http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:25:12 +0000 MyBB http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=38 Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:35:10 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=38
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.
Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the
same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security,
that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have
passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual
harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The
latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being
considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We
do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they
are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must
stop.
This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives;
and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or
Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United
States ."]]>
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.
Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the
same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security,
that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have
passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual
harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The
latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that is being
considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We
do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they
are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must
stop.
This is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United
States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or
Representatives;
and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or
Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United
States ."]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=37 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 10:10:46 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=37
From the Jacket Cover:
Shop Class as Soulcraft brings alive an experience that was once quite common but now seems to be receding from society -- the experience of making and fixing things with our hands. Those of us who sit in an office often feel a lack of connection to the material world, a sense of loss, and find it difficult to say exactly what we do all day. For those who felt hustled off to college, then to the cubicle, against their own inclinations and natural bents, Shop Class as Soulcraft seeks to restore the honor of the manual trades as a llife worth choosing.

On both economic and psychological grounds, Crawford questions the educational imperative of turning everyone into a "knowledge worker," based on a misguided speration of thinking from doing, the work of the hand from that of the mind. Crawford shows us how such a partition, which began a centruy ago with the assembly line, degrades work for those on both sides of the divide.

But Crawford offers good news as well: The manual trades are very different from the assembly line and from dumbed-down white collar work as well. The require careful thinking and are punctuated by moments of genuine pleasure. Based on his own experience as an electrician and mechanic, Crawford makes a case for the intrinsic satisfactions and cognitive challenges of manual work. The work of builders and mechanics is secure; it cannot be outsourced, and it cannot be made obsolete. Such work ties us to the local communities in which we live qnd instills the pride that comes from doing work that is genuinely useful. A wholly original debut, Shop Class as Soulcraft offers a passionate call for self-reliance and a moving reflection on how we can live concretely in an ever more abstract world.]]>
From the Jacket Cover:
Shop Class as Soulcraft brings alive an experience that was once quite common but now seems to be receding from society -- the experience of making and fixing things with our hands. Those of us who sit in an office often feel a lack of connection to the material world, a sense of loss, and find it difficult to say exactly what we do all day. For those who felt hustled off to college, then to the cubicle, against their own inclinations and natural bents, Shop Class as Soulcraft seeks to restore the honor of the manual trades as a llife worth choosing.

On both economic and psychological grounds, Crawford questions the educational imperative of turning everyone into a "knowledge worker," based on a misguided speration of thinking from doing, the work of the hand from that of the mind. Crawford shows us how such a partition, which began a centruy ago with the assembly line, degrades work for those on both sides of the divide.

But Crawford offers good news as well: The manual trades are very different from the assembly line and from dumbed-down white collar work as well. The require careful thinking and are punctuated by moments of genuine pleasure. Based on his own experience as an electrician and mechanic, Crawford makes a case for the intrinsic satisfactions and cognitive challenges of manual work. The work of builders and mechanics is secure; it cannot be outsourced, and it cannot be made obsolete. Such work ties us to the local communities in which we live qnd instills the pride that comes from doing work that is genuinely useful. A wholly original debut, Shop Class as Soulcraft offers a passionate call for self-reliance and a moving reflection on how we can live concretely in an ever more abstract world.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=36 Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:59:59 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=36
From the Jacket Cover: hara Marano, editor-at-large and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, has been watching a distrubing trend: kids are growing up to be wimps. They can't make their own decisions, cope with anxiety, or handle difficult emotions without going off the deep end. teens lack leadership skills, College students engage in deadly binge drinking. Graduates can't even negotiate their own salaries without bringing Mom or Dad in for a consult. Why? Because hothouse parents raise teacup children -- brittle and breakable instead of strong and resilient. This crisis threatens to destroy the fabric of our society, to undermine both our democracy and our economy. Without future leaders or daring innovators, where will we go? So what can be done?]]>
From the Jacket Cover: hara Marano, editor-at-large and the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, has been watching a distrubing trend: kids are growing up to be wimps. They can't make their own decisions, cope with anxiety, or handle difficult emotions without going off the deep end. teens lack leadership skills, College students engage in deadly binge drinking. Graduates can't even negotiate their own salaries without bringing Mom or Dad in for a consult. Why? Because hothouse parents raise teacup children -- brittle and breakable instead of strong and resilient. This crisis threatens to destroy the fabric of our society, to undermine both our democracy and our economy. Without future leaders or daring innovators, where will we go? So what can be done?]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=35 Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:28:06 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=35 http://www.halexandria.org/dward963.htm . Take some time to explore the many halls of Halexandria and you may find your thoughts shifting.]]> http://www.halexandria.org/dward963.htm . Take some time to explore the many halls of Halexandria and you may find your thoughts shifting.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=34 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:33:58 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=34
Einstein proved that time is relative. His Special Theory of Relativity showed that the passage of time is dependent upon the observer. Specifically, the motion of the observer in relation to the motion of other observers. How time passes for you depends on your velocity. But the question becomes; Your velocity compared to what or who? All things in the universe are in motion relative to all other things in the universe and the passage of time is relative to your velocity compared to some other object. Generally, we measure our time by our velocity around the our sun. But our sun is moving relative to the other stars in our Galaxy and our Galaxy is moving in relation to other galaxies out to as far as we can see which is about 15 billion light years.

Physics tells us that our universe began 15 billion years ago because the light we see from those farthest galaxies traveled 15 billion years to get to us. Of course, the speed of light is supposed to be absolute. Since I’m not a physicist, I’m sure there are some concepts which I don’t understand. But one question I’ve never seen answered in the physics books is why we see those galaxies already formed. It takes billions of years for a galaxy to form and yet when we say the big bang happened 15 billion years ago we are saying that those galaxies were formed when the big bang occurred. But that isn’t true because the assumption is that the big bang was formed from a singularity and that the initial expansion was so hot that nothing could have formed. There is probably a mathematical answer for this question but I haven’t seen it even asked yet.

But this is where time figures in also. The descriptions of the big bang that I’ve read always include descriptions of events in tiny fractions of a second after it occurred and in exponential numbers of seconds after. The problem with that is we are using our time scale as a reference when the only time scale that counts in our universe is the local time scale. And since no one was around to observe the events then, our time scale is totally irrelevant. How can you say that atoms formed so many seconds after the initial expansion when our time did not exist then.

The point is that time is relative to the observer. Therefore, time is a local phenomenon. Time is a variable, not an absolute. It seems to me that physicists forget this all to often. They continually refer to when something happens or how long something takes to happen when those references are totally irrelevant. The mistake in Einstein’s theory is that time and space form a continuum – Space Time. Actually, space is a continuum and time is a construct of consciousness for without an observer, time does not exist.

And this brings us to a problem with science as we know it. Science presumes that all phenomenon are independent of the observer. However, as the double slit experiment has proven, consciousness plays an important role in the outcome of any event. You can’t have a result without an observer. That leads to the conclusion that you can’t have an event without an observer. And, since events are materialistic phenomenon, the next logical step is that you can’t have matter without an observer. But that brings metaphysics into the equation and science rejects that hypothesis leaving us to deal strictly with the illusion that we are observing a material reality.

But to get back to time and the big bang. We know that the speed of light is constant, but it is constant only from the point of view of an observer. Two different observers will see a beam of light traveling at the same speed, but they will see the same event happening at a different time. So, the speed of light is relative only to the observer and is totally dependent on that observer. When the big bang was occurring and the universe was exceedingly small, how long did it take for a photon to traverse the universe. We say today it would take 30 billion years (15 billion to get to us and another 15 to get to the stars in the opposite directions).

When we say that it will take 30 billion years for that photon to traverse the universe we are using our local time reference and we are making an observation. However, we are making that observation as though we were outside of the universe. Its as though we were standing outside of the sphere of the universe and watching that photon travel from one side to the other. The trouble is that there is no outside of the universe. When the big bang occurred we refer to the universe as the size of an orange or a grapefruit and it expanded to the size of a basketball, etc. The problem is that outside the universe there is no point of reference to determine size. This is something that our limited minds have trouble conceptualizing. The universe is infinite so, even at the point of the big bang, it is impossible to say that it was the size of an orange or a basketball. And, so if it is infinite, and the speed of light is dependent upon the observer, an observer just after the big bang would see that it would take an infinite amount of time for a photon to traverse the universe. And, how long does it take for a photon to traverse the universe today? An infinite amount of time. So, to an observer on a hypothetically proportionately small earth during the big bang, the universe would still appear to be 30 billion light years across even though we are referring to it as the size of a basketball. We agree that the universe is expanding, so what has changed? The speed of light? Time? Perhaps it is our perception that the universe is expanding that causes this dilemma.

Because the speed of light is constant to our observations and time is variable, we observe that variable time as movement. That’s a rash statement, but let’s apply it to the twin paradox.

A famous thought experiment to illustrate Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, is to imagine a set of twins. One of the twins takes a rocket ship flight to a nearby star, lets say 25 light years away. (Ignoring acceleration and deceleration for the sake of simplicity) the astronaut twin travels at 90% the speed of light. According to the theory, to the twin who stays on earth, the round trip will take 50 years. However to the astronaut twin the trip will have taken only 5 years (10% of the time since he traveled at 90% the speed of light). So, when the traveling twin gets back he is only 5 years older while his brother is an old man. This is a real phenomenon and has been proven in the laboratory. The paradox is the question: Why did the earth bound twin age and not the astronaut? Who’s to say that the rocket ship is the one that moved? Let’s put our twins on a space station far outside our galaxy with no stars near. This time let’s put them both in a rocket ship and have the two rocket ships blast off in opposite directions, traveling 25 light years at 90% the speed of light. However, the blast off is so violent that it destroys the space station. There now is no observer at the space station to measure the passage of time there, only the two twins who are now going in opposite directions. One twin wants to send a message to his brother and so he shoots a beam of light behind him toward the other receding space ship, however, that ship is leaving at 180% of the speed of light, an impossibility. So, according to the Theory of Relativity, the beam of light can never reach the other ship. However, the speed of light is relative to the observer. Lets say he sent the beam of light when he was one light year away from where the space station was. From his point of view it would take the light beam 1 year to get back to the starting point and another 25 years to get to his brother who would be close to his turnaround point at that time. Now the receiving brother knew that the other was going to send that beam of light one light year after he left and so (since they were two light years apart at the time) he starts looking for it then. Since the speed of light is constant for him, that beam of light takes two years to reach the point where he started looking for it and another two years to reach where he is at the time he receives it. So when does he receive it? 4 years after his flight begins, or 25 years after his flight starts? The answer appears to depend on when he started looking for it. I’ve never claimed to be a mathematician, so there is probably some complicated answer to reconcile this, but it appears from my understanding of the theory that the intent of the observer plays a big part in this. Of course, if the light beam is received at the 4 year mark it will be greatly red shifted due to the speed of the sending ship – perhaps clear out of the visible spectrum. So, if we extend this scenario to the stars in our observable universe, we begin to wonder exactly when, in our time, the light left those distant stars.

