Vetting Roots By The Heater. Philosophy, Religion, Mindsets -- Martin Luther's Stove

Reason first, then faith. Buddha. Women and People of the Book might consider some Enlightenment

2012-01-19T18:31:00.001-05:00

Women in People of the Book
An Attacked Population, Not Based on the Book.
.

Buddha has words for the world:
Use your head first; then turn to "faith"
.

Who is more enlightened?
.

Back to texts. What makes the old dogma car run?

Low bridge. Hear again the maintenance guys at the summer resort hollering out a warning, as they were about to enter the waitresses' dorm to fix something. Response? Hit the deck and cover up. And some friendly hello's and a few suggestive comments and a laugh.
.
Low bridge. We still have to hit the deck and cover up. Isn't that so? That cultural call that started with the earliest mistranslations of text is still with us -- putting blame on Eve. People of the Book -- extremism in interpretation is still with us, and growing. See the UN assessment at http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/1999/december/dec8m1999.htm
.

Lacko Castle. Low bridge. Lake Vanern, Sweden

.
Is there any turning back once emotion and tradition have taken over. Do a search here for kngdv and a number of creation topics. Our interest here is the persistence of it. Update: the New York Times lays out an op-ed on the topic: as it relates to Judaism, see discussion below. It poses that the Talmud, required in interpreting Judaism's Book, and the Book itself, do not support the violent blaming of women for men's thoughts, see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/ultra-orthodox-jews-and-the-modesty-fight.html?ref=opinion
.
Here: Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, all having tangled their extremists in the Big Religious Lie in various interpretations of texts, about women, is that so? now can't get out.
.
1. The Catholic Church, when it split from the Orthodox Christians in the 11th Century had to set about distinguishing itself, gaining converts to itself alone, and money: Orthodox priests could marry, so the Roman version could not, in time. Crusades redefined who was human. Watch holy wars not only in the middle east, but in northern Europe -- ensued (where many were already Christian, but converted by the now unacceptable Orthodox Saints Cyril and Methodius. They were considered among the non-Christians, see sites on Teutonic Knights and the Northern Crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, proselytizing and then look back at the extent of western ethnic violence overall.
.
Back to Women: The Catholic Church now is inviting Anglican priests to join, and it is acceptable if they are married.
.
Have we lost the taint of early damning of women, unfounded in actual text as it is? It is diluted and our modern context does not permit, or, rather, frowns on extremism as to gender wars, but read the kinds of descriptions of women that are the Christian heritage: New York Times op-ed
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/opinion/for-priests-wives-a-word-of-caution.html?scp=3&sq=priests%20wives%20catholi&st=cse. Reactions run the range of pooh-pooh, that is silly these days; to, yes, until the Church admits women into full participation into all aspects of institutional life, we bear the old burden of self-serving dogma. Believe! This is what faith requires!

2. Enter Deepak Chopra and a handy, readable novel about Buddha and his Enlightenment. See Buddha, by Deepak Chopra. Buddha has words for the World.

Buddha has words for the world. Use reason first, then turn to faith. If you must.

Buddha lived, say, 563 BC. At page 258 of Deepak Chopra's book, a sensible concept attributed to Buddha sounds like this: and clearly my little haikus have nothing to do as a form with Buddhism, but the discipline keeps verbosity down. Thought and reason are our first obligations; only if they fail, does faith enter in. More on Buddha: http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/footsteps.htm

Only turn to "faith"

When the mind gives up;

Faith should not block thought.

.
And at page 253, do women "deserve" as ordained by some deity as an acceptable means for "men" to control evil, and inflict assault rates against them, culturally approved rape and murder. In the United States alone, see http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html
.

Suffering persons.

Show them how to escape.

Divine will? Why ask.

.
Buddha notes that the issue of whether some god or gods wills something, is silly. Get those people out of danger.
.
3. Now, to the other People of the Book: Jewish and Muslim.
.
Muslim restrictions are laid out at numerous sites as to clothing for women, behaviors. But they also are not all text-based, is that so, any more than our religious directives are not actually in texts? They, for each subgroup, may well be a matter of that group's interpretation, see http://teachmideast.org/essays/26-stereotypes/123-women-in-muslim-history-traditional-perspectives-and-new-strategies. Reforms are in the wind, see http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/bahraini-royal-calls-for-reinterpretation-of-islamic-texts-concerning-women.html.
.
Jewish: The Orthodox in Israel take an extreme stand against use of reason in matters of faith, similar to Christian Evangelical or extreme Conservatives in interpreting the Bible "literally" -- Is that so? see http://www.orthodox-jews.com/judaism-beliefs.html#axzz1jwobwp5q; see also http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/orthostate.html
.

Conclusion. Buddha: Reason first, then faith. False interpretations are found in all traditions. Needed: a global religious summit, focusing on the earliest texts. If Deepak Chopra's representation is reasonably correct, Buddha is more enlightened than any of us Of The Book can ever hope to be, in light of current extremist conservatism re-rooting.

Mormon Converts. 19th C. Owned by the Company Corporation Store

2012-01-11T11:28:00.004-05:00

Mormon Conversions.

Process, Business Model: Finance Converts' Emigration to Utah, Repayment (indenture) to funding corporation.

Religious Belief and Social Betterment Attractions.

.
First, a Timeline for Mormonism (more properly called LDS, for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).
.
Then, commentary on the Mormon business model for obtaining and maintaining converts: the Perpetual Emigration Fund. Note their wisdom in financing people's needs, no convert left on his own, and so they can better themselves, and the Whole. The religious system, religious-political-philosophical-economic, was a Whole: no separations. Origins: persistent, see http://www.sassafrasthicket.blogspot.com/#!http://sassafrasthicket.blogspot.com/2012/01/steered-by-navels-and-surnames-what-if.html.

