Sunday, 17 October 2010
Thursday, 14 October 2010
Historical Conspiracy Theories and Weird and Wacky Ideas
Post on Historical Conspiracy Theories and Weird and Wacky Ideas on the History Police.
I have long been interested in what I call ‘ the other side’ of history aka ‘the stories that they don’t tell us’, simply because I, like a Missouran, prefer ‘ don’t tell me, show me. Partly this was due to the first ever BBC ‘Timewatch’. To see two academic historians coming to virtual blows over some detail of a historical subject fascinated me. I don’t remember what they were arguing about but it certainly alerted me to the fact that history can be both divisive and important. Having now acquired a library of old history books I have read enough ‘ canonical’ texts to realise that only parts supporting the author’s thesis have been allowed to intrude. I have also read enough to find that I am unlikely ever to find resolution and ‘seeking the truth ’ is an impossible task.
The problem with anyone dipping their toes in the whole ocean of historical research is that one can never read all the books, footnotes, translations, abstracts and narratives and still lead anything like a normal existence. I cannot understand medieval French even if I could distinguish it from the various dialects and secretarial hands and shorthands, let alone Latin, Hebrew, Gothic German or even Middle English. To have access to all the relevant documents I would have to be in several places at once and have a God like omniescence, certainly to get through the barriers that are imposed upon a mere ‘ fellow traveller’ in the lands of research, let alone including those documents denied to all under the ‘Rumsfeld definition’ of the unknown.
The problem is exacerbated by the need for a definite ideological bias that seems to haunt academic historiography. I remember a search for ‘Marxist’ truth within my own discipline was required; never could stand being told where to stand. Similarly, any gender constraints, any religious dogma, political ‘reality’ or ‘absolute authority’ gets my back up before it starts. Having been educated in several fields and as an auto didact, I feel that there should be no barriers to what can be considered, investigated or thought as long as Occam’s razor is at least acknowledged as is Sherlock Holmes’ redaction of it.
Academia is also haunted by the hunt for funds and it is seriously constricting all areas of endeavour. One dare not mention Psi or homeopathy in scientific circles for fear of losing your grants, or Dan Brown amongst several others. It has always been thus. He/she who has the gold makes the rules. They also write the legends and, more subtly, allow a certain amount of oral history to do their work for them. Propaganda has many faces and a lot longer pedigree than any Aryan interpretation. So when ‘ the History Police’ debate ‘ Conspiracy theories and Weird and Wacky Ideas’ they may be treading along too strict a path of orthodoxy. However unlikely they may seem, conspiracies do exist to hide truth, weird and wacky ideas may lead to avenues of research that may prove fruitful and dogmatism exists to put a stop to all questioning, which I am sure that the ‘History Police’ do not intend as their objective.
Just to get your nightsticks swinging; How about dolmens being designed by hunter gatherers as cool stores for large harvests of fish, game or cereals; only later being utilised as tombs? Evidence? Archaeology shows wooden and turved structures surrounding the dolmens, similar to barrows and long graves but also fish drying structures in Scandanavia; Pottery shards show both animal, fish and cereals and some form of accounting on the side; Shards also show two large circular markings on one side [ see markings for survival amongst animals ] Location near to sea and rivers known to have large harvest of sardines , eels and salmon etc; location on hills away from predators and easily defended. But I know I'm crazy.
As a sidebar. I too am frustrated by the lack of footnotes but must point out that my word processor [ipages for Mac] does not allow me to do either footnotes or accept British English spelling.
I have long been interested in what I call ‘ the other side’ of history aka ‘the stories that they don’t tell us’, simply because I, like a Missouran, prefer ‘ don’t tell me, show me. Partly this was due to the first ever BBC ‘Timewatch’. To see two academic historians coming to virtual blows over some detail of a historical subject fascinated me. I don’t remember what they were arguing about but it certainly alerted me to the fact that history can be both divisive and important. Having now acquired a library of old history books I have read enough ‘ canonical’ texts to realise that only parts supporting the author’s thesis have been allowed to intrude. I have also read enough to find that I am unlikely ever to find resolution and ‘seeking the truth ’ is an impossible task.
The problem with anyone dipping their toes in the whole ocean of historical research is that one can never read all the books, footnotes, translations, abstracts and narratives and still lead anything like a normal existence. I cannot understand medieval French even if I could distinguish it from the various dialects and secretarial hands and shorthands, let alone Latin, Hebrew, Gothic German or even Middle English. To have access to all the relevant documents I would have to be in several places at once and have a God like omniescence, certainly to get through the barriers that are imposed upon a mere ‘ fellow traveller’ in the lands of research, let alone including those documents denied to all under the ‘Rumsfeld definition’ of the unknown.
The problem is exacerbated by the need for a definite ideological bias that seems to haunt academic historiography. I remember a search for ‘Marxist’ truth within my own discipline was required; never could stand being told where to stand. Similarly, any gender constraints, any religious dogma, political ‘reality’ or ‘absolute authority’ gets my back up before it starts. Having been educated in several fields and as an auto didact, I feel that there should be no barriers to what can be considered, investigated or thought as long as Occam’s razor is at least acknowledged as is Sherlock Holmes’ redaction of it.
Academia is also haunted by the hunt for funds and it is seriously constricting all areas of endeavour. One dare not mention Psi or homeopathy in scientific circles for fear of losing your grants, or Dan Brown amongst several others. It has always been thus. He/she who has the gold makes the rules. They also write the legends and, more subtly, allow a certain amount of oral history to do their work for them. Propaganda has many faces and a lot longer pedigree than any Aryan interpretation. So when ‘ the History Police’ debate ‘ Conspiracy theories and Weird and Wacky Ideas’ they may be treading along too strict a path of orthodoxy. However unlikely they may seem, conspiracies do exist to hide truth, weird and wacky ideas may lead to avenues of research that may prove fruitful and dogmatism exists to put a stop to all questioning, which I am sure that the ‘History Police’ do not intend as their objective.
Just to get your nightsticks swinging; How about dolmens being designed by hunter gatherers as cool stores for large harvests of fish, game or cereals; only later being utilised as tombs? Evidence? Archaeology shows wooden and turved structures surrounding the dolmens, similar to barrows and long graves but also fish drying structures in Scandanavia; Pottery shards show both animal, fish and cereals and some form of accounting on the side; Shards also show two large circular markings on one side [ see markings for survival amongst animals ] Location near to sea and rivers known to have large harvest of sardines , eels and salmon etc; location on hills away from predators and easily defended. But I know I'm crazy.
