Monday, May 10, 2010
Ramblings on being
Thought I might get a bit off subject, not that there is a subject; but, off subject none the less. We tend to focus on things, sometimes this is good, sometimes we need to step back and focus less, that is where impressionism comes from.
We live in the trappings of a material world. As we "grow up" (the few of us who choose to) we begin to self define. Some of us never move past the material, intellect and spiritual and philosophical are ignored by them. I dated a woman, a very nice woman, and she detested philosophy. She was completely material, not greedy, not selfish, not corrupt, just material. If she could not see it, she did not wish to think about it.
Oh, I should mention, the woman grew up in communist Russia. Russia taught its people to be only about the here and now. Russian children, in Soviet Russia, were taught that there was no right or wrong morally; but, that right and wrong were physical things. I did not explain that well.
Bill Maher is a perfect example of the philosophy. We are born and we die. He claims what comes next simply does not matter to him. He would say that we cannot know, so it does not matter and he does not care. Actually, he has said just that.
Wish such a belief set, what type of life would one live? Simple, get what you can, don't worry about later and morals are whatever is convenient. They would wonder why they should have any restrictions except those for safety from others. A "you only go around once, grab all the gusto you can" alcoholic type of philosophy.
I cannot understand the intellectual laziness that is behind such beliefs. I exist, you exist and what our lives mean is important. We are important even if we only live for a moment. We have value and our experience and others experience has value. In the end, whether we live for a minute or eternity, our self definition is unique and beautiful and ours. It is the only thing we have that we can create, ourselves. If we choose to be meaningless than we are.
Some choose to attempt to understand their own existence. This would be a prerequisite to understanding anything in this world. How can we understand anything, if we do not understand it's context to us and of us? As long as we are alive, isn't the question of why and of it's value of some worth and effort?
I choose to question whether or not we have meaning and then attempt to determine and define what my meaning is. On the most fundamental level we are a collection of changing emotions. Some are pleasant and some are painful. Both prove that we exist and have meaning. At a minimum we have meaning to ourselves. If we grow, we can look at what that meaning is.
Many would say that the most fundamental aspect that can be known is pleasure and pain. I would disagree, the most fundamental aspect is that we can know both, experience anything whether perceived or real, we still experience. That is powerful and something that rocks and the earth cannot do.
The fact that we can experience makes us the most important things in the universe, more important than the universe itself for if there is no sentient being to experience the universe than the universe cannot have meaning. A flower than can never be seen may have beauty but it does not matter. You see, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if there is no beholder than there is no beauty.
We create beauty by being capable of observing beauty. Pretty powerful. Our interaction and understanding of the world brings out what could not exist without us, meaning and beauty. We, at our most basic, are meaning generators, each of us individually is a meaning generator.
As we exist and understand we are meaningful, we can begin to attempt to put our lives in context. To see ourselves as part of something larger. We can begin to see that the material is merely a representation of reality, our awareness attempting to experience whatever is. Our ability to see does not change objects, merely our awareness of what we perceive.
If I am color blind, it does not change the object, merely my ability to fully perceive what is around me. Helen Keller could not see; however, she felt the tables and chairs she bumped into. The unseen chairs were still there. Refusal to see what is around us does not stop it from existing.
See, I have gone from the "real" (stock market, pensions, corruption) to the "real" (our experience). Some would say that just because we exist does not mean that anything has meaning. I disagree, I have meaning, at a minimum I have meaning to me and you have meaning to you. We have meaning, rocks do not.
Because my experience has meaning, I have the right to define myself, by defining myself, I increase the meaning of my life, I have that power and right. We define ourselves by determining what choices we will make and for what purpose we will make them. That becomes the definition of what we truly are.
I am not defined by my experiences, I am defined by my choices. I do not give up control over my choices or my reasons for them. My choices evolve overtime. My self-definition also evolves as I learn from my experiences. I do not have to make the same mistakes for eternity, I can find new ones.
That is the beginning of context. Growth, I can evolve, rocks cannot. Computers cannot attain sentience, they lack the ability to be aware. That is a problem for technology, it has no meaning outside of us. If a tree falls in the woods and no sentient being hears it then no sound was made, only sound vibrations. Sound requires an observer.