The business model got huge numbers of converts fast; and steered them to stay converted; and also, in time, benefit the financer (who holds the convert in thrall until payment). Combine that business model with a harsh social and economic climate in England, leading to migrations out (Rumney, Romney, Romanel, other families as noted, in Kent as example, http://www.houseofnames.com/rumney-family-crest).
.
Are there elements of socialism in that the philosophy behind the busineess model recognizes need, meets it, but also in the capitalist tradition demands payment back (capitalist) but does not press it (socialist). People were lured into into big debt to get to Utah: was that manipulative and cynical. Had they any idea? Could they get out of it if they wanted to, or did the small print of the contract control.
.
1. Timeline - Mormonism, Capitalism
.
Mormonism is new. 1830. The BBC has an overview of its tenets: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/mormon/ There are 190,000 Mormons in Britain.
.
Here, we offer a chronology and likely reasons for successes in Mormon conversions in England, and, earlier, here. Reasons include: savvy business sense, plus wretched conditions for poor and working class so that many were ripe to get out, and payment of passage to Utah and West in exchange for conversion, repayment to the fund that helped them once in Utah at a mild (how much?) interest. This 1849 corporation, Perpetual Emigration Fund. Romney family converts listed in 1837, Dalton. Others with that or similar surname found in Kent dating back to Saxon and Norman conquest times, and elsewhere, http://www.houseofnames.com/rumney-family-crest. Later, Romany arrived, in the 1500's, the names similar.
.
1830 -- Mormonism founded by Joseph Smith. Persecutions commence, on grounds of the all-encompassing reach of the religion,a concentration of power into eschatology, economics, morality, politics, philosophy, plus a distinct aptitude for building a community, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_2.shtml
.
Meanwhile, Victorian England had produced a vast underclass of working people, or the unemployed, numbers of poor living in dreadful conditions, eager to get out from under. They were desperate, says http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_2.shtml
.
1831 - A George Romney, a son of Miles, was born (later a Bishop). http://www.daltonlocal.co.uk/mormon-pioneers-left-for-new-life-in-america-1.907823?referrerPath=home
.
1832 - Cholera epidemic, Sheffield, 1300 sick, 400 dead. Englandhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_3.shtml
.
1837 -- Miles Romney, of Dalton, England, converted after hearing a missionary. http://www.daltonlocal.co.uk/mormon-pioneers-left-for-new-life-in-america-1.907823?referrerPath=home Was he underclass? Probably not if a son, George was a "Bishop." The end of this site notes positions in Utah that suggest he was a Mormon Bishop, not Church of England or other. So far, there is nothing to foreclose other ethnic roots in earlier centuries, but nothing near in time. Nothing that would direct their mindset as other than English, probably. My own family has a spell-alike namesake in the Icelandic Sagas, but he is a rather dreadful person in the tale, and I hope none of his genes stayed intact.
.
1839 -- Sheffield again, many poor and working class, LDS focuses on these kinds of cities for converts http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_1.shtml (not far from Dalton, perhaps a day's coach?) - city unable to accommodate influx of people, people go to workhouse just to get some warmth, food "scenes of wretchedness" see http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_3.shtml
.
1840 -- Date given by the BBC for the establishment of foreign missions. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_2.shtml. BBC states that He became a priest in the Mormon Church in Preston (what did that entail?) and sailed with his family from Liverpool on the Ship Sheffield to America in 1841: landed at New Orleans, then up the Mississippi to Nauvoo, IL. A winter in Iowa, then on to St. Louis, and arrive at Salt Lake City 1850.
.
1849 -- Mormon Church sets up a corporation, papers and all, to finance converts to come to America and West, the Perpetual Emigration Fund, or Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, loans at "minor interest" says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Emigration_Fund . See http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_3.shtml

1851 -- Example of overcrowding, and site notes lack of sanitary conditions, -- In Sheffield England, the population was 130,000 -- that was quadruple the populaiton in 1800 or so. http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_3.shtml
.
1850-1877 -- List compiled of debtors indebted to the Perpetual Emigration Fund, see Names of Persons and Sureties indebted to the Perpetual ...
www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/…Fall2000.pdf
(Minutes of meeting, 8 October 1877, Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company).
.
Read the full list of debtors -- pages and pages of them, some with their own surety, no benevolences it appears, and obligations for repayment laid out, with interest. How much? Not sure.
.
No Romney appears in the list of debtors 1850-1877, but the Romneys were already in Utah before the Fund was set up, or simultaneous with its establishment. Did they help form it? That explains, perhaps, early wealth.
.
The Perpetual Emigration Fund group recognizes what is needed for wealth for anyone: access to means. Give people means to participate in "building up and extending the benefits of society." A portion of the incorporation papers reads, a kind of salute to socialism in giving people what they need so they can take themselves to a higher place,

" ****Whereas, labor, industry, and economy is wealth, and all kinds of mechanics and laborers are requisite for building up and extending the benefits of civilized society, subduing the soil, and otherwise developing the resources of a new country, and Whereas, there are many good and worthy people who would gladly emigrate to this state if they were provided with the means: ****

This "giving" was to be repaid, however, but the condition of an indentured servitude congregation, with interest, added the capitalist touch to socialism, is that so?

1855-1877. Some 85,000 converts were ushered West in this period. Services provided by the corporation - all-encompassing, economic, religious, philosophical, communal, political. What price were they quoted for all this?

Shipping agency at Liverpool
Managine conductor. Port of entry manager at port in US. Welcome converts, steer them to
Outfitting at a designated Post, get provisions, equipment (the corporation spent about $200,000 per year on the emigrants -- see http://heritage.uen.org/resources/Wcd6fb3d6206c9.htm, so figure the profit if that small interest charged adds up); divide the converts into Companies for further travel across the plains.
Then, a little later, fullly equipped teams and supplies were sent to meet the converts and take them across the plains, but the numbers of converts did not increase commensurate with the additional services, despite the huge outlay, see http://heritage.uen.org/resources/Wcd6fb3d6206c9.htm

The corporation was empowered to do all that corporations can do. Read the entire thing at the heritage site. Nothing fiduciary there. A tight rein on the Saints. The Heritage site laying out the terms and the list of debtors is not affiliated with the Church itself, as the disclaimer at the end notes.
http://heritage.uen.org/resources/Wcd6fb3d6206c9.htm
.http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-31-35-33.asp. These were apparently the debtors who remained on the rolls; how many others, who, paid up in time?
.
Read the ongoing church history there -- our interest is mainly in the fact of the business financing of converts, and the beliefs except for polygamy taking a baack seat; amazing, the noteworthy business sense of how to do it, how to hold people once here, and -- the socialism of it in a sense of advance distributing wealth in advance for purposes of advancement, needs, in hopes and expectation and enforcement means to make people perform, but the underlying concept is a needed redistribution of wealth to get it going; add clout, and they do perform. Who got so rich? The originators?
.
1862 -- Anti-Polygamy law, Morrill Act
.
1870 -- Utah had 140,000 Mormons. At one point, over half were from England, showing the success of the missionaries there in the industrial mire. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/immig_emig/england/south_yorkshire/article_3.shtml
.
1877 -- US Congress disincorporates the Perpetual Emigration Fund, by means of the Edmunds Tucker Act, disenfranchising the LDS Church (?), see Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Emigration_Fund, until I find a firmer site and more detail.
.
1885 -- Colonies set up in Mexico, polygamy ongoing. Apparently this is how and why a branch of the Romney family moved to Mexico- some still in Mexico. http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-31-35-33.asp,
.
..................................................................
.
Comment:

1. Business sense. Fabulous success in identifying where the market was, labor-England, and then the payment in exchange for conversion. Let the people incur the debt, then they have to stay converted until the debt is paid, is that so? By that time, they are hooked. See overview of the Fund from another site, at http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/pioneers_and_cowboys/perpetualemigratingfundcompany.html

2. The incorporation of the fund permitted all legal action against debtors. With the demand, labor tithing was initiated, for example, and it appears that promissory notes that could not be repaid were repaid in labor. Again, the indentured servant idea. How to stop being a convert, even if you changed your mind, if they owned you?

3. It appears that the Fund's activities were not the problem, but the polygamy was. Was the Fund undermined because of that.
By the time of the Edmunds Tucker Act, assets were apparently few - some $400,000 (they went to the Federal Government. Why??) but even that was worthless as claims that failed as past the statute of limitations.

4. Who made what money during the Fund's time frame? What was the interest charged?
Accounting done?
.
Why disincorporate? LDS cites persecutions, see http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-31-35-33.asp, beyond scope here. Polygamy issues it appears, however.

