If you are rejected by the choice of your love life or your choice for the love of your life you have made a free will act and this is the essence of being human, not the choice of a love of your life but the ability to freely choose at all.
If the love choice does not reciprocate, and instead chooses elsewise then you have witnessed the essence of that lover: exercising the freedom to choose.
Being human does not mean being a genius and being human does not mean being rational. Being human entails or requires the ability to effect choices, to make choices, to make decisions, to do things that are not programmed in, to be perhaps and usually unaware of the origins of the desire for the choice but the choice freely made, right, wrong, self destructive, silly, contrary, or whatever.
If you want a mindless and choice free entity to use as a lust object then get a dog. Animals have no free will and do not make choices. We can not “allow” them to make choices nor expect them to as they have no self awareness so there is no “them” there to make a choice. We make them into pets and we train them to do as we want. If they do not like what we do to them it is the nervous system reacting not “them”. That is why some animals are not trainable for pets and are not amenable as a substitute for human affection and lust. At least some dogs are so trainable.
If the human object of your lust and, or, or love does not reciprocate and chooses elsewise you should let them be free to exercise that choice, even if you are sent from heaven as their personal love and, or, or lust object. You should get happy about their exercise of freedom to choose even if their choice is self destructive.
People must be free to fail else they learn nothing. People must be free to fail even self destructively or we shall have no lessons to learn from. If all was a rose garden and free of pain and suffering we would be unable to learn anything.
When someone goes out into the middle of a field during a storm and gets hit by lightning we should in addition to whatever else we do and say declare that they set a lesson for us to learn from and that they did us a service by giving an example of what we could then understand as a wrong action and then understand as a bad choice.
This is also why we must just sit back and allow a nation to choose even bad and self destructive actions. Otherwise our notion of freedom is not one of allowing and encouraging freedom but allowing only what WE want as if that other nation is our child. If a nation chooses to hurt us and, or, or our interests then we must defend ourselves and our interests and this is why war can be a necessary and even a very good thing. If the other nation chooses to walk into the storm unprotected, so to speak, at their own risk, then so be it. We are not the parents except of our own children and only as long as they are children. A free nation must suffer the fate of their failure and even their self destructive failure. We might argue with them over their “stupidity” as we might even rightly call it. We cannot say “Oh! But your people will suffer because of the leadership’s bad choices!” and intervene on behalf of those people FOR THEY ARE NOT OUR PEOPLE. We must let every nation learn the lessons of their failures even if we are the ones left doing the learning.
10 May 2008
07 May 2008
Censorship, Information Control, Shutting Us Up
Censorship, Information Control, Shutting Us Up ...
It is the old problem of censorship: as John Milton maintained, if you censor what you believe is corrupting, you must first see the corruption, and you are thus corrupted, and therefore cannot be trusted to censor anything! If you take away my mind you control me and I am already damaged as a free person before any damage to me can possibly happen! Either you are lying about protecting anyone or you are corrupt, say what you will about “knowing better” than anyone else. I remember that character who always says he wants to protect children and who somehow “knew” about a web site where a live rape was happening: now how did he find out about THAT without, gasp, looking, and without, gasp again, looking for it?!?! “Either they are lying or trying to steal your mind” … or both … etcetera ...
It is the old problem of censorship: as John Milton maintained, if you censor what you believe is corrupting, you must first see the corruption, and you are thus corrupted, and therefore cannot be trusted to censor anything! If you take away my mind you control me and I am already damaged as a free person before any damage to me can possibly happen! Either you are lying about protecting anyone or you are corrupt, say what you will about “knowing better” than anyone else. I remember that character who always says he wants to protect children and who somehow “knew” about a web site where a live rape was happening: now how did he find out about THAT without, gasp, looking, and without, gasp again, looking for it?!?! “Either they are lying or trying to steal your mind” … or both … etcetera ...
