If I come to the Lord with a thankful soul, there are three joys -- the joy that He hears me, the joy that I walk in Truth, and the joy that has no cause.
If I approach my fellow in the way of forgiveness, there are four harmonies of peace -- between the Lord and me; between the Lord and my fellow; between my fellow and me; and the peace that passes understanding.
If I am silent, there are five songs of love to be heard -- the love of the Lord toward me; my love toward the Lord; my fellow's heart toward me; and my heart toward my fellow; and the love that has no name.
And now there abide these three speechly virtues -- thankfulness, forgiveness, and silence. And the greatest of these is silence.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Friday, April 19, 2013
Rupert Sheldrake: Science Set Free
Rupert Sheldrake, a British biologist, continues to challenge and upset the scientific status quo -- and hopefully stimulate some necessary change.
Dr. Sheldrake has recently published a book, Science Set Free, which spells out his current views of what he calls "the scientific creed." I won't list or summarize the "ten dogmas": Dr. Sheldrake does it himself, right here, in an on-line version of the introduction to his book.
He also recently spoke at a conference on "The Electric Universe" in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In his presentation, Dr. Sheldrake challenged what he calls "ten dogmas" of modern science. (You can watch him here.)
Apparently, he really grates on the nerves of the gatekeepers of Establishment science. And no wonder, really, since he has directly challenged them. When he gave a "TED Talk" a few months ago, they pulled it off of their YouTube channel. (There was a large outcry, and it is available again, for now. Listen to it yourself, if you have the time, and see if you think it should have been censored.)
What Thomas Kuhn famously called "paradigm shifts" occur from time to time in the field of science. Perhaps Dr. Sheldrake is part of such a paradigm shift. All things considered, I might rather call it a paradigm expansion.
I am reminded of an undergraduate history course I took, a long generation ago, from a professor of geophysics. The course was called, "The History of Science," and one of the books for reading was Anthony Standen's Science is a Sacred Cow. The title says it.
Perhaps I should note that our alma mater, a small technical university, was largely funded by, and therefore beholden to the perceived needs of, the Vietnam War military-industrial complex. (Same as the current military-industrial complex.) In those days, we all operated under implicit scientific and philosophical strictures, some of which I perceived, and more of which I had been conditioned to be oblivious to. Perhaps it is the memory of those days, and that interesting history course, and that (now very old) professor, that makes me perk up and take a special interest in a scientist like Dr. Sheldrake who is willing to shake up the status quo.
* * *
If you find Rupert Sheldrake's ideas and his manner of presentation interesting, here are a few other links -- but it helps if you have already followed the earlier ones:
* Part 2 of his speech in Abuquerque.
* A televised "trialog" with two young interviewers -- one sympathetic, and one a skeptic. (Both friendly.)
* His ideas about the morphogenetic universe. A related one about morphic fields and consciousness.
* A presentation about the extended mind, and one about the evolution of telepathy,
Your comments are very welcome -- especially if you have accessed one or more of these links!
Dr. Sheldrake has recently published a book, Science Set Free, which spells out his current views of what he calls "the scientific creed." I won't list or summarize the "ten dogmas": Dr. Sheldrake does it himself, right here, in an on-line version of the introduction to his book.
He also recently spoke at a conference on "The Electric Universe" in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In his presentation, Dr. Sheldrake challenged what he calls "ten dogmas" of modern science. (You can watch him here.)
Apparently, he really grates on the nerves of the gatekeepers of Establishment science. And no wonder, really, since he has directly challenged them. When he gave a "TED Talk" a few months ago, they pulled it off of their YouTube channel. (There was a large outcry, and it is available again, for now. Listen to it yourself, if you have the time, and see if you think it should have been censored.)
What Thomas Kuhn famously called "paradigm shifts" occur from time to time in the field of science. Perhaps Dr. Sheldrake is part of such a paradigm shift. All things considered, I might rather call it a paradigm expansion.
I am reminded of an undergraduate history course I took, a long generation ago, from a professor of geophysics. The course was called, "The History of Science," and one of the books for reading was Anthony Standen's Science is a Sacred Cow. The title says it.
Perhaps I should note that our alma mater, a small technical university, was largely funded by, and therefore beholden to the perceived needs of, the Vietnam War military-industrial complex. (Same as the current military-industrial complex.) In those days, we all operated under implicit scientific and philosophical strictures, some of which I perceived, and more of which I had been conditioned to be oblivious to. Perhaps it is the memory of those days, and that interesting history course, and that (now very old) professor, that makes me perk up and take a special interest in a scientist like Dr. Sheldrake who is willing to shake up the status quo.