Digress -- Why should a state care about polygamy and polyandry so long as there is age and clear and convincing consent: there is complete economic and psychological freedom to leave? And child care not a worry. Think: Set it up. If there are four in the marriage, and one wants to leave, each gets 1/4 of the accumulated total of all. Nice. Walk away with property, status. No teaching little girls that polygamy is their future, restricting choice and role models. No decisions to enter into anything permanent like marriage with one or many until, say, age 20. Is that like the Pacific Islands? First choices, even children, easily out. Then, as a real adult, pick the permanent one.

Read about the LDS view on the anti-polygamy crusade, http://institute.lds.org/manuals/church-history-institute-student-manual/chft-31-35-33.asp

Sanctioned Subjugation Policies. Culture Fosters Exploitation.

2012-01-01T20:21:00.002-05:00

Vet Religion

Sanctioned Subjugation

Subjugation Policies

Crutches for self-servers. Hidden.

Institutions feed
Not the Founder's Intent,
But Big Power needs.
.
Rubrics, rituals
Gender-centric exclusions.
Texts abused. Falsespeak.
.
Crutch for self-servers.
Keep computers from the poor:
Knowledge is power.
.
Religious Spring fails.
Justice nobody's goal here.
Perpetuation.
.
Culture always wins.
Make up rule, then enforce it.
"Divinely inspired."
.
Why be religious?
Religion ratifies rape.
Boys, girls, and adults.
.
But boys count. Not girls.
Dragon Tattoos. Frock or not.
Some can strike back. Do.
..........................................................
Ongoing source log: Things are only too "graphic" if we don't want to acknowledge the reality. Is that so?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/world/asia/2-arrested-in-torture-of-afghan-girl.html?ref=todayspaper;
http://www.insidebayarea.com/daily-review/ci_19632678

Vet Upbringing. What Still Sustains. Vetting is not Disrespect.

2011-11-16T12:05:00.009-05:00

Upbringing, Generational Icons.
.

Vet Old Words; Ideas Still Vibrant
.

Vetting is not Disrespect

Parents' Legacy. Perspective.

Who and what liberates? Who and what binds?
.

Bindings; or liberation. A selective choice. Geneva, Red Cross Red Crescent.

.
I. Retro at Individuals who Pass.

Salute Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, psychoanalyst, researcher, author, one who identified root causes of abuses of children and women -- the psycological roots of ideology. She died at 65 on December 6, 2011, see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/us/elisabeth-young-bruehl-65-dies-probed-roots-of-ideology-and-bias.html?scp=1&sq=Elisabeth%20Young-Bruehl&st=cse

Value the paths forged by thinkers and analysts, passing through dogma and cultural walls. For Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, the value is not mere empathy if that means the trite walking in another's footsteps. R read her view on empathy, from the obituary above: "Empathizing involves, rather, putting another person in yourself, becoming another person's habitat." But debunking does not mean disrespect for those who raised us to believe in values beyond ourselves, even if our later language and concepts are far different from our parents'. That is worth keeping.
.
Many older views, with language out of fashion, still steer toward health, deeper thinking, responsibility for actions. Even the iron maiden of the Catholic Church is constantly changing its views, see new translations going back to old ones for new religious services. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/nyregion/as-catholics-prepare-for-new-mass-translation-corpus-christi-parish-carves-its-own-path.html?_r=1&sq=catholic.

The basic problem is assuming that the Latin was accurate, not institutionally self-serving by Jerome, a man of his time and his organizational worldview. What is the gap between the Aramaic and the Greek to the Latin? Did the old really form the new, or did the new spring where it felt like it, the Latin used to divert. Some concepts will never make it into the mainstream, if the Church can help it. See http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/11/kngdv-k-ngd-u-k-ngd-v-eves.html
.
Mulch Philosophy. Old leaves feed the new. See the rising ginkgo out of nowhere.
.
Vet roots. Otherwise, groupthink takes over -- and groupthink can only enforce, judge; it can never innovate. Is that so? See http://sassafrastree.blogspot.com/2011/09/deity-monologues-on-dismantling-big.html. Elisabeth Young-Bruehl: gone, but worth reading.

Now to familial roots, from some who died at about her age.
.
II. Roots from old papers, chance contacts.

.
Provenance. Mementos. Query on mementos: The context of a life. Those who were my habitat. Why are some papers, movable things, from a past life, durable, never cast aside. Why perpetuate these particular ideas? As to the 1960 prayer, just because it was indeed kept. We may grate at the patriarchy, the Thee's and Thou's, some dogmatic assumptions. But there still peace in the totality.
.
Tuck it away again in the bureau drawer, and find it once in a while, even while resisting the aggression of others in some politics, using their view of "religion" to forcibly recreate me in their image. Is that so? Other orientations, substitute your own descriptions of the Creator.
.

A. An old prayer in a time of elections.
.
This is from a forgotten service, Protestant, that happened on September 11, 1960. Note date, and earlier year. Go. Hear an old time prayer. Does the language and inspiration echo? Perhaps. Old phraseology, focus on gender. Eternal ideas despite that.
.

"O God and Father of us all, reverently do we come to thee on this Holy Day, in this hallowed place, and him this holy hour of worship.
.
"We come that our hearts may find relief from the busyness of our days, in the silence of this place and in the glory of Thy presence. May we so pray that the pressures of life wil be lifted; that the deep hungers of the soul may be satisfied; that the burdens of the heart may be reliever, as the shallow desires of earth are dispelled. Grant, our God, that we may pray unto Thee in faith, knowing indeed that the great unseen things of life are eternal; that we were made for them, because we were made for Thee.
.
"O Lord, our God, wilt Thou hear our prayers, not according to our ability toask, but according to the depth of our need.
.
Forgive us, we pray, those places where we have fallen far short of the glory of God; and may we not only seek from Thee Thy forgiveness, but the strength to forgive ourselves. 'Purge us and we shall be clean; wash us and we shall be whiter than snow.'
.
"O God of the Nations, we pray to Thee regarding the fears of mankind. Give to us that leadership whereby we may cease to look for that ultimate weapon of death and destruction, and we may seek those things that belong to our peace.
.
"We pray for our President and all those who are seeking reconciliation. Grant that we may through Thee come to that high place under their leadership where we shall trust one another and none shall be afraid. In this election year, guide us in the choice of our leadership, through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen"

.
Prayer
Shadyside Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh, PA
Howard C. Scharfe, D.D. 1907-1971
Sermon: The Things that Are Not Seen
Lessons: II Kings 19:1; 2 Cor. 4:5
.
B. The 23rd Psalm
.
A chance e-mail. It offers a checklist for the path: Take each phrase of the old psalm, and find the need for and assurance of the things humans need for sense of worth, achieve productivity with what talents are there:

Relationship,
Sustenance,
Rest,
Renewal,
Health,
Guidance,
Correct purpose,
Resolve in adversity,
Confidence in ultimate protection,
Faithfulness,
Discipline,
Hope,
Consecration - that all this is worth it,
Abundance promised, as to what is important,
Blessing.