As a sidebar. I too am frustrated by the lack of footnotes but must point out that my word processor [ipages for Mac] does not allow me to do either footnotes or accept British English spelling.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Is ther Anybody there?
According to scientist Frank Drake , there may well have been, be or maybe later, if they are taking a rain check. The probability is increasing over time as more galaxies are found; thus more stars which have suitable planets are observed. As the absolute value of R is large, [ though debatable ] even if the fractions end up being small, there may be a few civilizations around out there. Whether they are on our wavelength is another matter. Evolution to this point for our hallowed species has been more a matter of luck than judgement, especially if rocks keep getting thrown around the glasshouse or the fires below are stoked up to fiery furnace level. If you consider our population growing to that of the trilobites or ammonites then the prognosis for the future is not good. Malthus will be saying
‘ I told you so!’ His equation top and tails that of Drakes and every other species on this planet. Science will give a more optimistic view, similar to that showed to nuclear fission, the pessimists hanging on to the placards for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Evens anyone?
1. Wiki; The Drake equation [ aka the Green Bank Formulas from the meeting at Green Bank WV in 1961] states that: N= R* x fp x ne x fℓ x fi x fc x L where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
2. Rev Thomas Malthus. An Essay on the Principle of Population.
P(t) = P0 x ert
where P0 = Initial Population, r = growth rate, sometimes also called Malthusian Parameter, t = time.
e? Well that stands for exponential, more commonly called the hockey stick. To the power of rt.
Interesting to mention odds and gambling. Old Malthus’ equation is the same as that for compound interest. Look where that has got us. And then there’s entropy! You’ll love this.
Depending on which of the two definitions you choose [ as if you had any choice in the matter ] it can be demonstrated that energy tends to spread itself around. That is you can’t get a cup of tea hot being leaving it on the desk. It’s all one way I’m afraid. Now, men much more clever than me have measured, theorized, defined and utilized this to come out with more efficient means of carrying out the tasks that a man’s gotta do. However, a bigger picture can be drawn because effectively, despite all the wonders of the quantum and theoretical saying that time may merely a dimension in space, the factor that energy only goes one way means that so does time. ‘The arrow of time’ they call entropy, as in ‘fruit flies like a banana’.
Bit Private Frazer isn’t it?3 If you wondering why E.T. is such a miserable bugger that he hasn’t phoned home, it’s probably because all the ills that man is heir to have befallen them. Or, they are trying, as we are, to work out a way to survive and have better things to do than looking for others in the same old deep, brown and smelly.
Oh! Ye of little faith. Let not your woes be woes. There may be succor at hand.4
For a start off, one of the first principles of physics is that energy cannot be destroyed. It can be changed from one form to another, electricity to movement, light heat and 57 channels with nothing on but… energy is a tough dude.5.
3. "We're doomed, I tell ye!", 4. As in “Never give a succour a second break.” W.C Fields
5. “ The dude abides” . The other Liebowsky.
If you think The Large Hadron Collider is a mean machine then remember it needs several hundred scientist with several hundred more computers and a whole mountain full of engineering to finest tolerances known to man and the energy from a large town to get sparks out of bashing particles smaller than even the smallest mote of dust your Momma can see. Wonder why thought experiments are so popular [ and why philosophers never get any work done? ]
Here’s one for you to mull over while I get myself a drink. Where does all the light go? I mean it’s coming down from all these stars as waves or particles or a bit of both depending on how it’s feeling and the time of the month. We CAN see it. Or rather BY it. It reflects the whole of our Nature. But if it is a form of energy then it cannot be destroyed and must change or do what exactly?
Thought experiments go better with a beer. OK. Hands up those who say the paint or surfaces absorb it and it heats up. Hands up those who point out that when it hits the retina it causes organic changes that lead to our visual cortext getting a bump. Hands up those who have muttered ‘ bloody quantums again, ain’t it?’ Yeah I’ll buy all of those and any others that come along. Whatever happens to light it’s down at levels we have no way of looking at unless we spend a lot more money than the LHC.
The ubiquity of light has lead many scientist in the past to try their hands at optics. You could say that the whole of physics was based on light if you include the fact that both Galileo and Newton spent a lot of time looking at the heavenly bodies and working out how the Cosmos works whilst Robert Hooke and Van Leewenhoek were looking at the smallest objects they could find to aid biological studies.
The energy of light is one of the ways we know something fishy is going on. The fact that something fishy was happening attracted the scientists. It behaves in two ways at once. If you take the more common and obvious functions it exhibits a wave nature; it has different frequencies that register as colors to our eyes as Newton showed with his prism. Thomas Young proved the wave theory by polarisation and interference by diffraction. The problem was that waves need something to wave, a medium of transmission. It was also faster than anything else that any body could measure. Or has. Foucault worked it out to some degree in 1850. In doing so he also destroyed another theory of what light was. The particle model, also supported by Newton, on the grounds that, though it could be refracted, light also always travels in straight lines. He explained the rainbow effect by saying that his old favourite Gravity was pulling the particles around differently. Still the science had no idea what light actually was until the 19th century when electromagnetism was discovered and Hertz found other waves that were magnetic and needed no ‘ether’ to be generated or travel on. [ Which brings a question to mind. Do other electromagnetic waves such a radio and heat exhibit the duality of light?]
Then there was Albert Einstein. Talk about thought experiments. Whatever else he is remembered for E = Mc2 is gonna be the same all over the Universe, because whatever exists out there is exactly the same elements as exist down here and the speed of light is constant. it matters. Because c is a really big number, the total amount of the energy in the Universe is way off the scale. And most of it is locked up in matter.
Stars have a way of busting out all over, smashing the basic protons into the helium atom, spewing out energy and electrons and photons in enough abundance to feed a planet; the other elements following in order until the start collapses into a neutron star. Which presupposes that all the protons have gained electrons and all energy has been lost. This what signals to us a black hole, the jets of super energetic gas firing far into the surrounding space. At the same time as matter is being destroyed, that final melding of heavy elements must be occurring. Where does a black hole end up? A final collection of all the matter in the Universe seething until it bursts like a boil into another singularity? Or feeding matter into another dimension or Universe with perhaps differing constraints and laws.
