Viene una tormenta

“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity. A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” ~Albert Einstein

 

Both sides of the 2-sided coin that is American politics, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party really haven't handled the abortion topic well, among other things both sides bicker about, but hardly come to an understanding that benefits all mankind. One side wants choice, but with little restrictions while the other demonizes it at the conceptual level in all its forms. Both sides don't really care. The LEFT has shown the past two years they don't. The RIGHT, currently just goes against the LEFT, it doesn’t even matter if they make any valid points or not. I was under the impression the LEFT/RIGHT existed in order to make compromises that benefit the whole? But do they? That is what I started to explore in my last blog, "Emendatione ad Infantes Mortuos."

 

I have always believed this, but as I said in that last blog, there is a difference between belief and knowledge. Now I feel I no longer believe, but now know that both parties are poor choices for societal growth and evolution within our American culture. Choose Republican/Democrat, I choose not to choose, because both parties have proven they are bad for a free society. We will be approaching the 13,500 word mark on this subject and sub-subjects that stem from having these sorts of conversations this past week.

 

On social media; how do you summarize this in just a few sentences without being vague about what it is that is actually being said and splintering off, subject matter-wise? My personal stances on the abortion topic are I support a woman's choice to choose. I support choice from 0-15 weeks, all day every day, unless they come up with a better number for weeks-wise, whatever that may be just insert here. I do not support 3rd-trimester abortions, other than for medical reasons, also insert here. Simply putting "other" in the checkbox as the reason isn't gonna cut it. (hypothetical/sarcasm). The Democratic Party just brushes that right over as if it doesn’t matter and it should matter. The choice if a woman wants to get an abortion during that 0-15 weeks should not be impeded. I get why there is a timestamp on this and that, to me makes sense.

 

How do we not take the choice away from the women that deserve to make it and also not kill full term babies in the 3rd trimester, all along while not overly pissing off every Christian? Both sides are not talking about this. They are 0-100 with their points of view and won’t budge on them. The Republican Party have been doing demonizing of their own on the full term abortions the LEFT stands by, but what the RIGHT isn’t saying is: “statistically less the 0.5% of abortions are full term, and they are only done for fetal demise or imminent fetal demise upon birth, or potential maternal demise.” I sort of knew the RIGHT was embellishing 3rd trimester abortions too much. Still doesn't give the LEFT a pass either. LEFT/RIGHT, they do the same stuff, screw us all. That is why I said, it's hard to have this conversation in these little blurps via social media. Something is always gonna get overlooked on these platforms right? Small boxes, text limits. Social media shadow-banning comments for using specific wording. “Serenity Now… Serenity Now…”

 

The only reason the Democratic Party is on their side of the fence on this topic is because the other side already has this as part of their criteria to join. The RIGHT and the LEFT cannot get along on conceptual value. I loathe the LEFT, as a party, and they have either straight up lied or misrepresented data so much that I never look into their claims anymore. After this, the RIGHT is just as much on my, "stay away from toxic people" list. I swear I should make stickers and shirts that say that. I am talking about the parties, not people who follow the parties because of the lesser of 2 evils concept. Some want a voice and they vote for stupid-B over ignorant-A, but both A and B are both bad for us. I do not have a LEFT/RIGHT opinion even if it may seem that way. Most people do not think like me. Most people choose to be on one side of the fence or the other. I choose to not have a fence at all. I do not believe in the premise that I am RIGHT because I am NOT LEFT and/or vice versa. I understand that not all or even some of what I say can be taken as 100% understood, all of the time. I was writing the first blog, solely on the Abortion topic which spider-webbed to a sequel blog that is less Abortion topic and more why both LEFT/RIGHT are bad for human societal evolution. It also may better explain some of the concepts that I derive from on the logistics as to why I feel the way I do about politics and religion, in general.

 

I recognize that my opinions will not be shared by all, perhaps even some or the one. I make it so that; if people choose to read they can go and read. If not, it isn’t in anyone’s face. They can just keep scrolling. Even though I do not contribute to the LEFT/RIGHT ideology, at all. Both hinder a free society, both fight over our rights when they want something for themselves or the monies that support them. Both throw the Bible and the Constitution around whenever it suites them and they turn around toss them in the fire when they believe we are not watching them. We are watching… Both go backward, but try to tell us that is “progression.” Progression is when one or many pro-gress and go forward. The opposite cannot be associated with progression, yet here we are…. This 2-sided coin of beliefs is exactly why both sides are bad for human societal evolution. Hell, even the word belief I take issue with. Belief and Knowledge are not one in the same thing yet our society governs and treats it like they are. Social Media, Political and Religious Ideologies get people angry. They want to be heard. They do not know how to articulate that. They get frustrated and lash out in anger over it. Some have commented to me that I do not care for unborn children. That I must support child abuse. The differences between child abuse and what any human chooses to do with their body, that is theirs and not yours should not be a cause for anyone or a group’s concern directly. I think the miscommunication is applying one thing like child abuse, that is sort of related to another, that isn’t related, like abortion. Their greatest common attribute is one involves children and the other involves a fetus. If left to grow, it will eventually become a child, but isn’t the same thing, not literally. Not according to biology, which is science, which is the pursuit of truth…