See FN 1

C. National secular policy.

What if we vetted those old roots, the 23rd Psalm, and September 11 1960, and the insights of Elisabeth Young-Bruehl, becoming the context of others, set those goals. Would wars diminish, civil and internal, and global? Or does policy, being groupthink, judge and punish, depending on who is in power. Blessed be those who vet, possibly, and look to solving problems rather than perpetuating their conditions, as alternative routes.
........................................................................................................
FN 1. For the unfamiliar:
Lord and Shepherd. Relationship with a higher. Check.
Shall not want. Sustenance. Check.
Lie down. Rest. Check. Humane hours, conditions
Still waters. Renewal, refreshment. Check.
Restore soul. Soul is "nphsh" - soul (Gen 1:20, 2:7), breath of life, health (all living and breathing, not just the human). Check.
Paths of righteousness. Guidance. Conscience. Check.
Name's Sake. Correct Purpose. The Higher, not us. Check.
Through Valley of Death. Resolve and confidence in adversity. Check.
Fear no evil. Confidence in ultimate Protection in some form [first have to identify it, including in self]. Check
Art with me. Faithfulness to the Higher goals will be rewarded in some way. Check.
Thy rod and staff comfort. Discipline for right purposes, not punishment or force authorized by us against others, just as not used against us. Check.
Thy plenty despite presence of enemies. Hope. Check.
Thou anointest my head. Consecration. Check.My cup runneth over.
Confidence in abundance for what is needed, promised. Check.
Goodness and mercy shall follow me, so long as I am on thy path. Blessing. Check.
I will dwell in the House of the Lord (you define) so long as I am on thy (you define) path. Security. Check.
Forever. Eternity so long as I am on thy path. Check.

Separate concept from religious founder's concept. Relationship, guidance, sustenance. Will we ever understand forced conversion in history.

Meat Saga. Theology of Meat; and "Unclean" Ideas

2011-11-10T12:25:00.006-05:00

Ask:
.
1. What is Meat.
.

Cows. Just meat? Or nphsh, breath, life, more? soul? have you checked old texts? Here, rural Ireland.

2. Why does our KJV Bible use "meat" when the text, the old one, is "food" - not requiring killing.
.
3. What and why for ritual "unclean" ideas to continue in anything any more. Is culture the master, or a valid precept of a Founder

4. Concepts in uncleanness, meat, sex, whatever, may have roots in ancient health and survival. Does groupthink require perpetuation? , or can we, with brains, reconsider.

Ritually clean, all the time. Boys and Girls Together. Here, Romania, cultural costume.

I. Meat. What forms of the word do we choose in the King James (reference here because it is the cornerstone of much), where the preferred term is "meat", denote killed flesh, or veg, or unclean or combination. Examine usage. When is each word form used; where; to whom is "meat" or food to be given; how is eating restricted, and why, as to unclean, if the reason is gone. Why retain the behavior except for power and profit? Dear God. RULOL that we cannot think sense for ourselves. Lady Gaga wants to know. Should she have worn lettuce?
.
Enter the Religious Commercial Institutional Spokespersons. As to what meat means, you must believe the literal, some of us are told. What is literal, then? Read your Bible and find there are lots of literals. You pick.

Unclean. Do not eat.

II. Try it. Try your own investigation.

Take meat and see how little our language conveys of an original meaning and purpose. We are such simpletons that we reduce complexity and shades of meaning to a ten ton truck. Nomadic forbears had variation in multiple words, subtlety, and restrictions that made survival sense; cast that aside.
.

For our one word in our modern complex life's language, "meat", the old language had 22. There were 3 separate words in the vegetarian category, 4 separate words in the flesh category, and 15 in the either-or category; including spiritual "food"' then add the words for unclean and add those. In other ways the nomadic forbears locked us in to their ways, see http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2011/01/stuck-in-n-for-nomad-nomadic-prisons.html. Look at "meat" and see how, in other ways, they had a richness in communication that we lack.

.
Complexity: In the killed flesh category for meanings of meat, is also the "unclean" subheading: what shall not be eaten, touched, what shall be isolated until uncleanness is purged. Is there a health and survival factor in the laws of uncleanness, such as disease from unrefrigerated germ-collecting stuff in the dark; and lions or other predators prowling about, sniffing for blood and that means a wounded creature, get it for dinner. And how does the removal of health threat or threats from predators, relate to continuing the "purging" behaviors when the threat is gone? Culture. Don't ask your local theologian for what the Bible says. Free yourself. Look it up yourself.

Do you also conclude that our culture likes killing, like to numb people to it, so we prefer "meat" to "food" or "sustenance" or "meal". Use one word instead of a dozen choices in the context. The West. Man is meant to hunt. Wrong. See http://martinlutherstove.blogspot.com/2008/07/hunter-and-literalism-genesis-parol.html. Worship culture first.

III. Process of finding out about any Biblical word meaning on your own:

Words are separately identified from earliest writings by numbers, as done by Scholar James Strong 1822-1894, a Methodist, latest edition in 2006 see http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html. By Strong's identification numbers: find the panoply of ancient usages of "meat" as flesh product or meat as vegetarian products, or ambiguous usage as "food" genre, and usages as "spiritual" food as well as physical; and in sacrificial use. All merely "meat" to us.
To see the transliteration of any passage in the Old Testament, see an online interlinear at http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm; and for the New Testament, http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm. Find comparisons in translations at http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/; or http://www.greeknewtestament.com/

MEAT SAGA

1. VEGETARIAN SCHOOL OF MEAT - Three usages

a. 402    Vegetarian: Seeds and fruits of trees as meat, Gen. 1:29; green herbs for meat, Gen. 1:30; every moving thing that liveth as meat for you, Gen. 9:3;

b. 5160 Vegetarian, John the Baptist's meat was locusts, Matthew 3:4; is not the life more than meat, Matthew 6:25; worthy of his meat, Matthew 10:10; meat in due season, Matthew 24:45

c. 3978 Vegetarian: trees (there is another number for the trees) for meat, Deut. 20:20; but then see Flesh: the same number 3978 is used for thy carcase for meat unto fowls of the air and beasts, and you shall not flay them away, Deut. 28:26.

This is the section on what God does to those who disobey all his laws, but note there is no authority given to other people to act against the disobedient. Also in Jeremiah 7:33 (what God does to the disobedient)(is this where the idea comes that if you are poor and sick you deserve it because God is doing it to you?)
...............................................................

2. FLESH SCHOOL OF MEAT - Four usages. These involve killing and/or pain.

a. 3950 Flesh body parts, see Judges 1:7 (Kings with thumbs and big toes cut off gathered their meat under the table)

b. 3978 Vomit or excrement. Out of the eater came forth meat. Judges 14:14. Part of Samson's riddle: answer or pay up. They could not answer so threatened Samson's wife with retribution if she could not get Samson to tell her the answer. She did, and ...and ...and ....; see also sheep appointed for meat, Ps. 44:11;

c. 4303 Probably flesh: Savoury meat, Gen. 27:9, Gen. 27:14; Gen.27:17; Gen. 27:31 (looks like venison);

d. 4503 Meat offering, Exodus and Leviticus have many examples of sacrificial meat and processes (these usages from Strong's Concordance, see http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=meat&t=KJV. Flesh, since there are many other kinds of offerings listed.

