Contemplation of the Absurd

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.

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

Land of the Cowards

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.

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

Natures Law

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.

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

The (un)importance of Hell

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?

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

The Quest for the Elixir

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.

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

Extra Parts

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"

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

Cycle of Life

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.

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

Question to Skeptics

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?

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

Clowns

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.

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

Our love affair with food

Food can be a rather intresting subject to talk about and one I enjoy from time to time, for many varrious reasons, for one thing it is universal, who out there cannot relate to food in someway or another? Another sense the very begining of man it has played an imporant role beyound just out of its nesscitiy, it can carry cultural status, play a role in religous rites, and what I wish to speak of now, the way food can acutally be at the center of our life philosophies, and more interesting how two people who have the exact same philosophy can treat food in a totally different way.

People have always had intresting relationships with food, this sort of love hate relationship, food can be highly sexulized though it can also be the mark of complete innosence. The excesssive inguluence of it has been made a sin in the bible and yet so many cultures pride themselves upon thier food.

But so not to stray, the pariticular philosophy I wish to explore now, and its speical relationship with food, is the rather cliquie and common motto. "You only live once" which on the one hand in an undenibale truth, and yet on the other hand is not entierely true, and what I mean by that simply is, as a rencantonists, I beleive a person might have many possible lifetimes, yet, at the sametime, the life I am living right now, the person I am now, I will never be again.

So how does this relate to food? Well under this mantra we have two very distinct kinds of people, the first group are the health nuts, the ones who choose to deny themself that sepcial pleasure of food and shun away from any sort of indulgence or tresspass, the ones that make a diet of tofu and soy products, eat tasteless sugarless snaks, always have a bottle of water at thier side, have gym membership which they acutally use on a regular basis, shop only in the health food section, take an arrwry of herbal suppliments, and try every diet that comes around the corrner. They would never deam to open a bag of doritos, or eat ice cream directly out of the carton at ten o clock at night, and on now occasion dare to venture into the world of fastfood. They deprave themselves in the name of you only live once, because it is thier goal to then insure they do live for as long as they phyiscaly and possibly can.

On the other side, you have those that fall more in line with my train of thought, taking that very same mantra, I see this as an invitation. I love food, of course I am a quarter Itallian and Itallians love to eat, I savor food, and find it offers a very sepcial kind of bliss it awaknes the senses and appeals to at least 4 of the five, the lingering delecious smells, the tantilizing sight, the surpreme taste, and the feel and texture of it. Becasue you do only live onces, I should not deny myself this special pleasure, but I will indulge and enjoy. Maybe I eat more then I should at times, and maybe I eat things that I shouldn't but I think when it comes done to it, the experince of it is worth it.

And I cannot help but to wonder, when our health food friends, by chance suceed in thier quest, and happen to live up into thier late 90s or perhaps 100s, while they are most likely in some home somewhere or being taken care of by realitives, supposing they do not have alztimers or dementia, I wonder, if they ever think to themselves, boy, I am sure glad I never had a bite of choclate cake or I might never have achived this.

5:23 PM - 4/10/2007 - comments {1} - post comment

Animals as the Famillar is Disney

I was just sitting here looking at this blanket with Disny's Pocohauntis on it with Meiko(the raccoon) draped over her shoulders, and well it just sort of got me thinking, to an intresting idea that had come to me, though perhaps it is just reading into things, or how I choose to interuput something nonetheless I thought it was worth some thought.

Disney movies always tend to strongly feature aniamals, most espcially thier cartoons, primiarly for the obvisous reasons of drawing in kids, kids on a whole love animals, and are mused by the idea of talking animals, and comidic animals and so forth and it gives the story the extra element of fantasy and wonder, but I could not help but to notice, that it seems in many disney cartoons, the aniaml play appears as a famillar.

That is to say an animal that seems to have a special bound/connection with the female protaganist or heroine, and in some cases the villian and antagonist, an animal that seems sent speically to aide that female and help her achive her goal becasue of special abilities it was granted (thought not always supernatural abilities) it could just be the animals inginuity and companionship, but the result is the same.

As I first mentioned and what started all this, Pocohauntis as Meiko, Mulan has the little red dragon whose name I cannot recall, that follows her when she ends up going into war to save her father, and stays by her side, aiding her in her quest and helping her keep her idenity hidden. To look at the other side, in Cinderlla the evil Step-Mother had the cat who was always with her and stalking around, and Cinderella herself had the mise in the house that came to help her. Even the Little Mermaid, had the crab whose name I cannot recall, and again on the other side, Ursula had the eels, and well I am sure there are others, but these are just the ones that came to my immidieate mind for the moment.

