Math

Math is not my strength. What is 40 trillion divided by 6.8 billion? I come up with 5,882.35. The relevance of these numbers as I understand them is that the current world wealth is approximately 40 trillion and the current population is approximately 6.8 billion. I have often viewed the insanely wealthy and grossly obese with some perplexity and disdain. It seems that at some point a person could not want for more and would consider how their excess resources may help others. This certainly does not seem to be the case in Washington or on Wall Street (or anywhere really). I have suspected that there is really more than enough to go around and decided to look into that premise. Statistics like 1% of the world population owns 40% of the worlds wealth and 10% owns 80% (UNU-WIDER) seem staggering. However, if the average wealth per capita is $5,882.35 (adjusted to USD and US economic equivalents) maybe that premise is faulty. Maybe "Professor Pangloss" was right. If there were no starving masses, there could be no multimillion dollar aggro-corporations creating high yield GMO seed, no +100k dollar machines to plant or harvest the grain, no rich tax payers to subsidize the gentlemen farmers, no commodity brokers to value the grain, no trucks or trains to haul the grain to ports, no ships to carry the grain across oceans, no oil cartel's to refine the crude to fuel the farm machines, trucks, trains and ships and no corrupt governments to confiscate the grain and release some of it to feed the starving. "God is in his heaven and all is right with the world". In considering world wealth statistics, it would be very interesting to have some data on efficiency and loss. In the pursuit of individual, corporate or government wealth, how much wealth is consumed or lost, never to return to the world economy in any form of value? Is there more than enough to go around or is the worlds wealth a finite resource that could never satisfy us all?

Meat

Merriam-Webster’s first definition of meat is “a: food; especially: solid food as distinguished from drink b: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (as a husk or shell)”. Meat is first mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 1:29-30: “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat”. Meat, as it was first defined, did not mean animals but rather plants. Meat = food; food = plants. This was later amended to “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things” (Gen 9:3).

What changed between 1:29-30 and 9:3? Adam and Eve changed, in what is commonly referred to as the fall of man or just "the fall". The Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Gen 2:16-17). The serpent tempted Eve. Eve saw that the fruit was good for food. Surely Eve had seen that tree several times before. Surely she had seen that fruit and considered it but never saw it as food until the Serpent convinced her. Why would she have to be convinced that the tree was good for food if the fruit was indeed fruit and not a metaphor for something else. Some people believe it was literally an apple and others a fig. Some believe it was a metaphor for sex. If the tree of life (Gen 3:22) is a metaphor, would not the tree of knowledge of good and evil be one also? Surely it was not sex; the very first directive God gave man was be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). Before God placed them in the garden, they must have already tasted that fruit a few times.

What if the first sin was the taking of life? Surely this would have been unnatural and needed some convincing. How would you persuade some one to take away the life from another creature and then consume it’s body? How would you convince someone to take away the light of life that God had given to a subservient creature and then consume it, considering that such a thing had never been conceived before? Surely it would seem wrong and foreign; as horrific and unappetizing as cannibalism would seem to you or me. But if you were convinced that doing so would make you as God; if the serpent reasoned that God gives life and by taking that life you will become as God, with wisdom of good and evil, the prospect of the forbidden fruit may have become more palatable to Eve. Before the fall, there was no death. Before the fall, animals did not eat animals or attack humans. Before the fall, humans could speak with animals. Eve’s first words after the serpent said “Yea hath God said” were not “holy s*^%t; a talking snake!”

After eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened and they realized they were naked. To cover their nakedness, “they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons” (Gen 3:7) but instead “Unto Adam also and unto his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Gen 3:21).If in history up to this point, there was no death and all creatures were vegetarians, where did the skins come from? There are few places in the bible where God confronts man as directly and as intimately as He confronted Adam and Eve after eating the forbidden fruit. He seeks Adam out and asks him “what have you done”. The next time God confronts man in this manner is when Adam and Eve’s son Cain killed Able. This is considered by many to be the first murder but what if in fact it was the outworking of the sin of their parents? What if it was the second taking of life? The curse was similar in that Cain was marked and further ostracized. Why do animals eat animals today and attack man? The ground was cursed when Adam ate the forbidden fruit. God said that the blood of Able called to him from the ground. Did the blood of the first creature slain also call to Him? Was it the first blood spilt by Adam and Eve that spoiled the soil, made it produce thorns and cursed man to labor for his bread? “Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Mat 26:26-28). Soldiers put a crown of thorns on His head to mock Him and nailed Him to a tree.

