I have had a recurring thought about a turtle running around in my head. It is like a native american spirit guide has come for me, and I don't know why, exactly. I have read about spirit guides and have read much about the Lakota and visited lakota holy places. Yet, nothing ever bothered me the way this turtle seems to be.
Anyway, it seems one way to go about these things is hoping that someone will come accross this post and know what I should do next. I am open to many different spiritual experiences. From my reading, and my own beliefs, I have not found Christianity and belief in the Great Spirit to be exclusive of each other. The more I've read about animism and the Native American belief in the spirit-ness of nature the more I've come to that point of view.
Yet, again, I urge that the turtle thoughts are out of nowhere.
Maybe its nothing, but it is nagging.
Serious responses encouraged.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Zero and One
What fun. The political landscape is simmering and becoming boring and I've been working on a column for a couple of days, so I thought that I'd get philosophical:
What is the nature of the universe?
Zero and One.
At the beginning was there nothing.
Had to have been, eh?
Well, yes. Then...define nothing. What did it look like? What quality did nothing have?
No qualities, you say.
Then what is nothing? Was there one nothing? Or were there lots of nothings?
No Qualities!
Then nothing is undefineable.
Was there everything? What is everything? Everything including nothing?
Everything that could be? or Everything that is?
Where did everything come from? Nothing?
Most people give up. Scientists push back the veil of the known and try to guess. Though there guessing just leads into new problems. Before the big bang, we were sitting on two different Branes that bumped into each other.
What's a brane? Space/Time itself. What made the branes? Where did they come from? Don't be silly, what kind of question is that?
So I believe in zero/one.
The universe, now, is just as much nothing as it was. The universe, now, is everything it is going to be. Which is very little.
There is no truth, only experience. That is...the universe is always becoming. This state of becoming is called "reality". However, that is a misnomer. I would say that we exist on a bubble where "something" happens. This something is connected, vaguely, to what went on before, and what is possible.
Space/Time is possibility. It is a canvas. Gravity is the paint on the canvas. A folding of space time. Wrinkles. A dynamic nothing would fold back on itself. Examine itself. Define itself. Become...
That's what we do. We are nothing examining itself, or everything that nothing can conjure from itself. Which of course is nothing.
We might exist.
This is why we get strange events on either extreme. Black holes where gravity rules! Black holes nearly are! It requires an infinite amount of nothing to make something. Something that is creating itself out of nothing. And it is defined as the most destructive thing of all in a way that almost describes nothing for it is the ultimate paradox. A great nothing. A nothing that exists!
The same thing happens at the other end. Particles that slip into nothingness. Impossible to define except by the fact that they move. One must guess where they are. Time and space seem to break down as they are barely defined.
In between, we live in reality. A "slow-motion" version of either extreme. We cannot flit through the universe, yet we are more defined. We do not "exist" but have an understanding of existence and live in a bubble, as it were, travelling through space time. Slowing things down so that we can grasp them.
The universe is an eye blink. All time is here and gone, but that geometry slows it down. Form is all there is. Form captures. Form defines. We are a geometry of nothing.
What is the nature of the universe?
Zero and One.
At the beginning was there nothing.
Had to have been, eh?
Well, yes. Then...define nothing. What did it look like? What quality did nothing have?
No qualities, you say.
Then what is nothing? Was there one nothing? Or were there lots of nothings?
No Qualities!
Then nothing is undefineable.
Was there everything? What is everything? Everything including nothing?
Everything that could be? or Everything that is?
Where did everything come from? Nothing?
Most people give up. Scientists push back the veil of the known and try to guess. Though there guessing just leads into new problems. Before the big bang, we were sitting on two different Branes that bumped into each other.
What's a brane? Space/Time itself. What made the branes? Where did they come from? Don't be silly, what kind of question is that?
So I believe in zero/one.
The universe, now, is just as much nothing as it was. The universe, now, is everything it is going to be. Which is very little.
There is no truth, only experience. That is...the universe is always becoming. This state of becoming is called "reality". However, that is a misnomer. I would say that we exist on a bubble where "something" happens. This something is connected, vaguely, to what went on before, and what is possible.
Space/Time is possibility. It is a canvas. Gravity is the paint on the canvas. A folding of space time. Wrinkles. A dynamic nothing would fold back on itself. Examine itself. Define itself. Become...
That's what we do. We are nothing examining itself, or everything that nothing can conjure from itself. Which of course is nothing.
We might exist.
This is why we get strange events on either extreme. Black holes where gravity rules! Black holes nearly are! It requires an infinite amount of nothing to make something. Something that is creating itself out of nothing. And it is defined as the most destructive thing of all in a way that almost describes nothing for it is the ultimate paradox. A great nothing. A nothing that exists!
