Approval in society has almost become mandatory. We somehow need to be understood perfectly by those whom we associate ourselves with. So much so, there is protocol to follow for every occasion. Everything that needs to get across all the time cannot be contained in this predefined behavioral code. There is bound to be room for misunderstanding when there exists such a gap between what is meant to be understood and what eventually is.

Such a mandate of common opinion for approval brings about the concept that every action and every word spoken has an implication. These implications can differ depending on whose on the receiving end. Sensitivity to a particular subject can invoke a response of anger, hurt and pain. Paying attention to protocol prevents such occurrences while keeping lots that is meant to be said quiet, allowing them to cause many a misunderstanding. When what is kept quiet is required to be known, to ask for clarification is awkward because protocol defines the unsaid but cannot define all that remains unsaid.

The root causes of this issue is the approval we seek from each other for what we do and the things approved of that we expect from each other. They surround and dictate our modes of interaction, our opinions and our points of view when these matter. They are a limiting factor to the human capability. They also create unnecessary dependence and reliance that neither promotes nor supports a cause. They serve society no profitable purpose.

If done away with, society will need a replacement system. One in which every action and word spoken is done so in complete conviction of its purpose and goal. One in which every action and word spoken is received only if it is in tandem with ones purpose and goal. To not be in approval of yet to be in respect of everything we see and hear while perfectly understanding our purpose and goal and do what it takes to achieve it while causing no inconvenience to those we involve in the process is what such a replacement system would require. It is a better recourse to making the world a better place-when you act in the above mentioned intrest not looking for and not depending on positive encouraging response for what you do. It makes the self stronger, confident and provides space for one to grow to boundless measures.

Iam Sunil Noronha. I tend to take a phiolosphical veiw of hings. I attack the isseu more than the incident

When it comes to the question of rights, it seems that there are a variety of diversed opinions on the matter. As you go from social issue to social issue, encompassing the political and ethical implications, one will find that there are different dispositions, each holding to the idea that their idea of rights is the correct one. For example, in the case of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, on the issue of abortion. Pro-Life believes that the unborn fetus has the right to life, whereas Pro-Choice believes that the woman has the right to choose. In some cases of the Pro-Choice movement, there are those who believe in limited rights of women to abortion. They believe that a woman has the right to abortion only in cases of incest and rape, or that a woman has the right to abortion only up to the late second trimester. When understanding the ideology of Conservative and Liberal political parties, we find that the former more strongly believe in the right to private property than the others. Conservatives are opposed to welfare and social programs, in that these are supported by taxation, which appropriates some of the wealth of everyone, and they oppose these programs because it violates what they believe is the right to property. Liberals, on the other hand, are supportive of such wealth appropriation, because they believe that every person who labors is entitled to some of the profits of the land. In these examples, as many others, we find that it is the question of rights that the parties are arguing over. It is in this piece that I will delve deeper into this question.

When looking at rights, there is an infinite plethora of them that we could apply. We could argue that people have the right to dress like the other sex, to make sexual advances towards anyone at any time, to poke others, to borrow without paying for something (steal), among many other things. Of course, this short list of rights I provided was absurd and ridiculous. It’s mostly because when we think of rights, we tend to think of the right to freedom of speech, the right to freedom of religion, right to elect our own government officials and expel them upon misconduct, among many other rights. The right to political and labor association. These are all rights that we commonly think about when we think of rights, or they are rights we appeal to when arguing for or against a certain issue. Someone may oppose the government supplying tax fund to churches because it violates the freedom of religion; another person may oppose the government censoring books on sexuality because it violates the right to freedom of speech. So we find, that these smaller issues, these matters that are brought to us today, are opposed or supported based on what we believe the rights of the people are. However, when comparing these often thought about rights, such as freedom of speech, with those absurd rights that I mentioned, such as the right to poke anyone at any time, one may try to find a fundamental difference, to justify one and villify the other. Of course, there is no difference, except the foundation or justification beneath whatever right it is.

So, if someone were to support the cause for war, they may argue that it is because a nation’s people have the right to own the property of the other nation; if someone were to oppose the cause for war, they may argue that it is because a nation’s people have the right to security and their own homeland. We see then that the current issue is decided upon based primarily on the idea of preconceived rights. What, then are the reasons that justify or villify a right?

To answer this question, I am going to draw a scenario, by which we can judge why we believe that one party has the rights or the other party has the rights. Then, once we decide which party has the rights, we can poke and prod our own lifestyles and philosophies until we find some sort of balance in consistency. Consider the situation of a Nudist and a non-Nudist. The first believes that if he or anyone else must cover up their bodies, that he will suffer and be in misery. The second believes the opposite, that if he or anyone else has their bodies not covered up, that he will suffer and be in misery. We have an opposition of interests in this situation. Who’s right prevails? That of the Nudist or that of the non-Nudist? If we recognize the right of the Nudist, then the non-Nudist suffers; if we accept the right of the non-Nudist, then the Nudist suffers. Of course, this example is perhaps the most believable, because any cultured person understands that Nudists generally feel trapped when forced to wear clothes, and feel the same for others — and, as the common meme of the Western Civilization goes, not wearing clothing in public is considered taboo, if not outrightly illegal. Consider another example, using the absurd rights that I talked about before. What if someone felt a great misery, a great suffering and pain in their heart, if they couldn’t punch everyone they met? It seems absurd and ridiculous, considering that human nature has never demonstrated this before in history, but consider that in one human they did manifest this. Now, this person and a normal person. In the same scenario, one feels the need to punch the other, otherwise they suffer; the other feels the right not to be punched, otherwise they suffer.

