www.hostdrjack.com
| Labyrinth of the Mind |
What Christianity and Communism have in commonUpon 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. 9:05 AM - 11/13/2008 - comments {0} - post commentWhen We Are HistoryAs 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." 3:09 PM - 10/16/2008 - comments {0} - post commentPersonal ReponsibilityI 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. 9:10 PM - 10/14/2008 - comments {2} - post commentTake the Bad with the Good or None At AllThe 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? 11:53 AM - 8/17/2008 - comments {0} - post commentContemplation of the AbsurdAs 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 commentLand of the CowardsAfter 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 commentNatures LawThis 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 commentThe (un)importance of HellI 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 commentThe Quest for the ElixirSicence 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. 11:25 AM - 10/10/2007 - comments {0} - post commentExtra PartsWell 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"
8:48 AM - 6/23/2007 - comments {2} - post commentCycle of LifeThis 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. 11:34 AM - 6/11/2007 - comments {2} - post commentQuestion to SkepticsOk 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? 5:15 PM - 6/4/2007 - comments {0} - post commentClownsI 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. 9:16 PM - 4/26/2007 - comments {0} - post commentOur love affair with foodFood 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. 6:23 PM - 4/10/2007 - comments {1} - post commentAnimals as the Famillar is DisneyI 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 commentA study in cleavageI 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 commentDeath
Today I am going to talk about Death, not the act itself but rather the figure of Death, or what most of us know as The Grim Reaper. It is not hard to imagine that I have always had a certain fascination with The Grim Reaper, given my dark and perhaps sometimes morbid nature, and there are many different ideas, representations and feelings attached to Death. To some he is cast a villainous figure to be feared and hated, he is seen as the taker of life, as it is right there in his name Death, and there are many examples of people attempted to try to elude death, combat death, trick death as if Death were an enemy to be defeated, though ultimately is the unavoidable, perhaps possibly postponed for a time, but then there are those that do seek to escape death altogether in quests for immortality, which still exists today though no longer is it a search for some magic artifact, or sacred fountain or spell, or wish, that will grant immortality, but it is science and medicine, and the quest to seek a cure to everything and prolong life for as long as possible. A seek to wipe out anything that could result in death, old age itself is being combated though it cannot be stopped.
I have never seen Death, The Grim Reaper in this light before, and I have always believe that he is falsely villianized and rather misunderstood. For one I do not see the role of Death, despite the name, to truly be to cause or bring about the event/act of death. Too many times I think the Grim Reaper is seen as the actual ultimate killer. But death the act itself is not an entity, it is not personifebale, it is an event, a stage of life which happens on its own accord and would happen Grim Reaper or no. Rather the Grim Reaper, Death the enitiy comes after death the event has already done its work to gather the soul. I see Death as truly representing transition. He reaps the soul after the body has already passed, not for the sake of causing the bodies passage, and guides it to insure that it does end up where it belongs and does not get lost in the process.
   The most common, image and personification of death today is the imagery of a skeletal figure in a black hooded cloak carrying a scythe, it cannot be pin pointed exactly where, when or how this particular image came to be, if it did in fact origin from one particular place, but it is easy to see the symbolism the surrounds the figure and it is not hard to imagine how that image came to be so well associated with death.
For one you have the black cloak which bear a resemblance to the robes of priests, which particularly historically it is not hard to imagine how a priest might have a strong association to death. For one they were the ones to actually oversee the process of death. They would be the ones to come and read the last rights to the dying, and then carry out the funeral ceremony, as well they could be seen as shepherds to the soul, such as the Grim Reaper is. And of course the skeletal frame of the reaper is representation of the corpse, and the scythe is a tool that was used for the reaping of the harvest and so it is the tool of the Grim Reaper who reaps and harvests our souls.
Before the Grim Reaper would come upon the scene or at least this imagery of him which is so familiar to us today there have been others whom have filled the same role which his seen as his now. Perhaps the most familiar of these is Charon the ferryman of Greek Mythology whom bore the souls of the dead safely across the River Styx.
    Perhaps one of the most interesting figures, because of the fact that they are not readily associated with death as Charon is or the Grim Reaper, and yet still bore the same burdensome task, without having to suffer such morbid, and in some cases negative associations are the Valkyrie whom have in fact been cast in a more glamorous and magnificent light. Of course the Valkyrie are the beautiful and strong women of Odin who sweep down upon winged horses to carry away the souls of those who died in battle and bare them up to Vallaha.
