... Of Happiness, Intelligence, and Spirituality.

It's been an interesting year, thus far. Spring, as always, left me rejuvenated with a fresh outlook on the plans and direction I wanted to live my life. The plan was to travel some, read some, meet some new folks, and spend some time in nature. I really was looking forward to peregrinate through some newer climes, and hike some real mountains. But, as usual, life has a way of throwing a big wrench into the midst of most well planned vacations. It's a reminder that there are no guarantees of any kind in this life. Before I could wrap my head around the fiduciary malfeasance of an elderly colleague, a close friend decided to drop their body and I found myself playing executor to his last testament and will. That was as much fun as sleeping on broken glass as there was one conversation he should have had with his family before he croaked – but, the exuberance of youth always lulls us into believing that we are guaranteed a long innings. Once in a while, we all need a change of focus and pace. It really is not a new epiphany as Nobel Laureate Ernest Hemingway (1899 – 1961) wrote “Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.”

At times, it might seem as if life is conspiring against every single plan you have detailed out. It's at such times that one must guard against despondency as that would open the chute towards the endless downward spiral of depression. However, I always wonder whether an epiphany or observation such as Hemingway's have a direct impact in changing the direction of a life continuum? I am fascinated by how an epiphany might suddenly galvanizes one into action – or to at least consider the intentions to act in a vastly different and new way. I have done it. Everyone does it. I have witnessed many folks make similar declarations. The underlying question remains whether that actually impinges life in any way. It really is an acceptable expectation – the norm - that people will make these declarations after an epiphany. Whether they follow through or not is a determination for another day. I am interested in the more philosophical aspect of whether it is possible for an epiphany to change the course of one's life. At its core, an epiphany is just the revelation of new information which leads to a different opinion on a prevailing situation. One suddenly becomes aware of new information which sheds new light on an existing situation which might cause one to react differently from that point on out. I mean does it really change the life continuum when one realizes that they have a downright plonker for a roomie, or that they have a psychotic floozie for a romantic love interest.

This might seem like basic casuistry but it really is a principle that has been vexing philosophers through the ages. An epiphany is essentially an observation of new data surrounding a specific situation. It is a sudden intuitive leap of understanding, especially through an ordinary but striking occurrence – basically, a sudden realization of some fact. The Heisenberg Principle of Observation stipulates that every event is changed by the observation of that event. It really is in the realm of Quantum Physics but is easily applicable to ordinary, daily life experiences most notably in folks that gain some political office and begin to believe themselves all powerful and important. Get the gist? It would make sense if it ended there. But George Berkeley vigorously defended what is now classified as subjective idealism which is the view that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas. Berkeley's most famous aphorism is “esse est percipi” which translates as “to be is to be perceived.” In other words, perception is the foundation to subjective realism in that the shared reality of the outside world is contingent on a knowingness in that it tends towards solipsism. Solipsism is the belief that the mind is the only thing that can be known and verified.

At the end of the day life will always throw a curve-ball to all the best laid out plans. What is important is not to focus on the curve-ball but on life through all the changed plans to whatever goal one is aiming. Do the right thing, mark it off your annual list of good deeds before retreating to your mansion on the hill. I have marked a few things of this year's list – the most important thing, thus far, being diplomatic and patient while being the executor to my friend's last will. The toughest part of that whole experience was convincing his family that throughout his life, he had marched to the rhythm of a different drum. I just wish he had explained to his family that he had lost his faith and become the kind of godless, hedonistic party animal that they had always warned him against. That was an awkward conversation! It's funny how we always used to discuss the manner in which we wanted our bodies disposed when we finally shoved off this mortal coil. It was not so simple explaining it to his family, though. However, I ensured all his wishes were met and carried out.

There was another significant left turn in another aspect of my life but that is a discussion for another day. In the meantime, consider these words of wisdom from H.L. Mencken, writer, editor, and critic (1880-1956):

You can't do anything about the length of your life, but you can do something about its width and depth.

Have fun always!

... Of Sitzfleisch, Intelligence, And A Godless Liberal.

