AIDS and trust.

There've been many documentaries of late surrounding AIDS. I've been taken aback by the tendancy for people to have such a dogmatic hold to the thought of humanity somehow stumbling upon a currently unconceived of cure. So many of these programs have been full of commited, admirable, and dutifully resolved scientists and advocates. All seem so convinced that a cure can at some point be manufactured. Many came to the conclusion that a percistant enough continual on slaught of trys would eventualy bring something to provide an irradication akin to that which nullified smallpox. I find the trust in such a dogma amazing. Not for the existance of such, rather for the source and place of residence for such a trust. That it would be so rooted in such a naturaly anti-dogmatic group. Faith constantly exercised in the idea that if the government and people fund their efforts with a commitment of indefinite depth that they will eventualy prevail. They can't say when, or how, or even if they'll understand the nature of such a cure in the hypothetical event that they arrive at such. All the same they are all convinced that it's an effort worth pulling out all the stops indefinently by society and it's associated institutions.

Contrasted to this steep faith in such a goal of institutionaly based AIDS cure is the odd lack of trust given to another group with a theoretical solution which is understood by all to have a 100% efficacy rate if fully implimented. Yet such an implimentation demands great faith in the capacity of individuals, namely in individuals capacity to control their passions.

This strikes me as odd because, as institutions are driven, and hindered, by human passions, trust is fully given in their capacity to eventualy solve the problem of AIDS. Never mind the fact that those who have such faith in the eventual discovery of a biologicaly engineered cure for AIDS are depending on institutions that would cease to opperate, yet are forever hinedered, by the intricacies of fallible, illogical, dogmatic, and unpredictable nature of passions, regardless all this the one side holds the other as having an utterly indefensable and illogical condition as it expects humanity to exercise restraint with regard to their natural passions. On one side they see a system driven by controling and focusing passion as absured due to it's 'implausibility.' They can never see humans exercising self restraint to fix the problem. Yet they expect, contrary to the lessons of history, that a human, passion, driven institution, comprised of these same humans is a plausible and probable solution. One needs but look at man's attempts, through governments and institutions, to stop war and strife. These endeavors have had terrible results in their attempts, laughible oft times, other times just inane. Yet still these individuals cling to the idea that the 'other side,' those advocating a dogmatic allegiance to fidelity and traditional sexual morality, are a bunch of dogmatic crack pots while they are the rational ones.

If either side is irrational than both are. For they both persue their goal absent any evidence ensuring the viability of their position. Both ensuring that if their plan is held to indefinently that it will effect a cure, yet neither side can give proof of such or a specific time line of feasability report untill after the cure has been effected, assuming it will come. Something they both do. Dogmas unavoidably stick to us, some of us just forget about such because they are stuck to parts and sides of us that we don't frequently allow our senses to bring to our minds. Like the lost eyeglasses that are only inches from a position in which they could be used.

Entertainment and Reversals

Entertain is essentialy derived from two different words that, together, translate essentialy to "to hold between". In other words, to be entertained is to be momentarily stuck between one state or position and another. The phrase fence sitter comes to mind. Most all people, at one point or another, point a finger of scorne or wag a finger to shame those who "sit on the fences". Yet we all do it. Most of the time we are not even privy to when and where we are doing it. The truth is that it's very very easy for us to get stuck in some position that is neither where we have been, nor where we need to go to. Whether an activity, a lifestyle, a mentality, a relationship. We talk of escapism. So often we are trying to escape from something. I fear that, too often, we find ourselves (I'm not innocent here myself) doing something that we don't see as bad OR good (or at least not good to a degree to really merit the investment) that we end up allowing our whole lives to become one giant attempt to escape life. Then we get to the end and wonder where the time went. We wonder why we didn't, or didn't seem able, to accomplish what we wanted to. Or even worse, we get to the end of life and have no clue why we lived at all. We get to the end realizing that we allowed ourself to get so occupied with the "entertainement" (even unwanted distractions can be classified as entertainement--like those stupid sitcoms that we watch simply because they are on).