I hate to think that we traded immortality for a possum dinner. Maybe it was a slow moving sloth hanging out in the tree. Possibly the serpent even tricked her into killing and eating him. Personally, I hope it was a pig since I love beacon and ribs, or maybe a lobster or a catfish if she had some corn meal and a Tabasco plant. If you had no idea what animals tasted like, you would have no idea what was good or bad. It seems ridiculous to think that God would banish man from the Garden, condemn them to die and ultimately to damnation for killing and eating an animal. It sounds blasphemous to suggest that the precious blood of Jesus would be shed because of an animal. It is so common that we can barely conceive any offense in the act or stomach any requirement for redemption. The broader issue of the first sin is not just the life of an animal but a fundamental change of mindset toward all life. I have been more and more convinced of the sanctity of all life and the evil of devaluing any life. I can not say for certain that the forbidden fruit was an animal, but I am convicted that there is a fundamental violence to the character of God in the mindset that would see any life as a resource to be exploited rather than a creation to be celebrated. It’s not a huge leap between the mindset that would build the camps at Auschwitz and that which produced the meat packing plants described in Upton Sinclair's “The Jungle”; the buffalo slaughters or the killing fields of Africa. Puppy mills and sweat shops must be run by like minded people. The taking of life and the exploitation of life are at least branches on the same tree. Have we not become as gods, knowing good and evil? Perhaps we know them so well that they have become overly familiar?

A Blind Prophet and a Dumb Ass

In the story of Balaam’s ass (Numbers 22) the Lord opened the mouth of the ass (donkey) and she spoke. The prophet Balaam was in the process of disobeying God while riding his donkey where the Lord had told him not to go. The Lord sent an angel to stop Balaam. Three times the ass saw the angel blocking the way with sword in hand. Each time the donkey turned away, thus saving her master. Balaam, not seeing the angel, became more and more frustrated by the donkey and beat it more severely each time it turned. Finally the angel blocked them in a pass and the donkey simple fell down under Balaam. The Lord then opened her mouth and she said “What have I done to thee that thou hast smitten me these three times?” As the story unfolds, the angel tells Balaam that had the donkey not turned these tree times, he would surely have killed him and let the donkey live. The donkey saved her masters life and was ignorantly beaten by him for it. Was she a stupid animal without reason? Was she simply stubborn? No; as soon as she is able to speak, she is reasonable, humble and sincere with perfect memory of the events that had just taken place as well as a perfect recollection of the entire time she had been with the Prophet. Balaam tells her that he is so mad at her that he would kill her if he had a sword. Her response is both tender and terrible to consider. She says that she is his donkey and he has ridden her every day form the first day they met to the present. She then asks: have I ever let you down (or maybe, have I ever wanted to kill you). How man times has man laid the whip to an animal without consideration. How many animals are tortured and slaughtered daily without consideration? The fact that they are dumb (unable to speak) does not mean they are stupid. In fact it was a speaking serpent that out-reasoned the first humans. If the animal itself had no intellectual ability or moral culpability, why are there no dragons or other legged serpents. The Lord opened the Donkeys mouth so it could speak but she (the donkey) already saw the angel Balaam could not. He did not need to open her eyes. Balaam, on the other hand, was blind to the angel until God opened his eyes. Which is a greater proof of intelligence; a dumb ass that can see angels or a blind prophet that can speak? I wonder what our animals would say of us and what spiritual truths they keep silent.

America Lost

As we consider the prospect of financial collapse and the possibility of an ensuing depression; as our country divest itself of the fine robes of liberty to lace up the black boots of fascism and the riot gear of a police state, I sadly consider the example left by our forefathers. The revolutionary soldiers’ most feared enemy was not the British redcoat; it was the "Devil Soldier" Hessian. They were fabled to be so savage as to eat their prisoners. This reputation was not entirely without merit. The Hessians were German mercenaries that were conscripted by the British to fight the rebels in America. They were the Blackwater of their day. Consider that the Americans were a ragtag group of poorly clothed, poorly fed, poorly armed and poorly trained farmers, fighting a well trained, armed, clothed, fed and paid army. The revolutionary army had suffered great losses at their hands. When Hessians were captured, they had been so demonized that the revolutionary soldiers were at first inclined to torture them and treat them as subhuman. General Washington reminded the young patriots of the ideas they were fighting for. He reasoned that if we descend into barbarity we invalidate the very noble truths we fight for. In other words: we have already lost, even if we win the war. He also suggested that any soldier guilty of torturing prisoners should be tried and possibly even put to death. The Hessians were treated with such regard and respect that they developed respect and admiration for the Americans. The Americans fed them and sheltered them. The prisoners were even taken in by local townspeople and treated more as guests than prisoners. As a result, many Hessians joined the revolutionary army and fought against the British; others married and settled in America. In the war of hearts and minds, we won, not because of superior resources but because of superior ideas, superior virtue and superior humanity.

