The Shadowlit Realms
Labyrinth of the Mind- JournalHome.com
Labyrinth of the Mind

Momento Mori

Posted in Philosophy
There is this TV show called Bones about this woman who is I believe an anthropologist and she specializes in as the name suggests studying bones and so she works of the police to help them solver cases via studying the bones of dead bodies found. And my mom would always tell me how much like Bones (which is her neck name on the show) I am because she is really very socially dysfunctional. She does not really know how to interact with other people or to relate or emphasize with others. She is not good at expressing her own emotions, and finds the emotions of others confusing and because she is so detached from other people, she has this very frank approach. She does not understand why anyone should be offended by the plain and simple truth because she is very fact based and scientific about everything and so most things she views in purely rational and logical terms. 

Basically she views the rest of society through the same lens as one might watch animals in the wild or study a primitive tribe. She puts herself in the position of being this sort of outside observer, she does not really interact with society but watches it from a distance, as if they are subjects of study. 

So though I myself am not given so much to the inclination towards logic. I do not in most cases consider myself to be by nature a rational person and I am not inclined towards the scientific approach of things, I am much more of the mystic, yet, in many ways the more I think about it, the more I realize how much I really am like this character.  

My dad was telling me about this story he read in which it is becoming a trend now, when somebody dies, their friends of family members will turn the facebook page of the deceased into a memorial of sorts and my first initial reaction to this was from a purely observational stand point. You know that old quote the more things change the more they stay the same? 

Well my first thoughts to hearing of this was reflecting on the way in which it seemed so reminiscent of the memento mori's from the 1800's, and how at that time in photography was a rather new technology, and thus people did not have the albums of photographs, and videos, and what not as a way of preserving memories that we have today, back than when a person died a photograph would be taken of the dead body as a remembrance of that person. They also would use the hair of the deceased and weave it into jewelry, or use it to make little portraits and such things of the like as token's of remembrance for the individual. 

And prior to that in some cultures would make death masks, in which a plaster case would be taken of the face of the deceased to capture and preserve their likeness. So this whole thing with the facebook thing really is to me, using new technology for very age old and primitive practices. It really is interesting how at the base roots, people themselves do not truly change, the environment around them changes, and their outlets of expression change, but the subconscious mind still holds these collective memories of our past history, or the baseness of our nature. While we have conveniently been able to put a greater distances between ourselves and death and do not live in such close quarters with its ever looming presence, the way in which we approach it, our relation to the dead, and our perceptions of it, they have not altered much over the 100s of years which have passed. We still unknowingly, and unconsciously fall into these rituals which if we were look to back upon we probably would see as being morbid, macabre, and primitive, yet still we take the mediums available to us today and continue to act these things out unaware of how closely we are following in the foot steps of our predecessors and how little we ourselves have evolved, even if we have evolved the world around us. 

Some people may find this idea disheartening, while others may choose to continue to live in denial about it, but I find there is a sort of comfort in this ever presence of our primitiveness, and that nothing we do can ever completely eradicate it.
Share |

12:18 PM - 2/9/2011 - comments {0}

So You Think Aliens Built the Pyramids?

Posted in Philosophy

I have always held an objection to what seems to be the relatively common theory among many people today that aliens must have been involved in the building of the Great Pyramids, now as to whether or not I believe in extra terrestrial life and what my vies on such are I do not wish to get into here, for that should be a subject for another day, so I am not here to argue for or against alien life forms, as my objection the idea that aliens built the Pyramids is not based upon a belief or lack of belief in their existence but rather it draws from the fact that I think the view point is insulting to the Ancient Egyptians and it is a purely egotistical standpoint to have.

 

In the same way there there is racial prejudice, sexism, classicism, there is also a tendency to have certain prejudicial views about people of the past, that is there is a mind set that people whom we view as being "primaitive' because they lacked the technological advancements that we have, thus they must have by nature been inferior to us and this is a view point i myself do not hold if anything I would say we are inferior to our ancestors, but that too is for another day.

 

The belief in the alien theory I think stems from our own narrow-mindedness and insecurities about ourselves, and our egoism, being that because we, with all our technological advancements cannot deduce just how the Egyptians managed to build the pyramids with their great lack of technology, and because we cannot replicate their exact methods we presume that it is inconceivable that these "primitive" people could possible on their own have achieved something which is beyond or own capabilities and comprehension, and so it must be presumed that being inferior as they are, clearly some other life form of greater intelligence and technological advancement must have assisted them in some way.

 

With that in mind I would like to propose this alternative view.  Consider sometime in the far future when we ourselves would be looked upon as an ancient civilization and when technology has made even greater leaps and bounds, for some reason or other somehow the technology, or the materials on how to make airplanes as we know them today were completely lost.  So was have this future age looking down upon us and scoffing us as being primitive and they have all this new technology which we ourselves could not conceive of, yet they cannot figure out how to construct an airplane, maybe they have come up with other flying type devices but how to construct an airplane is beyond them. 