It may very well be true that in this case, there is no justification for one person’s right, or the other person’s right — at least, no justification that we can find. In the normal political turmoil, between the rights that one group asserts we have and those of another group, there is usually some reason, if not absolute, that would allow us to stray towards supporting one right over another. Revisiting the case of abortion, one may argue that an unborn infant has no right to life, since it is not conscious — but when it does become conscious, it gains that right to life. In the question of tax-funded welfare and social programs, one may make a case for them in arguing that the common people are responsible for producing all the wealth of society, and therefore are entitled to part of the dividend. When supporting such broad and basic freedoms, such as that of religion or speech or life, it seems that there needs to be no argument, in that the greater part of the population desires these freedoms, and even those who don’t support these rights, they have some desire of a limited freedom for them. We can reason, in some way or regard, to support one right over another, when they contradict each other. Revisiting the scenario of the Nudist again, one may argue that all animals are born nude, and therefore, the Nudist shouldn’t be blamed for what his natural disposition is. But, what makes this scenario so perfect for our observation, is that no matter what arguments we present, both side will suffer some pain unless their right is recognized. We can reason to the non-Nudist all that we like that it is natural to be nude, or we can reason to the Nudist all that we like that it is part of the non-Nudist’s culture. We can expend all the words of human language, use every argument known to man, but no matter what we reason, they will still suffer unless their right (and not the other right) to be is recognized. This is the one fact that nothing can override, except possibly a deeper explanation to the justification of rights.

To anyone who have studied the depths of the field of ethics, they will know that there are other approaches to this subject. For example, the Utilitarians argue that there are, in fact, no such things as right, but that an act is judged as moral or immoral based on how much happiness or misery it creates; though, I find certain flaws in such a system. Particularly, I find that there are particular inductive reasoning falacies in the philosophers of this system. For example, it may very well be a good act to save a child’s life, but I cannot conceive of any reasoning that would render someone immoral for not doing so. Or, for example, if one man is killed, and his organs save the lives of ten people, does that mean the murder was just? According to a Utilitarian, yes, but as I argued before, I do not believe that there is any reason to believe that a person is immoral to not sacrificing to the greater good. I believe in a system of rights.

There are other systems which deal with morality and explaining right from wrong acts, or differentiating them. The idea of karma, for example, disables people from the ability to change anything, and renders them subject to a system of justice incorporated into the natural world. It argues that good things happen to good people and that bad things happen to bad people. Thus, if a man is going to have surgery, the doctor’s ability means nothing — since the man will survive if he is good, but will die if he is bad. That would be an entire violation of the mechanics of the natural; besides, there are few who argue that good things don’t happen to bad people — at least, in the world in which we live in.

Or, instead of a non-rights based systems of ethics, there are those systems which are based on rights, but presents a method in deciding what those rights are. The most common of these ethical systems are those of religion. The Bible, for example, denies people the right to murder, to covet, among other things, which we can be found in the Ten Commandments. The ethics of Buddhism deny a person the right to use drugs or alcohol. Islam denies the right to eating pork but allows them the right to have many wives. All in all, the religious systems of ethics are unfounded, in that there has yet to be an iota of evidence on behalf of any spiritual beings. Even so, if a spiritual being were to declare the validity of one right, is that even an authority? There is no reason to believe that it is more of an authority than any mortal man. Besides, if a god had argued for man’s right to rape women, would it be just? Or what of the right to theft and murder? What if there were two gods with contradictory moral systems? Whatever the case may be there, there is no evidence for god, and furthermore, religious ethical systems are dictated without the slightest bit of authority or proof.

There is, plainly, no answer to who has a justified right. In either case, someone suffers. Unfortunately, I have not been able to, in all my theorizing and research, been able to come up with a justifiable reason why one’s right is more just than the other. One may argue that the person who deserves the right is the one who would suffer more, but in that case, the rights to life, property, and the various liberties all are able to be faultered, once society has been convinced that it wants something more than another thing. It may very well be true that there is no just answer to this dilemma, and our thinking on the issue needs to expand to more open-minded thinking when compromising. Whatever the case, I have written out what I have discovered thus far on the question of rights.

www.punkerslut.com

For Life, Punkerslut

Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been writing essays and poetry on social issues which have caught his attention for several years. His website http://www.punkerslut.com provides a complete list of all of these writings. His life experience includes homelessness, squating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of high school, getting expelled from college for "subversive activities," and a myriad of other revolutionary actions.

Culture is essentially a misnomer; it is a subverted expression or an undermined one by the standards of what it implies. Culture is synonymous with being civilized, when actually culture, in the aim of its virtue, is a term for a long association with civilization and not civilization exactly. Culture, like sex, is a symptomatic word. You think sex, you think orgies, oils, handcuffs, fantasies; likewise, you think culture, you think dance, the generic literati, page 3, Prem Chand and more ethnic jabber.

