is not there, as we cannot breath. The Agnostic came back with; “Well, I do not believe in imagined invisible friends” but later he admitted once long ago he was like the Christian Youth Pastor and he did believe in an invisible friend and said; “. . .Although I did like Santa Clause, he seemed cool, very logistically efficient.” The Agnostic then said to the Youth Christian Pastor; “but then I grew up, what’s your excuse?” Think on this in 2006.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/