It seems that all debates around highly polarized topics will eventually degenerate into basic name calling, mud slinging and, at times, even threats of physical violence. I am aware that this is a broad generalization, but this has been my experience when debating politics, morality, and religion. The most reasonable debates were those fueled by copious amounts of good beer – which makes me wonder if the beer sufficiently stymied any desires to engage in physical violence. Don't get me wrong, all these conversations had all the other elements – inventive name calling, mud slinging, and endless red herrings but somehow never degenerated into actual violence. The old gang was proficient in the art of stirring around, chewing over, and spitting out the same amount of bullshit over several hours of imbibing – the bull sessions always being cut short by a last call or a change of venue. Whatever the outcome – somehow these conversations never degenerated into actual violence. Don't get me wrong there were always veiled threats of grievous bodily harm tossed about – but they were mere rhetorical flourishes.

I believe that if one of our great debates had ever devolved into a violent confrontation – it would have been recorded as the greatest bar fight ever. The stuff of legends – cranky intellectuals removing glasses and jackets, rolling up sleeves, and promptly sitting down to hash out the rules of conduct. A few beers later and we would have forgotten what might have prompted the initial argument. Of course, the moment we looked back through the drunken fog of our severely and collectively impaired recall would lead us down another path to an argument that dead-ended at the point we wondered what we was arguing about; in other words, it was just pointless argumentation for the sake of argumentation. The alcohol fueled the debate which then enhanced the journey towards severe intoxication. Most of the debate after the sixth beer is really obfuscated by dead brain cells and time. There are so many missing parts in those memories – there are times I will run into a buddy from those days and they mention some aspect of a particular debate or evening and I am too flabbergasted to even conceive having participated in that conversation. I blame it on the alcohol.

Hindsight really has perfect vision and allows us to wear rose colored glasses when we reminisce on certain aspects of our misspent youth. However, I am still unable to recall instances when I have felt the violent intent behind someone's vitriol. There seems to be an added element of bravado within the social media realm. I read a seemingly innocuous comment – granted it was political in nature – deteriorate into threats of violence and bodily harm. The defining comment of that thread was a claim by some offended idjit that he was better in politics than the rest of the commentators as he had 'a masters.' As if that educational qualification translated to intelligence. At the end of the day, a Master's degree has nothing to do with intelligence, but has all to do with sitzfleisch. Sitzfleisch is that in-built tenacity to endure and sit through endless, boring lectures, while developing a specialized terminology. There is a saying that advises never to allow your education to interfere with your schooling. Your college education will turn you into a piece of shit that treats people based on titles rather than substance.

Anyway, I write all this because of that silly Facebook comment and because I was reminded of those debates while admiring the views from Pikes Peak. I was there to scatter the remains of a good friend from those days. Jerry kicked the bucket after he and his truck lost an argument with a tree in the back roads of his hometown. He survived long enough to get a message to me to follow through on how we had promised to dispose of each other's remains when we eventually shuffled off this mortal coil. His wish was to be turned into bird feed and be scattered to the four winds off Pikes' Peak. My mission was to ensure his family neither pumped him full of chemicals nor planted him in any ground. I assure you that is a conversation you do not want to have with a grieving, yet deeply religious family – especially, when you have to explain that their late son was not only irreligious, but was a confirmed, bleeding heart, godless liberal. Fun times!

Here's a thought that Jerry would have enjoyed: When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. Robert M. Pirsig, author and philosopher (b. 1928)

Have fun always!!

... Of Parsimony In Writing

It goes without saying that in order to be a good writer, one has to also be a good reader. These two are mutually inclusive skills, that have at their core the ability to communicate. Ergo, a writer is motivated to write on a subject matter so as to communicate his ideas and viewpoints to either a specified or unspecified audience. At times, it is prudent for a writer to compose a message with an audience in mind, although this is not necessarily crucial. I have read some crap in my life, but there are certain authors and writers that possess that particular ability to turn a phrase that I keep returning to their writings regularly. With that in mind, I have been looking over the past dozen posts of TTT to determine if I would put me on the list of regular 'must reads'. I started reviewing my last dozen posts not as a writer, but as a reader. Wow, even if I say so (it's intrinsic to my Pisces nature!) and I am biased, but these are a fascinating read. They cover a lot of technical and philosophical ground – some of it a tad esoteric. I concluded that I will continue to include me on my list of 'must reads' as I would enjoy reading such material. However, I needed to consider it from the perspective of an average reader, a run of the mill reader.