When you say or brood a thing as cultured, advertently or inadvertently, you render some other elemental thing as uncultured. There’s no third concept in a dichotomy. A wall is a wall and a door a door; they cannot subsist in an exchange of application, and they become so correlative that they correspond as extremities. Culture and non-culture, shall we call it, are natural extremities; we’re dependant on privileging one over the other. It is seldom a matter of choice, and rarely a matter of subjectivity. Culture is an explicit term; a wrong term, but a term nonetheless. Mind you, a term for collectivism and not individualism. Not ‘me’, but ‘us’. Let us consider a political facet: the British bested us by the means to an end of a very elusively simple theory – ‘Divide and rule’. Weigh those words – ‘divide’ and ‘rule’, they comprise the whole potential of man. It is inherent even in our most complex natures to be ‘divided’ and to be ‘ruled’, and men, as a species, encompass such a tendency to be divided and to be ruled because their sense of individuality is compromised. This tendency arises from a collective idea of self; it is not psychological, it is not philosophical – it is merely demented. We do not have a wholesome and manifest definition of an identity. For us, it immediately becomes the baffled something that we secure from the rest of the world. The objective of culture, but, is not to divide and rule but something comparatively more insidious – to ‘unite and disintegrate’.

Man might be a constant social animal but he is foremost a cultural beast. Culture is discrete from society owes to the fact that it is the only unit symbolic of it. Chiefly, it is symbolic of its evils. You see, the text of ‘uniting and disintegrating’ is contingent on rational boundaries. You compound man, disillusion him as a collective force and then, you begin defining him. We are men enslaved in catalogues, in brochures, plastered stiff on walls, we can be opened, skimmed through and put back on a rack. Culture is the ornate design on our fronts and the price tag on our backs. As declared earlier, culture is a term, a term that insinuates collectivism. However, a term, by manner, is always a representative of something. If so, what does culture stand for, what does it represent? If we were to seclude two men in a room – one culturally advanced and another, culturally backward, they will inevitably be in a conflict of notions, of ideas, of something both, we and they have yet to determine. Culture is a backward and forward motion and no man contains it wholly, we, all of us, are trapped at some point of our desires.

The fault lies not in the capacity of man but in the obvious presence of his common variation – culture. Now, the erstwhile question – what does culture stand for? What does it represent? Verily, it stands for nothing; it is altogether indifferent to the safe concept of representing something. It just adds to the basic human values, and by values alone, a man can neither be more human or less human, or more qualified or less qualified to be so. We bear a sense of something when we’re competent enough to ignore it. Hence we have neither a sense of individuality nor a sense of identity, but we do have a fundamental talent for each of them. And that is what we stand for, what we represent, and that is also what we hold against culture.

Assuming culture is NOT a divisive force, then, a man standing on top of a building about to affect a fall is a moral equivalent of a man standing right below it. But assuming culture IS a divisive force, then the two men are factually and thankfully morally displaced, and are in their positions of advantage and disadvantage not for the result of culture but for the resolute state of its divisiveness.

Culture, semantically, evolves from the word ‘cult’, again, an offbeat divisive term. Culture, finally and irrefutably, is about a procession of boundaries – not of manufacturing a surplus, but manipulating the existential ones. The fantastic quality of its divisiveness is something it picks up from its handling of a similar contagious human attribute. Culture, by all means, is and shall remain indicative of civilization and civilization, by no means, shall make ostensible a lucid, united concept of man.

Refer any queries to - mosaics12@rediffmail.com

Have you ever happened across an online forum discussing a scientific or technology topic? Generally the first post is very interesting and perhaps as you read down the thread you find many interesting points of contention and tid bits of brilliance. Then after you are done, you realize that you spend most of your time reading thru personal attacks, negative comments and off topic or irrelevant subject matter.

Few can say they know any high tech think tank forums that actually work well. Occasionally you find an absolutely interesting thread with a completely awesome topic, intellectual debate or revolutionary innovative thinking. This keeps people coming back and yet the other topic threads filled with attacks seem to be entertaining and filled with controversial interest are there reminding you of the truth about human beings and their problematic innate characteristics.

For myself I have developed a place to put my thoughts, solutions, concepts to share them with those who are interested, interact with them if they are so inclined. This works well for me, although is not necessarily the norm. Now then the new paradigm of the Blog seems to help many people fulfill their need to express themselves. Perhaps you are a blogger and find it is an excellent tool for those purposes?

Many bloggers are interested in seeking others to associate with who have not turned off their brains and would like to discuss issues and topics of mutual interest. Anyone can has set up a think tank to promote a political position; in fact they are now and have in the past. This of course ends up with its own ramification, as we know politics and lawyers are silly way to run mankind’s civilizations and needs.

Having set up an online forum for progressive and innovative thinkers I can say that it is not an easy endeavor, but one very much needed. And additionally I cannot speak for the think thank of another or a group of others. Other than those I have observed are completely embracing or embattled in politics of the sorts. Such a Think Tank is not thinking it is reacting to alternate opinions, which are generally taking the pole position to party or industry approved lines. (opinion). For those who are beyond that, they will need to continue searching.

Many wish to think without boxes or territorial lines of thoughts drawn by men; for me such a think tank of another is merely a study in human interaction, which appears to be very predictable, rather than a coat hanger in a closet or place to hang my hat. I believe that thought should have NO boundaries of any type including; dimensions, time, life experience model, species, language, belief systems, religion, etc. It does not make sense to limit ones mind in that way; fore if one does how can they call that thinking and therefore who could call such group activity a think tank. It sounds more like a think box with limits. I have gotten together with others to discuss thought and have traveled to every city in the United States with over 10,000 population, sat in coffee shops, met people and assisted them in doing the same. Some have set up ad hoc networks and meeting times, in doing so I have learned a lot about the designing of networked think tank concept. Do you have thoughts about Think Tank Formation? How would you design a think tank? Have you ever thought about that?