So, once again, we return to the issue of context. If I exist, which I am pretty sure I do, and I have meaning (which I do because I choose to) then the question of context becomes critical to growing in my understanding of my meaning and myself.
I can choose to ignore the God question and eternity, I can choose to believe that I am all that exists, which is insanity or I can choose to believe that my experience which is equally insane or I can choose to attempt to understand and define my context.
If I recognize I exist, hard to avoid that one, then I must, if I have any sense, attempt to determine what I am and why I am here. Some would argue I just am, that is rather childish and lazy. I am and I can choose a reason for being therefore I can choose to be here for a reason. I create reason, the universe cannot, and so can you.
Oh, this particular post if for a friend of mine named Chris. I hope he enjoys it, others are welcome to get from it whatever they choose. I do not have to be materialistic, realistic or any istic. I can choose to go from the "real" to the "really important".
A week ago I said the market would crash and get volatile. It did and that was a fairly "material", "physical" type of prediction. Sometimes I wish to talk about what has real meaning, you know our lives, our existence, our emotions, us.
If the only thing that I can be absolutely sure exists is me then how can I begin to believe that I can stop existing? Based on what? For the Bill Maher's of the world, I ask this question. What possible fricking proof can anyone provide me that I do not continue to exist? None. Based on their weak and flawed logic they cannot prove anything and accept anything. I can prove to myself that I exist, that is a starting point. They have none.
I shall simplify the argument for learning, understanding and growth. Prove to me that you do not exist. If you can do that then belief sets based on nonsense can be proven to me. Enjoy.
We live in the trappings of a material world. As we "grow up" (the few of us who choose to) we begin to self define. Some of us never move past the material, intellect and spiritual and philosophical are ignored by them. I dated a woman, a very nice woman, and she detested philosophy. She was completely material, not greedy, not selfish, not corrupt, just material. If she could not see it, she did not wish to think about it.
Oh, I should mention, the woman grew up in communist Russia. Russia taught its people to be only about the here and now. Russian children, in Soviet Russia, were taught that there was no right or wrong morally; but, that right and wrong were physical things. I did not explain that well.
Bill Maher is a perfect example of the philosophy. We are born and we die. He claims what comes next simply does not matter to him. He would say that we cannot know, so it does not matter and he does not care. Actually, he has said just that.
Wish such a belief set, what type of life would one live? Simple, get what you can, don't worry about later and morals are whatever is convenient. They would wonder why they should have any restrictions except those for safety from others. A "you only go around once, grab all the gusto you can" alcoholic type of philosophy.
I cannot understand the intellectual laziness that is behind such beliefs. I exist, you exist and what our lives mean is important. We are important even if we only live for a moment. We have value and our experience and others experience has value. In the end, whether we live for a minute or eternity, our self definition is unique and beautiful and ours. It is the only thing we have that we can create, ourselves. If we choose to be meaningless than we are.
Some choose to attempt to understand their own existence. This would be a prerequisite to understanding anything in this world. How can we understand anything, if we do not understand it's context to us and of us? As long as we are alive, isn't the question of why and of it's value of some worth and effort?
I choose to question whether or not we have meaning and then attempt to determine and define what my meaning is. On the most fundamental level we are a collection of changing emotions. Some are pleasant and some are painful. Both prove that we exist and have meaning. At a minimum we have meaning to ourselves. If we grow, we can look at what that meaning is.
Many would say that the most fundamental aspect that can be known is pleasure and pain. I would disagree, the most fundamental aspect is that we can know both, experience anything whether perceived or real, we still experience. That is powerful and something that rocks and the earth cannot do.
The fact that we can experience makes us the most important things in the universe, more important than the universe itself for if there is no sentient being to experience the universe than the universe cannot have meaning. A flower than can never be seen may have beauty but it does not matter. You see, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if there is no beholder than there is no beauty.
We create beauty by being capable of observing beauty. Pretty powerful. Our interaction and understanding of the world brings out what could not exist without us, meaning and beauty. We, at our most basic, are meaning generators, each of us individually is a meaning generator.