So, perhaps time is not the relative absolute we think it is. Perhaps, conscious perception has more to do with time than we think it does. Perhaps, time is just our consciousness’ way of comprehending the universe.]]>
Einstein proved that time is relative. His Special Theory of Relativity showed that the passage of time is dependent upon the observer. Specifically, the motion of the observer in relation to the motion of other observers. How time passes for you depends on your velocity. But the question becomes; Your velocity compared to what or who? All things in the universe are in motion relative to all other things in the universe and the passage of time is relative to your velocity compared to some other object. Generally, we measure our time by our velocity around the our sun. But our sun is moving relative to the other stars in our Galaxy and our Galaxy is moving in relation to other galaxies out to as far as we can see which is about 15 billion light years.

Physics tells us that our universe began 15 billion years ago because the light we see from those farthest galaxies traveled 15 billion years to get to us. Of course, the speed of light is supposed to be absolute. Since I’m not a physicist, I’m sure there are some concepts which I don’t understand. But one question I’ve never seen answered in the physics books is why we see those galaxies already formed. It takes billions of years for a galaxy to form and yet when we say the big bang happened 15 billion years ago we are saying that those galaxies were formed when the big bang occurred. But that isn’t true because the assumption is that the big bang was formed from a singularity and that the initial expansion was so hot that nothing could have formed. There is probably a mathematical answer for this question but I haven’t seen it even asked yet.

But this is where time figures in also. The descriptions of the big bang that I’ve read always include descriptions of events in tiny fractions of a second after it occurred and in exponential numbers of seconds after. The problem with that is we are using our time scale as a reference when the only time scale that counts in our universe is the local time scale. And since no one was around to observe the events then, our time scale is totally irrelevant. How can you say that atoms formed so many seconds after the initial expansion when our time did not exist then.

The point is that time is relative to the observer. Therefore, time is a local phenomenon. Time is a variable, not an absolute. It seems to me that physicists forget this all to often. They continually refer to when something happens or how long something takes to happen when those references are totally irrelevant. The mistake in Einstein’s theory is that time and space form a continuum – Space Time. Actually, space is a continuum and time is a construct of consciousness for without an observer, time does not exist.

And this brings us to a problem with science as we know it. Science presumes that all phenomenon are independent of the observer. However, as the double slit experiment has proven, consciousness plays an important role in the outcome of any event. You can’t have a result without an observer. That leads to the conclusion that you can’t have an event without an observer. And, since events are materialistic phenomenon, the next logical step is that you can’t have matter without an observer. But that brings metaphysics into the equation and science rejects that hypothesis leaving us to deal strictly with the illusion that we are observing a material reality.

But to get back to time and the big bang. We know that the speed of light is constant, but it is constant only from the point of view of an observer. Two different observers will see a beam of light traveling at the same speed, but they will see the same event happening at a different time. So, the speed of light is relative only to the observer and is totally dependent on that observer. When the big bang was occurring and the universe was exceedingly small, how long did it take for a photon to traverse the universe. We say today it would take 30 billion years (15 billion to get to us and another 15 to get to the stars in the opposite directions).

When we say that it will take 30 billion years for that photon to traverse the universe we are using our local time reference and we are making an observation. However, we are making that observation as though we were outside of the universe. Its as though we were standing outside of the sphere of the universe and watching that photon travel from one side to the other. The trouble is that there is no outside of the universe. When the big bang occurred we refer to the universe as the size of an orange or a grapefruit and it expanded to the size of a basketball, etc. The problem is that outside the universe there is no point of reference to determine size. This is something that our limited minds have trouble conceptualizing. The universe is infinite so, even at the point of the big bang, it is impossible to say that it was the size of an orange or a basketball. And, so if it is infinite, and the speed of light is dependent upon the observer, an observer just after the big bang would see that it would take an infinite amount of time for a photon to traverse the universe. And, how long does it take for a photon to traverse the universe today? An infinite amount of time. So, to an observer on a hypothetically proportionately small earth during the big bang, the universe would still appear to be 30 billion light years across even though we are referring to it as the size of a basketball. We agree that the universe is expanding, so what has changed? The speed of light? Time? Perhaps it is our perception that the universe is expanding that causes this dilemma.

Because the speed of light is constant to our observations and time is variable, we observe that variable time as movement. That’s a rash statement, but let’s apply it to the twin paradox.

A famous thought experiment to illustrate Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, is to imagine a set of twins. One of the twins takes a rocket ship flight to a nearby star, lets say 25 light years away. (Ignoring acceleration and deceleration for the sake of simplicity) the astronaut twin travels at 90% the speed of light. According to the theory, to the twin who stays on earth, the round trip will take 50 years. However to the astronaut twin the trip will have taken only 5 years (10% of the time since he traveled at 90% the speed of light). So, when the traveling twin gets back he is only 5 years older while his brother is an old man. This is a real phenomenon and has been proven in the laboratory. The paradox is the question: Why did the earth bound twin age and not the astronaut? Who’s to say that the rocket ship is the one that moved? Let’s put our twins on a space station far outside our galaxy with no stars near. This time let’s put them both in a rocket ship and have the two rocket ships blast off in opposite directions, traveling 25 light years at 90% the speed of light. However, the blast off is so violent that it destroys the space station. There now is no observer at the space station to measure the passage of time there, only the two twins who are now going in opposite directions. One twin wants to send a message to his brother and so he shoots a beam of light behind him toward the other receding space ship, however, that ship is leaving at 180% of the speed of light, an impossibility. So, according to the Theory of Relativity, the beam of light can never reach the other ship. However, the speed of light is relative to the observer. Lets say he sent the beam of light when he was one light year away from where the space station was. From his point of view it would take the light beam 1 year to get back to the starting point and another 25 years to get to his brother who would be close to his turnaround point at that time. Now the receiving brother knew that the other was going to send that beam of light one light year after he left and so (since they were two light years apart at the time) he starts looking for it then. Since the speed of light is constant for him, that beam of light takes two years to reach the point where he started looking for it and another two years to reach where he is at the time he receives it. So when does he receive it? 4 years after his flight begins, or 25 years after his flight starts? The answer appears to depend on when he started looking for it. I’ve never claimed to be a mathematician, so there is probably some complicated answer to reconcile this, but it appears from my understanding of the theory that the intent of the observer plays a big part in this. Of course, if the light beam is received at the 4 year mark it will be greatly red shifted due to the speed of the sending ship – perhaps clear out of the visible spectrum. So, if we extend this scenario to the stars in our observable universe, we begin to wonder exactly when, in our time, the light left those distant stars.

So, perhaps time is not the relative absolute we think it is. Perhaps, conscious perception has more to do with time than we think it does. Perhaps, time is just our consciousness’ way of comprehending the universe.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=33 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:23:50 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=33
It is assumed that the Universe started with a singularity. In other words, everything that is contained in the Universe today was contained in a point that was so small it had no size. Then, for some reason, the Universe started a massive expansion into the Universe we see today. Scientists give us accounts of what happened in minute fractions of seconds after the big bang and use that information to account for what we see now. Mostly this is done through mathematical calculations based on today’s observations and extrapolated backwards in time to the Big Bang. In this way they can tell us what was happening and the temperature of the Universe when it was the size of a pea, the size of a basketball, the size of the earth, the size of the sun, etc. all the way to the size it is today.

The first problem I see with this is the point of the observer. That is the theoretical observer who is measuring the size of the universe as it expands. To measure something you have to have a point of reference and so to say the Universe was the size of a basketball has no meaning because the Universe at that time had no basketballs. Neither were there basketballs outside the Universe. In fact, the concept of something outside the Universe is problematic as well.

To say the Universe had a size is to imply a boundary. There are theories for a Universe that is infinite but has a boundary, all explained mathematically, but even that doesn’t place a size on the Universe and still leaves the question; What is there besides the Universe? Even if our Universe is infinite within a boundary, any boundary implies there is something outside. Even theories that suggest our Universe is a bubble in a Mega-Universe leaves the question as to what is outside the Mega-Universe. More Mega-Universes? We blow off the idea by saying it is incomprehensible.

Human consciousness has difficulty with the concept of nothingness and infinity. If the universe is infinite, we find it hard to comprehend that no matter how far you go, there is going to be more of it. Once, while arguing the concept of alien life, I made the assertion that since the universe is infinite and the probability of life emerging to be at least one (by virtue of our being here) then there has to be life on another planet somewhere since the chance of it happening again is infinite in an infinite universe. Therefore, the probability of infinity to infinity is one to one. To counter my argument a mathematical proof was presented that certain infinities of sets are larger than other infinities of sets, and therefore, infinities differ in size and so cannot be one to one. Not being a mathematician, I cannot argue the point mathematically, however, to me it is not logical to say that something with no boundaries is larger than some other thing with no boundaries. To have a size is to imply a boundary, and therefore, not infinite. I think we as humans have considerable trouble conceptualizing no boundaries in physical space.

