False modesty, perhaps. One of those things people say without thinking what they mean. "It's only little-ol'-me; pay no attention to what I say". Why write it, then? Why tell me it's next to worthless after I've read it? I already know that.
The theory that the expression arose because that was at one time the postage required for a letter to the editor seems to me unlikely: what possible mental process could assign a text a monetary value equal to the amount of postage required to send it by mail?
"It may not be worth much, but it's my opinion". Well, I know it's your opinion if you signed it, and why don't you let me be the judge of what it's worth to me and whether I ever want to spend any more of my valuable time reading what you write?
Are you saying I'm an idiot for spending any time reading something so cheap? I don't appreciate that. Do you think potential publishers will not show enough contempt for your writings so that you have to make a start by doing it yourself?
In my opinion it is a silly and unnecessary expression. I recommend its abolition.
July 30, 2006
April 01, 2005
Untitled
Recommended reading:
The End of Reason
http://www.alternet.org/story/21641
Organized religion elevates superstition to an entirely new level, so let's call its institutions by their proper name: superstition-based institutions.
I have had a lawyer draft what she assured me was a legally valid and binding "living will" expressing my wishes in case I should become incapacitated and unable to communicate them at any time in the context of a condition from which I’m not expected to recover, and I have duly executed (what lawyers call the act of signing; yes, I know; "signing" is a perfectly legitimate word, but why use a common word when you can substitute jargon and charge several hundred dollars for it?) such will in the presence of two witnesses, and all those signatures were duly notarized as prescribed by law.
I have also told and discussed the above mentioned directions to and with all my relatives and friends I could hold within my hearing long enough to do so, particularly my spouse, who is executrix of my will and has a full power of attorney to act in my behalf and implement my wishes. Such power of attorney comes into effect when I should be incapacitated and unable to communicate my decisions.
If and when I become unconscious and unable to communicate and if this appears to be an irreversible condition I DO NOT WANT MY BODY TO BE KEPT "ALIVE" by any extraordinary means, including but not limited to artificial respirators, feeding through tubes inserted into my stomach or any other diabolical devices I can't even imagine the medical profession may have invented to drain the finances of its victims and create an illusion that they are defeating death.
Consider the sentence above repeated three times with increasing emphasis.
If I should get into one of those delightful situations so common in medicine in which physicians are "not sure" what my chances of recovery are or whether I have ANY chance of recovery at all -- not that I am suggesting that physicians don't know everything, of course, but sometimes it seems to me, untrained layperson that I am, as if physicians don't know anything except how to charge inappropriately called "patients" more money for telling us they don't know than any other "experts" get for producing appropriate and accurate solutions, explanations and remedies for the situations they are called upon to examine -- I direct that any such "doubts" be resolved in the sense of letting my body die.
Poor Terri Schiavo (an Italian word meaning "slave" and pronounced Ski-ah-vo, NOT Sky-ay-vo, as I have heard broadcasters say it) has finally died; may she rest in peace.
I have no words to describe the revulsion I felt at the spectacle of troglodyte right-wingers invading her privacy. At the same time they have invaded the privacy of all of us who contemplate being one day in a situation similar too Ms. Schiavo towards the end of her life.
Ill-intentioned lawyers spurred by prospects of financial or political gain can question the validity even of the most iron-clad legal document, and I am horrified at the thought of my spouse having to fight the US Congress after I've become a vegetable (used in a figurative sense with all due respect to vegetables, who in fact ARE probably able to communicate, but not in ways we can -- yet -- understand) in order to implement my wishes.
One of the purposes of this blog entry is to provide further evidence of what my wishes are against potential actions to counter my wishes by followers of some superstition according to which such wishes are taboo. The followers of such superstitions are causing much grief to this country. Is there anyone who thinks that the sacred freedom to follow one's own superstitions also implies permission to try to force others to follow the tenets of such superstition?
I realize what I’m writing implies that I will be among the first to be killed when the fascists finally have their way as they did in Germany barely seventy years ago. But I don't want to live under a fascist dictatorship and I am too old and disabled to fight it.
I was born in Argentina in 1940. Physically far from Germany,, but still a fascist dictatorship (Perón was a great friend and admirer of the Nazis, and provided shelter in his country to many escaped German war criminals after the war).
The US is now, in many respects, the most advanced country in the world. So was Germany in the nineteen thirties. Some people say "it couldn't possibly happen here". So they did in Germany in the nineteen thirties. A superstitious extremist minority has grabbed power through electronic voting manipulation and the ignorance, apathy and stupidity of many voters. With the exception of the electronic voting manipulation the same thing happened in Germany in the nineteen thirties. The comparison between the two countries in terms of finances, employment and other issues I leave as exercises for the reader.
The US, with all its faults, has been a shining miracle in the history of humankind. Future historians -- if any, I’m tempted to say, but I’m sure there WILL be some somewhere in the universe -- will be astonished that it lasted as long as it did.
History also teaches that tyrannies always fall. Eventually, at least, and not without much struggle and suffering. The US saved the world from the fascists in the nineteen forties; who will save the world from the US? Stay tuned, I guess. As for myself, I've already seen plenty; now I’m increasingly wanting to go home and sleep.
The End of Reason
http://www.alternet.org/story/21641
Organized religion elevates superstition to an entirely new level, so let's call its institutions by their proper name: superstition-based institutions.
I have had a lawyer draft what she assured me was a legally valid and binding "living will" expressing my wishes in case I should become incapacitated and unable to communicate them at any time in the context of a condition from which I’m not expected to recover, and I have duly executed (what lawyers call the act of signing; yes, I know; "signing" is a perfectly legitimate word, but why use a common word when you can substitute jargon and charge several hundred dollars for it?) such will in the presence of two witnesses, and all those signatures were duly notarized as prescribed by law.
I have also told and discussed the above mentioned directions to and with all my relatives and friends I could hold within my hearing long enough to do so, particularly my spouse, who is executrix of my will and has a full power of attorney to act in my behalf and implement my wishes. Such power of attorney comes into effect when I should be incapacitated and unable to communicate my decisions.
If and when I become unconscious and unable to communicate and if this appears to be an irreversible condition I DO NOT WANT MY BODY TO BE KEPT "ALIVE" by any extraordinary means, including but not limited to artificial respirators, feeding through tubes inserted into my stomach or any other diabolical devices I can't even imagine the medical profession may have invented to drain the finances of its victims and create an illusion that they are defeating death.
Consider the sentence above repeated three times with increasing emphasis.
If I should get into one of those delightful situations so common in medicine in which physicians are "not sure" what my chances of recovery are or whether I have ANY chance of recovery at all -- not that I am suggesting that physicians don't know everything, of course, but sometimes it seems to me, untrained layperson that I am, as if physicians don't know anything except how to charge inappropriately called "patients" more money for telling us they don't know than any other "experts" get for producing appropriate and accurate solutions, explanations and remedies for the situations they are called upon to examine -- I direct that any such "doubts" be resolved in the sense of letting my body die.
Poor Terri Schiavo (an Italian word meaning "slave" and pronounced Ski-ah-vo, NOT Sky-ay-vo, as I have heard broadcasters say it) has finally died; may she rest in peace.
I have no words to describe the revulsion I felt at the spectacle of troglodyte right-wingers invading her privacy. At the same time they have invaded the privacy of all of us who contemplate being one day in a situation similar too Ms. Schiavo towards the end of her life.
Ill-intentioned lawyers spurred by prospects of financial or political gain can question the validity even of the most iron-clad legal document, and I am horrified at the thought of my spouse having to fight the US Congress after I've become a vegetable (used in a figurative sense with all due respect to vegetables, who in fact ARE probably able to communicate, but not in ways we can -- yet -- understand) in order to implement my wishes.
One of the purposes of this blog entry is to provide further evidence of what my wishes are against potential actions to counter my wishes by followers of some superstition according to which such wishes are taboo. The followers of such superstitions are causing much grief to this country. Is there anyone who thinks that the sacred freedom to follow one's own superstitions also implies permission to try to force others to follow the tenets of such superstition?
I realize what I’m writing implies that I will be among the first to be killed when the fascists finally have their way as they did in Germany barely seventy years ago. But I don't want to live under a fascist dictatorship and I am too old and disabled to fight it.
I was born in Argentina in 1940. Physically far from Germany,, but still a fascist dictatorship (Perón was a great friend and admirer of the Nazis, and provided shelter in his country to many escaped German war criminals after the war).
The US is now, in many respects, the most advanced country in the world. So was Germany in the nineteen thirties. Some people say "it couldn't possibly happen here". So they did in Germany in the nineteen thirties. A superstitious extremist minority has grabbed power through electronic voting manipulation and the ignorance, apathy and stupidity of many voters. With the exception of the electronic voting manipulation the same thing happened in Germany in the nineteen thirties. The comparison between the two countries in terms of finances, employment and other issues I leave as exercises for the reader.
The US, with all its faults, has been a shining miracle in the history of humankind. Future historians -- if any, I’m tempted to say, but I’m sure there WILL be some somewhere in the universe -- will be astonished that it lasted as long as it did.
History also teaches that tyrannies always fall. Eventually, at least, and not without much struggle and suffering. The US saved the world from the fascists in the nineteen forties; who will save the world from the US? Stay tuned, I guess. As for myself, I've already seen plenty; now I’m increasingly wanting to go home and sleep.
September 22, 2003
Giant Arctic ice shelf breaks up
I find this* terrifying. Not surprising, though. Look at it in a map.
* That link dated 09/22/2003 is no longer available; a quotation from and some comments on it may be read in the Physics Forum [Note made 05/14/2004 at 3:34 PM CDT (GMT-5h)].
* That link dated 09/22/2003 is no longer available; a quotation from and some comments on it may be read in the Physics Forum [Note made 05/14/2004 at 3:34 PM CDT (GMT-5h)].
April 03, 2003
PaganSpeak topics for April 2003
PaganSpeak topics (all courtesy of Wren's Nest) for April 2003:
Topic # 1: Are we alone in the universe?
I find it astonishing beyond any possibility of belief for anyone to imagine that, in the whole universe, life occurs only in this drop of mud we inhabit. Earth is much less significant in comparison with the whole universe than a two-person hamlet in Saskatchewan in comparison with all of North America (I write this to indicate smallness, isolation, remoteness and lack of significant impact, without intending any disrespect to Saskatchewan).
Is this Earth the only planet inhabited with intelligent life?
(Yeah. I wonder about that "intelligent" part sometimes, too!)
Actually there are probably places where, unlike on Earth, intelligent life does exist. Or perhaps intelligent life does exist on Earth, but it is not human beings: it is dolphins or some other cetaceans, or perhaps something we don't know about.
Can human beings be called intelligent? Perhaps they can in the absence of knowledge of anything else. We can�t imagine anyone with a more-than-human, super-human or trans-human intelligence. I would not be surprised if some humans called such beings non-intelligent; humans have always shown a considerable inclination to hate and try to kill anyone and anything that is different. Especially if such a being is superior to humans; that is something humans can never forgive: Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi were such: off with their heads!
Perhaps humans are too intelligent for their own good, but not intelligent enough to do themselves and their planet any good. Perhaps humans are a mentally ill species, bent on self-mutilation and ultimately self-destruction. Perhaps it is the abuse they suffer under patriarchal religions that led humans to become a mentally ill, "borderline" species.
Is life a fluke?
Only to the extent that it is a fluke that an automobile moves; perhaps it was created just to be parked somewhere.
Are we unique?
I doubt -- or perhaps it is only wishful thinking -- that there are beings anywhere that are the same as humans, but perhaps there are, Goddess help them.
If there are other life forms out there, do you think that we shall ever meet them?
I think we have since the beginning of history; every ancient scripture is full of references to them. Angels and demons in all their immense variety in all cultures, fairies, elves, devas, gods, demi-gods... My impression, which fills me with glee, is that we ain't seen nuttin' yet...
How far into the future might that happen?
See above.
Will they find us or will we find them first?
We could not find anyone even if they showed up at our door and asked to be invited to tea. Some humans would still say that they are mannequins built to resemble living entities placed on board weather balloons for "testing"...
Do you think that the discovery of inhabitants on other planets would change our world view?
How would the existence of aliens affect the religions of this world?