Some people predict the fall of America but it is abundantly clear that we are already falling if not already fallen. We are not a “light on a hill”. The core values and virtues that have made America a great country have been confused with our economic and military power, if not traded for them in wholesale. In a war to win hearts and minds, we are almost vanquished and bankrupt. I love America! I love the principles that shaped our young country. They were so powerful that even the faint remnant of them in our courts could grow liberty and justice anew. This however will require us to stand up and refuse to allow either a citizen or an enemy be arrested with out due process of law; generals and privates that refuse to allow the torture of prisoners; politicians that refuse to allow agencies or branches within the government to operate outside the law or the will of the people and congressmen and women, senators and representatives that refuse to pass legislation that hijacks the American people or the values we hold dear. It will require people of conscience to demand that our representative government actually represent the conscience of the people rather than just our perceived “best interest” or the overbearing interest of corporations and lobbies. We must remember that the greatness of America is in the ideas of farmers. When we had no standing army, no great wealth and little global influence, we were indeed a light on a hill and people around the world looked to us and flocked to us because of the ideas we represented. If we have lost those; we have already lost everything! The virtue of a nation is not proven in its treatment of friends but rather by its treatment of enemies.

Cyborg Love

Computers are fascinating machines. Their hardware, base programming, operating system, memory and software allows them to mimic if not supersede humans in many tasks. Computers may have arms and legs, they may remember complex systems and draw on these to perform amazing calculations. They even have the ability to adapt their programming, self monitor, self regulate and self repair their operating system if necessary. Of course this requires that they be programmed to do so. One thing a computer can not do is self think. Artificial intelligence has been claimed, but this is only an adaptation based on programming. They are still just following a program. B. F. Skinner raised his own daughter in a box to prove that man was similar in that our brains are like computers and what we consider independent thought is really only the result of programming. In other words, there is no soul, divine spark etc. Much of our pop culture psychology is based on this behaviorist view. This followed after work of Ivan Pavlov who conducted an experiment in which a bell was rung each time a dog was fed. The dog learned or was programmed to associate the sound of the bell with food and would salivate whenever the bell was rung, even if there was no food, thus coining the phrase “conditioned reflex” or response. Long before there were computers and man was enthralled with the prospect of making them human, we were busy about the task of making men machines. The business of mechanizing man is actually very low tech and only requires an operating system and a method to burn it into our memory. Man has always known how to do this very effectively and left us pyramids and sacrificial temples to prove it. Popes have always known this as have kings and presidents. During the cold war the U. S. government was very interested in covert programming (viruses and Trojan horses) and had several projects, MKULTRA for example, attempting to “brain wash” or rather introduce subliminal programming that could be used strategically. This program could either immediately change a persons stored memories, perceptions and beliefs or it could lay dormant, undetected by the persons consciousness, silently working in the background, monitoring for a certain trigger to run its code. The movie “China Syndrome” was based o this.