2.1. "Unclean" flesh:

Don't eat this. Can't touch this. See http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=unclean&t=KJV

(1)   2930, 2931, 2933, Religious impurity, defined animals, things. See http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=2930 -

The concept also relates to the time that the thing that touches the unclean thing shall itself or himself or herself be unclean; includes those that have issues with issues, such as seeds or menses; [ "sick of her flowers"??? Strong's word 5079 is used in relation to uncleanness. What is that?   See FN 1.

The voice behind the curtain. That's how I spoke, saith Leviticus about God speaking to Moses, and the voice and smoke. Someone said Moses heard and reported, whatever, and who did the ultimate writing down of what? Read yourself, from the end of Exodus, beginning of Leviticus. To what extent must someone simply "believe".

Ignore that voice behind the curtain? Whose voice was it. The later cultural special interests?

(2) Further discussion of the culturally and ritually unclean: Is Lady Gaga and meat now a theological issue? What is she was in flowers at the time? Maybe she intended an allusion to spiritual food.

Predator. Hide the women in flowers.

Going to summarize here - although the idea of describing the women, in isolation because of menses, as in "flowers" is ridiculous. See Leviticus 15:33 at http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/lev15.pdf. Is this so: That men can't stand it when women not only live with regular losses of blood, but reproduce through it, while the men have to get their blood by wounding and killing. Kill the power of the Other.

See the Strong's Concordance for each reference; this shows only the varieties of concepts in our one word, "unclean"

2931 - carcases; people who touch carcases; certain animals; unclean in any thing;

2932 -

5079 - unclean land - like the moral impurity, even literally in the case of where a woman with flowers sat, see http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=5079

6172 - that God see no unclean thing, see Deut. 23:14. Nakedness included, see http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.cgi?file=hebrewlexicon&isindex=6172

Etc. The point emerges that something can be unclean and physically unhealthful or spiritually unhealthful; but if it can be purged of its uncleanness by isolation or other means, do so. So why keep up the concept if the nomadic early-times health issue is no longer there, for example?
....................................................................................

3. EITHER/BOTH SCHOOL - Fifteen usages

a. 345 Food genre, ambiguous. Sit at meat, Matthew 9:10, Mark 16:14

b. 347 Food genre, sit down to meat but this time with a Pharisee, Luke 7:36

c. 398 Food genre, ambiguous: Sit with the King at meat, Isaiah 20:5; let them wander for meat, Ps.59:15; laid meat unto them, Hosea 11:4

d. 400 Food genre, ambiguous: buy meat of them for money, Deut. 2:6; meat for their lust, Ps.78:18; seek meat from God, Ps.104:21, 27 (God gives meat in due season etc); meat cut off before our eyes, Joel 1:16; fields yield no meat, Habakkuk 3:17;

e. 1033  Food genre, ambiguous, he that hath meat (share it), Luke 3:11

f. 1267  Food genre, ambiguous Gall for my meat, Ps. 69:21

g. 2964 Food genre, she giveth meat to her household, Prov. 31:15; that there may be meat in mine house, Malachi 3:10

h. 3899 Food genre, ambiguous, King sat down to eat meat, Isaiah 20:24, 27, 34 (including son did not sit down to eat meat); my tears have been my meat, Ps. 42:3;

i. 4052 Food genre; ambiguous, meat that was left Matthew 15:37

j. 4202 Food genre, ambiguous: Meat, asses laden with meat Gen 45:23

k. 4203 Food genre, ambiguous, meat for all, Daniel 4:12

l. 4873 Food genre, ambiguous, sit with him at meat, Matthew 14:9, Luke 7:49

m. 5315  Food genre, ambiguous, thee gave me meat, Matthew 25:35; command they give her meat, Luke 8:55 (raising of the dead girl)

n. 6440 Food genre, ambiguous: Meat set before him to eat, Gen. 24:33;

o. 6598 Food genre, ambiguous. The King's meat, Daniel 1:5

..........................................................
FN 1 Unclean by virture of natural processes that may have had health and survival ramifications in nomadic times, for example; then were translated into ritual for additional cultural control purposes; need we continue? The woman and her "flowers." What??

Uncleanness. Discharges. Menses is included in the category. This particular discussion is getting afield from "meat" as clean or unclean, but relates to the changes from Eden and "good creation" into cultural controls later perpetuated. Look at "meat" and the cultural/health needs of nomads - where hygiene or protection from predator detection may well have required isolation. Add male discharges. They were included as unclean. Clean up, saith the Lord. The religious impurity related to a reality, is that so?

For a start, see the real words used in the prohibitions at http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/lev15.pdf) -- So whose voice behind the curtain here once the danger of lack of hygiene is past? Or wandering lions? Is the curtain of the Ark and its smoke and mysterious voice a convenient Oz, now that the lions are gone and disposable sanitary products do well, thank you?
Bottom line seems to be that once the perceived danger of infection or attracting predators is past, or corrupt in origin (culture), then even the religious origin would let one resume life in the face of the new reality of hygiene facilities and no lions next door. If that menses period is neutralized as to danger to health and survival, then should not "uncleanness" also disappear as an issue? Pun intended. Men, get out of checking menses, as in come cultures you do.
Call it unclean when it really is just fear of blood, in reproductive powers. Men die from loss of blood; how frightening that women not only survive monthly blood loss, but survive to clean the house and bring forth more life -- and more blood. Must be witchcraft. Yes, says

Today's Extremist Roots: In Older Ideologies. Knights Templar as Template for Organization

2011-07-27T08:00:00.001-04:00

The Knights Templar Concept
as Role Model and Manual for the Committed Organization

Template For Organizational Roles, Peaceful or Violent; Gaming or Militias.

How to discern use and application:
from mainstream, the merely historically interesting, or gaming formats

Trigger event: Anders Breivik, accused mass killer of his fellow Norwegians for religious and political reasons, claims he had accomplices: " 'two or more cells' in an organization he calls the Knights Templar." See, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen26.html.

Authorities have not found such cells of "Knights Templar" in Norway, or, apparently, elsewhere http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-norway-knights-europe-idUSTRE76P4Y620110726. See http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43907069/ns/world_news-europe/

The Knights Templar concept, however, raised by Breivik's own words and actions claiming that he is a part of a Templar cell, is of interest in Norway in ways other than links to terrorism.

Connections specifically there may be unfounded or never to be found. The topic of Templars, or Hospitallers, or other Crusader militant monks as role model and umbrella concept, connects multiple franchises in other areas. See how many have hitched a ride on Templars to get rich in entertainment and agenda-pushing as an occupation.

Site to explore: If you speak Norwegian, please translate for us.