 

They have replicas of airplanes, they can see airplanes, and study them but they have been incapable using the materials and methods which were available to us to replicate the airplane and thus with all their superior knowledge and advancements they decide that it was completely impossible and a ludicrous idea to presume that we could possibly be capable of having making such machines, sense they fail to comprehend to do so, than this lesser society surely could never have achieved such a thing.  So they decide that only plausible explanation is that clearly some other more intelligent life form must have visited upon earth and made airplane for us, or been the ones to give us the technology on how airplanes are made.

 

This would be an insult to our own prowess of innovation and it would be a disgrace to the memory of the Wright Brothers. It would be taking something away from us and our achievements to pass on the credit for what we have accomplished unto so other theoretical source. To sooner believe that so unknown beings of which there is no absolute proof as to their existence had come down upon earth for the sake of construing these monuments, rather than to believe in the possibilities, capabilities and innovations of the people themselves.

 

This is the reason why I do take a personal offence to the theories of aliens building the pyramids, because of my deep respect for these ancient cultures and because I do believe that they were capable of remarkable things, and because if it was not for them we would not have the society which we have (though it is true I am not altogether sure that it is a good thing as I am not all that impressed with the society we have).

Share |

7:30 PM - 1/23/2011 - comments {0}

Why Anyone Who Claims to be Pro-Life is Lying

Posted in Philosophy

I was having one of my reflective moments which as we know usually means trouble, and I am not sure know just what it is that got me onto this topic, but here it is all the same. Upon reflection it has come to my attention that the entire Pro-Life argument can be brought down to a smoldering pile of rubble by simply deconstructing the rather unfortunate name they chose for themselves as "Pro-Lifers"

 

It is in fact impossible for any human being to be genuinely "pro-life." You can be anti-abortion, but that is really an altogether different beast than being pro-life, though I know must people do not take the time to really evaluate the meaning behind these phrases and terms and take the term pro-life to be synonymous with anti-abortion, they really do have completely different implications in their names.

 

Anyone who calls themselves pro-life is in fact by default proven to be a hypocrite.

 

One might wonder just how this is?

 

Well they do not call themselves pro-fetal life, or pro-unborn child life. They call themselves pro-life, this would encompass all life by the very nature of the statement. So they must be pro the right of any living creature to live. Anything that happens to be alive is by definition under the category of life. That ought to go without saying. And what right does a so called pro-lifer have to thus try to determine which form of life has more of a right of a right to live or has more value than another form of life? Who are they to put a value system upon another living creature based upon its size, appearance, intellect, cell structure, etc..in order to determine what should and shouldn't be given the divine right to live unharmed.

 

Hmmm....wait this is all sounding very familiar. In fact isn't that the entire basis of their argument? That another person does not have the right to judge the life of a fetus as being of less worth and value? And that the life the fetus should be protected and hast the divine right to live? That indeed another person, including its own mother does not have the right to end that life?

 

Now back to the fact that Pro-life, includes within it, all life forms, not just the life of a fetus, (they should have specified that), but Pro-fetus just does not sound as catch or as nice as Pro-life, but I digress. You should by now have a whiff of where this is going.

 

Anyone who claims to be Pro-life, on a daily basis in fact does the very thing they say they are against, take it upon themselves to judge the worth and  value of other living creatures and judge of themselves what life forms should have a right to live and which do not, and they make those judgements based upon their own personal convenience and necessity, so they decide another living creature should no longer have the right to live if it would be of benefit to them in someway.

 

Even the most environmentally friendly, vegan Pro-lifer who has never consciously stepped on so much as an ant, has ingested something that was once a living creature of some form and they probably own something be it a piece of furniture, books, clothing etc... that was produced through the use of some sort of living organisms. (And of course this scenario is highly unlikely as lets be honest we all know that most pro-lifers are conservatives, and most Conservatives are not environmentalists)

 

In fact I would be willing to bet there are a percentage of pro-lifers that like to hunt and have stuffed deer heads on their walls.

 

Huh! I wonder where that fits into the pro-life equation?

Share |

12:21 AM - 12/14/2009 - comments {0}

If the Universe had a sense of humur

Posted in Philosophy
As most of you probably know, I have what can be seen as a bit of an odd sense of humor at times, sometimes dark, sometimes just purely random, or sardonic, and I do love irony. I also have a rather unique and atypical personal belief system.
 
Whatever anyone believes or doesn't believe about the afterlife, the otherworld, death, whatever you want to call it, I personally think that while on the one hand, there might some self-satisfaction if I discovered that my personal theories were accurate, supposing I was even aware of the fact that they were, but what would be even more awesome then being right, is to discover that whatever lies on the other side of life, was something so completely different then anything anyone no matter what their traditions, beliefs or non-beliefs are, ever thought of.
 
More then being right, I would think it would be almost sweeter to discover that EVERYONE was wrong. If it was just so inconceivable that no living human being on earth came even close to touching on the truth of it. If we were all just completely wrong together.
 
It would make all matter of religious disputes to be completely ironic if none of them even had a chance of being anywhere near right. If supposing there were any kind of consciousness everyone showed up to the party at all, all being equally stunned.
 