If one is looking for a think tank for namesake, I suggest they look for one, which bares that name; Think Tank and then to contact them. My forum is not a think tank in itself, just a place that individuals who are serious about the forward progression of mankind in the present period can go to share ideas, innovations and concepts. Some may have ideas and use it to put out concepts for those interested or who find a subject via Search Engines. A Think Tank is like a Novel; you have the choice of determining what it will be and what your purpose is in creating it. And in that, we see many are abusing the concept of a Think Tank for very politically motivated reasons, which is a shame really. You are welcome to think with me, if you wish online. If not, then you must continue your search for a think tank or should I say “Thinking Box” and perhaps you might find a whole bunch of people who think like you or a group that is "willing to have you as a member" and can get them to promote your political agenda. You should be able to find something that fits your fancy in that regard. Best of luck on that, if not you are welcome to bring your mind and join me in thought, think on this.

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

As we see the changing of the guard of the Worlds greatest civilizations from the United States to China or India we see history repeating itself as it has so many times in the human endeavors written history. It was not much more than 200 years ago when Great Britain was the greatest nation in the World. They kept the Great in their name but the United States clearly carried the choice after that. Next it appears due to our own follies and lake of forward progression we will be passing the torch again and in doing so taking our place as a footnote on the page in the annals of mankind’s history.

As we pass are on the apex of the hand off, which is clearly a choice having drown our nation in bureaucracy, over regulation and disdain for change, innovation or progress; we see a difference in cultures which is vast indeed. It is obvious that Western Culture has its advantages, whether we take advantage of them or not. It is equally as obvious for anyone who studies culture that Eastern Culture has its own advantages. Some of these advantages are in conflict, while much is similar. Which is better?

Should we assume that since Eastern Culture is next up to bat with the bases loaded that Eastern lifestyle is more fulfilling than the Western Lifestyle? We know from our own short 200-year history in the United States that western worlds; capitalism and western culture lifts people up, who put in. We have seen in recent history how Socialism and Communism have tended to push people down and over run civilizations in debt and inefficiency. Yet all in all most of human history and the government structures they have chosen share many things. All these scenarios and all the hybrids of each or all, seem to involve people who are of the ruling class who are motivated by those things humans are motivated by, similarly to those they rule, who are equally motivated by such things.

So when we ask which is better; one government structure or one culture over another, it appears that one could indeed argue both sides of the point or be right no matter which side they argue. And indeed in such abstract thought it seems we are all of the same genes and all one in that regard. The only difference between you neighbor in the United States and one of Asian Ancestry is probably not more than 3000-4000 years and certainly not more than 10,000 to 15,000. We all have similar needs to fulfill self and although have been pre-conditioned to believe one culture is better than the other is more nurture than nature isn’t it? Have you thought here yet? You might next time someone says it is us against them, as that is more similar to punching yourself in the eye really? We all belong to a fairly successful species which has come quite a ways and whose future is very bright if we will dump these egocentric attitude and that goes for both sides.

In the movie about World War II a Japanese Political Prisoner in the United States was asked; “Who do you want to win the war?” In the movie his answer showed much wisdom as he said; “ If your mother and father are fighting, do you want one to kill the other or do you just want them to stop fighting?” Well with that said and if you are a God fearing individual what do you think your God might say about this? Do you really believe that a God believes that these questions of which culture is better; Eastern or Western Culture are relevant? When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western Culture, he said; “I think it would be a good idea.” You know so do I, I wish we would live as we promise ourselves rather than in hypocrisy, how about you?

Additionally had it not been for our long and strong history of capitalists, we in the Western World would have never achieved this level of civilization, yet we condemn those who got us here and those that follow in their footsteps. How many times have you heard that Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ? That is ridiculous and he and Melinda have given more to the World than anyone else in the history of humankind and what do we do as a society? Call him the anti-Christ and tell the government to attack his company, which is providing the communication to the world and opening up the world for cross-culture knowledge and commerce? So if Western Culture is better, why do we attack it?

We should not necessarily equate Red China to communism or place a label like Imperialism as we did to the Japanese in the Second World War, but we should understand that as we live in hypocrisy in our civilization often those running other civilizations do the same. History shows many different styles of societies, but in critic of Western Civilization for Eastern Culture, we might wish to define which one. The Chinese Dynasties of days gone by, the more recent hard line Red China of three decades ago or the newest hybrid culture which is slowly emerging, which when finished will much resemble a larger and even more stable version of South Korea?

Currently I guess if I were a Chinese Peasant and the government was testing out N5H1 Bird Flu vaccine for a possible use for bio-warfare in my South Western Province, I do not think I would be a great supporter of Eastern Culture over Western? I think if this was the case that I would rather have my family to be making Nike Shoes today and driving a Chevrolet and wearing Levis tomorrow. This is an interesting point on debate of which is better; Eastern or Western Culture, but the question in itself is wrong as we are comparing apples and oranges aren’t we. Some say that the Ugly Western Culture Capitalists in their pursuit of Globalism are causing other nations to remain impoverished. Is Globalism really bad, or is it getting a bad rap? And does it really matter which is better Eastern or Western Culture as we do not even respect all we have in the United States and in our haste to point out worse problems in the world, we have taken our eye off the ball and China and/or India is ready to hit a grand slam home run, clean out of the park. So it really doesn’t matter which you think is better; click here:

Learn Chinese while you drive, sure beats road rage, yelling at fellow citizens, may as well start today:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888194170/104-0004098-8541509?v=glance

It would be wise to re-evaluate our nation, what we really stand for and move to fix those things which are not perfect now, before we allow it to all slip away embroiled in controversy, politics and chaos as we divide ourselves. Think about it.