Now on to reversals.

Let.

Look it up in the dictionary. If you are not savvy as to the full history of the word it will suprise you. I always find words whose meaning or application has done a 180 over time to be some of the most interesting case studies. Reminds me of the warnings to those who set light for dark or dark for light.

Anywho. My pontifications for the day.

Experience has shown me that those who are careless in their manners of critiquing things held as sacred to others, even when these things seem, in their view, ridiculous, tend to be the very people who, when it comes down to the core of their beliefs, really hold nothing sacred, consider nothing to be truly holy.

They may claim to hold things sacred. They may exercise extremes in mannerisms and exercises to try and give some appearance of great labor to compensate for their failures in holding those things in the level of sanctity they proclaim. But if the truth be told those who have no consideration for the things held sacred by others (I’m not saying they must hold these things sacred themselves—just that when they interact with respect to these items, and those who hold them sacred, they will not exercise a light-minded, or hateful intent centered, response) will eventually find their lives utterly void of sacredness and of holiness. Those who strive to profane will attain their desires in manner reminiscent of the mythological Midas’s “golden touch.” They will allow their desire to profane and ridicule those items held by others extend their capacity to profane to the point of no return. They will find those things closest to their heart profaned in the most egregious manner by themselves. They will become their own worst enemy.

Meek Children and Saturday

Who are these children coming down, coming down.

Like gentle rain though darken skies.

With glory trailing from their feet as they go.

And endless promise in their eyes!

Who are these youn ones growing tall, growing tall.

Like silver trees against the storm.

Who will not bend with the wind or the change,

But stand to fight the world alone!

These are the few, the warriors

Saved for Saturday, to come

The last day of the world

These are they, on Saturday.

These are the strong, the warriors

Rising in the might to win

The battle raging in

The hearts of men, on Saturday.

Strangers from a realn of light

Who have forgotten all.

The memory of their former life.

The purpose of their call.

And so they must learn why they're here

And who they really are.

They must learn why they're here

And who they are!

These are the few, the warriors

Saved for Saturday, to come

The last day of the world

These are they, on Saturday.

--Saturday's Warrior

Had a good friend point out something to me today. Jesus statest that it is the meek who will inherit the earth. The question then, who's meek?

Children.

Children are the meek.

Those who have many children have lives that can have more potential to be filled with meekness.

But there's also the fact that the only people, through the ages, that have really inherited the earth, have been those who have been willing to have kids, and alot of them.

Look at the current ethnic makeup of the Italians. It's almost completely foreign to the ethnic makeup of the original Romans. Those who currently occupy Italy are mostly descended from those who were held as slaves and lower classes by the Romans. When the Romans stopped having kids sufficient to replace themselves their meek servants' children inherited their master's land.

We look at one of the aims of Christ. Namely world domination carried out by the meek. If you gain dominion over the earth without sword or force of arms or cunning what other way is there? Meekness. Meek children.

What think ye?

--Find the Hive

To Cope with the Mundane.

There seems to be a superstition among many thousands of our young who hold hands and smooch in the drive-ins that marriage is a cottage surrounded by perpetual hollyhocks, to which a perpetually young and handsome husband comes home to a perpetually young and ravishing wife. When the hollyhocks wither and boredom and bills appear, the divorce courts are jammed.

Anyone who imagines that bliss is normal is going to waste a lot of time running around shouting that he's been robbed. The fact is that most putts don't drop. Most beef is tough. Most children grow up to be just ordinary people. Most successful marriages require a high degree of mutual toleration. Most jobs are more often dull than otherwise. . . .

Life is like an old-time rail journey--delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders, and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed. The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride.

--Jenkin Lloyd Jones

This quotes helped me alot. Life is not so much lowering expectations as it is insuring we have the most correct and noble ones we can have.

--Find the Hive

To be a fool.

"Only fools trifle with the souls of men"

--Joseph Smith Jr.