Suffice to say it leaves us without a paddle whatever the result. A second pathway may lead us to hope. There are denizens of this Universe that can use energy, combine it and pass it on to others so that energy becomes trapped. Plants. OK so I’m more a biologist than a physicist but even I realize that comparing your local weed with a star is pretty far out… however much you’ve been smoking. They are not alone. Some bacteria utilize Hydrogen sulphide to provide the energy for not only their lives but as a feedstock for a whole fauna. Each one of those nasty creeping pests or beautiful scented rose, vital soya beans or wheat or a thousand stapless that we are so dependent on can only survive because of the light energy given by our star. It even provides us with the gas that is so vital to us as a by product. Yet there is nothing so despised as plants. After bacteria, the first born inhabitants, the primus genus of all life on earth, the universe, wherever it may be. And the only thing we seek to control, destroy and obliterate because,’ it looks untidy’.
It would be totally politically incorrect to use that term about animals or humans. Yet you can purchase genocide in a packet down your nearest hardware store. It is more than likely that the balance of the Universe in the first days demands that the evolution of plants precedes that of any animal life form. It may be that the symbiotic or commensal bonds that unite bees and pollinating or dispersal animals may pan out differently on other worlds. But to the question ‘ Is there anybody out there?’ I think I have to say, Yes. One can only hope they are gardeners.
‘ I told you so!’ His equation top and tails that of Drakes and every other species on this planet. Science will give a more optimistic view, similar to that showed to nuclear fission, the pessimists hanging on to the placards for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Evens anyone?
1. Wiki; The Drake equation [ aka the Green Bank Formulas from the meeting at Green Bank WV in 1961] states that: N= R* x fp x ne x fℓ x fi x fc x L where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
2. Rev Thomas Malthus. An Essay on the Principle of Population.
P(t) = P0 x ert
where P0 = Initial Population, r = growth rate, sometimes also called Malthusian Parameter, t = time.
e? Well that stands for exponential, more commonly called the hockey stick. To the power of rt.
Interesting to mention odds and gambling. Old Malthus’ equation is the same as that for compound interest. Look where that has got us. And then there’s entropy! You’ll love this.
Depending on which of the two definitions you choose [ as if you had any choice in the matter ] it can be demonstrated that energy tends to spread itself around. That is you can’t get a cup of tea hot being leaving it on the desk. It’s all one way I’m afraid. Now, men much more clever than me have measured, theorized, defined and utilized this to come out with more efficient means of carrying out the tasks that a man’s gotta do. However, a bigger picture can be drawn because effectively, despite all the wonders of the quantum and theoretical saying that time may merely a dimension in space, the factor that energy only goes one way means that so does time. ‘The arrow of time’ they call entropy, as in ‘fruit flies like a banana’.
Bit Private Frazer isn’t it?3 If you wondering why E.T. is such a miserable bugger that he hasn’t phoned home, it’s probably because all the ills that man is heir to have befallen them. Or, they are trying, as we are, to work out a way to survive and have better things to do than looking for others in the same old deep, brown and smelly.
Oh! Ye of little faith. Let not your woes be woes. There may be succor at hand.4
For a start off, one of the first principles of physics is that energy cannot be destroyed. It can be changed from one form to another, electricity to movement, light heat and 57 channels with nothing on but… energy is a tough dude.5.
3. "We're doomed, I tell ye!", 4. As in “Never give a succour a second break.” W.C Fields
5. “ The dude abides” . The other Liebowsky.
If you think The Large Hadron Collider is a mean machine then remember it needs several hundred scientist with several hundred more computers and a whole mountain full of engineering to finest tolerances known to man and the energy from a large town to get sparks out of bashing particles smaller than even the smallest mote of dust your Momma can see. Wonder why thought experiments are so popular [ and why philosophers never get any work done? ]
Here’s one for you to mull over while I get myself a drink. Where does all the light go? I mean it’s coming down from all these stars as waves or particles or a bit of both depending on how it’s feeling and the time of the month. We CAN see it. Or rather BY it. It reflects the whole of our Nature. But if it is a form of energy then it cannot be destroyed and must change or do what exactly?
Thought experiments go better with a beer. OK. Hands up those who say the paint or surfaces absorb it and it heats up. Hands up those who point out that when it hits the retina it causes organic changes that lead to our visual cortext getting a bump. Hands up those who have muttered ‘ bloody quantums again, ain’t it?’ Yeah I’ll buy all of those and any others that come along. Whatever happens to light it’s down at levels we have no way of looking at unless we spend a lot more money than the LHC.
The ubiquity of light has lead many scientist in the past to try their hands at optics. You could say that the whole of physics was based on light if you include the fact that both Galileo and Newton spent a lot of time looking at the heavenly bodies and working out how the Cosmos works whilst Robert Hooke and Van Leewenhoek were looking at the smallest objects they could find to aid biological studies.
The energy of light is one of the ways we know something fishy is going on. The fact that something fishy was happening attracted the scientists. It behaves in two ways at once. If you take the more common and obvious functions it exhibits a wave nature; it has different frequencies that register as colors to our eyes as Newton showed with his prism. Thomas Young proved the wave theory by polarisation and interference by diffraction. The problem was that waves need something to wave, a medium of transmission. It was also faster than anything else that any body could measure. Or has. Foucault worked it out to some degree in 1850. In doing so he also destroyed another theory of what light was. The particle model, also supported by Newton, on the grounds that, though it could be refracted, light also always travels in straight lines. He explained the rainbow effect by saying that his old favourite Gravity was pulling the particles around differently. Still the science had no idea what light actually was until the 19th century when electromagnetism was discovered and Hertz found other waves that were magnetic and needed no ‘ether’ to be generated or travel on. [ Which brings a question to mind. Do other electromagnetic waves such a radio and heat exhibit the duality of light?]
Then there was Albert Einstein. Talk about thought experiments. Whatever else he is remembered for E = Mc2 is gonna be the same all over the Universe, because whatever exists out there is exactly the same elements as exist down here and the speed of light is constant. it matters. Because c is a really big number, the total amount of the energy in the Universe is way off the scale. And most of it is locked up in matter.
