Monday, October 29, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
Middle East, Oil, Economics, and Political Chess
The war in the middle east is one of the most misunderstood wars. Throughout the country, there seem to be three primary arguments. First, the war is about oil. With the ideologies of a post-colonial nation, and in the wake of several colonized nations, such as India, gaining power, tangents are drawn. For what purposes did countries throughout the last two centuries colonize countries? There is one reason, and one reason alone- resources. 25% of our oil comes from the middle east, and the US, depleting 22% of the world's oil (the next highest is China at 9%), has become dependent. As a result, the oil companies, who retain a vast amount of power in a modern globalized economy, supported legislation promoting conquering the middle east, with the hopes of controlling the oil market rather than allowing such small countries to control our economy. Then, after the war began, who were the ones controlling where the governments were directed? Which groups were the primary writers of their new "democratic" constitutions? None other than the world's leading oil companies. Our countries don't support democracy, they support capitalism. The peak of the pyramid wins.
The second reason promoted is strict economics, a type of Darwinian approach to a globalized economy. America, who imports $2,314,000,000,000 worth of goods (while exporting $1,511,000,000,000, meaning we're losing because we spend more than we make in the globalized economy) have found themselves in a position of unbalance. We had to pay other countries to do the things we wouldn't do, as a result of both resources and labor force. While we focused on the internet, iPods, computer technology, and weapons, other countries focused on transportation, mining, and food. So, America was forced to figure out which market would be the most powerful in the upcoming years. The middle east, providing us with oil (a limited resource) began to realize the power they had. Without oil, there is no transportation. Without transportation, an American economy, which connects to the global market, would collapse. This was symbolized through the attack on the World Trade Centers on September 11th. A small nation, with little power, found they controlled the world's most demanded resource, while America seemed to guide the economic and political market of the entire world. If they were the one's providing the most timely important resource, then how were they holding the bottom wrung of the financial and political bat? Thus, the lower class began to spread to underground organizations which sought the downfall of a nation controlling their political and social wealth. America, being that power, determined that these groups were in fact terrorists. Thus, attacking the World Trade Centers served as a social and economic message- no longer shall a country providing the majority of America's most important resource allow America (who provides relatively nothing in comparison) to control the World markets. America, wishing to withhold this power, sought to conquer these nations, reaching out to the groups who were not already apart of these underground organizations.
The third group labeled the war a mere response to terrorism, and believes the war to be spreading the positive and humane message of democracy. Utilizing an abused female class (abused in the eyes of a western civilization) as figureheads, they sought to show the world the negative aspects to this opposing government. This group believes that these middle eastern countries not only live in a government structure which supports terrorist organizations, terrorism being the promotion of global terror with the hopes of guiding the fear induced groups who find themselves afraid, but also believes democracy is the alternative which could demolish these terrorist organizations. The majority could not, and would not, support a government structure which sought to send fear through the hearts of the world. It was simply a matter of a power imbalance, which could be undermined through a democratic election process. We would let their people decide, right?
It appears that history shows, while these groups are in opposition, fighting with one another regarding the reasons of this war, each group is, in their own respect, correct. There are several soldiers who believe they are fighting for democracy, others who believe they are fighting to help America retain economic sustainability, and others who believe they are fighting to gain control of the resource market. Similarly, the politicians controlling the war support, or attack, the war for the very same principles. War doesn't come from one group alone, it comes from multiple groups supporting a war for divergent reasons, allowing a vast majority of the population to support the war for one reason or another. It is not about economics alone, nor resources alone, nor democracy and terror alone, but some combination of the three, each side being promoted to specific groups to gain support.
Even further than this, however, very few discuss the broader implications of this war. When one zooms out of this last thirty year block, what precedes? World War I, from whose ashes sprung up the burning phoenix of war, transfiguring itself into World War II, from which arose the Korean War and the Cold War, each being a battle between communism and capitalism, which evoked the Vietnam War, the very same battle in a different territory, and then a transition into the war in the middle east. And today, who are the two biggest world threats America portrays? China and North Korea- and is it a coincidence that these two nations are the two most powerful communistic societies in the world? So, how have politics evolved into this current state, and what does this historical string entail? Let us digress a bit to understand through analogy.
Modern day politics are surrounded by the idea of campaigning. Each of the opposing groups, particularly during election years, initially distinguish which states are red, which states are blue, and which states the political war shall be fought over- those states which remain somewhere in the middle. Elections are decided by these states, by the states where each opposing group spends the majority of their time trying to persuade, reward, and promise with the hopes of swaying the undecided groups to either the red or the blue. Now, zoom out a bit and apply this very same technique, the technique which controls our elections, to the global political environment. Where are the undecided areas of the globe? The middle east. Could the middle east, similar to the middle of our country, be a battleground for something much larger than the majority has come to understand? Could it be the very same wars seeking support in opposing nations, awaiting some inevitable storm, some inevitable conclusion which the Cold War and the Vietnam war left ambiguous? Could world politics truly serve as a mirror for American politics? Capitalism, metaphorically represented by a deceptive mask known as democracy, versus... What? Communism, perhaps, with the middle ground combining both democratic ideals and communal ideals as Socialism? Could these truly be the three powers seeking support, particularly in this battle ground at the center of the globe, an ambiguously unpolitical group who supports none of these? Could the decision truly remain in their power, little to our knowledge? In the past century, ever since World War I, each war has been like a chess move, conquering these global squares, each one seeking support in a divergent region of the globe, finally climaxing at the center- the middle east.
So what will most likely occur? Chances are, the focus of the media will shift from the war in the middle east to China and North Korea. Because China is a power which is actually threatening to America, they will at first be presented as a friendly country who is nearly an ally. Korea, on the other hand, will be presented as a country which American reporters believe that "we may need to interfere with in order to maintain global peace." This is because Korea isn't a significant threat alone, but only if they have China as an ally side. Quickly after America begins to interfere with Korea, China will declare its allegiance to the northern communist side. After this, the friendly portrayal of China will transform into one of a dangerous threat which is undermining global peace and democracy itself. The media, without meaning to, will pave the path of war, like pawns on an allegorical chess board. Until, finally...
Checkmate.
The second reason promoted is strict economics, a type of Darwinian approach to a globalized economy. America, who imports $2,314,000,000,000 worth of goods (while exporting $1,511,000,000,000, meaning we're losing because we spend more than we make in the globalized economy) have found themselves in a position of unbalance. We had to pay other countries to do the things we wouldn't do, as a result of both resources and labor force. While we focused on the internet, iPods, computer technology, and weapons, other countries focused on transportation, mining, and food. So, America was forced to figure out which market would be the most powerful in the upcoming years. The middle east, providing us with oil (a limited resource) began to realize the power they had. Without oil, there is no transportation. Without transportation, an American economy, which connects to the global market, would collapse. This was symbolized through the attack on the World Trade Centers on September 11th. A small nation, with little power, found they controlled the world's most demanded resource, while America seemed to guide the economic and political market of the entire world. If they were the one's providing the most timely important resource, then how were they holding the bottom wrung of the financial and political bat? Thus, the lower class began to spread to underground organizations which sought the downfall of a nation controlling their political and social wealth. America, being that power, determined that these groups were in fact terrorists. Thus, attacking the World Trade Centers served as a social and economic message- no longer shall a country providing the majority of America's most important resource allow America (who provides relatively nothing in comparison) to control the World markets. America, wishing to withhold this power, sought to conquer these nations, reaching out to the groups who were not already apart of these underground organizations.
The third group labeled the war a mere response to terrorism, and believes the war to be spreading the positive and humane message of democracy. Utilizing an abused female class (abused in the eyes of a western civilization) as figureheads, they sought to show the world the negative aspects to this opposing government. This group believes that these middle eastern countries not only live in a government structure which supports terrorist organizations, terrorism being the promotion of global terror with the hopes of guiding the fear induced groups who find themselves afraid, but also believes democracy is the alternative which could demolish these terrorist organizations. The majority could not, and would not, support a government structure which sought to send fear through the hearts of the world. It was simply a matter of a power imbalance, which could be undermined through a democratic election process. We would let their people decide, right?