* * *
* Part 2 of his speech in Abuquerque.
* A televised "trialog" with two young interviewers -- one sympathetic, and one a skeptic. (Both friendly.)
* His ideas about the morphogenetic universe. A related one about morphic fields and consciousness.
* A presentation about the extended mind, and one about the evolution of telepathy,
Your comments are very welcome -- especially if you have accessed one or more of these links!
Monday, April 8, 2013
Margaret Thatcher, RIP
I am not going to nominate Mrs. Thatcher for sainthood. Sainthood nominations are rather above my pay-grade.
But I would like to say that at the time of her presence on the world political stage -- roughly the entire decade of the Eighties plus a bit more -- I regarded her as a person who was seriously working for a better world; and still today, given all her real and imagined limitations, I prefer what she did, and attempted to do, above the criticisms of most or all of her detractors.
We must acknowledge that she rose to prominence in the context of the British Commonwealth, a system of government deeply compromised and corrupted for generations, not only at the Parliamentary-visible-formal level, but even more so at the City-of-London-secretive-actual level. This is a system so thoroughly drenched in greed and blood, so throughly controlled by the gods Mammon and Molech, for so long, that I can hardly assert to others, or even believe within myself, that she succeeded in getting to her position of Prime Minister with her own hands completely clean, or her own heart pure.
I could say precisely the same thing about the three other most prominent political persons of her decade, and the systems in which they operated -- Ronald Reagan and Corporate America, John Paul II and the Vatican, and Mikhail Gorbachev and Soviet-style Communism. And I think I would not be too far from the truth.
I would agree that their concerted efforts and achievements for a more peaceful and cooperative world were only partial, and I would acknowledge that they are not above serious criticism.
But when I compare them with their acolytes, critics, and detractors, I marvel that they were able to do as much as they did, as well as they did.
When I consider the digressions and transgressions of their confederates and the regressions of their successors, I grieve at how much that they accomplished was misunderstood, disregarded, and frittered away by brute venality and militant ignorance. Or should I have said, ignorant militance and venal brutality.
I don't much care about the big funeral they are planning for the "Iron Lady." It makes me think of the Reagan funeral, where many folks, among the small and the great, imagined they were respecting and admiring an individual (or a movement of individuals), when in the reality of their own hearts they were committed to undoing what the dearly departed had done or tried to do.
Rest in peace, Mrs. Thatcher. You did what you could.
But I would like to say that at the time of her presence on the world political stage -- roughly the entire decade of the Eighties plus a bit more -- I regarded her as a person who was seriously working for a better world; and still today, given all her real and imagined limitations, I prefer what she did, and attempted to do, above the criticisms of most or all of her detractors.
We must acknowledge that she rose to prominence in the context of the British Commonwealth, a system of government deeply compromised and corrupted for generations, not only at the Parliamentary-visible-formal level, but even more so at the City-of-London-secretive-actual level. This is a system so thoroughly drenched in greed and blood, so throughly controlled by the gods Mammon and Molech, for so long, that I can hardly assert to others, or even believe within myself, that she succeeded in getting to her position of Prime Minister with her own hands completely clean, or her own heart pure.
I could say precisely the same thing about the three other most prominent political persons of her decade, and the systems in which they operated -- Ronald Reagan and Corporate America, John Paul II and the Vatican, and Mikhail Gorbachev and Soviet-style Communism. And I think I would not be too far from the truth.
I would agree that their concerted efforts and achievements for a more peaceful and cooperative world were only partial, and I would acknowledge that they are not above serious criticism.
But when I compare them with their acolytes, critics, and detractors, I marvel that they were able to do as much as they did, as well as they did.
When I consider the digressions and transgressions of their confederates and the regressions of their successors, I grieve at how much that they accomplished was misunderstood, disregarded, and frittered away by brute venality and militant ignorance. Or should I have said, ignorant militance and venal brutality.
I don't much care about the big funeral they are planning for the "Iron Lady." It makes me think of the Reagan funeral, where many folks, among the small and the great, imagined they were respecting and admiring an individual (or a movement of individuals), when in the reality of their own hearts they were committed to undoing what the dearly departed had done or tried to do.
Rest in peace, Mrs. Thatcher. You did what you could.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Fred Reed And Henry Makow On Sexual Relations
I herewith post links to two sites on the Net, with articles that I think are worth reading. My explanation for these choices will be brief, not comprehensive.
On heterosexual relationships: Fred Reed is formerly a writer for newspapers in the United States, now living in Mexico. Born in small-town West Virginia, his life experience stretches from the Vietnam War and time in Asia, to covering the police-beat for the Washington Times. He has a very wide libertarian streak and advertises his writing as "scurrilous commentary," so if you need to be forewarned, be forewarned.