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

Human Beings are an interesting species in that they believe somehow they are special, that their God created them in his image and they are more divine than other animals on the Planet. We have heard all the reasons why humans are better or different. That they can think, plan, dream, reason and have choice?

Surely you have pondered this question, yet if you have a pet; a dog or cat, you know they think. You watch them move their feet while sleeping they are dreaming about something obviously, running around the yard, chasing a mouse, whatever, what else could that be? Some say well only humans have empathy; that is utter and complete hokum and hogwash. We know dogs and chimpanzees have empathy that has been proven over and over again. Dolphins too, having rescued people drowning and left others to drown, obviously they are thinking about who to save and why?

Let me throw out a couple of other thoughts on this subject, as like you I too have thought here. In my conclusion of this thought and in all my observation of humans, I do not find a single redeeming quality or even a seriously debatable point that mankind has something extra that other animals do not have? Even sharks seem to reason and choose where to swim? Monkeys and Dogs have empathy?

One thing I have thought on is that humans can over come many of their innate tendencies, such as the need to procreate. Although other animals can do this, it appears to be much easier for human beings than other animals. However this might end up being our downfall of the species some day off in the future. I do not believe mankind is anything special, but as has been said they are mostly harmless.

One thing that makes humans unique might be that no other creature lives in such fantasy of self-importance or false ego? That must be it? Think about it.

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

Often we consider an individual or person a creative mind or creative person. Yet in common use language that can mean quite a lot. A creative person who solves problems, which are important to us, can be considered a possessor of a brilliant mind. Often some one in our civilization who does solves problems in a multi-disciplinarian way repeatedly in industry, government, science or military we will label as a genius. Many of us can pass as intelligent, bright, cunning, smart or problem solves, but yet the additional labels of brilliant, genius and creative, is something else. And whether we can define it or not in standard terms, we certainly know it when we see. In my life I have been fortunate to have been involved with many a brilliant creative genius and you can feel it from even the briefest of conversations.

Simply being smart, knowing data or memorizing facts is not enough to make the grade of the next level of the genius, creative and brilliant souls. Only using your knowledge is worthy, simply possessing it is common of many an individual; the key is to use that knowledge in over coming, problem solving, innovating, entreprenuer’ing, designing and WINING. So often we say people are smart, without having ever done anything with it?

Hard to say why we do this, as to many of the observers that is a waste time and should be consider ignorant and not even making the “smart level.” Most do not understand the creative thing, it makes no sense to them for instance I myself have been perceived as creative. Yet often those using the label do not understand the other uses of the label. Often people will have misread one they call creative or have a screwed up sense of what creative is? Being creative in the true sense of the word should not be difficult as it is a natural thing, every one should have it.

On a scale of the over all population, there are those who are more creative than most and perhaps do deserve the title or perhaps the next level of title; the brilliant or genius level. An intelligent or smart person with a strong presence of attributes for instance human intent, will, energy, cross pollination in problem solving, athletic ability, stead fastness, perseverance, etc. coupled with creativity, will usually more resemble what we consider to be brilliant or genius status.

When you call someone creative what do you think of? What is most fascinating about these terms is so often creative people have a sense of lacking when they cannot solve a problem, or do not know an answer. Many a genius has toiled for years trying to solve a problem and cannot accept giving up or quitting on that problem, in fact they get quite angry at themselves if they do not muster the creativity to solve the problem.

Somehow these brilliant minds cannot except not knowing the answer and yet so seek it or feel inferior in their own self-evaluation. Many a creative genius goes to the grave unfulfilled in this regard, thus it is true that with brilliance comes baggage. Some spend a lifetime convincing them selves that they are not good enough in the creativity arena yet. Sure their colleagues will tell them they are creative and brilliant and they may even get an award or two, saying how much of a genius they are, but often they simply wonder why is everyone telling me I am creative, brilliant or a genius? If you search out the most brilliant minds of past periods you will find this to be the case. How fascinating it is to see that the words we use to describe others have no affect on these minds?

It is also quite amazing that the creative genius in all their brilliance do not see such things as a compliment, they consider the complimentor wrong. If people tell them these things they assume that those who speak such words must live in a box with so many limits that they see the genius as creative? To the brilliant genius it would appear that they are not creative necessarily, only the others are not applying themselves and others just live in a box and buy the line of BS purported to help them believe it is okay to live within such stringent limits? In the creative genius’s mind with all their brilliance and baggage believes that living outside the cave is not being creative, it is simply living and thinking? It is natural and it is suppose to be that way. These brilliant and often unreasonable individuals know of no limits and cannot comprehend why we live in mediocrity and label them as geniuses. Do you think they are laughing at us? Think on that.

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

Many say that many a population has surrendered their minds to the Television Set and for the most part it is an unfortunate truth indeed. Should the enlightened teach those who do not wish to be taught and closed their minds? Many believe those who understand should be out in force to assisting the oppressed masses, however those who have often find themselves targets of the same.

How can this be? Simple really as those hoards are dangerous and often are too easily incited to throw stones or kill those who show them what is really flickering on their wall and thus perhaps one who does so, does so to no avail, except personal sacrifice or martyrdom. Yet again for what reason, if you are to be called a liar, made and example of our even shot at? Those society labels as the oppressed masses and ignorant hoards are a problem for the ongoing forward progression of the species. Take the recent looters in New Orleans for instance during Hurricane Katrina. Then those who stayed behind and planned to loot in Houston during the chaos of Super Hurricane Rita; are we quite certain they wish to be enlightened, trying to do so could potentially get you shot.