Some would probably claim that the aliens were just sent by the devil to test their faith in their non-existence. In fact that argument has already been used with fossils: what would you rather believe, some old bones or the holy scriptures?
Do you think such a concept as "religion" might also be found on other worlds?
Certainly, unless they were beyond it: "religion" comes from "re-ligare", to re-establish a link that was lost with the universe, the Force, the Tao or however it's called. A race of enlightened beings who had never forgotten or lost that link would not need any set of practices designed to re-establish it. Instead of "I have found it" they could say "We never lost it". They wouldn�t HAVE a religion, they would BE it. What a blessing encountering such beings might be for us; who knows, we might even learn something; now, isn�t that a concept?...
Have we already been visited by beings from other planets?
All the time; see above.
If an alien did come calling, what might you show him/her/it about life on planet Earth?
I don�t think it would do anyone any good to have a script prepared for dealing with such beings, even if one were to prepare such scripts. Though totally useless with human beings, it might not be a bad idea to insist, especially with the military, that in any encounter with such beings no one ought to shoot anything. I have no doubt that in any shooting match human beings would do rather poorly, and we might wait to try to learn something before we shoot.
Would you like to travel to another planet?
No, I don't want to travel anywhere unless with a Star-Trek-type transporter. Too much searching at airports.
Topic # 2: Are you willing to give up some civil liberties to be safe?
No. There is no such a thing as safety. I�d rather be a dead free person than a live slave. Giving up civil liberties is a slippery slope into a bottomless abyss. Don�t do it.
Increased domestic security is on everyone's minds these days and the U.S. government has already begun implementing more restrictive security screenings than most Americans can ever remember seeing before. As the news continues to report on the likelihood of more terrorist attacks including chemical and/or biological agents, how safe do YOU feel?
Not at all.
Would you be willing to undergo searches of your person and/or belongings at airports?
They already do it whenever they please at customs, etc., so what else is new?
How about personal searches at sporting events or when entering a mall?
Becoming a police state is giving victory to the terrorists.
Are you willing to allow the government to read your email, listen in on your telephone conversations, track your web surfing habits, inquire into your membership affiliations or restrict your ability to meet in groups (say at a large Pagan festival or open circle) in order to feel more safe?
No.
Is there a point where you would draw the line at surrendering your civil rights?
The U.S. Constitution has worked better than anything else in history -- which is not saying all that much considering the atrocities that the U.S. has committed -- at least until the coup d'�tat in 2000.
(Did you notice that the media when referring to the idea usually use the word 'liberties' instead of 'rights'?)
Yes; perhaps someone thinks it sounds more palatable or less scary that way.
Are you a little more nervous about being known as a Pagan these days?
Oy vey am I nervous! As a Pagan and a Jew (by ethnicity, not by religion) I figure I�d be among the first to go. I�ve always thought that if I had been in Europe in the early forties I�d have spit in the face of the first SS officer that came handy so as to be killed and be done with it, but many more courageous people than I am did not do that, so I don�t really know how I�d react when faced with the actual situation. Besides those situations arise gradually, not suddenly. It is said -- I imagine some perverts have actually done the experiment -- that if a frog is thrown into hot water s/he will immediately jump out of it, but if s/he's in cold water that is being heated gradually s/he will never jump out and s/he'll eventually suffer a horrible death by heat.
I guess we may find out, won't we? Goddess preserve and protect us all.
Topic # 3: What are you reading?
What was the last book(s) that you read or what favorite book would you recommend to others?
When in the bookstore or library, which section do you head for first?
Do you prefer fiction or non fiction?
Do you read mostly for enjoyment/entertainment or for knowledge/information?
What media besides books do you read?
What is your literary skeleton in the bookcase (such as comics, fashion mags, tabloids, showbiz gossip, sports)?
Perhaps some other time.
Topic # 1: Are we alone in the universe?
I find it astonishing beyond any possibility of belief for anyone to imagine that, in the whole universe, life occurs only in this drop of mud we inhabit. Earth is much less significant in comparison with the whole universe than a two-person hamlet in Saskatchewan in comparison with all of North America (I write this to indicate smallness, isolation, remoteness and lack of significant impact, without intending any disrespect to Saskatchewan).
Is this Earth the only planet inhabited with intelligent life?
(Yeah. I wonder about that "intelligent" part sometimes, too!)
Actually there are probably places where, unlike on Earth, intelligent life does exist. Or perhaps intelligent life does exist on Earth, but it is not human beings: it is dolphins or some other cetaceans, or perhaps something we don't know about.
Can human beings be called intelligent? Perhaps they can in the absence of knowledge of anything else. We can�t imagine anyone with a more-than-human, super-human or trans-human intelligence. I would not be surprised if some humans called such beings non-intelligent; humans have always shown a considerable inclination to hate and try to kill anyone and anything that is different. Especially if such a being is superior to humans; that is something humans can never forgive: Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi were such: off with their heads!
Perhaps humans are too intelligent for their own good, but not intelligent enough to do themselves and their planet any good. Perhaps humans are a mentally ill species, bent on self-mutilation and ultimately self-destruction. Perhaps it is the abuse they suffer under patriarchal religions that led humans to become a mentally ill, "borderline" species.
Is life a fluke?
Only to the extent that it is a fluke that an automobile moves; perhaps it was created just to be parked somewhere.
Are we unique?
I doubt -- or perhaps it is only wishful thinking -- that there are beings anywhere that are the same as humans, but perhaps there are, Goddess help them.
If there are other life forms out there, do you think that we shall ever meet them?
I think we have since the beginning of history; every ancient scripture is full of references to them. Angels and demons in all their immense variety in all cultures, fairies, elves, devas, gods, demi-gods... My impression, which fills me with glee, is that we ain't seen nuttin' yet...
How far into the future might that happen?
See above.
Will they find us or will we find them first?
We could not find anyone even if they showed up at our door and asked to be invited to tea. Some humans would still say that they are mannequins built to resemble living entities placed on board weather balloons for "testing"...
Do you think that the discovery of inhabitants on other planets would change our world view?
How would the existence of aliens affect the religions of this world?
Some would probably claim that the aliens were just sent by the devil to test their faith in their non-existence. In fact that argument has already been used with fossils: what would you rather believe, some old bones or the holy scriptures?
Do you think such a concept as "religion" might also be found on other worlds?
Certainly, unless they were beyond it: "religion" comes from "re-ligare", to re-establish a link that was lost with the universe, the Force, the Tao or however it's called. A race of enlightened beings who had never forgotten or lost that link would not need any set of practices designed to re-establish it. Instead of "I have found it" they could say "We never lost it". They wouldn�t HAVE a religion, they would BE it. What a blessing encountering such beings might be for us; who knows, we might even learn something; now, isn�t that a concept?...
Have we already been visited by beings from other planets?
All the time; see above.
If an alien did come calling, what might you show him/her/it about life on planet Earth?
I don�t think it would do anyone any good to have a script prepared for dealing with such beings, even if one were to prepare such scripts. Though totally useless with human beings, it might not be a bad idea to insist, especially with the military, that in any encounter with such beings no one ought to shoot anything. I have no doubt that in any shooting match human beings would do rather poorly, and we might wait to try to learn something before we shoot.
Would you like to travel to another planet?
No, I don't want to travel anywhere unless with a Star-Trek-type transporter. Too much searching at airports.
Topic # 2: Are you willing to give up some civil liberties to be safe?
No. There is no such a thing as safety. I�d rather be a dead free person than a live slave. Giving up civil liberties is a slippery slope into a bottomless abyss. Don�t do it.
Increased domestic security is on everyone's minds these days and the U.S. government has already begun implementing more restrictive security screenings than most Americans can ever remember seeing before. As the news continues to report on the likelihood of more terrorist attacks including chemical and/or biological agents, how safe do YOU feel?
Not at all.
Would you be willing to undergo searches of your person and/or belongings at airports?
They already do it whenever they please at customs, etc., so what else is new?
How about personal searches at sporting events or when entering a mall?
Becoming a police state is giving victory to the terrorists.
Are you willing to allow the government to read your email, listen in on your telephone conversations, track your web surfing habits, inquire into your membership affiliations or restrict your ability to meet in groups (say at a large Pagan festival or open circle) in order to feel more safe?
No.
Is there a point where you would draw the line at surrendering your civil rights?
The U.S. Constitution has worked better than anything else in history -- which is not saying all that much considering the atrocities that the U.S. has committed -- at least until the coup d'�tat in 2000.
(Did you notice that the media when referring to the idea usually use the word 'liberties' instead of 'rights'?)
Yes; perhaps someone thinks it sounds more palatable or less scary that way.
Are you a little more nervous about being known as a Pagan these days?
Oy vey am I nervous! As a Pagan and a Jew (by ethnicity, not by religion) I figure I�d be among the first to go. I�ve always thought that if I had been in Europe in the early forties I�d have spit in the face of the first SS officer that came handy so as to be killed and be done with it, but many more courageous people than I am did not do that, so I don�t really know how I�d react when faced with the actual situation. Besides those situations arise gradually, not suddenly. It is said -- I imagine some perverts have actually done the experiment -- that if a frog is thrown into hot water s/he will immediately jump out of it, but if s/he's in cold water that is being heated gradually s/he will never jump out and s/he'll eventually suffer a horrible death by heat.
I guess we may find out, won't we? Goddess preserve and protect us all.
Topic # 3: What are you reading?
What was the last book(s) that you read or what favorite book would you recommend to others?
When in the bookstore or library, which section do you head for first?
Do you prefer fiction or non fiction?
Do you read mostly for enjoyment/entertainment or for knowledge/information?
What media besides books do you read?
What is your literary skeleton in the bookcase (such as comics, fashion mags, tabloids, showbiz gossip, sports)?
Perhaps some other time.
January 28, 2003
Incomunicado no more
My ability to send and receive e-mail is more or less restored through my spouse�s computer. I say more or less because it is a laptop with a tiny keyboard which is very difficult to use for my large paws.
I don�t think I'll be replacing my dead computer very soon, so my computing activities will be rather diminished, but at least I'll no longer be incomunicado.
I don�t think I'll be replacing my dead computer very soon, so my computing activities will be rather diminished, but at least I'll no longer be incomunicado.
January 24, 2003
Incomunicado
NOT, as my spell-checker keeps insisting, "incommunicado".
My computer has died, not long after the extended three year warranty I had purchased expired (�honni soit qui mal y pense�, said Edward III, but, I�m sorry, I must be �honni�, since I have the darkest misgivings about the timing). So I am incomunicado via e-mail. I am posting this through my spouse�s computer, a laptop with a tiny keyboard which is cruel and unusual punishment on my fingers.
I intend to get back on line with a new computer as soon as I can, but it may be a while.
My computer has died, not long after the extended three year warranty I had purchased expired (�honni soit qui mal y pense�, said Edward III, but, I�m sorry, I must be �honni�, since I have the darkest misgivings about the timing). So I am incomunicado via e-mail. I am posting this through my spouse�s computer, a laptop with a tiny keyboard which is cruel and unusual punishment on my fingers.
I intend to get back on line with a new computer as soon as I can, but it may be a while.
December 26, 2002
Comments on "How to separate the wheat from the chaff"
See December 25, 2002 entry in Starz Light's blog. Starz's text is in green, mine in black.
I have just spent several hours surfing web sites full of unsettling information. I could cite site after site, but how does one determine the veracity of these sources? I am sure I wish I knew, Starz. I, too, have seen web sites full of unsettling information. I don't know whether it is true that concentration camps already built in various parts of the country are ready to accommodate the first dissenters and other "undesirables". I do wish I had the answers. When I find one of those unsettling web sites, do I ignore it as the work of kooks or do I forward it to everyone I know? When rumors about Nazi atrocities started to circulate outside Germany many people dismissed them as the products of deranged minds, because they thought it was not possible such horrible things were actually happening, it was obvious that the rumors were just gross exaggerations. The reality turned out to be worse than any rumors that had circulated. People walked into the gas chambers still not believing that what they had heard could possibly be true.