That is the sort of thing that I would just love. It would be like the universe laughing at us all.
Share |

11:47 AM - 7/26/2009 - comments {0}

From one Devil's Advocate to Another

Posted in Philosophy
I have mentioned before how I am reading Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, and how I really do think that the book is quite brilliant, and I agree with all the points he makes, and I am loving it, but I being the constant devil's advocate, when I see something which strikes me as incorrect or misconstrued, no matter what side of the argument it falls upon I will bring it up, particularly if a person is saying something I agree with, but then they weaken their own argument's by their errs.

So Harris challenged the idea of the benevolent God and the age old question of atheists, and anyone else who is critical of Christians has been brining up since just about as long as Christianity itself has been in existence, the whole "why do bad things happen to good people" and if God is all powerful and all God, why does he seem to turn his back upon such events.

Now the majority of his argument is focused on events such as hurricane Katrina and for anyone who does believe in God, he would be seen as being directly responsible for any acts of nature which occur, and how statistically most of the victims of Katrina were in fact believers in God, so, if he is all good and all powerful how and why did he allow it to happen? For if he is all good, then he must not have stopped it because he did not have the power to do so, but if he is all powerful, then he must have allowed it to happen because he did not care, thus God could not be both all good and all powerful.

But he also address the problem of human crime, and introduces the topic with the scenario of a little girl being kidnapped, who would then be raped, tortured and killed, and in all likelihood the family of the girl would be Christian's so how can God being all good and all powerful allow such a thing to occur. This is where I had a problem with what he was saying, because I think he made an mistake here in his attempt to wrap everything up into the box which he wanted to tie up as proof of why atheism is better then Christianity, the problem with this argument is the fact that Harris completely ignores the Free Will defense.

Now the Free Will defense might be an easy Christian cop out, used just to sweep messes like this under the carpet, but that does not change the plain and simple fact of it, it is written within the Bible itself that man is indeed given free will, and the reason why an all powerful and all good God can allow or will allow men to injure fellow man is because man must be aloud to make his own decision and choices or else God can never know the true loyalty and faith of man.

But in his argument Harris tosses the Free Will argument right out the window and tries to turn a blind eye to it, though any Christian reading this work as he does address his book to Christians as a plea to try and get them to see reason, as well as any one such as myself who has my own strong qualms with Christianity but still has a knowledge of their dogma is going to point this out. I was quite annoyed that he really made the attempt to just slip that one by. Instead of trying to climb the mountain, or walk around the mountain, or blowing up the mountain, he thought he could just throw a sheet over it and know one would notice that it was there.

 You just simply cannot talk about human actions in relation to God without brining free will into the equation or your whole argument will collapse onto you. The whole point of the sacrifice of Jesus was so that from that point on men would be allowed to make their own mistakes.
Share |

3:08 PM - 7/13/2009 - comments {0}

As Many Posibilities as the Stars

Posted in Philosophy
Who has determined that there can be only one possible afterlife?

How is it the religions have come to get the idea that there can only be and must only be one single answer, one correct possibilities. Can there not be multiple answers and multiple possibilities.

What is this obsession with being "right" and everyone else being wrong. What true purpose does this serve?

If we look around us. There is not only one possible planet. There is not only the Earth, there are many other planets as well. There is not only one possible and one single moon. Other planets have their own moons, some even have multiple moons. There is not only one possible galaxy, there are many infinite possible galaxies. Our sun is not the only single sun. Every star is a sun within its own right.

So than why cannot there be more than one possible afterlife?

Why cannot Valhalla, Heaven, Nirvana, Paradise, the Elysian Fields, and the list goes on, all co-exist together.

Who says that we must all come to the same end when we die. Perhaps we all go exactly where we want to go when we die. Perhaps all religions are equally valid, are equally right on their own accord.

If you look at the earth itself, everything comes in multiples and diversity. There is not only one kind of tree, one kind of flower, one kind of bird. There are many different types. Just as there are many different types of people. Perhaps different people believe different things because there are also many different realities, many different realms.

How is it that religion must come to be treated as one big contest in which there is in the end an ultimate winner?

There is a Hindu proverb I have always been found of which states "There is more than one path to lead up to the same mountaintop"

But you know what, there are also many different mountaintops.
Share |

4:40 PM - 4/10/2009 - comments {0}

The Word of God

Posted in Philosophy
I have recently been engaged in this discussion about the Bible and through the course of the discussion a thought had suddenly come to me, which I had not considered before. I just started to ponder the fact that Christians view the Bible as being the word of God so I was thinking, if you are God and you are going to have your word imparted to man kind and you are going to have men write it down for you, wouldn't you be a bit more precise and specific about what you meant? 

Essentially God is having his autobiography written, but he does not want to do it himself so he is have these ghostwriters actually write it for him through his divine inspiration, but he wants this book about his life to be a guide for how people live their lives and he wants his word to be followed, so I would think in the process of his passing this information to those who are going to be writing it down, he would not want to be so vague about certain important things.

If you are God, do you really want a bunch of humans going around and putting words into your mouth for you, and trying to speak for you, and deciding for themselves what they think you meant. 

