The ability to do something that requires generations to develop was kept a secret in all areas of human endeavour during what we call pre-history. It did not change when culture advanced to the point where people could read scrolls. In point of fact Plato observed a reduction in disciplined knowledge resulted from the writing alphabet given to the Greeks by their Danaus forbears or colonizers. But you would think writing might allow an improvement in knowledge and society. Indeed this is potentially true with any medium for sharing but would you say that TV has lead to an increase in knowledge or just an increase in wasted time and confusing inputs? The shamans and elites who developed the various disciplines and metal-working secrets gradually became the most powerful people in the world. When they met each other they were excited to share knowledge in most cases. It is hard to share knowledge with people who are not willing to put out the years of effort to learn more than some little thing, they might use or satisfy some immediate need with.

Some of these families or the larger clan became adept in numerous disciplines, trades or crafts and they traveled widely around the whole earth as a result of the greater technology they had. They did not always tell the people who worshipped their knowledge all the facts. They still write histories or have their journalists and social engineers tell myths and make religions. That would be one reason that most people who have read this little bit of writing might be starting to close their mind. People generally do not want to believe that their leaders have created myths and/or lied to them. They like to believe they are smart and have common sense enough to tell when they are being hypnotized through rituals that they did not design but have had personal experience through visions or other insights that they think could not have been manufactured or CONstructed.

People like me try to tell the truth as best we can but we are attacked because we say that learning requires real effort or must be tested through years of study. There have been many occasions when people like myself have been made the object of Inquisitions or other murderous campaigns as a result. Some of my intellectual forbears decided to structure hierarchies like the top-down Platonic model rather than the Dialectical questioning of Socrates. This was true long before Pythagoras learned in the Bairdic University System headed by Abaris (Rabbi) the Druid. It was probably true before the meteor that hit the area where we find the Bermuda Triangle caused worldwide tectonic and tidal upheaval leading to the death of most people on earth. Some of the people who learn a lot in one lifetime think they know it all and they start to think that they can find easier ways to build conclaves or learned people. Most often they are enjoying the ego and power of the special insights they gained through prior designs and CONstructs they do not even partially understand.

So when L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. blew the whistle on his Rosicrucian-trained father’s enterprises there were few if any people who could really believe that it was possible to ‘grab or break and crack souls’. Socrates experienced something worse than being bought off because he refused to stop telling the truth or leave his country and countrymen. He was branded as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and people could not grasp the possibilities he tried to lead them to question.

Author of Diverse Druids Columnist for The ES Press Magazine Guest ‘expert’ at World-Mysteries.com.

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.

Concerning the rules of Logic and Reason; the evidence of evidence and proof of the system for logical and reasonable belief.

In a recent conversation with a companion of mine, we discussed ethics and morality. My opposition made the claim that anything that was done for the sole sake of pleasure was immoral, on the grounds that it — inevitably — would lead to unhappiness. Since I am a Free Lover, and whole-heartedly believing that consensual and promiscuous can be happy and desirable, I disagreed with his thesis. I searched for contradictions in his theory, asking if he agreed that buying a music CD, for example, solely for pleasure was immoral, or getting intoxicated. However, I decided to ignore contradictions, because someone surely can be entirely self-contained in their theory, and still be fallacious in their assertions. I asked them, instead, why they believed that pleasure (for the sole sake of pleasure) was immoral. They told me that it was their thesis, and that it was axiomatic. By this, they meant that it was unnecessary for them to prove such a thesis true. After stiffling my laughter, I told them that nothing could be accepted as true without evidence. They then asked me something I could not answer, and I was knowing that I could not answer. They asked me, "How do you know, then, that your method for knowing, such as requiring evidence, is true?" Their statement here was not entirely false.

After all, to take something as truth, I was using the system of understanding and knowledge called Reason, as well as Logic. If something was consistent, and if something had evidence for it, I would take it into consideration as truth. But this system, this system of gathering evidence and examining claims, how did I know that this would lead me to truth? I am sure that the commoner would exclaim that such a system yields good results. At least, this is what I have been believing and claiming for some years: I believe in the ways of Reason and Logic, demonstration and observation, because such ways of knowledge have always been capable of demonstrating truth. However, how do we know that this is truth? For example, if we were explorers, and it was a rumor that inside every snow covered mountain, it is colored orange, and we were to discover — by drilling — that it was indeed orange on every snow covered mountain, how would we know that this is true? It may certainly seem absurd to even ask this question, but how do we know that our minds — the tools used specifically for thought — are not dilluted? It could be caused by drug, or perhaps a chemical in the air in close proximity to mountains that penetrates even the most powerful lead suit, or it could be our passions altered our own vision as we desired to see the color orange. There are so many explanations, but those few previously mentioned are small, detectable possibilities.