 

Child abuse and getting an abortion is not one in the same, but just like LEFT/RIGHT it is played as such.  Child abuse is real. People torture and maim children all the time. These children are alive in the world. They are walking/talking/breathing humans. The abortion topic isn’t about LIFE, it is about choice. One or many should never get to dictate what I, him, her, it, chooses to do with that which is theirs, solely, and not yours or anyone or any “one” else’s, PERIOD… I am not saying we shouldn’t care. I am not saying once a child is born the mother can throw said baby in the trash. I am not saying that at all nor is it hinted in my wording. If that is what one or some may get from my writings? They either read it wrong, I screwed up with how I worded it and my poor vision didn’t catch it or that person has cement shoes on their side of the fence and nothing that deviates from that ideology can be tolerated. I am saying, why should you care, it’s not you, it’s not yours, why are you worried about what someone does privately with what is theirs and not yours in general? Doesn’t matter if it is a water bottle or a thing or a person. It’s not up to you to decide that. You can care, sure. I care, but it isn’t your business, even if you agree or do not agree, it isn’t yours. I don’t agree with late term abortions, unless medical well-being demands it, but at the same time it isn’t for me to decide that for another person, nor should it. Under what demand do I need to interject myself into someone else’s life? The Bible? The Constitution? Is my name Kevin or Karen? Those things are static and do not evolve. Human society does/is/will...

 

The Constitution is a set of laws that protects American rights or Americans from a tyrannical Government. Notice I didn’t say human rights. The Constitution protects American rights, but not human rights. The problem is even in my carefully worded statements here, there are a lot fine lines as to that sort of freedom. I get why people are pro-life and pro-choice. We should have an interest in protecting lives, absolutely, but at what cost to people’s choices and freedoms that best suites them for their situation? At what point is too much interference, too much? Make it easier for women to choose going to term with their pregnancies over the latter, but making the choice for them is not ok, not for anyone. That is the opposite of progression, that is the opposite of living in a free society. I have seen some try to apply finding holes in this logic by mashing different subject matter together as one thing, when they only share very superficial things about themselves. One or many cannot apply that logic to other scenarios that is exactly the same as the child abuse vs abortion take. The rape victim and an unborn fetus are not one in the same. Granted a rape victim can get pregnant from the experience, but it’s almost a year from the event to full term. Again, you cannot apply logic to this as if it were the exact same thing. Yeah, they sort of have things on the surface in common, but actually don’t. Logic is not a One-Size-Fits-All approach. Politics and Government attempt to force a One-Size-Fits-All approach, another reason why both sides inherently suck at their job. That is why humans very rarely use logic in their everyday thinking. Emotional stability gets in the way for most people to make good clear decisions, but that doesn’t mean if they are depressed, sad or having a bad day we go and choose for them.

 

Perhaps the definition of empathy has been miscommunicated across the board to how people perceive it? Researchers that study emotion generally define empathy as: “the ability to sense other ‘people's emotions,’ coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else ‘might’ be thinking or feeling.” Keyword word here is “might.” Might doesn’t mean, will… I am gonna assume this is for living humans that experience reality. I do not think this applies to a fetus under 15-weeks of growth. If I take that as an actual concept I am not going to be so arrogant to assume that I know or even assume what/how the emotional stress and/or stability for an entity that isn’t even born yet or has a fully functioning mind. Mind you I am an empath myself. An unborn child before those 15 weeks are up is not an unborn child. That’s science, that’s biology. If science bothers you. Go take a college level biology course. What you will learn there might surprise you. You know what is also in biology that isn’t all over the place in the media is there is much sacred geometry within it. Just go and look for yourself. Ultimately, it is her body, her life, her child, her choice, her freedom. Not yours. You can care, but they second you try to force a decision on her, that isn’t hers or part of what she feels is right for her, you have overstepped your bounds as a human. It isn’t you, it isn’t yours and it certainly is not up to you to pick for her, or them if it is a family and family issue. You can disagree with that, but you are not going to convince me otherwise. I cannot and will not be sold on LEFT or RIGHT ideology. Not your uterus, not your problem. Stay in your lane…