Do you feel that blogging raises the consciousness of anyone? Definitely yes: first and foremost the blogger's own, and second her/his readers, though that is out of the blogger's control. I have learned much from reading my fellow bloggers; the blogosphere is a churning cauldron of ideas; it much enhances the dialog that always goes on between writers and readers. Thanks to the net we all can be both. Of course this does make for a tremendous volume of material in which it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the gold from the mud. But it is a matter of degree: it was already difficult when all we had was publications on paper. And as the volume of material has increased so have the means to communicate recommendations, reviews, etc.
Or are we just preaching to the choir? Or even just enjoying the sound of our voices without caring if anyone listens? Nothing wrong with enjoying the sound of one's own voice :-) but I think all bloggers care to some extent about being read - yes, even those who claim not to - otherwise why publish on the web at all? We could just write in our own journals, to be read by no one other than ourselves. And many of us do have private journals in addition to our blogs. But we also aspire to communicate and find out how others react to what we have to say, and to stimulate each other to greater insight and understanding.
It is true that perhaps the greatest things that have been written were written with quill pens on scarce and expensive parchment. Now we have computers and the web, but where is the genius to create masterpieces? Maybe masterpieces are being created among us; we just don't know about them yet.
Does the sharing of our questions, concerns, or support for the issues of the day constitute activism on any level? In my opinion yes; writing has always been an important form of activism. We speak - or write - our truths and put them out there in the universe; who or how many might read them - let alone be influenced by them - is neither our business nor anything that we can do anything about (other than honest efforts to increase "the circulation" of our blogs,
like submitting them to search engines, web rings and the like).
Do you ever follow the links down paths that show opinions in opposition to yours? Sometimes I read some educated, civilized conservatives like The Leibman Theory; but the Neanderthals - with respect for the original Neanderthals - I cannot stand.
Do you have information sources that you believe to be giving a complete and honest picture? And if so, I'd love to know what they are. I tend to trust sources on the left much more than those on the right (which I don't trust at all). Jeanne d'Arc has a list under the title "Good Guys" (right-wing publications she appropriately calls "The Opposition", and has a list of those, too), and also links to The Lefty Directory, which contains, among many other things and links to left-wing blogs, an interesting interview with Jeanne d'Arc. Liberal Oasis is another aptly-named site. There are many others. But, as you say very well, I'm sure both sides spin the stories; however, we much prefer the spin on the left.
I thought about taking this question to e-mail, but then felt it might make interesting dialog here. I'm glad you did; the wider the possibilities of dialog are set the higher the probability that someone will come up with bright ideas that might promote insight and understanding.
I never cease to be intrigued that two very intelligent, well-read, highly educated people can come to diametrically opposed positions. It seems there is no Truth (with a capital "T") Is everything relative? I believe it is very likely that "there is no Truth (with a capital 'T')", and those who believe there is - and "they" have It, of course - are horribly dangerous to the rest of us and likely to want to burn us at the stake to make us see the error of our ways and accept their One and Only Truth. In my opinion the reason "two very intelligent, well-read, highly educated people" sometimes "come to diametrically opposed positions" is that they perceive things differently, and don't give the same weights to the same components. It is known to law-enforcement personnel that two witnesses of the same event can give wildly different accounts thereof and both believe they are being absolutely truthful. The sages tell us that unless one has reached the fourth state of consciousness known as enlightenment one only perceives shadows, projections, "spectra" of "reality", and obviously shadows of one object can be different depending on the angle of illumination. We unenlightened ones don't perceive reality but a picture, a map thereof. A picture can be darker or lighter, or have various kinds of distortions. Iowa can be pink in one map and green in another; it is still the same Iowa, just different maps.
Another image I like is that reality is a mountain; we are all climbing the same mountain from different sides; the views we see are different and the degrees of difficulty of the climbing are different too, depending on whether we're climbing a steep or a gentle slope. When we reach the top we'll all be in the same place and our views will be similar - though still dependent on the direction we're looking... - but while we're climbing it doesn't make any sense to despise a fellow climber because her/his path is different from ours.
I have just spent several hours surfing web sites full of unsettling information. I could cite site after site, but how does one determine the veracity of these sources? I am sure I wish I knew, Starz. I, too, have seen web sites full of unsettling information. I don't know whether it is true that concentration camps already built in various parts of the country are ready to accommodate the first dissenters and other "undesirables". I do wish I had the answers. When I find one of those unsettling web sites, do I ignore it as the work of kooks or do I forward it to everyone I know? When rumors about Nazi atrocities started to circulate outside Germany many people dismissed them as the products of deranged minds, because they thought it was not possible such horrible things were actually happening, it was obvious that the rumors were just gross exaggerations. The reality turned out to be worse than any rumors that had circulated. People walked into the gas chambers still not believing that what they had heard could possibly be true.
Do you feel that blogging raises the consciousness of anyone? Definitely yes: first and foremost the blogger's own, and second her/his readers, though that is out of the blogger's control. I have learned much from reading my fellow bloggers; the blogosphere is a churning cauldron of ideas; it much enhances the dialog that always goes on between writers and readers. Thanks to the net we all can be both. Of course this does make for a tremendous volume of material in which it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, the gold from the mud. But it is a matter of degree: it was already difficult when all we had was publications on paper. And as the volume of material has increased so have the means to communicate recommendations, reviews, etc.
Or are we just preaching to the choir? Or even just enjoying the sound of our voices without caring if anyone listens? Nothing wrong with enjoying the sound of one's own voice :-) but I think all bloggers care to some extent about being read - yes, even those who claim not to - otherwise why publish on the web at all? We could just write in our own journals, to be read by no one other than ourselves. And many of us do have private journals in addition to our blogs. But we also aspire to communicate and find out how others react to what we have to say, and to stimulate each other to greater insight and understanding.
It is true that perhaps the greatest things that have been written were written with quill pens on scarce and expensive parchment. Now we have computers and the web, but where is the genius to create masterpieces? Maybe masterpieces are being created among us; we just don't know about them yet.
Does the sharing of our questions, concerns, or support for the issues of the day constitute activism on any level? In my opinion yes; writing has always been an important form of activism. We speak - or write - our truths and put them out there in the universe; who or how many might read them - let alone be influenced by them - is neither our business nor anything that we can do anything about (other than honest efforts to increase "the circulation" of our blogs,
like submitting them to search engines, web rings and the like).
Do you ever follow the links down paths that show opinions in opposition to yours? Sometimes I read some educated, civilized conservatives like The Leibman Theory; but the Neanderthals - with respect for the original Neanderthals - I cannot stand.
Do you have information sources that you believe to be giving a complete and honest picture? And if so, I'd love to know what they are. I tend to trust sources on the left much more than those on the right (which I don't trust at all). Jeanne d'Arc has a list under the title "Good Guys" (right-wing publications she appropriately calls "The Opposition", and has a list of those, too), and also links to The Lefty Directory, which contains, among many other things and links to left-wing blogs, an interesting interview with Jeanne d'Arc. Liberal Oasis is another aptly-named site. There are many others. But, as you say very well, I'm sure both sides spin the stories; however, we much prefer the spin on the left.
I thought about taking this question to e-mail, but then felt it might make interesting dialog here. I'm glad you did; the wider the possibilities of dialog are set the higher the probability that someone will come up with bright ideas that might promote insight and understanding.
I never cease to be intrigued that two very intelligent, well-read, highly educated people can come to diametrically opposed positions. It seems there is no Truth (with a capital "T") Is everything relative? I believe it is very likely that "there is no Truth (with a capital 'T')", and those who believe there is - and "they" have It, of course - are horribly dangerous to the rest of us and likely to want to burn us at the stake to make us see the error of our ways and accept their One and Only Truth. In my opinion the reason "two very intelligent, well-read, highly educated people" sometimes "come to diametrically opposed positions" is that they perceive things differently, and don't give the same weights to the same components. It is known to law-enforcement personnel that two witnesses of the same event can give wildly different accounts thereof and both believe they are being absolutely truthful. The sages tell us that unless one has reached the fourth state of consciousness known as enlightenment one only perceives shadows, projections, "spectra" of "reality", and obviously shadows of one object can be different depending on the angle of illumination. We unenlightened ones don't perceive reality but a picture, a map thereof. A picture can be darker or lighter, or have various kinds of distortions. Iowa can be pink in one map and green in another; it is still the same Iowa, just different maps.
Another image I like is that reality is a mountain; we are all climbing the same mountain from different sides; the views we see are different and the degrees of difficulty of the climbing are different too, depending on whether we're climbing a steep or a gentle slope. When we reach the top we'll all be in the same place and our views will be similar - though still dependent on the direction we're looking... - but while we're climbing it doesn't make any sense to despise a fellow climber because her/his path is different from ours.
December 22, 2002
Starz Light blog
Starz Light is a recently started blog I recommend.
In answer to the December 20 post there about online names and identities, I would have preferred to use for my blog the name Emilio by which I have been known for 62 years, but it was already taken, which accounts for my use of its Latin version �milius. See my post of September 9, 2002 for an explanation of the name.
Regarding online person� there are some articles I find interesting at Psychology of Cyberspace and its associated links, including one article named Identity Management in Cyberspace which seems to be exactly along the lines of what Starz is talking about.
I�ve thought and am still thinking about a name and a description for my blog that accurately reflect me and my blog, are witty, pithy and meaty, and induce a strong desire to visit and read on everyone who sees them. But by the time I think of something apt my blog will be listed in too many places and it will be too much of a hassle to change...
Space exploration is a matter of great interest for me too, and I have wondered many times why enthusiasm for it seems to have diminished so much in the US and indeed everywhere. Let us compare what happened after Neil Armstrong got to the Moon with what happened when Columbus got to America (not that I believe for a moment that Columbus was the first human being who traveled to America from another continent, or even from Europe): after Columbus a process started that led to what America (North and South) is today (not that it wouldn�t have been better for the Earth and especially for American Indians or Native Americans [I find advantages and disadvantages in both denominations, but I am told many persons of those ethnicities prefer the first; anyway, this is a subject for another discussion] if that process hadn�t taken place), but after Armstrong got to the Moon there were just a couple of trips or so and then nothing for thirty years.
I know unstaffed (NOT "unmanned", please) vehicles have been sent to other places, but everybody (including those who claim that unstaffed vehicles are more efficient, etc.) knows it's not the same.
One possible explanation for the lack of space travel is that somebody told somebody in a very convincing manner "You human beings are dirty, irrational, cruel and violent, and make messes everywhere you go. You have ALREADY made an incredible mess of the area of space near your planet, which is strewn with your garbage. You're simply not ready to venture further into space � privately we doubt you will ever be � and you better not even try, because we simply won't let you".
The idea of non-Earth beings appearing on the scene and curbing human arrogance � probably the only thing that ever might � fills me with glee. "Guess what, girls and boys: we are not the crown of creation, the most important beings in the universe. In fact much of the universe thinks of our planet � IF it thinks of our planet at all � as a remote drop of mud, and perhaps not even "nice" mud, as in a garden, but... and of us as the somewhat disgusting bugs and bacteria that populate the mud. Perhaps it would behoove us to show a little more humility, and some respect for other species, including the bugs that populate "our" mud..."
Who knows? Perhaps there is some light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not the headlamp of an oncoming train.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Starz! May you write for many years in good health and happiness, and may your readers and you enjoy fruitful and interesting dialogues!
In answer to the December 20 post there about online names and identities, I would have preferred to use for my blog the name Emilio by which I have been known for 62 years, but it was already taken, which accounts for my use of its Latin version �milius. See my post of September 9, 2002 for an explanation of the name.
Regarding online person� there are some articles I find interesting at Psychology of Cyberspace and its associated links, including one article named Identity Management in Cyberspace which seems to be exactly along the lines of what Starz is talking about.
I�ve thought and am still thinking about a name and a description for my blog that accurately reflect me and my blog, are witty, pithy and meaty, and induce a strong desire to visit and read on everyone who sees them. But by the time I think of something apt my blog will be listed in too many places and it will be too much of a hassle to change...
Space exploration is a matter of great interest for me too, and I have wondered many times why enthusiasm for it seems to have diminished so much in the US and indeed everywhere. Let us compare what happened after Neil Armstrong got to the Moon with what happened when Columbus got to America (not that I believe for a moment that Columbus was the first human being who traveled to America from another continent, or even from Europe): after Columbus a process started that led to what America (North and South) is today (not that it wouldn�t have been better for the Earth and especially for American Indians or Native Americans [I find advantages and disadvantages in both denominations, but I am told many persons of those ethnicities prefer the first; anyway, this is a subject for another discussion] if that process hadn�t taken place), but after Armstrong got to the Moon there were just a couple of trips or so and then nothing for thirty years.