Do you really want people like "Hey God meant this" 

"No, God clearly meant that "

Well since we cannot agree on what God really meant lets just start killing each other to figure out who is right.  

For instance the whole slavery thing, half the people used the bible to say God approves of slavery and half the people used the Bible to say, no God condemns slavery. 

 I would think if you are God, you would want to be pretty clear on if you do or do not approve of people having the authority and moral justification to oppressed and abuse entire groups of people. I would not think God would want that just up in the up air. 

 If one group of people commits genocide on another group of people, I would not think God would be want to be given credit for that, I do not think God would want someone to be like well it says right here in this Bible passage that God totally supports me doing this, if God does not so much approve of that sort of thing, you think he would want to be pretty clear about that. 

With free will he cannot altogether stop people from doing bad things but I would think at the least he would make it such that people would not have the wiggle room to say they were committing inhumane acts in his name.
Share |

8:52 AM - 2/18/2009 - comments {1}

What Christianity and Communism have in common

Posted in Philosophy
Upon reflection I have come to a conclusion. Christianity is like Communism.

Now what I mean by that is the fact that body might sound like a great ideology, the key were being "ideal" but it is when you throw in the human element that things end up going very wrong, and when things become oppressive, hateful, violent, negative.

I have always said that I never had a problem with the religion Christianity in of itself, but what I have a problem with is Christians, and the two are often very different things.

Both Communism and Christianity on paper might look great but there is just no way in which human beings are capable of practicing either of these systems in their pure form. It is always when someone tries to implement them that they become corrupt. Just the way that whenever a government tries to actually put Communism into practice, they twist it and pervert it into something which it was not originally meant to be.

The way people practice Christianity is really only a perverted form of the religion. It is the human element which taints it and well makes it into something grotesque.
Share |

9:05 AM - 11/13/2008 - comments {0}

When We Are History

Posted in Philosophy
As you are probably aware I am a great lover of history, but when it comes to my relationship or view of history I have somewhat mixed feelings. On the one hand I cannot deny that some of the things which have been done in the past were truly horrible, and should never have been done, there is that historian within me that warns me against judging history from a modern context. It is something which I criticize others from doing. I do try and see history from the view of what was going on in the world at that time, and what was the current mode of thought, not from the perspective of a person in the modern world, because the views, ideas, and understandings we have now, did not exists then.

And many of the horrendous things which had been done historically, were in the minds of the people at the time, perfectly normal and natural, they themselves were not aware of their wrong doing. They were products of their ages. Now I do not use this as an excuse for the things which have been done, and I am never one to support the idea that because the majority does it, makes it right, I still think it is important to understand, that these people were not in their time intentionally or knowingly trying to act in an unjust maner. Now today it is easy to look back and say, how could they not possible know what they were doing was wrong? And even throughout history there were always the select few enlightened minds that knew at the time that the popular beliefs were wrong. But sometimes I cannot help but to wonder. In the future (supposing there is actually going to be a future), what things, which to us now are part of our everyday life (not the things of which we knowingly condemn as wrong in our world) but the things that seem everyday to the majority of us, that we do not really question, will people in some advanced time look back upon us for and say to themselves "what barbarians, how could they actually think like that. How could they call themselves civilized when they do such things."
Share |

2:09 PM - 10/16/2008 - comments {0}

Personal Reponsibility

Posted in Philosophy

I posted this on a forum I belong to, and I am being viewed as some sort of bad guy for holding such views.

 

I am huge believer in and proponent of personal responsibility. I am really quite ruthless when it comes to my belief and advocacy of personal responsibility. It is one of the reasons why I am not often very compassionate or sympathetic to listen to others complain about their problems. Because I believe that more often then not the individual is personally responsible for the situation they find themselves in. Either because of past actions they took, or because of actions they refuse to take, because it is easier to just complain and wallow in self pity and have others pat you on the back and tell you it is not your fault.

I think one of the biggest problems in the world today is the fact that nobody holds any one accountable for anything anymore. Whatever happens, people have to try and blame some outside force for it, or others excuse them, by saying well it is not really thier fault, it is because of their environment, or society, or this that and the other thing,

I grant that there are some things that happen which are out of a persons control and power, but I always believe, that in any given situation there is always a choice, everything comes down to the matter of choice. The choices may not always be pretty, they may not be easy, but that is how life is. I do not truly believe that anyone has no control over there situation, or that anyone can truly be forced into doing anything. Whatever action they take, it is an action they choose to take, though there may be a variety of reasons that lead them to take said action. It still all comes down to individual choice.

I do not believe in protecting people from themselves. If someone does something stupid, they deserve, and should, suffer the consequences of that action, no matter how sever the consequences are, that is how they will learn not to do it again. People should not be babied or parented by the government. Laws should not be made that solely focus around protecting a person from themselves. (i.e. the seatbelt law). If a person sticks their hand in fire, and gets burned, they should not have the right to sue some company because the company did not warn them that fire was hot.