Immediately, from this perspective I found two particular issues with my posts – their length and the elevated vocabulary used in most of them. Most of the posts could be chopped up into two or three easily digestible posts. Although, I think all of them are well written, I do not feel that they are focused enough on one particular subject matter at a time. It is a quirk of how my mind works … a sort of mental attention deficit disorder that creeps in occasionally into my writing. Say, is that a blue squirrel? Anyway, that is a small quirk that can be corrected by limiting my future posts to no more than a thousand words. This limit will effectively coerce me to better write more focused material and more often. It will no longer be as mentally tiring to churn out these bi-weekly, long form posts. There have been times when a random thought has grown legs and developed into a full post. I would have started writing about some topic, when its flow is interrupted by a random thought. The legs develop as I try to extricate from further developing the random thought, and return to the original flow. That usually fails, but has led to even more interesting posts.

As for the elevated vocabulary – well, that is just par for the course and there really is nothing much I can do about changing it to simpler form of expression. A friend of mine told me it was because I was an intellectual snob. I countered that it was not that I was an intellectual snob, but that I was reaping the benefits of being a bookworm, of being well read. I see how that could be misconstrued as being snobbish. However, I will try to keep it fairly simple and use my other blogs for my more esoteric musings. I will know when I begin to cross this line in the sand – it will be like when the eyes of a run of the mill reader start to glaze over. Trust me, I have personally witnessed the eyes glazing over and seen the look of confusion take over someone's face, when I start meandering through some seemingly complex concepts. This usually happens during heated political debates when I start detailing the minutiae of some policy. What I enjoy more is how most folks will play off that they understand everything that you might be talking about – until you directly confront them about it. Then, there is usually a lot of lip smacking and prevaricating. So, I will do my best to keep it light and flowing easier.

So, doesn't this effectively limit the scope of my random thoughts – not at all. It's just that they will be expressed or covered in smaller chunks. Make sense? It's like explaining to non-politicos just how American democracy doesn't translate to a simple majority rule. Simply – it is because the USA is a republic and therefore obligated to guarantee individual rights as enshrined in the constitution. That's for another day and post. So, this is a slight change of strategy until the next time I change it. The first test of this strategy is whether the frequency of posts increases dramatically. That will be a strong indicator of how well this new strategy will be working. Besides, didn't some wise old man say that the only constant in life was change. In this case, my change has been necessitated both by a thorough review of my current output and by some of the solicited responses I have received. All this feedback has tended to indicate that all the posts have been good – which tells me that I induced some eye glazing. Huh? What can I do?

Here's a thought for today; Every human being's essential nature is perfect and faultless, but after years of immersion in the world we easily forget our roots and take on a counterfeit nature. Lao-Tzu, philosopher (6th century BCE)

Have fun always!!

... Of Lives Lived Forwards, But Always Understood Backwards.

         My cousin uses this old saw as his Skype status: Life is lived forwards, but understood backwards! It is a slightly different interpretation of another adage that defines hindsight as the only perfect and true vision. Of course, the underlying philosophic in both maxims is that life and events along its path can only ever be put into their correct perspectives through reflection. On first gander, it reads like an oxymoron that wistfully wishes life was the other way around – live backwards, but understood forwards. However, one only has to consider some past, ostensibly cataclysmic life event to realize that it really was not that big a deal. Hmm! Try explaining to a lovelorn teenager that being rebuffed by the object of their affections is really not the end of the world. One would have a better chance explaining the science behind the blue hue of the sky. It is not because the light bouncing off the oceans which are blue but, rather has to do with how light disperses as it travels through the atmosphere. It can get quite involved but you would need to basically understand the red/blue shift in light – more commonly known as the Doppler shift (The very same doppler abused by television meteorologists). Ever wonder why they are called meteorologists, rather than weather forecasters – since theirs is not an exact or precise science but rather mere machine learned guesswork. Well, I'd rather take this little sojourn and dissect light dispersion, meteorologists, and machine learning than deal with a lovelorn teenager. Been there, done that. It will all make sense, in a minute, and should all fit into this overall concept of the efficacy of perfect vision in hindsight.