Global Warming Alert
I WANT the “Global Warming” so many are afraid of. I am waiting for the Ross Ice Shelf to slide into the ocean, Greenland to thaw out, all the useless snow to melt away, the ocean to rise up and flood out New York, Atlantic City, and other needs-to-re-new places places. The rocks, mountains, and general grounds at the South Pole would then be uncovered and the volcanic activity down there could happen unhindered by all the useless cold. Then tickets could be sold for holiday in … NEW HOT SPRINGS … ANTARCTICA. I want to be there for the health spas, casinos, and even, maybe, Iceberg Riding, Cold Water Athletics, Antarctica Mountain Skiing, fun time Penguin Hunting Parties and red hot Penguin Barbecue Feasts, YUM!!!!, and Hot Volcano Tours. YEOW!!!
25 April 2008
Be Happy
Don't worry about someone's happiness at the expense of your own. I hate to say it but shuck it if it's shuckable and if shucking it makes you happier. Otherwise, BE happier ... and shuck it off. If it's not avoidable, deal with it, shuck it. It is what we all do or want to do anyway --- so --- shuck it and worry about how to get happy about it.
Worry about the worth of a worry. Worry if it's worth it. If it's not worth it or you decide to not bother then shuck it. If it's worth it then you deal with it and you ought to be happy to deal with it and get it out of and away from your worrying self.
If it is not a solvable problem or will just take too long to deal with ... shuck it! One way or the other, shuck it. If it's either shuck you or shuck it, shuck one or shuck the other ... that's called tough and that's called life. But ... in the end ... get happy and BE HAPPY ABOUT IT. Shuck it! One or the other, shuck it!
Maybe you need a real good cry and maybe you need time alone and maybe you need a good semi-psychotic fit. Fine. In the end a choice must be made and you either get happy or not. Being happy is something you make happen and it cannot be given to you. Maybe you're an incurable alcoholic or an incurable drug addict or suffer intractible pain or... conundrums abound ... these demand you make a happier choice ... there is no help for you from me ... that's called tough and that's called life. Make a shucking decision and shuck it.
What else is there, really, to worry about, in the end, except to worry about being happy?
So ... WORRY ABOUT GETTING HAPPY.
If it isn' t worth it, don't worry about it. If you can't ever be happy you really don't have anything to worry about! Shuck it! Plain and simple in the end.
If you can't stop worrying then go crazy instead and be happy.
If you stop the world and get off ... GO! ... just get happy about it! ... or ...
Put a gun to your head ... Bang, but ... be happy about it! ... or ...
Jump into the sun ... Well! ... be happy about it! ...
Do the best you can and, shucks, get happy about it!
♪♪
Be Happy. ♪♪
♪♪
References:
"Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (1964)
"Grin And Bear It" (sports cartoonist George Lichtenstein in 1932, et al)
"Most people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be." [Abraham Lincoln]
"Don't Worry - Be Happy" (song and title)
"(If You Can't Be With The One You Love,) Love The One You're With" (song & title)
Desiderata (unknown)
16 April 2008
Stupidity
If you are talking and hear someone say something and you think: “no one can be so stupid as to believe that” you might be right: they cannot be that stupid and are being that stupid on purpose to interfere with your thinking. They are saboteurs. They find it either politically useful or just plain entertaining to play with you and confuse you. They may be serious saboteurs and be quite seriously after your sanity: do not underestimate the cleverness and intelligence of insane people!! And there are the fake insane who use “mental illness” to play with you and your wallet and your mind and these may also be serious saboteurs and be quite seriously after your sanity: do not underestimate the cleverness and intelligence of anyone!!! I have met fake crazies and the seriously insane. Do not underestimate the cleverness and intelligence of the sane to be “crazy” as it is useful to them to get your money, your body, your mind, and especially as they defend themselves in court after they kill you.