Templars provide modeling to groups of many kinds, and is not in the shadows of history. It is active in various ways See In Hoc Signo Vinces, Tempelridderordener Frimurerlosier at http://frimurertempelridder.blogspot.com A Google translate detects both Norwegian and German, and has been difficult to translate except page by page, and cut and paste text. Would someone

And it offers an ideal framework for such groups in how to use ideology, act secretly, manipulate ritual and myth in order to gain and hold converts, etc. See this Templar-heritage oriented Norwegian site (or is it German? both languages are automatically detected in Google):

We need to translate the entire site, and have not found how to do that other than page by page, text by text. This site is updated daily, apparently. Groups of the most benign sort do that all the time, no problem. Would someone just translate it and let us know what this is. What is the nature of the site primarily, and not just by a surface look:

Panoramic: Is it merely another historic panorama of Knights Templar-offshoots, philosophy, symbolism, spread and ritual through the centuries, into Masonic orders, Roman Catholic rite and the like, and with notable dignitaries carrying it on;
Current: Events postings for the various groups listed; and what is the umbrella group?
Gaming: Is it a fact-type, chronology source for gaming even - take the role of a character or group; or
Malevolent Disruptor: Is this a motivational site, to disrupt an Established Order, undermine, overtly atrack, organizational. Is it, at other levels, for contemporary militant-monk-inspired groups who set out to accomplish ideological goals, believe themselves to be turned upon by the governments or twistings of other ideology against them, and fight as separate but hip-joined militia-self-helpers, with funding from the shadows
Benevolent Changer (is there such?): Is this a group helping organize groups to bring about change but without force, But is all persuasion "force" in its way. Find out: Does the site foster neutral or agenda information, fact-gathering and dissemination or selected positions repeated often, opportunity for individual decision and action, or required loyalty oaths and restriction of others; in a more benign way, even if using the techniques of the highly successful (their formats live on) Knights Templar

The URL main page is more motivational or gaming than historical, as first impression.

.............................................................

Extremists: Roots of Groups in Older Ideologies.

Why turn to old concepts like the Knights Templar.

1. If this is a Disruptor site:

1.1 Why use blogspot, for heaven's sake,

Use blogspot because online searches will leave you alone. "Relevance" algorithms generally steer clear of dotty people who use freebie word-ops: if we are serious, why don't we play the game right and pay.

Good question. We do what we do because we are tight-fisted but our fingers are hooked to our brains and won't sit still.

That means, however, that it is easier, probably, for serious disruptors to tuck into something like blogspot nefarious group messaging than by a dot com dot org.

1.2 What is the attraction of the Knights Templar

Older ideological groups like the Knights Templar offer a ready-made kit for ritual, language, ideology, trappings, costume, mythology, that can be easily used by later groups who piggy-back on those concepts to ease their own gathering of converts. Did this affect Breivik or is there a cell of contemporary Templar wannabes helping him? we have no idea, See http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/anders_behring_breivik/index.html

"Breivik attended a 2002 meeting to reconstitute the Knights Templar, a Crusader military order. This is the stuff of video games — except that it kills real teenagers of all faiths."

Their history is fascinating, even as it has been speculated upon and abused for entertainment purposes. Take time to find out more: http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/knights-templar-history.htm .

1.3 Why would Scandinavia be interested?

Crusader influence was part of the conversion to Christianity. It was going on at the same time. Find medieval churches as far north as Scandinavia in Crusader times with Templar or crusader support and symbolism.

Sweden: see http://swedenroadways.blogspot.com/2011/05/forshem-kyrka-kinnekulle-area.htm/. Forshem Kyrka is generally agreed to have Crusader elements, as a cross-church where pilgrims could go as part of a pilgrimage route when they could not get to the Holy Land. People could donate to the cause, and go to heaven.
Denmark See the round churches on Borhnolm island, with the speculations going amok; and another round church that is not on the Templar-Crusader-Hospitaller tourist circuit, but has elements, we think. See Bjernede Round Church, Denmark, Interior; and http://denmarkroadways.blogspot.com/2011/07/bjernede-round-church-bjernede-kirke.html
The Forshem Church in Sweden is cited in the Norwegian: http://frimurertempelridder.blogspot.com/

1.4 Breivik's activity. There is a video about his interest, see YouTube Breivik interest, The Knight Templar 2083; also at Crusades 2.0 the video presentation of Breivik The Templar Grand Master, Jacques DeMolay, was killed in 1314, and left (along with other groups ideologically dedicated) a tradition of martyrdom. .

Hitching a ride on concepts. The opportunity is there, even if not grasped by this particular Breivit ideologue.

2. Ideological parasitism. Part of evolution and spread of knowledge, ideas, agendas

Older traditions of religions and societies offer ready-made kits for ritual, justification, and mythology, to new groups whose seek legitimacy and staying-power for their evolving ideologies.

Mithraism example: One such older tradition is Mithraism, http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristianity.html, whose practices easily pirhouetted into early Christianity as the institution required the props of tales and tie-ins to get converts.

Knights Templar is another. Translate the sections on ritual at the http://frimurertempelridder.blogspot.com/ site. Are they still there?

Knights Templar has morphed from a specific group reference, to serve as a handbook of practices easily pirhouetted into Masonic groups; and to ideologically militant and?or secretive other groups, whether or not there is truth to actual Templar tales of riches and secrets is not the point here.

Norwegian speakers, can you clarify? What is the nature of the frimurertempelridder site. Vehicle, or straightforward organizational postings of events. Formula for militant or secretive activities? Or just for fun, or social common good?

Or is it German? Google, make up your mind.

Religion of Economic Fundamentalism. Has Legs: Creed, Deity of Free Market.

2011-06-26T21:39:00.005-04:00

Doctrines: Free Market Fundamentalism

Channel DeTocqueville's Predictions

Decadent Individualism.

The Past as Present.

Pursuit of Ruthless Self-Interest
Belies enlightened American Exceptionalism,
Becomes Toxic. As foretold.

An Old Idea At the Fore.
But a move on the way out? See IMF

Decadent individualism.

The warnings: Tocqueville's Democracy in America

I. FREE MARKET FUNDAMENTALISM:
A TOOL FOR ELITE AND WANT-TO-BE ELITE SUPREMACISM

A longstanding human tradition is the dehumanization of others in order to obtain or retain status and economic gain. It is a natural but avoidable progression of individualism and identification with supremacism, avoidable by awareness, and reining in. That does not happen without a fight by the individualist who wants what he wants. Tocqueville's America: "Twas foretold it. And here it is. Is that so?

To Western cultures as the competition has sorted out, land is for making profit. Animals are for making profit. Etc. Compare a culture with a different view and value it: See the Aborigine. Land is the Aborigine. See Aborigine History Timeline, Spirituality and Culture, at http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-early-white.html The Aborigine and the Settler, the Colonial, the mindset persisting -- at http://bogomilia.blogspot.com/2011/06/aborigines-ongoing-defeat-of-indigenous.html

We offer that foil because it is easy to shunt aside the past of one's own country, treatment of its indigenous Native Americans, Blacks brought from Africa. That is a pattern. See it now in another setting, same course of attack, and same seeing Self and Profit as the reason for being. A religion.