The other concept we have difficulty with is nothingness. Usually we think of nothingness as the vacuum of space. But, vacuum as we use it for the vastness between stars is still something. In the movie The Never Ending Story, the Rock Biter is telling how his home was consumed by the Nothing. When asked if what was left was a hole he answers “A hole would be something, there was Nothing”. The same is true with the vacuum of space. There may be no matter there but the lack of matter in space makes it something. In fact it is that lack of matter that defines the matter in our universe. There is matter and there is not matter. And, once again, we see that the boundary between matter and not matter defines space. But when we talk about a universe with size, implying a boundary, there must be a Nothing outside. Not a vacuum nor matter nor a conception of any kind. So, in a way, because there has to be a Nothing outside our universe the universe cannot have a boundary because to have Nothing outside the universe is inconceivable.

And so, we are led to another problem with the Big Bang. If the universe has no boundaries, it has to have always been the same size, which is infinite. In Big Bang theory all matter/energy in the universe today was packed together tightly into a singularity. An infinitely small space. But, once again, to call something small, even infinitely small, implies a boundary, else how could you call it small? Then through a sudden expansion of space (and there is that boundary problem again – how can something expand if it has no boundary?) all matter in the universe was formed and the universe started to cool due to the expansion. All this has been calculated by taking the observed motion of the stars and extrapolating it back to a point, which just happens to be where we are. Curious that we are at the center of that expansion, but not really according to the theory. The stars and all matter are not moving away from each other in space, space is expanding. This is usually described as points on a balloon. If you mark a balloon with points and then blow it up, the points appear to move away from each other. And, if you were to be on one of those points it would appear that all the points are moving away from you. No matter what point you are on, the appearance would be that you are stationary and the others are moving away. Not too hard to understand. But what is space expanding into? The Nothing? If so, there is that implied boundary again with the Nothing outside.

The expansion of space since the Big Bang has been enormous. From so closely packed together to 15 billion light years apart. Yet, the force so great as to cause this expansion has had little or no effect at the atomic level. Has the space between protons, neutrons, and electrons within the atom expanded at the same rate or at all? Are the electromagnetic forces within the atom so strong as to overcome this expansion of space? Are the nuclear forces within the atom strong enough to overcome it as well? And, what about gravity? Gravity is the one force that has physicists baffled and is the one missing piece of the final theory. Supposedly, gravity is slowing the expansion of space, at least according to some theories, but others say it isn’t strong enough to do so. But if it’s space expanding, just carrying matter along for the ride, if gravity does start pulling matter back together, is space still expanding?

There are many questions that science has left, not just unanswered, but unasked. Our logic, our scientific method, our mathematics, have led us down an interesting path of discovery. We’ve made remarkable technological breakthroughs utilizing science as we know it, but has it led us to a dead end of knowledge? Perhaps it is time for a new way of thinking which takes the observer into consideration and makes us part of the equation instead of assuming we are the result.]]>
It is assumed that the Universe started with a singularity. In other words, everything that is contained in the Universe today was contained in a point that was so small it had no size. Then, for some reason, the Universe started a massive expansion into the Universe we see today. Scientists give us accounts of what happened in minute fractions of seconds after the big bang and use that information to account for what we see now. Mostly this is done through mathematical calculations based on today’s observations and extrapolated backwards in time to the Big Bang. In this way they can tell us what was happening and the temperature of the Universe when it was the size of a pea, the size of a basketball, the size of the earth, the size of the sun, etc. all the way to the size it is today.

The first problem I see with this is the point of the observer. That is the theoretical observer who is measuring the size of the universe as it expands. To measure something you have to have a point of reference and so to say the Universe was the size of a basketball has no meaning because the Universe at that time had no basketballs. Neither were there basketballs outside the Universe. In fact, the concept of something outside the Universe is problematic as well.

To say the Universe had a size is to imply a boundary. There are theories for a Universe that is infinite but has a boundary, all explained mathematically, but even that doesn’t place a size on the Universe and still leaves the question; What is there besides the Universe? Even if our Universe is infinite within a boundary, any boundary implies there is something outside. Even theories that suggest our Universe is a bubble in a Mega-Universe leaves the question as to what is outside the Mega-Universe. More Mega-Universes? We blow off the idea by saying it is incomprehensible.

Human consciousness has difficulty with the concept of nothingness and infinity. If the universe is infinite, we find it hard to comprehend that no matter how far you go, there is going to be more of it. Once, while arguing the concept of alien life, I made the assertion that since the universe is infinite and the probability of life emerging to be at least one (by virtue of our being here) then there has to be life on another planet somewhere since the chance of it happening again is infinite in an infinite universe. Therefore, the probability of infinity to infinity is one to one. To counter my argument a mathematical proof was presented that certain infinities of sets are larger than other infinities of sets, and therefore, infinities differ in size and so cannot be one to one. Not being a mathematician, I cannot argue the point mathematically, however, to me it is not logical to say that something with no boundaries is larger than some other thing with no boundaries. To have a size is to imply a boundary, and therefore, not infinite. I think we as humans have considerable trouble conceptualizing no boundaries in physical space.

The other concept we have difficulty with is nothingness. Usually we think of nothingness as the vacuum of space. But, vacuum as we use it for the vastness between stars is still something. In the movie The Never Ending Story, the Rock Biter is telling how his home was consumed by the Nothing. When asked if what was left was a hole he answers “A hole would be something, there was Nothing”. The same is true with the vacuum of space. There may be no matter there but the lack of matter in space makes it something. In fact it is that lack of matter that defines the matter in our universe. There is matter and there is not matter. And, once again, we see that the boundary between matter and not matter defines space. But when we talk about a universe with size, implying a boundary, there must be a Nothing outside. Not a vacuum nor matter nor a conception of any kind. So, in a way, because there has to be a Nothing outside our universe the universe cannot have a boundary because to have Nothing outside the universe is inconceivable.

And so, we are led to another problem with the Big Bang. If the universe has no boundaries, it has to have always been the same size, which is infinite. In Big Bang theory all matter/energy in the universe today was packed together tightly into a singularity. An infinitely small space. But, once again, to call something small, even infinitely small, implies a boundary, else how could you call it small? Then through a sudden expansion of space (and there is that boundary problem again – how can something expand if it has no boundary?) all matter in the universe was formed and the universe started to cool due to the expansion. All this has been calculated by taking the observed motion of the stars and extrapolating it back to a point, which just happens to be where we are. Curious that we are at the center of that expansion, but not really according to the theory. The stars and all matter are not moving away from each other in space, space is expanding. This is usually described as points on a balloon. If you mark a balloon with points and then blow it up, the points appear to move away from each other. And, if you were to be on one of those points it would appear that all the points are moving away from you. No matter what point you are on, the appearance would be that you are stationary and the others are moving away. Not too hard to understand. But what is space expanding into? The Nothing? If so, there is that implied boundary again with the Nothing outside.

The expansion of space since the Big Bang has been enormous. From so closely packed together to 15 billion light years apart. Yet, the force so great as to cause this expansion has had little or no effect at the atomic level. Has the space between protons, neutrons, and electrons within the atom expanded at the same rate or at all? Are the electromagnetic forces within the atom so strong as to overcome this expansion of space? Are the nuclear forces within the atom strong enough to overcome it as well? And, what about gravity? Gravity is the one force that has physicists baffled and is the one missing piece of the final theory. Supposedly, gravity is slowing the expansion of space, at least according to some theories, but others say it isn’t strong enough to do so. But if it’s space expanding, just carrying matter along for the ride, if gravity does start pulling matter back together, is space still expanding?

There are many questions that science has left, not just unanswered, but unasked. Our logic, our scientific method, our mathematics, have led us down an interesting path of discovery. We’ve made remarkable technological breakthroughs utilizing science as we know it, but has it led us to a dead end of knowledge? Perhaps it is time for a new way of thinking which takes the observer into consideration and makes us part of the equation instead of assuming we are the result.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=32 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:11:42 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=32
I don’t claim to be a physicist or mathematician either, but much of what you will find here is based on physics which is, basically, practical application of math. However, there are some fundamental problems with mathematics which I will get into in later chapters. Physics has reached a limit with the tools available, but the work goes on. As I write this work is going on to repair the Large Hadron Collider which broke on it’s inaugural trial. We are developing bigger and bigger tools to find smaller and smaller bits of reality, but what we are finding is more and more questions about fundamental reality.

I don’t claim to be a cosmologist either, but the study of the very large is an integral part of the study of the very small. Physics and Astrophysics go hand in hand. What we are finding is that the large is part of the small and that you can’t have the known without the unknown. Everything is part of one whole and the one whole is part of everything.

And that is what this book is about. Just another chapter in a never ending story – the story of humankind and consciousness.]]>
I don’t claim to be a physicist or mathematician either, but much of what you will find here is based on physics which is, basically, practical application of math. However, there are some fundamental problems with mathematics which I will get into in later chapters. Physics has reached a limit with the tools available, but the work goes on. As I write this work is going on to repair the Large Hadron Collider which broke on it’s inaugural trial. We are developing bigger and bigger tools to find smaller and smaller bits of reality, but what we are finding is more and more questions about fundamental reality.

I don’t claim to be a cosmologist either, but the study of the very large is an integral part of the study of the very small. Physics and Astrophysics go hand in hand. What we are finding is that the large is part of the small and that you can’t have the known without the unknown. Everything is part of one whole and the one whole is part of everything.

And that is what this book is about. Just another chapter in a never ending story – the story of humankind and consciousness.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=31 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:08:56 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=31
In order to even begin to grasp the concept of reality, one must look beyond the stars, to the very edge of the universe. But is there an edge to the universe? The universe is said to be infinite, but do we really understand infinity? The concept of infinity is something which the human mind has a hard time coming to terms with. If the universe is infinite, how can we who live in a world of absolutes and limits understand the concept of endlessness? Does something really exist if we have no awareness of it? (If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound?) Perhaps reality is in our own minds, subjective to our thoughts and expectation. Reality has to be more complicated than just infinite matter scattered in infinite empty space.