The same thing happens at the other end. Particles that slip into nothingness. Impossible to define except by the fact that they move. One must guess where they are. Time and space seem to break down as they are barely defined.
In between, we live in reality. A "slow-motion" version of either extreme. We cannot flit through the universe, yet we are more defined. We do not "exist" but have an understanding of existence and live in a bubble, as it were, travelling through space time. Slowing things down so that we can grasp them.
The universe is an eye blink. All time is here and gone, but that geometry slows it down. Form is all there is. Form captures. Form defines. We are a geometry of nothing.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Thankful Sunday
1. Medea at Genesius Guild. Quite wonderful. Great art! Great Direction! A greek antiquity of great beauty that is absolutely free to enjoy!
2. Joseph at Music Guild! What fun it has been performing this year. And with my daughter to boot!
3. All those that have encouraged me to blog, those who helped diagnose and repair my old computer, and for biking at night. May it be allowed in the hereafter.
(I know, I cheated...cramming all those into number 3)
What a great day it has been! Hope yours has been the same.
Peace
2. Joseph at Music Guild! What fun it has been performing this year. And with my daughter to boot!
3. All those that have encouraged me to blog, those who helped diagnose and repair my old computer, and for biking at night. May it be allowed in the hereafter.
(I know, I cheated...cramming all those into number 3)
What a great day it has been! Hope yours has been the same.
Peace
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Freedom is free
...or it's not freedom.
Just would like to say that to day.
Not to dis the army (though I am a pacifist. To each their own)
I just hate the phrase "Freedom isn't free".
Of course it is.
Enjoy your freedom.
BTW, maybe we should look at the "alter or abolish" thing a little more closely. Who says we have to put up with 18 more months of King Dick and Defender of the faith George!
The last guy we declared independence from was named George too.
Then of course, we picked another George to be our first President.
Let's see...this Bush would be...George the Third, right? If you count Washington as George the First.
Down with George the Third.
I'm just being patriotic.
Peace to you, love and forgiveness.
Just would like to say that to day.
Not to dis the army (though I am a pacifist. To each their own)
I just hate the phrase "Freedom isn't free".
Of course it is.
Enjoy your freedom.
BTW, maybe we should look at the "alter or abolish" thing a little more closely. Who says we have to put up with 18 more months of King Dick and Defender of the faith George!
The last guy we declared independence from was named George too.
Then of course, we picked another George to be our first President.
Let's see...this Bush would be...George the Third, right? If you count Washington as George the First.
Down with George the Third.
I'm just being patriotic.
Peace to you, love and forgiveness.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Free speech
So, free speech.
According to the the Constitution: Congress shall make NO LAW (emphasis mine) abridging the right of free speech...or the free excercise thereof. *
(Unless you are under 18 and attend school)
Free speech for those with money.
Media costs a lot these days. Try excercising your right to freedom of the press, and see if anyone pays attention.
Then, there's the Quad City Times. A bastian of unbiased press.
From the Editor's blog:
Our policy starts off with the following: “Our journalistic ethics are treasured and should be above reproach. We must maintain our independence and avoid conflicts of interest to safeguard the public’s trust in us. That is why newspapers are given special constitutional freedoms.”
To me, these aren’t shallow words. I believe them and Suggested headline: Journalists and political donations don’t mix.
According to the the Constitution: Congress shall make NO LAW (emphasis mine) abridging the right of free speech...or the free excercise thereof. *
(Unless you are under 18 and attend school)
Free speech for those with money.
Media costs a lot these days. Try excercising your right to freedom of the press, and see if anyone pays attention.
Then, there's the Quad City Times. A bastian of unbiased press.
From the Editor's blog:
Our policy starts off with the following: “Our journalistic ethics are treasured and should be above reproach. We must maintain our independence and avoid conflicts of interest to safeguard the public’s trust in us. That is why newspapers are given special constitutional freedoms.”
To me, these aren’t shallow words. I believe them and Suggested headline: Journalists and political donations don’t mix.
Journalists and political donations don't mix, eh? What about the owners? Can they donate to politicians? I asked, and have not received a reply.
What does it matter if individual journalists can't express their political leanings if the paper's owners are free to? What conflict of interest does that reflect? What if the paper's columnists are bought off by the government (as has happened)? What if news and advertising are subtly blended? Is that ethical?
What about civic boosterism? Maybe in order to get an unbiased view of the community we should only hire journalists from India.
Freedom of speech for them who can afford it, and who can pay to silence those they please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