It appears that history shows, while these groups are in opposition, fighting with one another regarding the reasons of this war, each group is, in their own respect, correct. There are several soldiers who believe they are fighting for democracy, others who believe they are fighting to help America retain economic sustainability, and others who believe they are fighting to gain control of the resource market. Similarly, the politicians controlling the war support, or attack, the war for the very same principles. War doesn't come from one group alone, it comes from multiple groups supporting a war for divergent reasons, allowing a vast majority of the population to support the war for one reason or another. It is not about economics alone, nor resources alone, nor democracy and terror alone, but some combination of the three, each side being promoted to specific groups to gain support.
Even further than this, however, very few discuss the broader implications of this war. When one zooms out of this last thirty year block, what precedes? World War I, from whose ashes sprung up the burning phoenix of war, transfiguring itself into World War II, from which arose the Korean War and the Cold War, each being a battle between communism and capitalism, which evoked the Vietnam War, the very same battle in a different territory, and then a transition into the war in the middle east. And today, who are the two biggest world threats America portrays? China and North Korea- and is it a coincidence that these two nations are the two most powerful communistic societies in the world? So, how have politics evolved into this current state, and what does this historical string entail? Let us digress a bit to understand through analogy.
Modern day politics are surrounded by the idea of campaigning. Each of the opposing groups, particularly during election years, initially distinguish which states are red, which states are blue, and which states the political war shall be fought over- those states which remain somewhere in the middle. Elections are decided by these states, by the states where each opposing group spends the majority of their time trying to persuade, reward, and promise with the hopes of swaying the undecided groups to either the red or the blue. Now, zoom out a bit and apply this very same technique, the technique which controls our elections, to the global political environment. Where are the undecided areas of the globe? The middle east. Could the middle east, similar to the middle of our country, be a battleground for something much larger than the majority has come to understand? Could it be the very same wars seeking support in opposing nations, awaiting some inevitable storm, some inevitable conclusion which the Cold War and the Vietnam war left ambiguous? Could world politics truly serve as a mirror for American politics? Capitalism, metaphorically represented by a deceptive mask known as democracy, versus... What? Communism, perhaps, with the middle ground combining both democratic ideals and communal ideals as Socialism? Could these truly be the three powers seeking support, particularly in this battle ground at the center of the globe, an ambiguously unpolitical group who supports none of these? Could the decision truly remain in their power, little to our knowledge? In the past century, ever since World War I, each war has been like a chess move, conquering these global squares, each one seeking support in a divergent region of the globe, finally climaxing at the center- the middle east.
So what will most likely occur? Chances are, the focus of the media will shift from the war in the middle east to China and North Korea. Because China is a power which is actually threatening to America, they will at first be presented as a friendly country who is nearly an ally. Korea, on the other hand, will be presented as a country which American reporters believe that "we may need to interfere with in order to maintain global peace." This is because Korea isn't a significant threat alone, but only if they have China as an ally side. Quickly after America begins to interfere with Korea, China will declare its allegiance to the northern communist side. After this, the friendly portrayal of China will transform into one of a dangerous threat which is undermining global peace and democracy itself. The media, without meaning to, will pave the path of war, like pawns on an allegorical chess board. Until, finally...
Checkmate.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Omni
“When you realize how perfect everything is you will tilt your head back and laugh at the sky”
One of the most fundamental debacles to humanity is religion. It has plagued this world like a sickness, like a cancer, rotting through our minds, disillusioning our living conditions, and killing our women, children, and men alike. Religion burns through humanities existence like a wildfire, spreading quickly, jumping gaps, chaotically yet methodically destroying our landscapes and leaving ash in its firey wake. It slaughters one another, brothers, cousins, sisters, fathers, mothers, as if they were insects climbing through the place where you keep your food. Our morality, or what is left, has been rotting for thousands of years with religion at its core like a blackened, darkened, heart.
Religion is a sickness, at least how humans have altered it.
Two primary sects of religious belief, or two religious groups who worship two "different" Gods, have caused the primary destruction in modern history. One, worshipping Jehovah, and one worshipping Allah. There are two things which have caused such destruction. One, both believe their religions justify them to massacre, murder, kill, and destroy infidels. The second is both groups have come to rely on some sort of scripture. A third, and perhaps more hidden truth is, both Gods, if existent, are one in the same. It is a requirement of both of their religions. If they are not the same, then they are, in fact, non-existent, fallacious, untrue, dishonest, lies, and therefore, not good.
These are not the only ones, in fact. There are several others. Yet, what does this premise rely upon? One key claim which motivates, creates, and is the central part to both of these Gods-
Both Gods are allegedly Omni.
Yet, what does this mean? Omni is the latin origin for the root of several words used to describe most main Gods in history- Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent... And it is not these two Gods alone. "Om," for example, central to several religions including the Yogism, Buddhists, and even dabbling into Hinduism, is a universal mantra worshipping this Omni figure. Do most even understand what Omni Gods must entail? Let us explore further.
If a God is Omnipotent, then a God is all-powerful.
If God is all-powerful, then God was all-powerful.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God has all power.
If a God has all power, then a God has all the power from every God.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God is the power from all Gods, all humans, and all creatures.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God must be all things, Gods, life, and unlife, alike.
If two Gods are all-powerful, then they must be the same thing.
If a God is Omniscient, then a God is all-knowing.
If a God is all-knowing, then a God knew everything.
If a God is all-knowing, then a God knows everything.
From here, you might make several implied implications, for every one of these logical axioms must be true if and only if God, or Gods, are Omni.
For example... We could combine a couple and see what happens.
If God is all-knowing (and knew/knows everything), and God is all-powerful (and was all-powerful), then God must have been the Power which creates, devises, and guides our thoughts, for to deviate from this path requires power, but the only power we have is also a part of Gods power.
Therefore (to put it simply), God, even before our existence, knew every thought you would make, and planned every thought you would make, and then created you, otherwise God is not Omni.
We could go on and on.
If a God is all-powerful, then every action performed by a human being is an action of God (for a God is all-powerful, and if a single action weren't God's, a God would not be all-powerful).
Regardless, it becomes apparent that these two bickering and fighting children who fight for some title are in fact worshipping the same Omni figure, for if something is all-powerful, it must be all of the power. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, they all worship the same all-powerful image, and each one presupposes the other. If one is true, all must be true. If one is not true, all must not be true. It's simple as that. Still, they insist on fighting one another like two kids fighting over identical water bottles.
This is, of course, simply highlighting the fact that all of these religious wars, which have gone on since humanities beginning, are in fact, based upon ridiculous illogic.
Still, what purpose for religion?
Here, I'd like to contrast two groups, Atheists, and believers.
Believers tend to base their belief upon either scripture or a God, and act, behave, and devise their morality from such a feat.
Atheists have nothing separating them from their morals, actions, thoughts, and motivations- an atheist takes responsibility.
For example, when a believer performs a murder, they justify through a series of explanations, none of them relating to themself.
"My scripture tells me to kill non-believers."
"I was receiving messages from Almighty which told me to kill people."
"I was proving my God is stronger than yours."
In contrast, when an atheist performs a murder, there is nothing to blame it on but themselves.
When an atheist acts, it's a matter of them. When a believer acts, it's a matter of their belief. One is deeply fallible, leaves tons of room for disillusion, and provides a framework for justification.
Who is moral, deep down?
Truly, think about it. Perhaps we shall return to this argument, at least in one shape or form, later.
One of the motivating factors behind why religion has wrought so much destruction over humanities existence is the fact that it is based upon interpretation. Scripture could be read thousands, and thousands, of ways. As a result, a Christian can perform something, justify it with a scripture, and explain it through that scripture, and another Christian will say "Oh, what a good Christian." Yet, if something is open for interpretation, does that not mean anything in the world is justifiable with that scripture? The inevitable answer is yes. Thus, could a religion based upon scripture ever be moral, or is it merely a way to justify actions?