Stars have a way of busting out all over, smashing the basic protons into the helium atom, spewing out energy and electrons and photons in enough abundance to feed a planet; the other elements following in order until the start collapses into a neutron star. Which presupposes that all the protons have gained electrons and all energy has been lost. This what signals to us a black hole, the jets of super energetic gas firing far into the surrounding space. At the same time as matter is being destroyed, that final melding of heavy elements must be occurring. Where does a black hole end up? A final collection of all the matter in the Universe seething until it bursts like a boil into another singularity? Or feeding matter into another dimension or Universe with perhaps differing constraints and laws.
Suffice to say it leaves us without a paddle whatever the result. A second pathway may lead us to hope. There are denizens of this Universe that can use energy, combine it and pass it on to others so that energy becomes trapped. Plants. OK so I’m more a biologist than a physicist but even I realize that comparing your local weed with a star is pretty far out… however much you’ve been smoking. They are not alone. Some bacteria utilize Hydrogen sulphide to provide the energy for not only their lives but as a feedstock for a whole fauna. Each one of those nasty creeping pests or beautiful scented rose, vital soya beans or wheat or a thousand stapless that we are so dependent on can only survive because of the light energy given by our star. It even provides us with the gas that is so vital to us as a by product. Yet there is nothing so despised as plants. After bacteria, the first born inhabitants, the primus genus of all life on earth, the universe, wherever it may be. And the only thing we seek to control, destroy and obliterate because,’ it looks untidy’.
It would be totally politically incorrect to use that term about animals or humans. Yet you can purchase genocide in a packet down your nearest hardware store. It is more than likely that the balance of the Universe in the first days demands that the evolution of plants precedes that of any animal life form. It may be that the symbiotic or commensal bonds that unite bees and pollinating or dispersal animals may pan out differently on other worlds. But to the question ‘ Is there anybody out there?’ I think I have to say, Yes. One can only hope they are gardeners.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
A prayer for the new month.
There is a lovely story concerning the hare who being mad with lust at Easter time tried to mate with the moon. Which is why I always see a hare upside down in the moon instead of the less obvious man.
A Happy and fertile festival to all.
Oh Father Sun and Mother Earth,
We know all life owes you their birth.
Protect our hearths, our homes, our fields
From those who wish our souls to yield.
Give us fruit and grain and meat.
Pure water so we may drink and eat.
Our children born in bright array,
to know the right in night and day.
To support the weak 'gainst mighty foe
whom riches trust and gold only know.
And when the light dies in our eyes
Let us walk with you and rise.
The water of life falls on the tree
The river of life flows to the sea
The sea gives rain upon the land
The circle set so man abounds.
Alan Ingram 2000
A Happy and fertile festival to all.
Oh Father Sun and Mother Earth,
We know all life owes you their birth.
Protect our hearths, our homes, our fields
From those who wish our souls to yield.
Give us fruit and grain and meat.
Pure water so we may drink and eat.
Our children born in bright array,
to know the right in night and day.
To support the weak 'gainst mighty foe
whom riches trust and gold only know.
And when the light dies in our eyes
Let us walk with you and rise.
The water of life falls on the tree
The river of life flows to the sea
The sea gives rain upon the land
The circle set so man abounds.
Alan Ingram 2000
Typos
My friends may have felt I let them down. Also I must make clear that they did not deaf me out. These things happen. There was only one whom i did not and do not wish to meet again, so it is more of a self denying ordinance than anything else.
I will write about this later.
I will write about this later.
Facebook.
Now I've posted and found some old friends, I can see the attraction and addictive qualities. Damn it it is fun. I try to be honest and bold about the 50 years that have passed us all by. I have 'no idea what they do with their lives' pace Dylan. There are areas though that I don't want to impinge on and they have similar presumably. We are different people now thrown together in friendship by a uncommon schooling. Sometimes I think it has set us in concrete. Some friends are permanent, others will remain enemies for what ever slight or horror has been made in the past. Facebook is weird because I lost a lot of school friends after 1972. Not deceased. Just that I thought that they thought I had left them down whereas I had tried to act honourably and as a gentleman, though at the time it was a violent though vital step to take. Suffice to say, I would love to make contact with Woody, Frank Humphries and Mark Bristow but there is one friend who I cannot forgive yet for what was done and the ostracizatism that occurred afterwards.
I hope that this explains my reluctance to make contact with old school friends who had nothing to do with this and certainly have no inkling of what I am talking about. It still hurts after almost 40 years. There is little I or others can do, except realise there is a lacuna in my life due to someone I will not name. Helen Pitt/Inman as was knows and I thank her for her support.
I hope that this explains my reluctance to make contact with old school friends who had nothing to do with this and certainly have no inkling of what I am talking about. It still hurts after almost 40 years. There is little I or others can do, except realise there is a lacuna in my life due to someone I will not name. Helen Pitt/Inman as was knows and I thank her for her support.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
1. What is the meaning of life?
2. Is there a God?
5. Is there anybody out there?
7. What is love?
8. What is the secret to happiness?
I think the point of life is to go through it, enjoy when you can , suffer the trials of Job that are bound to inflict us, shout, scream, philosophise, write it, paint it, sing it out loud, try to be Stoic about it or a screaming nancy. The only limitation is that you must do all of this without harming anyone else on this planet. Hard for carnivores, I know, but everything that lives must die. Better to be useful than not at all. It depends how you consider God. This you can discuss until doomsday. Consider this. All the science for geological time, quantum physics, evolution has provided a pretty good picture of the state of play. All this science has been on the basis of the evidence as so far gathered. Unfortunately it does not include all evidence. Logically Science deals with what is known. Science cannot explain everything yet
Perhaps the very random nature of the Universe, quantum behaviour and evolution included, is the reason for the Universe.
Perhaps out of the astronomical permutations of particles, atoms, molecules of life [ or death ] in the Universe there will arise something capable of creating another Universe. The Universe has already worked out how to produce life. To assume that we can know and whether or not you call it God or science is just a vanity that supposes that humanity is the end point when we may not even be the means.
For the faithful, no rationale is needed. For the rational, no belief is sacred.
*
The Atheist / Dawkins Position.