On the other end of the scale there is Quantum reality. Einstein was the first real pioneer in this study of the smallest parts into which matter can be broken down. But what scientists found as they studied quantum physics is that no matter how small they divide a particle, there is still smaller parts into which it can be divided. We’ve now found all the quarks, the smallest form of matter yet. But is that the last step? Ancient philosophers were able to prove that it was impossible to reach any given point because to reach there from where you are, first you had to go halfway. After that you had to go half of the remaining distance, then half of that remaining distance. No matter how far you went, you had to go half of the distance, and those distances could be divided by half into infinity. You could get very close to where your going, but you could never get there? Is this what is happening to us in the study of quantum particles? But maybe, what is happening is that we are finding exactly what we are looking for. Perhaps, no matter what we look for, that is just what we will find. There are certain experiments that point in that direction. One strange aspect to the world of quantum reality is that quantum particles, the basic building block of every material we know, doesn’t consist of anything other than a wave (if that’s what we set the experiment to find). A wave no more substantial than the electromagnetic waves that send music from the radio station to your radio. A different type of wave perhaps, but still the same concept. The best example of this is the two slit experiment. By sending light from a single light source through two slits and evaluating the pattern of light on a screen beyond the slits, it seems that light can act as a particle or as a wave. In fact, how it acts depends on the results the experimenter expects to get! We know that a thing must be in one form or another, it can’t be both. But in this experiment it changes form at the whim of the experimenter. In other words, reality is shaped by the expectations of the person who conducts the experiment! Latest experiments indicate that not only does light have this subjective dualistic reality, but all matter as we know it, when broken down into it’s most basic form, has the same subjective reality.

This has major implications into not only our perception of reality, but also into how we as individuals fit into the scheme of reality. In other words, our own perceptions and expectations provide the answer to Shakespeare’s question “To be or not to be?” However, if this is true, why can’t we change our reality to meet our desires, and why, if anyone can have their own reality, is there suffering in the world? Perhaps the answer lies in Jung’s Collective Consciousness, or in our individual realities interacting with each other, or because our subconscious expectations of reality give us what we subconsciously want, or because we are controlled by an omnipotent being, or maybe the reality is that all of these things add together to give us what we now know as reality. Mankind has evolved into a thinking being which can now begin to provide answers to these questions. It is now time for philosophical discussions on these topics. We are entering an era of philosophy the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since the times of the Classical Greek philosophers. Maybe we will finally find the answers to reality and existence.]]>
In order to even begin to grasp the concept of reality, one must look beyond the stars, to the very edge of the universe. But is there an edge to the universe? The universe is said to be infinite, but do we really understand infinity? The concept of infinity is something which the human mind has a hard time coming to terms with. If the universe is infinite, how can we who live in a world of absolutes and limits understand the concept of endlessness? Does something really exist if we have no awareness of it? (If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound?) Perhaps reality is in our own minds, subjective to our thoughts and expectation. Reality has to be more complicated than just infinite matter scattered in infinite empty space.

On the other end of the scale there is Quantum reality. Einstein was the first real pioneer in this study of the smallest parts into which matter can be broken down. But what scientists found as they studied quantum physics is that no matter how small they divide a particle, there is still smaller parts into which it can be divided. We’ve now found all the quarks, the smallest form of matter yet. But is that the last step? Ancient philosophers were able to prove that it was impossible to reach any given point because to reach there from where you are, first you had to go halfway. After that you had to go half of the remaining distance, then half of that remaining distance. No matter how far you went, you had to go half of the distance, and those distances could be divided by half into infinity. You could get very close to where your going, but you could never get there? Is this what is happening to us in the study of quantum particles? But maybe, what is happening is that we are finding exactly what we are looking for. Perhaps, no matter what we look for, that is just what we will find. There are certain experiments that point in that direction. One strange aspect to the world of quantum reality is that quantum particles, the basic building block of every material we know, doesn’t consist of anything other than a wave (if that’s what we set the experiment to find). A wave no more substantial than the electromagnetic waves that send music from the radio station to your radio. A different type of wave perhaps, but still the same concept. The best example of this is the two slit experiment. By sending light from a single light source through two slits and evaluating the pattern of light on a screen beyond the slits, it seems that light can act as a particle or as a wave. In fact, how it acts depends on the results the experimenter expects to get! We know that a thing must be in one form or another, it can’t be both. But in this experiment it changes form at the whim of the experimenter. In other words, reality is shaped by the expectations of the person who conducts the experiment! Latest experiments indicate that not only does light have this subjective dualistic reality, but all matter as we know it, when broken down into it’s most basic form, has the same subjective reality.

This has major implications into not only our perception of reality, but also into how we as individuals fit into the scheme of reality. In other words, our own perceptions and expectations provide the answer to Shakespeare’s question “To be or not to be?” However, if this is true, why can’t we change our reality to meet our desires, and why, if anyone can have their own reality, is there suffering in the world? Perhaps the answer lies in Jung’s Collective Consciousness, or in our individual realities interacting with each other, or because our subconscious expectations of reality give us what we subconsciously want, or because we are controlled by an omnipotent being, or maybe the reality is that all of these things add together to give us what we now know as reality. Mankind has evolved into a thinking being which can now begin to provide answers to these questions. It is now time for philosophical discussions on these topics. We are entering an era of philosophy the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since the times of the Classical Greek philosophers. Maybe we will finally find the answers to reality and existence.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=30 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:07:50 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=30
This whole economy crisis is just so much bull. Yeah, I know, you say try telling that to the people who have been laid off. Well, if the American public wasn’t so gullible those people would never have been laid off. The first gullibility was thinking you could buy a house with a mortgage that was more than the house was worth. Then, the banks expecting people to continue paying on those mortgages when the interest rate adjusted and suddenly those payments were 50% higher than they were. All caused by the gullibility of the public by electing politicians that had no clue as to how business works except to want to help the little guy by getting them into a house they couldn’t afford. And then another gullibility of people believing the stock market was a true indicator of how the economy is doing. Since the advent of computers and day trading, the stock market is nothing more than speculation. It now has nothing to do with the economy, only the perception of a few speculators as to whether they can fool the next guy into making bad decisions so they can make money. So, when the public sees the stock market go down they suddenly think the economy is in the toilet and so they quit spending and make their fears self fulfilling prophecy.

Wake up America. Each individual needs to make good decisions based on good information - quit making emotional decisions based on marketing hype. Then, elect good representatives that have some background and understanding of how business works instead of overpaid lawyers who know nothing about business but try to control it by passing laws. And above all, get rid of this “I’ve got to have it now” attitude. Why is there a credit crisis? Because we all think it is a crisis if we don’t have the latest gadget so we’ll do anything, including using credit we can’t pay for, to get it.

If you want to stimulate the economy, give the money to the people, not corporations. Trickle up economics will get the companies to producing products people will buy and then trickle down economics will create the jobs. Get it?]]>
This whole economy crisis is just so much bull. Yeah, I know, you say try telling that to the people who have been laid off. Well, if the American public wasn’t so gullible those people would never have been laid off. The first gullibility was thinking you could buy a house with a mortgage that was more than the house was worth. Then, the banks expecting people to continue paying on those mortgages when the interest rate adjusted and suddenly those payments were 50% higher than they were. All caused by the gullibility of the public by electing politicians that had no clue as to how business works except to want to help the little guy by getting them into a house they couldn’t afford. And then another gullibility of people believing the stock market was a true indicator of how the economy is doing. Since the advent of computers and day trading, the stock market is nothing more than speculation. It now has nothing to do with the economy, only the perception of a few speculators as to whether they can fool the next guy into making bad decisions so they can make money. So, when the public sees the stock market go down they suddenly think the economy is in the toilet and so they quit spending and make their fears self fulfilling prophecy.

Wake up America. Each individual needs to make good decisions based on good information - quit making emotional decisions based on marketing hype. Then, elect good representatives that have some background and understanding of how business works instead of overpaid lawyers who know nothing about business but try to control it by passing laws. And above all, get rid of this “I’ve got to have it now” attitude. Why is there a credit crisis? Because we all think it is a crisis if we don’t have the latest gadget so we’ll do anything, including using credit we can’t pay for, to get it.

If you want to stimulate the economy, give the money to the people, not corporations. Trickle up economics will get the companies to producing products people will buy and then trickle down economics will create the jobs. Get it?]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=29 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:01:31 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=29
One thing that the media, both news and entertainment, has created is the ability to raise ordinary people to stardom. This has become ever more true with the advent of the internet and Face Book, My Space, and You Tube. With population growth the role of each person become diminished. The more people there are, the less effect each person’s contribution has on society. Together, these factors have created a need for people to live vicariously through the politicians and movie starts we have created. This is best illustrated by the popularity of magazines and tabloids which specialize in publication of the smallest details of the lives of the famous. Because of this the majority of people in society have come to feel that they are unimportant, that their actions will not matter in the scheme of things, and that they don’t matter. Two illustrations of this which come to mind is voter apathy caused by feeling that the election outcome is preordained and “so why vote?”, and insurance fraud which has become so prevalent due to a lack of understanding that it raises premiums and so is a form of stealing from everyone (the same could be said of tax cheating). Increases in crime are another example. In the lower income sector of society there is an even stronger lack of self worth and self esteem and so the feeling that “I’m going to get mine” coupled with the feeling the individual’s actions will not have an effect on society as a whole causes the crime rate to soar. This feeling of non-worth can also be seen in gang popularity in which individuals feel they are not important unless they are part of a larger group. And gang murders show just how unimportant these people feel. It isn’t hard to end someone else’s life when you value your own so little. Perhaps, unconsciously, these gang members are practicing the ultimate Golden Rule. They are doing unto others just what they want done to them.

There is also a backlash to the feeling of unworthiness in today’s society and that is the urge to be important at all costs. Anyone who deals with the general public today sees this everyday in the customer who insists that they are right no matter what, the person who demands service beyond what is normally offered, and the citizen who believes that public agencies are for them alone because “they are a tax payer”. Between the hero worship and the non-participant is the self important fame seeker who makes life miserable for everyone they encounter. It’s easy to see, from a distant perspective, that these people are feeling the same impotence as the non-voters, insurance/tax cheaters, and criminals; they have just found another way to express their feelings of unworthiness.