         Anyway, onto light emanating from the sun. The reason the sky appears blue is due to both how humans perceive light, and how light disperses through the atmosphere. The basic assumption is that the sun shines white light – which is a mixture of all the colors of the spectrum – and each color travels across space at a specific wavelength. The human eye responds most strongly to the red, blue, and green wavelengths of the color spectrum. The visible part of the color spectrum ranges from red through orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, to violet. I use the mnemonic ROY Gave Ben In Violet to remember the visible spectrum from largest to smallest wavelength. This is the reason why emergency medical vehicles (ambulances, firetrucks) run with red flashing lights, while cop cars tend to run with the red and blue flashers. This is because those colors make them more visible during all light conditions, and helps with depth perception. They rely on the red/blue shift or the Doppler effect – which makes light appear red as it shifts away, and appear blue as it moves towards a particular point. Therefore, the sky appears blue because the shorter blue wavelengths are dispersed more strongly than the red as the sunlight passes through the atmosphere. It gets complicated and has some fantastic mathematics attached to it. I can easily recall the color spectrum (vital for any graphic designer to know) but, had to look up the Tyndall effect which details the mathematics of how different wavelengths of light disperse through the atmosphere. Now, this many decades later all my High School physics is beginning to make sense. Can you see the picture yet?

             Why do we call television weather-casters meteorologists? What do meteors have to do with the weather? I think the initial sense was to give the pseudoscience of guessing the weather based on atmospheric patterns some of the gravitas of a real science. To this end, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) set an official description of a meteorologist as an individual with specialized education who uses scientific principles to explain, understand, observe or forecast the earth's atmospheric phenomena and/or how the atmosphere affects the earth and life on the planet. See what I mean by giving gravitas to a pseudoscience? The AMS further delineates meteorologists into television weather-casters, academics, and forensic meteorologists. Most dictionaries define meteorology as a science that deals with the atmosphere and its related phenomena, including climate and weather. I am still fascinated by both the meteor root, when joined with the suffix -ology which means study of or the science of. So I dug up the etymology of meteor which is “a thing in the air, noun use of neuter of metéōros raised in the air, equivalent to met- met-+ eōr- (variant stem of aéirein to raise) + -os adj. Suffix” This led to a meteorology being the science of something raised in the air, and since weather is essentially of the air – I will have to concede that meteorology has everything to do with weather and weather-related phenomena. However, I will not stoop as low as to consider those television weather-casters as actual scientists. I can just as easily prognosticate the weather by stepping outside my door every morning. I mean, any pretty face can read a teleprompter and point at a green screen. That is about the sum total of all the science involved in the broadcast meteorology. Understand that I am dissecting the pseudo-science of meteorology only to make this larger point: At the time, I complained bitterly about the precious many hours of my youth spent learning how to use a dictionary. As silly as it might sound, most folks do not know how to use a dictionary to define a word. Most folks use a dictionary like a thesaurus and simply substitute a word for another without gaining a conceptual understanding of the original word. That is a topic for another day.