This is one of the fundamental premises behind religion- it is created to make people feel good about their behaviors, to justify actions, and to allow them to blame bad things which happen on something which is greater than them. Inversely, it is to send gratitude toward something which is greater than them. Both are inevitably true, like two sides to a coin.
Now, let us discuss a few things. First, if God is all-knowing, and God is all-powerful, would God ever blame something or judge someone? No. If God is all-knowing, and God is all-powerful, would God ever punish someone? No. For God could punish no one but God.
Still, believers go around trying to judge, blame, punish, and damn. What a childish, immature, and broken concept based on illogic impossibilities.
Then, there are the fundamental parts to religion which are, simply, ridiculous. People pray, they send their thoughts to an all-knowing creator. If God is all-knowing, God already knows every thought you think (ironically, God even planned those thoughts). If God knows every thought you think, are you not always praying? Are you not always on the mental telephone with God? If not, your God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent. And if your God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, then your God is untrue. If your God is untrue, could your God be good?
Think about it.
Not to mention, Religion is based around location. It's like a genetic defect, a cancer, passed forth from generation to generation forced upon people by their environment.
It's just a crutch. It's just an excuse. It's just a way to blame others for something an individual has not the courage, nor the internal truth, to take responsibility for.
By all means, if you wish to believe in a God who is Omni, great, and if you enjoy reading scripture, fantastic, but realize how hypocritical believing your religion is true and others are false is.
Learn to take responsibility.
The quote this post begins with... I could explain in so many ways, and that is perhaps the purpose of the quote. However, realize, if there is something greater than you, especially if it is an Omni God, it is perfectly perfect with you and your neighbor, even with a sword going through either of your stomaches.
One of the most fundamental debacles to humanity is religion. It has plagued this world like a sickness, like a cancer, rotting through our minds, disillusioning our living conditions, and killing our women, children, and men alike. Religion burns through humanities existence like a wildfire, spreading quickly, jumping gaps, chaotically yet methodically destroying our landscapes and leaving ash in its firey wake. It slaughters one another, brothers, cousins, sisters, fathers, mothers, as if they were insects climbing through the place where you keep your food. Our morality, or what is left, has been rotting for thousands of years with religion at its core like a blackened, darkened, heart.
Religion is a sickness, at least how humans have altered it.
Two primary sects of religious belief, or two religious groups who worship two "different" Gods, have caused the primary destruction in modern history. One, worshipping Jehovah, and one worshipping Allah. There are two things which have caused such destruction. One, both believe their religions justify them to massacre, murder, kill, and destroy infidels. The second is both groups have come to rely on some sort of scripture. A third, and perhaps more hidden truth is, both Gods, if existent, are one in the same. It is a requirement of both of their religions. If they are not the same, then they are, in fact, non-existent, fallacious, untrue, dishonest, lies, and therefore, not good.
These are not the only ones, in fact. There are several others. Yet, what does this premise rely upon? One key claim which motivates, creates, and is the central part to both of these Gods-
Both Gods are allegedly Omni.
Yet, what does this mean? Omni is the latin origin for the root of several words used to describe most main Gods in history- Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent... And it is not these two Gods alone. "Om," for example, central to several religions including the Yogism, Buddhists, and even dabbling into Hinduism, is a universal mantra worshipping this Omni figure. Do most even understand what Omni Gods must entail? Let us explore further.
If a God is Omnipotent, then a God is all-powerful.
If God is all-powerful, then God was all-powerful.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God has all power.
If a God has all power, then a God has all the power from every God.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God is the power from all Gods, all humans, and all creatures.
If a God is all-powerful, then a God must be all things, Gods, life, and unlife, alike.
If two Gods are all-powerful, then they must be the same thing.
If a God is Omniscient, then a God is all-knowing.
If a God is all-knowing, then a God knew everything.
If a God is all-knowing, then a God knows everything.
From here, you might make several implied implications, for every one of these logical axioms must be true if and only if God, or Gods, are Omni.
For example... We could combine a couple and see what happens.
If God is all-knowing (and knew/knows everything), and God is all-powerful (and was all-powerful), then God must have been the Power which creates, devises, and guides our thoughts, for to deviate from this path requires power, but the only power we have is also a part of Gods power.
Therefore (to put it simply), God, even before our existence, knew every thought you would make, and planned every thought you would make, and then created you, otherwise God is not Omni.
We could go on and on.
If a God is all-powerful, then every action performed by a human being is an action of God (for a God is all-powerful, and if a single action weren't God's, a God would not be all-powerful).
Regardless, it becomes apparent that these two bickering and fighting children who fight for some title are in fact worshipping the same Omni figure, for if something is all-powerful, it must be all of the power. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, they all worship the same all-powerful image, and each one presupposes the other. If one is true, all must be true. If one is not true, all must not be true. It's simple as that. Still, they insist on fighting one another like two kids fighting over identical water bottles.
This is, of course, simply highlighting the fact that all of these religious wars, which have gone on since humanities beginning, are in fact, based upon ridiculous illogic.
Still, what purpose for religion?
Here, I'd like to contrast two groups, Atheists, and believers.
Believers tend to base their belief upon either scripture or a God, and act, behave, and devise their morality from such a feat.
Atheists have nothing separating them from their morals, actions, thoughts, and motivations- an atheist takes responsibility.
For example, when a believer performs a murder, they justify through a series of explanations, none of them relating to themself.
"My scripture tells me to kill non-believers."
"I was receiving messages from Almighty which told me to kill people."
"I was proving my God is stronger than yours."
In contrast, when an atheist performs a murder, there is nothing to blame it on but themselves.
When an atheist acts, it's a matter of them. When a believer acts, it's a matter of their belief. One is deeply fallible, leaves tons of room for disillusion, and provides a framework for justification.
Who is moral, deep down?
Truly, think about it. Perhaps we shall return to this argument, at least in one shape or form, later.
One of the motivating factors behind why religion has wrought so much destruction over humanities existence is the fact that it is based upon interpretation. Scripture could be read thousands, and thousands, of ways. As a result, a Christian can perform something, justify it with a scripture, and explain it through that scripture, and another Christian will say "Oh, what a good Christian." Yet, if something is open for interpretation, does that not mean anything in the world is justifiable with that scripture? The inevitable answer is yes. Thus, could a religion based upon scripture ever be moral, or is it merely a way to justify actions?
This is one of the fundamental premises behind religion- it is created to make people feel good about their behaviors, to justify actions, and to allow them to blame bad things which happen on something which is greater than them. Inversely, it is to send gratitude toward something which is greater than them. Both are inevitably true, like two sides to a coin.
Now, let us discuss a few things. First, if God is all-knowing, and God is all-powerful, would God ever blame something or judge someone? No. If God is all-knowing, and God is all-powerful, would God ever punish someone? No. For God could punish no one but God.
Still, believers go around trying to judge, blame, punish, and damn. What a childish, immature, and broken concept based on illogic impossibilities.
Then, there are the fundamental parts to religion which are, simply, ridiculous. People pray, they send their thoughts to an all-knowing creator. If God is all-knowing, God already knows every thought you think (ironically, God even planned those thoughts). If God knows every thought you think, are you not always praying? Are you not always on the mental telephone with God? If not, your God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent. And if your God is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, then your God is untrue. If your God is untrue, could your God be good?
Think about it.
Not to mention, Religion is based around location. It's like a genetic defect, a cancer, passed forth from generation to generation forced upon people by their environment.
It's just a crutch. It's just an excuse. It's just a way to blame others for something an individual has not the courage, nor the internal truth, to take responsibility for.
By all means, if you wish to believe in a God who is Omni, great, and if you enjoy reading scripture, fantastic, but realize how hypocritical believing your religion is true and others are false is.
Learn to take responsibility.
The quote this post begins with... I could explain in so many ways, and that is perhaps the purpose of the quote. However, realize, if there is something greater than you, especially if it is an Omni God, it is perfectly perfect with you and your neighbor, even with a sword going through either of your stomaches.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Once...
"Stories, stories, what's a story. when you were in high school did you learn about the civil war?
Yeah of course.
How?
Did you read about it perchance in a book?
How's that any less real than any book?