I am sick and tired of people being compensated, and viewed upon as victims of some "evil" because they lack any resemblance of common sense. I am also tired of people thinking they are owed something from someone else, if they do something stupid. No one looks at themselves any more and says "hey maybe this happened to me, because I acted like an idiot."

I am also tired of listening to people bellyache about circumstances in their life, which they do have the power to change, but they simply do not wish to take the steps to do so, because it would be too hard, and they rather just boo woo, and play the role of the victim, because it is easier and because others have gotten in the habit of accepting this, and patting you on the back and telling you it is not your fault instead of saying "hey why don't you get off your arse and actually do something about it."

You have these options. It might be a struggle, you might have to make certain sacrifices, and it won't be an easy road, but it will get you out of the current situation which you are unhappy with.

People are a victim only of themselves and the fact that they are not willing to look themselves in the eye, and say, just why am I in this situation, in what ways am I reasonable for these circumstances, and what options do I have to take to change it.
Share |

8:10 PM - 10/14/2008 - comments {2}

Take the Bad with the Good or None At All

Posted in Philosophy
The whole debate about God's gender is an age old one. Feminist, and women in general complaining about the fact that God is always portrayed in the masculine and referred to as "he" and philosophical essays, about God as a woman, or what gender God truly is, if God can have any true gender at all.

But the one thing you don't hear anyone complaining about is Death, The Grim Reaper, another popular figure who is always cast with a masculine identify. You do not hear any one trying to argue for the feminist version of The Grim Reaper, or questioning his gender. The feminists are perfectly content to let men have all the credit on that one.

In fact if someone did try and create a feminized version of the Grim Reaper, that would probably cause outrage among women and be seen as anti-woman in some way. 

But if women truly were concerned with equality than shouldn't they be as equally upset about the fact that the personification of death is always in the masculine. Does not the idea of trying vouch for a female God, while rejecting the idea that there should also be a female Grim Reaper, only further stereotypes about women
?
Share |

10:53 AM - 8/17/2008 - comments {0}

Contemplation of the Absurd

Posted in Philosophy

As I have mentioned before and talked about in detail, I am currently reading The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, and she is more known for her philosophy which she incoprates within her works. And as I have mentioned before, I am truly sucked in and obcessed with this book, I think it is brilliant, and I can understand it on such a deeply profound level. I have heard people say before how much they disagree with her philosophy, but I think I really get it, and I do not find it disagreeable.

 

Then I noticed within the book, there was a little insert, which you could mail in to get more information about Ayn Rand and her philsophy and get writings by her, and information about books and lectures and such, and it said:

 

If you take the ideas in this book seriously, and want to find out more about Ayn Rand's philosophy write to:

 

and than it gave the address.

 

But this made me really think.

 

Do I take it serirously?

 

I think it is very profound, and I am truly obserbered within in it, but to say I take it seriously.

 

I began to complete this and came to a realization of which I have never before given any thought, and it dawned upon me.

 

I do not think I truly take any indiviudals philiosophy seriously. I do not think I am capable of taking a philosophy seriously.

 

There are philosophers with him I am drawn, with whom I resepct, whose ideas I agree with, and aspects of which I might take into myself. I find philsophy though provoking, interesting, and I think in many ways the philosopher, wheather I agree with him or her or not, plays an important role.

 

But when I really think about it, I do not think I can say, I take any of them seriously. I do not mean this as insolence, and it is sharply contridictory to my statement above, I cannot name it or understand it. I do not suspect that any of this makes much sense to any but myself. And it is hard to put in clear words, becasue it is just a general idea and feeling.

 

I can read, Plato, Socretes, Decartes, Nietzsche, Rand, etc.. with admiration, respect, intrigue, I can find thier words truly profound, be moved by them, see truth in them, feel something within my soul itself.

 

And there are others I could read, with strong disagreement, but still consider and weigh thier ideas, even knowing I will never be swayed to them.

 

Yet, when put to the question, do I take them seriously?

 

I do not know if I can comit to that.

 

In someways it almost seems as if they are beyond seriouness, though other than I thought in my mind, I do not know how to explain just what I mean by that, it is something that just must simply be understood, or felt.

Share |

8:51 PM - 3/24/2008 - comments {0}

Land of the Cowards

Posted in Philosophy

After having watched The Other Boelyn girl, it got me on the discussion of monarchries, and I decided that in someways, that was acutally a better of system of government than what we have now, becasue one of the things about it is that change came a lot quicker than it does now, and though the ruler would have more power, he would in someways be more beholden to the people was well, and though there was oppression, one of the things the Monarch feared the most was an uprising becasue no matter what, the massess always outnumbered the King, and so in some regaurds the king did have to be careful not to piss off the people too much, or they would revolt and unseat him from the throne.

 

And in this musing I came to another conclusion, and I was touched by a sudden dawn of enlightement of sorts, about the true philosophy of America, and what America was really founded on. It was not and is not in fact the Land of the Brave, as they will try to say, but rather it is the land of the lazy cowards.