10:44 PM - 3/22/2007 - comments {0} - post comment

A study in cleavage

I will admit I was shamefully watching VH1 the other day, for there was nothing else on tv, and I wanted some mindless entertainment, they were doing this thing first it was 100 greatest red carpet moments, and then it was the worst fassion mishaps in hollyhood or some such, I cannot rememeber upon which I saw this on, but it got me thinking how funny the mind works sometimes, and in such non-senseical ways.

They were talking about Pamala Anderson, and this like half-shirt she was wearing which left the bottom half of her breasts exposed, and it got me thinking, just what is it that is so different between showing a little upper boob cleavage to lower boon cleaveage, the exzat same amount of breast was showing wheahter it be top half or bottom half, but somehow, it seems that there is something that is almost sophisticated, and still classy while being sexy at the same time in exposing a bit of the upper breast cleavage, and yet the thought of someone showing off the underside of thier breast seems trashy in a way.

You could picturie someone of high-class, a respected bussiness woman, someone of high society and who is looked up to and elegant, going to an event showing a little top breast cleavage, but the idea of someone exposing a bit of thier loser breast, brings to mind the words tramp or skank

And I say the same is true of myself, I think there is something sensual and yet still acceptaible and classical about giving the breasts a little push inward and upward and showing a little upper breast cleavage, but I tend to recoil and look down upon the thought of leaving bare the underside of the breast.

It is just an odd little thing that really I do not think comes from any sort or reason.

9:58 AM - 3/16/2007 - comments {0} - post comment

Death

  

  

 

  

  

 

 

3:57 PM - 2/25/2007 - comments {0} - post comment

Atheisim is not a disease

Seriously why cannot Christains just learn to live and let live, and leave other people alone? It gets quite obnoxious sometimes, and I often cannot help but to find myself in a poistion of trying to defend this or that group against Christain lynch mob mantilatitly against anyone who is different. Mainly I do it simply to play Devils advoacate (no pun intended) and because it is fun to rile them up by arguing with them espcailly when they all gang up together.

Well considering my great intrest in quotes there is this forum I belong to which is dedicated to qutations and qutation discussion, and someone said they were looking for atheisim quotes, and of course this group of Christains had then come in and make a debate out of it, even though the poor guy just wanted some quotes and was not making a personal statement one way or the other, and though I am by no means an atheiest, I have very strong spiritual beleifs (just the wrong ones depending who you talk to) I get tried of others acting like athieisim is a disease and that if a person is an atheiest then clearly that means something is just wrong with them and they are bad horrible people and that something most have happend to turn them into atheiets to start with, becasue if they were normal sane people then they would obviously belive in God.

In fact one person said

I'd prefer to call atheism as a consequence of such human experience as utter indifference, leading to inability/refusal to make a difference in this chaotic world, whereas atheism as a result of spiritual journey must be so taken as it is.

So if a person is an athiest that means they clearly must be purely self-serving and have no intrest in doing anything to help the world.

Now I can just about gauentee there are a fair share of Christians who do nothing with thier life but sit on thier ass not helping anybody

12:43 AM - 1/21/2007 - comments {3} - post comment

God vs Pegasus

Many of us are famillar with those philosphical type questions that really are quite impossible to asnwer, the little ones, like for instance the first two that come to my mind is, the old how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or can God create a rock that even he cannot lift? Well in one of my late night thinkings I have developed one of my own.

What is the differance between God and Pegasus?

And well it does not have to be Pegasus in specific but that is sort of a symbol of all things mythological, it might at face vaule seem like a silly question but if you really think about it, what answer can one possibly give? There is nothing solid or tangiable that anyone could point at that would in fact give God more validity over Pegasus.

The reason people in this day and age do not belive in Pegasus is for one becasue the idea of such a creature seems physcaly impossible, there is no hard core evidence, no bones, or any other such things that can prove that such a creatue had at one time exsisted, and no one has seen one, at least not as far as we know in this day and age have thier been reports of any Pegasus sightings. But the reason why we even know what Pegasus is, is becasue at one point in time there were people that reported having seen such a creature but the is no proff to say that is really what they saw or if in fact they had seen something that did not yet understand or have a name for and so dubbed it Pegasus.