He has written three "chapters of a book" that talks to American men about the advantages, and otherwise, of not marrying American women, in preference to marrying women from the "Third World." I will let him explain. Here are the links to the three "chapters":
*
Fred Reed's site: Fred On Everything.
On heterosexual relationships: Fred Reed is formerly a writer for newspapers in the United States, now living in Mexico. Born in small-town West Virginia, his life experience stretches from the Vietnam War and time in Asia, to covering the police-beat for the Washington Times. He has a very wide libertarian streak and advertises his writing as "scurrilous commentary," so if you need to be forewarned, be forewarned.
He has written three "chapters of a book" that talks to American men about the advantages, and otherwise, of not marrying American women, in preference to marrying women from the "Third World." I will let him explain. Here are the links to the three "chapters":
*
Henry Makow's site : Save The Males.
On homosexual relationships: Henry Makow writes from his home country of Canada. I needed to read quite a few of his posts before I understood where he is coming from, but in his own words, he is "exposing Feminism and the New World Order" (both in the capital-letter sense). He often prints articles by contributors, as in this case.
His current subject is the mandated (in parts of Canada) teaching of "gay lifestyle" to school children, and what he posts is intended to counter that. If the writing is raw, it is because the subject matter is raw. Again: if you need to be forewarned, be forewarned.
*
Understand that I am not giving you my point of view, nor endorsing either of these writers. I have chosen to stay out of the various "culture-wars" debates, pretty much, and this post does not signal any change in my stance. But both of these writers have brought forward some important facts that I think warrant serious consideration for people who are having to live life, whether or not they join the "wars."
* * *
Comments welcome.
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Chris Hedges And The Crucifixion Of Tomas Young
A link to a post.
Chris Hedges has written an important article about a wounded war veteran who, after almost ten years of excruciating and increasing disability, is facing death. The story is horrible. It is not quite unique; but it is quite horrible.
I think that it is essential that this article get under the noses of as many people as possible, especially (a) those who are still unrepentant cheerleaders for our previous (and current) aggressive, pre-emptive Middle East wars, and also (b) those who think "well, mistakes were made -- but it's time to move on." It is way too early to move on. It's high time to "support the troops" -- ours, and our enemies' (both sides of which were wounded or killed under our false pretenses) -- by working for their rehabilitation and just compensation.
What do I think should be done? I can think of several things.
1. As to our politicians, military officer class, and bureaucrats from Cheney-Bush and Obama-Biden on down: Vacate their jobs and their retirement benefits, and instead, put them on mandatory community-service without parole for the next twenty years. Draw lots: even numbers, working in VA hospitals in the US; odd numbers, working in hospitals and nursing homes in Iraq, under the authority and supervision of the Iraqi government.
2. As to our corporations in the military-industrial complex, including their senior staffs, owners, and investors: "Sequester" their corporate and personal assets to the extent necessary to fund No. 1 above.
3. As to the flag-waving, war-boosting churches: Let them, as an act of contrition, stop displaying the American flag (or pledging allegiance to it) anywhere on their properties, since they are deeply complicit in sullying the reputation of the nation. (Further suggestion: take the name of Jesus, and any statuary of Him, off your public displays: you've sullied His name, too. Let your contrition be public, and your faith private.)
None of the above proposals contemplates violence -- simply a serious effort at restitution, restoration, reconciliation, and repentance.
I am grateful to Chris Hedges for talking about this. It's not going to make him wealthy, or popular. Thanks, Chris, for talking about a real "inconvenient truth."
Monday, March 11, 2013
Hugo Chavez, RIP
I was saddened, though not surprised, when the long-time popular president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, passed away on Tuesday, March 5. It was expected: he had been undergoing treatments for cancer for a long time.
The CIA, and its mentors and minions in the Establishment, are (predictably) delighted, and are clearly looking for ways to restore their pro-Big Oil, pro-rich, anti-poor ways in Venezuela. Chavez has been an effective thorn in their side for the better part of fifteen years, during which he managed to attract hostility from pretty much all sides in Washington.
Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1998, running against the corruption that had deeply infected both major parties in Venezuela. He promised reforms that favored the poorer classes of people, and, interestingly enough, partially succeeded. Some statistics indicate that during his years, he reduced the poverty rate from 48% to under 30%. This, of course, challenged the elites of Venezuela who had firm connections -- and obligations -- to the multi-national corporations and interests that operate out of New York and Washington. Over the years, mutual antagonisms increased.