I was told once that the basic question of science is “What If?”. After a variety of arguments on various things I realized that I had been told that many times. Some people feel that any question and any idea that comes into their head, if in any way “different”, “qualifies” as an intelligent act. I came to understand that sometimes “No one can be so stupid as to believe that”, “NO one could be as stupid as to have said that” as correct and accurate. If they cannot be that stupid then if they ARE being so stupid then: they are being that stupid on purpose. They are stupid in order to interfere with your thinking. STUPIDITY is not an accident. No one is born stupid. People may get stupid and be in a state of stupefaction and get stupid from a lack of sleep, lust and love, thoughtless greed, street drug use, alcohol overuse, rage instead of anger, extreme anger, Rx drug use even if done right, just plain drug use, and mixtures of these. Otherwise, “stupid” people are saboteurs and find it politically useful to play with you and confuse you. Menticide is their form of hunt. I am not against the death penalty against them. Neither are they against death for you if they cannot kill your mind!!!
It takes work to save your mind from the menticidal maniacs who would kill you. It takes work to counter the tentative, develop the intuitive, work on the definite, and identify the stupid. Everyone gets stupid! You have to work to either get rid of it or, as “they” do, develop it to destroy others.
Are we a mutation of life forms or an evolvement into a new or a different life form? Are we a life form as an accident of nature? Is human life a freak of nature? Even if we are, we are anyway, so everything and anything else to the contrary is not relevant. Or, if any of this were so then ALL things are accidents of nature and EVERYTHING is a freak. If human life is a freak of nature then so is the sun and moon and every star. This kind of thinking makes every thing undifferentiated. It is as “the night in which all cows are black”. Nothing is all and each and every thing is the “same”. I consider such thinking evil. Or, if we are freaks or accidents of nature: what of it? What is the purpose of such a consideration? It is not a useful one and leads to no understanding of anything: it is used to derail real serious and worked on thinking by “lazy” and “stupid” people.
I was told once that the basic question of science is “What If?”. After a variety of arguments on various things I realized that I had been told that many times. Some people feel that any question and any idea that comes into their head, if in any way “different”, “qualifies” as an intelligent act. I came to understand that sometimes “No one can be so stupid as to believe that”, “NO one could be as stupid as to have said that” as correct and accurate. If they cannot be that stupid then if they ARE being so stupid then: they are being that stupid on purpose. They are stupid in order to interfere with your thinking. STUPIDITY is not an accident. No one is born stupid. People may get stupid and be in a state of stupefaction and get stupid from a lack of sleep, lust and love, thoughtless greed, street drug use, alcohol overuse, rage instead of anger, extreme anger, Rx drug use even if done right, just plain drug use, and mixtures of these. Otherwise, “stupid” people are saboteurs and find it politically useful to play with you and confuse you. Menticide is their form of hunt. I am not against the death penalty against them. Neither are they against death for you if they cannot kill your mind!!!
It takes work to save your mind from the menticidal maniacs who would kill you. It takes work to counter the tentative, develop the intuitive, work on the definite, and identify the stupid. Everyone gets stupid! You have to work to either get rid of it or, as “they” do, develop it to destroy others.
Are we a mutation of life forms or an evolvement into a new or a different life form? Are we a life form as an accident of nature? Is human life a freak of nature? Even if we are, we are anyway, so everything and anything else to the contrary is not relevant. Or, if any of this were so then ALL things are accidents of nature and EVERYTHING is a freak. If human life is a freak of nature then so is the sun and moon and every star. This kind of thinking makes every thing undifferentiated. It is as “the night in which all cows are black”. Nothing is all and each and every thing is the “same”. I consider such thinking evil. Or, if we are freaks or accidents of nature: what of it? What is the purpose of such a consideration? It is not a useful one and leads to no understanding of anything: it is used to derail real serious and worked on thinking by “lazy” and “stupid” people.