Well if you read all of the above but replaced the word Pegasus with God, well it really would not change all that much, for the same could be said equally as true. Of course religous people will try to refer to the bible as proof of God, but that is an invalid argument, for one thing it was writtian by men, men who lived in the very same time peirod that belived in Pegasus. And well just as people can try to point to the bible as proof so can I find text that makes refrence to the

10:49 PM - 1/18/2007 - comments {0} - post comment

Animal Nature vs. Human Nature

I have heard the argument before that monogamy is purely a human concept and ideal that does not in fact acutally exist and is not natural, but something humans have created out of some sense of need and that it is really irrational for a person to really exepct two people to stay together only with that one person for the rest of thier life, and of course the monogamy goes against basic nature is an excuse that I have heard used by cheaters, but this is all a bunch of marleky and so I thought I would debunk this sorry attempt for an excuse and get a few things clear, as I am quite tired of people using the "its not natural" excuse for things, when that is complete nonsense and the person does not know what they are talking about.

Animals are infact more like people then one would think, or perhaps it is the other way around, and it is people that are more like animals then they would like to admit, and just like in humans, in the animal kingdom there are those whom are sutited to from monogmous pairs, and those that are not suited for it, but indeed monogmoy is very much a part of nature.

For startes nearly every single bird species with perhaps a few exceptions here and there form monogamous pairs in which they choose one partner whom they will remain with for the rest of thier life, in fact there is even one speicies of bird, of which I wish I could remeber exzactly which one, but it slips my mind at the moment, whom, once it has taken on a mate, not only is it monogamous but if its mate should die or be killed the surviving bird will never take another mate again. And here is an intresting fact, one of the animals that is seen as perhaps the most primal and has some of the oldest roots, the crocidile does in fact live in monogomous parings. 2 crocodiles will infact stay mated to each other for the rest of thier life.

If anything, it is infact cheating that is a human created ideal, for as far as I know cheating does not exsist in nature. Animals that are not inclined to mongomy go about it in a couple of different ways, for one there are many speicies of anaimals that get together only around mating season, in order to reproduce and then part ways, in some cases the pair might stay together untill after the young if born and ready to take care of itself, and the male will remain to help take care of the female and thier offspring and then they will part to both find new partners for the next mating season, and in other cases after the female is inpregnated the male will instantly leave, or be chased away in some cases by the female.

Or in the case of pack animals such as elephants, lions, and certain seals, they will have a harem structure in which there is one alpha male whom is not bounded to a particular female but mates among all of them freely, or in the case of wolves, they have what might be called an open monogamy, in which the alpha male will take on a mate to be the alpha remale, and he will stay bonded to her the rest of his life, but now and then might mate with some of the other females in the pack, but it is not done behind the alpha females back, it is not as if the alpha male sneaks off in the woods with another female to have an affair, it is all done in plain view with the alpaha remales full awanress.

In fact as far as I know, thare are no animals in the animal kingdom as far as I know other then humans  that will form a so called monogmous paring with another, and then against the knowlege of its mate, make an effort to sneak away in order to make with other males or females while remaining "bonded" to another.

11:20 AM - 11/29/2006 - comments {0} - post comment

Depression

There was something that I was reading in a forum I belong to that kind of got me thinking. As someone who has to deal with manic depression I can have very little sympathy for people who are depressed of claim to be depressed, and I know at first that might sound like a bit of a paradox, becasue I have been through it and I know what it feels like, but that is exzaxtly why I feel the way I do, and I will explain myself a bit.

As someone whom struggles with depression I know its temptations and it can be easy to give into at times, it is a tool that can be used, for in truth sometimes it is a lot easier to just be depressed and wallow in your self-pity as well as try to feed off the pity of others as a way to gain attention then to pull yourself up and give yourself a good kick in the ass and get over it. And it can be done, though a person cannot always help if they are depressed, though in some cases it really is all in a persons own mind, you can choose weather or not you are going to stay depressed. People who need to take pills or go to the docotor or seek help, it is becasue they make either a concious or sub-concious choice to just give up and do not even try and they lack will power.

There are bascialy 2 different type of people when it comes to depression those that really do not want that to intrude upon thier life, and know it is something they have to deal with, but are able to take a step back and recgonize thier own irrationality and say I am not going to let this dictate my life, and I want to live, and face it head on,  and those that just feed into it and make the choice that they are incapable of dealing with it.