The road to peace and harmony in the world will have to be found within each person. Each individual is going to have to be made aware of their own importance, not only to the world but to themselves. This cannot be done through religion, especially traditional Christianity which teaches that people are little more than pawns in some huge cosmic game. Nor can it be done by making everyone feel so self important that they are in constant conflict with each other, trying to prove that each is more important than the other (such as current politics). As in all things, the answer lies in between. Each person must realize their very being contributes to the good of the world and every thought they have as well as their actions contributes to the universe around us and determines what we find in the world.

The greatest emphasis in today’s society is on relationships. We see this in our entertainment, it is brought up in philosophical discussions, and it is the basis of modern psychology. However, a relationship is not worth having if the person does not first have an understanding of themselves and their overall relationship with life. A relationship cannot be used as a crutch to get one through life, it must be the icing on the cake, not the cake it’s self. One should not strive for relationships. Understand yourself, be at peace with yourself, and relationships will happen, and in so doing be more meaningful and fulfilling than any that can be contrived.

So where have all the flowers gone? They are withering with in us all and we must turn inward to nurture them and make them bloom. We must help others to understand their own self worth and help them to understand their contribution to reality. Don’t just tell someone to “Get a life”, make them feel they already have one.]]>
One thing that the media, both news and entertainment, has created is the ability to raise ordinary people to stardom. This has become ever more true with the advent of the internet and Face Book, My Space, and You Tube. With population growth the role of each person become diminished. The more people there are, the less effect each person’s contribution has on society. Together, these factors have created a need for people to live vicariously through the politicians and movie starts we have created. This is best illustrated by the popularity of magazines and tabloids which specialize in publication of the smallest details of the lives of the famous. Because of this the majority of people in society have come to feel that they are unimportant, that their actions will not matter in the scheme of things, and that they don’t matter. Two illustrations of this which come to mind is voter apathy caused by feeling that the election outcome is preordained and “so why vote?”, and insurance fraud which has become so prevalent due to a lack of understanding that it raises premiums and so is a form of stealing from everyone (the same could be said of tax cheating). Increases in crime are another example. In the lower income sector of society there is an even stronger lack of self worth and self esteem and so the feeling that “I’m going to get mine” coupled with the feeling the individual’s actions will not have an effect on society as a whole causes the crime rate to soar. This feeling of non-worth can also be seen in gang popularity in which individuals feel they are not important unless they are part of a larger group. And gang murders show just how unimportant these people feel. It isn’t hard to end someone else’s life when you value your own so little. Perhaps, unconsciously, these gang members are practicing the ultimate Golden Rule. They are doing unto others just what they want done to them.

There is also a backlash to the feeling of unworthiness in today’s society and that is the urge to be important at all costs. Anyone who deals with the general public today sees this everyday in the customer who insists that they are right no matter what, the person who demands service beyond what is normally offered, and the citizen who believes that public agencies are for them alone because “they are a tax payer”. Between the hero worship and the non-participant is the self important fame seeker who makes life miserable for everyone they encounter. It’s easy to see, from a distant perspective, that these people are feeling the same impotence as the non-voters, insurance/tax cheaters, and criminals; they have just found another way to express their feelings of unworthiness.

The road to peace and harmony in the world will have to be found within each person. Each individual is going to have to be made aware of their own importance, not only to the world but to themselves. This cannot be done through religion, especially traditional Christianity which teaches that people are little more than pawns in some huge cosmic game. Nor can it be done by making everyone feel so self important that they are in constant conflict with each other, trying to prove that each is more important than the other (such as current politics). As in all things, the answer lies in between. Each person must realize their very being contributes to the good of the world and every thought they have as well as their actions contributes to the universe around us and determines what we find in the world.

The greatest emphasis in today’s society is on relationships. We see this in our entertainment, it is brought up in philosophical discussions, and it is the basis of modern psychology. However, a relationship is not worth having if the person does not first have an understanding of themselves and their overall relationship with life. A relationship cannot be used as a crutch to get one through life, it must be the icing on the cake, not the cake it’s self. One should not strive for relationships. Understand yourself, be at peace with yourself, and relationships will happen, and in so doing be more meaningful and fulfilling than any that can be contrived.

So where have all the flowers gone? They are withering with in us all and we must turn inward to nurture them and make them bloom. We must help others to understand their own self worth and help them to understand their contribution to reality. Don’t just tell someone to “Get a life”, make them feel they already have one.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=28 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:59:50 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=28
This is because Oklahoma was surveyed before it was settled and, thanks to those organized bureaucrats back then, I now expect every road I see to be East/West or North/South. My world is square. Unfortunately, my world doesn’t seem to fit into the world east of the Mississippi or West of the Rockies.

Now what I’ve found in my travels around the country is that most people around the coasts don’t care which direction is which. Maybe that accounts for why it always seems they don’t know where they’re going, at least that’s the way it seems to us. Ask directions from someone that lives close to either of the big ponds and what you’ll get is a lot of “turn left’ and turn right.”

That works fine if all you care about is how to get from one place to another, but I like to know where I am in relation to places I’m not going. I like to know where I fit into the big picture of this world so, to me, it’s important to know where North is so I don’t have to ask directions.

Come to think of it, maybe that also explains some of the independence we folks here on the Plains seem to have. I think growing up on the flat land is a great advantage when it comes to understanding your place in the world. You can look up any time and see where you are and you get used to that and so we tend to look up, philosophically speaking, and see the big picture when others can’t see the forest for the trees. When it comes to problems, we don’t climb mountains, we flatten them!

Anyway, I find it comforting to know that whatever direction I walk, every mile there will be a road going in another direction. You see, when they laid out all those square miles they put a road on each side of most of them. So, except for a few places where it just wasn’t practical to build a road (like when the edge of the square mile ran down a creek), there is a road every mile.

This gives the land the look of a giant checkerboard. Now living on a checkerboard like that does have its advantages. You acquire certain knowledge like how many acres are in a square mile (640), and how many square miles make up a township (36). I know that each of the square miles is called a “section,” and when we talk about how much a land a man farms, it is given in sections. “He farms w and a half sections” is what you’d say, even if all the land isn’t in the same location. He may have quarter here and an 80 there (acres), but if it all adds up to 2 and a half square miles, you’d tell the size in sections. That is unless you’re talking about less than a sections, which is then referred to in acres.

There is also a unique feature of the checkerboard in Oklahoma called “school land.” When they cut up the land before people got there, they not only divided it up into section, but they grouped the sections into townships. These townships have nothing to do with a town, but they do have names. They are six miles on each side, making 36 sections to each township.

Right in the middle of each township the government kept a section of land that no one could own. It belonged to the government and was called school land. On each one of these school lands there was a one-room school house. Now, of course, a school didn’t take up a whole section so what land the school wasn’t using was rented out and that is what financed the school. Not a bad system.

I don’t think it would work these days, but it seemed to work back then. Most of the school land has been sold off by now, but there is still some that is owned by the government and the proceeds go to support the schools. All in all, I think this showed some foresight by our forefathers, something our politicians could use today. The kind of practicality that’s missing in the government “of the politicians, by the East, and for the West.”

One of the things about a checkerboard is that it’s flat. Problem is, the world is round. So how do you get this flat layout of the land to fit around the ball of the world? Well, you don’t. Just try wrapping a flat piece of paper around a ball and you’ll see what I mean. You’ll get a lot of wrinkles. It just so happens that the people who laid this all out thought of that.

They came up with “correction lines.” Drive down any section line road and, if you go far enough, you’ll find that at some point it takes a zig zag on one of the section lines it crosses. Well, that is the wrinkle in the paper. Sometimes you’ll be driving down a straight highway and suddenly, out in the middle of nowhere, it will make a turn to the right or left and then back to the left or right. If you’ve ever wondered what they were thinking when they did that, now you know why.

How does this fin into understanding our place in the world? Well, just like that piece of paper that won’t fit around the ball without a few wrinkles, we need to make some wrinkles in the way we think sometimes to fit into this world. There is nothing wrong with making that “correction line” when it comes time to fit a little better.

Maybe that’s another reason we Plains folks get along with ourselves and others so well. We understand that those correction lines are needed and how to use them. When you’re traveling down that highway and, out of the blue, you’ve got to shift your direction a little, it wakes you up and causes you to think. It brings you back to understand that although the land we know looks flat, underneath, it isn’t always what it appears to be. The world is round.

One thing about living where the world is square, it’s easy to find your way around. If you want to know where someone lives, and you ask, you’ll get directions like “two South and one West” of whatever town you’re in. My grandma and grandpa lived 8 South and w and a half East of Okeene, Oklahoma, what I consider to be a perfect example of “Small Town America.” And, although they had a box number for their mail, it was always addressed in directions, even though all you needed to do was write their name and town on the envelope and they’d get it. Seems the postal workers knew everyone and knew where they lived - kind of scary thought these days, what with the reputation postal workers have and all. Anyway, if you had directions, it was easy enough to follow them. Not like having to remember a whole series of rights and lefts.

Let’s see now, it seems I started this thing to make a point of knowing where we are and how growing up on the Plains helps us to understand our place in the world. Well, after growing up I set out to see the world, and after seeing quite a bit of it, I came back to Oklahoma. How I wound up in northeastern Oklahoma is another story, but it’s still Oklahoma, sort of. (Being from Western Oklahoma, I don’t consider anything east of I-35 to be the real Oklahoma. Too many trees!)

I’ve found that people around the country are still just folks, but they don’t have that certain perspective that growing up on the Plains gives you. O course, I imagine they think the area they grew up in gave them a unique perspective, and I’m sure they are right. But, being a slight big prejudiced, I have to think that the Plains give us a little more advantage when it comes to reckoning about how the world fits together. Of course it takes a lot of people and different views to make up the country, and we are just a part. But what a big part@

So, now that we’ve mixed a little social philosophy with rural surveying, what have we learned? I know that being from the Plains is something to be proud of. I may not always talk right, and I may not always know my right from my left, but I always know where I stand. I know where I am and where the rest of the world is. And I know that very so often I’m going to find a correction line. Growing up with a sense of direction has kept me on the right path, even if that path didn’t happen to be going where I intended. Like I always say: I’ve never been lost, but I’ve spent a lot of time in place I didn’t intend to be.]]>
This is because Oklahoma was surveyed before it was settled and, thanks to those organized bureaucrats back then, I now expect every road I see to be East/West or North/South. My world is square. Unfortunately, my world doesn’t seem to fit into the world east of the Mississippi or West of the Rockies.