I know unstaffed (NOT "unmanned", please) vehicles have been sent to other places, but everybody (including those who claim that unstaffed vehicles are more efficient, etc.) knows it's not the same.
One possible explanation for the lack of space travel is that somebody told somebody in a very convincing manner "You human beings are dirty, irrational, cruel and violent, and make messes everywhere you go. You have ALREADY made an incredible mess of the area of space near your planet, which is strewn with your garbage. You're simply not ready to venture further into space � privately we doubt you will ever be � and you better not even try, because we simply won't let you".
The idea of non-Earth beings appearing on the scene and curbing human arrogance � probably the only thing that ever might � fills me with glee. "Guess what, girls and boys: we are not the crown of creation, the most important beings in the universe. In fact much of the universe thinks of our planet � IF it thinks of our planet at all � as a remote drop of mud, and perhaps not even "nice" mud, as in a garden, but... and of us as the somewhat disgusting bugs and bacteria that populate the mud. Perhaps it would behoove us to show a little more humility, and some respect for other species, including the bugs that populate "our" mud..."
Who knows? Perhaps there is some light at the end of the tunnel, and it is not the headlamp of an oncoming train.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Starz! May you write for many years in good health and happiness, and may your readers and you enjoy fruitful and interesting dialogues!
December 21, 2002
Department of Errors the media feed us
On the first column of page 28 of the December 16, 2002 issue of Newsweek magazine, an article about Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser to the unelected person occupying the Presidency contains the following sentence: "Rice joked that the magazine was trying to turn her into Madame de S�vign�, a 17th century courtier and mistress of Louis XIV." (Sic) Have Ms. Rice and/or Newsweek discovered new historical data? Does anyone know of any sources claiming a liaison between Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de S�vign� and grand-daughter of St. Chantal, and the Sun King??
The article goes on to point obvious differences between Madame de S�vign� and Ms. Rice, so one fails to see the basis for the comparison, even as a "joke".
Were Ms. Rice and/or Newsweek thinking about Madame de la Valli�re, Madame de Maintenon, Madame de Montespan or some other "17th century courtier" who was a "mistress of Louis XIV"? The comparison does not hold any better with those other ladies.
Is there any implication on the part of Ms. Rice and/or Newsweek of a liaison between Ms. Rice and the unelected person acting as Head of State? And if that is so, where are the reporters who pounced on President Clinton for less?
I am puzzled. But a question that worries me even more is: which of the other pieces of information contained in that article � or for that matter in the whole magazine � is(are) equally grossly inaccurate?
The article goes on to point obvious differences between Madame de S�vign� and Ms. Rice, so one fails to see the basis for the comparison, even as a "joke".
Were Ms. Rice and/or Newsweek thinking about Madame de la Valli�re, Madame de Maintenon, Madame de Montespan or some other "17th century courtier" who was a "mistress of Louis XIV"? The comparison does not hold any better with those other ladies.
Is there any implication on the part of Ms. Rice and/or Newsweek of a liaison between Ms. Rice and the unelected person acting as Head of State? And if that is so, where are the reporters who pounced on President Clinton for less?
I am puzzled. But a question that worries me even more is: which of the other pieces of information contained in that article � or for that matter in the whole magazine � is(are) equally grossly inaccurate?
December 12, 2002
Max Leibman's reply...
...to my previous post on sexual orientation may be found here. Thank you, Max, for an interesting discussion.
December 10, 2002
Max Leibman's comment and my reply
My fellow blogger Max Leibman wrote an interesting comment to my post on sexuality, and I'd like to respond below to some of his points. What Max wrote is in blue, what I wrote is in black.
I see points to agree on -- included that love is rare and deserving of nurturing, and I will go as far as to agree that a great deal of undeserved discrimination has been perpetrated against practitioners of non-traditional sexuality.
Understanding and insight IS needed; I believe that no resolution is possible until a better dialogue is achieved (and that's not a one-sided street; plenty of closed-minded and shrill-toned belligerents can be found on either side of this debate).
The one thing I find here that I would question strongly is the notion that bisexuality is the natural condition. The animal kingdom often illustrates bisexual tendencies exist and are even common, but the overwhelming majority of copulations in many populations (I believe most populations of mammals, but I'm no biologist) is Male-Female.
I want to emphasize your use of "common", "majority", "many", "most". Sexuality is not to be decided democratically, with everyone following the will of the majority. And even if the ways of the majority were considered "the norm", the rights of minorities to engage in different forms of behavior that harm no one need to be protected.
In our own human sphere, our anatomies and personalities (the latter taken in aggregate -- a given woman can have any masculine personality trait and vice-versa) are complementary to a degree which, whether designed by higher consciousness or shaped by natural selection, compels a natural state of heterosexuality. Hormonal drives and pleasure centers appear to exist as a way of encouraging fornication, ergo procreation;
Not in homosexual people: their "hormonal drives and pleasure centers" incline them to prefer sex with people of their same sex. As to personalities, there are wide variations: whatever definitions of what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" are adopted there will be people who don't fit them. They may be dissenters, but they are not sick or abnormal or unnatural. I know you did not use those words, but many do.
the fact that we have moved beyond that, and now use sexuality as an act of pleasure or love with no desire to procreate is not an indication of the fundamental nature of the sexual human does not involve procreativity, but rather an indication that we have taken what nature gave us and applied it to a higher type of emotional cognizance. Yes, we may have moved beyond sexuality as procreation long ago, but that does not mean that procreative drives are not a fundamental part of the majority of sexual urges.
Not so, in my opinion: throughout my life I have felt a strong urge NOT to procreate: too many human beings on the planet, lack of paternal inclination and other reasons which might be the subject of another post. Some people feel the inclination to have children, some don't. Homosexual people too are split into those two categories; and those who desire children can have them through various technological means like artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, etc. without having to engage in heterosexual activity they may find distasteful.
In fact it might be argued - and I do - that one of the social benefits of homosexuality is that it is less likely than heterosexuality to result in procreation, thereby helping to preserve the environment and heal Mother Earth.
Further, separating cultural influence and socialization from actual natural tendencies and characters is challenging, to be sure; however, we should not take that as license to write off anything that is taught as part of a culture as "indoctrination" and assume its basis is only as old, or valid, as its cultural history. It is entirely possible and reasonable that the cultural norms arose from or exist to reinforce a natural tendency that, for most people, produced happier and/or healthier results.
Homosexual people are happier and/or healthier being who they are and having the rest of their fellow human beings acknowledge and accept who they are as part of the spectrum of diversity that exists in nature.
Some "cultural norms" arose because they benefit some particular interest with the political power to impose them: throughout history patriarchies have encouraged and promoted procreation: it supplies more followers, soldiers, contributors, taxpayers, helps enhance political power, keeps females powerless and subjugated. Even now there is strong social pressure to breed, to the point that support groups - the child-free movement - are formed to provide emotional and intellectual sustenance to people determined to resist that pressure.
Your mention of "license to write off anything that is taught as part of a culture as 'indoctrination'" suggested to me the reflection that perhaps a good definition of "civilization" would be the degree to which an individual, as long as s/he harms no one, may safely deviate from prevailing, accepted "norms". Giordano Bruno was murdered and Galileo barely escaped by recanting for daring to contradict prevailing nonsensical accepted ideas about the universe. Have we made any progress? Matthew Shepard was murdered for similar "reasons".
Note that I say "most people" -- I still allow for the idea of healthy and natural homosexuality or bisexuality, even if I reject the idea that it is, could be or would be desirable as a statistical equivalent to heterosexuality.
In any event, a fascinating and thoughtful piece of "written daydreaming." It forced me to put into words why I, personally, believe that heterosexuality is a norm. I believe it has also pointed me towards places where my own thinking may need re-evaluation (or, at least, some factual-backing), so now "sexuality" is back in my research queue...
Thank you, Max. It is an interesting subject, and civilized discussion like you and I have just engaged in needs to be encouraged as a road to progress. I invite all readers to participate in this conversation.
I see points to agree on -- included that love is rare and deserving of nurturing, and I will go as far as to agree that a great deal of undeserved discrimination has been perpetrated against practitioners of non-traditional sexuality.
Understanding and insight IS needed; I believe that no resolution is possible until a better dialogue is achieved (and that's not a one-sided street; plenty of closed-minded and shrill-toned belligerents can be found on either side of this debate).
The one thing I find here that I would question strongly is the notion that bisexuality is the natural condition. The animal kingdom often illustrates bisexual tendencies exist and are even common, but the overwhelming majority of copulations in many populations (I believe most populations of mammals, but I'm no biologist) is Male-Female.
I want to emphasize your use of "common", "majority", "many", "most". Sexuality is not to be decided democratically, with everyone following the will of the majority. And even if the ways of the majority were considered "the norm", the rights of minorities to engage in different forms of behavior that harm no one need to be protected.
In our own human sphere, our anatomies and personalities (the latter taken in aggregate -- a given woman can have any masculine personality trait and vice-versa) are complementary to a degree which, whether designed by higher consciousness or shaped by natural selection, compels a natural state of heterosexuality. Hormonal drives and pleasure centers appear to exist as a way of encouraging fornication, ergo procreation;
Not in homosexual people: their "hormonal drives and pleasure centers" incline them to prefer sex with people of their same sex. As to personalities, there are wide variations: whatever definitions of what is "feminine" and what is "masculine" are adopted there will be people who don't fit them. They may be dissenters, but they are not sick or abnormal or unnatural. I know you did not use those words, but many do.
the fact that we have moved beyond that, and now use sexuality as an act of pleasure or love with no desire to procreate is not an indication of the fundamental nature of the sexual human does not involve procreativity, but rather an indication that we have taken what nature gave us and applied it to a higher type of emotional cognizance. Yes, we may have moved beyond sexuality as procreation long ago, but that does not mean that procreative drives are not a fundamental part of the majority of sexual urges.
Not so, in my opinion: throughout my life I have felt a strong urge NOT to procreate: too many human beings on the planet, lack of paternal inclination and other reasons which might be the subject of another post. Some people feel the inclination to have children, some don't. Homosexual people too are split into those two categories; and those who desire children can have them through various technological means like artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, etc. without having to engage in heterosexual activity they may find distasteful.
In fact it might be argued - and I do - that one of the social benefits of homosexuality is that it is less likely than heterosexuality to result in procreation, thereby helping to preserve the environment and heal Mother Earth.
Further, separating cultural influence and socialization from actual natural tendencies and characters is challenging, to be sure; however, we should not take that as license to write off anything that is taught as part of a culture as "indoctrination" and assume its basis is only as old, or valid, as its cultural history. It is entirely possible and reasonable that the cultural norms arose from or exist to reinforce a natural tendency that, for most people, produced happier and/or healthier results.
Homosexual people are happier and/or healthier being who they are and having the rest of their fellow human beings acknowledge and accept who they are as part of the spectrum of diversity that exists in nature.
Some "cultural norms" arose because they benefit some particular interest with the political power to impose them: throughout history patriarchies have encouraged and promoted procreation: it supplies more followers, soldiers, contributors, taxpayers, helps enhance political power, keeps females powerless and subjugated. Even now there is strong social pressure to breed, to the point that support groups - the child-free movement - are formed to provide emotional and intellectual sustenance to people determined to resist that pressure.
Your mention of "license to write off anything that is taught as part of a culture as 'indoctrination'" suggested to me the reflection that perhaps a good definition of "civilization" would be the degree to which an individual, as long as s/he harms no one, may safely deviate from prevailing, accepted "norms". Giordano Bruno was murdered and Galileo barely escaped by recanting for daring to contradict prevailing nonsensical accepted ideas about the universe. Have we made any progress? Matthew Shepard was murdered for similar "reasons".
Note that I say "most people" -- I still allow for the idea of healthy and natural homosexuality or bisexuality, even if I reject the idea that it is, could be or would be desirable as a statistical equivalent to heterosexuality.