A. The process:

1. Sources predicted the course.

Elite mistreatment of indigenous and undervalued persons, whether by settlers, or by business practices, is ongoing and we were warned of extreme self-ish individualism by Alexis de Tocqueville, see Self-Interest and Individualism in an essay on de Tocqueville's Democracy in America at http://www.brtom.org/sjc/sjc4.html/ Which of our politicians, presenting self as breaking new ground, is only channeling Tocqueville and the progression to toxic individualism. Read Democracy in America, 1835-1840 or so, online at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html/ Get your crib notes here: http://www.gradesaver.com/democracy-in-america/study-guide/short-summary/

The concepts are applicable to politics of dehumanization of the weak, and promoting profit to the elite by whatever ruse gains support. Read Dehumanization in Fact and Theory: Processes of Modernization and Social Theory by G.N. Appell, Brandeis University, at http://gnappell.org/articles/de.htm:

2. Specific concepts applicable to the process. Note

internal colonialization, continuing the colonial attitudes and exploitation after technical "freedom"
perpetuate prejudices through an unaltered culture, despite changed legal status; and
economic imbalance as to devalued groups,
political elites objectifying human beings and groups,
free market fundamentalism, whereby the only measure of value is economic

Economic fundamentalism: Keep the suffering of others out of focus

The Mindset is like a creed, the Creed of the Free Market Fundamentalist. Take the list of criteria exemplifying the economic fundamentalist mindset, and read it as a creed. The list topics come from the Gnappell site, amended from such other sites as we may find.

II. THE CREED OF THE ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALIST

A. Rove in Robes:

All rise.

1. I believe in value as market price, and no value is to be afforded from religion, social structure or aesthetics.

2. I accept what others call "decadence" in individualism: I believe a) in my own individualism, meaning my self-interest, my focus on my own acquisitions, that i have no responsibility to others; and that b) social institutions like government are to be used for my individual benefit and profit.

3. I see that tradition is obstructive. Tradition hinders my economic opportunity and my personal growth.

4. I believe that "progress, particularly economic progress, is both natural and one of the greatest goods."

5. I believe that human ills and discontents are solved by economic growth.

6. I assume that economic growth and development are manageable, and will not get out of control, that such growth and development can be planned and regulated. I believe that politics is an adequate method to manage an economy.

7. I accept Calvin's view and its "final effluvium" (what?) "that man is measured by his economic status and not by his character."

8. I believe in "The use of the metaphor of the machine for various social purposes but most perniciously for man and his work." (what?)

9. I accept the proposition of labor as commodity.

10. I believe in "the importance of private property and that indigenous societies do not have this concept."

11. I believe that the "legal vehicle of the business corporation is the best means by which communal interests in property may be managed."

B. Missing or changed:

The myth that the rural life is superior to the urban. The belief instead is that the rural traditional groups are inferior. This contrasts with Thomas Jefferson who valued highly the independent farmer, as foundation for the new state (cite? This from the Dehumaniization site)

C. Present like Thunder

Read carefully both sites, first the Dehumanization, at http://gnappell.org/articles/dehuman.htm then the Self-Interest, http://www.brtom.org/sjc/sjc4.html. Drawing parallels to each instance of political overreach and manipulation is beyond us here. They are there.

D. Dehumanization of the Weak:

It was geographic "Settlers" then, from a more advanced country to a less economically advanced. It is economic elites here, persuading even the non-elite that their interests coincide. Help the elite become more elite and maybe you can become elite, too.

E. Where next for the Economic or Free Market Fundamentalists? More exclusions of others, more self-aggrandizement, as in religious supremacism. Is that so?

Define other groups as less human, less valued, because of gender, culture, race, religious difference, simple strength (example, an effect of dogma is to keep her pregnant and she will be weaker more often in the fight), other criteria, where the target group presents possible competition, or obstruct the elites seeking their own gains. It is easy see the process in the settler vs. indigenous conflicts around the globe. It is easy to detach from those outcomes, by saying, "That is over, that is the past."

Not so. Watch the old overt colonial era punishments and handicaps morph into Internal Colonialism after "freedom and independence", where the old practices and mindsets of prejudice, expendability and devaluation of the other continue, but often absent old overt forms. Use different language to accomplish the same goal.

The process of dehumanization. Predicted, and here.

Bertrand Russell. The Service of the Atheist, the Agnostic, the Moral Thinker of Inspecific Dogma

2011-05-02T21:38:00.003-04:00

Bertrand Russell 1872-1970.
Another Generation, For Today

Belief is not enough.

There is Trustworthy Belief; and Untrustworthy Belief:

in morality, religion, governmental process and theory.

Trustworthy belief:

1. Logical, philosophically flexible
2. Considers "self", but not primarily or exclusively

3. Includes a Dragon Clause, in case the analysis is in error.

And always follow the money. Who benefits financially from your "belief"?

Issues: Thinking through the mind of a venerable thinker of another time.

Bertrand Russell's life. What is the place of the agnostic, the atheist, the moral thinker with values, but an inspecific and varied ideological system. Is it possible for people who are not like that, who identify strongly with a firm set of affirmations, to accept those who see dogma as blocking truth-seeking; and who with logic and analysis, refuse absolutely consistent and rigid thought, despite changing circumstance.

Applying Bertrand Russell's logic and philosophy to contemporary government. What is the place of his beloved logic and philosophy in forging agreements among disparate interests. This tool-chest is already employed as a response in national budget discussions where side B comes out with an immediate cliff-out in governmental spending. The other side A does not counter with a broad time frame for cuts of the same amount; but is wiser than that. The other proposes a Dragon Clause. Perfect. The "but if" Clause. President Obama proposes that if this spend-down target does not work out on schedule, we hit the "but if" button. That is, if the Dragon comes, we will do that, and that. If the Dragon does not come, we carry on as planned. See this in antiquity -- Golden Mean and the Dragon Clause. Jason and the Argonauts of Old..

Applying Bertrand Russell;s logic and philosophy to contemporary religious issues: how to forge an agreement on thorny abortion. See Old Testament and abortion: texts and New Testament and abortion: Text For Bertrand Russell, use logic and legwork. We believe his process would be this, from his writings: If the texts do not hold that abortion is a moral issue (in those days a non-breathing entityt appears to be more a property issue of the father); if it is merely descriptive of a worthless entity; and language and scholarship leave the issue alone; there is not enough else for "authority" to be certain about, so suspend judgment but no mere filling in the blanks to serve some ideology. Is that close, Dr. Russell? Philosophers and thinkers of the ago, are to be explored over and over again.

Bertrand Russell was a man of many Dragon Clauses, because his thought process was so careful. He could plan for contingencies as though they were all but certain, each with its plan.

Start with Bertrand Russell, Theory of Knowledge. Note that the site is identified as in its URL as Marxists.org. Continue on to read. Marxism is nothing more than a theory of economics and governing; and any theory can fail, and still have merit in its observations. Read about Marxism in the 1920's, Russell's time, at Stanford Univ, What Was Attractive About Marxism; and Bertrand Russell on Marx's Theory of Value.

Russell was not a "Christian" - no institution claimed him. How did he arrive at his conclusions. Ask him. He addressed that in terms of the trustworthiness of belief. See Drew Univ, Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian

When Icons fall down, are beliefs severable?

If an ideological system fails, a dedicated dogma or doctrine leads to abuse, for example; can there be a backup without rebuilding the whole system. Can logic be applied to belief systems, to enable them to flex. Or must the doctrinal belief in the ideology be forced as so total that if a single straw-dried brick fails, the structure is feared to fail.

Framework.

Bertrand Russell is of many generations back, born in 1872. Philosopher, logician, analyst in mathematics and social structures. He fit none of those categories perfectly, but straddled them all in different contexts. He bridges generations in lifestyle and amalgamating ideas, not holding to one with rigidity, to the exclusion of others that hold merit also. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature in 1950. Read him for philosophy, logic, history, education, social and mathematical analysis. He was an earl, but became tainted in an era of stricter roles, including academic and other circles because of his interest in Bolshevism, "social democracy." In this country, social democracy meant social conscience as part of capitalist process. He supported conscientious objectors as well.