Now what I’ve found in my travels around the country is that most people around the coasts don’t care which direction is which. Maybe that accounts for why it always seems they don’t know where they’re going, at least that’s the way it seems to us. Ask directions from someone that lives close to either of the big ponds and what you’ll get is a lot of “turn left’ and turn right.”

That works fine if all you care about is how to get from one place to another, but I like to know where I am in relation to places I’m not going. I like to know where I fit into the big picture of this world so, to me, it’s important to know where North is so I don’t have to ask directions.

Come to think of it, maybe that also explains some of the independence we folks here on the Plains seem to have. I think growing up on the flat land is a great advantage when it comes to understanding your place in the world. You can look up any time and see where you are and you get used to that and so we tend to look up, philosophically speaking, and see the big picture when others can’t see the forest for the trees. When it comes to problems, we don’t climb mountains, we flatten them!

Anyway, I find it comforting to know that whatever direction I walk, every mile there will be a road going in another direction. You see, when they laid out all those square miles they put a road on each side of most of them. So, except for a few places where it just wasn’t practical to build a road (like when the edge of the square mile ran down a creek), there is a road every mile.

This gives the land the look of a giant checkerboard. Now living on a checkerboard like that does have its advantages. You acquire certain knowledge like how many acres are in a square mile (640), and how many square miles make up a township (36). I know that each of the square miles is called a “section,” and when we talk about how much a land a man farms, it is given in sections. “He farms w and a half sections” is what you’d say, even if all the land isn’t in the same location. He may have quarter here and an 80 there (acres), but if it all adds up to 2 and a half square miles, you’d tell the size in sections. That is unless you’re talking about less than a sections, which is then referred to in acres.

There is also a unique feature of the checkerboard in Oklahoma called “school land.” When they cut up the land before people got there, they not only divided it up into section, but they grouped the sections into townships. These townships have nothing to do with a town, but they do have names. They are six miles on each side, making 36 sections to each township.

Right in the middle of each township the government kept a section of land that no one could own. It belonged to the government and was called school land. On each one of these school lands there was a one-room school house. Now, of course, a school didn’t take up a whole section so what land the school wasn’t using was rented out and that is what financed the school. Not a bad system.

I don’t think it would work these days, but it seemed to work back then. Most of the school land has been sold off by now, but there is still some that is owned by the government and the proceeds go to support the schools. All in all, I think this showed some foresight by our forefathers, something our politicians could use today. The kind of practicality that’s missing in the government “of the politicians, by the East, and for the West.”

One of the things about a checkerboard is that it’s flat. Problem is, the world is round. So how do you get this flat layout of the land to fit around the ball of the world? Well, you don’t. Just try wrapping a flat piece of paper around a ball and you’ll see what I mean. You’ll get a lot of wrinkles. It just so happens that the people who laid this all out thought of that.

They came up with “correction lines.” Drive down any section line road and, if you go far enough, you’ll find that at some point it takes a zig zag on one of the section lines it crosses. Well, that is the wrinkle in the paper. Sometimes you’ll be driving down a straight highway and suddenly, out in the middle of nowhere, it will make a turn to the right or left and then back to the left or right. If you’ve ever wondered what they were thinking when they did that, now you know why.

How does this fin into understanding our place in the world? Well, just like that piece of paper that won’t fit around the ball without a few wrinkles, we need to make some wrinkles in the way we think sometimes to fit into this world. There is nothing wrong with making that “correction line” when it comes time to fit a little better.

Maybe that’s another reason we Plains folks get along with ourselves and others so well. We understand that those correction lines are needed and how to use them. When you’re traveling down that highway and, out of the blue, you’ve got to shift your direction a little, it wakes you up and causes you to think. It brings you back to understand that although the land we know looks flat, underneath, it isn’t always what it appears to be. The world is round.

One thing about living where the world is square, it’s easy to find your way around. If you want to know where someone lives, and you ask, you’ll get directions like “two South and one West” of whatever town you’re in. My grandma and grandpa lived 8 South and w and a half East of Okeene, Oklahoma, what I consider to be a perfect example of “Small Town America.” And, although they had a box number for their mail, it was always addressed in directions, even though all you needed to do was write their name and town on the envelope and they’d get it. Seems the postal workers knew everyone and knew where they lived - kind of scary thought these days, what with the reputation postal workers have and all. Anyway, if you had directions, it was easy enough to follow them. Not like having to remember a whole series of rights and lefts.

Let’s see now, it seems I started this thing to make a point of knowing where we are and how growing up on the Plains helps us to understand our place in the world. Well, after growing up I set out to see the world, and after seeing quite a bit of it, I came back to Oklahoma. How I wound up in northeastern Oklahoma is another story, but it’s still Oklahoma, sort of. (Being from Western Oklahoma, I don’t consider anything east of I-35 to be the real Oklahoma. Too many trees!)

I’ve found that people around the country are still just folks, but they don’t have that certain perspective that growing up on the Plains gives you. O course, I imagine they think the area they grew up in gave them a unique perspective, and I’m sure they are right. But, being a slight big prejudiced, I have to think that the Plains give us a little more advantage when it comes to reckoning about how the world fits together. Of course it takes a lot of people and different views to make up the country, and we are just a part. But what a big part@

So, now that we’ve mixed a little social philosophy with rural surveying, what have we learned? I know that being from the Plains is something to be proud of. I may not always talk right, and I may not always know my right from my left, but I always know where I stand. I know where I am and where the rest of the world is. And I know that very so often I’m going to find a correction line. Growing up with a sense of direction has kept me on the right path, even if that path didn’t happen to be going where I intended. Like I always say: I’ve never been lost, but I’ve spent a lot of time in place I didn’t intend to be.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=27 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:58:15 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=27
Many of our leaders would have us believe that the problems on Wall Street are the result of greed. The greed of CEOs and Corporate Boards. Well, they are right but instead of looking at just the greed of these people, perhaps we should be looking at what caused the problem of greedy people in charge in the first place. There is only one reason; Stupidity. That’s right, so called intelligent people making stupid decisions. And to find who the stupid people are that caused all this we have to look no further than the mirror. A collective mirror no doubt, but as Pogo said: “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

Why does today’s world seem filled with incompetence? Why can’t everyone be as smart and perfect as we are? Why can’t everyone see the stupidity of such a statement? Its like driving down the freeway. Everyone out there is doing something stupid - except me. But what we fail to realize is that everyone else is sitting in their car saying the same thing about everyone else, including me. But why?

The first sign of true intelligence is the ability to recognize when you aren’t the smartest person around and someone else may have a better idea. The stubbornness that surrounds our egocentric way of thinking in the world today has caused everyone to believe that they are always right. Need an example? The prolific increases in lawsuits are one, caused by people who refuse to take responsibility for what happens in their life. Sure, at times people are hurt by the actions of others, but when someone sues for a spilt cup of coffee, they might as well take out a full page ad in the papers announcing in huge letters “I’m Stupid”. Perhaps the least intelligent decisions that have been made, and that have gotten us into this crisis are those made in the Mortgage and Credit Card sector.

Both sides have to take the blame in the Credit arena. The egocentric borrowers who bought more house than they could afford or took out loans on their equity are as much to blame as the mortgage companies who made those risky loans and then sold them to other companies that knowingly took on those risks. They all were acting really stupid. But instead of the mortgage companies working out a deal when the time came for all those Adjustable Rate Mortgages to adjust and the borrower couldn’t make the higher payments, the mortgage company foreclosed. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to just extend the ARM rather than take a loss on the foreclosure? What kind of business strategy is it to take a loss when you can have a win? Stubbornness in a corporation that is so poorly organized that top management hasn’t a clue as to what is going on out on the front lines. A system so wrapped up in making a profit it fails to see the cliff it is about to run off of.

We also have to blame ourselves for electing public officials who have no qualifications for the job we are asking them to do. Most of our politicians today started out as lawyers. Why? First, lawyers are just about the only people today who make enough money they can take time off to campaign. But, most importantly is that we assume that it takes a lawyer to make laws. The sad fact is, however, that lawyers know nothing of the things they are making laws about. They approach these things as if they were picking a jury. Ever been called for jury duty and then not get selected because you actually had some knowledge of the subject around which the case revolved? You can’t get on a jury if you have any kind of knowledge about the subject. Lawyers want people who are uniformed on their jury so they can sway their way of thinking, regardless of the whether the facts fit the case or not. They make laws the same way. They don’t want to know all the details of how something is going to work, only to persuade someone as to how they think it should work. In other words, they assume we are all stupid. And they are right, because it is us who put them there. In today’s political world, the only qualification necessary to hold public office is the ability to get elected. So you have a great Public Relations resume - you’re the guy we want making decisions about how roads are built or how NASA should spend its money. Another way of saying it is our country is now run completely on BS.

For example. Our government is giving huge sums of money to the big three car manufacturers so they can stay in business. How smart is it to give them money to build more cars when they can’t sell the ones they got? The same is true of the banks they are giving money to. Supposedly they are giving the banks money to loan to stimulate the economy but the banks are losing money on the loans they already have out. Wouldn’t it make more sense to give the money to people to help them stave off foreclosure? Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the federal money to offer incentives for people to buy new cars? Wouldn’t it make more sense to encourage people to save money so banks would have more money to lend than to encourage them to buy so they have nothing but stuff? Yes, we have an intelligence crisis at the bottom of our financial crisis.

Are my solutions the only ones? Of course not. Other things may work too, but I know the ones our Congress is using won’t. It wasn’t FDR’s new deal that pulled us out of the Depression - it was World War II. The Government bought things to fight the war and the people that made them made money. That is what brought prosperity back. The WPA did great things and it was the right thing to do, but selling bridges and buildings to the government wasn’t enough. It took building a war machine to do it. We are wrapping things up in Iraq and I believe it would be best for us to get out of there as soon as possible. But the war in Afghanistan is heating up and that stronghold of terrorism is a place we should be fighting. So, if the government wants to throw money into the economy, why not let history repeat itself and get to work in Afghanistan like we mean it instead of letting it drag on in a limited war like we did in Vietnam. Put the might of our economy behind our intentions. Then maybe Iran would sit up and take notice. But I digress.