             Anyway, most of the time, television meteorologists even get the localized weather wrong as their knowledge is based on reading various computer generated models. Which brings me to machine learning. It sounds like serious science when some local broadcast (usually celebrity) meteorologist mentions looking at various computer models to figure out the following days' weather patterns. But, it all is really just machine learning. See, machine learning is basically collecting a large data sample and then, trying to predict how a subject will react to certain stimuli. In the case of weather, they have collected and collated large amounts of recorded data on temperature, wind speed, wind direction, humidity, atmospheric pressure, the amount of sunlight based on the tilt (angle) of the earth (determines seasons – but, you knew that already:-) ) and fed all this into huge databases. These databases are then manipulated to spit out the computer models they are so proud of mentioning during their forecasts. In the old days, before computers, most farmers relied on the Farmers' Almanac which was a long range weather forecast used to plan for field preparations, plating, weeding, and harvesting. This was the basis of machine learned computer based systems as almanacs were based on observed, and recorded weather patterns of certain farming zones. Nowadays, this is where machine learning comes into play as computers are programmed to spot patterns based on the prevailing data. Warm winds blowing west off the equatorial coast of Afrika are energized by the warm waters in the Atlantic ocean and pick up circulation and speed to spawn tornadoes over central and North America.

                      Exactly where the winds will buffet the Americas is influenced by the Coriolis effect – which is basically wind shear caused by the earth's rotation. The Coriolis effect stops winds blowing in a straight line. Ever wonder what happens to ants during a flood? Ever wonder how birds, rodents, and small animals know when a severe storm or, even a tornado is imminent? Their innate survival instincts have a more advanced early warning system than any computer man will ever build – it's their ability to detect minute and dramatic changes in atmospheric pressure. These are things I learned during those seemingly boring, long, and tedious geology lessons. I recall complaining about having to attend a basic storm chasing course as part of an assignment for an Astronomy class. I still know how to look at cloud formations and determine the direction of a storm, or how to accurately (within 15minutes) determine the amount of time remaining before sunset, based on the sun's position in the sky. At the time, I complained bitterly about having to give up part of an afternoon of chasing skirts to learn silly storm chasing basics … now, when I confidently say we can finish the round as the storm is going around us they can rely on my word. There is a few that believe I am imbued with some indigenous talent of weather forecasting - if only they appreciated that it is because I was coerced into paying attention in an extra credit class in College. Is that illustration of the efficacy of hindsight beginning to take better shape?

                  I used all the examples to illustrate the point in my cousin's choice of status. The point is neither necessarily on the misdirected impulses nor the misguided emotions of a misspent youth. I think the point is not only to reflect on the lessons that can be gleaned from history, but to also apply those same lessons to present and all future endeavors. The underlying philosophic of not only reflecting on, but also putting into the correct perspective the life lessons learned from past exertions, escapades, and experiences. There is always a certain amount of schadenfreude for every heartbroken, lovelorn teenager, when they realize, years down the road, that the object of their affections and fantasies was never all that and a bag of chips. It is especially more pronounced when life has been unkind to the object of one's teenage affections … you know the ugly duckling has matured into a beautiful swan and Adonis has degenerated into a toothless, obese, misshaped mess. Or, that the teenage queen has degenerated into a rotund, saggy breasted, old hag and teenage zit-face has not only matured but, filled out the lanky, awkward frame into a veritable Adonis. You get the drift? The important thing is how grown swan and grown Adonis treat grown toothless mess and mature old hag. If they would have well learned the lessons from their own youth, then, they would be kind, open, caring, and just absolutely munificent towards the 'tormentors' of their youth. That is the abiding philosophic and lesson contained in these two old saws on hindsight and vision. The world needs to understand that physical beauty is not only fugacious, but is always a secondary consideration to character in the longevity of human relations. The true substance of friendships is to be found inside the person, as the outside is at the mercy of the weather and other life events. However, the most important aspect of this adage is to remember to be kind to yourself. I believe that if one can be kind to themselves, then, they would find it easier to transfer kindness and other emotions onto others. So, be kind to yourself!

                    Here's today's thought (even though I doubt the veracity of its attribution, I still like how it makes you think of the important things in your life): "When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money." Cree Prophecy.

Have fun always!!

P.S. Leave a comment – so I know you passed by here.

... Of Religious Doublethink And Social Myopia.