History books are based on history.
And story books are based on what? Imagination?
Where's that come from?
It has to come from somewhere.
You know what the issue is with this world? Everyone wants some magical solution to their problems, yet everyone refuses to believe in magic."- Once Upon a Time
Yeah of course.
How?
Did you read about it perchance in a book?
How's that any less real than any book?
History books are based on history.
And story books are based on what? Imagination?
Where's that come from?
It has to come from somewhere.
You know what the issue is with this world? Everyone wants some magical solution to their problems, yet everyone refuses to believe in magic."- Once Upon a Time
Universe's Thoughts Creating Multiverses like Infinite Strings Being Pulled in Varying Directions
Multiverses. Universes. String Theory. Quantum Physics.
One aspect to each of these is their infinite nature- although there are new theories arising which claim there might be a lack of infiniteness due to energy not being able to be created, thus it is either continually spread out, or there is some sort of reaction to whatever it is on the outskirts of an expanding universe.
I suppose I'm jumping the gun a bit, aren't I? Let's explain some of the basic concepts.
The Big Bang is one of the most logical explanations of our beginning(s), both with respect to religions and even without them. The premise is this- if there is such a thing as gravitational attraction, the universes (which compose multiverses) must have a center. If so, would everything not be pulled into this center, gradually, repetitiously, cyclically? This is the primary idea behind the Big Bang. Everything comes together at this center, then becomes so extremely dense (as it would be continually collapsing to a finite point, smaller and smaller each instant), it would have to reverse. Thus, there would be a "bang" of some sorts, and all of the mass and matter and energy of the universe would expand outward.
There are two possibilities. One, the motion of the universe is cyclical. It expands, attraction causes it to slow, there's a reversal and it collapses. Therefore, the universe would collapse, and expand infinitely. Time, as a result, becomes unbound. Continually repetitious, a perfect system. Now, this requires that the universe is expanding (which is certainly true, we can observe it happening) at a rate which is slow enough to have the acceleration reduce the velocity rather than increase it (which we have not yet been able to prove). Essentially... What could happen is the universe expands at a rate which slowly decreases (due to the opposite gravitational attraction pulling it back to the center), and it decreases at such a rate that the velocity will sooner or later become 0, then reverse direction.
The second possibility is the rate at which the universe is expanding and the acceleration with which the velocity is increasing exceeds the rate of gravitational attraction, so the gravitational pull gradually reduces, and reduces. Just to illustrate this idea, it's the same concept as shooting a bullet out into space. Most bullets accelerate, the law of attraction affects the acceleration, the velocity slowly decreases, and the bullet returns to earth. However, if something is tossed out with a quick enough velocity and acceleration, it goes beyond the grasp of gravitational attraction (it still slows, of course, but the rate at which it increases exceeds the rate at which gravity causes it to decrease), thus it would leave the orbit of the earth and slowly, but surely, lessen the affect of the gravitational pull. The gravity and attraction will always be there, of course, regardless of how far away it travels, but the rate decreases, and the bullet has the potential to travel forever (at least until acted upon by another field).
With regards to something large scale, such as the entire mass and energy of the universe, it is either expanding at a rate so quickly that the gravitational rate will forever decrease, or it is expanding at a rate which will cause the gravitational rate to increase. If it increases, the universe will subsequentially collapse. If it decreases, it shall extend forever infinitely in every direction imaginable. Either is entirely possible, and measurable.
Now, what would both of these imply?
Well, the universe is expanding regardless of which is true, therefore, new universes are continually and always created. Each moment we sit here, a new universe is being created. Thus, each new universe combines to form something known as a multiverse. Multiple universes which potentially exist on various planes reaching outward toward infinity. Some could exist directly next to us, separated only by a thin plane we have yet to learn about. In fact, an infinite number of universes (after-all, the universe may have been expanding for an infinite amount of time) may exist in parallel, tangent, and across one another! It is also probable that if the universe is always collapsing and expanding, several universes have been created on top of one another, infinite amounts of times. Therefore, one might be able to cross some sort of time plane and enter into a new universe.
These combinations of universes which create infinity, either cyclically or expanding, both compose what is known as the multiverse, multiple universes existing together.
Each new universe would therefore have varying scientific theories and principles, different amounts of gravity, a divergent balance of chemicals which create how thought patterns function, an entirely unique amount of energy (unless energy was somehow dispersed evenly), different ways of connecting with these energies due to divergent chemicals, gravitational affects, amounts of mass and matter, a different balance of local stars and moons, varying water levels, etc..
So, what creates these balances?
Something which must travel quicker, or on par, with the speed of light. Momentum, perhaps. However, a momentum of what? What is one of the only things which increases in the multiverse?
Thoughts.
This is a part of quantum physics. How fast does a thought travel? Could a thought enter several wormholes throughout the curvature of space, traveling quicker than the speed of light, reaching the outskirts of the universe and aiding in this snowball affect of new universes? It's more than a possibility.
String theory is the idea that there is a string known as existence the closer you look (if you zoom in closer than an atom) which composes all living things. What happens when we alter these fabrics to the string? Theoretically, there might be an infinite amount of strings, and each individual is able to go through and pull the strings in the locations which formfits to their existence composing, thoughts, religions, and "laws" which alter the fabric individualizing reality for them. Each individual, generation, country, star cluster, etc., has their own type of string patterns. Each composition is created by identical strings, they are just bent differently.
Each tug of the string, which is probably the resultant of a thought, creates a tangent universe, adding to the multiverse. Quantum physics has found that "thoughts are things," perhaps this is far more literal than most believe. Thoughts, beliefs, religions, heavens, wishes, desires, each of these combine to create a realm of infinite possibilities. Furthermore, quaints, or the physical matter our brains release, are solidified into matter and turned into reality through strings. So, theoretically, at an extremely finite level, even our thoughts are as real and concrete as this screen in front of you. For when you zoom in close enough, they are both composed of strings individualized for every instant.
How might one travel between these planes, these universes, and these newly crafted universes adding to the multiverse of infinity?
Dreams? Stories? Communication? Meditations?
Try to provide a better explanation for why heavy cocaine users, some being the most logical and sound minds in history, see little fairies and green men? Could they be entering and visualizing another fabric of reality the majority fail to perceive? Or why acid users find a spectrum of colors dancing through our planes of existence? Or why mushroom users claim they watch the world breathe? Or why LSD users see things that they never knew "existed?" Or why our dreams have entirely different physical and social laws (yet somehow still have certain types of physical and social laws)? Or why so many stories written by so many people who have never even read one another's work turn out so similar, even though they extend beyond the casual mundaneness of average existence? Or why so many individuals claim to have seen ghosts throughout history (a creature who may have just stepped across one plane and into the another)? Or why all of these claims are completely philosophically, scientifically, mathmatically and literarily possible, if not factual?
Might people's fear of what occurs when people cross these planes and enter new dimensions, universes, and dabble through the multiverse of infinity be why drugs are illegal? A nation, or several nations, seeking to restrict individual's freedoms merely because of their own fears? Might this be one of the principal reasons Einstein claimed his most powerful thoughts came at the moment where he just fell asleep, for he was exploring varying universes containing more knowledge than we could ever imagine, then performing some action to wake up immediately and write down whatever insight he attained?
One aspect to each of these is their infinite nature- although there are new theories arising which claim there might be a lack of infiniteness due to energy not being able to be created, thus it is either continually spread out, or there is some sort of reaction to whatever it is on the outskirts of an expanding universe.
I suppose I'm jumping the gun a bit, aren't I? Let's explain some of the basic concepts.
The Big Bang is one of the most logical explanations of our beginning(s), both with respect to religions and even without them. The premise is this- if there is such a thing as gravitational attraction, the universes (which compose multiverses) must have a center. If so, would everything not be pulled into this center, gradually, repetitiously, cyclically? This is the primary idea behind the Big Bang. Everything comes together at this center, then becomes so extremely dense (as it would be continually collapsing to a finite point, smaller and smaller each instant), it would have to reverse. Thus, there would be a "bang" of some sorts, and all of the mass and matter and energy of the universe would expand outward.