 

Religion doesn’t always go hand in hand with how others look at, insert topic here. Different peoples believing that murder is wrong goes way before the Bible showed up. This would have happened around 1450 BC to 1400 BC. So perhaps about 3400 years or so ago the Bible shows up. Humans have been around in our current configuration for more than 150,000+ years. I know most will disagree with that, but it is a widely accepted concept over how the Bible describes humans. I am sure (laughs) there is some passage in that book that is extremely wide open to interpretation that will say it is a metaphor or something else, that is fine, that is fine. I do understand there are just some things the Christians will not except even though they are widely accepted and that is your freedom to choose that and that is what this is all about, that free choice for you to choose. We do not get to cherry pick when that very human choice is convenient for our faith to except or not. I look at the Bible differently than most non-believers. It should be noted that Atheism and Agnostic are not one in the same. Atheism itself is a religion, it isn’t the absence of it, but just a yang to the Christian ying. If one wants to know what No Religion looks like look more into Agnostical teachings for reference. It might help breach the gap between Agnostic and Atheist, which are not the same thing but most will say they are. I think the Bible is good, in general. It’s not great though, just good. It’s said to be the word of God, written by man. God is supposed to be infallible, yet man is fallible, very. Therefore I question the book on its validity. For me the meat and potatoes of that is, it is a good guide for humans as a starting point, but it’s only a guide, not doctrine, not even based on fact, but faith and belief. Faith/Belief, doesn’t directly translate to knowing and knowledge, but it gets treated as it is.

 

Again, lumping other concepts that have a very superficial commonality to them on the surface, till you actually look at said attributes much more closely. Not the same thing, but it’s the same shape so it gets the same treatment mentality. I am seeing this in a lot of LEFT/RIGHT/Religious debates. Like I said, you cannot cherry pick when it works/doesn’t work for you. You cannot take a thing that really doesn’t belong in the same conversation and then say they are the same thing and use that as, air-quotes, “FACTS.” I know purest LEFT/RIGHT supporters will not agree with that, but that is my take and I probably will not think more on expanding that on faith/religion/politics, but probably doesn’t mean definitely. See what I mean about words and how they are often used together when they mean literally different things embedded inside its meaning. People are smart enough to know that if they keep saying something over and over and over again, loudly, regardless it if is RIGHT/WRONG, LEFT/RIGHT, that people will begin to believe it. It is just how people are becoming in this society of how the flow of information works in 2022. The Constitution isn’t based on Christianity, but it does have many Christian values in there and that is ok. Because the Bible is treated like a guide and not literal. Granted some will both agree/disagree about that too. My take is, take the best parts that work, the best for humanity and use it as a guide. Do the same with the Constitution and just keep an emphasis on what doesn’t affect me, us, you, directly and is for a person to choose be left up to their choice, it is not up to us to dictate for them.

 

This For Me Is All About Free Will & Choice…

The second some human comes up to me and interferes with my freedom to choose what I think is best for me that is when we have gone too far. Sure there are and will be special circumstances where others do need to interject and those “special circumstances,” should be clearly defined and not a whole lot of room to miscommunicate those concepts. No, legal double-talk and huge phrases that require a team of lawyers to review for weeks on end. It should be basic and it should be logical. But let’s not miscommunicate that it simply is not our business to tell a person or dictate to a person that this choice, which is theirs, cannot be made because it frightens us, morally or religiously.

 

"I always say why do other humans care what other humans do if what it is they do does not directly associate, involve that person or directly affect that person, in any way?"

I cannot really break this down more than I have already in many BLOGS over the years. From something else I am working on about GOD, God, and god, all 3 are not the same thing. Each has its own definition. However, to have that conversation it would be difficult because most that are Christian come from a place of Faith, first. Faith doesn’t require proof to exist. It is actually the only thing that doesn’t require proof in its definition to exist. That is why it is hard to disprove and/or prove. It’s not tangible. I cannot hold faith up and show the class the different angles, weights, colors, all that stuff it can do, but yet humans do not question whether or not it is real. When people ask me about God, I tell them my information systems first. 1) Non-Classical Philosophy, 2) Real Science from the scientific method, 3) Logic and, 4) Non-Religious Faith. These are my personal information systems. When you ask me a question this is from where I draw from and in this order. They are unique and different for everyone. They may have less than four or more than four or none of these four at all. Faith for me is last and almost non usable for me, but I acknowledge it as something I can draw from. There are things I believe and do not actually know, just believe. Believing and not knowing, that is faith, faith is not knowing but believing. So if we talk about God, we are not going to see very much eye to eye because most pull from a data source that differs from mine and doesn’t rely on proof of life and/or evolving conceptually to exist. I do… I require it in most cases, but also understand why I have faith in my information systems to begin with. I do not know everything. I cannot explain everything. I have thoughts/feelings/rationale that I cannot properly articulate. Faith or at least believing is a good starting point to fill in those gabs. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Arthur Conan Doyle – this is a good way to describe how I quantify faith.