I sat there flabbergasted! I had inadvertently maneuvered myself into a philosophical corner – what had started as a light, cursory touch on the history of religion was turning into a full dissertation on the known history of religion. I was in a slightly heated, but mild, political discussion with a devout religious person when I made a passing reference to religious myopia. They bristled at the religious myopia and demanded an explanation. I mordaciously asked if they wanted the true historical perspective or the religious inspired bullshit that tries to explain colonization as a divinely inspired act of dissemination. Humongous mistake. If looks could kill … actually, I think they said a quick prayer for my dirty soul. I urged them not to pray for me as that would only annoy me and be a waste of their breath. Out came the swords and we retreated to our respective intellectual corners. That's when I realized how that little snarky comment had just turned my evening into a futile adoxography – you know, that age old debate technique of defending an absurd position. So, I went on the offensive intending to quickly blitz them into submission. Pure folly. I should have known better as that never happens with people of faith.

I started with the emotional tack of the doublethink of religion. The notion of doublethink stems from the idea of reality control in George Orwell's 1984. “It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control,' they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink.'” I just applied it to religion. Reality control which is mind control is the basic stock-in-trade of most cult environments. Adherents are cowed into submission by the doublethink of religion. Doublethink coerces followers into non-confront on the negative aspects of a religion. Doublethink uses the positive aspects of a religion to promote and uphold its most negative features. How many times have you heard the exhortation to love the sinner, but to hate the sin. How is that even possible? Faith is used to reinforce the doctrinaire attitudes of a religion's leadership. There is nothing divinely inspired about any human's leadership characteristics – rather dismissive I know, but I'll tackle atheism on a different page. What is extant is just a lot of confirmation bias. Adherents become victims of their own faith and are cowed into silence by the 'groupthink mentality' of religion. To question 'divinely inspired' authority is frowned upon and conformity is heavily promoted. The only way to stop being a victim is to grow a pair, speak out, and leave the group. You are free to leave, however, your departure will mean the loss of your sure ticket to salvation. This is when the doublethink of religion kicks in as followers are victimized into keeping quiet to maintain membership in the group.

It is damn near impossible to persuade a Catholic to leave a Diocese when you underscore instances of predatory, sexual conduct amongst their priesthood. Catholics would rather ignore all the evidence and prefer that all victims shut up about the abuse. The argument is that it is better to handle such matters internally, within the church, for the sake of the unity of the church. The best solution proffered by the Papacy is prayer for both the perpetrators and the victims. In other words, the best approach is to put a lid on it, pretend it never happened. The main and vocal proponents of victims keeping silent are the perpetrators. They can only continue their abuse if no one speaks out. The pedophile priest, the abusive husband, the sociopathic cult leader, they can only operate by maintaining layers of secrecy about their unsavory activities. These abusive leaders remain untouchable as long as their victims keep their mouths shut. There is a point where silence becomes enabling. As Jeff Hawkins (Author of Counterfeit Dreams) outlines in his biography, “The minute their victims open their mouths, the light comes streaming into their sordid little worlds. And the victims aren’t victims any more.” Hawkins poses an interesting question: If exposing abuses within a religion results in the destruction of that religion, then who is the source of that destruction - the person who exposes it, or the person who commits that abuse? That's a nice quandary for another day. However, doublethink which is the art of simultaneously believing dichotomous concepts ideas is not only limited to politics and religion, but is also prevalent in various justice systems.