In any event, a fascinating and thoughtful piece of "written daydreaming." It forced me to put into words why I, personally, believe that heterosexuality is a norm. I believe it has also pointed me towards places where my own thinking may need re-evaluation (or, at least, some factual-backing), so now "sexuality" is back in my research queue...
Thank you, Max. It is an interesting subject, and civilized discussion like you and I have just engaged in needs to be encouraged as a road to progress. I invite all readers to participate in this conversation.
December 09, 2002
Some thoughts on bi-, mono-, homo-, hetero-, a- sexualities
What follows is speculation; I am doing the writing equivalent of daydreaming aloud. My purpose is to promote thinking and examination of the issues involved. What I aspire to is communication with others who may also want to ponder these matters. If the subject interests you please tell me the areas in which you think I'm right � if any � and the areas in which you think I'm wrong, and why in both cases. Wouldn�t it be wonderful if we got a little closer to understanding and insight? I believe we have to stir the cauldron lest our thinking stick to the bottom and burn.
My speculations don�t intend to change anybody's sexuality but the approach we take to the subject. And the horrendous discrimination inflicted on humans with sexualities different from the accepted standard.
I remember reading years ago in the late lamented "woman of power: a magazine of feminism, spirituality and politics" (sic, all lower case, in the style adopted by some feminist writers, like bell hooks and others) a quotation by someone (quoting from memory; my almost complete collection of the magazine is still buried in the boxes in which it came from New York) to the effect that as long as the anatomical part touching her was loving she wasn�t much concerned about the sex of the body to which said part belonged. That impressed me and got me to thinking that indeed only a patriarchal system bent on reproduction or breeding could possibly claim that there is anything preferable or desirable or "normal" or "healthy" about sex between two humans of different sex. Even humans of different sex sometimes engage in sexual or sensual activities different from copulation with no thought given to reproduction. Sometimes special measures are even taken to prevent � hopefully, or at least reduce the probability � of conception and birth, so all claims to the reproductive connection have to be abandoned. Also, technology has enabled humans to reproduce without any sexual contact by in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and a number of other techniques worthy of Dr. Moreau's island.
The extent of the connection between sex and reproduction is one of those big lies that many of us have taken for granted, at least during part of our lives, until we start questioning: wait a minute, does the Emperor have any clothes?
Perhaps at one point in the history of the species and of individuals there was no distinction between sensuality and sexuality. Even after some distinction developed � or was manufactured, or imprinted through brainwashing on individuals � there still remains an occasional blur occasionally between the two.
The patriarchy tries very hard to instill heterosexuality into individuals, but in some cases this effort fails and the individual remains bisexual. Perhaps in some cases some individuals react to the indoctrination by opposing it and in that process lose the ability to relate sexually to individuals of the other sex. In this scenario "normal", "healthy", "standard" sexuality would be bisexual; both homosexuals and heterosexuals � it seems natural to call both "monosexuals" � are individuals who have lost the ability to relate sexually to beings of either the other or the same sex. Perhaps this lost ability might be recovered, if desired, through therapy or other means.
Many of us lack the ability to relate sexually to beings of different species. That is a different ocean � I was going to write "kettle of fish" but realized something bigger was needed � upon which we might try to venture at another time. Small though the inclination in that direction may be among many of us at the present time, let us reflect that the time may not be distant when some contacts will start with non-Earth species, and new issues of sexualities might become current faster than we think.
Anecdotal evidence suggests a correlation between artistic talent and homosexuality, since homosexual people appear to be represented in some professions, like theater, in higher proportion than in the general population. Or maybe it is just that the biographies of famous people tend to be better known so we know whether they are homosexual. Maybe homosexuality is actually a distinction that makes people special. Indeed it is so considered among American Indians and other so-called "primitive" (HA!) groups.
Love is so rare. Wherever it is found it should be nurtured, protected, helped aided and abetted. When one thinks about it what is really unnatural, obscene, sick, perverted is for any kind of love to be thought of as unnatural, obscene, sick or perverted.
I am reflecting that two of the most beautiful love stories I know are of homosexual love: Solitaire and Brahms, a novel by Sarah Dreher and the 1985 movie Desert Hearts. (Don�t believe the user comment by "Tito-8" in the IMDB page; it's a wonderful movie with not one boring moment; read all the other glowing comments).
My speculations don�t intend to change anybody's sexuality but the approach we take to the subject. And the horrendous discrimination inflicted on humans with sexualities different from the accepted standard.
I remember reading years ago in the late lamented "woman of power: a magazine of feminism, spirituality and politics" (sic, all lower case, in the style adopted by some feminist writers, like bell hooks and others) a quotation by someone (quoting from memory; my almost complete collection of the magazine is still buried in the boxes in which it came from New York) to the effect that as long as the anatomical part touching her was loving she wasn�t much concerned about the sex of the body to which said part belonged. That impressed me and got me to thinking that indeed only a patriarchal system bent on reproduction or breeding could possibly claim that there is anything preferable or desirable or "normal" or "healthy" about sex between two humans of different sex. Even humans of different sex sometimes engage in sexual or sensual activities different from copulation with no thought given to reproduction. Sometimes special measures are even taken to prevent � hopefully, or at least reduce the probability � of conception and birth, so all claims to the reproductive connection have to be abandoned. Also, technology has enabled humans to reproduce without any sexual contact by in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination and a number of other techniques worthy of Dr. Moreau's island.
The extent of the connection between sex and reproduction is one of those big lies that many of us have taken for granted, at least during part of our lives, until we start questioning: wait a minute, does the Emperor have any clothes?
Perhaps at one point in the history of the species and of individuals there was no distinction between sensuality and sexuality. Even after some distinction developed � or was manufactured, or imprinted through brainwashing on individuals � there still remains an occasional blur occasionally between the two.
The patriarchy tries very hard to instill heterosexuality into individuals, but in some cases this effort fails and the individual remains bisexual. Perhaps in some cases some individuals react to the indoctrination by opposing it and in that process lose the ability to relate sexually to individuals of the other sex. In this scenario "normal", "healthy", "standard" sexuality would be bisexual; both homosexuals and heterosexuals � it seems natural to call both "monosexuals" � are individuals who have lost the ability to relate sexually to beings of either the other or the same sex. Perhaps this lost ability might be recovered, if desired, through therapy or other means.
Many of us lack the ability to relate sexually to beings of different species. That is a different ocean � I was going to write "kettle of fish" but realized something bigger was needed � upon which we might try to venture at another time. Small though the inclination in that direction may be among many of us at the present time, let us reflect that the time may not be distant when some contacts will start with non-Earth species, and new issues of sexualities might become current faster than we think.
Anecdotal evidence suggests a correlation between artistic talent and homosexuality, since homosexual people appear to be represented in some professions, like theater, in higher proportion than in the general population. Or maybe it is just that the biographies of famous people tend to be better known so we know whether they are homosexual. Maybe homosexuality is actually a distinction that makes people special. Indeed it is so considered among American Indians and other so-called "primitive" (HA!) groups.
Love is so rare. Wherever it is found it should be nurtured, protected, helped aided and abetted. When one thinks about it what is really unnatural, obscene, sick, perverted is for any kind of love to be thought of as unnatural, obscene, sick or perverted.
I am reflecting that two of the most beautiful love stories I know are of homosexual love: Solitaire and Brahms, a novel by Sarah Dreher and the 1985 movie Desert Hearts. (Don�t believe the user comment by "Tito-8" in the IMDB page; it's a wonderful movie with not one boring moment; read all the other glowing comments).
PaganSpeak Topics for December 2002
PaganSpeak Topics for December 2002
Topic # 1: Polytheist, Monotheist, Dualist or Other? (courtesy of Wren's Nest)
Are you a die-hard Polytheist who believes that the many Gods/Goddesses are distinct and individual entities? Are you a Pagan Monotheist? Pantheist? Do you believe that "All Gods/Goddesses are One God/Goddess"? Does the term 'Lord and Lady' represent a specific Lord and/or Lady to you or is it a term used most often to simply denote the concept of a male and/or a female deity? Do you think that all of these terms are interchangeable? Can you see where and when the need to define what YOU mean by 'Gods/Goddesses' might be necessary? What do you think about 'Choose one from column A and one from Column B' pantheon building?
My answer is "All of the above". I'll tell you what my own views are, but any other views are equally valid, and Divinity fits all the descriptions we can invent; yes, even the bad-tempered bearded old guy sitting on a cloud busily writing down every sexual thought we have. We move in the direction of what we worship and set our attention to, so we should choose wisely. Divinity being infinite and unlimited it does not make sense to say that Divinity is NOT something, any more than to say that Divinity IS something. Personally I believe some sages have experienced Divinity and believe what they say that Divinity is pure Consciousness. I have no conflict with anyone who believes differently; just let's not hurt each other nor anyone else. I believe everything is a manifestation of Divinity, and when anyone hurts anyone s/he is hurting Divinity: bad business; don't do it. By anyone I mean any living, sentient, conscious entity. Aardvarks are not conscious, you say? How do you know? You cannot know for certain that the human being next to you, even your own sister/brother, is conscious. So better assume that they are. Don't hurt anyone, including aardvarks.
Monotheism has done enormous harm to human beings and the whole earth, and I feel a ferocious distrust thereof. Some people become convinced that there is only one Deity and next thing you know they are busily torturing anyone who does not believe in exactly the same way in order lovingly to show them the error of their ways. Yes, I believe there is a Unity in this Divinity/Consciousness; the Divinity/Consciousness is the same everywhere, in all its infinite manifestations. Some sages, the Enlightened Ones, have experienced this Divinity/Consciousness, but nothing can be said or told about it: those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know. Those who know don't tell not because they are being mysterious or keeping a secret, but - they say and I believe - there is nothing to tell; it simply cannot be told. We cannot relate to this unmanifest Divinity/Consciousness, though we will experience it when our minds become quiet and we lose whatever prevents us from experiencing it.
But Divinity/Consciousness has infinite manifestations, into some of which we CAN sink our spiritual teeth - and into some of which we can and do sink our physical teeth. Some of these manifestations of Divinity/Consciousness are am�bas, some are carrots, some are chickens, some are us, some are angels, some are gods and some are goddesses.
So, are the many gods and goddesses distinct and individual entities? Yes, and they are also, as am I, diverse manifestations of Divinity/Consciousness. Am I a pantheist? Yes, everything is a manifestation of Divinity/Consciousness, or Divinity/Consciousness is immanent - resides in - everything.
As an exercise in what I like to call thealogical affirmative action and in order to counter my own conditioning and millennia of patriarchal domination I direct my worship to Goddess in Her diverse manifestations. I believe what the world and my own spiritual growth require are the cultivation and enhancement of traits traditionally seen as feminine: cooperation as against competition, nurturing, compassion, patience, non-aggression, better communications. Goddess is a combination of all Her manifestations throughout history.
Of course I recognize the existence of Gods, including the angry old guy sitting on a cloud, I just choose to direct my worship/set my attention on Goddess. What do I think about 'Choose one from column A and one from Column B' pantheon building? Hey, whatever works. All I ask is that no one hurt anyone.
As the Bible - a good book, containing much literary beauty and a lot of truth, though also lots of nonsense, like the infamous "You shall not allow a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) - says: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren [AND "sistren", I'd like to add, to give the plural of "sister" a nice antique patina] to sit together in unity and harmony" (Psalms 133:1).
Topic # 2: Pot-Kettle: Do We Have Our Own Fundamentalists? (courtesy Wren's Nest)
Does religious fundamentalism exist in some Pagan and/or Heathen communities? Can a closed group or tradition be considered as fundamentalist? Are there some Pagans and/or Heathens who 'preach' one true Pagan or Heathen way? Is resistance to the 'mainstreaming' of Paganism/Heathenism a form of fundamentalism? How can we approach the preservation of Pagan and/or Heathen spiritual and/or cultural integrity and identity without falling into fundamentalism? Is fundamentalism even necessarily a 'bad' thing? You can also check out Isaac Bonewits' essay on fundamentalism at: A Call to Arms for definitions and other background material.
Alas, I would not be surprised if there were Pagan fundamentalists somewhere. Pagans being human - contrary to what some "Holy" Inquisitors believed - we are heir to all the diseases that affect that sorry species. In my opinion preaching and eagerness for converts are mostly motivated by the desire for more financial contributions and a wider political basis, and I guess some Pagans might be as ambitious as the worst of them.