I think this is one of the truest statements there are. I wish I could say I've never been a fool with regard to the above. While I've never done anything terrible to anyone else I have been foolish in some of my interactions with other souls. I pray those offenses will be the only ones I ever commit with regard to the evil of "trifling" with souls. Who we are is essentially how we treat other souls. I hope I never forget that. I hope I always remain aware of the endurance of everyone’s soul and the responsibility I have to only edify the souls of others.

--Find the Hive

Mind Self and Completeness in Love.

"Katrina said...

Being called beautiful or handsome may be seem so great a compliment, but I find it more meaningful in being respected not due to one's physical attributes but by the personhood and the ideals that a person upholds. One's body is not of one's choosing. One's race, one's nationality are not part of the agreed contract to be born, they are not chosen by the person and therefore are not worthy to be taken as basis of one's compatibility with others. The physical body is nothing more than just a representation, an instrument of a higher, much more complex being, the self.

If someone could delve into another's mind, and appreciate him/her for his thoughts and ideals, then that perhaps is of a higher form of association than physical intimacy. To know a person is to deny oneself the luxury of being fixated on another's physical limitations, see past all the blemishes and pimples and cracks that line their faces, but instead see them as a person. Another individual with their own unique storyline, their own personalized character, their own identity. To see the person as he/she sees himself, to accept him/her wholly and not conditionally, to come to understand that what is he is, is so, because he is given the right to choose the way he wants to be. To be really serious with a person, one perhaps should see beyond the limitations of the eyes, but instead to meet each other and see each other within one's minds.

Just a thought. :D"


I'll start by saying I generaly agree with the above. While I'm not going to presume to know either way what our current positions in life are due to, or if they are due to anything. I tend to think there's some reason behind the permiting of all things but that would get deeper into a side issue.

A few questions came to mind as I thought on this.

First off how much can we really know a person on an intellectual and/or emotional level? I've gotten to be use to a good many people I fell are close to me. My Father, Mother, siblings, a few close friends. But a quote I've read comes to mind when I think of knowing people.

"What a laugh, though. To think that one human being could ever really know another. You could get used to each other, get so habituated that you could speak their words right along with them, but you never knew why other people said what they did, because they never even knew themselves. Nobody understands anybody.
And yet somehow we live together, mostly in peace, and get things done with a high enough success rate that people keep trying. Human beings get married and a lot of marriages work, and they have children and most of them grow up to be decent people, and they have schools and businesses and factories and farms that have results at some level of acceptability—all without having a clue what’s going on inside anybody’s head.
Muddling through, that’s what human beings do."

-Beans thoughts from the book "Shadow of the Hegemon" by Orson Scott Card

In advance I ask you to excuse the disorderly shape this whole post will likely take. I'm winging it.

So looking at the above and thinking, with regard to the connection I believe there is between love and knowledge between two entities in which love exists. One thing I get to wonder about, with respect to this correlation and the realization that we don't really know each other, can't, on our own, know each other would this demand that for love to exist that there would have to be some outside capacitor of such? I mean since we are unable to really, fully, know someone, then the only way (assuming my assumptions are correct) we could truly love someone would be to have the capacity granted to us vicariously through some other being who DOES know the being we desire to love.

Then, another pontification, can we utterly isolate various aspects of ourselves with regard to love in the context of certain relationships? I mean clearly most relationships can only be love when it is utterly platonic. Only love between life mates, those who are meant to share their souls completely, on both a physical, mental and spiritual level, are those in whom physical relations are manifestations of parts of the wholeness of love. I think it's important to emphasize that external interactions, be they sexual or those carried out through other forms of languages and interchange, can never be, by themselves, love. It seems to me that when one truly 'loves' a person, again in context of the paradigm of the particular relationship, when they have attraction, interaction and communion with that person in every dimension appropriate to that particular relationship.

I believe this can account for the need of trust on all levels. Since trust defied, or maintained, is reflected in all aspects of ones interaction with someone else, the only thing that trust, or it's absence can do, in any part of a relationship, is to build or destroy the whole of the love in the relationship.