I wonder why it is acceptable for a man to commit the most atrocious and heinous of crimes; only to plead insanity as the impetus for the crime spree. In most cases, well-heeled lawyers will make the case for the criminal's diminished capacity based on alleged instances of physical or sexual abuse in the perpetrator's youth. The insanity plea almost always leads to a lenient sentence – the whole judicial systems tends to be sympathetic to offenders that would have been abused as children. I do not get it – a man spends months planning a massacre, then carries out his plan killing several, injuring dozens; when the perpetrator comes before the courts for an initial arraignment, counselor usually -as expected - enters 'not guilty by reason of insanity' plea. This is a normal opening gambit in capital punishment cases. This procedure effectively changes the tone of a trial as its focus changes from the elephant in the room - which is the heinous crime committed – to the diminished reasoning capacity of the offender because of some alleged physical or sexual abuse from decades prior to the crime. In most cases, the individual would of managed to cope without manifesting their particular insanity. The Colorado shooter was a n intelligent student in a neuroscience doctoral program – that's some heavy brain power capable of some serious intellectual lifting. That he somehow snapped is obvious, what isn't is that he was insane. I mean, this was a cold, calculating individual who had the foresight to not only booby trap his apartment, but left the music playing loudly to entice the police into breaking down his door. There are shrinks that will be willing to testify that he is insane, as many as there will be willing to testify of his sanity. Only time will tell which side prevails, but it is unfathomable that this man is accorded the rights to pursue the 'insanity plea' which will prolong his existence. Although, natural justices stipulates that he has a right to be heard, I wonder how many of the affected families would rather dispense with the whole process and just exact immediate revenge and retribution. I know it is possible to conceive anarchy having some place in our justice systems.

As appealing as that sounds, it quickly fails in real life application. This type of quick retributive justice is rooted in anarchy and usually demands quick action which can lead to unregulated mob justice such as the burning alive at the stake of alleged witches in early 1690s Salem, MA; and more recently in 2013 Papua New Guinea. Other religious based retributive justice systems stipulate the loss of limbs – thieves losing arms or legs – and, at times, demand the loss of an equal number of lives. But as the old saw goes, an eye for an eye makes the world blind. There have been other instances of religious based retributive justice which was based on a fear of the unknown such as the witches who are supposed to possess the dark magic of sorcery. This determination is usually directed at some hapless female at the instigation of some local, male opinion leader – a religious one nonetheless – and based on their ignorant interpretation of some unusual occurrence. Thus, the argument can be made that natural justice, despite its slower acting pace, has the advantage of allowing reason (no matter how far fetched) to prevail. This leads us down the path of victim families accepting the use of the insanity plea. In rare cases, some victim families have been known to become so sympathetic that they even forgive the perpetrators; once they became aware of the root cause of the offender's insanity. In these rare cases, the forgiveness is based on the tenets of some faith in a religious doctrine.

I continue to rail against forgiveness inspired by a religious doctrine. It really is difficult to juxtapose religion and forgiveness without delving into the confusing double think associated with religion. This confusion stems from trying to reconcile one's feelings between condemning the atrocities and condoning the charity undertaken in the name of religion. This doublethink began when religion started consolidating its influence around political power. We are still grappling with this notion of a true separation between politics and spirituality, between church and state. Political control gained the upper hand when religious expansion became a secondary consideration to political colonization. Through the ages, especially during the aptly named Dark Ages, this led to a purging of knowledge from texts considered anathema to prevailing religious interpretations. There have been numerous and seemingly endless wars, always religious at their core, mainly in Europe and throughout the Middle East (Crusades, Colonization, Genocide, Slavery, Apartheid, Racism, Jihad, Zionism.) It is so prevalent that one could point to any place on the world map, and I could name an atrocity committed or being committed in the name of religion.

What I can not fathom is why educated people refuse to acknowledge the evil that religion has done and is doing. These are fairly open minded folks who have been exposed to some basic world history - they have to be aware of all these global events. What is even weirder is the unprecedented decline in former colonizing countries and resurgence in colonized territories of religion. I am amazed by the statistics coming out of Africa and Asia – they are among the largest growth areas for the various iterations of Christianity and Islam. There is a new fascination in the prospects suggested in the new phenomenon of prosperity gospel. It still doesn't compute for me – I mean, you have these fantastically wealthy hucksters pretending to preach salvation by preying on their societies' poorest, and downtrodden. I have come across the late night television shenanigans of the Dollars, the Popoffs, the Hilliards, and the Lambs of this world - and they do offer the possibility of some seductively easy ways of getting out of debt. Theirs is an easier sleight of hand than that of colonization – they also offer the hopeless and poorest in a society unimaginable riches based on only one condition. Faith. That is the only requisite, to believe unquestioningly in the miraculous acquisition of immense wealth, the possibility of driving expensive cars, and even owning those huge mac-mansions on the hill. It is a veritable vision of the possibilities of heaven - the very stuff of paradise as espoused in their religious literature. In the meantime, there are two simple caveats: the adherents and converts must tithe – euphemism for giving either the church or the preacher-man some of their hard earned cash; and, faithfully wait for the pink fairy to deliver on her promise in her own sweet time.