There are two possibilities. One, the motion of the universe is cyclical. It expands, attraction causes it to slow, there's a reversal and it collapses. Therefore, the universe would collapse, and expand infinitely. Time, as a result, becomes unbound. Continually repetitious, a perfect system. Now, this requires that the universe is expanding (which is certainly true, we can observe it happening) at a rate which is slow enough to have the acceleration reduce the velocity rather than increase it (which we have not yet been able to prove). Essentially... What could happen is the universe expands at a rate which slowly decreases (due to the opposite gravitational attraction pulling it back to the center), and it decreases at such a rate that the velocity will sooner or later become 0, then reverse direction.
The second possibility is the rate at which the universe is expanding and the acceleration with which the velocity is increasing exceeds the rate of gravitational attraction, so the gravitational pull gradually reduces, and reduces. Just to illustrate this idea, it's the same concept as shooting a bullet out into space. Most bullets accelerate, the law of attraction affects the acceleration, the velocity slowly decreases, and the bullet returns to earth. However, if something is tossed out with a quick enough velocity and acceleration, it goes beyond the grasp of gravitational attraction (it still slows, of course, but the rate at which it increases exceeds the rate at which gravity causes it to decrease), thus it would leave the orbit of the earth and slowly, but surely, lessen the affect of the gravitational pull. The gravity and attraction will always be there, of course, regardless of how far away it travels, but the rate decreases, and the bullet has the potential to travel forever (at least until acted upon by another field).
With regards to something large scale, such as the entire mass and energy of the universe, it is either expanding at a rate so quickly that the gravitational rate will forever decrease, or it is expanding at a rate which will cause the gravitational rate to increase. If it increases, the universe will subsequentially collapse. If it decreases, it shall extend forever infinitely in every direction imaginable. Either is entirely possible, and measurable.
Now, what would both of these imply?
Well, the universe is expanding regardless of which is true, therefore, new universes are continually and always created. Each moment we sit here, a new universe is being created. Thus, each new universe combines to form something known as a multiverse. Multiple universes which potentially exist on various planes reaching outward toward infinity. Some could exist directly next to us, separated only by a thin plane we have yet to learn about. In fact, an infinite number of universes (after-all, the universe may have been expanding for an infinite amount of time) may exist in parallel, tangent, and across one another! It is also probable that if the universe is always collapsing and expanding, several universes have been created on top of one another, infinite amounts of times. Therefore, one might be able to cross some sort of time plane and enter into a new universe.
These combinations of universes which create infinity, either cyclically or expanding, both compose what is known as the multiverse, multiple universes existing together.
Each new universe would therefore have varying scientific theories and principles, different amounts of gravity, a divergent balance of chemicals which create how thought patterns function, an entirely unique amount of energy (unless energy was somehow dispersed evenly), different ways of connecting with these energies due to divergent chemicals, gravitational affects, amounts of mass and matter, a different balance of local stars and moons, varying water levels, etc..
So, what creates these balances?
Something which must travel quicker, or on par, with the speed of light. Momentum, perhaps. However, a momentum of what? What is one of the only things which increases in the multiverse?
Thoughts.
This is a part of quantum physics. How fast does a thought travel? Could a thought enter several wormholes throughout the curvature of space, traveling quicker than the speed of light, reaching the outskirts of the universe and aiding in this snowball affect of new universes? It's more than a possibility.
String theory is the idea that there is a string known as existence the closer you look (if you zoom in closer than an atom) which composes all living things. What happens when we alter these fabrics to the string? Theoretically, there might be an infinite amount of strings, and each individual is able to go through and pull the strings in the locations which formfits to their existence composing, thoughts, religions, and "laws" which alter the fabric individualizing reality for them. Each individual, generation, country, star cluster, etc., has their own type of string patterns. Each composition is created by identical strings, they are just bent differently.
Each tug of the string, which is probably the resultant of a thought, creates a tangent universe, adding to the multiverse. Quantum physics has found that "thoughts are things," perhaps this is far more literal than most believe. Thoughts, beliefs, religions, heavens, wishes, desires, each of these combine to create a realm of infinite possibilities. Furthermore, quaints, or the physical matter our brains release, are solidified into matter and turned into reality through strings. So, theoretically, at an extremely finite level, even our thoughts are as real and concrete as this screen in front of you. For when you zoom in close enough, they are both composed of strings individualized for every instant.
How might one travel between these planes, these universes, and these newly crafted universes adding to the multiverse of infinity?
Dreams? Stories? Communication? Meditations?
Try to provide a better explanation for why heavy cocaine users, some being the most logical and sound minds in history, see little fairies and green men? Could they be entering and visualizing another fabric of reality the majority fail to perceive? Or why acid users find a spectrum of colors dancing through our planes of existence? Or why mushroom users claim they watch the world breathe? Or why LSD users see things that they never knew "existed?" Or why our dreams have entirely different physical and social laws (yet somehow still have certain types of physical and social laws)? Or why so many stories written by so many people who have never even read one another's work turn out so similar, even though they extend beyond the casual mundaneness of average existence? Or why so many individuals claim to have seen ghosts throughout history (a creature who may have just stepped across one plane and into the another)? Or why all of these claims are completely philosophically, scientifically, mathmatically and literarily possible, if not factual?
Might people's fear of what occurs when people cross these planes and enter new dimensions, universes, and dabble through the multiverse of infinity be why drugs are illegal? A nation, or several nations, seeking to restrict individual's freedoms merely because of their own fears? Might this be one of the principal reasons Einstein claimed his most powerful thoughts came at the moment where he just fell asleep, for he was exploring varying universes containing more knowledge than we could ever imagine, then performing some action to wake up immediately and write down whatever insight he attained?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Intellectually Calculating Voluntarist Positions
Goodness, Will, and Divine
Free-will and goodness are two topics which transcend temporal existences. This is because people tend to, at least at one point, find difficulties distinguishing whether or not we have free-will, and if our actions (free or not) are good. Every generation of humans have struggled with this concept, debating between what is good, what is bad, what causes good, what causes bad, and whether or not the two exist at all. In regards to medieval philosophy, the two primary groups who debate back and forth between goodness and free-will are the intellectualists and the voluntarists, at least at their core. Both seek to figure out what and where goodness stems from, as well as where and how our goodness might be measured. Further, the two touch heavily on issues of will, which ties both into religious belief as well as an absurd logical debate. At the heart of their argument, voluntarists stand for the position that their minds, reason, and logic are volunteered to a God figure- that they receive two decisions, one from an omniscient creator, and a second from reason. Further, they believe that every decision is a choice between God’s desire and another, thus the Will becomes their primary factor for deciding whether or not an action, thought, or decision is good. Another stance promoted is from intellectualists, who think our goodness and badness is something to be reasoned through with rational thought and logic, regardless of its origins. There are specific philosophers who merely touch the outskirts of one side or the other, such as Alfarabi. However, his stance differs considerably in the respect that he claims people must strive to find God, and after they receive God, one receives Divine perfection. Before this, an individual, according to his view, must follow dogma or societal norms to behave well, utilizing their will to distinguish between these. His position does not, like most voluntarists, believe God's will is something innate nor something instilled from birth, nor does he support a two decision structure, nor does he support the idea that our goodness comes from will/reason alone. He instead believes any action which gets an individual closer to Divine perfection is virtuous, noble, and good. We will briefly touch on three philosophers to exemplify these stances: Thomas Aquinas, Bonnie Kent, and Alfarabi.