Religion too has its immediate effects and its sleeper code. Once it is burnt in, it immediately changes a persons natural perceptions. It has been called the opiate of the masses and although a better comparison may be made to other drugs, I agree with the basic idea. This is not necessarily a bad thing any more than any programming is intrinsically bad. MKULTRA could have just been looking for a way to program everyone to get along and pick up the trash on the sidewalk. Strangely, humans never seem to want mind control for a good purpose. Changing perceptions can be a good thing as any hippie can tell you. Jesus changed perceptions, Mohamed changed perceptions, the Buddha changed perceptions as have many other luminaries. Jesus said that unless you are born again you can not even see the kingdom of heaven. In approaching any religion, it is a given that our perceptions will be challenged and most likely changed; hopefully for the better. This is the immediate effect, however there is also a sleeper code that monitors all processes and I/O ports (everything we think, hear, read, see etc.) thereafter. Silently in the background it is working a very dangerous control as it jumps into action whenever something is introduced that challenges the superiority of its own programming. We may be free considerers but we are not free thinkers. As soon as an enemy code (or rather, what it considers an enemy code) is introduced, the sub programming throws up a filter, releases smoke and an array of mirrors so that it cannot penetrate the core. Then it sends out a battalion of riot police to quell any doubts we may encounter over this exchange. The ensuing tear gas, batons and rubber bullets may make our faces flush and our ears ring ever so slightly as we consider the opposing perspective. By now unmarked panel vans are speeding to round up the poets and comedians and scourge any dissenting rabble back to their hovels. Sophist and statisticians collaborate as politicians and any remaining thespians are called forth. The opposing point is given fair and open consideration as a measured response is devised. Once the crisis is over, they all go to the den, order a round of celebratory opiate and congratulate each other for their defense of the faith and the charity they showed. They even speculate over the success of their offensive campaign and consider if a seed was planted. Suddenly an alarm is tripped and everyone goes to panic stations. The enemy has managed to plant their own seed of doubt and an article of faith is threatened. It has broken through the barricades with the rebel rabble behind it. They are throwing rocks at the mirrors and chanting populist slogans. The grand inquisitor steps to the podium, bullhorn in hand, and with undaunted authority, points out the futility of anarchy. He reasons “A country that can't control it's borders isn't really a country anymore”. Our government is based on a complex and cohesive system: precept upon precept. You can not remove one jot or tittle without pulling the whole thing down. Violence to one is violence to all; violence to all is violence to yourself. Heaven will fall and earth will crumble. All is lost and damnation must surely follow. The program is a closed system, a rule unto itself by which all others are judged.

Any truly open dialog requires more than consideration and tolerance. It requires an exchange of humanity, which like divinity, is intangible and can not be systematized! It requires confidence in a basic core which is more than what we believe. If we are to be truly open-minded, we must not only consider other beliefs and perspectives; we must allow ourselves to be vulnerable to them. A Christian can not truly appreciate Islam without first approaching the Koran as sacred and then questioning who is God, who is Jesus and why one would believe the bible. A Muslim can not truly appreciate Judaism without asking, what would I believe if I had been raised in a Jewish family. A Jew can not fully appreciate the words of the Buddha without taking off their yarmulke. We are more than the sum of what we believe and there is more to the journey of the soul than doctrine. If, when we speak with each other, it is in a defensive posture of having already deemed the other a neophyte, heretic or infidel; then we are not really communicating with them or being honest with ourselves. We may as well be running a system check or defragging our hard drive. Such is cyborg love. This may anger some. I too feel my adrenalin rise when I am confronted by someone or something that directly challenges my beliefs. Please consider for a moment if there is truly cause, or if it is just the siren of your own programming and the sound of your own Pavlovian bell.

Populist Philosophy

Have you ever had a conversation with a name dropper? I have had a few and found them to be very frustrating.

A) I wasn't always sure why they were quoting someone else. Were they trying to impress me? Were they tying to add credibility to their position? Were they simply referencing a complex idea that would take too long to delineate or were they lacking any personal insight to contribute and thus parroting the thoughts of others?

B) I wasn't always sure what they were saying. I was either unfamiliar with the quote or the person quoted and/or it was just over my head. It was completely lost on me, which may or may not have been the ultimate point. Sometimes the language of philosophers is purposefully exclusive and elitist. If ideas are conveyed in a cryptic language that only the intellectually elite can decipher, one must consider the purpose for the endeavor of communicating it in the first place. I find no difference between a brilliant theosophist (religious philosopher) and a raving lunatic glossolaliaist (person speaking gibberish or an unknown language) in such cases. Then again the language may be intended to cover the lack of actual content. The archangel Muluk-Taus is pictured as a peacock which represents hundred eyed cosmic wisdom. How fitting that cosmic wisdom be presented as a peacock. It's something to behold as it struts around with its chest out and feathers spread but if you are hungry, a chicken is much more filling. I don’t mean that we need to dumb down our communication to the lowest common denominator but rather that I believe we all have the capacity to understand complex ideas if they are explained simply & clearly.

The value of a thing can often be seen in what it does. If someone offers you something that has obviously made them a worse human, don't take it; it's bad acid man, simple as that!