That in my opinion accounts for the reluctance of many Pagans to the so-called "mainstreaming" of Paganism (besides, which form of Paganism would we "mainstream"?). We are afraid something similar might happen to us to what's happened to other religions and we might see the appearance of Pagan Swaggarts, Bakkers and ayatollahs, Goddess forbid, and other frauds.
The phrase "the preservation of Pagan and/or Heathen spiritual and/or cultural integrity and identity" fills me with dread: it sounds too much like "racial purity", "party line" or Orthodoxy. "Integrity" and "identity" are things that each Pagan person has and does with whatever s/he sees fit. Many of us have had to change our beliefs, and some have changed identities, so which "integrity" and "identity" would we be talking about preserving? Some sort of trademark or copyright on the words "Pagan" and "Heathen"? Some institution or person(s) in charge of deciding who is or ain't a "true", "real", "legitimate", "genuine", "bona fide" Pagan or Heathen?? Goddess forbid, perish the thought, chas vechalilah veshalom (for those who might not know, the latter is Hebrew for "May we be spared, may we be preserved and may we have peace". Yes, I do believe it to be more powerful in Hebrew, but you don't have to).
Some Pagan groups, like Gardnerians, or A Druid Fellowship, or several others, do have their own rules and standards of legitimacy. I don't belong to any of them but have the greatest respect for them, and they are not remotely "fundamentalist" by any definition of the term. They are also open to any seeker in good faith who wants to join them. As to "closed" groups, I am not fond of the concept - I can hardly even imagine rejecting a seeker in good faith - but they must have their reasons, and unless the criteria are unreasonable or illegal - like race - I guess the concept of individual liberties demands that they should be free to have their closed group. After all, if I marry somebody and - supposedly - reject all others I am in actuality forming a closed group. Not guilty of fundamentalism.
"Is fundamentalism even necessarily a 'bad' thing?" Well, yes, as excellently explained in A Call to Arms.
Other than that I don't have anything to add to what my beloved teacher Isaac Bonewits wrote so well in his above-mentioned essay, reading which, as well as all his other writings, I earnestly recommend.
Topic # 3: Yule/Litha
In the Northern Hemisphere Yule is upon us. In the Southern it is Litha or Summer Solstice. What are your plans?
Being thankful that the Sun stops going away from us and starts on Its way back, looking forward to Spring and Summer, being warm inside the house with my family (my spouse and my dogs) and engaging in my regular routine retirement rituals: reading, writing, resting, relaxing, reflecting, relating and roaming the web. :-)
Forgot an important plan: avoiding as much as possible the sickening flood of xmas-related sounds and images.
Topic # 1: Polytheist, Monotheist, Dualist or Other? (courtesy of Wren's Nest)
Are you a die-hard Polytheist who believes that the many Gods/Goddesses are distinct and individual entities? Are you a Pagan Monotheist? Pantheist? Do you believe that "All Gods/Goddesses are One God/Goddess"? Does the term 'Lord and Lady' represent a specific Lord and/or Lady to you or is it a term used most often to simply denote the concept of a male and/or a female deity? Do you think that all of these terms are interchangeable? Can you see where and when the need to define what YOU mean by 'Gods/Goddesses' might be necessary? What do you think about 'Choose one from column A and one from Column B' pantheon building?
My answer is "All of the above". I'll tell you what my own views are, but any other views are equally valid, and Divinity fits all the descriptions we can invent; yes, even the bad-tempered bearded old guy sitting on a cloud busily writing down every sexual thought we have. We move in the direction of what we worship and set our attention to, so we should choose wisely. Divinity being infinite and unlimited it does not make sense to say that Divinity is NOT something, any more than to say that Divinity IS something. Personally I believe some sages have experienced Divinity and believe what they say that Divinity is pure Consciousness. I have no conflict with anyone who believes differently; just let's not hurt each other nor anyone else. I believe everything is a manifestation of Divinity, and when anyone hurts anyone s/he is hurting Divinity: bad business; don't do it. By anyone I mean any living, sentient, conscious entity. Aardvarks are not conscious, you say? How do you know? You cannot know for certain that the human being next to you, even your own sister/brother, is conscious. So better assume that they are. Don't hurt anyone, including aardvarks.
Monotheism has done enormous harm to human beings and the whole earth, and I feel a ferocious distrust thereof. Some people become convinced that there is only one Deity and next thing you know they are busily torturing anyone who does not believe in exactly the same way in order lovingly to show them the error of their ways. Yes, I believe there is a Unity in this Divinity/Consciousness; the Divinity/Consciousness is the same everywhere, in all its infinite manifestations. Some sages, the Enlightened Ones, have experienced this Divinity/Consciousness, but nothing can be said or told about it: those who know don't tell, and those who tell don't know. Those who know don't tell not because they are being mysterious or keeping a secret, but - they say and I believe - there is nothing to tell; it simply cannot be told. We cannot relate to this unmanifest Divinity/Consciousness, though we will experience it when our minds become quiet and we lose whatever prevents us from experiencing it.
But Divinity/Consciousness has infinite manifestations, into some of which we CAN sink our spiritual teeth - and into some of which we can and do sink our physical teeth. Some of these manifestations of Divinity/Consciousness are am�bas, some are carrots, some are chickens, some are us, some are angels, some are gods and some are goddesses.
So, are the many gods and goddesses distinct and individual entities? Yes, and they are also, as am I, diverse manifestations of Divinity/Consciousness. Am I a pantheist? Yes, everything is a manifestation of Divinity/Consciousness, or Divinity/Consciousness is immanent - resides in - everything.
As an exercise in what I like to call thealogical affirmative action and in order to counter my own conditioning and millennia of patriarchal domination I direct my worship to Goddess in Her diverse manifestations. I believe what the world and my own spiritual growth require are the cultivation and enhancement of traits traditionally seen as feminine: cooperation as against competition, nurturing, compassion, patience, non-aggression, better communications. Goddess is a combination of all Her manifestations throughout history.
Of course I recognize the existence of Gods, including the angry old guy sitting on a cloud, I just choose to direct my worship/set my attention on Goddess. What do I think about 'Choose one from column A and one from Column B' pantheon building? Hey, whatever works. All I ask is that no one hurt anyone.
As the Bible - a good book, containing much literary beauty and a lot of truth, though also lots of nonsense, like the infamous "You shall not allow a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) - says: "Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren [AND "sistren", I'd like to add, to give the plural of "sister" a nice antique patina] to sit together in unity and harmony" (Psalms 133:1).
Topic # 2: Pot-Kettle: Do We Have Our Own Fundamentalists? (courtesy Wren's Nest)
Does religious fundamentalism exist in some Pagan and/or Heathen communities? Can a closed group or tradition be considered as fundamentalist? Are there some Pagans and/or Heathens who 'preach' one true Pagan or Heathen way? Is resistance to the 'mainstreaming' of Paganism/Heathenism a form of fundamentalism? How can we approach the preservation of Pagan and/or Heathen spiritual and/or cultural integrity and identity without falling into fundamentalism? Is fundamentalism even necessarily a 'bad' thing? You can also check out Isaac Bonewits' essay on fundamentalism at: A Call to Arms for definitions and other background material.
Alas, I would not be surprised if there were Pagan fundamentalists somewhere. Pagans being human - contrary to what some "Holy" Inquisitors believed - we are heir to all the diseases that affect that sorry species. In my opinion preaching and eagerness for converts are mostly motivated by the desire for more financial contributions and a wider political basis, and I guess some Pagans might be as ambitious as the worst of them.
That in my opinion accounts for the reluctance of many Pagans to the so-called "mainstreaming" of Paganism (besides, which form of Paganism would we "mainstream"?). We are afraid something similar might happen to us to what's happened to other religions and we might see the appearance of Pagan Swaggarts, Bakkers and ayatollahs, Goddess forbid, and other frauds.
The phrase "the preservation of Pagan and/or Heathen spiritual and/or cultural integrity and identity" fills me with dread: it sounds too much like "racial purity", "party line" or Orthodoxy. "Integrity" and "identity" are things that each Pagan person has and does with whatever s/he sees fit. Many of us have had to change our beliefs, and some have changed identities, so which "integrity" and "identity" would we be talking about preserving? Some sort of trademark or copyright on the words "Pagan" and "Heathen"? Some institution or person(s) in charge of deciding who is or ain't a "true", "real", "legitimate", "genuine", "bona fide" Pagan or Heathen?? Goddess forbid, perish the thought, chas vechalilah veshalom (for those who might not know, the latter is Hebrew for "May we be spared, may we be preserved and may we have peace". Yes, I do believe it to be more powerful in Hebrew, but you don't have to).
Some Pagan groups, like Gardnerians, or A Druid Fellowship, or several others, do have their own rules and standards of legitimacy. I don't belong to any of them but have the greatest respect for them, and they are not remotely "fundamentalist" by any definition of the term. They are also open to any seeker in good faith who wants to join them. As to "closed" groups, I am not fond of the concept - I can hardly even imagine rejecting a seeker in good faith - but they must have their reasons, and unless the criteria are unreasonable or illegal - like race - I guess the concept of individual liberties demands that they should be free to have their closed group. After all, if I marry somebody and - supposedly - reject all others I am in actuality forming a closed group. Not guilty of fundamentalism.
"Is fundamentalism even necessarily a 'bad' thing?" Well, yes, as excellently explained in A Call to Arms.
Other than that I don't have anything to add to what my beloved teacher Isaac Bonewits wrote so well in his above-mentioned essay, reading which, as well as all his other writings, I earnestly recommend.
Topic # 3: Yule/Litha
In the Northern Hemisphere Yule is upon us. In the Southern it is Litha or Summer Solstice. What are your plans?
Being thankful that the Sun stops going away from us and starts on Its way back, looking forward to Spring and Summer, being warm inside the house with my family (my spouse and my dogs) and engaging in my regular routine retirement rituals: reading, writing, resting, relaxing, reflecting, relating and roaming the web. :-)
Forgot an important plan: avoiding as much as possible the sickening flood of xmas-related sounds and images.
November 26, 2002
Ancestral considerations
I neither am particularly concerned nor do I care to know who my ancestors were. I think that information is only of mild anecdotal interest, like "this is where Pickett's charge took place": cute if you are touring Gettysburg, but not essential to the knowledge of history. Even if I had some more information about my ancestors than I do, and if most of it beyond two or three generations was not utterly lost among the ashes of the Holocaust, I would be neither particularly proud to have "good" ancestors nor particularly ashamed to have "bad" ones. As it happens and will be seen later, all of us in all likelihood have both.
But though the questions of WHO don�t motivate me, the questions of HOW MANY seem to lead to some startling conclusions. Please let me know of any errors you find in my reasoning.
The length of a generation is usually acknowledged to be between 25 and 30 years, i.e., three or four generations per century. The exact figure we choose does not change the results substantially. And let us keep into account that throughout most of history the length of a generation was much less, because people of 25 or 30 years were already old and most often bred at much earlier ages. Let us count four generations per century.
Let us take eighteen hundred years ago as an arbitrary date for computation: we are in 202 C.E., during the empire of Septimius Severus, 1800/25=72 generations ago.
Since all of us have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents and the number of our ancestors doubles with each generation, the number of our ancestors 72 generations ago was
2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*
*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*
*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2=
=2^72=4,722,366,482,869,650,000,000.
This is 787,061,080,478.274 (roughly seven hundred and eighty seven billion) times the current world population estimated at six billion.
Even if the world population had been 6 billion during the entire time human beings have been on this planet, the total number of human beings EVER would be much less than 4,722,366,482,869,650,000,000.
This leads me to the following conclusions: all of us have many ancestors in common; many of those ancestors in turn must have had the same ancestors, many of whom had the same ancestors, many of whom had the same ancestors, many of whom had the same ancestors...
We are all so mixed that ALL racial distinctions are utterly meaningless, like the presence or absence of a mole or eye color.
Does this mean that Adolph Hitler and I have some of the same ancestors? Alas, yes, though far enough in the past to be shrouded in the mists of antiquity... And besides I DID start out saying I would be neither proud nor ashamed of my ancestors, didn�t I?...