As we exist and understand we are meaningful, we can begin to attempt to put our lives in context. To see ourselves as part of something larger. We can begin to see that the material is merely a representation of reality, our awareness attempting to experience whatever is. Our ability to see does not change objects, merely our awareness of what we perceive.
If I am color blind, it does not change the object, merely my ability to fully perceive what is around me. Helen Keller could not see; however, she felt the tables and chairs she bumped into. The unseen chairs were still there. Refusal to see what is around us does not stop it from existing.
See, I have gone from the "real" (stock market, pensions, corruption) to the "real" (our experience). Some would say that just because we exist does not mean that anything has meaning. I disagree, I have meaning, at a minimum I have meaning to me and you have meaning to you. We have meaning, rocks do not.
Because my experience has meaning, I have the right to define myself, by defining myself, I increase the meaning of my life, I have that power and right. We define ourselves by determining what choices we will make and for what purpose we will make them. That becomes the definition of what we truly are.
I am not defined by my experiences, I am defined by my choices. I do not give up control over my choices or my reasons for them. My choices evolve overtime. My self-definition also evolves as I learn from my experiences. I do not have to make the same mistakes for eternity, I can find new ones.
That is the beginning of context. Growth, I can evolve, rocks cannot. Computers cannot attain sentience, they lack the ability to be aware. That is a problem for technology, it has no meaning outside of us. If a tree falls in the woods and no sentient being hears it then no sound was made, only sound vibrations. Sound requires an observer.
So, once again, we return to the issue of context. If I exist, which I am pretty sure I do, and I have meaning (which I do because I choose to) then the question of context becomes critical to growing in my understanding of my meaning and myself.
I can choose to ignore the God question and eternity, I can choose to believe that I am all that exists, which is insanity or I can choose to believe that my experience which is equally insane or I can choose to attempt to understand and define my context.
If I recognize I exist, hard to avoid that one, then I must, if I have any sense, attempt to determine what I am and why I am here. Some would argue I just am, that is rather childish and lazy. I am and I can choose a reason for being therefore I can choose to be here for a reason. I create reason, the universe cannot, and so can you.
Oh, this particular post if for a friend of mine named Chris. I hope he enjoys it, others are welcome to get from it whatever they choose. I do not have to be materialistic, realistic or any istic. I can choose to go from the "real" to the "really important".
A week ago I said the market would crash and get volatile. It did and that was a fairly "material", "physical" type of prediction. Sometimes I wish to talk about what has real meaning, you know our lives, our existence, our emotions, us.
If the only thing that I can be absolutely sure exists is me then how can I begin to believe that I can stop existing? Based on what? For the Bill Maher's of the world, I ask this question. What possible fricking proof can anyone provide me that I do not continue to exist? None. Based on their weak and flawed logic they cannot prove anything and accept anything. I can prove to myself that I exist, that is a starting point. They have none.
I shall simplify the argument for learning, understanding and growth. Prove to me that you do not exist. If you can do that then belief sets based on nonsense can be proven to me. Enjoy.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
NATO in Russia
On the anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, NATO forces joined Russian forces in a parade in Red Square. This is highly unusual and upset many in Russia. Imagine having 11,000 Russian and Chinese troops marching in front of the White House to celebrate the defeat of Germany. That is a lot of foreign troops.
March in Russia
March in Russia
New Currency
You might find this video interesting. It has the Russian president discussing and showing a new one world currency to be used in addition to regional currencies.
Ooohhh, new money
Now, you might not understand what the impact of a single currency is. I will attempt to explain. It allows an international body, such as the UN or the World Trade Organization or most likely the World Bank to set the rate for certain goods and services. You might want to investigate the concept of a Value Added Tax.
If we have a single international monetary standard then the question of valuation is critical. Is one hour of physical labor by an American equivalent to that of an Argentinian? We don't get paid the same. What occurs when you have an international minimum wage?
I hope you begin to understand what the impacts of a "standardized" currency are. It will redistribute wealth. It leads towards making all live by the same standards, brings down the west and up the third world. On one level this is probably the right thing to do; but, not in this manner.
A standardized currency does not result in a standardized price for goods. The cost of production is not the same for all countries because of technology, transportation and availability of resources. This is to say that countries with higher technology and more resources will be able to build products cheaper; but, the workers will get the same pay. The extra goes to the companies and governments. Get it?
