As the average person becomes aware of how the world is controlled, as the average person becomes aware that they are sheep and have not participated when they could have, as the average person becomes aware of the fact that they do not make the decisions; but, merely chase the cookies of this world, what is their reaction? It is anger and it leads them to making even worse decisions. It leads to things like the French Revolution, rage, not thought.
The world is no longer run by Shepherds or Sheep Dogs, it is run by predators and they devour the sheep. The predators don't care about the sheep; but, they will do everything possible to keep them from moving in mass. They will make sure that they make big splashy promises and make a big deal about doing the right thing; but, the predators do not know what the right thing is; therefore, like the sheep, they overreact. That is their nature. I always bet on the Shepherd and the sheep dogs in the long run.
Two predators were arrested in Los Angeles recently. They were arrested for molesting children at the same school. They were teachers. If guilty they will no doubt be found guilty and serve very unpleasant terms in jail. We are all in agreement and happy with that result. The school; however, has decided to put ALL of the staff of the school, all 150 on a paid leave while they investigate if any of the others is guilty.
Many will say that this is fine, no hurt, no fowl. The other teachers are given some paid time off, the children are safe and they school and police can do a thorough and fair investigation. WRONG, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? What does it mean when you suspend staff that haven't been accused of anything? Why couldn't less offensive means, less expensive means and more rational means have been employed? Couldn't a few people have been hired to check on the different classrooms during the day, unannounced? If there are any more molesters in the school, do you really think that they will be very active while they know a police investigation is going on? Is there any sanity left in the world?
Instead, the school will bring in 150 people who they know NOTHING about, how is that safer for the children? The sheep want draconian and easy answers and the predators provide them with them. The problem with the world and how it is run is extremism, that is what causes war. I think this is turning into a rant.
This is basic algebra, some pedophiles are priests and teachers and therapists and you name it. That does not mean that all priests, teachers or therapists are child molesters. This approach hurts the children, it teaches them that they cannot trust their teachers, their priests or their therapists. Do you get it? Extreme examples are over-publicized to scare people into making bad decisions that result in their children trusting nobody and not listening to anybody.
Some of the people who read this blog know me personally and what I am about to say will make them sad. When I was 8, I was molested. I didn't talk about it until I was in my 40s and I told my then wife. It only happened once and was someone I didn't know. I would not have told anyone, I got over it, I learned to mentally deal with it decades ago and decided that I didn't need to talk about it. When Roger Moore wrote about his experience (hey, he was James Bond), I was able to tell my wife and then I put it back to bed. Little could I know that eventually I would also have to get over my wife's infidelity; but, I did that too.
Here is the point. Some relationships are toxic. Some experiences are bad. We cannot create a world where there is no risk unless we eliminate all freedom and monitor everyone non-stop and guess what, then all of the decisions are in the hands of the few and they can do even greater damage. The issue is a question of balancing risk versus trust. There is always risk; but, what happens when there is no trust? How much can you grow if there is no trust and no risk, what lessons can be learned?
If we allow our emotions to control us then those who control our emotions make our decisions. This is the point of the bible. We should do everything in love; but, to know what to do, what the options are requires thought, emotion won't get you there alone. The two least rational emotions are rage and love, of the two I prefer love. Which do you prefer?
I cannot live without anger and I cannot live without love. They are emotions within me, the question is which I allow to be my final determining factor in my decisions. That is the message of Jesus in essence. Will you take the risk of love or take the supposed certainty of hate? You might get hurt on this ride, life might deal you some bad cards; but, there are no good cards if there is no risk.
Someone, a relative, told me something when I told him that my wife had cheated on me. He said that there were some lessons you wish you never had to learn, he had been cheated on. He also told me that he never gave 100% of his heart again, I have heard that from many people. I made the decision, for myself, that I would make sure that I was able to give 100% of my heart if I chose to be with someone again. I play Texas No=Limit Holdem, you are all in or all out or you can never win.
Since my divorce I have not found anyone who wants to give me a 100% of their trust, nor have I found someone that I can give 100% of my trust to. I have met and been on dates with many wonderful women; but, not the one. If I decide that true love is impossible, for how much less should I settle. If I never trust anyone at all, it will be fairly shallow relationships for me. Bed and breakfast at best. Would any of my dear readers wish that for me or themselves?
Teach children to be strong, to overcome and not to ever think that they will live a life with no challenges. They could be molested, they could break an arm, they could get beat up or they could die in a car accident. Many things could happen to them. We can monitor them 24/7 in the classroom, we can make them wear safety suits all day, we can give them a body guard, we can build cars that drive themselves, we can give them pills that make them as smart as anyone else, we can give them no autonomy, no decision making, we can control them like prisoners is a guilded cage, a virtual reality where they never learn real pain. Would you do that to your children?
When a baby is a baby you allow it very limited freedom, it may even sleep in your bed or a bassinet next to your bed. Would you put a 20 year old in the same bassinet? Growing up we were told that there were some crazy hippies who reportedly were putting razor blades in apples and giving them out at Halloween. Guess what, it didn't happen. In response, parents stopped allowing kids to go for trick or treat without them, parents had to inspect each peace of candy we received, we were told to fear our neighbors and eventually Halloween became more important for adults than for kids.