Besides in my opinion the sharing of memes counts for much more than the sharing of genes. That is why I prefer my friends to my relatives, and I AM proud of my memetic ancestors, whom I have chosen, unlike my genetic ones, whom I have not.
But though the questions of WHO don�t motivate me, the questions of HOW MANY seem to lead to some startling conclusions. Please let me know of any errors you find in my reasoning.
The length of a generation is usually acknowledged to be between 25 and 30 years, i.e., three or four generations per century. The exact figure we choose does not change the results substantially. And let us keep into account that throughout most of history the length of a generation was much less, because people of 25 or 30 years were already old and most often bred at much earlier ages. Let us count four generations per century.
Let us take eighteen hundred years ago as an arbitrary date for computation: we are in 202 C.E., during the empire of Septimius Severus, 1800/25=72 generations ago.
Since all of us have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents and the number of our ancestors doubles with each generation, the number of our ancestors 72 generations ago was
2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*
*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*
*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2=
=2^72=4,722,366,482,869,650,000,000.
This is 787,061,080,478.274 (roughly seven hundred and eighty seven billion) times the current world population estimated at six billion.
Even if the world population had been 6 billion during the entire time human beings have been on this planet, the total number of human beings EVER would be much less than 4,722,366,482,869,650,000,000.
This leads me to the following conclusions: all of us have many ancestors in common; many of those ancestors in turn must have had the same ancestors, many of whom had the same ancestors, many of whom had the same ancestors, many of whom had the same ancestors...
We are all so mixed that ALL racial distinctions are utterly meaningless, like the presence or absence of a mole or eye color.
Does this mean that Adolph Hitler and I have some of the same ancestors? Alas, yes, though far enough in the past to be shrouded in the mists of antiquity... And besides I DID start out saying I would be neither proud nor ashamed of my ancestors, didn�t I?...
Besides in my opinion the sharing of memes counts for much more than the sharing of genes. That is why I prefer my friends to my relatives, and I AM proud of my memetic ancestors, whom I have chosen, unlike my genetic ones, whom I have not.
Unreadable web pages
Is it just me, because I'm getting older and my eyesight is deteriorating? What's with colored backgrounds on web pages and text that is only a shade darker or lighter than the background? Are the authors of such pages reluctant to expose their musings to the perusal of others and so make them difficult to read as a half-way measure toward not posting them at all? What's wrong with good old black on white?
It used to be that when I found a page like that I would copy the text and paste it in Notepad so as to be able to read it. Now, unless I have powerful reasons to believe that the text in question contains the secrets of life or some other highly desirable insights (HA!) I just pass it over.
Yes, I know I can tell my browser to remove colored backgrounds, but, as with the copying and pasting, mostly it's not worth the effort, and if the author is so keen on preventing me from reading her/his site I'm happy to accommodate.
It used to be that when I found a page like that I would copy the text and paste it in Notepad so as to be able to read it. Now, unless I have powerful reasons to believe that the text in question contains the secrets of life or some other highly desirable insights (HA!) I just pass it over.
Yes, I know I can tell my browser to remove colored backgrounds, but, as with the copying and pasting, mostly it's not worth the effort, and if the author is so keen on preventing me from reading her/his site I'm happy to accommodate.
November 18, 2002
Uniformity
Jodi's blog entry Let's talk about sets made me think of Bloodroot, a feminist restaurant and bookstore in Bridgeport, Connecticut which I visited several times throughout the years while I was living in the New York area. Bloodroot is run by the Bloodroot Collective, and in my opinion it provides a most interesting experience. Unlike most restaurants, the silverware and the plates and cups they use are all different, from different sets. This is a political statement - one of many the place makes: it is meant to celebrate diversity and avoid waste, and to eschew the uniformity that is associated with patriarchal systems (think of uniforms, "one country, one people, one leader", and, most especially, one god). Visit Bloodroot if you're anywhere within reasonable distance, and by all means read their web pages.
November 15, 2002
Seven sinless people in the whole history of the world
In patriarchal religions, no matter what you do you can't be in full compliance with The Rules. That is very bad for one's mental health and self-esteem. Yes, this is a sore subject for me, and one of the grudges I hold against such doctrines, under the pernicious pervading power of which I grew up and still live to a large extent, though striving eagerly for liberation.
I heard many years ago from my Rav Eli Carlebach, of blessed memory, that it says in the Talmud that in the whole history of the world there have been only SEVEN (7) people who never in their whole lives committed any sin. (The story was later picked up by the Roman Catholic Church, though of course their seven sinless people are not the same as in the Jewish list.) So if one wanted to live a life free of sin one would be doomed from the start: if only seven people in history succeeded one would have a MUCH greater chance of winning the lottery, being struck by lightning or going through some other highly unlikely event. So it seems to me that according to those doctrines God WANTS me to sin, i.e., to fail to hit the mark. Why make a set of rules that only seven people, of all the millions that ever existed, could observe it its entirety, without any deviation? Yes, I know: I sin, God forgives me, we're all friends. But what about my self-esteem? I'm a miserable sinner who can't do anything right. That we are ALL sinners is one of the basic tenets in both Judaism and Christianity. We are constantly in need of forgiveness, absolution, pardon, amnesty, indulgence, clemency, exoneration, conveniently arranged, of course, by the religious establishments. Am I the only one who thinks this is sick?
Would an allegedly loving, all-compassionate Deity create such an impracticable, virtually impossible-to-follow set of rules? Or else the supposed "crown" of His creation � i.e., we � is a complete failure.
I wonder whether perhaps He is actually some minor spirit, allowed by His elders and betters to play with this remote splattering of mud � i.e., our solar system area of the Milky Way � as His fiefdom so as to keep him off the streets and out of worse mischief, sort of like Napoleon being named Emperor of Elba. That could account for His Meanness and His Bad Temper.
It wouldn�t take much to impress us human beings with a few Divinity-like trappings; a few relatively elementary tricks and our jaws would drop in awe.
Another thing I could never understand is why a sinner who repents is supposed to have preference over someone who has not sinned (not that there are so many of those). Isn�t that an encouragement to sin for someone who wants to please her/his God?
I know: it's all a mystery, unfathomable for us "mere" mortals. Well, if you can swallow it and are happy with it that's great. But throughout history followers of patriarchal religions have pushed and pushed their modes of behavior (I refuse to call it "thought") to the point that everyone is suffering under them. In spite of the first amendment to the US Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.") we have laws regarding who can get married that reflect Jud�o-Christian doctrine as well as many other laws also upholding Jud�o-Christian ideas. Including a sneaky pronouncement which, under the guise of extending health insurance benefits, is a horribly dangerous blow to women's reproductive freedom of choice: read about it in Raye's blog. As Raye writes very aptly: "this isn't a slippery slope any longer. It's a headlong dive off the cliff."
To any Jud�o-Christian who might feel what I write attacks her/his religion I say: Do you see now why many of us non-Jud�o-Christians resent your religion(s)? Indeed, the free exercise of religion should not be impeded, but that doesn�t include trying to control the behavior of others. Don�t have an abortion and don�t marry a person of the same sex if your religion forbids it, but do not try to curtail my freedom to do so if I want to, since MY religion does allow it.
You personally may not have burned any members of my religion at the stake, but prominent members of your religion(s) have, IN THE NAME OF YOUR RELIGION(S) and supposedly in compliance with their commandments. But we'll leave that, as a reason to resent your religion(s), for another blog entry.
I heard many years ago from my Rav Eli Carlebach, of blessed memory, that it says in the Talmud that in the whole history of the world there have been only SEVEN (7) people who never in their whole lives committed any sin. (The story was later picked up by the Roman Catholic Church, though of course their seven sinless people are not the same as in the Jewish list.) So if one wanted to live a life free of sin one would be doomed from the start: if only seven people in history succeeded one would have a MUCH greater chance of winning the lottery, being struck by lightning or going through some other highly unlikely event. So it seems to me that according to those doctrines God WANTS me to sin, i.e., to fail to hit the mark. Why make a set of rules that only seven people, of all the millions that ever existed, could observe it its entirety, without any deviation? Yes, I know: I sin, God forgives me, we're all friends. But what about my self-esteem? I'm a miserable sinner who can't do anything right. That we are ALL sinners is one of the basic tenets in both Judaism and Christianity. We are constantly in need of forgiveness, absolution, pardon, amnesty, indulgence, clemency, exoneration, conveniently arranged, of course, by the religious establishments. Am I the only one who thinks this is sick?
Would an allegedly loving, all-compassionate Deity create such an impracticable, virtually impossible-to-follow set of rules? Or else the supposed "crown" of His creation � i.e., we � is a complete failure.
I wonder whether perhaps He is actually some minor spirit, allowed by His elders and betters to play with this remote splattering of mud � i.e., our solar system area of the Milky Way � as His fiefdom so as to keep him off the streets and out of worse mischief, sort of like Napoleon being named Emperor of Elba. That could account for His Meanness and His Bad Temper.
It wouldn�t take much to impress us human beings with a few Divinity-like trappings; a few relatively elementary tricks and our jaws would drop in awe.
Another thing I could never understand is why a sinner who repents is supposed to have preference over someone who has not sinned (not that there are so many of those). Isn�t that an encouragement to sin for someone who wants to please her/his God?
I know: it's all a mystery, unfathomable for us "mere" mortals. Well, if you can swallow it and are happy with it that's great. But throughout history followers of patriarchal religions have pushed and pushed their modes of behavior (I refuse to call it "thought") to the point that everyone is suffering under them. In spite of the first amendment to the US Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.") we have laws regarding who can get married that reflect Jud�o-Christian doctrine as well as many other laws also upholding Jud�o-Christian ideas. Including a sneaky pronouncement which, under the guise of extending health insurance benefits, is a horribly dangerous blow to women's reproductive freedom of choice: read about it in Raye's blog. As Raye writes very aptly: "this isn't a slippery slope any longer. It's a headlong dive off the cliff."
To any Jud�o-Christian who might feel what I write attacks her/his religion I say: Do you see now why many of us non-Jud�o-Christians resent your religion(s)? Indeed, the free exercise of religion should not be impeded, but that doesn�t include trying to control the behavior of others. Don�t have an abortion and don�t marry a person of the same sex if your religion forbids it, but do not try to curtail my freedom to do so if I want to, since MY religion does allow it.
You personally may not have burned any members of my religion at the stake, but prominent members of your religion(s) have, IN THE NAME OF YOUR RELIGION(S) and supposedly in compliance with their commandments. But we'll leave that, as a reason to resent your religion(s), for another blog entry.
November 08, 2002
PaganSpeak topics for November 2002
PaganSpeak topics for November 2002:
Topic #1: Faith (courtesy of Wren's Nest) What is faith? Is it simply a decision to believe in something rooted in our psychological needs, or is it deeper than that? Is it illogical, or based in a logic that goes beyond what our conscious minds can grasp?
We Pagans might try to "reclaim" the word "faith" from the abuse it has suffered at the hands of monotheistic religions, but I don�t have much faith in faith, the concept has been battered too much. I don�t think "a decision to believe" is possible; one either believes something or one doesn�t. One could decide to claim to have faith in something, and I suspect many do, and there is a theory that acting as if one had faith might generate such faith, but why would one fake it to begin with? There are possible reasons, like entry into a group seen as desirable, but I see great dangers in faking anything. I "believe" or "have faith in" what my own experience, including that of a spiritual nature obtained through meditation or reflection, tells me is true. Yes, I could be horribly wrong, but I "have faith" in the teaching of the Buddha: "Be a lamp unto your own feet". I don�t expect anyone else to have faith in the same manner I do and I feel inclined neither to burn at the stake nor in any other way to harm those who don�t share my faith.
Faith (as in "keeping faith") also has the meaning of loyalty to a group. I have the highest regard for loyalty, but I believe in keeping in mind the story of Plato being bested in an argument by an opponent, to Plato's great embarrassment; a close friend of Plato's agreed with Plato's opponent and another friend protested: "How come you agree with his opponent, being that you are such a good friend of Plato's?" "I am a friend of Plato's, but I feel even greater friendship for the truth".
Ultimately I suspect that our experiences and what we believe in form a mutually reinforcing network.