 

In most of the 2000s I have seen a lack of people being able to articulate what a real, and a fact actually are. A fact, by definition, is a theory which is (unproven datasets, an educated guess without verified testing by the scientific method), that is later tested to such a level of accuracy that it cannot be said to be NOT FALSE and cannot be debated as a non-fact till there is real data to suggest the fact is not a fact. It is all about data. Faith doesn’t require factual data to be real. However, a real thing in the real world does. So which is it?  Fact or Faith? Both do not play well together in the sandbox at the playground.

 

I reason to believe the human race is going in a backward direction where natural births will be difficult in the next couple of hundred years, maybe a thousand. My insight can only go so far though. This is actually its own can of worms; because if we start growing babies in a lab, what is stopping us from making our own modifications to the human genome? We are already doing this, but what I am saying is that in the future ALL humans will be doing this or at least the higher cast humans, ones that can afford it, do not mind breaking the rules of natural selection and all that. Thought I’d make mention of that. Most Religions speak against human evolution. The Republican Party doesn’t believe in it in their criteria, yet it is widely accepted as factual.

 

So the RIGHT is always dictating how the LEFT doesn’t like real science and what do we see here? The RIGHT doing the same exact thing. Not enough people getting involved in putting their foot down on both LEFT/RIGHT. The average person tends to say, “the lesser of two evils.” How exactly does that hold each side accountable for their lack of vision? Caring and getting involved are not one in the same. I feel like this is a repeated theme in this BLOG… The lumping of one subject to another subject all because they have surface things in common, but actually do not have much in direct common outside of that very surface commonality. This is a trait that both LEFT/RIGHT do on a regular basis. The last few weeks it’s been heavy on the RIGHT side. For the past two years, it’s been the LEFT side. Pick your poison. I can tell you, it is poison and it will eventually kills us all. You look at two doors. One is red, one is blue. What do they have in common? They both have colors on them and they are both doors, but based on this surface knowledge are these doors the same? Do we treat them the same? Or are they even close to being the same? Do they go to the same place, in the same direction? What? Exactly makes these two doors the same?

 

We and even I, rely far too much on science. Like I said above about definitions. I do not harp too heavily on science, but more about what words mean, what concepts mean and how we put words to them with a definition on what these words/concepts actually mean. I wrote a BLOG not too long ago about how the democrats are at war with words, Experrectus te ipsum (Latin for: UnWoke Yourself). They literally try to change the definition of what this word means and what that word means by using the word over and over again, loudly and out of context. Eventually the word loses its original, more accurate definition, for this new definition. Like the word WOKE for example. Or the definition of what a man is or a woman is. That stuff. What concepts mean, that is science. Not science like math, but it is science nonetheless. The Pursuit of Truth.

 

However, I only use science to verify what I may already suspect. I use science to give a concept the power of tangibility, meaning that it exists in reality and not just in my own head, mind, personality, perception and/or knowledge and belief structures. I do have some faith here, but it isn’t of religious faith. Like faith and religious faith they are not one in the same, but often get that treatment. Just another thing that we are overlapping. Not just here, but everywhere. Both parties blur what things actually mean to fit their own agendas. Not ours, yours, mine, but theirs… They have some things in common, like faith is the belief that this is a real thing without actually having to know the thing is actually real or not. It doesn’t require that science aspect for it to be a real concept. It is both its flaw and its greatest attribute at the same time. In science we call this superposition where a thing has a state of being of both on/off at the same time, based on what/who/how it is observed by the observer. You flip a coin and it lands on heads or tails, but not on its side. Superposition says, it can and will, eventually, if you flip the coin enough times the probability that it will land on its side is a very real concept just not a practical one. It is like the differences between fantasy and reality. Fantasy is only real, where? In your mind, in your imagination. However, it isn’t real on the outside of that headspace. Tell that to the delusional…  Politics isn’t always real science, but politics framed as science not the same thing. Everyone or every agency wants to be the hero of the day or have their perspective be the right one and, well, you can see what the hell happened there. In my sequel blog I talk about how poor the Republicans are when it comes to real science, they are just as bad as the Democrats. Both flip-flop with what a fact actually is and what science is to their perspective.