If you truly feel it is your calling to go out and preach enlightenment to the masses, then be forewarned of the potentially fatal consequences. Your quest is noble indeed, but your efforts maybe futile. You would be better off, writing a Rap Song, sneaking in some positive lyrics and getting yourself on the boob tube. Think about it.

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

The Sphinx is best described as a symbol of “arcane wisdom” (Olderr 126), and wicked power in ancient Greece around 1200 BCE. Her disposition is depicted by the mythical story associated with her, specifically, her interactions with Oedipus . The Sphinx had also existed much earlier with other meanings in cultures such as Egypt. Since that time, its symbolism has become so captivating that its meaning is almost proverbial in the Western World today (Britannica 16).

The Sphinx truly fits her title as a beast. In the Greek legend, the Sphinx is a female symbol with the body and feet of a lion, the head and breasts of a woman, and the wings of an eagle (Scafella 179). Albeit the sphinx literally described sounds hideous, the visual portrayals of ancient Greece are nonetheless enticing. Such representations most commonly appeared on ivories, painted plaques, and pottery (Britannica 16). Although there are many representations of the sphinx, for the purposes of this essay, the example used is the Greek Sphinx seated on a short ionic column before Oedipus. This representation is painted on an Athenian vase from the Archaic Period in Greece, between 800 and 500 BCE (Boardman 246).

The name “Sphinx” is a Greek name derived from the verb sphiggein, which means “to draw tight or to bind together” (qtd. in Scafella 179). Her myth is well described by Albert E. Cowdrey in his fictional story The Name of the Sphinx: “Her function was to harass and obstruct Thebes’s tourist trade by forcing visitors to answer a riddle. If they got it wrong, she killed them” (104). She asked this riddle, taught to her by the Muses : “What is it that has one voice, and yet becomes four-footed and two-footed and three-footed?” (Britannica) Even though it is not explicit in the ancient myth, the meaning of her name suggests she may have killed those who answered incorrectly by strangling them. Her role links her directly to another ancient myth, the tragically ironic story of Oedipus.

Oedipus was the prince of Thebes, who was abandoned by his father when he was born because of a prophecy that his son would kill him. His father bound his feet together and left him on a lonely mountain (Encarta). Oedipus eventually wandered back to Thebes, which was plagued by the Sphinx. Upon being asked her question, however, Oedipus answered correctly: “Man, who crawls on all fours in infancy, walks on two feet when grown, and leans on a staff in old age” (Britannica 16). The sphinx was so distraught, she jumped from her perch and killed herself. The story continues that the Thebans were so grateful to Oedipus that they offered him kingship, which was rightfully his anyway, and he unwittingly married the his mother, the Queen (Encarta).

The Sphinx appeared in Greece for the first time around 1600 BCE, but it was not until later, around 1200 BCE, that the legend took on a identifiable meaning and developed into what is commonly known today. Before the Greek time, however, the Sphinx as a symbol had existed for over one thousand years in cultures such as in Egypt, where it is most commonly agreed to have originated (Scafella 180). While many characteristics have stayed the same in the Sphinx, some central ones have changed. The most obvious distinction is the sex of the Sphinx. Whereas the Egyptian Sphinx was exclusively male, the Greek Sphinx was almost always female. The Greek Sphinx was used typically as a symbol of wisdom and malignance, whereas the Egyptian Sphinx, especially in its earliest forms, was often associated with divinities, and was used as a symbol of protection. It had no mysterious or deceitful nature. An example of this role is his presence “before the temples of the Nile Valley, outside the pyramid of Kaphren” (Suhr 97). Moreover, in Egypt, the Sphinx did not have wings and was often recumbent, contrary to the Greek Sphinx, which was usually sitting, especially on her tall perch at Thebes (Scafella 180).

Looking at the deepest symbolisms of the sphinx, she may well be one of the most elusive symbols of human history. While many theories converge and digress like choppy waves, they have but one likeness, that her meaning is, over all else, enigmatic. One prominent idea, however, is the obvious reference to intelligence being coupled with animalism: “…the hybridizing of man and lion suggests the dominance of human intellect over raw animal power” (Hajar). This idea is further elucidated by Friedrich Hegel, a German philosopher in the 1800s: “The human head that bursts from the animal body represents Mind as it begins to raise itself above Nature… without, however, being able to liberate itself wholly from its fetters” (qtd. in Scafella 185). These ideas do well with the time period in which they are situated, in that civilization and war were competing realities of everyday life.

Another interesting interpretation is that the sphinx is a purely psychological symbol, representing the complexity and duality of the human mind: “Unlike many mythical creatures, the sphinx was never believed to be more than a thing of the imagination” (Hajar). In today’s Freudian terms, the Sphinx would be considered an element of the unconscious, of whose presence we are certain only due to the tangible consequences of her existence (Cirlot 304).

Lastly, on a far diverging note, a theory eloquently conjectures that “the mask of the sphinx pertains to the mother image and also to nature-symbolism; but beneath the mask lies the implications of the myth of multiplicity or of the enigmatic fragmentation of the cosmos” (Cirlot 304). Although, following with the accepted theme of deceitfulness, this theory is unique in expressing a superficial motherly side of the Sphinx, evidently derived of her prominent breasts. It is noteworthy that feminine symbols, which almost always refer exclusively to affection and compassion, are used in the Sphinx, an opposite symbol of wrath. It is possible, as Cirlot alludes, that such symbols are used to dramatise the underlying symbolism by using a misleading physical appearance.