 

If you think of it everyone whom came to this country did so, simply becasue they did not wish to deal with the problems of thier own conuntry, they were all just running away instead of trying to fix the problems in thier homeland, they just decdied, it would be easier just to pull out and find somewhere else to go instead of dealing with the issues at hand.

 

The founding fathers themselves came here, becasue they decdied you know what, we do not really like the way the king is running the country, so we are just going to flee away to find a new land. And sense every immigrant whom has come into this country has done so seeking a so called better land, instead of putting the time and effort into trying to make thier own countries that better land.

 

America is made up of all the rejects whom did not want to acutally have to make an effort to imporve thier own conditions but instead just run away with thier tails tucked between thier legs to hope to find a place that is already fixed for them.

 

Even today, that is what the current probelm with illigal immirgration boils down to. the Mexicans, say, hey are own country and governement sucks but instead of making the effort to make are country better lets just go over to this other country instead.

 

That is the porblem with people today, no one wants to make the effort and the sacrifice to acutally try and work and imporve things. Of course it is not easy to try and make change, and it could be putting ones own life at risk, but it is not impossible either, history as shown that, but no one wants to acutally be the one to make that sacrifice or take that time, to toil through the hardship. They all just want to sit on thier hands, complian and wait for someone else to come along and fix the problem for them.

Share |

8:53 PM - 3/16/2008 - comments {1}

Natures Law

Posted in Philosophy

This debate that has been going on at a Lit. Form I belong to has got me thinking. The debate itself involved the issue regaurding the surperior/inferority or equality between man and animals, and of course being what my feelings are toward human kind and my personal beleif systems I do not beleive in the superiority of man over animals, and sometimes or perhaps most the time I rather find man to prove himself inferrior. But at any rate the majority of the people upon the site seem to be Christains, and we all know where Christians stand on the issue, they think that nature is something to repressed and comanded over, and that animals are souless beings, and man is somehow better then all other living things. And so I have been a lone voice in the debate but when it comes to the topic of animals I am not an easy one to argue with becasue that is one subject in which I am quite well versed and can often provide ample proof to back up my arguments and opinions, and about the only thing they have going for them is "well the bible says this" or the "bible says that" which really is not a valid arugment considering I view the Bible as a work of mythology.

 

But I am digressing from the particular topic which I wanted to address here. I think that people have the bad habbit of trying to apply human understanding, human concepts of "good and evil" and human laws and rules to animals. And even as there very actions seem to contradict thier cliam to superiorty, considering they often tend to treat animals, when it suits them, as if animals do have the same ablity to judge right from wrong as human's do which would be defult make them equal I would think.

 

And though I do not belive in the inferiorty of animals, I do think they live by a different set of rules then humans do, and they do have a different preception, and it is by thier own laws so to speak, in which they should be judged to be completely fair, not by human rules, if they will not be treated as equal to human in any other way.

 

What I mean, is for example, when an animal attacks a human being, that animal is treated the way a person is treated whom does violence willingly and knowingly agianst another human being, but needless to say a few steps in the justice process for the animal are left out. That is, when an animal attacks, it is then hunted down and destroyed, and considred to be a danger to society, or a bad animal, much like a human criminal.

 

But animals do not attack people becasue it is thier will or intent to be malecious for the sake of being maleicious. Or becasue they are just hanging around board, and think, hey lets go attack someone for the pure fun and enjoyment of it. They do not do it becasue they are an evil or bad animal.

 

When an animal attacks a person, it is becasue they are defending thier home, and genunely beleive thier life is in danger, by this standard and by thier own nature and preceiption of the situtaion, the animal is in fact acting rightly and correctly, and thus it should not be punnished for it has in fact not done any true wrong.

 

I personally do not think that animals should be punnished for attacking human beings, for one thing I would say 99.9% of the time the human has done something to put themselves in that situation, and if people are going to continue to intrude upon the homes of animals then they should be given the chance to defend thier homes, and if a person does get attacked by an animal, than it should simply be considred a natural cause, or as an accepted risk.

 

But human beings are just too narcissistic to ever accept this ideology. They have too great a need to feel as if they are somehow special.

 

And mind you I am not saying that the person should not immediately defend themselves during the time of the attack, it is a part of nature for one to fight for ones own surival. But I do not think the authorities should be involved, and after the attack is done and over, then it should just be left at that, the animal should not later be tracked down and destroyed.

Share |

7:23 PM - 1/4/2008 - comments {0}

The (un)importance of Hell

Posted in Philosophy

I was watching this thing on the History channel about the history of Hell and Satan, and it is pretty intresting for the most part, but there was this one guy that said. "For those that say they do not beleive in hell, is saying that Hittler deserves and well have the same fate as the kindist and most gentle person"

 

Which for one is not true, karma and reincarnation work without hell and usually in an altenrtive to hell, and yet in the karmic and reincarnation system the actions of ones life can count against you or for you and have sway over your fate without there being the exsisitince of an acutal hell.

 

In Hinduism for example there is no true concept of heaven and hell, not as an acutaly place a person goes, or a residence of the soul, in Hindusism the concept of hell is more of a mental state, heaven one of pleasure and hell one of pain, so it is a place any person at any time can visit and come back from and it is something everyone has experiened, but there still doest exisit in Hindusim a concept of reward and retribution even if it is different from the westernized concept of these things. It still exisits.