What if, for example, a Solipsism was true? Solipsism is the belief that the believer of such a theory is the only conscious being in the Universe, and all of the physical matter surrounding them was simply created by their imagination. There is the possibility that we are in a dream; that this life of ours is simply a dream. What if, upon discovering this orange material in the snow-covered mountain, it was truly only our imagination in our dream that produced such an orange material? But even beyond that, how can be sure that our own physical reality is not a dream? Or perhaps a state similar to a coma? Of course, the idea of a dream or a coma is quite prevalent in our Universe. Maybe, we are all playing a futuristic game and we take control of bodies to play, and our memories were destroyed before it started, to prevent us from remembering that it is a game.

There are a great deal of possibilities of what this world could be. However, this may be going off on a tangent. By explaining what a Solipsism is, I can further demonstrate the claim of the system of Reason and Logic being unevidenced themselves. After all, though it could be some alteration from an outside force that makes us think we see orange on the inside of the snow-covered mountain, but it could just be purple, blue, red, or black. What if we heard another rumor that snow at the top of snow-covered mountains tastes like ice cream, and then we can verifiably demonstrate this? And after confirming rumor after rumor, we might make the conclusion that rumors are indefinitely true, and we can hold that this is true based on all of the previous rumors holding their worth. And what if one day someone were to come up to us and say, "How do you know that every rumor is true?" We could simply and quite satisfactorily (at least to us) say, "Well, every rumor has previously been true. They have demonstrated quite clearly the truth." And then this person could tell us what exactly is being told to followers of Reason and Logic, "But as you examined for proof of every rumor, for demonstrable evidence that rumors are true, you still fall victim to the same problem. How do you know that searching for evidence and proof is enough to claim that your theory is true? How do you know that evidence and proof hold something to be true? You may find the results you are looking for, but finding and judging results is also judging on Reason and Logic, judging on evidence and proof. You may find orange on the inside of snow-covered mountains, but you are basing that on your vision, an evidence of itself. And as you looked at the orange color, you saw the orange color, but what have you to say that your vision is correct? The fact that it has never failed you before? Perhaps it always has failed you before. And even if it did, how would you know otherwise? For when you see something orange, you are basing that on your vision, and if your vision is wrong, there is no way to check that. You may rely on your other senses, but they also could be wrong, and there would be no way to check them…. so, by what right can you honestly say that following rumors is true, when you base that on evidence, when such evidence is judged solely on evidence, and when there is nothing to support that evidence can obtain truth?"

Before proceeding with answering such arguments, I should make a few points clear. Nowhere in this essay do I wish to relieve the reader’s mind that this life is possibly a dream. Such a worry, concern, or (better put) possibility may never be relieved, no matter how far sciences of any type advance. There is always the chance that we are living a fake life, still in a dream, or a simulation, or something that we could not possibly detect. This is something I will not address, though I will later reflect on. What I am going to address is the claim, or the individuals making the claim, that evidence, Reason, demonstration, Logic, and observation — all methods of knowledge which have been used by every holder of the scientific ethic for all of history — I am going to address those who have made the claim that Reason and Logic are unsupported in themselves as manners of collecting truth.

First, it is necessary that I evaluate exactly what is implied by such terms as Reason and Logic. Logic can be defined as a method of investigation based on three principles. The first principle of Logic is the principle of Non-Contradiction. This concept of Non-Contradiction states that — for something to be logical — it must not contradict itself. By this, I mean that it cannot be A, and then be the opposite of A. An example of this would be someone who is married, but also unmarried. This would be a contradiction. If someone is married, then they are not unmarried, and if someone is unmarried, then they are not married. This brings us to the second principle of Logic: the principle of Excluded Middle. Something is either A, or it is not A. An example of this would be that someone is either married, or they are not married. The third principle of Logic is rather simple; it is the principle of Identity. It means that A is A and B is B. A human is a human and a home is a home. Reason differs slightly from Logic. The rules of Logic, as easily observed, are used in describing not the possibility of something being true, but in allowing the possibility. By the rules of Logic, it is impossible for a married bachelor or a square circle to exist, as such things break the laws of reality and cannot possibly exist.

Reason differs from Logic: it helps us understand the actual possibility of something being true, once such a possibility has been allowed. Reason is based on three things: (1) self-consistency, or agreement with the rules of Logic, (2) consistency with previous facts, (3) evidence. As to the first principle of Reason, self consistency, it simply means that for something to be reasonable, it must first be self-consistent and abide by the rules of Logic (as previously discussed). As to the second principle of Reason, consistency with previous facts, this means that something cannot be true that contradicts other proven knowledge. An example would be if someone discovered that the world was flat, long after it was proven that the world was round. This does not mean that someone cannot disprove previously supported ideas, but that two contradictory facts cannot exist. The last part of Reason is evidence: the proof, or things which lead us to believe that something is true. This can occur in any number of forms. For a crime scene, it may be forensic evidence, finger prints, foot prints, or an item used to commit the crime. For history, it may be records, ancient texts, or geography. Any previously established knowledge, such as a finger print, that can be used in conjunction with other established knowledge to lead to a logical conclusion — these forms of established knowledge are evidence.