Permute, Mutate, Evolve
I assert that life is not a random process nor is it planned out according to a recipe. The world is neither a biscuit bakery nor an auto factory. Those kinds of things are human creations as they are also parts of the universe. We are each different. We none of us are universal-standard engineered machined parts from an assembly line. We are not little globs of dough from a bowl baked in temperature controlled ovens. Those kinds of things are human creations. That is obvious.
And no two biscuits based on the same recipe are the same nor are even two engineer-universal-standard auto parts quite the same. There is the simple fact of variation however small. Measurement is not exact it seems. No one was there to measure out the material used to make us. Even if there were then that measuring person could not make the precise same measure each time. That is an observation not inborn in us but figured out from our common human historical experience.
The biscuit or car that becomes after the baking or assembly line is at least slightly different from any and every other just as every person is different. If you ever worked in a quality control part of a factory you would be aware that even the most accurate of measurements ends up in endless variations. Some end results are inexplicably very different though often enough successful results none the less. Most cars run and most biscuits are edible. Many are tossed out as being too different, not up to some standard or other, or some other reason. We as human beings do that too to human beings.
Even if we should not do that with human beings we as human beings do. The anti-evolutionists would kill and non-create the already created. The anti-abortionists would kill and abort the already born. And the believers in one sort of things kill the believers in other sorts of things. Human beings are killers. We are predatory, nasty, vicious, violent, raging, biting, scratching, back-stabbing, and rip-it-apart creatures. We are not just fighters. We are killers.
Simply put: “We are here and grow and this demonstrates our necessary being”. If we did not exist who then is reading this? “I” therefore I am. But the phrase “necessary being” is used by some to mean that “we” have to be here by some guarantee built into the universe. This is a useless argument, I think. We are and that is sufficient. We are and that is necessary or else, well, there would be no “we”. Isn’t that complete?
And no two biscuits based on the same recipe are the same nor are even two engineer-universal-standard auto parts quite the same. There is the simple fact of variation however small. Measurement is not exact it seems. No one was there to measure out the material used to make us. Even if there were then that measuring person could not make the precise same measure each time. That is an observation not inborn in us but figured out from our common human historical experience.
The biscuit or car that becomes after the baking or assembly line is at least slightly different from any and every other just as every person is different. If you ever worked in a quality control part of a factory you would be aware that even the most accurate of measurements ends up in endless variations. Some end results are inexplicably very different though often enough successful results none the less. Most cars run and most biscuits are edible. Many are tossed out as being too different, not up to some standard or other, or some other reason. We as human beings do that too to human beings.
Even if we should not do that with human beings we as human beings do. The anti-evolutionists would kill and non-create the already created. The anti-abortionists would kill and abort the already born. And the believers in one sort of things kill the believers in other sorts of things. Human beings are killers. We are predatory, nasty, vicious, violent, raging, biting, scratching, back-stabbing, and rip-it-apart creatures. We are not just fighters. We are killers.
Simply put: “We are here and grow and this demonstrates our necessary being”. If we did not exist who then is reading this? “I” therefore I am. But the phrase “necessary being” is used by some to mean that “we” have to be here by some guarantee built into the universe. This is a useless argument, I think. We are and that is sufficient. We are and that is necessary or else, well, there would be no “we”. Isn’t that complete?
11 April 2008
Big Bang
The only way I can answer religious doctrine is to ignore it. All I can do in reply to religious writings is to ignore them. Human beings wrote it down and human beings are the doctrinaires: there I rest my case: human beings are not god. Period.
I simply do not believe in any god / any religion. I do not hate them nor despise them. I do not believe there is no god. I simply do not believe in any god. I have no religion. I do not believe in a future life, a system of future rewards and/or punishments, nor in any master plan, nor in any singular nor in any origin of / for the universe. I believe in no prophets nor angels nor powers nor powers of the dead / “Other” nor any entity waiting to do me a favor if I only pray. None of it “took” and none of it “takes” now.