He aroused the ire of the Cheney-Bush neo-conservatives when he referred to American empire as the great problem, and George W. Bush as "the devil," in a speech at the United Nations in 2005.
In that same year, he angered Pat Robertson, the televangelist who speaks for Jesus to the Religious Right. Reverend Robertson thoughtfully urged that "we" ought to send in "our" covert operatives to assassinate him.
All this was, of course, late in the game. It was known in 2003 that agents of the FBI and the CIA were actively working on plans to assassinate him.
Which was, of course, also late in the game, since there had been a nearly-successful coup attempt against him in 2002 which followed the usual CIA pattern that has been followed, often successfully, since the CIA's inception (and before that, by the CIA's mother organization, the OSS, that flourished during World War II). The basic recipe is: Stir up trouble, inflame the press, fund the opposition, control or split the security apparatus, hope for the worst, use the chaos, and claim, or deny, responsibility.
In the run-up to the presidential election of 2012, a spate of anti-Chavez stories appeared in the U.S. media, painting him as marxist, or pro-extremist, or pro-Muslim, or too-sick-to-govern, or threatening violence to, or from, his well-connected opponents. Despite all this, he won re-election handily.
But Chavez hardly survived to his re-inauguration, and power passed to his vice-president. Whereupon the "serious" media (Fox, CBS) groused that his successor was "hand-picked" (Aren't vice-presidential candidates usually "hand-picked"? I'm thinking of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan here) -- and the tabloid media of Matt Drudge and the Right imagined "Hell's A-Burning" almost before his soul could have left his body.
One could wonder if the US media, whether left or right, was genuinely concerned about violence, or were more interested in fomenting it. Given their recent track record regarding Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, I think I can guess.
I am at the point where, if the CIA-media promotes or likes somebody, I doubt them; and if they demonize somebody else, I figure that that person has offended them, which is probably a good sign.
Which brings me to Mahmood Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, who has certainly been demonized by the CIA-media. Upon the death of Chavez, Ahmadinejad gave it as his opinion that Hugo Chavez would return alongside Jesus and the Mahdi at the Second Coming.
Well, I don't suppose that Ahmadinejad or the Muslims can speak too authoritatively about who will be returning with Christ; but neither do I much believe in the authoritative judgments of Pat Robertson or the CIA.
Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, rest in peace. Your people found reason to love you, and your detractors are, well, your detractors.
The CIA, and its mentors and minions in the Establishment, are (predictably) delighted, and are clearly looking for ways to restore their pro-Big Oil, pro-rich, anti-poor ways in Venezuela. Chavez has been an effective thorn in their side for the better part of fifteen years, during which he managed to attract hostility from pretty much all sides in Washington.
Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1998, running against the corruption that had deeply infected both major parties in Venezuela. He promised reforms that favored the poorer classes of people, and, interestingly enough, partially succeeded. Some statistics indicate that during his years, he reduced the poverty rate from 48% to under 30%. This, of course, challenged the elites of Venezuela who had firm connections -- and obligations -- to the multi-national corporations and interests that operate out of New York and Washington. Over the years, mutual antagonisms increased.
He aroused the ire of the Cheney-Bush neo-conservatives when he referred to American empire as the great problem, and George W. Bush as "the devil," in a speech at the United Nations in 2005.
In that same year, he angered Pat Robertson, the televangelist who speaks for Jesus to the Religious Right. Reverend Robertson thoughtfully urged that "we" ought to send in "our" covert operatives to assassinate him.
All this was, of course, late in the game. It was known in 2003 that agents of the FBI and the CIA were actively working on plans to assassinate him.
Which was, of course, also late in the game, since there had been a nearly-successful coup attempt against him in 2002 which followed the usual CIA pattern that has been followed, often successfully, since the CIA's inception (and before that, by the CIA's mother organization, the OSS, that flourished during World War II). The basic recipe is: Stir up trouble, inflame the press, fund the opposition, control or split the security apparatus, hope for the worst, use the chaos, and claim, or deny, responsibility.
In the run-up to the presidential election of 2012, a spate of anti-Chavez stories appeared in the U.S. media, painting him as marxist, or pro-extremist, or pro-Muslim, or too-sick-to-govern, or threatening violence to, or from, his well-connected opponents. Despite all this, he won re-election handily.
But Chavez hardly survived to his re-inauguration, and power passed to his vice-president. Whereupon the "serious" media (Fox, CBS) groused that his successor was "hand-picked" (Aren't vice-presidential candidates usually "hand-picked"? I'm thinking of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan here) -- and the tabloid media of Matt Drudge and the Right imagined "Hell's A-Burning" almost before his soul could have left his body.