From her slow rise to power from ancient Egyptian myth to Greek legend and today’s colloquial awareness, the Sphinx has become the visual embodiment of deceit, wrath, enigma, and intelligence. Her death is a memory of triumph over animal rage. But that memory is a fallacy that haunts the mind. Human triumph did not end the symptom of animalism, nor the malignance of intelligence. It ended only the visual depiction of a reality to which humankind is forever victim, its own collective mind. The brilliance of the Sphinx is thus, to deceive more in fake demise than when she lived.

______________________________________

Works Cited

Boardman, John. Athenian Red Figure Vases: The Archaic Period. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1975.

Britannica, Encyclopaedia. “Sphinx.” Encyclopaedia Britannica: 200th Anniversary Edition. Vol. 21. USA: William Benton, 1969.

Encarta Encyclopedia. "Oedipus." Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2005. .

Cowdrey, Albert E. “The Name of the Sphinx.” Fantasy and Science Fiction. Vol. 107, Issue 6 (December, 2004): 100-120.

Cirlot, J.E. A Dictionary of Symbols. Great Britain: Redwood Books, Towbridge, Wiltshire, 1971.

Hajar, Rachel. “Culture: Folk Wisdom of the Sphinx.” World & I. Vol. 14, Issue 2 (February, 1999): 228.

Older, Steven. Symbolism: A Comprehensive Dictionary. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1986.

Soans, Catherine, and Alan Spooner, eds. “Sphinx.” Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2001.

Scafella, Frank A. “The Sphinx.” Mythical and fabulous creatures: a source book and research guide. Ed. Malcolm South. New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1987.

Suhr, Elmer G. “The Sphinx.” Folklore. Vol. 81, No. 2 (Summer, 1970): 97-111.

Michael Brulotte is a student at Marianopolis College in Montreal, Quebec. He is studying law and will soon become an advocate of international law in Canada. His interests are primarily in human rights, and the association of law and morality.

This article is sponsored by Toobs.ca :: teen fashion ::

Introduction

The following is a piece on ethics and morality. Many of my works tend to be in the area of Applied Ethics, such as on matters of Vegetarianism, Peace, Sexuality, and Abortion. However, these are issues in the realm of Applied Ethics. That is to say, they are the application of an ethical base — how an idea of "right" and "wrong" applies to the real world and the issues that confront us. For example, one ethic might be "Any action that causes suffering is immoral," and the Applied Ethics of this would be that to oppose Euthanasia is immoral, that the abortion of an unconscious fetus is not immoral, that to eat meat and promote agribusiness’s murder of animals is immoral, among other things. This essay differs from my other essays in this one aspect: I am not dealing with Ethics as it is applied to our real world, but rather with Ethics as it exists in its "primal form." However, like my other essays, I can only hope that it is informative and not a drag to read.

Desire and Action

It is not an uncommon incident to hear a person attempt to justify their actions with, "But I was drunk," and it is not rare to hear someone similarly attempt to justify their actions with, "But I was under the influence of drugs." In both situations (of which they are not very much intrinsically different), a person is trying to explain why they did something, whether it was something that embarasses them or is immoral. Whether it justifies an action will vary on who you ask. I am not trying to question whether it is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" for such occurences to take place. But the reason why a person will make such statements about their inebriated state is because it’s an explanation as to why they did what they did, and in a very sincere way, a sort of way of saying that no punishment should be given — or at least, if a punishment is given, that it is given with extreme lightness.

While alcohol or drugs may alter a man’s mental state, and might make a noble man cruel or a kindly man brutal, those are not the only incidents of chemicals being responsible for an attitude change in a person. Alcohol can affect a person by making them much less intelligent, over confident, or uninhibited, causing for various problems. Other drugs (because Alcohol is a drug) can alter a man’s mind state by causing violent tendencies, or at the extreme end of the possibilities, cause hallucinations that will bring the person close to homicide or suicide. However, there are other substances that will alter the mindset of a person once they are in the blood stream. My prime example being natural hormones. Aggression and anger can be natural results of the brain chemistry. Sex drive is also caused by natural brain chemistry. So, when a person is violent towards those around him, it may very well be due to high testosterone levels. However, it would be unlikely that anyone would be pitying him in our society, because he had been "under the influence of testosterone," but in a very real way, it’s not much different than the claim of a man whose actions can be explained by alcohol.

What it comes down to then is the issue of a man under the influence of alcohol and another man under the influence of natural hormones — the substances effecting their brains making them prone to certain action. This action might be something destructive to those around them. However, there is no real difference between either of these men, but rarely is "testosterone level" used as a just explanation for rape or violence. A man’s desires and wents will be altered by the hormones that are in his blood, be they natural or unnatural, be they manufactured or produced by the body. In either instance, there is no real difference between a man whose actions are caused directly by alcohol or directly by high testosterone. The next question, though, is… if a man was given a drug, a drug so powerful that it gave him extremely strong desires for violence and sex — desires so strong that he immediately acted upon them without thought or contemplation — could he honestly be blamed for the actions that he committed while under the influence of such a drug, even if it was taken by accident or offered with malicious intent? One would be hard-pressed to find a philosopher who would condemn this man whose will would be reduced to that of what scientists may say is "beast-like," or entirely mechanical. But then it must be considered that many men drink alcohol, and many of them excessively, and they are still capable of controlling their violent urges or sex desires, and the same may be said of men with extremely high testosterone levels, who refuse to engage in violence or coerced sexual activity, much of the time for moral or ethical reasons. They are capable of fighting their desires, their instincts, that can easily be fulfilled by cruel and heartless action. So, simply being intoxicated or under the influence of bodily chemistry would not be a full justification for actions committed under such conditions.