Well nobody can prove that God exists. The point about science is that it can’t prove a negative. Even about such ‘ magic’ as Dowsing or Astrology, which Richard Dawkins has actually tried to do on TV using methods that would be laughd out of a laboratory if he tried them on any other ‘ scientific’ subject.
The Dawk's dowsers were tested by putting containers of water in boxes and asking the dowsers to find the water. Any reading on the subject indicates that dowsers do not find water. They do have a good record of finding moving water. This water does not come from a tap, so is likely to contain dissolved metallic salts that turn this water into... come on you at the back there...an ionised solution. The sort of stuff we put in batteries. When flowing through the earth they pass through the Earth's magnetic field. What happens when you pass ions through a magnetic field? You alter the electromagnetic background. Are you actually saying that there is no way that this could not be detected by some technology or another? Some expensive piece of equipment hauled over the ground to find changes in the electromagnetic patterns? Is it worth attempting in the interests of water shortages? Work it out, do the science come back and then test it. Now if you can find individuals who can sense the changes without needing the expensive equipment, which are you going to choose?
Another ‘ wonder ‘ that raised Dawkins ire is Astrology. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not an apologist of the whole kit and caboodle that appears in the red tops but am trying to look at what astrology actually says it is trying to do.
Astrology is based on a pattern of stars that conventionally have been put into patterns called constellations since the time of the Babylonians. Astronomers still refer to stars using their Arabic names and recognise that the Earth in it's orbit, sees the apparent position of the Sun against the background of those stars which we conventionally call the Zodiac,[ literally 'circle of the animals'] or the Ecliptic. The position of any heavenly [ ooops ] astronomical body has a relative position determined by this zodiacal pattern from the First Point of Aries, though this has in fact moved 30 degrees round since first being plotted some 21 centuries ago. The Moon also moves through the Ecliptic, as do Mercury and Venus, though the superior planets move near the ecliptic less closely. So Astrology is based upon positions of the Sun , Moon and to a lesser degree, the planets, not the stars. They are fixed in the firmament.
Now are you trying to say that the relative positions of the Sun and Moon at conception have no effect whatsoever? Even the menstrual cycle is related to the Moon? Are people affected by the condition of the mother at the time of conception with regards to diet, Vitamin levels and general well being? Is this a direct consequence of the time of the year, seasons and the position of the Sun? Is the health of any cadre affected by this? Why aren't we studying these effects. I'm not saying that these Astrologers have any answers. What I am saying is that scientists are continually failing to investigate mechanisms that may be valid because they dismiss it all as nonsense. Which merely means it makes no sense to them.
What Dawkins is doing is not science. It is not investigating natural phenomena by a methodolgy that is open to peer review, criticism or modification in the light of new eveidence. It is dogmatic ignorance akin to scientific fascism. Just don’t mention either homeopathy or psychic.
'All events that occur in the Universe must obey the the physical laws of the Universe.
Scientists do not know all the physical laws of the Universe.
Therefore some events may occur for which scientists have no explanation according to the presently known physical laws of the Universe.'
'The truth changes with the paradigm.' Karl Hopper
Professional fundamentalists
One hardly knows how to deal with the debate between the atheists and the religionists except to point out that to despise a man because of what he believes in, is a zero sum position. Mankind comprises over 6 billion individual, crazy animals, tending towards neotony, with visions and delusions of grandeur, eyes aglow with the truth as they see it, arguing their square inch of validity by unbending reason or faith, backing it with the ambiguity of language and the musty scrolls of long dead, soi-disant wizards affecting their own heresies. For every 3 believers of anything at least one is a heresiarch and every one of them will argue till the Earth unfreezes.
'Moreover, they come from a scientific background, and science is usually not associated with religious zeal or political fanaticism.'
Have you actually read any of the posts by those of a scientific or medical background? Just mention the word homeopathy and see what zeal and fanaticism is. A lot of doctors seem to think homeopathy practioners are ubermensch. They will not accept anecdotal evidence but make little effort whatsoever to test scientifically what exactly is going on.
'Throughout the world, physicists and biologists tend to be more sceptical and less religious.' The physicists and biologists I've met included some of the most devout Christians and some of the nicest people I've met, never proselytising but having a faith allied to their science that seemed organic and natural.
But these examples are as gross a generalisation as any you could make. Surely an individual of any persuasion should not confine his outlook to that of his vocational training or religious upbringing? What is wrong with thinking for yourself? How can you have any democratic dialogue with a view point that maintains that the premises of the argument are invalid and then resorts to eliminating the opposition by violence of language or behaviour?
*
Cats and docs
God is neither good or bad, male or female, yin or yang, here or there or does not give a flying spaghetti monster how us imperfect little bags of emotion think of it. It's all of these and more.
The body of any animal creates energy throughout the fact of being alive. Energy is the crux of thisI have often thought that the whole psychic, spirit, soul, ghost doo dah is exactly as Einstein predicted. You cannot destroy energy and it may be a question of quantum mechanics that allows something to survive, to escapethe bounds of a coporeal existence to exist on another plane. Is this any more unbelievable than saying that particle phyicists have proved that there are at least 11 or 13 dimensions? They at least have mobile phones to point to as evidence. That and billions of Euros to prove whether they are right or wrong.
Perhaps the development of consciousness and intelligence of thought is a necessary part of evolution. We certainly value it in our children; are we not hoping that they will advance in the greater picture? Why deny that we expect the same of their internal store of well being? That they should advance in their psychiatric and mental health, that they should be more comfortable in their sould than we are. Was it any different for a parent in the Mesolithic?
Why should Souls not grow, evolve and develop along with every other form of life in the whole Universe, part of the energy field you create by being alive. No scientist has found a mind separate to the body. Do they think it does not exist? Thinking that the energy just gets dissipated when the life is extinct may be ok for you but there is plenty of evidence that something survives the experience, even if it's just a quantum hole in the local Universe. Try looking for it and try to get funding and you are left with ‘screaming Evie and Living TV.