Thomas Aquinas, typically linked to intellectualists, follows the belief that good and bad actions are calculated through a series of logical and rational stages- that humans must think to behave good. Thomas seeks to answer two main things. First, where might an individual initially perceive goodness. Then second, where the source of this goodness stems from. He concludes “good and bad are found first in the outward act rather than in the act of the will.” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, Thomas claims goodness or badness is not determined by our will, but instead how the act affects the outside world. And further, we might perceive goodness and badness in a variety of places (including the will, reason, logic, action, and thought), but initially goodness is found through an outward act. Thomas seems to be stating our reason and intellect determines which actions might evoke good reactions. Rather than utilizing our will, Aquinas and the intellectualists seem to claim we rely on our intellect and reason. Thus, we make decisions based upon our intellect and reason which are utilized to find and apprehend the good. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the decision which is good or bad, but what the resultant action affects, which our intellect and reason logically devise, then find through reason. And finally, Thomas states because an “act of will relates as a form to the outward act… [the] formal comes later, for form comes to matter” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, an act creates a reaction, a reaction creates form (for "form comes later"), and form becomes matter, or actual substance. So, we reason (to sort through possibilities and apprehend the good), we act (which creates a reaction), the universe reacts (which creates form), and the form becomes the substance of reality.
Form here diverges from Plato’s ideal, for form is the natural laws and logical reactions of a unified body, whereas Plato’s ideal is a surrounding essence of ideas created by a God then transmitted to humans. Plato’s ideal requires a type of God figure, for an idea could not float in the ideal, the surrounding essence, without something, presumably a God, to first create it. Form does not necessarily require a God, for it is merely natural and scientific reactions. Therefore, according to the intellectualist position, goodness stems first from an action, then links to the reaction which is distinguished by form. So, all goodness comes as a result of this form, and is depicted first from the act.
Voluntarists, like Kent, find humans must believe to achieve good. There is merely a good act and a bad act, then we use our will to choose. If you don't follow the good act, you're bad. Yet, what is good? Whatever God wills. First, a voluntarist position requires belief. Second, it requires that humans are capable of making a type of decision, choosing to either follow the will of God, or to diverge from God’s path. Thus, whether or not a decision, action, or choice is good relies invariably on will. And if everything is good, and everything is from God, and God is all-knowing and all-powerful, everything must therefore be perfect, so long as one goes along with God's Divine will. Once you reach this Divine understanding, one realizes the Divine perfection- this is one transition between voluntarists, and someone who adopts several principles to both voluntarist and intellectualist philosophies, Alfarabi.
Alfarabi finds humans must spend their lives seeking this Divine perfection. In this respect, Alfarabi claims that individuals are to be types of "discoverers" (Alfarabi 64) on their journey to reach Divine perfection by means of a systematic approach through "deliberative faculty" (Alfarabi 64). Thus, an individual is to deliberate (presumably with their will) through a series of actions with the hopes of discovering the Divine. This differs from what voluntarists believe because the voluntarist position relies entirely on the premise good comes from the will. Alfarabi, however, seems to state that we are not born with Divine will, he states we must strive to find it- and after one reaches Divine perfection, they will be only good because they shall only be able to perform the perfection of the Divine. He claims our will and actions are good so far as in pursuit of "virtuous and noble things." (Alfarabi 61). Furthermore, good becomes established as either "generally accepted opinion [or] most noble to a particular religion" (Alfarabi 67). Thus, a good action comes as a result of our will performing a virtuous action either in regards to an individual dogma or generally accepted opinion, at least until the point of Divine perfection.
Therefore, intellectualists believe goodness is shown first through an outward act, and is established due to reactions which create form, but not necessarily from the will. Voluntarists believe goodness comes from the will, presumably God’s will. Alfarabi claims goodness is discovering the Divine through acts of the will which are good because they are virtuous in relation to an individual's religion.
My own belief is any act is good unless it negatively impacts another, and if so, there's a type of appropriation of goodness. With regards to our free-will, free-will only exists as illusion. This is because every decision we make is a resultant of our mind (IE what we think), which comes from what our brain is programmed to do. If one was put into the same situation and had their mind erased 100 times, the situation would be identical, for a different reaction would require a different brain. A decision is only a decision by illusion- our mind's way of convincing itself that we have the ability to make decisions. Everything is just our mind's programming responding, a mind which was crafted from our parents' minds responding, and their parents' minds responding to their parents. It's an endless cycle of neurological reactions reacting to and creating the reactions of the outside universe. Further, with regards to religion, I believe any religious argument regarding God and goodness is absurd. For God is allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful, and if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, every action and will must have been known and created from this God figure (otherwise, God would not be all-knowing nor all-powerful). This means every action, will, and thought is from God. And furthermore, if God is all good, so is everything which comes from God. Otherwise, God would lack omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. Therefore, the moment God is included in a conversation regarding goodness, all actions, thoughts, and decisions must be good, otherwise God would not be omniscient, omnipotent, nor all good. So, without God, goodness becomes subjective. Thus, action is to be innately worked through based upon an individual's relative moral code (which results from their history which composes their religious views). Furthermore, every argument regarding good is of equal truth, for each belief in the religious sense becomes reality to a believer.
My advice regarding good and morality- learn happiness.
A good technique is to ask yourself (before performing an action),
"Will it make me happy now?"
"Will it make me happy tomorrow?"
Will it make me happy a year from now?"
Will it make me happy fifty years from now?"
The more you answer yes to, and the stronger each yes is, the better the decision.
Free-will and goodness are two topics which transcend temporal existences. This is because people tend to, at least at one point, find difficulties distinguishing whether or not we have free-will, and if our actions (free or not) are good. Every generation of humans have struggled with this concept, debating between what is good, what is bad, what causes good, what causes bad, and whether or not the two exist at all. In regards to medieval philosophy, the two primary groups who debate back and forth between goodness and free-will are the intellectualists and the voluntarists, at least at their core. Both seek to figure out what and where goodness stems from, as well as where and how our goodness might be measured. Further, the two touch heavily on issues of will, which ties both into religious belief as well as an absurd logical debate. At the heart of their argument, voluntarists stand for the position that their minds, reason, and logic are volunteered to a God figure- that they receive two decisions, one from an omniscient creator, and a second from reason. Further, they believe that every decision is a choice between God’s desire and another, thus the Will becomes their primary factor for deciding whether or not an action, thought, or decision is good. Another stance promoted is from intellectualists, who think our goodness and badness is something to be reasoned through with rational thought and logic, regardless of its origins. There are specific philosophers who merely touch the outskirts of one side or the other, such as Alfarabi. However, his stance differs considerably in the respect that he claims people must strive to find God, and after they receive God, one receives Divine perfection. Before this, an individual, according to his view, must follow dogma or societal norms to behave well, utilizing their will to distinguish between these. His position does not, like most voluntarists, believe God's will is something innate nor something instilled from birth, nor does he support a two decision structure, nor does he support the idea that our goodness comes from will/reason alone. He instead believes any action which gets an individual closer to Divine perfection is virtuous, noble, and good. We will briefly touch on three philosophers to exemplify these stances: Thomas Aquinas, Bonnie Kent, and Alfarabi.
Thomas Aquinas, typically linked to intellectualists, follows the belief that good and bad actions are calculated through a series of logical and rational stages- that humans must think to behave good. Thomas seeks to answer two main things. First, where might an individual initially perceive goodness. Then second, where the source of this goodness stems from. He concludes “good and bad are found first in the outward act rather than in the act of the will.” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, Thomas claims goodness or badness is not determined by our will, but instead how the act affects the outside world. And further, we might perceive goodness and badness in a variety of places (including the will, reason, logic, action, and thought), but initially goodness is found through an outward act. Thomas seems to be stating our reason and intellect determines which actions might evoke good reactions. Rather than utilizing our will, Aquinas and the intellectualists seem to claim we rely on our intellect and reason. Thus, we make decisions based upon our intellect and reason which are utilized to find and apprehend the good. Furthermore, it is not necessarily the decision which is good or bad, but what the resultant action affects, which our intellect and reason logically devise, then find through reason. And finally, Thomas states because an “act of will relates as a form to the outward act… [the] formal comes later, for form comes to matter” (Aquinas Pg. 517). Thus, an act creates a reaction, a reaction creates form (for "form comes later"), and form becomes matter, or actual substance. So, we reason (to sort through possibilities and apprehend the good), we act (which creates a reaction), the universe reacts (which creates form), and the form becomes the substance of reality.