It used to be that Halloween was the one day of the year when kids could go out at night, getting candy, seeing all their friends in their costumes and just enjoy their first taste of freedom from supervision, the freedom to express what they wanted to become and nothing was too scary. That is gone. People are sheep and they being terrorized by the media, it warps the mind of the sheep; but, they will not listen to reason because they are sheep. Most horrible economic situations end is totalitarianism because the sheep like safety and do not understand doing the right thing for the right reason.
Ramblings from a madman, someone who thinks that the sheep are sheep and that it is okay; but, they need to do their role. All have a role. Peace.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
On Being and Bad Science
It is a little later than I had planned; but, once again my sermon ran long. I don't like to stop in the middle of a thought and that meant that I got home late. Before I left for church I had read some news articles and this one in particular caught my attention. Oh, for those who are wondering, yes, I mostly have my voice back, it is still weak; but, mostly functional and I spoke very little all weekend in order that I might be ready for my sermon tonight.
Anyways, here is th article. CNN - Ted Network - Unraveling the mystery of consciousness
In the article it says, "On the side of understanding, we can point to the process of sensory representation as an important part of consciousness. Most of what we are conscious of (conceivably all that we are conscious of) consists of representations of objects and events in the sensory modalities in which our brains trade, for example, vision, hearing, touching, smelling, taste, sensing the state of our body's interior." I want you to think about that, is it true? I would disagree with his premise because it does not fit the facts that we know. If you would like an example, I will give two. First we have Helen Keller, born deaf, dumb and blind, yet AFTER she learned language she was able to tell the rest of us what it was like to be purely emotion. The second one is achieved by using an isolation tank, that is a tank with a saline solution that allows you to float, within the tank you are denied all sight, sound and feeling. They refer to this as sensory deprivation. Anyone placed within one of these tanks will begin hallucinating within minutes and the hallucinations are vivid. We are sensory beings by nature.
The writer continues on and comes to an amusing backwards conclusion. He finally says, "I believe to be conscious of our perceptions is to have ongoing representations of streams of events that affect our bodies, cause feelings, and become felt representations." His premise is that because we have bodies we are capable of having experiences, that our minds "map" there experiences (we organize them via thoughts) and that it results in an emotional response. He is wrong. We have emotions, we organize them with symbols or language and that is how we control our actions. He has it backwards, now the question is why? What is the premise that he is operating under?
So, if the most basic part of our consciousness is emotions, why does he assume that the most basic part of us is thought (symbolism to describe emotions)? Why make that assumption? The answer is because he hates the consequence of the opposite? His most basic assumption is that we are merely a mechanical response to stimuli. He does not believe in a soul and individuality, a true self. He believes that there is no self will. He does not find us unique merely consequences. His philosophy is garbage and his science is worse.
For all their efforts they cannot understand how we can have emotions prior to learning how to organize thoughts, they see thoughts as creating emotions rather than emotions having been the reason that we needed to create thoughts. I do hope you understand that it is a question of which came first and that the writer has given the least likely answer because of his bias. You matter, we all matter and only evil people would try and convince you that you do not matter, that life is not important because once they do that they then begin determining which lives are more meaningful. Peace and I wanted to post something heavy after having posted lighter fair.
Anyways, here is th article. CNN - Ted Network - Unraveling the mystery of consciousness
In the article it says, "On the side of understanding, we can point to the process of sensory representation as an important part of consciousness. Most of what we are conscious of (conceivably all that we are conscious of) consists of representations of objects and events in the sensory modalities in which our brains trade, for example, vision, hearing, touching, smelling, taste, sensing the state of our body's interior." I want you to think about that, is it true? I would disagree with his premise because it does not fit the facts that we know. If you would like an example, I will give two. First we have Helen Keller, born deaf, dumb and blind, yet AFTER she learned language she was able to tell the rest of us what it was like to be purely emotion. The second one is achieved by using an isolation tank, that is a tank with a saline solution that allows you to float, within the tank you are denied all sight, sound and feeling. They refer to this as sensory deprivation. Anyone placed within one of these tanks will begin hallucinating within minutes and the hallucinations are vivid. We are sensory beings by nature.
The writer continues on and comes to an amusing backwards conclusion. He finally says, "I believe to be conscious of our perceptions is to have ongoing representations of streams of events that affect our bodies, cause feelings, and become felt representations." His premise is that because we have bodies we are capable of having experiences, that our minds "map" there experiences (we organize them via thoughts) and that it results in an emotional response. He is wrong. We have emotions, we organize them with symbols or language and that is how we control our actions. He has it backwards, now the question is why? What is the premise that he is operating under?
So, if the most basic part of our consciousness is emotions, why does he assume that the most basic part of us is thought (symbolism to describe emotions)? Why make that assumption? The answer is because he hates the consequence of the opposite? His most basic assumption is that we are merely a mechanical response to stimuli. He does not believe in a soul and individuality, a true self. He believes that there is no self will. He does not find us unique merely consequences. His philosophy is garbage and his science is worse.