The deal could be that because of the total, random nature of life, with cohesive separate units being continually created is that something evolves and something survives as an individual, if not as a species. It may well have an effect on how the genes actually operate, according to the latest research. Add all these together and what have you got? The total experience of the Universe floating around somewhere with no limits. We have evolved communication, a skill that detemines exactly what we are.Voila, something my be left that has a real interest in making sure that what has been created survives.Now a simple mind experiment is to think of what it would be like if everyone could see each others thoughts. You were part to all the information held in any mind, anywhere. Is there not a case where anything that is believed, theorised about and proved under such conditions will be believed by all? Suddenly you are faced with the nature of your being. What do you believe? That you are a part of the cosmos? That you belong to one special, righteous clique that was right all along and everyone else is a heretic, kuffar, blasphemer that does not deserve the life that is given. That you were so badly treated that you have it in for every other bastard in the Universe. That you really didn’t want this to happen and you are seeking revenge. Or do you accept the gracious gift and say, ok, what’s next? In a way it’s exactly what the religions have been saying. Whose side are you on? Good or Bad.
There is one truth I can state here. Evil never wins. Why? Because it is inherently selfish and co-operation breaks down at the real test. Are you prepared to die for your loved ones? True love is exactly that. Any mother or father knows it; the sacrifice is worth it. Love overcomes all. Whatever you feel about religion, Christian or otherwise, it boils down to that. Love.
What is the Purpose of Life?
The Objective? Making sure life continues, making more random individuals and hoping that one or more or a combination of them has the ability to start the whole thing up again somewhere else. The Opposition. Ultimately it always fails because it's selfish, ignorant and not good at working together. A really evil entity would never give it's life up for something -else but ' Negativity just won't pull you through'.
The biggest argument against God is that how can He [ and it is always a He] allow people who do not deserve it to suffer? The first thing to realise is that ‘It's not personal, it's just business.‘ Whatever creation you could devise in your dreams is still a zero sum game and a no win situation. However much you botox, you are still going to look your thinnest in a shroud. And you don’t even get to enjoy your riches! Suffering is not bad for the soul if you have the strength to overcome it. It hurts like hell, which is what hell is, especially if you turn the experience negative. Remember there is no cosmic joke. It's just the way they tell them.
“God’ could be envisaged as more a combination of all the symbolisms that are held on Earth. three distinct envelopes that we may all experience on our voyage through the Universe. Mother Earth, Sheila Na Ga, Gaia Madonna, virgin, whore and mother, Stella Mare,The High Priestess a guiding light, our caring Muse of all arts that a civilisation may need, who has to let us escape her bounds to grow to our best.
Father Sun, The Phallus whose energy feeds, whose quantum actions affect totally at random every life form on the planet, an Emperor and King whose mercy and justice are not often logical in the eyes of man, ruled by a throbbing need to expend his seed wherever it may fall.
The offspring, as foolish as the Tarot Card ,as romantic as the Lovers, as caddish as the Juggler, as devious as the Devil, as warlike as the Chariot, as dogmatic as the Hierophant, as caring as the Emperor, as wise as the Magician and all heading towards Death in the same manner, sacrificed as the Hanged Man with The Tower as a reminder that all man’s works must ultimately fall.
All this is encompassed in the Green Man, as the Hero of Joseph Campbell, sacrificed in the quest for the truth of a Holy Grail that may only exist in the procreation of our sacred blood onto and into a thousand generations. It is a wonderful irony that a solid rock of the Ulster Protestant faith, Reverend Alexander Hislop wrote a book called ‘ The Two Babylons ‘in the early 20th Century that is a meticulous appraisal of how all religions have a common base in a past so far back that we haven’t even explored it yet.
Is There a God?
If there is any sense in the Universe, then all the good souls have got together up and created a co-operative entity to defeat and protect what is going on down here. It has limits for even a ‘merciful God’. It does not need to be worshipped every moment of the day, [ only something a lot nastier needs that]. It may well hear any ‘prayers’ that may be in it’s remit. More likely the agenda is way above our common preoccupations and cognisance but prayer works in the same way that hatred only hurts the hater. That forgiveness most helps the forgiver, and a quiet contemplation of the Cosmos has it’s own intrinsic benefits. In the meantime, have faith there is something good out there. You only have to deal with the bad down here.
Love. I pray that everyone learns to know what it means. Nothing and Everything
Live long and Prosper.
2. Is there a God?
5. Is there anybody out there?
7. What is love?
8. What is the secret to happiness?
I think the point of life is to go through it, enjoy when you can , suffer the trials of Job that are bound to inflict us, shout, scream, philosophise, write it, paint it, sing it out loud, try to be Stoic about it or a screaming nancy. The only limitation is that you must do all of this without harming anyone else on this planet. Hard for carnivores, I know, but everything that lives must die. Better to be useful than not at all. It depends how you consider God. This you can discuss until doomsday. Consider this. All the science for geological time, quantum physics, evolution has provided a pretty good picture of the state of play. All this science has been on the basis of the evidence as so far gathered. Unfortunately it does not include all evidence. Logically Science deals with what is known. Science cannot explain everything yet
Perhaps the very random nature of the Universe, quantum behaviour and evolution included, is the reason for the Universe.
Perhaps out of the astronomical permutations of particles, atoms, molecules of life [ or death ] in the Universe there will arise something capable of creating another Universe. The Universe has already worked out how to produce life. To assume that we can know and whether or not you call it God or science is just a vanity that supposes that humanity is the end point when we may not even be the means.
For the faithful, no rationale is needed. For the rational, no belief is sacred.
*
The Atheist / Dawkins Position.
Well nobody can prove that God exists. The point about science is that it can’t prove a negative. Even about such ‘ magic’ as Dowsing or Astrology, which Richard Dawkins has actually tried to do on TV using methods that would be laughd out of a laboratory if he tried them on any other ‘ scientific’ subject.
The Dawk's dowsers were tested by putting containers of water in boxes and asking the dowsers to find the water. Any reading on the subject indicates that dowsers do not find water. They do have a good record of finding moving water. This water does not come from a tap, so is likely to contain dissolved metallic salts that turn this water into... come on you at the back there...an ionised solution. The sort of stuff we put in batteries. When flowing through the earth they pass through the Earth's magnetic field. What happens when you pass ions through a magnetic field? You alter the electromagnetic background. Are you actually saying that there is no way that this could not be detected by some technology or another? Some expensive piece of equipment hauled over the ground to find changes in the electromagnetic patterns? Is it worth attempting in the interests of water shortages? Work it out, do the science come back and then test it. Now if you can find individuals who can sense the changes without needing the expensive equipment, which are you going to choose?