Form here diverges from Plato’s ideal, for form is the natural laws and logical reactions of a unified body, whereas Plato’s ideal is a surrounding essence of ideas created by a God then transmitted to humans. Plato’s ideal requires a type of God figure, for an idea could not float in the ideal, the surrounding essence, without something, presumably a God, to first create it. Form does not necessarily require a God, for it is merely natural and scientific reactions. Therefore, according to the intellectualist position, goodness stems first from an action, then links to the reaction which is distinguished by form. So, all goodness comes as a result of this form, and is depicted first from the act.
Voluntarists, like Kent, find humans must believe to achieve good. There is merely a good act and a bad act, then we use our will to choose. If you don't follow the good act, you're bad. Yet, what is good? Whatever God wills. First, a voluntarist position requires belief. Second, it requires that humans are capable of making a type of decision, choosing to either follow the will of God, or to diverge from God’s path. Thus, whether or not a decision, action, or choice is good relies invariably on will. And if everything is good, and everything is from God, and God is all-knowing and all-powerful, everything must therefore be perfect, so long as one goes along with God's Divine will. Once you reach this Divine understanding, one realizes the Divine perfection- this is one transition between voluntarists, and someone who adopts several principles to both voluntarist and intellectualist philosophies, Alfarabi.
Alfarabi finds humans must spend their lives seeking this Divine perfection. In this respect, Alfarabi claims that individuals are to be types of "discoverers" (Alfarabi 64) on their journey to reach Divine perfection by means of a systematic approach through "deliberative faculty" (Alfarabi 64). Thus, an individual is to deliberate (presumably with their will) through a series of actions with the hopes of discovering the Divine. This differs from what voluntarists believe because the voluntarist position relies entirely on the premise good comes from the will. Alfarabi, however, seems to state that we are not born with Divine will, he states we must strive to find it- and after one reaches Divine perfection, they will be only good because they shall only be able to perform the perfection of the Divine. He claims our will and actions are good so far as in pursuit of "virtuous and noble things." (Alfarabi 61). Furthermore, good becomes established as either "generally accepted opinion [or] most noble to a particular religion" (Alfarabi 67). Thus, a good action comes as a result of our will performing a virtuous action either in regards to an individual dogma or generally accepted opinion, at least until the point of Divine perfection.
Therefore, intellectualists believe goodness is shown first through an outward act, and is established due to reactions which create form, but not necessarily from the will. Voluntarists believe goodness comes from the will, presumably God’s will. Alfarabi claims goodness is discovering the Divine through acts of the will which are good because they are virtuous in relation to an individual's religion.
My own belief is any act is good unless it negatively impacts another, and if so, there's a type of appropriation of goodness. With regards to our free-will, free-will only exists as illusion. This is because every decision we make is a resultant of our mind (IE what we think), which comes from what our brain is programmed to do. If one was put into the same situation and had their mind erased 100 times, the situation would be identical, for a different reaction would require a different brain. A decision is only a decision by illusion- our mind's way of convincing itself that we have the ability to make decisions. Everything is just our mind's programming responding, a mind which was crafted from our parents' minds responding, and their parents' minds responding to their parents. It's an endless cycle of neurological reactions reacting to and creating the reactions of the outside universe. Further, with regards to religion, I believe any religious argument regarding God and goodness is absurd. For God is allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful, and if God is all-knowing and all-powerful, every action and will must have been known and created from this God figure (otherwise, God would not be all-knowing nor all-powerful). This means every action, will, and thought is from God. And furthermore, if God is all good, so is everything which comes from God. Otherwise, God would lack omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness. Therefore, the moment God is included in a conversation regarding goodness, all actions, thoughts, and decisions must be good, otherwise God would not be omniscient, omnipotent, nor all good. So, without God, goodness becomes subjective. Thus, action is to be innately worked through based upon an individual's relative moral code (which results from their history which composes their religious views). Furthermore, every argument regarding good is of equal truth, for each belief in the religious sense becomes reality to a believer.
My advice regarding good and morality- learn happiness.
A good technique is to ask yourself (before performing an action),
"Will it make me happy now?"
"Will it make me happy tomorrow?"
Will it make me happy a year from now?"
Will it make me happy fifty years from now?"
The more you answer yes to, and the stronger each yes is, the better the decision.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Lifestyles
A woman wakes up in the morning to a cup of coffee. It's 6:45am. She sits at her table, reads the paper, turns on the news, and slowly savors the decadent taste. At 8:30am, she drives to work. On her way to work, she stops at Starbucks, orders a latte (which is mostly espresso based, a finer grind of coffee making it slightly more strong), and works until 1pm. At 1pm, she drives to Chipotle (looking for a healthy, naturally raised, and eco-friendly meal). She orders her food (a burrito bowl with rice, black beans, pico de gayo, and avocado), and gets a beverage (a Diet Coke). She goes back to work, completes her day (leaving slightly later than normal) at 6pm. She goes home, and makes a meal for her family (pasta, bread, and a salad- a carbohydrate dense meal, but it balances well with the week plan). The family sits down, one child drinking milk, the other a Dr. Pepper, and the other a juice loaded with high fructose corn syrup. Her and her husband enjoy a glass of wine, paired nicely with the pasta meal. They watch two television programs. During the second program, she gets one more glass of wine. 11pm rolls around, and she and her family sleep. They wake up, and repeat the same schedule.
This is a modern citizen- a model for America. She supports the economy daily, contributing fairly to entertainment, the restaurant industry, the grocery industry, the alcohol industry, local farmers, and presumably a chain grocer.
She has been intoxicated from 6:45am until she fell asleep, only to withhold such intoxication until 6:45am, where she repeats the cycle.
A continual high- America.
A man wakes up at 5:00am and makes himself a large cup of coffee. After his cup is made, he commutes to work, an hour drive. His cup takes him around an hour and a half to finish, some of it cold by the time he takes his last few swigs. He's high as a kite, an average American. He works from 6:00am until 4:00pm (a fairly lengthy day, although he needs extra hours to make ends meet). His high begins to ware off at around 5:00pm. He's just arrived home. He smokes some medicinal marijuana, fully aware that the medicinal aspect is debatable at best. He makes a healthy dinner, him and his wife eat alone, watching a movie. At 9:45pm he finishes a bowl of marijuana, has a little dessert (chocolate cake, a rarity, indeed), and directly after goes to bed. His high lasts throughout his sleep (most claim it makes them sleep more soundly). He wakes up to a fresh cup of coffee.
A child wakes up for school. Her mother has her eat a bowl of Cheerios with banana slices (a serotonin based high, the same chemical which marijuana induces). She has a cup of orange juice with her meal. She goes to school. Lunch time rolls around and she buys a lunch from the school cafeteria. The school cafeteria gives them a choice between pizza or roast beef sandwiches, chips or a fruit salad, and a chocolate chip cookie or a small slice of cake. She heads to sports practice after school, running a few miles, a few sprints, and performs a few stretches. She drinks some Gatorade during breaks, a sugar dense drink, but good for electrolytes. She goes home at 5:00pm. Dinner is served at 6:30pm. She has a dessert of Oreo cookies and milk, then goes to bed. Her high begins just after she wakes up. Her high continues throughout the day, up until her little eyes shut and her mind floods itself with DMT (a drug which creates our dreams, although it's illegal).
A man wakes up. Puts on his business suit. Drinks a cup of tea. Heads to the business office. He decides to skip lunch and snorts a line of cocaine instead. Who needs coffee, he thinks. He gets off work, heads home, and his wife and kids are waiting for him at the dinner table. His high begins when he wakes up, and lasts until he shuts his eyes.