 

If it wasn’t abortion and some other topic that revolved around choice the message may be a little easier to taken in, or at least understand the perspective. I know it doesn’t seem like I have empathy and/or care about these unborn fetuses/babies. As an empath myself; I do care, but my caring should not overshadow the individual human choice that belongs to me not. I can still fuss about the reasoning behind an abortion and still respect the woman’s choice to choose at the very same time. Regardless if I agree with said choice isn’t the issue, it’s the non-respect to allow them to choose that is the problem I have, personally. It is their body, not ours. If you want power over that, then logic dictates we must enslave all women to control that aspect and I do not think that is going to happen. I HOPE that doesn’t happen… If our society focused more on giving all women more resources and freedoms that make it easier for their conscious to be clear I am willing to have faith that they will bring that child to term. Since this is a LEFT/RIGHT thing and if we are to give women that freedom and they go against our beliefs we should have some sort of compromise. Late term abortions just because she doesn’t want the child is in poor form. That I do have a problem with. 15 weeks is 15 weeks. If it is 10 or 20, whatever the number is, we should have some sort of law that protects both choice and the child after an allowed amount of time. The democrat approach is all or nothing on a timestamp while the republican approach is all abortion is bad. So the compromise isn’t a very good one for all parties included. Then throw the religion in there somewhere. Throw race, in somewhere. Throw sexual orientation in there somewhere and you see how crazy this can, has, and will get, moving forward.

 

Religion of any kind has no place in politics as the source of all debates in 2022 and that will increase in separation as our society continues to push forward to evolve into something more than it is now. Like the Constitution has some religion in there as a guide or starting point. I feel like the Constitution needs to evolve to something new with religion being in some respect, addressed in its principals along with the Constitution and more emphasis on what a real, free society is and what that means for everybody else. That we cannot cherry pick topics to overly involve all people in, while also combining topics that only have very little in common with the topic at hand. Just because some things on the surface seem related… Are they, actually? I see this in the political flip-flopping more than anything. If God has a problem with it, God can take care of it. If God has problems with humans making their own choices, let God deal with it. It isn’t for us to enslave other human’s choices because we simply do not agree with them morally, but to them it maybe their only salivation and we as a culture have not done enough to make this a simple choice for the woman. The outrage is real. However, it isn’t coming from a very good place due to these LEFT/RIGHT entities imposing their will on all of humanity. Evil only exists in our minds because only conscious beings dream up evil. Without consciousness, does evil even exist? Only conscious animals are evil towards other animals in general. The other non-conscious animals are only violent for survival and protection. Are their exceptions, probably.

 

People can defend religion as fair points, but how many people has the Christian faith straight up murdered all because they didn’t believe in what they believed? Many many more than free women choosing to abort their pregnancy for their own reasoning that isn’t privy to us from week 0 to week 15. Faith and the Bible are not the main and only information systems that humans can pull from as a guide. As an Empath, I care too much. That is why emotion is taken out of the equation with me. Once you remove emotion, all that is left is logic. People of faith have a hard time really grasping logic in that form. It looks like, on the outside, that logic doesn’t care. No, logic cares, just not emotionally. Logic is getting to the point without the emotional instability in the human experience getting in the way of making any decision that gets one or many to their goal. This is embedded in our DNA, to be overly emotional. We are far too attached to our beliefs, emotionally, and that to me is a little crazy, because belief is not based on knowing or knowledge, we only believe, but we do not know, but yet we are willing to lose our shit based on this emotional feeling; break all our rules and kill out of the hatred that burns within that belief. It is only a belief, not knowledge…

 

The RIGHT has changed from their own traditional beliefs to “Christian Nationalists” more nowadays and none of that really needs to be in Government as one of their core beliefs. Our society is really evolving away from that. The RIGHT hardly ever has an original idea of their own. They just counterpunch what the LEFT does and if anyone follows boxing good counter punchers can out point a slugger in most cases, but not always. Sometimes fighting rough, tough and bloody fights warrants victory. Yet, they still want to push this stuff on the lot as we are free till you do something that goes again what our party stands for and now we will demonize it and attempt to make it illegal for you to do these things. Even if and especially if there is a logical reason for it, be that someone’s choice for them or not. The LEFT wants to erase history by cancel culture. The WOKE mob trying to make us less angry or hostile. Cry me a river and pull at my guilty conscious, which is an emotional feeling, why don’t you. Some of the ideas that come out of the LEFT just make it easy for the RIGHT to counter them because of how moronic their thinking is, as a party. They are the same as the RIGHT with respect to real science and facts being facts as long as they come from them. However, the LEFT is a few orders of magnitude dumber in that regard, lack common sense and perceptional awareness. Like to the ninth degree…