Another ‘ wonder ‘ that raised Dawkins ire is Astrology. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not an apologist of the whole kit and caboodle that appears in the red tops but am trying to look at what astrology actually says it is trying to do.
Astrology is based on a pattern of stars that conventionally have been put into patterns called constellations since the time of the Babylonians. Astronomers still refer to stars using their Arabic names and recognise that the Earth in it's orbit, sees the apparent position of the Sun against the background of those stars which we conventionally call the Zodiac,[ literally 'circle of the animals'] or the Ecliptic. The position of any heavenly [ ooops ] astronomical body has a relative position determined by this zodiacal pattern from the First Point of Aries, though this has in fact moved 30 degrees round since first being plotted some 21 centuries ago. The Moon also moves through the Ecliptic, as do Mercury and Venus, though the superior planets move near the ecliptic less closely. So Astrology is based upon positions of the Sun , Moon and to a lesser degree, the planets, not the stars. They are fixed in the firmament.
Now are you trying to say that the relative positions of the Sun and Moon at conception have no effect whatsoever? Even the menstrual cycle is related to the Moon? Are people affected by the condition of the mother at the time of conception with regards to diet, Vitamin levels and general well being? Is this a direct consequence of the time of the year, seasons and the position of the Sun? Is the health of any cadre affected by this? Why aren't we studying these effects. I'm not saying that these Astrologers have any answers. What I am saying is that scientists are continually failing to investigate mechanisms that may be valid because they dismiss it all as nonsense. Which merely means it makes no sense to them.
What Dawkins is doing is not science. It is not investigating natural phenomena by a methodolgy that is open to peer review, criticism or modification in the light of new eveidence. It is dogmatic ignorance akin to scientific fascism. Just don’t mention either homeopathy or psychic.
'All events that occur in the Universe must obey the the physical laws of the Universe.
Scientists do not know all the physical laws of the Universe.
Therefore some events may occur for which scientists have no explanation according to the presently known physical laws of the Universe.'
'The truth changes with the paradigm.' Karl Hopper
Professional fundamentalists
One hardly knows how to deal with the debate between the atheists and the religionists except to point out that to despise a man because of what he believes in, is a zero sum position. Mankind comprises over 6 billion individual, crazy animals, tending towards neotony, with visions and delusions of grandeur, eyes aglow with the truth as they see it, arguing their square inch of validity by unbending reason or faith, backing it with the ambiguity of language and the musty scrolls of long dead, soi-disant wizards affecting their own heresies. For every 3 believers of anything at least one is a heresiarch and every one of them will argue till the Earth unfreezes.
'Moreover, they come from a scientific background, and science is usually not associated with religious zeal or political fanaticism.'
Have you actually read any of the posts by those of a scientific or medical background? Just mention the word homeopathy and see what zeal and fanaticism is. A lot of doctors seem to think homeopathy practioners are ubermensch. They will not accept anecdotal evidence but make little effort whatsoever to test scientifically what exactly is going on.
'Throughout the world, physicists and biologists tend to be more sceptical and less religious.' The physicists and biologists I've met included some of the most devout Christians and some of the nicest people I've met, never proselytising but having a faith allied to their science that seemed organic and natural.
But these examples are as gross a generalisation as any you could make. Surely an individual of any persuasion should not confine his outlook to that of his vocational training or religious upbringing? What is wrong with thinking for yourself? How can you have any democratic dialogue with a view point that maintains that the premises of the argument are invalid and then resorts to eliminating the opposition by violence of language or behaviour?
*
Cats and docs
God is neither good or bad, male or female, yin or yang, here or there or does not give a flying spaghetti monster how us imperfect little bags of emotion think of it. It's all of these and more.
The body of any animal creates energy throughout the fact of being alive. Energy is the crux of thisI have often thought that the whole psychic, spirit, soul, ghost doo dah is exactly as Einstein predicted. You cannot destroy energy and it may be a question of quantum mechanics that allows something to survive, to escapethe bounds of a coporeal existence to exist on another plane. Is this any more unbelievable than saying that particle phyicists have proved that there are at least 11 or 13 dimensions? They at least have mobile phones to point to as evidence. That and billions of Euros to prove whether they are right or wrong.
Perhaps the development of consciousness and intelligence of thought is a necessary part of evolution. We certainly value it in our children; are we not hoping that they will advance in the greater picture? Why deny that we expect the same of their internal store of well being? That they should advance in their psychiatric and mental health, that they should be more comfortable in their sould than we are. Was it any different for a parent in the Mesolithic?
Why should Souls not grow, evolve and develop along with every other form of life in the whole Universe, part of the energy field you create by being alive. No scientist has found a mind separate to the body. Do they think it does not exist? Thinking that the energy just gets dissipated when the life is extinct may be ok for you but there is plenty of evidence that something survives the experience, even if it's just a quantum hole in the local Universe. Try looking for it and try to get funding and you are left with ‘screaming Evie and Living TV.
The deal could be that because of the total, random nature of life, with cohesive separate units being continually created is that something evolves and something survives as an individual, if not as a species. It may well have an effect on how the genes actually operate, according to the latest research. Add all these together and what have you got? The total experience of the Universe floating around somewhere with no limits. We have evolved communication, a skill that detemines exactly what we are.Voila, something my be left that has a real interest in making sure that what has been created survives.Now a simple mind experiment is to think of what it would be like if everyone could see each others thoughts. You were part to all the information held in any mind, anywhere. Is there not a case where anything that is believed, theorised about and proved under such conditions will be believed by all? Suddenly you are faced with the nature of your being. What do you believe? That you are a part of the cosmos? That you belong to one special, righteous clique that was right all along and everyone else is a heretic, kuffar, blasphemer that does not deserve the life that is given. That you were so badly treated that you have it in for every other bastard in the Universe. That you really didn’t want this to happen and you are seeking revenge. Or do you accept the gracious gift and say, ok, what’s next? In a way it’s exactly what the religions have been saying. Whose side are you on? Good or Bad.
There is one truth I can state here. Evil never wins. Why? Because it is inherently selfish and co-operation breaks down at the real test. Are you prepared to die for your loved ones? True love is exactly that. Any mother or father knows it; the sacrifice is worth it. Love overcomes all. Whatever you feel about religion, Christian or otherwise, it boils down to that. Love.