So, how do we resolve this Intelligence Crisis? The first step is to quit believing there is only one solution to every problem - and it has to be “mine”. Let go of the ego biased judgments and start making decisions based on simple cause and effect. Take the long view or big picture approach and look down the road to see what the consequences will be. We, as America have to start taking a team approach to how we resolve our problems. Too many times we act like the football teams we watch on Sunday, believing we are trying to beat our opponents and its only the final score that counts. What we don’t realize is that the real game is outside the stadium and the barbaric hordes are just waiting for us to destroy one another so it will be easier for them to take over. We have to realize we are on the same team. As Abraham Lincoln said “A house divided cannot stand”. America, we are divided, not just into Republicans and Democrats, not into Conservatives and Liberals, but we are divided into millions of individuals who believe they are the only one who is right. We are destroying ourselves because we are to stupid to let our egos go and work toward a common goal. We’ve lost the meaning of compromise. Start today and let your ego go; when you’re driving your car, when waiting in line, when passing people on the street. Take responsibility for your actions and step up to receive the consequences. It has been said; the only result of protecting fools from their folly is to populate the world with fools. We’ve been protecting the fools to long and its time they suffer the consequences. Its time for some tough love. Its time to reflect on the big picture consequences of our small decisions. Its time to look in the mirror and see what we’ve become. A nation of non-thinkers. We have to change or we will be nothing but sheep being]]>
Many of our leaders would have us believe that the problems on Wall Street are the result of greed. The greed of CEOs and Corporate Boards. Well, they are right but instead of looking at just the greed of these people, perhaps we should be looking at what caused the problem of greedy people in charge in the first place. There is only one reason; Stupidity. That’s right, so called intelligent people making stupid decisions. And to find who the stupid people are that caused all this we have to look no further than the mirror. A collective mirror no doubt, but as Pogo said: “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

Why does today’s world seem filled with incompetence? Why can’t everyone be as smart and perfect as we are? Why can’t everyone see the stupidity of such a statement? Its like driving down the freeway. Everyone out there is doing something stupid - except me. But what we fail to realize is that everyone else is sitting in their car saying the same thing about everyone else, including me. But why?

The first sign of true intelligence is the ability to recognize when you aren’t the smartest person around and someone else may have a better idea. The stubbornness that surrounds our egocentric way of thinking in the world today has caused everyone to believe that they are always right. Need an example? The prolific increases in lawsuits are one, caused by people who refuse to take responsibility for what happens in their life. Sure, at times people are hurt by the actions of others, but when someone sues for a spilt cup of coffee, they might as well take out a full page ad in the papers announcing in huge letters “I’m Stupid”. Perhaps the least intelligent decisions that have been made, and that have gotten us into this crisis are those made in the Mortgage and Credit Card sector.

Both sides have to take the blame in the Credit arena. The egocentric borrowers who bought more house than they could afford or took out loans on their equity are as much to blame as the mortgage companies who made those risky loans and then sold them to other companies that knowingly took on those risks. They all were acting really stupid. But instead of the mortgage companies working out a deal when the time came for all those Adjustable Rate Mortgages to adjust and the borrower couldn’t make the higher payments, the mortgage company foreclosed. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to just extend the ARM rather than take a loss on the foreclosure? What kind of business strategy is it to take a loss when you can have a win? Stubbornness in a corporation that is so poorly organized that top management hasn’t a clue as to what is going on out on the front lines. A system so wrapped up in making a profit it fails to see the cliff it is about to run off of.

We also have to blame ourselves for electing public officials who have no qualifications for the job we are asking them to do. Most of our politicians today started out as lawyers. Why? First, lawyers are just about the only people today who make enough money they can take time off to campaign. But, most importantly is that we assume that it takes a lawyer to make laws. The sad fact is, however, that lawyers know nothing of the things they are making laws about. They approach these things as if they were picking a jury. Ever been called for jury duty and then not get selected because you actually had some knowledge of the subject around which the case revolved? You can’t get on a jury if you have any kind of knowledge about the subject. Lawyers want people who are uniformed on their jury so they can sway their way of thinking, regardless of the whether the facts fit the case or not. They make laws the same way. They don’t want to know all the details of how something is going to work, only to persuade someone as to how they think it should work. In other words, they assume we are all stupid. And they are right, because it is us who put them there. In today’s political world, the only qualification necessary to hold public office is the ability to get elected. So you have a great Public Relations resume - you’re the guy we want making decisions about how roads are built or how NASA should spend its money. Another way of saying it is our country is now run completely on BS.

For example. Our government is giving huge sums of money to the big three car manufacturers so they can stay in business. How smart is it to give them money to build more cars when they can’t sell the ones they got? The same is true of the banks they are giving money to. Supposedly they are giving the banks money to loan to stimulate the economy but the banks are losing money on the loans they already have out. Wouldn’t it make more sense to give the money to people to help them stave off foreclosure? Wouldn’t it make more sense to use the federal money to offer incentives for people to buy new cars? Wouldn’t it make more sense to encourage people to save money so banks would have more money to lend than to encourage them to buy so they have nothing but stuff? Yes, we have an intelligence crisis at the bottom of our financial crisis.

Are my solutions the only ones? Of course not. Other things may work too, but I know the ones our Congress is using won’t. It wasn’t FDR’s new deal that pulled us out of the Depression - it was World War II. The Government bought things to fight the war and the people that made them made money. That is what brought prosperity back. The WPA did great things and it was the right thing to do, but selling bridges and buildings to the government wasn’t enough. It took building a war machine to do it. We are wrapping things up in Iraq and I believe it would be best for us to get out of there as soon as possible. But the war in Afghanistan is heating up and that stronghold of terrorism is a place we should be fighting. So, if the government wants to throw money into the economy, why not let history repeat itself and get to work in Afghanistan like we mean it instead of letting it drag on in a limited war like we did in Vietnam. Put the might of our economy behind our intentions. Then maybe Iran would sit up and take notice. But I digress.

So, how do we resolve this Intelligence Crisis? The first step is to quit believing there is only one solution to every problem - and it has to be “mine”. Let go of the ego biased judgments and start making decisions based on simple cause and effect. Take the long view or big picture approach and look down the road to see what the consequences will be. We, as America have to start taking a team approach to how we resolve our problems. Too many times we act like the football teams we watch on Sunday, believing we are trying to beat our opponents and its only the final score that counts. What we don’t realize is that the real game is outside the stadium and the barbaric hordes are just waiting for us to destroy one another so it will be easier for them to take over. We have to realize we are on the same team. As Abraham Lincoln said “A house divided cannot stand”. America, we are divided, not just into Republicans and Democrats, not into Conservatives and Liberals, but we are divided into millions of individuals who believe they are the only one who is right. We are destroying ourselves because we are to stupid to let our egos go and work toward a common goal. We’ve lost the meaning of compromise. Start today and let your ego go; when you’re driving your car, when waiting in line, when passing people on the street. Take responsibility for your actions and step up to receive the consequences. It has been said; the only result of protecting fools from their folly is to populate the world with fools. We’ve been protecting the fools to long and its time they suffer the consequences. Its time for some tough love. Its time to reflect on the big picture consequences of our small decisions. Its time to look in the mirror and see what we’ve become. A nation of non-thinkers. We have to change or we will be nothing but sheep being]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=26 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:52:51 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=26 "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

John Wayne:
"Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid."]]> "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

John Wayne:
"Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid."]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=25 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:47:00 -0400 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=25
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET
SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET

A JOB,
A DRIVERS LICENSE,
SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
WELFARE,
FOOD STAMPS,
CREDIT CARDS,
SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
FREE EDUCATION,
FREE HEALTH CARE,
A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.


I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE
SITUATION…]]>
IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET
SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET

A JOB,
A DRIVERS LICENSE,
SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
WELFARE,
FOOD STAMPS,
CREDIT CARDS,
SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
FREE EDUCATION,
FREE HEALTH CARE,
A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.


I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE
SITUATION…]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=24 Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:09:23 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=24 ]]> ]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=23 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:46:44 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=23
Most of the strife in the world today comes from one group trying to force their beliefs on another group. Both believing they are right. “I’m on God’s side.” Yeah, right! Just like two High School football teams before the big game, each praying to God to help them win. How dare anyone ask God to take sides. Muslims sending suicide bombers to show that Allah is on their side and that the infidels deserve to die. Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland. What the Hell is going on here. Is it that important that everyone believe the same things I do?

Of course, you have a right to defend your beliefs. But, you do not have a humanitarian right to force your beliefs on other people. Educate them if you want (propaganda), but don’t use force and violence to convince others. If someone is trying to force you into believing something, then you do have the right to push back, but only to the point at which you were pushed.

Can the world’s problems be solved this way. Yes, but it will take a long time. And this is where it starts. People must begin talking about this way of thinking, but most importantly, they must begin thinking and acting in this way. It all starts on a personal level. How you deal with the people around you daily will make a difference in how countries deal with each other. Yours may be a very small contribution to peace on earth, but mighty rivers start with a single drop of rain. Make your drop one for the good.

Together we can bring about real change.

-- Milo Burns]]>
Most of the strife in the world today comes from one group trying to force their beliefs on another group. Both believing they are right. “I’m on God’s side.” Yeah, right! Just like two High School football teams before the big game, each praying to God to help them win. How dare anyone ask God to take sides. Muslims sending suicide bombers to show that Allah is on their side and that the infidels deserve to die. Catholics vs. Protestants in Ireland. What the Hell is going on here. Is it that important that everyone believe the same things I do?

Of course, you have a right to defend your beliefs. But, you do not have a humanitarian right to force your beliefs on other people. Educate them if you want (propaganda), but don’t use force and violence to convince others. If someone is trying to force you into believing something, then you do have the right to push back, but only to the point at which you were pushed.