I understand that there are others who may disagree with my defining of the principles of Logic or Reason, but the definition of these ideas that I have offered shall be the one used for the use of this paper. I doubt, however, that the idea of Logic or Reason — as others perceive of it — would differ greatly from how I defined it in the previous two paragraphs. However, now that I have defined Logic and Reason with objective standards, now I can go back to the original question of the evidence of Logic and Reason.

If someone were to ask me, "What is your evidence of evidence? By what means do you claim that Logic and Reason are accurate methods of obtaining truth? And, by identifying facts and results, these means of detecting the validity of Logic and Reason are based on Logic and Reason." An example of this would be if scientists were examining ashes they found near a lake area, and they claimed that such ashes were the result of magma. And, along with these scientists examining ash, there were geologists that examined surrounding mountains and made the conclusion that a volcano erupted at least 10,000 years ago, and that it was definitely very possible that it would erupt again. From these evidences, we might conclude that there is indeed a volcano to be erupting. By using evidence and Reason, we made this deduction. However, once the volcano erupts, and we observe this, we then discover that what evidence and Reason have told us was true. Yet, when we observe these results, and we see the volcano erupt, we are still relying on evidence. We are still relying on the fact that our eyes are not lying to us as we see the volcano erupt. We are still basely our observations on Reason and evidence — our senses provide to us the proof that such results are the actual results. So, we are relying on proof, which is based on the validity of Reason and Logic, to prove that Reason and Logic are true — a seemingly unreasonable and illogical deduction.

I do not believe right now, though, that I can honestly defend the position that Reason or Logic are, by their nature, axiomatic, or self-proven. I am not going to offer reasons or evidences as to why Reason or Logic should be trusted when their proofs are also based on Reason or Logic. The only response I can offer, though, to those who make the argument that we cannot trust Reason or Logic is that — by using the spoken language, by using vocal chords to produce sound and words, by communicating, expressing ideas and receiving ideas — by making an actual argument against Reason and Logic, an individual is thus relying on Reason and Logic. They are expecting that, as they look at the person they are arguing with, their eyes are not lying to them. They are expecting that, as they speak with the person they are arguing with, their ears are not lying to them when they hear the arguments of their opponent. They are using their sensory perception — a very Reason-based method of obtaining knowledge — and thus, the individual who is arguing against Reason is making their claims against Reason by using sensory perception, which is (in itself), one of the very vital institutions of Reason. It is, in a way, a type of hypocrisy. As to claim that Reason is inaccurate is to rely on the very principles of Reason to make that statement, as one is expecting that their senses are not lying to them when they make that statement. In fact, to make any statement or any claim, is to rely on sensory perception (thus, also Reason). When you hear or see something, there is the possibility of dilluted senses, but by relying on your senses, you are relying on evidence and proof. So, if one is to make the statement that Reason (or sensory perception) is inaccurate, they are hypocritical by default, as to make any statement is to rely on the principle of sensory perception, and thus the idea of Reason.

I understand how it may seem like an annoying, almost irrelevant detail to point out the contradiction in denying Reason. However, though a detail, I do think it is vitally important to the discussion of Logic and Reason.

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.

Introduction

The question of what our consciousness is, or how or where it is produced, has been the subject of much philosophical inquiry over the past centuries. Some have relied upon spiritual conclusions, claiming that consciousness is one’s soul (though today, the term "soul" often means one’s emotional individuality). There are different claims across ancient civilization, offering the idea that the soul exists in a physical part of the body, be it the head, the heart, or the genitals. However, with the rise of science, there is a new approach to the question of consciousness. The importance given to consciousness varies sometimes from individual to individual, from school of thought to school of thought. Some philosophers simply marvel at the complexity of the thing, sometimes almost reflectively. Just as some philosophers regard it as a spectular thing that requires explanation, some philosophers regard the question of consciousness as an important underyling factor in their entire philosophy.

For example, as a Vegetarian, I do not actively engage in any activity which causes suffering or unwanted death to a conscious being. Naturally, since I have this philosophical concept of rights, I want to understand this scientific concept of consciousness. Sometimes I am asked whether I would regard the rights of a plant, bacteria, or an insect. To these three organisms, I have no difficulty answering. A plant and bacteria do not contain a consciousness, whereas evidence suggest that insects have a sort of consciousness. But whether or not I am right or wrong in such a response, I will always say, "I regard the rights of conscious beings. None others." If they inquire into which organsms are conscious and if I do not know, I respond that the question of consciousness is one of science, not one of philosophy. As far as how consciousness works, I do not know. I only hope to provide questions that I have thought of endlessly, with no conclusion. To quote Scientific American about a story of Neuroscientists…

"Koch, 44, directs the computation and neural systems program at Caltech. He arrived here in 1986, a time when consciousness research was still considered career suicide even for established brain researchers. But high-profile attention to the subject by Nobelists Gerald M. Edelman and Francis Crick, coupled with advances in functional brain imaging, has elevated the field–and its investigators–to respectability.