One could wonder if the US media, whether left or right, was genuinely concerned about violence, or were more interested in fomenting it. Given their recent track record regarding Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, I think I can guess.
I am at the point where, if the CIA-media promotes or likes somebody, I doubt them; and if they demonize somebody else, I figure that that person has offended them, which is probably a good sign.
Which brings me to Mahmood Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, who has certainly been demonized by the CIA-media. Upon the death of Chavez, Ahmadinejad gave it as his opinion that Hugo Chavez would return alongside Jesus and the Mahdi at the Second Coming.
Well, I don't suppose that Ahmadinejad or the Muslims can speak too authoritatively about who will be returning with Christ; but neither do I much believe in the authoritative judgments of Pat Robertson or the CIA.
Meanwhile, Hugo Chavez, rest in peace. Your people found reason to love you, and your detractors are, well, your detractors.
Monday, March 4, 2013
The Political Pharisees
Since the time of Christ, much has been said about the Religious Pharisees -- enough that most people of good will would say that they don't want to be a part of that group. (Though a thoughtful read of Church history, or a careful examination of one's one soul, might result in the disquieting discovery that the Pharisee mentality is altogether too close for comfort.)
But my thoughts are here turning to the Political, rather than the Religious, Pharisee. Like the Religious Pharisee, the Political Pharisee has turned the Law to his own purpose. He doesn't see the Law as an expression of high ideals of human behavior, or national citizenship, but rather as a means of advancing his own ends through "law enforcement" -- his own ends, in this matter, being personal security, personal gain, personal self-justification, personal insider-status, personal control, and personal power. It is an agenda that is as addictive and destructive as a meth habit, and at the end, in my opinion, will be in complete contradiction to the free forms of personal liberty and a cooperative humanity.
The Political Pharisees have made a Long March through our American institutions, and we have an enormous number of them in the nation today -- many in positions of control, and many more wannabees. Both major political parties are completely controlled by them, and they have enormous sway in our religious and social institutions.
But at the moment, I want to draw attention to their influence in the Law Enforcement community -- by which I mean, our local and federal police, our local and federal judiciary, and their advocates and detractors in the national media.
By way of contrast to the Political Pharisees, I encourage you to read the recent post, "My Life As A Tyrant," by a police officer, Chris Hernandez. He gives an interesting perspective on the pressures and challenges that are faced by the good people who have chosen the career of law enforcement.
The article inspired quite a few comments, some of which were unprinted, for reasons that the author explains. I found them most interesting, and (mostly) encouraging. One of them, by Chuck Haggard, led me to his own post from several years ago, "Single Officer Response In Active Shooter Events."
While the two articles deal with very different circumstances, neither supports the control-agenda of the Political Pharisees.
Let us be truthful people, and be willing to discuss the problems that we face, and consider how they might be solved.
* * *
Your thoughts and comments are most welcome.
But my thoughts are here turning to the Political, rather than the Religious, Pharisee. Like the Religious Pharisee, the Political Pharisee has turned the Law to his own purpose. He doesn't see the Law as an expression of high ideals of human behavior, or national citizenship, but rather as a means of advancing his own ends through "law enforcement" -- his own ends, in this matter, being personal security, personal gain, personal self-justification, personal insider-status, personal control, and personal power. It is an agenda that is as addictive and destructive as a meth habit, and at the end, in my opinion, will be in complete contradiction to the free forms of personal liberty and a cooperative humanity.
The Political Pharisees have made a Long March through our American institutions, and we have an enormous number of them in the nation today -- many in positions of control, and many more wannabees. Both major political parties are completely controlled by them, and they have enormous sway in our religious and social institutions.
But at the moment, I want to draw attention to their influence in the Law Enforcement community -- by which I mean, our local and federal police, our local and federal judiciary, and their advocates and detractors in the national media.
By way of contrast to the Political Pharisees, I encourage you to read the recent post, "My Life As A Tyrant," by a police officer, Chris Hernandez. He gives an interesting perspective on the pressures and challenges that are faced by the good people who have chosen the career of law enforcement.
The article inspired quite a few comments, some of which were unprinted, for reasons that the author explains. I found them most interesting, and (mostly) encouraging. One of them, by Chuck Haggard, led me to his own post from several years ago, "Single Officer Response In Active Shooter Events."
While the two articles deal with very different circumstances, neither supports the control-agenda of the Political Pharisees.
Let us be truthful people, and be willing to discuss the problems that we face, and consider how they might be solved.
* * *
Your thoughts and comments are most welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)