 

The other thing that really annoys me is that more like then not, the person whom made that statement and others who are of like beleif also beleive that the most saintly, gentle natured, kind hearted and compassionate Buddists will also share the same fate as Hittler and deserves to do so.

 

And how can that be ok or make sense?

Share |

3:54 PM - 12/5/2007 - comments {0}

The Quest for the Elixir

Posted in Philosophy

Sicence today and well people and socity in genreal have become obcessed with trying to find a way to keep people alive longere and longer, and elliminate anything that puts human life in jeporordy on a quest to cure every disease, and everyond wants to be the one who uncovers the cure for cancer as if this would be some miraculous and wonderful thing, and I know many people have been trained and led to beleive that it would be, few see the irony behind it all.

 

The sicentest of today are the mondern Alchamists of the past, wanting to play god, or to remove the human need for any sort of god, seeking the elixir, fountain of youuth, holy grail, whatever you wish to call it, it all amounts to the same thing in the end, but they are all so blind to realize, that this so called, and sought after imorality, or at least added longeviity, would be the very down fall and destrutction of the sepeicis itself. The verything they want most, would be the cause of the thing they fear most.

 

Pepople have moved too far away from death, sheltered themselves too much from it, that thier view on death has become twisted and obsecuered, and they will do anything to forestall it for as long as possible without realization of the conesequences implied in this.

 

Just about every single living creature besides humans, have some form of self-population control. Most all other living creatures acutally take into account thier aivuable resoruces, and the space they have to live in, and for thier own surrival they do what they must to live within thier own means. But humans for all thier alleged intelligence and wisdom, forego this, and pay no heed to it.

 

So it is aboslutely nescciary if the human race as a whole is going to continue to surrive, that outside forces, control the human pouplation for them. Diseases as well as natural disasteros, are absolutely curcial to the conitnuation of the race. The planet is only so big, and it is not going to get any bigger, and well so far no one has any ideas for anywhere else people can acutally live, so we have what we have. And if sicence had its way if cancer, and other disieases were cured, if every human being lived up to thier full potential, to the oldest age as humanaly possible, and if they continued to breed, as they will because they are too selfish to control thier own breeding, then guess what? All the resoruces will eventurally be consumed, and all the space would be taken, and it would lead to the ulimtate extintion of the human race. 

 

That is just the plain and simple fact behind it. It is abosultely nescary that people continue to die and in large numbers if the race on a whole is going to surrive.

Share |

10:25 AM - 10/10/2007 - comments {0}

Extra Parts

Posted in Philosophy

Well I know that the Evolution vs Creationism debate will go on forever, and that nothing anyone says will change the minds of the Creationisits, but well I like to, whnever possible take the more obsecure apporach to things, and I was just sitting here thinking when something occured to me that did not fit in neatly to the whole ingelligent desgin theroy and really makes little sense at all in the light, so pushing aside for now all other evidence, no need to go over that again it has been said time and time again.

 

If humans were indeed created by God why would he make humans with left over ape parts that serve humans no funtional use? Now I am no expert on ape or human anatomy but there are a couple of things I do know about.

 

For one, the tail bone. Humans do in fact have a tail bone, but the reason it is called a tail bone, is becasue it was the bone, just at the base of the tail, upon which the tail was attached. Now, this bone, to the best of my knowledge, serves humans no other purpose, and last time I checked, humans, not so much having tials.

 

The secound is what is called the Jacobson Organ, that is the little bump just on the roof of your mouth behind your teeth. Now it serves humans no functional use, it just kind of sits there doing nothing, but monkeys also have a Jacobson organ, and for them it is a functional part of thier anatomy and serves as the center of thier taste buds.

 

So if God made people, wouldn't he have just made them with only the parts they use and need? Or did he just do it for aseshthitic reasons, after he got done creating humans, did he just sit there, and was like...."It is good, but I don't know, something is missing, I am just not feeling it, there just needs to be something there" and he started flipping through books on animal anatomy and game to apes and was like "aha, that is it, that is what I need, the perfect touch."

 

Or was it just done, as a practical joke, was God having a keager with the archangels and was like "Dude, check this out, this is going to be so funny, watch this"

 

 

Share |

7:48 AM - 6/23/2007 - comments {2}

Cycle of Life

Posted in Philosophy

This is just some musings I have sort of developed upon my theory, or at least what I take to be a possible theroy, that I have pondered up, regaurding, creation, obliteration, and reincarnation. It had started out as half a joke, but half genuine as well. Considering the state that the world is currently in, and with Global Warming it seems that the attitude of a lot of people is simply not to really care, becasue the way they see it, they won't still be around when the earth ends so what dose it matter to them. But being a reincarnationst, I have pondered upon the thought, of what happens, when one dies, and there is nothing left to be reborn into? If there is no earth, no place to live, then what becomes the state of the soul, as without an Earth that can sustain life, there would be no way to be born again, no form to take, if nothing surrived, so would the soul then be lost forever? But then I began to think on how the Earth and life was creatated, at least according to Big Bang and Evolution theroy. And so the idea had come to me. That, should and when the Earth shall end, the souls of the dead, will actually be reincaranted into single cell, mirsocpic orginisims, that will come to create a new Earth, and that the cycle of life will be started again.