"Neurobiologists have since given up the notion that Koch may be dangerously offbeat, despite his having tattooed his arm last summer with the Apple Computer logo to demonstrate his love of the Macintosh (a zeal not even matched by Steve Jobs). The neuroscientist leads about 20 researchers and calls their mission to explain consciousness ‘one of the major unsolved problems of modern science.’" [Scientific American, July, 2001.]

Consciousness According to Science…

Brain…

"All thoughts, emotions, sensations, movements, and desires have their origins in brain processes. Without a functioning brain, the human being is reduced to a vegetative state, unable to perform any actions or pessos any feelings, and left without he ability even to alter bodily function in rseponse to change. While this article will consider the human brain, which is more complex and highly developed than that of any other animal, the brains of all mammels, and indeed most vertebrates, are remarkably similar.

"The central nervous system is composed of the brain and the spinal cord. The nerves that supply the rest of the body are attached to the brain and sinal cord and include the motor nerves, which activate muscels, and the sensory nerves, which bring information into the central nervous system. In addition, the nerves that supply the internal organs are found outside the brain and spinal cord." [Collier’s Encyclopedia, under "Brain."]

Morality…

"Many animals, however, certainly sympathise with each other’s distress or danger. This is the case even with birds. Captain Stansbury found on a salt lake in Utah an old and completely blind pelican, which was very fat, and must have been well fed for a long time by his companions. Mr. Blyth, as he informs me, saw Indian crows feeding two or three of their companions which were blind; and I have heard of an analogous case with the domestic cock. We may, if we choose, call these actions instinctive; but such cases are much too rare for the development of any special instinct. I have myself seen a dog, who never passed a cat who lay sick in a basket, and was a great friend of his, without giving her a few licks with his tongue, the surest sign of kind feeling in a dog." [The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin, chapter 4, part I.]

Pain and Suffering…

"When animals suffer from an agony of pain, they generally writhe about with frightful contortions; and those which habitually use their voices utter piercing cries or groans. Almost every muscle of the body is brought into strong action. With man the mouth may be closely compressed, or more commonly the lips are retracted, with the teeth clenched or ground together. There is said to be "gnashing of teeth" in hell; and I have plainly heard the grinding of the molar teeth of a cow which was suffering acutely from inflammation of the bowels. The female hippopotamus in the Zoological Gardens, when she produced her young, suffered greatly; she incessantly walked about, or rolled on her sides, opening and closing her jaws, and clattering her teeth together. With man the eyes stare wildly as in horrified astonishment, or the brows are heavily contracted. Perspiration bathes the body, and drops trickle down the face. The circulation and respiration are much affected. Hence the nostrils are generally dilated and often quiver; or the breath may be held until the blood stagnates in the purple face. If the agony be severe and prolonged, these signs all change; utter prostration follows, with fainting or convulsions." [The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, by Charles Darwin, chapter 3.]

Consciousness: What I Do Not Know…

As far as various philosophical thoughts go, I have often been hesitant to publish thoughts without first finding a conclusion (one, of course, based on evidence and Reason). However, as much as I thought on the topic of consciousness, the more I think the more I become convinced that only science, demonstration, and observation, could discover the answers to my questions. The following is an inquiry concerning consciousness…

Our brains, like all other physical things, is composed of matter. In this sense, it is composed of different atoms, such as Carbon and Nitrogen, interlocking to form structures. The structures of the brain give it the capability of consciousness. The question I am presenting is not how consciousness can arrise from basic elements, but how reliant upon the molecules consciousness is. The Atomic Theory can be defined as follows: the theory that all matter is composed of atoms, and that all atoms are composed of simple structures, including protons. All protons are incredibly similar in structure, and an atom’s individual is defined by the number of protons it has. A Hydrogen atom, for example, has 1 proton. A Helium atom differs from a Hydrogen atom in that it has 2 protons. Carbon has 4 protons. Iron has 77 protons. Gold has 79 protons. Silver has 47 protons. Uranium has 92 protons. The difference between these elements differs in protons, and a proton changes other factors. For each proton, there is a neutron. For each proton, there is an attraction to another electron. One gold atom, though, will react the same as any other gold atom, as long as conditions are the same.

Describing the Atomic Theroy is only a preliminary to the question of consciousness. Since one Carbon atom reacts the same as any other Carbon atom, what would happen if a Carbon atom in someone’s brain was quickly replaced with a different Carbon atom? Since all Carbon atoms react the same, the consciousness of the person would not be altered. This would mean that their thoughts, their ideas, their emotions, their memories, and their personality would not change. Talking to them would not be like talking to an entirely different person. No change would be noticeable. But, what did change? It was only one solitary atom. Still, the organ which produces conscious has one part different.