This may all be too abstract for most people. I apologize and will attempt to simplify. A standardized valuation of all currencies means that everyone loses unless they are the people who own everything already.
You will see a major push for a new "reserve currency", it has already begun. It will be an international currency and regional currencies values will be determined by it. The new currencies will be needed to stabilize the international monetary crisis. In creating their valuation, international debt will be lessened, this is the cookie. Sort of like starting over with a clean slate. America will love it because of our multi-trillion dollars of debt and so will every other country because of theirs.
UPDATE
After writing the above I was reading a newspaper from Tokyo. In the opinion section was an interesting article regarding the Euro. It said that in order to have a successful shared currency, they should have a shared policy on taxes and closer coordination of police. LOL. Read the article and understand the next step after having a regional currency.
The real Greek crisis
It is all so amusingly intended to prod people into riots. Worked on the Greeks, consider the tea party movement here. The news is fed to you, you think you get it and instead find out that the choice of moves you thought you had was wrong. We are fed our choices and want to be on the winning side rather than do right. If we make our choices based on what we want more rather than doing right, we will always do wrong.
Ooohhh, new money
Now, you might not understand what the impact of a single currency is. I will attempt to explain. It allows an international body, such as the UN or the World Trade Organization or most likely the World Bank to set the rate for certain goods and services. You might want to investigate the concept of a Value Added Tax.
If we have a single international monetary standard then the question of valuation is critical. Is one hour of physical labor by an American equivalent to that of an Argentinian? We don't get paid the same. What occurs when you have an international minimum wage?
I hope you begin to understand what the impacts of a "standardized" currency are. It will redistribute wealth. It leads towards making all live by the same standards, brings down the west and up the third world. On one level this is probably the right thing to do; but, not in this manner.
A standardized currency does not result in a standardized price for goods. The cost of production is not the same for all countries because of technology, transportation and availability of resources. This is to say that countries with higher technology and more resources will be able to build products cheaper; but, the workers will get the same pay. The extra goes to the companies and governments. Get it?
This may all be too abstract for most people. I apologize and will attempt to simplify. A standardized valuation of all currencies means that everyone loses unless they are the people who own everything already.
You will see a major push for a new "reserve currency", it has already begun. It will be an international currency and regional currencies values will be determined by it. The new currencies will be needed to stabilize the international monetary crisis. In creating their valuation, international debt will be lessened, this is the cookie. Sort of like starting over with a clean slate. America will love it because of our multi-trillion dollars of debt and so will every other country because of theirs.
UPDATE
After writing the above I was reading a newspaper from Tokyo. In the opinion section was an interesting article regarding the Euro. It said that in order to have a successful shared currency, they should have a shared policy on taxes and closer coordination of police. LOL. Read the article and understand the next step after having a regional currency.
The real Greek crisis
It is all so amusingly intended to prod people into riots. Worked on the Greeks, consider the tea party movement here. The news is fed to you, you think you get it and instead find out that the choice of moves you thought you had was wrong. We are fed our choices and want to be on the winning side rather than do right. If we make our choices based on what we want more rather than doing right, we will always do wrong.
Friday, May 7, 2010
High Treason
I like the Constitution. I like it a lot, it is a marvelously thought out document. I liked it so much that I got my law degree and was awarded the American Jurisprudence Award in Constitutional law. It is such a shame that we don't bother using it anymore. We are certainly in for penalties because of our failure to follow it.
Hillary Clinton is in charge of the State Department. The State Department wants to put out a bill that would make it possible for them to remove your citizenship if you belong to certain organizations. She thinks the bill might be good idea. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and should know the constitution.
The chatter over the net regarding this is pitiful. There are some who are saying that it only applies to naturalized citizens (foreign born people who become citizens). That attitude misses the point. It is not about sending them back to where they came from, it is about denying them access to the courts and due process.
The Constitution was meant not to be a privilege; but, outlines how we the people wish to be treated. Rousseau, a great philosopher, decried the horrid nature of French society before the revolution by saying that all men were born free, yet men were in chains all around him.