 

I do not plan to vote for either party in the upcoming elections. I cannot, based on how I feel about both. So far I have not seen any independents that really have their act together either. Each BLOG I write furthers me from the topic of abortion and politics as the main subject. Blog 2 was more about why/how the LEFT/RIGHT destroy our ability to evolve as a society, along with the static nature of both the Bible and the Constitution. After this last one. I hope to move onto fiction. You know, horror and science fiction. If I so choose I can address some topics in those. I used to love how the original Star Trek had political commentary in it, but didn’t beat you over the head with it like they do now in Woke Trek. That is just too much. Butterfly tears my butt… Picard Season Two was awful…

 

I have seen how people can be on social media when attempting to tackle big subjects in these small forum setups on a major platform actually encouraging people to lose their goddamn minds over having dialogs, respectfully, on these big platforms on big subjects. It is almost like they want us to have this hard a time trying to convey an opinion without it turning into Mortal Kombat, but with a keyboard. What really pulled this train of thought together about having big conversations were the trolls. Over the years I started to notice that trolls usually do not read, respond to long winded, well thought out and well written posts. I mean, they will try, but because they do not meet the requirement of “match my effort.” One thing about writing about triggering subject matter is one can learn a lot from how people respond. All I do is try to share my very different perspective and gain new perspectives. Even if I do not agree with their perspective. That is how learning is done; that is how growth really happens. The thing about static is it never moves or changes… That is what the 2nd blog is all about the flip-flopping, politically, on the conceptual points of view about topics, and questions like this. This could be a whole conceptual BLOG itself about the use of words and definitions of those words, used in and out of context to deliver a specific meaning. The LEFT/RIGHT and how inconsistent they are with what warrants law, common sense, the Bible as law, the Constitution as law, (laws that protects Americans from a tyrannical Government.) In that respect it is law. I think both the Bible and the Constitution are good for a beginner’s guide, but we have to evolve socially/societally and both these do not evolve very well with the ultimate enemy, time. That is part of my issue with how that functions within our political environment.

 

A Brief Take On Human Evolution…

I am more with how 2001: A Space Odyssey delivers its explanation. That a higher lifeform of some sort, helped us along the way. Now, could that be the Christian God? Sure. I do not see why it couldn’t. It could also be something else or nothing at all. Or something so out of our realm of perception we cannot quantify it in terms of generalized understanding. If I am being hypothetical here in my creative description of this. Take the 2001 example and now these ape-men are smarter, but they may still not understand what higher lifeforms actually are. To them, they might not see mechanized entities using powers they do not understand. Their only technological advancement was using bones as tools/weapons that was provided, conceptually, to them from the Monolith. The real-world example would be the very first time the Indians of the America’s saw those first ships coming over the horizon. It was so radically new, alien and different their perception of it might not even make any sense to someone. As humans evolved, we got smarter, even smarter conceptually. However, something happened on Earth about 12,000 years ago that goes with the last Ice Age where humans began to build, all over the world, these megastructures. I will just mention the Great Pyramids of Giza.

 

After those Great Pyramids; building got smaller and less sophisticated. It was almost like humans got dumber. Then right after they stopped building these structures we begin to see Christianity start to pop up. I just find it fascinating that this isn’t really how they teach world history, but I get it. It would be confusing to a growing mind that is, say, 14-17 years old, getting all this information and it not making sense. People are always talking about what is at Area 51, or Area 52 now. I am asking let’s have a look inside the Vatican. They probably have some really deep dark human truths in there that most humans couldn’t even imagine. The Vatican is like in the perfect place in time to have many answers that we do not even have questions for yet. They were there after the first civilizations, but also have been around right up to a point when some of these prior civilizations were just fizzing out. They probably hide all those secrets so future societies, like ours, couldn’t. Of course, for our own protection… Right… Yeah, a lot of Modern Religious Figures shouldn’t have the power they do. I feel like if they were true to their faith, they would be treating it as it should be said within the principals in the Bible. I do question the Bible, but not for what it represents. More how it is to be the word of God, and God is labeled as infallible. The book was literally written by Man, who is fallible and corrupt. God cannot be these things as God is perfection and that, at least in concept, makes sense. So what I am saying is the Book itself, written by corrupt and fallible Man, perhaps not all the information in it, is accurate, perhaps… It is a good guide, but eventually it must evolve if we are to evolve. We are going in a direction with or without religion and religious faith. These generations will have the most difficult time. Just imagine when the south started freeing slaves. There is always an adjustment when radical change occurs. If we are not careful the Bible will just be another piece of history like wheels made of stone. Just a thought.