It is important to understand the different consciousnesses when examining this. I do not mean the many different consciousnesses within a single person, but with many people. For example, if one person’s brain was entirely reconstructed to be identical, both people would be different entities. The first person thinks for themself, just like the second person. But, importantly, they are different beings. The first is the first and the second is the second. If one were to have a thought, it would not give that thought to the other. By claiming that each brain is its own entity, I mean that each is composed of its own matter and produces its own consciousness. When we alter one Carbon atom, by switching it with another, we are changing the matter of the brain, though the design remains changeless. The one atom changed. Would that mean a different consciousness is produced? When I speak of a difference, I speak of entity. Would the consciousness change from the state it had before the new Carbon atom to the state after it had the new Carbon atom, this change being the same difference between the entity of consciousness existing between two different persons? WHat would happen if we replaced every atom in the brain with a new identical one? It would be a new existing consciousness, just acting the same, believeng the same, doing the same. The consciousness acts the same, but it differes as an entity. You can have two identical shoes, for example, but they are difefrent in that they are not made out of the same exact matter. The same question exists with the brain and consciousness. The brain, an organ made of matter, produces the consciousness, but if the brain is altered by one identical atom, is consciousness different in entity?

Conclusions

I have tried my best to offer a simple, understandable simplification of my ideas on this subject. Perhaps, though, my thinking of the question of consciousness is diluted by the idea that it is special, or perhaps it is impossible to make such thoughts accurately given what little we know of it, given the poor knowledge obtained by science. Whatever the case may be, consciousness is consciousness, and I have offered my questions and thoughts on it.

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.

War is on everyone’s mind, and it is our first thought before peace is even considered. Thoughts of peace are trigged by the thoughts of war.

Society has a passion for war, and it offers all of us something personal, and an opportunity to express ourselves without limits. After all if you hate your enemy, what’s he going to do, shoot you? War gives everyone an opportunity to demonstrate one’s feelings; we don’t have to hold back. All feelings are openly supported by someone else that is feeling the same things in an invironment of extreme emotion.

War is an openly acceptable way to express, anger, fear, guilt, hate, jealousy, love, compassion, sympathy, gratitude, appreciation, kindness, and these feelings have support in open forums and in private.

War is opportunity to experience incredible wealth, or severe lack and it is about power, survival, dying, and suffering. Consciously we declare our hate for war, but underneath we harbour personal attraction for it.

I don’t understand my own attraction for it. I don’t read newspapers or stories of war, I try to avoid the news on the television, but I am attracted to it nevertheless.

I love war movies for some reason. The destruction of property boggles my mind. As a society we can come up with enough money to blow away and carrier worth billions of dollars, by a bomb worth tens of thousands of dollars, coming from and airplane that is worth tens of millions of dollars. And there are many of them, not to mention all the other expensive toys. I am mesmerized by the ability of humanity to come up with all this kind of technology so that he can blow it apart. I have a close bond with machines and this whole war thing just blows me away.

Part of the attraction to war stories may well come from an opportunity for me to feel something. The moments of private suffering that victims go through, the compassion and kindness expressed under extreme conditions, the heroism demonstrated by the least likely characters. The openly demonstrated greed, hate and anger expressed by others. Stupidity is another aspect of humanity that shines in the movies, and I have to shake my head because the obvious is overlooked.

Humankind’s imagination knows no bounds in war, what ever works is the motivational drive that leads mankind to his/her greatest and lowest moments.

Humanity believes it touches its best side while it contemplates killing with compassion, kill the bad guys while lessening the suffering. He truly thinks he can do these things.

Why does a God Fearing country vote in a leader that openly sponsors war while it declares that it is compassionate and God Fearing? What kind of lies must it tell itself to justify its action? You cannot believe in peace or be peace loving, while you are demonstrating war. And if peace is to come, when is that going to happen? In thousands of years, when has peace come to the planet?

I see great minds that can blind themselves to constructive alternatives for the opportunity of engaging in war. War is so compelling to many that they are willing to sacrifice themselves and others to engage in it.

Demonstrations against war are loud, disruptive and many times, destructive. Peace is practiced internally in the quiet moments that you never hear about. They are expressed in the bowed heads and the tears that flow freely from the silent observers.

The whole idea of war is one of opportunity. It is a time of sharing; sharing the time to kill each other, to create birth, to love, to hate, to survive, to parish, to give and take. The world comes together in this time of great sharing, to condemn, denounce, to make promises, and to recognize what humanity is truly capable of and then to celebrate once a year.

How can this time of opportunity be anything but beneficial to humankind in the long run? We keep doing it, we understand at some level in our consciousness that if we keep hitting each other over the head with the same hammer, we will bring ourselves to our senses. In our reasoning we consider that if we kill often enough, create suffering and hardship long enough that we will learn that it is not working for us.

I say that it is working for us… it must be because we keep doing it. I don’t believe that it demonstrates peace or will ever bring peace to us. You cannot think of peace, while you are contemplating war. You cannot be for peace while you are demonstrating against war. You are either at peace or you are not. It is a personal issue and is manifested in a society where each individual lives in peace and demonstrates it.