What rights are different for citizens. I mean, how should we treat non-citizens. Someone comes to America from England on vacation, if they have a car accident, should they be treated different. What rights do we expect when we travel to Europe? Perhaps if you are unbiased you will begin to see the real question.
Look, we treat citizens and non-citizens the same in the courts. This is not about citizens rights. It would separate rights between the "bad guys", terrorists and the good guys. Once the government declared you a bad guy, you lose all rights. They don't have to let a court determine if you are guilty. To propose such a law is treason.
The founding fathers believed in basic human rights. They called them unalienable rights, rights that nobody and no government could take away. They believed these rights were God given, not man given and not from the government, God given. I believe they are.
Hillary the Traitor
The whole ploy by the State Department is disgusting. The idea is to attempt to get people to see it as an us versus them while giving over basic human rights to the government. A government of the government, by the government and for the government. This is the antithesis of the Constitution. One that she swore to uphold and regards with such disdain. Filth.
There was a reason that the founding fathers wrote down certain rights. The right to not having police and military come into your house without having to show a third party, a judge, that they had a reason to go there. A valid reason. This is the right to not have the government come into your house just because they want to look around. Pretty basic thing.
The founding fathers also said that if you arrested someone, you had to bring them before a judge and say why. The person was to be given a reason in public so that others could make sure they did not live in a fricking totalitarian state. Pretty simple, not burdensome on government.
Wake the Xuck up. People deserve to be treated fairly and we cannot trust governments to do so, they have their own agendas. How hard is it to take someone before a judge and have to say why you arrested them?
Look at how silly the proposed law is. If you are a foreigner and kill your neighbor, you get to go to court. If you are a citizen and they "think" you may be a terrorist you can be denied any rights and no judge will be allowed to make sure they had a good reason for arresting you.
Some will say that we do not provide these rights in Iraq. We don't, it's a war zone. We have soldiers there and so did they. I am not saying that rights should not exist in a war zone, I am saying that they are less likely to be respected in one.
Oh, by the way. The founding fathers wrote in these protections while fighting the British. They knew exactly what they were doing. The "Bill of Rights" has an interesting story. Some did not believe it was necessary to write them down, they thought it was obvious that we had the right to free speech, religion and to protect ourselves.
I do not know if the Constitution was divinely inspired, I do know it sure seems that way. It's focus is on freedoms for people, not on powers for government. Wherever it talks about powers for government, it limits them.
Ms. Clinton was quoted as saying that citizenship was a privilege. That is true for people not born in this country. Citizenship means the right to live here, not the right to be treated as a human. She attempts to obfuscate and confuse the issues. Shame on her.
Let us continue, the "rights" listed in the Bill of Rights do not say they are limited to citizens. The rights are defined as inalienable, that means just being a human entitles you to them. Would you limit free speech to citizens? How bout Freedom of Religion?
I expect tyrants and self-centered elitist puppets to deny rights, that is their nature. What upsets me is that there are people who will go along with such things because the racist or bigoted in some other way. The issue is what "rights" we believe everybody should have. The question can only be answered by saying what "rights" we believe we should have.
Be well.
Hillary Clinton is in charge of the State Department. The State Department wants to put out a bill that would make it possible for them to remove your citizenship if you belong to certain organizations. She thinks the bill might be good idea. Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and should know the constitution.
The chatter over the net regarding this is pitiful. There are some who are saying that it only applies to naturalized citizens (foreign born people who become citizens). That attitude misses the point. It is not about sending them back to where they came from, it is about denying them access to the courts and due process.
The Constitution was meant not to be a privilege; but, outlines how we the people wish to be treated. Rousseau, a great philosopher, decried the horrid nature of French society before the revolution by saying that all men were born free, yet men were in chains all around him.
What rights are different for citizens. I mean, how should we treat non-citizens. Someone comes to America from England on vacation, if they have a car accident, should they be treated different. What rights do we expect when we travel to Europe? Perhaps if you are unbiased you will begin to see the real question.
Look, we treat citizens and non-citizens the same in the courts. This is not about citizens rights. It would separate rights between the "bad guys", terrorists and the good guys. Once the government declared you a bad guy, you lose all rights. They don't have to let a court determine if you are guilty. To propose such a law is treason.