 

In order for humans to literally evolve from primordial ooze the amount of probability is almost zero. Just think about all the things that would have to go right for that to happen. The Earth must be able to sustain life first, the perfect balance of where Earth is in respect to the Sun and the Sun being a yellow dwarf and say not a Red Supergiant or some other variant star that would not allow Earth to support life that can evolve from the ooze. So yeah, I mean, I am not going to say whether or not it’s Aliens or a God, or Gods, or anything, but yeah, I seriously doubt that humans just popped up from primordial soup over billions of years and now we are here. Even if that were true. What about all the mass extinctions. All those rocks that hit the Earth that wiped out life, ten times over. All that has to be considered and still it is like. How did all that happen to make little ole us?

 

It is the 2nd greatest question. The first would be, what is the point of existence at all? Is it the Universe doing what the Universe does? Or something else? Also what about the giant-impact hypothesis of Theia? This was a hypothesized planet the size of Mars crashing directly into Earth 4.5 billion years ago. What was left became the moon. Now without the moon, humans may very well not exist either. All that had to happen. So another reason why I have faith in my information systems without having religious faith, per-say, is that I do take a true Agnostic approach to it. Without getting crazy about the difference between Agnostic and Atheist. Agnostic doesn’t necessarily say or believe the Christian God doesn’t exist, but more like, we lack the fundamental understanding of how a God can exist. We do not have the sciences to have enough data to make a real determination whether or not God is real or not. That is at its core, what Agnostic is, but there are a lot of misinterpretations on the concept. That is why it gets lumped into with Atheism which of itself is its own religion. Agnostic says, we just do not have enough data to say either way so we just keep looking. It’s not a question of conceptual proof, or belief, but more physical proof. It should also be noted that some of these themes have been discussed in science fiction over the years. About humans not being able to see the whole spectrum of what physics is. We know a lot about physics, but many have stated that a huge chunk of it is missing from our point of view. That once we are able to detect/understand these aspects of the Universe and how it works that we will gain even more perspective. Ok, jumping onto the next thing here. Like I said, this could be its own topic.

 

For these reasons and more I just do not look at the Religious faith in the same context, but that doesn’t mean that I do not respect it and what it offers to mankind as a whole. I mean, is living by what the Bible presents so bad for humanity as a group? No, but it’s not for everyone or any one. However, though, mankind has totally blown that message out of context to a point that they somehow justified being able to dominate, segregate and murder mass amounts of other humans. Maimed, killed, raped, pillaged whole civilizations, because they believe in something else that wasn’t what the Bible represented. That I got a huge problem with. Any religion that preaches and practices that cannot be from the word of any God. Like I said about God, that would be a separate deal to chat about, because my concept of God is much bigger than just how the Bible portrays God. I also believe in GOD (creator of the Universe).  This version/definition of GOD would be outside of the Universe. We would not be able to detect this GOD in the literal sense; because it would be outside the bubble of the Universe. Anything inside the bubble can never be outside the bubble under our current understanding of how astrophysics works, and the Universe is expanding; but remember what I just said about what we know about physics, so yeah, that is really up to debate on what is possible, right now and what may be possible in the future. The other concept of god I speak of is “god” equaling nature/spirit itself and to have that conversation we’d be diving into sacred geometry. Sacred geometry covers things like the real world information systems that are embedded in the shapes of: the Vesica Piscis, the Seed of Life, the Egg of Life, the Fruit of Life, the Flower of Life, the Holy Trinity, the Star of David which is called the Genesis Pattern/Seed of Life, Metatron's Cube, and the 5 Platonic Solids. See the section on Sacred Geometry in my BLOG, Kummituksia (Finnish word for Ghost) for a better breakdown of what that means. It should also be noted that a lot of sacred geometry is embedded in Christian imagery. It’s all over the place.

 

For Believers and anti-believers of God, the religious God, spelled capital G and little o,d. If I have to pick between God is literal and real or not I then would lean toward anti-believer with an asterisk that says, “not enough data available to make a decision.” However, human evolution is real. Current man, did start as more ape than man. Why that is debated still is part of this static information system that doesn’t change. Evolution is just a fancy word for change. Instead of Christians getting mad over it, they should be asking why the Bible is inaccurate. That, hey, if that is wrong, then what else could be wrong? If a thing is proved to be factual, it stays factual till there is data to suggest the factual is no longer factual. Not to sound like an ass but its, cough (sarcasm), kind of factual about human evolution. Perhaps not from a bowl of soup, but from something simpler than what we are now and that was ape like. If the Bible doesn’t explain why this is, then it is either wrong or incomplete, either/or is not justification for it to be in our core essence as part of Government. Especially if it is wrong/incomplete I might add…