War is not something that society hates to do; war is something that society loves to do. Would it not be insanity to engage in something that you hate to do? If you say that you do not like fighting and then demonstrate that you are willing to fight for that belief, what kind of insanity are you demonstrating? What kind of lies are you telling yourself, and what is really motivating you to experience the fighting that you do not support? Do you really believe that you must fight to achieve peace? In all honesty, isn’t it the peace that you do not like?

Do you find peace boring, non engaging, and scary? Are the activities of a peaceful world really that objectionable that you are willing to die for war? If so then what lies are you telling yourself in order to give yourself enough motivation to kill, or be killed?

For the hundreds of thousands or even millions of years that man has been on this planet, is war not the best way that he/she has found to truly express all of his qualities, all of his emotions and feelings in an open forum that supports all of them at the same time. Is man truly that barbaric that he cannot think his way out of the warring box that he/she finds herself in? Is it in wartime that man only has the opportunity and desire to talk about peace and begin to live it?

I don’t really have anything against war, if this is truly the only way that humanity has of fully expressing itself. War is a physical symbol of where humanity is in his enlightenment and awareness. War is a sign post that says, heh we made it, this is where we are. All sign posts are appropriate and they are truths. They are not lies or deceptions, they are honest and are observable and demonstrated, they cannot be denied. There are no victims, there are no innocent. There is world collaboration and agreement for war, otherwise it could not happen. War in my thoughts is neither good nor bad, it is appropriate and an honest declaration of the world mind.

War must be working for us, or we would not engage in it, and we cannot say that it doesn’t work without saying that we are in fact insane.

There are no good or bad peoples in war; deserving or non-deserving nations, There are simply partners that are engaging in a mutually beneficial act that allows each to express themselves to the world in a demonstration of how they see themselves in relationship to each other and their environment. They are truths… thoughts manifested into physical realty, and simply sign posts that say this is who we are.

War is a clear choice taken from a buffet of alternative choices. The right hand cannot strike the left hand unless both hands are in complete agreement at some level of consciousness.

War does work for our mutual benefit. All thoughts must be expressed physically. War has been and will be with us for as long as humanity chooses it. And if we are truly insane, does that mean that we no longer have the option of choice? And if we are truly sane, will we continue to choose war as our way of expressing it?

In all honesty, is there anything that we are doing that is not working for us?

It is November 11, 2005, and what are we all doing? We are thinking about war. Is this the way to peace? We are thinking about all things of war, with peace maybe coming at the end of the day, numbed by the festivities of the day, the emotions, in the final moments before we pass out on the couch or in bed.

Roy E. Klienwachter is a resident of British Columbia, Canada. A student of NLP, an ordained minister, New Age Light Worker and Teacher. Roy has written and published seven ebooks on New Age wisdom and a new book coming out in late 2005 in paper form. Roy’s books are thought provoking and designed to empower you to take responsibility for your life and what you create. His books and articles are written in the simplicity and eloquence of Zen wisdom.

You may not always agree with what he has to say. You will always come away with a new perspective and your thinking will never be the same.

Roy’s style is honest and comes straight from the heart without all the metaphorical mumble jumble and BS. For More articles visit our new Article directory at http://www.klienwachter.com/adarticles

Visit Roy at: http://www.klienwachter.com

I write articles to inform you, the people, on matters that you would generally not know a whole lot about. This article was scheduled to be about "Pepsin". Wow. I can’t even decode raw material about this stuff! But as I read through it I started thinking…

Alright, this is the simplest definition that I could find on the word "Pepsin". Here goes… " Pepsin is a digestive protease released by the chief cells in the stomach that functions to degrade food proteins into peptides." What is that? This stuff grinds my gears because it is completely and entirely unnecessary.

As I read through pages and pages of what they call "information" on pepsin, several questions ran through my mind - the first is simply "Why were we running out of small, simple words?!" It seems medicine has a tendency to create words long and unpronouncable. Woops! I guess the word "unpronouncable" should be in medicine too. But seriously doctor, come on.

And how many other people are doing things just like me, trying to educate the public on things that they would never bother with otherwise. As if THEY could decode "pepsin" either! So I have come to the conclusion that historically, doctors have come up with massive medical terms to sound smarter than the average person. Granted, they ARE smarter than the average person, but way to throw it in our face guys! Those doctors really grind my gears…

Feel free to reprint this article as long as you keep the article, this caption and author biography in tact with all hyperlinks.

Tyler Brooker is the owner and operator of Pepsin Spot - http://www.pepsinspot.com, which is the best site on the internet for all Pepsin related information.

Dear Mr. Stuart:

I am writing you this letter because I am concerned about your view point in regards to selfless behavior. You claim that there are many individuals in this world who are selfless, whose actions have nothing to do with self-interested behavior and who work for the good of others because that is what comes naturally to them. In this letter I intend to show you how self-fish that thought really is and how by thinking in this manner you are fooling your-self and other who you preach this message to.