Can the world’s problems be solved this way. Yes, but it will take a long time. And this is where it starts. People must begin talking about this way of thinking, but most importantly, they must begin thinking and acting in this way. It all starts on a personal level. How you deal with the people around you daily will make a difference in how countries deal with each other. Yours may be a very small contribution to peace on earth, but mighty rivers start with a single drop of rain. Make your drop one for the good.

Together we can bring about real change.

-- Milo Burns]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=22 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:45:47 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=22
Whether life? What direction it leads?
Onward, upward, beyond the horizon?
Or downward, deeper, underworld bound?
It maters not, the direction taken
Excellence is the goal we seek
Not up nor down nor places not seen
Love of life and perfection of dreams.

Life is bigger, bigger than we see
But daily survival keeps it hidden
We spend our time looking at the surface
Not caring about the beauty underlying
Missing the meaning of love
Wasting the time we are given
Blinded by the fog of our reality.

So many. Multitudes who went before
Staggering though the world
Bent upon making a better place
Instead of opening up what’s there
Blinders of ridicule are placed on us
By society of practical correctness
Refusing to acknowledge that which is there.

Seize your destiny! Rise to the challenge
Of where love truly lies
Beyond the mountains, the sea, the plains
Away from these illusions
Find true meaning within your self,
Mind that is known as soul
Realism that transcends perception.

-- Milo Burns]]>
Whether life? What direction it leads?
Onward, upward, beyond the horizon?
Or downward, deeper, underworld bound?
It maters not, the direction taken
Excellence is the goal we seek
Not up nor down nor places not seen
Love of life and perfection of dreams.

Life is bigger, bigger than we see
But daily survival keeps it hidden
We spend our time looking at the surface
Not caring about the beauty underlying
Missing the meaning of love
Wasting the time we are given
Blinded by the fog of our reality.

So many. Multitudes who went before
Staggering though the world
Bent upon making a better place
Instead of opening up what’s there
Blinders of ridicule are placed on us
By society of practical correctness
Refusing to acknowledge that which is there.

Seize your destiny! Rise to the challenge
Of where love truly lies
Beyond the mountains, the sea, the plains
Away from these illusions
Find true meaning within your self,
Mind that is known as soul
Realism that transcends perception.

-- Milo Burns]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=21 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:44:55 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=21
Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion; and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices , and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. And the things in our power are by nature free, not subject to restraint nor hindrance: but the things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint, in the power of others. Remember then that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and things which are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men: but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another’s, as it really is, belongs to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily, no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm.

-- Epictetus]]>
Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion; and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices , and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. And the things in our power are by nature free, not subject to restraint nor hindrance: but the things not in our power are weak, slavish, subject to restraint, in the power of others. Remember then that if you think the things which are by nature slavish to be free, and things which are in the power of others to be your own, you will be hindered, you will lament, you will be disturbed, you will blame both gods and men: but if you think that only which is your own to be your own, and if you think that what is another’s, as it really is, belongs to another, no man will ever compel you, no man will hinder you, you will never blame any man, you will accuse no man, you will do nothing involuntarily, no man will harm you, you will have no enemy, for you will not suffer any harm.

-- Epictetus]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=20 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:43:22 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=20
Science has once again informed us of a new way of looking at life, but are we too distracted, or fail to see its significance or... are we not yet ready to make "one giant step for man, or one giant leap for mankind"? Where in the medical community is this confirming discovery recognized? Is this not informing us of our natural innate (spiritual) power to heal? Is it possible to set aside our dependence on drugs? Can we admit that our lack of responsibility for informing and caring for ourselves is causing our illnesses? Where is this revelation allowed to materialize in other sciences? Where is this revelation to help us reclaim our humanity, our sanity, and our sacred selves?

"The Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, Einstein, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama, have each demonstrated the powerful interactions of the inter-connected universe with synchronous words, feelings, and actions." Dr. Noah McKay, M.D. Do we still believe that only these spiritually sacred people have unmistakable healing power? Gary Zukav in his book 'The Dancing Wu-Li Masters' offered a few conclusions written by physicists from the experiments they were performing on sub-atomic particles... "I am a scientist, and I know what I am about to say is not scientific, but the only conclusion left is that these particles are affected by my thought." Does that not support what the three Nobel Prize laureates stated in our 'message'? Andrew Weil, M.D. in his book 'Spontaneous Healing' advises... in his 8 week program for optimal healing... (along with other advice) "note down anything you did to speed the healing process... pay attention to your healing imagery... use healing visualization..." Neale Donald Walsch in his many 'Conversations with God' books reiterates that the three tools of creation are Thought, Word, and Deed.

When we finally accept the reality of our spiritual ability to create, heal, and transform or transcend whatever we are confronted with, only then will we realize just what we are doing to ourselves, to others and the world around us and in us. Are we really careful with our thoughts and feelings? Are we aware that no one can make us 'feel' or think a certain way... that we are always in charge? Do we realize that we can change energy vibrations at will, anytime?

Since we are neophytes at this healing and creation thing, we must be careful just HOW we manifest it. For example, in his book, 'The Universe is Calling', Eric Butterworth says that we will be 'praying amiss' if we do not take responsibility for that which we are praying. Neale Donald Walsch says... We must not come from lack,... which hives us a keen insight into this creation and healing process. Our creative tools can create positive or negative results. When we come from lack (illness, worry, fear, doubt), then only a negative response will result... there can be no other. So... feeling gratitude and choosing a healthy, positive, and confident response is the key to our healing power.]]>
Science has once again informed us of a new way of looking at life, but are we too distracted, or fail to see its significance or... are we not yet ready to make "one giant step for man, or one giant leap for mankind"? Where in the medical community is this confirming discovery recognized? Is this not informing us of our natural innate (spiritual) power to heal? Is it possible to set aside our dependence on drugs? Can we admit that our lack of responsibility for informing and caring for ourselves is causing our illnesses? Where is this revelation allowed to materialize in other sciences? Where is this revelation to help us reclaim our humanity, our sanity, and our sacred selves?

"The Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, Einstein, Mother Theresa, and the Dalai Lama, have each demonstrated the powerful interactions of the inter-connected universe with synchronous words, feelings, and actions." Dr. Noah McKay, M.D. Do we still believe that only these spiritually sacred people have unmistakable healing power? Gary Zukav in his book 'The Dancing Wu-Li Masters' offered a few conclusions written by physicists from the experiments they were performing on sub-atomic particles... "I am a scientist, and I know what I am about to say is not scientific, but the only conclusion left is that these particles are affected by my thought." Does that not support what the three Nobel Prize laureates stated in our 'message'? Andrew Weil, M.D. in his book 'Spontaneous Healing' advises... in his 8 week program for optimal healing... (along with other advice) "note down anything you did to speed the healing process... pay attention to your healing imagery... use healing visualization..." Neale Donald Walsch in his many 'Conversations with God' books reiterates that the three tools of creation are Thought, Word, and Deed.

When we finally accept the reality of our spiritual ability to create, heal, and transform or transcend whatever we are confronted with, only then will we realize just what we are doing to ourselves, to others and the world around us and in us. Are we really careful with our thoughts and feelings? Are we aware that no one can make us 'feel' or think a certain way... that we are always in charge? Do we realize that we can change energy vibrations at will, anytime?

Since we are neophytes at this healing and creation thing, we must be careful just HOW we manifest it. For example, in his book, 'The Universe is Calling', Eric Butterworth says that we will be 'praying amiss' if we do not take responsibility for that which we are praying. Neale Donald Walsch says... We must not come from lack,... which hives us a keen insight into this creation and healing process. Our creative tools can create positive or negative results. When we come from lack (illness, worry, fear, doubt), then only a negative response will result... there can be no other. So... feeling gratitude and choosing a healthy, positive, and confident response is the key to our healing power.]]> http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=19 Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:41:43 -0500 Milo http://www.shiftingthought.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=19
Subtitled, “An Integral Theory of Everything”, Ervin Laszlo’s book Science and the Akashic Field attempts to relate the concept of the Akashic records or field to modern quantum physics. In so doing he makes some very good points about the interrelatedness of people, consciousness, and things through the use of quantum physics phenomena such as non-locality and the Uncertainty Principal.

Extending non-locality to a systems approach of organism evolution is particularly interesting. By interpreting experimental nervous systems response times (which have shown that reactions to stimuli happen faster than signals can be transmitted by the nervous system) he develops a reasonable theory of how evolution not only occurs, but also explains so called gaps in the evolutionary record. Briefly, he theorizes that organisms are to complex to evolve simply through natural selection of specific genes, but evolve as a whole system which can only be explained through connections of non-locality throughout the whole organism.

While some readers may attempt to assign the Akashic Field to Divine or Supernatural existence of a creator, Laszlo does a good job of using scientific experimental evidence to show that the world we perceive is not quite what it seems.

Some readers may be put off by the title reference to the Akashic Field and its occult or new age connotations, this book is a very good read for those attempting to reconcile metaphysics with contemporary science.]]>
Subtitled, “An Integral Theory of Everything”, Ervin Laszlo’s book Science and the Akashic Field attempts to relate the concept of the Akashic records or field to modern quantum physics. In so doing he makes some very good points about the interrelatedness of people, consciousness, and things through the use of quantum physics phenomena such as non-locality and the Uncertainty Principal.

Extending non-locality to a systems approach of organism evolution is particularly interesting. By interpreting experimental nervous systems response times (which have shown that reactions to stimuli happen faster than signals can be transmitted by the nervous system) he develops a reasonable theory of how evolution not only occurs, but also explains so called gaps in the evolutionary record. Briefly, he theorizes that organisms are to complex to evolve simply through natural selection of specific genes, but evolve as a whole system which can only be explained through connections of non-locality throughout the whole organism.

While some readers may attempt to assign the Akashic Field to Divine or Supernatural existence of a creator, Laszlo does a good job of using scientific experimental evidence to show that the world we perceive is not quite what it seems.

Some readers may be put off by the title reference to the Akashic Field and its occult or new age connotations, this book is a very good read for those attempting to reconcile metaphysics with contemporary science.]]>