And I know because I have been on both sides of the coin, and I have been that person that has decided that I was depressed and that there was nothing I could do about it, and woe is me, but then I woke up and realized it did not have to be that way and I could acutally do something about it if I took some incitive and got over the pity and stopped just trying to garnish sympathy and attention from people

8:06 AM - 11/11/2006 - comments {1} - post comment

Amore

Ahh Love, it is only fitting that I take a moment to dedicate a post to the subject. What is Love? Is that not the question man has asked since he first discovered love? It is the inspiration of some of the greastes prose and poetry. The subject of lieature, art, movies, TV, music, and song. It is perhaps one of the most sought after and desired yet untangable things there is. Perhaps it is not for everyone, but it is the one thing so many of us seek, and yet which of us can really cliam to understand it? It is undesicrable, undefinable. And yet we all seem to have this instinct or intuition, this faith that we will know it, that we can feel it. Even though we cannot see it, taste it, touch it or here it. We try to put into words, but often only capture a dim shade of it.

There are so many different types of love, and it can be felt in so many ways, yet we cannot truly catagroize or classify it, it is just something we know. We feel it differently. There is family love, love of friends, and even in Romantic and more Intimate love there are different degress of it, even from person to person. Those we have encoutered and enaged with, we have loved each of them in different ways. No two loves are ever really alike.

Where does love even come from? Nobody truly knows. Is it born of the mind? Of the soul? The heart?

The dicitionary defines love as :

1 a (1) : strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties <maternal love for a child> (2) : attraction based on sexual desire : affection and tenderness felt by lovers (3) : affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests <love for his old schoolmates> b : an assurance of love <give her my love>
2 : warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion <love of the sea>
3 a : the object of attachment, devotion, or admiration <baseball was his first love> b (1) : a beloved person : DARLING -- often used as a term of endearment (2) British -- used as an informal term of address
4 a : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another: as (1) : the fatherly concern of God for humankind (2) : brotherly concern for others b : a person's adoration of God
5 : a god or personification of love
6 : an amorous episode : LOVE AFFAIR
7 : the sexual embrace : COPULATION

Now in some ways it seems absurb that the word would even be in the dicitionary to begin with, how can this book, this gathering of words know what love is when no one else does? Hold the secerets that we have never been able to answer and unlock. Granted all of these things might describe love, what we feel in love. How we think of love, but is it really what Love is?

There is something almost devine about love. Something etheral, much like fate of destiny. Love has been grandizied, and villified. It has been a heroine, and a demise. Can anything else arise such strong emotions of both positivitity and negativity and often simotanously?

Is there anything else that is so mysterious, so unknown, so enigmatic that has become so much a part of myth and legend? That people have both been willing to kill for and die for. That has both given the will to live, and taken it away?

Is there anything else that has had the ablity to cross so many boundries. The things people have done in the name of Love, things a person perhaps would never before consider to do, but were dirven by this foce, that seems to hold us in such a strong grip.

Ineed I think that perhaps we are in fact in love with Love.

7:54 PM - 10/10/2006 - comments {0} - post comment

If you could turn back the clock

On the raido earlier today they were talking about is you could go back in time, speicialy to college or highschool what would you do differenently knowing what you do now?

This is an intresting question, and I am sure that everyone has things which they wish they could change or wish they could have done differenently. It is natural to think that I should have done this, or would have done that, wheather it is regaurding, how you behaved in school, how much you studied, or your social interactions, and relationships, and things you may have done, or wish you had did and so on.

But I would have to say, that in the end, when it comes down to it if given the oppertunity I am not sure I would change anything, this is not becasue I think that I did everything perfectly or that I don't think things could have been done differenetly, or that I wouldn't have done them differently if I was then who I am now, but the reason why I wouldn't go back and do them differently if given the chance, is becasue I think, all the things that we were, and all the experinces we had, and the mistakes we might have made, and all the things, for good or bad that was a part of who we were are what make us who we are now.

And perhaps some of you are not happy with your current posistions and perhaps some of you would not mind a chance to sctrach and start completely over, but I for one though even now my life is not perfect I do not think I would want to risk altering the things I have now, and the person I am now.