Loyalty and honor are demanded. But true loyalty and honor, while they demand one not have unjust prejudices, they also, in our finite state, demand that we hold to what we perceive to be truth, and that we act in our relationships in accordance to our understanding of truth. My point then is, if one is to love someone, to love them regardless who they are, what they chose, what they can and can't accomplish or be, if they are to truly love and to try to know this person they must, at some point, agree to some conditions. To me the idea of 'unconditional love' in it's sense of FOREVER discarding conditions, past, present and future, seems impossible, for love, at it's core, is a judgment. It is a pronouncement of what is and isn't acceptable and when and where it is and isn't acceptable. For love to have any meaning it must have some law, something within it that validates it and vindicates it in light of all other conditions. It must, itself, BE a condition. And you can't have a conditionless condition. For if such could momentarily exist it could just as quickly loose it's existence. So if love is a condition, and if that condition has parts and segments, physical, mental, emotional, spiritual (and whatever other unknown "-al"(s} that may or may not exist).

So I might say that love is in the eye of the beholder, or conversely, that it's NOT in the eye of the one who refuses to see. Those who set up their paradigms so that they can never come to know truth, those who tell and/or accept lies or refuse to publish or learn truth, damn themselves to never being able to access love. While I don't agree with all the lyrics, nor the overall political view, of the song "Where's the love y'all?" it's true in it's connection. But what would then be more important than trying to achieve the best knowledge one could have of love?

I'm not pretending that I'm even close to having a comprehensive definition. I agree that we need to come closer to a divine view of others--

7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

So it may come down to the 'heart'. I think that the heart, when good, can accent even physical aspects in a person.

For example there are some women that, at initial view, my hormonal, biological, indicators will make the general rash judgment based on the 'outward appearance'. Yet as time goes on it seems that the substance, or lack thereof, in a person’s heart (as long as the perceiver doesn't allow their biology to totally overcome all reason and logic and sense of truth) seems to even be manifested in their physical appearance. Some of the most normal, ordinary in physical features-even deficient in such, people I've met have been able to seemingly actually enhance, at least my, perception of them physically. I know that this is probably partly due to simple subjective perception, and it's limitations. But I can't help but think that there are, in people that are good at heart SOMETHING that becomes at least partially apparent in the physical persona to those that are perceptive. Likewise with those who are vile at heart. They may be striking people, may have incredible personalities, but I think they cannot avoid some degree of actual physical, outward, appearance of beauty when their hearts are not right. So often the only way in which they can overcome this seems to be by intentionally blinding those who view them. They take purposeful actions to try and compensate, through means of some type of deception, to fool the perceptive abilities of those that they wish to overcome so that their deficiencies, both internal and external, can be hid.

Anyway. I don't know how much of that's an actual answer, but It's a response. I hope it enlightens someone so they can then enlighten me. Remember

“If you tell what you know, everybody is wiser. If you keep a secret, than everyone is a fool.”

--Xenocide

Of course the above is only true if telling what you know will actualy be accepted by others as appliable knowledge, otherwise it's simply casting pearls before swine. And that does little good for the swine or the one casting.

Conditions in Love? /Love - segment Beta

-------
Inspired by a comment on my initial "Love" post given by katrina
-------

Love is more than just trying to love someone unconditionally. Unconditional love, in its fullness, is only obtainable if there's the assurance that, at some point, the love will produce, and not just once but continually, the fruits of love. If there is no hope for what love is suppose to bring then love cannot endure. The view of love as being stuck to someone or something, despite that thing or entities determination to not reciprocate love, ever, then I would not call it love, rather an addiction. Like someone in a relationship that is, and is set to forever remain, terribly abusive. To remain in that situation is not something that is motivated by love, rather sickness. And I don’t mean love sickness.

This "unconditional" love has its limits tied to the free will of the entities involved. One side may have the perfect attributes and express love fully and without concern for reciprocation, or for adequacy in such, but that cannot continue forever if one side is forever rejecting the stipulations of true love.