 

Perhaps the question about evil is whether or not living creatures require some sort of mental evolution in order to comprehend it. It very well may not be a behavior pattern of all species, but just those that have a certain level of evolved complexity to them. I mean, take love. We know sort of what love is, conceptually. This even may be contradicting; because as I have said, I do not strictly believe in ying/yang as the only methods in which the Universe operates. Like Good/Evil, Up/Down, Left/Right, Yes/No, Zero/One, On/Off. I believe that the 2-sided coin of choices is a forced perspective, because on the massive scale the 2-sided equation makes sense. However, when we go deeper we see a 3rd state inside nature, that is quantum mechanics and superposition where the state of on/off has a third state of on/off simultaneously. This occurs in nature, but only at the extreme small levels of reality. We have yet to really see this in the macro world. So my point is, if a species of animal, be it us or something else can love, then we can hate. So maybe there is something to that on a deeper more profound level. Another reason why I still have faith in my information systems. It has also been discussed what if LOVE is a tangible law of the Universe? That love is just as powerful and important a force than say, gravity or the electromagnetic force in the Universe. Maybe that is where humans need to evolve more that we can tap into love as a real power source, if it is indeed a real force like that of gravity and light.

 

Why LEFT/RIGHT even exist as a major part of our society? That is what blog 2 is all about or at least tries to flush out. I am writing this BLOG, so obviously I had some unfinished thoughts on this. To think ALL THIS is stemming from thinking about abortion… Just something to think about. Keeps us nice and distracted from the things that are happening that affect us all, not a small portion or even a whole gender or race. All this subdivision is part of the problem. The lesser of two evils reasoning... That is why I feel the two party system hasn’t imploded yet. I think eventually people are not going to do this anymore. Probably not in the foreseeable future, but I feel like we need to really shake it up if we are going to try to grow within this current system. I have already went over and pointed out what/how I do not agree with this system in 2022 – moving forward. Both sides use the Bible, Religion, the Constitution as an excuse to legislate. When we are not looking, they wipe their ass with them and throw them over their shoulder like a piece of trash whenever they see fit. This is what irks me the most about both sides. Using those power-plays to tug at those human sensibilities most of us have.

 

I had so much left over from these two BLOGS I had no choice, but to try and write a third. I was like, “you cannot have these conversations in these little blurps, because one always misses something that is really important to the topic” and that is how people start going after each other. Just sets it up all that much easier. I cannot really do that. As you all can tell, I am long winded. You have topic ABC and then start breaking it down, A, then B, then C, then realize you have D, E, F that can go along with it. All too often people use the social media method to try and win a discussion based on nothing but opinion because they cannot, type, speak, write, enough into the little box. It’s almost like social media doesn’t want people to have real opinions, so they limit how they can deliver said opinion into these little blurps. It is the main reason I do not really post anything on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, in relation to real topics. What is the point there? LEFT/RIGHT both tug at people's heartstrings, to further polarize and outrage us, the masses.

 

The Government has given us more reasons not to trust them then to trust either side blindly anymore. The 1950s America peeked and since then we have made strides forward in a lot of areas and gone backwards in a lot more, especially values… Will we ever be what we were? I don’t know, not looking good. They cover up way too much stuff. We have Left, Right, FBI, CIA, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, people like them, the President and his people. It’s like they are all working against each other or independently and are just waiting around to take power from each other at some unknown day when the latter fails. Biden is a miserable failure at President and all these other agencies do nothing, but wait to see if they can seize that power for themselves. Oh, a storm is comin’, Viene una tormenta… I do not know how much longer before it isn’t “cool” anymore to be LEFT and/or RIGHT, at that point, when people are that fed up, then maybe we’ll see some real change in the right direction.

 

I cannot say if this will be my last stab at politics in 2022. Before the abortion situation was ruled on I had said I was done with it for the year unless something major happened. I hope nothing else, “major” happens. I know the country hasn’t felt normal in a minute but it’s been hours since I have when compared. I hope to get back to working on fiction and telling unique and creative stories with depth and enough for the mind to wonder about, over worrying if they are going to vote, LEFT/RIGHT…

 

“Hell is other people… By the mere appearance of the other I am put into a position of passing judgement on myself as on an object, for it is as an object that I appear to the other.” ~Jean-Paul Sartre

 

 

Viene una tormenta
Spanish for A storm is coming
Link to 1st Blog: Mortui Infantes
Link to 2nd Blog: Emendatione ad Infantes Mortuos
by David-Angelo Mineo
7/1/2022
8,844 Words