The founding fathers believed in basic human rights. They called them unalienable rights, rights that nobody and no government could take away. They believed these rights were God given, not man given and not from the government, God given. I believe they are.
Hillary the Traitor
The whole ploy by the State Department is disgusting. The idea is to attempt to get people to see it as an us versus them while giving over basic human rights to the government. A government of the government, by the government and for the government. This is the antithesis of the Constitution. One that she swore to uphold and regards with such disdain. Filth.
There was a reason that the founding fathers wrote down certain rights. The right to not having police and military come into your house without having to show a third party, a judge, that they had a reason to go there. A valid reason. This is the right to not have the government come into your house just because they want to look around. Pretty basic thing.
The founding fathers also said that if you arrested someone, you had to bring them before a judge and say why. The person was to be given a reason in public so that others could make sure they did not live in a fricking totalitarian state. Pretty simple, not burdensome on government.
Wake the Xuck up. People deserve to be treated fairly and we cannot trust governments to do so, they have their own agendas. How hard is it to take someone before a judge and have to say why you arrested them?
Look at how silly the proposed law is. If you are a foreigner and kill your neighbor, you get to go to court. If you are a citizen and they "think" you may be a terrorist you can be denied any rights and no judge will be allowed to make sure they had a good reason for arresting you.
Some will say that we do not provide these rights in Iraq. We don't, it's a war zone. We have soldiers there and so did they. I am not saying that rights should not exist in a war zone, I am saying that they are less likely to be respected in one.
Oh, by the way. The founding fathers wrote in these protections while fighting the British. They knew exactly what they were doing. The "Bill of Rights" has an interesting story. Some did not believe it was necessary to write them down, they thought it was obvious that we had the right to free speech, religion and to protect ourselves.
I do not know if the Constitution was divinely inspired, I do know it sure seems that way. It's focus is on freedoms for people, not on powers for government. Wherever it talks about powers for government, it limits them.
Ms. Clinton was quoted as saying that citizenship was a privilege. That is true for people not born in this country. Citizenship means the right to live here, not the right to be treated as a human. She attempts to obfuscate and confuse the issues. Shame on her.
Let us continue, the "rights" listed in the Bill of Rights do not say they are limited to citizens. The rights are defined as inalienable, that means just being a human entitles you to them. Would you limit free speech to citizens? How bout Freedom of Religion?
I expect tyrants and self-centered elitist puppets to deny rights, that is their nature. What upsets me is that there are people who will go along with such things because the racist or bigoted in some other way. The issue is what "rights" we believe everybody should have. The question can only be answered by saying what "rights" we believe we should have.
Be well.
Lets do some odd news stories
Anomalous news stories because it is Friday. Good a reason as any.
First up, a story about how people are becoming more exposed to a belief in aliens and altered consciousness.
The next is a story about a woman who claimed to have been attacked by a giant cockroach. I just had to post the link, the story is too bizarre.
Cockroach consciousness.
Here is a Washington Post article on Ronald Reagan and his occult beliefs. Reagan was an admirer of Manly P. Hall and secret societies that were to protect us.
First up, a story about how people are becoming more exposed to a belief in aliens and altered consciousness.
The next is a story about a woman who claimed to have been attacked by a giant cockroach. I just had to post the link, the story is too bizarre.
Cockroach consciousness.
Here is a Washington Post article on Ronald Reagan and his occult beliefs. Reagan was an admirer of Manly P. Hall and secret societies that were to protect us.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Jerry Brown and our pension
Attorney General of California and former governor, Jerry Brown, is filing a fraud suit against Villalobos. Hmmmm. Think I have been talking about this for months. And now comes the time of exposure and the day of reckoning. What will unravel will be the government pension funds and all of the fraud and theft.
Jerry
Readers of my little blog will begin seeing the names and companies that I have been writing about come to the front of the newspapers now. Expect to see foul details. Where there is corruption there is infidelity and sex. Sordid details will come out. Always happens that way. Be well.
Jerry
Readers of my little blog will begin seeing the names and companies that I have been writing about come to the front of the newspapers now. Expect to see foul details. Where there is corruption there is infidelity and sex. Sordid details will come out. Always happens that way. Be well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)