I see love as being able to endure wherever there is a desire on the part of both sides. This love can continue on as long as both sides have determination in common, and to whatever magnitude and degree to which love can be expressed by both sides, respective to their capacities.

Love - segment Alpha

Previously I touched upon the requisite for there being the need for the existence of a degree of knowledge, or awareness, for love to exist. I don't think I can prove such but neither do I necessarily feel proofs necessary in this wandering pontification of the possible aspects and attributes of love.

My thought currently is that the awareness must either be, to some degree, something that both entities have. In other words for true love, of any degree, to exist both objects must have some form of intelligence. Not necessarily sentience, but intelligence OR the entity must be a form of an intelligence. I'll leave the definition of such 'till later.

So it would seem to me that the capacity for an object or entity to reciprocate to what ever it loves or whatever loves it determines, to at least some degree and at the very least, the profundity of which love can exist between the two objects.

This, to me, would help in explaining the relationship between God and His creation(s). He loves us all as His children, and we all, currently, are on an equal plane with respect to His love. We are all imperfect, and in sin, and His desire and power to free us from all evil is equal. But there will come a point where, if we do not chose to accept such, that we, of our own choice, will limit how much we permit God to express His love, and it would at some point seem to affect His actual love for us if we became terminally beings that he could not love without defying His own Holiness. (Again this is not set in stone truth, these are simply my scattered thoughts on such displayed with the hopes to refine such into a well ordered, and as pure as possible) This is both a testament to God's current love for us, as well as his 'love' for truth. The very fact that he will permit us to a path of self-determination, the fact that he will also grant all the materials necessary for such AND provide away to obtain his aid to leave the difficulties we place on ourselves, is a demonstration of His love.

I hold to the belief that God has told us concerning His view that "...the worth of souls is great in the sight of God;" This would make a great deal of sense if we consider the possibility that we can sever, through our own choice, a connection which God takes a great deal of joy in. His love for us, under this theory, would have the joy He has for us, due to the Love he extends toward us, as being eternal. For if his love for each one of us is eternal, for us to cut that off would sever an entire eternity of love, at least in some degree. This would explain the great expediency God expresses despite the fact that he's eternal and self-sufficient in all ways. It would seem that this would be the only way a being such as himself could suffer outside of the Atonement. That brings to mind the concept of suffering and it's seemingly eternal nature. If God could not feel sorrow then could he feel joy? I mean if there was nothing ventured, if it was a sure thing that his creation would chose Him then could it really be joy to be connected to such robotic beings?

More later.

--Find the Hive

Love

What is love?

I like the view of it as being some physically indiscernible, yet all too real, connection between two people. Such as it's described in the book “Xenocide”, by Orson Scott Card, where it talks about 'philotic connections.' Not that I view it quite that way. And there is the issue with needing to have some degree of knowledge in order to truly effect love between two beings. Intelligence, or knowledge about the being, seems to be a requisite to the degree and capacity to effect love. Whatever that means.

Any other thoughts on this? This is much to big for a single post. Heck, it's too much for a single internet's worth of discussion.

--Find the Hive

Purpose

I generaly, on internet forums, have much luck on illiciting many attempts at answers to the deeper questions in life. I suppose I'm glutton for punishment. So I ask all who read this who feel they can give an answer, or an incling of an answer, or a more meaningfull question--

What is the prupose of life?

Answer it however openly or narrowly, as esoteric or exoteric as you desire. In part or in whole. Why do you think, or believe, or know, or suspect, or had a crazy incling as to what is the meaning of life?

I'd like as many replies as people are willing to give me.

Thank You.

--Find the Hive

Breaking Democratic Precedent

One often hears the axiom that no two democratic states have ever gone to war. While that generaly seems to be true I've often wondered where the US Civil War lies with regard to that particular axiom.

Now we find a mass of people seemingly clearly chosing a war path against a fellow democracy. There's something to be said about traditions and histories. Napoleon once said that "History is a set of lies agreed upon." Even if that is the case there's something to be said for believing in a view and take on history that is pliable enough to try and get as close to the truth as is humanly possible rather than dogmaticaly clinging to the narrowly self-gratifying take some cultures take through their traditions.