For all their efforts they cannot understand how we can have emotions prior to learning how to organize thoughts, they see thoughts as creating emotions rather than emotions having been the reason that we needed to create thoughts. I do hope you understand that it is a question of which came first and that the writer has given the least likely answer because of his bias. You matter, we all matter and only evil people would try and convince you that you do not matter, that life is not important because once they do that they then begin determining which lives are more meaningful. Peace and I wanted to post something heavy after having posted lighter fair.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
You Shall Get a Post; but, Will it be Worth it?
Crazy stuff is what you shall get. Lets start with this, they found what looks like a couple of flying saucers at the bottom of the Baltic sea. Search it, look it up. Crazy stuff, plenty of crazy stuff. Hey, what happens if Greece doesn't condemn their people to austerity for eternity? Lets get back to basics, lets listen to some music.
YouTube - Linda Ronstadt - Long, Long Time
YouTube - Fleetwood Mac - The Dance-1997-Silver Springs
YouTube - Pink Floyd - Pigs (Three Different Ones)
YouTube - Steely Dan - Home at Last
YouTube - Happy Together - The Turtles
Nothing on my mind, how nice, well, maybe one thing; but, that is mine. Peace.
YouTube - Linda Ronstadt - Long, Long Time
YouTube - Fleetwood Mac - The Dance-1997-Silver Springs
YouTube - Pink Floyd - Pigs (Three Different Ones)
YouTube - Steely Dan - Home at Last
YouTube - Happy Together - The Turtles
Nothing on my mind, how nice, well, maybe one thing; but, that is mine. Peace.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
I Have Lost My Voice - No Applause Please
Well dear readers, I have lost my voice quite literally. I thought it was just my allergies; but, it turns out that I was in fact sick and it finally took out my voice. To make matters worse, I had to talk to an auditor for three hours and it only made my voice weaker.
On a lighter note, I logged into blogger and found someone had wanted to post a comment. They commented on my post about Stephen Hawking being a douche and said that people like me were a cancer. I posted the comment. In all the time that the post has been up and the hundreds of people that came here to read it, this is the first negative response to it and it was so poorly organized.
One of the people who actually did come up with the idea of string theory was Dr. Michio Kaku who in fact I do respect; but, I have no idea what his religious beliefs are and actually don't care. Dr. Kaku sticks to science and doesn't appear to use it to prove some agenda and that is what science is for. Hawking however I find wants to be the final word on everything and if he says it others are not to question him.
We live in a world ruled by experts and most of them will sell out for money or fame. It was scientists who were paid by the tobacco lobby that denied that cigarettes could harm you (I smoke and I know they can) and then other scientists who lied about second hand smoke being more dangerous than first hand smoke (that doesn't even make sense and was based on tests of children whose mothers smoked while they were pregnant rather than true second hand smoke). We have all read how statistics were intentionally perverted to prove "global warming". Bad science is bad science and I don't care if it helps someone's argument.
Sorry, I was responding to conversations on other posts and lost my train of thought. Peace and good night, I am sick.
On a lighter note, I logged into blogger and found someone had wanted to post a comment. They commented on my post about Stephen Hawking being a douche and said that people like me were a cancer. I posted the comment. In all the time that the post has been up and the hundreds of people that came here to read it, this is the first negative response to it and it was so poorly organized.
One of the people who actually did come up with the idea of string theory was Dr. Michio Kaku who in fact I do respect; but, I have no idea what his religious beliefs are and actually don't care. Dr. Kaku sticks to science and doesn't appear to use it to prove some agenda and that is what science is for. Hawking however I find wants to be the final word on everything and if he says it others are not to question him.
We live in a world ruled by experts and most of them will sell out for money or fame. It was scientists who were paid by the tobacco lobby that denied that cigarettes could harm you (I smoke and I know they can) and then other scientists who lied about second hand smoke being more dangerous than first hand smoke (that doesn't even make sense and was based on tests of children whose mothers smoked while they were pregnant rather than true second hand smoke). We have all read how statistics were intentionally perverted to prove "global warming". Bad science is bad science and I don't care if it helps someone's argument.
Sorry, I was responding to conversations on other posts and lost my train of thought. Peace and good night, I am sick.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
You Get No Post You Scoundrels
You get nothing original out of me and you get no links to the truth. You get nothing, well, you get this.
YouTube - Soak Up The Sun - Sheryl Crow
YouTube - Soak Up The Sun - Sheryl Crow
Monday, January 30, 2012
How Valuable is Human Life?
Well, not too valuable to the really well educated doctors.
BioEdge - Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
Please read the article, it is short. I particularly like where the “[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
You see, without a belief in God we become meaningless to each other because life becomes meaningless and that is what people are being sold on. The most "educated" (brainwashed in exchange for a good income) have only situational ethics and that is the most dangerous type of thinking because they are so educated that they can justify anything.
BioEdge - Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
Please read the article, it is short. I particularly like where the “[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
You see, without a belief in God we become meaningless to each other because life becomes meaningless and that is what people are being sold on. The most "educated" (brainwashed in exchange for a good income) have only situational ethics and that is the most dangerous type of thinking because they are so educated that they can justify anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)