This is such a disingenuous strategy that I am almost always tempted into jumping on the preacher-man bandwagon. This prosperity gospel is such an easy way of self-enrichment, until one is confronted by its effects on the true believers. I, once, had to intervene in the affairs of an economically distressed family. Their fight centered on how to spend the few extra dollars on hand. The husband was opting to pay off their utilities while the wife would rather they tithed. She was adamant that this was god's money and their failure to remit it to the church was contributing to their misfortunes. It sounds implausible to even consider not paying one's bills as a pro-survival action - this world is just not wired that way. You would have a better chance of hitting the jackpot in a lottery than having your bills magically paid off. In the lottery you, at least, have that one in several hundred million chances of hitting the big one; whereas, in the tithe matrix, you have zero chance of your bills being magically expunged. Which are the better odds? I'm going with the lottery chances – as there is that one chance which is better than none at all.

The same arguments can be made for the genesis of the more radical forms of Islam. The mullahs and other clerics exert more direct influence than political leaders on most muslim societies. In Iran, the Ayatollah (similar in stature to the catholic pope) is a more powerful presence than the rest of all the political leadership. The clerics are able to influence adherents into suicide missions by convincing these usually hapless, and poor males that their ultimate sacrifice (suicide) is in defense of their faith; besides there is that little matter of 72 virgins at their disposal in the next lifetime. Sex is such a powerful motivational tool. Even some orthodox Jews are enforcing the agnathic kinship of their faith by refusing women the right to congregate and pray at the wailing wall. The orthodox Jewish women were met with unmitigated violence when they tried to march on the infamous monument in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world - in Myanmar - some of the usually placid Buddhist monks have been rioting and attacking muslims in the central and western parts of the country. I will concede that the violence in Lashio began May 28 after Ne Win splashed gasoline on a woman and set her on fire. The woman was seriously burnt, and is currently hospitalized. The Buddhist monks took revenge by burning several Muslim shops, one of the city's main mosques, an Islamic orphanage and a movie theater. One person, a Muslim, died. Is it just me or is there a verifiable trend in there. I see the continued oppression of women based on religious faith. Faith is a powerful motivator, as psychologists and religious leaders will attest. However, common sense is not so common as this article proves.

Doublethink is also affecting the very basic core of human communication. There is an increasingly overarching reliance on technology which, initially, was meant to save time by increasing efficiency. However, this same technology increasingly either takes the saved time along with it, or makes the saved time less present, intimate, or rich. Most interaction amongst humans is now conducted via binary code (text, email, social media) that it is becoming extremely rare to actually engage another person in direct conversation. It has become easier to text than actually speak to another. Social decorum is dying a slow, unnatural death as it moves from our mouths to our fingers. You only need to spend a few minutes (if you are brave enough) perusing the comments and message boards on any major news sites – there is unfiltered vitriol, undisguised racism, unadulterated hatred; simply because posters are anonymous and can type whatever nonsense they feel like from behind their screens. I will leave technology alone since it was simply a final attempt to mundify my mind from the extended debate with them folks of faith. The rest is mere confabulation. I am still flabbergasted that I put me through that exercise. C'est la vie - OK, here's a few thoughts:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams (Oct 30, 1735 - Jul 04, 1826) 2^nd American President, Statesman, Diplomat.

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. Voltaire (Nov 21, 1694 - May 30, 1778) Philosopher, Author.

It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men. Samuel Adams (Sept 16, 1722 - Oct 02, 1803) American statesman, political philosopher.

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men. Abraham Lincoln (Feb 12, 1809 - Apr 15, 1865) 16th President of the United States.

Go light some brush fires!

Have fun always!!