Here's my view of what our take on the present situation would be if our outlook were as distorted as that of many in opposite ideological realms and if we had the same dogmatic emnity of those who wish to see our downfall.

"The 'Ummahist Entity' must be destroyed!"

"The socialist infidels are simply puppets of the 'Ummahist Entity'"

"The Iraq War is simply a fabrication effected by the 'Ummahist Entity' to justify their threats and continued attacks on the Western Tradition"

Money and Honey. Milk and Wine.

These are some of the more interesting symbolic indicators of the state of a land, a person, a time.

Think about it. What would the absence of, deformation of, or great abundance of any of these items indicate?

Think about this with respect to the phrase "a land flowing with milk and honey."

What does that mean? What do you have to have in order to have a land flowing with milk and honey? If there's a land without such what would be/is the nature of that land?

What of money? When is it's use virtuous? Evil? When is it relevant? When is it not? You can't eat it. There are clearly times in history where no matter how much of it you had it would do you no good. Yet there are other times when it would make some of the most substantive differances anything outside us can make on us and our world.

What's harder to endure? Too much of the above? Too little? Just the right amount? Must we endure variations in their volumes to appreciate them and the role they play in our lives?

Presentation and Duplicity Touching on Freedom

As touched on earlier, in the first post of this blog, we are a society that largely revolves around the superficial.

No doubt this is, to a great degree, a requisite when one considers what tools are at the disposal of the finite and fallible men and women with regard to their capacity to discern and decipher all the information their senses ingest by the moment every sentient moment of their lives. Generalizations, prejudices and other such filters are a key mainstay to what we consider human sanity. Even when working on software design work must be completed with a regard for the physical capacity of the various physical components of the machine the program is operating on. Discernment, with it's filtering and selectivity, enables us to at least gain a slight idea of the small path, no matter how distorted or blurry it may be, that lies in front of our line of perception.

Enter the nuance of presentation and the capacity for duplicity, pretending. Hypocrisy is literally 'pretending' -- Yet there are times when pretending is promoted by society. There are even times I'd advocate such. The whole of polemics, rhetoric and oration and/or acting are dependent on one being able to conjure, at will, the appearance of something not naturally induced. They are things that at times are, at their core, fakery. Where does this leave us?

Consider the sale. Have you ever purchased a product that had an honest and blunt and unflattering, not legally motivated, disclaimer as to the deficiencies of the product you were going to purchase? Or on the opposite side. Have you found a product to be more satisfying simply because the image it held was one that either seemingly more effectively communicated to you or just made you feel better? Few have ever been very successful at any enterprise when they lacked completely any knowledge of the science of appearance or presentation. Yet on the other hand many people have created entire movements based on nothing more than an assertion that they consistently trumpeted before people in a manner that turned their previously utterly unsupportable assertions into truth, into the core of entire entities that greatly changed the course of human history.

Australia. The father of their great historical gold rush was a master of this. The man literally talked his way into success. With no real evidence for gold anywhere he talked a man into committing himself to panning for some time in a river. After a great deal of work being done by this man they produced a menial residue of gold. But that was all this man needed. He proclaimed it a victory and with that and his mouth and people skills he started a gold rush on little more than a hunch and a self forced PR program. People rushed to the scene. Enough came and the fever lasted long enough that strikes eventually were made. All this from a man who asserted the unverifiable, but did it for long enough that probability caught up with him, and did so in his favor. The man didn't really prospect himself but was able to convince the British Crown that his efforts deserved a portion of the fees paid for gold retrieved.

France. Mr. Suez was also a master of the sale. This time, however, Mr. Suez happened to be putting on a show that, as probability would have it in this instance, could never be a self-fulfilling 'hy-prophesy' in the manner in which it was sold with regard to the Panama Canal. Bankrupting or impoverishing a large portion of the French middle class is not generally an intended consequence of those who have a bona fide belief in the virtue of that which they promote.