Share |

10:34 AM - 6/11/2007 - comments {2}

Question to Skeptics

Posted in Philosophy

Ok where are all you skepctis at, if there are any that acutally read my blog, considering, though I might get one or two that stumble by, if so, I have a serious question for you. And reguardless of what you are inclined to beleive or not to beleive, I tell it just how I exeperinced it, and I appeal to you know to give me a rational and logicial explination that does not envolve simply accusing me of making this up or lying, becasue I tell it how it is. Like it or not.

 

About 4 or 5 days ago I was flipping a penny, and I flipped it up and clearly heard it land with a thud upon the carpet not too far off from where I was standing, and the room was kind of dark, and only dimly lit, becasue only one of the lights in the room was working and it was nightime. So I go to look for the penny but I cannot find it anywhere, and I think that is werid, and I get a flashlight and walk all around the carpet looking for it, and still do not see it anywhere. I even look under the desk and places where I am certain it would not have ended up, but nothing. So I give up.

 

The next day, in the morning when it is perfeftly bright and light in the room I come to look for the penny again, and nothing. I walk all around the carpet, at one point I even crawled around on the carpet covering its entreity, it is not a very large carpet, and yet still nothing.

 

So I give up again, feel certain that well surely in the next few days when I stop looking for it, I am going to suddenly see it, or accidently step on it, and yet still nothing.

 

There is no possibly way it can be on this carpet still I have more then once searched it and searched again, over every part of it, and there is no possible way when I flipped the coin it could have ended up somewehre else.

 

So then how do you explain this one while omiting any possiblity or beleif in the supernatural?

Share |

4:15 PM - 6/4/2007 - comments {0}

Clowns

Posted in Philosophy

I think I have solved the mystery of why so many people seem to share a common fear and genreal dislike of clowns, figures that are intended to make us life and bring joy strike fear in the hearts of so many, and carry a strange stigma with them. I think it is something that has subconciousy come to be ingrained in us since ancinent times, so now we do not really understand it, but still cannot help are intution and instintucal reactions.

 

I have been reading the book I mentioned in a previous post about Italian Witchcraft, and I was reading the chapter on Tuscan Witchcraft and the Etruscans, and came to discover that the image of the clown, thier outfit and appernce, the big nose and such were once images that were carved upon Etruscan tombs, and they origiionaly seen as symbols of death, as well traditionaly clowns at carnavals were there to act as a reminder to people that they should enjoy thier life to the fullist, because death lay in wait.

 

And so it has somehow became imbeded in the physchology of so many that clowns are assocaited with and reperesent death though without having this background knowelge or understanding why the image of the clown casuses discomfort the unknown of it as it were begins to become the cause of fear within us.

 

Indeed knowing this I just might look at clowns in a different way, though I do not predict that I will like them anymore, at least I will understand why I do not like them, and seeing them for what they really are. They will still creep me out no doubt.

Share |

8:16 PM - 4/26/2007 - comments {0}

Last Page Next Page
Description

For though All are not able to write books, all conceive themselves able to judge them. ~The Monk

 

adopt your own virtual pet!



Home
User Profile
Archives
Friends
My Wall

Recent Entries
- Snake Oil of the Modern Age
- Catfish
- Momento Mori
- 100 Greatest Books {Update}
- Green Man


Catagory
- Articles
- Books
- Arcane
- Movies-TV
- Music
- Philosophy
- Poetry
- Writing
- Thoughts
- Rants
- The Silvernary
- Word of the day
- Quote of the Week
- In Praise Of
- Art
- Garden and Animal Journal
- Roots
- Elements of Horror
- Humur
- Photography


Poem Hunter
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
StopWhaling
NRDC BioGems
IFAW
Social Values Marketplace
Blogthings
Shadow Poetry
Seafood Choices Alliance
Look At Me
Stop The Seal Hunt
My Deviant Art
Bold, Beautiful, and Big
Responsible Traveling
Ethical Traveling
Green Weddings
Eco-Friendly Sking and Snowboarding
Keep Winter Cool
Green Resorts
The Spiders Den
The Literature Forum
Good Reads
The Mystics Dream
Darwin Awards

Friends
- JournalHome.com
- Martin Burch
- DAWNIE
- Kay
- Heather
- silver_melusine
- Fightingfemale
- Kevin
- Dutchboy
- lilee
- Realove
- The Hippie Queen
- Silver Wynd
- Lo
- Inquisitor Tsynn
- Yankee Innkeeper
- Shokat
- SWEETASH
- ZBrobinite
- thecolumn
- The Quiet Riot
- ^v^Elizebeth^v^
- The Journal Writer


























 





The Shadowlit Realms


Business Logo design
Hit Counter
<Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.