The point I am attempting to demonstrate is that there is definitely a level at which every person will succumb to their urges which cause suffering to others. For example, consider the difference between a poor man and a rich man. If both of these individuals were addicted to drugs, there would be a variation in their behavior. While the rich man could sustain their habit independently, without work or theft, the poor man would have to engage in criminal activity. Drug addiction is a foul disease to have, and a curse to any man. Depending on the drug and the person, it may cause a person to go to the end’s of the earth in the search of this one substance that will appease their bodily needs. The poor man may not be able to work a regular job that would be able to sustain his habit, so he will resort to criminal activity. This is not necessarily because he is a bad person, but he has a drug habit that will cause him great suffering if he does not appease it. The result would be the poor man betraying the people he trusts, perhaps even stealing from his friends and family, and causing heartache to those who have been good to him. The rich man who has the same drug habit will not have to reach such "lows." However, it will be asserted that the rich man is good because he harms none, while the poor man is bad because he harms those close to him — but it is undeniable, if they had their wealth switched, and the poor man became rich and the rich man became poor, their criminal and brutal behavior towards their fellow men would ultimately change. So, though it is a matter of their drug habit which causes them to seek out drugs at whatever the cost, it is ultimately the fact that a rich man will have moral means to feed his drug habit, while such moral means are closed to the poor man.

Consider another example… Still, a rich man and a poor man, but consider an extremely poor man, treated like fodder in a Third World country. He works 16 hours a day for a day’s pay in his country, of what one would make in an hour in the United States. And so he works, his bones never resting, his body always bruised, never getting enough sleep, droning from day to day, and struggling to keep his sanity. But then he discovers that if he cooperates with a local, organized, crime syndicate, he would only have to work one hour a day, and he would make ten times the pay. And it would not be grueling, dangerous, hazardous factory work, where he has to worry about the loss of a limb or his life. He would be able to wake up every day feeling refreshed, knowing that he had food to eat for that day. Would this man be immoral for working with the criminal syndicate? Perhaps so. That is, at least, what the rich man would say. However, if the rich man lost his treasure, was denied his wealth, and had to be forced into those same conditions, he would probably make the same decision as the poor man. So, in a very real way, the actions of these men are not wholly governed by their moral character, but by the means to pursue their moral objectives. And it is also very true to understand that in that situation, some men would refuse to cooperate with the crime syndicate, even if it meant they had to work 16 hours a day for 50 years of their lives, they could still do it, but it would take such a gruelling, heartless toll on their mind, body, and soul — to think of such a person, their will and dedication in the beginning, and then their eventual decline in spirit… I can only think that the rational man would kill himself in such a situation. But the point still stands: while most people lack the determination and will power to refuse the crime syndicate, there are those who have such mental determination to do so. It must also be understood that the situation of a poor man working 16 hours a day and then deciding to cooperate with a criminal syndicate, this situation is not at all different than a man who has a drug addiction and engages in crime to suffice his needs — but in the eyes of our society, drugs users are typically portrayed as cruel, malicious, irrational fools, and I had to bring up this point.

These examples I am bringing up, though they are very realistic and easy to apply to our real world, they are only slightly grasping at the issues I am trying to deal with. I will bring up one hypothetical situation to try and determine what I am getting at, though such a situation will hardly be every realized in our world. Consider a man who is tied up and being tortured with numerous ways: the cutting of the flesh, salt poured into the wounds, beatings, whippings, needles, among other cruelties and heartless brutalities. And then consider this: his torturer says, "If you pinch this one girl, who has committed no crime and done no wrong, then I will stop torturing you." Anyone will not be slow to admit that randomly pinching girls would be immoral. However, this man is being tortured, and his only method of escaping from such merciless brutality is to cause a slight immorality. One might say that the torturer was then guilty and immoral, but consider that the torturer was simply a computer, without a consciousness or awareness. In this situation, I cannot think of one man who would reply with, "I refuse to cause even one slight immorality! Torture me all you desire! I will never give in!" Such a person would grow mad with insanity, and that may be the only way they could refuse giving in. But it would be rare to find any person who would not give in to such desires.

Today, in our modern world, as well as in the works of the ancient world, we find that one action or another may be immoral, or unethical. That, to do such a thing, under any circumstance, would be a malicious act against truth and compassion. Yet, analysis into this will find one fact… Every man, under the worst of conditions, will resort to cruel and brutal behavior, whereas every man, under the best of conditions, will resort to kindly and humane behavior. Some men can sustain bad conditions better than other men without being immoral, whereas some men cannot — and while some men are good under good conditions, there are still those who resort to cruelties. The final point that I am attempting to demonstrate is that a man can only be so good as the physical world allows him, and will only be so bad as the physical world puts pressure upon him. Then, can we say that one action or another is moral or immoral? Perhaps the truth is this… That no action is right or wrong over another action, and that the only true way that a person can be moral is only if they take into consideration those conscious beings around. Or, maybe it is the other solution: the most moral of men will refuse to cause cruelty to others under the worst of conditions, whereas the least moral of men will resort to brutality under only slight durress. But, then again, a good inquiry’s answer will render only more questions to be pondered…

www.punkerslut.com

For Life,

Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been writing essays and poetry on social issues which have caught his attention for several years. His website http://www.punkerslut.com provides a complete list of all of these writings. His life experience includes homelessness, squating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of high school, getting expelled from college for "subversive activities," and a myriad of other revolutionary actions.