Topic #2: Magic for Personal Gain (courtesy of Wren's Nest) Do you think magick/spells should be used for personal gain? What constitutes personal gain (e.g. love spells, money spells, healing spells, self-improvement spells...)
In my opinion any magick that harms no one is ethically acceptable; however I would strongly recommend GREAT caution in asking for anything too specific like money, and I would also strongly recommend NEVER doing any magick without including some formula like "for the good of all and according to the free will of all", as recommended by Marion Weinstein in "Positive Magic". Remember Oscar Wilde's wise dictum about there being two tragedies in life: one being not to get what one wants and the other, even worse, to get it; one difference being that in the first case the onset of disappointment does not occur so fast.
Love spells geared to influence another person's feelings without her/his consent are a form of psychic attack, as are healing spells done for someone else without that person's consent and preferably active self-initiated request.
Rather than love, money, health or special abilities in my opinion it is better to ask for wisdom and insight to understand the reasons why things happen, the strength and ability to cope with them and the awareness to learn from the experiences. I believe Goddess knows what's best for us better than we do. And invariably gives it to us, even without our asking.
Topic #3: Thanksgiving In the USA we are about to celebrate Thanksgiving. This doesn't mean it has to be an American-only holiday however, what are you thankful for this year?
Gratitude to the Gods for their boons is a feeling that ought to be cultivated and practiced at all times. That is one reason why I'm not fond of the Thanksgiving holiday as observed in November. The pictures of the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians sitting together in unity like brothers is totally false: the Wampanoag Indians helped the Pilgrims establish themselves and avoid starvation and other dangers, and as soon as the Pilgrims were settled and comfortable they proceeded to exterminate the Wampanoag Indians (do you know of many Wampanoag Indians in Plymouth, Massachusetts at the present time?).
As to the exchanges of gifts also depicted often in connection with the Thanksgiving holiday, it actually went more or less like this: the Indians gave the Europeans the constitutional decentralized form of government the US has used so successfully (at least until the Republican coup d'�tat of 2000), a number of useful plants, including some that are now staples all over the world, like potatoes, tomatoes and that most wonderful of foods, chocolate and the ability to survive in the American continent, while the Europeans gave the Indians syphilis, genocide, smallpox-contaminated blankets, pollution and a level of poverty and incarceration in Indian communities at the present time that defies imagination and is higher that for any other group in the country.
I am thankful to the Gods for many things, including enjoying the system of government we owe to a large extent to the Indians, but I don�t observe the Thanksgiving holiday, and I wish white people would use the day off to contemplate what has been done to the original inhabitants of this continent and attempt some reparation and restitution.
Topic #1: Faith (courtesy of Wren's Nest) What is faith? Is it simply a decision to believe in something rooted in our psychological needs, or is it deeper than that? Is it illogical, or based in a logic that goes beyond what our conscious minds can grasp?
We Pagans might try to "reclaim" the word "faith" from the abuse it has suffered at the hands of monotheistic religions, but I don�t have much faith in faith, the concept has been battered too much. I don�t think "a decision to believe" is possible; one either believes something or one doesn�t. One could decide to claim to have faith in something, and I suspect many do, and there is a theory that acting as if one had faith might generate such faith, but why would one fake it to begin with? There are possible reasons, like entry into a group seen as desirable, but I see great dangers in faking anything. I "believe" or "have faith in" what my own experience, including that of a spiritual nature obtained through meditation or reflection, tells me is true. Yes, I could be horribly wrong, but I "have faith" in the teaching of the Buddha: "Be a lamp unto your own feet". I don�t expect anyone else to have faith in the same manner I do and I feel inclined neither to burn at the stake nor in any other way to harm those who don�t share my faith.
Faith (as in "keeping faith") also has the meaning of loyalty to a group. I have the highest regard for loyalty, but I believe in keeping in mind the story of Plato being bested in an argument by an opponent, to Plato's great embarrassment; a close friend of Plato's agreed with Plato's opponent and another friend protested: "How come you agree with his opponent, being that you are such a good friend of Plato's?" "I am a friend of Plato's, but I feel even greater friendship for the truth".
Ultimately I suspect that our experiences and what we believe in form a mutually reinforcing network.
Topic #2: Magic for Personal Gain (courtesy of Wren's Nest) Do you think magick/spells should be used for personal gain? What constitutes personal gain (e.g. love spells, money spells, healing spells, self-improvement spells...)
In my opinion any magick that harms no one is ethically acceptable; however I would strongly recommend GREAT caution in asking for anything too specific like money, and I would also strongly recommend NEVER doing any magick without including some formula like "for the good of all and according to the free will of all", as recommended by Marion Weinstein in "Positive Magic". Remember Oscar Wilde's wise dictum about there being two tragedies in life: one being not to get what one wants and the other, even worse, to get it; one difference being that in the first case the onset of disappointment does not occur so fast.
Love spells geared to influence another person's feelings without her/his consent are a form of psychic attack, as are healing spells done for someone else without that person's consent and preferably active self-initiated request.
Rather than love, money, health or special abilities in my opinion it is better to ask for wisdom and insight to understand the reasons why things happen, the strength and ability to cope with them and the awareness to learn from the experiences. I believe Goddess knows what's best for us better than we do. And invariably gives it to us, even without our asking.
Topic #3: Thanksgiving In the USA we are about to celebrate Thanksgiving. This doesn't mean it has to be an American-only holiday however, what are you thankful for this year?
Gratitude to the Gods for their boons is a feeling that ought to be cultivated and practiced at all times. That is one reason why I'm not fond of the Thanksgiving holiday as observed in November. The pictures of the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag Indians sitting together in unity like brothers is totally false: the Wampanoag Indians helped the Pilgrims establish themselves and avoid starvation and other dangers, and as soon as the Pilgrims were settled and comfortable they proceeded to exterminate the Wampanoag Indians (do you know of many Wampanoag Indians in Plymouth, Massachusetts at the present time?).
As to the exchanges of gifts also depicted often in connection with the Thanksgiving holiday, it actually went more or less like this: the Indians gave the Europeans the constitutional decentralized form of government the US has used so successfully (at least until the Republican coup d'�tat of 2000), a number of useful plants, including some that are now staples all over the world, like potatoes, tomatoes and that most wonderful of foods, chocolate and the ability to survive in the American continent, while the Europeans gave the Indians syphilis, genocide, smallpox-contaminated blankets, pollution and a level of poverty and incarceration in Indian communities at the present time that defies imagination and is higher that for any other group in the country.
I am thankful to the Gods for many things, including enjoying the system of government we owe to a large extent to the Indians, but I don�t observe the Thanksgiving holiday, and I wish white people would use the day off to contemplate what has been done to the original inhabitants of this continent and attempt some reparation and restitution.
November 07, 2002
Why blog? and other stuff
In the interests of transparency, full disclosure and compliance with sunshine laws I have to declare at the outset that one of my purposes in writing this is to encourage my friends (and also anyone else, even if s/he's not in that exalted category) to start and maintain their own blogs. It's fun, and since it harms no one that should be sufficient reason to do it. The requirements of an examined life, however, compel me to analyze the reasons further.
It is true that adding even more drivel to the blogosphere harms us all, so let us endeavor mightily and effectively to make what we write non-drivel...
This subject has already been covered very well in Molly's blog entry of 07/24/02. I'd like to say that in my opinion it doesn�t matter that "every blogger has written about it at one point or another". Is it really possible to write anything new and original? Just like the air I breathe has been breathed before by countless others, something similar to anything I think or feel has already, in all likelihood, been thought/felt by others. Or even by me. That doesn�t invalidate anyone's experience. Perhaps on the contrary, it should give us all something to share, a common ground, a basis for understanding.
Through my blog I am "meeting" a number of interesting people and learning a lot from them, and being stimulated to thought by what they write. The blogosphere is like a huge circle in which we can choose when to speak and when to listen. A blog is like a talking stick in this circle.
Sean has chosen Socrates' advice "Know thyself" as epigraph for his blog. Of course we all know Socrates' recommendation � usually, alas, "more honour'd in the breach than the observance" � but it is useful to be reminded of it now and then. Blogging is an excellent tool to pursue this goal. Perhaps one (or more) of my readers � if any... � can tell me the source of this quotation I love: "How can I know what I think/feel until I read what I write?". Blogging is useful to dig into one's mind, where everything we need is to be found, according to the sages. Mullah Nasruddin was seen one night in the street outside his house, circling a lamppost on his hands and knees, examining the ground with great attention. One of his friends walked by and, though accustomed to the Mullah's strange behaviors, could not refrain from asking: "Did you lose anything, Mullah?" "Yes, my keys; I misplaced them in the house and now I can't find them" The friend asked in astonishment: "Mullah, if you misplaced them in the house why are you looking for them out here??" The Mullah looked at his friend with compassion for his lack of understanding and replied: "Well, the light is much better out here!".
The Buddha taught "Be a lamp unto your own feet", let your own light illumine your path. Consider the words of the sages, but don�t go anywhere just because they tell you to.
On the other hand, I'm sad about the results of the election. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe women should not have the right to do as they choose with their own bodies. Maybe we should bomb Irak into the stone age (remember that delightful phrase?). Maybe we should strive for a gun in every pocket. Maybe...
Am I bitter about the election? You bet I am. I try to comfort myself thinking that after all what I consider the side of justice and compassion did not lose for THAT big a margin. Some historian � I can't locate the quotation now � wrote that the US is unique in the history of the world because all other empires have had a beginning, a period of maturity, and decadence, while the US has gone from beginning to decadence without going through maturity.
I believe there are reasons for everything, and maybe eventually we'll find out what they are.
It is true that adding even more drivel to the blogosphere harms us all, so let us endeavor mightily and effectively to make what we write non-drivel...
This subject has already been covered very well in Molly's blog entry of 07/24/02. I'd like to say that in my opinion it doesn�t matter that "every blogger has written about it at one point or another". Is it really possible to write anything new and original? Just like the air I breathe has been breathed before by countless others, something similar to anything I think or feel has already, in all likelihood, been thought/felt by others. Or even by me. That doesn�t invalidate anyone's experience. Perhaps on the contrary, it should give us all something to share, a common ground, a basis for understanding.
Through my blog I am "meeting" a number of interesting people and learning a lot from them, and being stimulated to thought by what they write. The blogosphere is like a huge circle in which we can choose when to speak and when to listen. A blog is like a talking stick in this circle.
Sean has chosen Socrates' advice "Know thyself" as epigraph for his blog. Of course we all know Socrates' recommendation � usually, alas, "more honour'd in the breach than the observance" � but it is useful to be reminded of it now and then. Blogging is an excellent tool to pursue this goal. Perhaps one (or more) of my readers � if any... � can tell me the source of this quotation I love: "How can I know what I think/feel until I read what I write?". Blogging is useful to dig into one's mind, where everything we need is to be found, according to the sages. Mullah Nasruddin was seen one night in the street outside his house, circling a lamppost on his hands and knees, examining the ground with great attention. One of his friends walked by and, though accustomed to the Mullah's strange behaviors, could not refrain from asking: "Did you lose anything, Mullah?" "Yes, my keys; I misplaced them in the house and now I can't find them" The friend asked in astonishment: "Mullah, if you misplaced them in the house why are you looking for them out here??" The Mullah looked at his friend with compassion for his lack of understanding and replied: "Well, the light is much better out here!".
The Buddha taught "Be a lamp unto your own feet", let your own light illumine your path. Consider the words of the sages, but don�t go anywhere just because they tell you to.
On the other hand, I'm sad about the results of the election. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe women should not have the right to do as they choose with their own bodies. Maybe we should bomb Irak into the stone age (remember that delightful phrase?). Maybe we should strive for a gun in every pocket. Maybe...
Am I bitter about the election? You bet I am. I try to comfort myself thinking that after all what I consider the side of justice and compassion did not lose for THAT big a margin. Some historian � I can't locate the quotation now � wrote that the US is unique in the history of the world because all other empires have had a beginning, a period of maturity, and decadence, while the US has gone from beginning to decadence without going through maturity.
I believe there are reasons for everything, and maybe eventually we'll find out what they are.
November 02, 2002
More on whether to vote or not
Please read Raye's post on the "President's" nominee to serve on the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee at the Food and Drug Administration, and think whether you want to help elect as many Democratic candidates as possible this election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