What is the Purpose of Life?
The Objective? Making sure life continues, making more random individuals and hoping that one or more or a combination of them has the ability to start the whole thing up again somewhere else. The Opposition. Ultimately it always fails because it's selfish, ignorant and not good at working together. A really evil entity would never give it's life up for something -else but ' Negativity just won't pull you through'.
The biggest argument against God is that how can He [ and it is always a He] allow people who do not deserve it to suffer? The first thing to realise is that ‘It's not personal, it's just business.‘ Whatever creation you could devise in your dreams is still a zero sum game and a no win situation. However much you botox, you are still going to look your thinnest in a shroud. And you don’t even get to enjoy your riches! Suffering is not bad for the soul if you have the strength to overcome it. It hurts like hell, which is what hell is, especially if you turn the experience negative. Remember there is no cosmic joke. It's just the way they tell them.
“God’ could be envisaged as more a combination of all the symbolisms that are held on Earth. three distinct envelopes that we may all experience on our voyage through the Universe. Mother Earth, Sheila Na Ga, Gaia Madonna, virgin, whore and mother, Stella Mare,The High Priestess a guiding light, our caring Muse of all arts that a civilisation may need, who has to let us escape her bounds to grow to our best.
Father Sun, The Phallus whose energy feeds, whose quantum actions affect totally at random every life form on the planet, an Emperor and King whose mercy and justice are not often logical in the eyes of man, ruled by a throbbing need to expend his seed wherever it may fall.
The offspring, as foolish as the Tarot Card ,as romantic as the Lovers, as caddish as the Juggler, as devious as the Devil, as warlike as the Chariot, as dogmatic as the Hierophant, as caring as the Emperor, as wise as the Magician and all heading towards Death in the same manner, sacrificed as the Hanged Man with The Tower as a reminder that all man’s works must ultimately fall.
All this is encompassed in the Green Man, as the Hero of Joseph Campbell, sacrificed in the quest for the truth of a Holy Grail that may only exist in the procreation of our sacred blood onto and into a thousand generations. It is a wonderful irony that a solid rock of the Ulster Protestant faith, Reverend Alexander Hislop wrote a book called ‘ The Two Babylons ‘in the early 20th Century that is a meticulous appraisal of how all religions have a common base in a past so far back that we haven’t even explored it yet.
Is There a God?
If there is any sense in the Universe, then all the good souls have got together up and created a co-operative entity to defeat and protect what is going on down here. It has limits for even a ‘merciful God’. It does not need to be worshipped every moment of the day, [ only something a lot nastier needs that]. It may well hear any ‘prayers’ that may be in it’s remit. More likely the agenda is way above our common preoccupations and cognisance but prayer works in the same way that hatred only hurts the hater. That forgiveness most helps the forgiver, and a quiet contemplation of the Cosmos has it’s own intrinsic benefits. In the meantime, have faith there is something good out there. You only have to deal with the bad down here.
Love. I pray that everyone learns to know what it means. Nothing and Everything
Live long and Prosper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Could I make a plea for a less sceptical attitude? I have lived in several houses that were haunted. Being half Anglo/Saxon and half Welsh, I very rarely see ghosts except as a peripheral view but other effects do occur far too regularly to be dismissed with ' I should take more water with it'. The closing of doors, sounds that have no explanation, acquaintances who have behaved far too convincingly to be just acting' on seeing something . One room mate at University never went in that bathroom again whilst another saw so many in the old houses that made up our hall of residence that he left after the third change of room.Even the Warden of the hall sympathised with him and advised students to keep quiet about it.
The second example that happened to me personally makes me feel ashamed now. I lived with two girlfriends [ one of whom became my wife ] in a terraced house in my University town. We had several flatmates but nobody stayed very long in the room they occupied. It never occurred to me until the latest residence made such a noise overnight that I felt I had to comment on it the next day. She hadn't been in at all.
Later my step son used to ask where 'Doctor Who' went to and my wife and he heard someone going up and down the stairs all the time. Finally the room was taken by a Ghanaian who had been seen on the campus behaving strangely. I couldn't in all charity turn him away so he took the room, along with his wife. They were, I think, Catholics or Baptist but were going to the other church's services. It was enough to give my wife and myself paranoia. So when they woke us up in the middle of the night, screaming and praying to God to save them from the Devil, we panicked, dressed and went to the nearest phone box for the police. The poor guy must have been on some list somewhere because the police didn't turn up but ambulance men with instructions to take the man to the local mental institution. Later his wife, who moved out very soon after, explained that a 'demon' had appeared in their room and was throwing the furniture around. Fortunately the man was later released and went on to complete his studies but I still feel perhaps we behaved rather too hastily.
It may all be dismissed as anecdotal evidence by the sceptics but there are enough posts here to indicate that something is happening. Being a cat lover who moved into a house owned by many cat lovers in the past, at this time of year my wife and I are made aware of a lot of feline behaviour not attributable to our now lonely Arripussalom. The heavy weight landing on the duvet, the sound of miaows and the occasional sighting of stranger cats is too frequent to be ignored. The closest I have come to seeing one recently was last Thursday, through a doorway from the kitchen into our sun lounge. It used to have a cat flap to the outside and the entrance from the other lounge was locked where Arrow was busy on the sofa cleaning. Even a Muslim friend of my son saw one at the same time as my wife. It then disappeared as did Ramesh very rapidly. He has never returned.
I don't write this as a rag to attack sceptics with but as an appeal for more open minds. Apparently there is one country in Northern Europe where there is total denial. It is maintained that there are no ghosts there. Yet this is a country where mental illness is too high to be explained satisfactorily. It may be ok for David Mitchell to deny the phenomena but to deny that other people have different experiences and are disturbed by them; i.e. they are all crazy, is doing a great disservice to the community and to psychiatric practices. How many cases of hearing voices are being solved by stuffing patients full of anti-hallucinogenics, or left out of 'the community' by pure scientific rigour and scepticism,doctors and the same people who decry religion as having no role in the modern world. I agree, if it is left to Evangelical Christianity or 'TV psychics' I too worry. It may be that by a little more understanding and compassion for and by the churches, people who do have genuine second sight, clairvoyance or hear voices may not be shunned and ridiculed by an unfeeling world. Remember, we all end up dead.