   Unlike with modern day representations of the Grim Reaper, and the rather bleak figure of Charon, the Valkyrie were honored, and in fact there was a certain bliss in the thought of being took by them. They were not feared but rather glorified.
Another interesting aspect is in animals that are commonly used to represent death or are viewed in being connected to death in someway, are given the power to trespass from this world into the other world. Not surpassingly many of these animals are scavengers and carrion eaters. The most popular is the Crow and or Raven, these birds have many different emotions and significance attributed to them. In some they are seen as a bad omen, where Death is seen as a villain, these birds are also recognized as being wicked but to others they are scared animals that should be honored. Coyotes and Wolves much like Ravens and Crows also have garnered mixed feelings and associations, and they too bear certain associations with death and the spirit world, like their fowl friends, they also can play the role of scavenger and carrion eater, but another interesting feat of these animals is the fact they can be both night, and day walkers, found in both light. This could by seen as symbolic of their ability to pass between both worlds as well.
   Last but not least I cannot go without speaking of the infamous Death card within a Tarot deck, and this is a subject I have touched upon before. So commonly this card is used as the universal sign in movies and on TV as bad omens, and of evil, as much like the figure of Death himself, it has been vastly mistunderstood and mistaken. The Death card is too often attriubuted to the event and act of death itself, which is false, as the Death card acutaly id a dipicition and represensation of the figure of Death, or the Grim Reaper, which is a sperate thing from the event of death. So much like The Grim Reaper, the Death card in in fact a symbol of transformation and change, not of acutal physical death. It does not predict nor cause death, but acts as a guide to help move from one phast into another, as so does the Grim Reasper.
Here are a few additional images of Death I thought were worth sharing, and each in thier own way showed a different aspect of Death
  
  3:57 PM - 2/25/2007 - comments {0} - post commentAtheisim is not a diseaseSeriously 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 commentGod vs PegasusMany 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 Pegasus, myths and legends which refer to the creature. And there really is no rational and logical way a person can argue that the bible is somehow a more valid source then any work of mythology. The fact that "you belive it is true" does not really count as an argument.
There is also the matter which has always fascinated me, about the fact that it was not just one isolated area that believed in Pegasus and other assorted creatures of myth, but rather cultures from all over the globe have had thier own such simillar creatures and thier own simillar myths.
And really if you think about it, this almost serves as one point in favor of Pegasus and one point against God as far as validity goes on account of the fact that God, or the beleif in him did start in one central area and was then imposed upon other people, it was not a common beleif that everyone seemed to share independtly of, but one that people were forced into acceptence of and one which poeple had to spread the word to others about.
But as far as I know, there was not any one group of person traveling all over to inform people about the exisitince of
Pegasus and to try and get them to accept it, but rather it seems many of our creatures of myths seemed to be collectivly beleived in by many different people without the influence of others upon them. 10:49 PM - 1/18/2007 - comments {0} - post commentAnimal Nature vs. Human NatureI 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
|
 Quote of the Week: Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted ~ Italian Proverb
Home User Profile Archives Friends My Wall  ShadowEyes The Aristos 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 The Spiders Den The Poetry Forum The Literature Forum Frederick W. Cook Good Reads Deconstruction of Kamikaze Kurt The Mystics Dream Timeless Visions Darwin Awards 
Recent Entries - Nice of You to Show - Fairy Spirit - Sweet Nightingale - Lady Moon - Unleashed 
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 - Roots - Raw - Humur - Photography 
Friends - JournalHome - troutdude - DAWNIE - kaymbl0403 - Heather - silvermelusine - Fightingfemale - LandsdownLad - dutchboy - pykimconant - inamorata - Realove - sweetlydisturbed - imagination999 - SilverWynd - lobond - DarthTsynn - YankeeInnkeeper - StarrSilverMoon - shokat99 - sweet2pinkash - LadySilverMoon - glorydreamer386 - 5489 - TheSeraphim - enelda - Zachtin - visitor - thecolumn 
 Visit www.hostdrjack.com 
 www.hostdrjack.com 
 Visit www.hostdrjack.com 
 Visit www.hostdrjack.com 
 
 Visit www.hostdrjack.com 
|