The truth is that there is nothing like selfless behavior in this world. Every action is taken with the self in mind. As humans we are attached to a lot of different things. We might be attached to our pet, we might be attached to helping others and we might be attached to sex, crime, money, power, love and the numerous other attachments that make the experience of life unique and different for every one. But as you will realize, you are attached to your pet not for selfless reasons, you are attached to it because it gives you something in return, which may be attention in the form of licking your face, companionship in the form of playing with you, or just pure joy by watching the pet wag its tail. Your parents who in most cases are considered to make the ultimate sacrifice by bringing you in this world, feeding you, clothing you, educating you an then getting you ready for the real world don’t do all that they do without their self-interest in mind. They want you to succeed because it brings them joy, they want to see you happy because it makes them happy, and they brought you in this world because they wanted to out of self interest and the need of having offspring’s.

Mr. Stuart I want to let you know that claming that you are a selfless individual is considered deceit and manipulation. Yes deceit because you are lying that your actions have nothing to do with the way you feel, & manipulation because the person listening to you really believes you. Why do you help some when they are in need? Is it because it is your duty to do so! Did god tell you help people in need! NO! You do it because it makes you feel good about your self, or there is some internal or external need that is fulfilled in performing the action. Would you help some one if every time you did it made you feel bad! Most likely no, and if you do continue, it is because there is an unfilled need that you are trying to satisfy, which when fulfilled will bring you satisfaction. When you go to church and give that offering, do you really believe that god will help you because you just gave away ten dollars. No in-fact God should be angry at you because after all God is selfless and you are trying to buy his favor. In-fact every time you go to church, you do so not because of your love for god, but because of guilt, fear, in hopes of a favor befalling you or your loved ones. So look through all your actions and tell me, are you really selfless, do you act because you feel? Or do you act for the sake of acting without any attachments and feelings?

Mr. Stuart you have probably herd of Mother Teresa, who helped thousands of people infected with leprosy in the city of Calcutta in India. Do you think she was self-less or did she act out of self-interest? Doing what mother Teresa did made her feel good about her-self, she felt like she was making a difference. She came to India, and saw the state of the leprous, felt bad and decided to do something about it. I am not saying that she is evil because she acted out of self-interest, but you need to realize that even Mother Teresa acted out of self-interest.

Every day I go to class and listen to riotous preaching by my fellow class mates, some more than others about how passionate they are about helping others and how it is their second nature to do so, and how wrong it is for individuals to act in self-interest when it comes to dealing with other individuals. But what these students don’t realize is that they are being selfish when making these statements. Why you may ask? Because if they were truly self-less about their actions they would not be so attached to them, they would not care what people think about their thoughts because it would not matter. I for example know I am selfish, so any action I take I relate to myself either directly or indirectly. There is difference between knowing that you are acting out of self-interest and not knowing that you are acting out of self-interest. Individuals who know they are acting out of self-interest work on improving them self selves’ fist, and then focus on helping others by helping themselves.

In order to be selfless Mr. Stuart you will need to give up attachment. You will have to practice the art of doing something just for the sake of doing it, without involving any feelings in your actions. You need to realize that self-interested behavior is not a bad thing. Every individual in this world no matter what they say act out of self-interest. Without looking into ones self-interest there would be no motivation to accomplish any thing. In an ideological world selfless behavior is possible, but as long as humans are attached to feelings or things, there cannot be any selfless behavior. I hope this letter will help you realize that the notion of self-interested behavior and my feelings towards this matter. I end this letter with the following advice to you. The shortest and best way to make your fortune is to let people see clearly that it is in their interest to promote yours. “Most men are so thoroughly subjective that nothing really interests them but themselves. They always think of their own case as soon as ever any remark is made, and their whole attention is engrossed and absorbed by the merest chance reference to anything which affects them personally, be it never so remote”. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Regards,

Manik Thapar (MBA)
http://www.careerpath.cc

What is easier? I have an old habit of placing a large Lama wool sweater, much cheaper

and bulkier than the Irish, back on top of another. Just as lumpy. It never fails, the first one always brings the resting one down on my heels. I have been doing this for twenty years now, but it has become a ritual of much comfort and satisfaction. In homage to Loki, the Norse Scandinavian trickster God. Even though it pushes me far past the reaches of the most cunning aquatic Chinese expert in the act of pain can ever devise. So what keeps me from taking the extra time to clean the shelf off and try something new by placing them alongside each other on the bottom or the top of the other heavy New England gear?

What would be harder to do? Plan and act consciously. Engage the time needy by choice to arrange a new way of doing things. Or keep wearing the worn out loafers that became my trusted friend. Even at the increase of my bunions and woes?