A farmer wakes up to a fresh glass of milk from one of the family cows. His daughter, eating next to him, tells her how happy she is to have a new cow at the farm. She swears it smiles at her. The family dog runs into the kitchen, joyfully licking her hand as she reaches to pet him. The farmer goes outside and does his runs, feeding the chickens, collecting their eggs, and making sure the horses have plenty of hay. One has a slight limp, he's waiting for the market to pick up so he can send it to the glue factory. He walks out to the fields and begins to make sure his laborers, all healthy Americans (he sadly reflects that he's being out-competed by other farmers because they utilize illegal immigrants) are working diligently. He walks over to the cow fields. He grabs his gun, knife kit, and hanging tools. He shoots the first cow through the head, hoping that it will kill it instantly. It rarely does. The cow falls onto the ground, slowly moving and making whimpering noises. He shoots a second bullet. The cow struggles to survive. A third bullet. The cow is at peace. He repeats this three times, hanging the cows after slitting their throats to drain them of blood. These will be cut up tomorrow, two days from now it will be someone's dinner. Lunch time, he thinks. He heads back to the family house, makes a sandwich and drinks a second glass of milk- heavy with protein, good for you. Came from one of the family cows, he thinks. It was squirted right out of the utter and into the bucket through my own hands. He heads back to the farm, grabs a couple of pigs, hangs them up, and one by one slits their throats. The first one squeals loudly, causing a chain reaction. He can barely hear himself think. He heads back to the house to tell his daughter the new cow is doing great.
A police officer wakes up at 9:00am. He showers while his coffee maker is creating his cup for the day. On his way to the station, he swings by a diner, getting a blueberry bagel with cream cheese. He gets to the station and fills out paperwork for the first half of his day. At lunch, he goes out, and gets a cheeseburger with a milkshake. On his way back to the station, he makes his rounds, arresting two drug users (one, a well known town drunk, and the other, a cocaine user). Both have a job, and miss their jobs because they are in jail. Later, they both get fired. On his way home, he grabs a bottle of wine for him and his new girlfriend. They have a couple of glasses, cuddling on the couch, talking about their days. She steps out and has a cigarette. She kisses him goodnight, and drives home. He eats some Reese's before falling asleep, only to wake up and get strung out once again, wondering over bacon if there will be any murders today.
An ex-addict goes to a drug meeting, he hasn't ate a thing, nor drank a thing all day. He's losing weight. He's not sleeping well. Sobriety is tough on him. The leader of the class, an elderly man, greets everyone at the door. The man has a cup of coffee in his hand. It's his third cup of coffee that day. Sobriety, he tells them, is the key to life, and boy does it feel great. The ex-addict, who was a recreational speed user, tells everyone he has been maintaining sobriety for one week. An arduous task, but it was court mandated so he must. He says he looks foreword to the point that sobriety will feel good. He heads to his night job. Only working a half-shift. He's exhausted. He tries to fall asleep after getting home. Yet, if he must quit all drugs, is he allowed to dream? Is he allowed to let his mind overflow with DMT? He lays in bed for four hours. It's been three days since he's slept. He wonders if he lied at his meeting when he said he's been sober. He hasn't ate in a week. Dread overflows him, his body gradually falls asleep.
This is a modern citizen- a model for America. She supports the economy daily, contributing fairly to entertainment, the restaurant industry, the grocery industry, the alcohol industry, local farmers, and presumably a chain grocer.
She has been intoxicated from 6:45am until she fell asleep, only to withhold such intoxication until 6:45am, where she repeats the cycle.
A continual high- America.
A man wakes up at 5:00am and makes himself a large cup of coffee. After his cup is made, he commutes to work, an hour drive. His cup takes him around an hour and a half to finish, some of it cold by the time he takes his last few swigs. He's high as a kite, an average American. He works from 6:00am until 4:00pm (a fairly lengthy day, although he needs extra hours to make ends meet). His high begins to ware off at around 5:00pm. He's just arrived home. He smokes some medicinal marijuana, fully aware that the medicinal aspect is debatable at best. He makes a healthy dinner, him and his wife eat alone, watching a movie. At 9:45pm he finishes a bowl of marijuana, has a little dessert (chocolate cake, a rarity, indeed), and directly after goes to bed. His high lasts throughout his sleep (most claim it makes them sleep more soundly). He wakes up to a fresh cup of coffee.
A child wakes up for school. Her mother has her eat a bowl of Cheerios with banana slices (a serotonin based high, the same chemical which marijuana induces). She has a cup of orange juice with her meal. She goes to school. Lunch time rolls around and she buys a lunch from the school cafeteria. The school cafeteria gives them a choice between pizza or roast beef sandwiches, chips or a fruit salad, and a chocolate chip cookie or a small slice of cake. She heads to sports practice after school, running a few miles, a few sprints, and performs a few stretches. She drinks some Gatorade during breaks, a sugar dense drink, but good for electrolytes. She goes home at 5:00pm. Dinner is served at 6:30pm. She has a dessert of Oreo cookies and milk, then goes to bed. Her high begins just after she wakes up. Her high continues throughout the day, up until her little eyes shut and her mind floods itself with DMT (a drug which creates our dreams, although it's illegal).
A man wakes up. Puts on his business suit. Drinks a cup of tea. Heads to the business office. He decides to skip lunch and snorts a line of cocaine instead. Who needs coffee, he thinks. He gets off work, heads home, and his wife and kids are waiting for him at the dinner table. His high begins when he wakes up, and lasts until he shuts his eyes.
A farmer wakes up to a fresh glass of milk from one of the family cows. His daughter, eating next to him, tells her how happy she is to have a new cow at the farm. She swears it smiles at her. The family dog runs into the kitchen, joyfully licking her hand as she reaches to pet him. The farmer goes outside and does his runs, feeding the chickens, collecting their eggs, and making sure the horses have plenty of hay. One has a slight limp, he's waiting for the market to pick up so he can send it to the glue factory. He walks out to the fields and begins to make sure his laborers, all healthy Americans (he sadly reflects that he's being out-competed by other farmers because they utilize illegal immigrants) are working diligently. He walks over to the cow fields. He grabs his gun, knife kit, and hanging tools. He shoots the first cow through the head, hoping that it will kill it instantly. It rarely does. The cow falls onto the ground, slowly moving and making whimpering noises. He shoots a second bullet. The cow struggles to survive. A third bullet. The cow is at peace. He repeats this three times, hanging the cows after slitting their throats to drain them of blood. These will be cut up tomorrow, two days from now it will be someone's dinner. Lunch time, he thinks. He heads back to the family house, makes a sandwich and drinks a second glass of milk- heavy with protein, good for you. Came from one of the family cows, he thinks. It was squirted right out of the utter and into the bucket through my own hands. He heads back to the farm, grabs a couple of pigs, hangs them up, and one by one slits their throats. The first one squeals loudly, causing a chain reaction. He can barely hear himself think. He heads back to the house to tell his daughter the new cow is doing great.
A police officer wakes up at 9:00am. He showers while his coffee maker is creating his cup for the day. On his way to the station, he swings by a diner, getting a blueberry bagel with cream cheese. He gets to the station and fills out paperwork for the first half of his day. At lunch, he goes out, and gets a cheeseburger with a milkshake. On his way back to the station, he makes his rounds, arresting two drug users (one, a well known town drunk, and the other, a cocaine user). Both have a job, and miss their jobs because they are in jail. Later, they both get fired. On his way home, he grabs a bottle of wine for him and his new girlfriend. They have a couple of glasses, cuddling on the couch, talking about their days. She steps out and has a cigarette. She kisses him goodnight, and drives home. He eats some Reese's before falling asleep, only to wake up and get strung out once again, wondering over bacon if there will be any murders today.
An ex-addict goes to a drug meeting, he hasn't ate a thing, nor drank a thing all day. He's losing weight. He's not sleeping well. Sobriety is tough on him. The leader of the class, an elderly man, greets everyone at the door. The man has a cup of coffee in his hand. It's his third cup of coffee that day. Sobriety, he tells them, is the key to life, and boy does it feel great. The ex-addict, who was a recreational speed user, tells everyone he has been maintaining sobriety for one week. An arduous task, but it was court mandated so he must. He says he looks foreword to the point that sobriety will feel good. He heads to his night job. Only working a half-shift. He's exhausted. He tries to fall asleep after getting home. Yet, if he must quit all drugs, is he allowed to dream? Is he allowed to let his mind overflow with DMT? He lays in bed for four hours. It's been three days since he's slept. He wonders if he lied at his meeting when he said he's been sober. He hasn't ate in a week. Dread overflows him, his body gradually falls asleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)