The question then comes, seemingly, to two things. Balance and properly placed faith. It may well be that balance could never exist if there was no truth at all on which faith could be placed.

So I suppose what I may be advocating is the fact that salesmanship becomes hypocrisy when we are either lacking proper motivation OR when we are not sufficiently focused on constantly refining our positions based upon the truth. We must be willing to change when such is required by the prongs of truth, or to stand our ground when such is divinely dictated. The frightening thing to realize, however, is that those who are truly good at presentation, those who have it down to a science, can rather adeptly imitate the appearance of just such judgments. While at times it seems we cannot trust our own eyes we must remember that we cannot, in reality, absolutely trust anything finite or human. Whether they are physical/empirical observations or they are the paradigms through which we are instructed to ingest this world and it's stimuli we must ever be vigilant.

It seems eternal vigilance is the price of freedom precisely because a knowledge of things as they really are is eternaly tied to our capacity to act in any fashion approaching true and independent agency.

--Find the Hive

Free sex and environmenal catastrophy.

Sex and environmental destruction.



I once had a man justify his actions by the statement that he was "only creating" that he was "not destroying."

-----------

I once read about a person who released a life. They didn't even realize it. They just released a piece of seaweed into the sea. That's where seaweed belongs, isn't it? That seaweed just made a home. Then the seaweed just created, it didn't destroy. In fact it was very good at creating. So very good, in fact, that it out created everything around it.

------------

There was a person who thought they were just creating good feelings between them and a friend. They thought this creation was okay. They weren't bringing anyone else into it. They specifically fabricated this "love" creation to be incapable of even conceiving another life or being observable by any other life. They were "safe" in their interactions. They did all they knew had to be done to keep harm from coming to anyone or anything. Sadly they didn't see that piece of seaweed slip into the wrong sea.

They didn't fathom that there were consequences beyond immediate hurt or destruction. They were like the classic anorexic or bulimic. They had convinced themselves that what they did to themselves had no real affect on others. Besides it was their right, their body. They felt certain they could control it enough. And if they couldn't they'd only really be hurting themselves. And where's the crime in that? They were creating "love." Weren't they?

Often times our society will take the cascading creations that emanate from unsanctioned acts of creation, or even the mere actions of such cut short--to bring pleasure without the actual consummation of any 'creation.' Like the bulimic ensnared so many of us think to consume the food and then expel it before nature has run it's course.

Yet if you were to take "Caulerpa taxifolia" the 'alien' sea weed now ravaging many of the worlds eco systems and were to toll it around with you, even if it were in several dense and strong layers of plastic baggies, and you pulled it behind you in your boat as you cruised around the coast most would label you an insane person set on ecological terrorism. Even if you did all you could in your power to ensure that the weed in the baggy was secured. Yet we live in a culture where sex is the catch phrase for everything.

No doubt we’re designed to be biologically drawn to sex, and not so much drawn to carrying around catastrophically dangerous alien species (though some do seem to enjoy it).

But we are also drawn to food, even more strongly than to sex. Yet I've very rarely seen open condoning of bulimia. Certainly it is practiced. But fathom how much more it would be practiced among the attention hungry youth (and the 'young at heart') if there were great programs trumpeting the use of 'safe bulimia' rather than just 'safe sex'. We are taught by the more 'progressive' in our culture that abstinence is a ridiculous single tier approach to the problems endemic to sexual promiscuity. We are mocked when we are so 'close minded' to be beyond preaching a self-contradictory doctrine. So why do they stop short of endorsing 'safe bulimia'? I'm beyond certain that we could make the practice as 'safe' as 'safe sex' is. And probably more people would be accepting of seemingly safe gluttony. So why do we draw the line? Why is it taken that one is unstoppable so a 'pragmatic' approach is the 'only' 'tenable' approach? Yet with the other we cannot at all give the signal that it is something desirable to practice with societies sanction. Both are as certain to occur in our society. We are both attention hungry and sex hungry. Are we not?

--Find the Hive

Taketh away

Sublime ideas.