Belief is easy: just accept “it” as if “it” was true and no more thinking is required about “it”. Just as I shall say I believe so and so will make a good or the better or a less the worst for president: I cannot say “I Know”. Pick one belief and there are thousands of other beliefs. Pick one belief and there are thousands of variations. Knowledge takes work. Trying to know takes work. Honesty takes work. Being able to say “I don’t know” is part of being honest. I am not a good liar. Being a good liar takes work. It is a different kind of work. Making a decision based on belief alone is sometimes all that can be done: It is a belief about what the “real world” is. A belief in the “other” world, the other world of god / religion is another thing altogether. Making decisions based on beliefs in the “non-natural world” applying some way or other to the “natural world” is also done. Human beings are doing it. I rest my case.
I believe all kinds of things and I do not apologize. Or I am shown I only believe in something and do not know and have to apologize. If I do not know anything I am honest enough to say so. Or I lie.
I accept no apology, explanation, defense, nor argument for god / religion: You/he/she/they believe it or not: The fundamental basis for belief is belief. Belief is not knowledge. Period.
God is not taken out of scientific argument nor out of the realm of scientific inquiry. NO! NO! I in fact argue that gods and religions must be studied. They are included in the history of ideas, defended or derided as a part of philosophy, studied as a part of human history such as justification and/or excuse for war and pursuing peace, for examples. That is: studied anthropologically or as a class of idea. There are those who study religions very carefully and have there own or none. History is necessarily concerned with religion. There is in fact an extensive enumeration of “religious” practices called The Golden Bough in thirty five volumes and he was being selective.
The study of nature excludes a study of god and religion as there is nothing there to study. “They” do not personally exclude so and do not have to personally exclude anything and thereby need not justify anything: there is no thing there to take samples of to measure: there is nothing there to exclude and nothing there to include if they wanted to. Period. You and I can guarantee they would if they could. People would have “samples” of god on their table tops at every meal! I would too! Or, they would refuse or fail to so do such. As it is, they might put symbols of god / religion on the table. That can only be studied anthropologically. If the study of nature is the study of god then there is no shortage of study. If the study of nature must include the belief in god, that is political, not science.
“Religion” has never screwed up anybody. People do the screwing. Religion is a cultural expression and a popular expression amongst a group of people: a social thing: and as varied as are groups of people. Pick one belief and there are thousands of other beliefs. Pick one belief and there are thousands of variations.
I do not believe there is no god. I am not a believer in a god to not believe in. “They” insist I am an atheist anyway. “They” are angry at me for not accepting their “beliefs”. I could lie down and mash my face into the floor before any image and shout “I believe!” and there would some “them” who insist I shall go to hell anyway for some reason or other.
As for the big bang: there is no evidence of any such a thing: it is a “working generalization”. It is a sort of “working” “assumption”. A way of talking.
As I hinted before: the universe cannot have a “beginning” based on our notions of time and space: “It”, the universe, the ALL, includes all times and all spaces by definition. There is no time, space, cause, effect, or “thing” left over. To assert a “cause” or “beginning” to the universe entails some extra-universal thing. Call that god. But god did not “cause” the universe to exist. God had not created causes before god created the universe. Therefore god created the universe and did not “cause” it to be. God cannot exist in our world of causes and effects. God created causes and effects. God created time. It is “said” “when god created the world” only because we use our limited language. God did not “start” as there was no where for god to start and no time for god to start as god had not created times nor starts nor where’s nor there’s. God did not cause the universe by creating it because creation is not a cause. No thing can be a “reaction” to the “cause” of god because god had not created anything until god created it and that includes causes and effects and reactions. Therefore there is no “starting time” for the universe nor a "starting time" for god. Even the middle ages monks in monasteries knew that!
I simply do not believe in any god / any religion. I do not hate them nor despise them. I do not believe there is no god. I simply do not believe in any god. I have no religion. I do not believe in a future life, a system of future rewards and/or punishments, nor in any master plan, nor in any singular nor in any origin of / for the universe. I believe in no prophets nor angels nor powers nor powers of the dead / “Other” nor any entity waiting to do me a favor if I only pray. None of it “took” and none of it “takes” now.