To borrow from Kurt Vonnegut, but sort of different? I will use his terms of Karrass and Granfalloons, loosely though to tell only a small white foma. For arguments sake, lets assume that a Karrass is when nature finds its natural path through its journey of motion to rest and back again. Granfalloons are what seems to be easy in the moment to facilitate the journey. For even though you are traveling even faster, it does not necessarily mean you are on the right road?

Before I go into the next part of this unstructured essay; I have a small story;

A small bird once fell out of its nest into a pile of fox poo. Even though he fell from a great distance, the poo cushioned his fall. Kept him warm. Gave him comfort. The small bird spied the fox returning and chirped for his kind assistance. The Fox bent down and pulled the small bird out by the scruff. Jerked his head and swallowed him down.So what is the moral of this tale: If you find yourself fallen from a great height. Be appreciative if you are warm and safe. For those who are willing to bring you back up to the same bough that snapped, might not be doing you any favors.

Granfalloons. Some fomas act as a band aid. They keep your mind clean and unasssailed for a period. But without the access of the spirit of the air, it never closes or heals. It just is soggy. Sometimes the foma is the prodigal son. Who says being late for work is a bad thing, it could of made you check your watch in a hurry as the pick pocket passed unnoticed. But any foma kept too long is like two day old skin on the eczema scalp. But the Granfalloons sell you the same leaky pot they steal back from you in the night. They carry it back to the well empty. Because it was empty by the time you entered the house. For the waters of life still run deep within you. For the even the good pot is a foma. The best and final water carrier is through the mouth. Just be lucky. If some one was watching out for you, there might be flowers from the path of your leaky cauldron. That is if the Granfalloon did not step on them in the dark.

Once at Docspond, a whirlpool formed from a crack in the side of the tunnel. I watched twigs twirl about. Then sucked down in a furry. Why? Because it was the least path of resistance. The molecules before it gave up their seat in a hurry. Only natural thing was to fill it quick and shoot past the singularity out the other side. At which point it follows the most desired path of water, up! For when water is in streams it desires to rise. When in clouds, to fall. In this process it will move balloons and mountains. For what is a black hole anyway.

When friction is removed, it is not always the best proponent of motion. For when you are sailing down the ski slope at maddening speeds, has your risk of injury increased. So is the snow and slope only enabling at best? Is it displacement only? Friction of the wind increases.

Is the way of your life like the space ship. As it approaches the speed of light, created an increasing proportion of friction. Now how do you remove the space in front of. To open the draw bridge? Quantum Physics is the science based on quantitative study of parts and motions of something no one has ever touched, seen, heard, or smelled, But the atom does exist and has done dreadful things in the name of peace. The power within. Is that the new science? If new, has it been here since the beginning? Like the line in a whore house, it moves quickly. Chain reactions are the emptying of a space that quantum parts sense as a relief from the pressure that assails it in all other direction. Even if the rest is infinitesimal Like air feeling the pressure of elastic, upon it, flies out with the smallest of pin holes.

So how do you remove the friction from your life? It starts within. The belief you want it and deserve it. In knowing it already happened. Which at that point it is for you to only sit in the back of the bus. Granted you still had to work a forty hour week to earn wages to pay for the Greyhound. It might not be comfortable, but as long as you stay aboard, it gets you to the place you had paid for in advance. If you get off, it is a long walk back to the place you hang your hat. And it might not be home. But you can always work another week to take the journey again. This time finish it for their is allot of Granfalloons who would like to see you stop midway to pay them again.

Now animals are smarter. Stick a set of reindeer horns on a dog. It will try to take them off as fast as it can. What keeps yours on. Lust? Is five years of loneliness alone less than fifty years of a cold bed and heart? Where lies the foma? Six month of unemployment or forty years of an unanswered life of why you get out of bed at all? Only thing quicker than a line in a whore house is the speed of the pink slip after Christmas. So why do you wear those silly things?

Is the quick cut of the knife worse than the three years of death that follow the untreated cancer? So I find myself going to the shelf to prepare a place for the sweaters when I return them from the dry cleaners. My first new pair of Reeboks in two years arrived today. Mrs. Fox next door is doing better with her Cancer. They say she can get of the Chemo and she got to see the Florida Keys and found time outside work. She was pulled through the ringer to that singularity and spit back out. But she was spit back out into the waters of life. Even though she could not stay away from the work that was killing her, bag at her side and all. She still felt she had to be at work to be anyone. Small things she never seen or knew existed within her was killing her until they were examined. Can she get those things from within to shine on the x-ray? For what is within you can kill you or save you. Now if you choose not to let something beyond yourself to carry you through, do you just jump the bus. The road back to this point in the next life is a long one. But many die of thirst as the palms of the oasis is just on the horizon. Can she find a reason to drink the waters of life, or does she find a thief in the night scampering away with her pot.

I am just glad I had to deal with two shaved Lamas…

Christopher Jon Luke Dowgin is the owner of Norgeforge Studios and a counselor in his other love at Docspond Life Coach Services of the past twenty years.

http://www.docspond.org

http://www.norgeforge.org