It seems many of us get them. Some seem capable of translating them into reality with either greater ease or a higher proficiency than many of us.

My question. What of those lost ones. Those ideas that you were so certain were so sublime, so perfect, yet either before you write them down, or before you thought to put them down, or before you realized how easy it was to forget perfection, slipped from your mind.

Left like the king who questioned Daniel. We know we experienced greatness. Yet we cannot define it.

Try as we might once whatever it is that momentarily endowed us with a piece of brilliance saw fit to snatch it away, or simply evaporate.

Why. Was our worthiness that fleeting? Or was it simply a turn in the path of fate. A means of contriving within us such feelings as brought by the midterm abortion of such greatness, or at least goodness or 'coolness', potential.

How I long for those lost pieces of me. Assuming they were parts of me.

--Find the Hive

Error Paradigm

We are a society built around avoiding the truth.

How can that be though? We live in a world with more progress than anyone can manage to find in the collective history of humanity's archives. Don't we, especially those of us most closely aligned with the "Western Tradition", have more power, capacity and freedom than the most powerful despots of only a few centuries ago?

Certainly we live in a world of great peril. But anyone who questions our superior status with respect to those of ages past must certainly come to the only viable conclusion available. Namely, that we've arrived. No incarnation of any vestige of civilization has closer to the threshold of transcendence than we have.

Yet I still proclaim--We are a society built around avoiding the truth.

Look anywhere and you will see a society that is always ensuring that it's aim is just short of truth. Our schools train up those who can either fit into irrelevant presets that we hope are some indicators of capacity. All they really are, however, are simple indicators of those who can figure out a system and work themselves into it sufficiently to get by. When our education attempts are not having our pupils focus on obtaining and maintaining a status quo they are setting them on courses of achievements that are designed primarily for the obtainment of either praise, entertainment, or misdirected force and resources.

It brings to mind a wise English teacher who knew to teach more than English. After a short story we could scarcely understand in it's many meanings he brought up the question about institutions. He asked us if we could name any of the institutions in the world that had lost it’s meaning or original intent. We were all so brain-dead to the idea. Our 'education' had never even thought to teach us the application of critical thinking to anything beyond what we were taught to be critical of. We'd all been raised by our culture so as to limit ourselves to paradigm shifts only along certain axes. We couldn't even conceptualize a dimensional shift, or any other shift or change that would bring us to question the very moorings that our paradigm shifting had been engrained in and revolved about.

So what does any of this matter? If my view of the current report detailing the helplessness of many college students is even near correct then the hope of us even being able to reach a sliver of the populace needed to effect change would be daunting to say the least. Especially since the odds of them reading and trying to understand what I'm really trying to say, and then having these words entice them to progressive action, are so close to nothing.

I suppose I best get started in at least making some suggestions to people so that perhaps, just maybe, they might have the capacity to, at the very least, encourage the coming generation to do what so few in society have ever had the cognitive capacities, developed from and through their environment, to do.

First off. Do all you can to make learning enticing for everyone around you. Tell some little kid the intricacies of something in a manner simple enough for them to understand but complex enough that they'll feel excited when they realize they've grasped something far more complex than they thought they ever could.

If that's not available to you then try and teach a kid how to use an unabridged dictionary and how fun it can be to learn about words and their origins. Find funny words. Absurdly long words. Words you probably can't correctly pronounce until several references to the phonetic guides. If you don't know how to do all that with a dictionary try and teach such to yourself.

Words are the basic units of our communications. They are like the most basic building blocks of our awareness. The more we have the more exacting and precise our self-awareness can be.

As long as we do not get lost in excessive wordiness or change complex rhetoric into a tool for vanity we should be much better off. And even with that as a risk I say we'd be far better off with the risk of more formidable demagogues who can be held to a higher bar for their crimes at the true judgment bar of God, or karma, or whatever cause and effect set-up you give heed to. For good to prevail the overall intelligence absorbed and used must continue to climb. Even in spite of our society’s endemically flawed aim.

--Find the Hive