Belief is easy: just accept “it” as if “it” was true and no more thinking is required about “it”. Just as I shall say I believe so and so will make a good or the better or a less the worst for president: I cannot say “I Know”. Pick one belief and there are thousands of other beliefs. Pick one belief and there are thousands of variations. Knowledge takes work. Trying to know takes work. Honesty takes work. Being able to say “I don’t know” is part of being honest. I am not a good liar. Being a good liar takes work. It is a different kind of work. Making a decision based on belief alone is sometimes all that can be done: It is a belief about what the “real world” is. A belief in the “other” world, the other world of god / religion is another thing altogether. Making decisions based on beliefs in the “non-natural world” applying some way or other to the “natural world” is also done. Human beings are doing it. I rest my case.
I believe all kinds of things and I do not apologize. Or I am shown I only believe in something and do not know and have to apologize. If I do not know anything I am honest enough to say so. Or I lie.
I accept no apology, explanation, defense, nor argument for god / religion: You/he/she/they believe it or not: The fundamental basis for belief is belief. Belief is not knowledge. Period.
God is not taken out of scientific argument nor out of the realm of scientific inquiry. NO! NO! I in fact argue that gods and religions must be studied. They are included in the history of ideas, defended or derided as a part of philosophy, studied as a part of human history such as justification and/or excuse for war and pursuing peace, for examples. That is: studied anthropologically or as a class of idea. There are those who study religions very carefully and have there own or none. History is necessarily concerned with religion. There is in fact an extensive enumeration of “religious” practices called The Golden Bough in thirty five volumes and he was being selective.
The study of nature excludes a study of god and religion as there is nothing there to study. “They” do not personally exclude so and do not have to personally exclude anything and thereby need not justify anything: there is no thing there to take samples of to measure: there is nothing there to exclude and nothing there to include if they wanted to. Period. You and I can guarantee they would if they could. People would have “samples” of god on their table tops at every meal! I would too! Or, they would refuse or fail to so do such. As it is, they might put symbols of god / religion on the table. That can only be studied anthropologically. If the study of nature is the study of god then there is no shortage of study. If the study of nature must include the belief in god, that is political, not science.
“Religion” has never screwed up anybody. People do the screwing. Religion is a cultural expression and a popular expression amongst a group of people: a social thing: and as varied as are groups of people. Pick one belief and there are thousands of other beliefs. Pick one belief and there are thousands of variations.
I do not believe there is no god. I am not a believer in a god to not believe in. “They” insist I am an atheist anyway. “They” are angry at me for not accepting their “beliefs”. I could lie down and mash my face into the floor before any image and shout “I believe!” and there would some “them” who insist I shall go to hell anyway for some reason or other.
As for the big bang: there is no evidence of any such a thing: it is a “working generalization”. It is a sort of “working” “assumption”. A way of talking.
As I hinted before: the universe cannot have a “beginning” based on our notions of time and space: “It”, the universe, the ALL, includes all times and all spaces by definition. There is no time, space, cause, effect, or “thing” left over. To assert a “cause” or “beginning” to the universe entails some extra-universal thing. Call that god. But god did not “cause” the universe to exist. God had not created causes before god created the universe. Therefore god created the universe and did not “cause” it to be. God cannot exist in our world of causes and effects. God created causes and effects. God created time. It is “said” “when god created the world” only because we use our limited language. God did not “start” as there was no where for god to start and no time for god to start as god had not created times nor starts nor where’s nor there’s. God did not cause the universe by creating it because creation is not a cause. No thing can be a “reaction” to the “cause” of god because god had not created anything until god created it and that includes causes and effects and reactions. Therefore there is no “starting time” for the universe nor a "starting time" for god. Even the middle ages monks in monasteries knew that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