I think if a person could go back and relive thier life, or a peice of it and alter and change the experinces they have had, there stands the chance that in the end they would end up being a different person then they are now, and with that, I think that perhaps some of the people who might have touched thier lives or might now be a part of thier lives would never have been met and certain paths never crossed.

I have always been a beliver in holding no regrets, though we might all make mistakes or do things we wish he had not, instead of living in regret for these things, we should look at them as a period of learning, and as another process to the development and evolution of who we are, and who we may yet to become.

7:54 AM - 10/10/2006 - comments {0} - post comment

Religon in Child Rearing

Something I was reading in another blog got me thinking about the place of relgion in child-rearing. It is a perfectly natural and understandable feeling that if a person should belong to a relgion, any religion and feel strongly about it whatever it might be they will want to teach it to thier childern and have thier childern come to cheerish it as much as they do, but I am not certain this is in fact the best idea. I belive that a person most take a step back though it might be difficult to do so. I would think that most parents, would want thier childern to grow up with the ability to think for themelves and make up thier own minds and be unique invididuals who do not just follow what other people say, but question things and explore and develop, and yet when a child is given pre-pacakaged relgious ideas from a very young age, that is the very oppisiste of that. I think relgion is a journay each person must be allowed to take upon thier own within thier own mind and soul, ultimately I do not think a person should be forced or brian washed to any beleif. Nor should thier exploration of spiritualty by hampered by any mental baggage.

Childeren should not be really imbued with any religon, for one thing they did not really understand, and for another I do not think it is mentally healty. It is possible for one to teach the vulaues of thier religon without acutally teaching the philosophies and theologies behind it. I was rasied in a household where there was no religon to speak of, not to say my family was athiest, but it just was not something my parents tought to the childern whatever theye beleived in, they allowed thier childern to find thier own spiritual paths. I remeber when I was younger I had this vauge concept of God and some masculine singular being that was suppose to be the creater and ruler of all, becasue one cannot help but to be exposed to such in outside influences, but it never quite felt right to me and I never really grasped this concept or accepeted it as truth for me. I always felt a natural draw to nature and at night would sometimes talk to the moon, or I would address Mother Nature as if it were a living entiity. I remember when I was young I sort of grudingly accpeted God becasue I did not know there was any other options, but it never felt right or true. Then it was not untill I was in highschool when I became aware of Paganisim and found that was what my calling truly was.

When I think of how many people I have met whom were brought up in very strong Christain and Catholic familes, and how many of them after growing up have renouneced those beleifs, were also left with feelings of angst towrd them and feel a negitivity to these religons, and I cannot help but to wonder if this is not in part to do with the fact then when they were too young to really know any better were force fed such ideology.

My sister now is a new mother and she has choosen the Pagan path as myself and she is debating now what she should do about the relgious question, becasue she dosen't really want to brain wash her child into having to accept her own beleifs, but she wants to teach the Pagan vaules of being respetful to nature and enviromentaly responseable and comtrable and caring to animals, as well she knows her child will be exposed to religons that she dosen't agree with.

8:18 AM - 8/17/2006 - comments {0} - post comment

Quote of the Week: It is because of men that women dislike one another--Jean de La Bruyere

ShadowEyes
Eternal Catharsis
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
Holla Back
My Deviant Art
My Cafe Press Store
Bold, Beautiful, and Big
Internet Movie Database
Responsible Traveling
Ethical Traveling
Green Weddings
Eco-Friendly Sking and Snowboarding
Keep Winter Cool
Green Resorts
Beyond the Mystery
The Pen is Mighty
The Spiders Den
The Poetry Forum
The Literature Forum
Beyond Truth
Frederick W. Cook



Recent Entries
- Brave One
- Quote of the Week
- Bit By Bit
- International Liteature - Update
- Sun Child




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




Friends
- JournalHome
- troutdude
- DAWNIE
- kaymbl0403
- Heather
- silvermelusine
- Fightingfemale
- LandsdownLad
- dutchboy
- pykimconant
- inamorata
- Realove
- sweetlydisturbed
- imagination999
- SilverWynd
- lobond
- DarthTsynn
- StarrSilverMoon
- shokat99
- sweet2pinkash
- LadySilverMoon
- glorydreamer386
- 5489
- TheSeraphim
- enelda





Visit www.hostdrjack.com




www.hostdrjack.com




Visit www.hostdrjack.com




Visit www.hostdrjack.com









Visit www.hostdrjack.com