Chronologies, biography.

Find a list of his work and a short biography at Nobel Prize, Biography, Bertrand Russell. His several marriages led some to question his morality, so some academic institutions refused him access to students, as a non-Christian, we understand. Must one be a professed Christian according to an institution and dogma, not just following a way of life; in order to be a moral being, Can sympathizers with a broad mix of principles crossing among and between capitalism, socialism, marxism, democracy, see Stanford Univ. Encyclopedia, Bertrand Russell. Find a detailed chronology of his life and thought there.

Thought process. Arrive at a trustworthy belief, not an untrustworthy one.

Shift to his thought process: how to figure out what is worth believing and what is not. Bertrand Russell, Philosophy, Works, Theory of Knowledge And when you have that idea in mind, how to move it forward. He could not always do it in his own life: rejections because of his social system explorations were many. But he left the outline -- leading to the backup, step back a step, provide for that, then move on as you had chosen.

Merely holding a belief is not reason to tout it. He felt it is inappropriate to hold a belief because
a) you believe it might be true; but where you really hold it because
b) you think it is useful to you.

If it only might be true, then suspend judgment and move on. See and hear him at YouTube: Bertrand Russell on God.

His conclusion for himself was to refrain from formal religious associations. As to truth, either a thing is true or it is not true. If you can prove it to be true, believe in it. If you cannot, suspend judgment. Proofs need not be absolute, but must have to meet the various tests he laid out. This is a first cut on this: to be reviewed, changed.

I. Knowledge

What is known and what is based on "belief." What are the words that best frame it. How can words shape possibilities, rather than constrict. See Stanford U, Bertrand Russell, Descriptions. Move from belief to behavior. How is action affected by the belief. Apply logic. Does that approach move an issue ahead, more than a static belief. Form criteria and consider consequences. Language can expand ideas, or threaten them. What becomes "code" so that the person stops thinking, and reacts to the code. How much uncertainty is acceptable in logic or belief.

II. Data

Even animals "infer." Watch the process of another creature's coming to know something. Observe the trial and error, the patching, the exploring of a spider - this one on our porch.

How do other lives know what they know. Bertrand Russell examines processes of knowledge.

Be aware, Bertrand Russell would say, of the data that gets in your brain, the physical information and how it is used. Awareness itself. Tally and observe.

III. Inferring

The process of induction moves a fact to a broader truth. Assess whether that path is clear, or reasonably clear, or conjecture. A useful inference will focus on facts that simplify. What degree of certainty is needed for this decision or that.

With that overview, read his essay. Bertrand Russell, Theory of Knowledge. Then apply to religious orientation.

Russell self-identifies as atheist, agnostic, whatever, but is thorough and measured. Which line of reasoning is more trustworthy: the blind belief, or the one who applies reason to a reasonable degree of certainty first. Does ideology foster analysis, or mere behavior.

Logic as the Path of Least Risk

Bertrand Russell moves on with the focus on logic. Logic can lead to useful categories, especially as to beliefs.

Trustworthy belief v. Untrustworthy belief.

Both are beliefs. Are they equal merely because they are beliefs. Can the worthiness of a belief be tested, even if its truth cannot. Calculate, examine each belief. People have beliefs about good government, size of government, who should be in government, etc. Return to the issue of governing, how people may believe an economy functions best; and how they can forge agreements when there are

1) firm believers in ideology on one side, that it is that way or no way; and

2) those who seek results, using as needed, balance rather than ideology.

Cross fields.

Return to the issue of moral behavior and religion, how people may believe a religious life requires this or that. How to forge agreements in a multiply-faceted society, when there are the same 1 and 2 above. Think of religious agreements known as ideologies that officials forge - creeds, canons. What about canon wars -- ideology v. ideology.

Here is where Bertrand Russell's logic and flexible philosophy enter.

Look at the clergy guy in trouble at the top. Is the main problem for any agreement, whether in spiritual matters or temporal, that if the rationale is calcified, and goes wrong, everybody loses. What if they and the dogma, or the theory of government, are wrong. Too late. No plan on the side awaits where there is total commitment to the one.

Bertrand Russell: The analyst. The balancer who withholds judgment about what to do or think until all the steps are finished that lead somewhere relevant. Bertrand Russell doesn't merely believe and act on dogma of any kind. Bertrand Russell would go back to the facts that allegedly support the dogma, the circumstance, and scholarship.It gets complex, but you can get the idea, see Lindenbranch, Bertrand Russell: Existence and Description. How would he analyze abortion: the word, the meaning, the intent, see where he might begin, with first texts apart from interpretation, see New Testament Abortion: Paul; Old Testament Abortion: Culpable Killing or Not?

And if the data, in Russell's terms, does not lead to a moral conclusion at all, who then is qualified to fill in a blank, and why should we accept that person, and what is the trustworthiness of a claim of inspiration or revelation?

Filling in ambiguities.

Why not live with the ambiguity.

Current issue: Abortion.

Russell: think what is a trustworthy belief and an untrustworthy belief, and how you can rationally approach what counts. If a culture (culture takes over where religious texts do not establish) decides to make abortion a moral issue, on what ground? Sacred human life? But that whole idea rests solely on a text that the Creator made a prototype in the image of the Creator. Heck, I can do that. I can make an image of Eminem, but is it the essence, the quality of Eminem? Just fill in the blanks with what serves the institution, see Catechism on "Sacred" human life.

And we know that Bertrand Russell did not identify as a Christian or a follower of any religious system. For him, the suspension of logic and a philosophy of flexibility made no sense, is that so? Other atheists have addressed the issue, see Ayn Rand, for example, but -- as with Ayn Rand -- the absence of compassion or "the group" as part of the reasoning process, the self-interest justification -- cheapens the reasoning. See http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5105

A balancer like Bertrand Russell, however, considers the merits of inferences flowing from each option without one theme, "the individual pursuit" dominating. He looks around, how does someone know what he or she thinks is known. Go to animal inference, above.

How to use logic to prepare for alternate routes.

Ayn Rand. The main flaw in Ayn Rand's philosophy is that she would make no allowance, set no backup. Her way is the way. Russell would, we think, disagree. Consider group behavior, followers following, perhaps lemmings in the common understanding of running together even off a cliff.

Russell might well think, if government or religious ideology lemmings are heading for the cliff, and they are wrong in their assessment of their survival if they do so (lemmings are not thinking this way, they are -- what? more research), then they would have been better off with a Plan B.

The Dragon Clause in governance and religion.

If the non-lemmings are going in a more measured way, keeping options open, including incorporating a Dragon Clause enabling a shift into decisive action if certain targets are not met in time; are wrong, they are not dead. They have another plan going.

So what's the choice?

Bertrand here notes a survival il-logic of a firm philosophical economic position regardless of being wrong and its consequences. That just is not logical. Apply to an economic plan: find logic in a flexible, measured economic position, so if it is wrong, a shift can be made in time.

Choice? Bertrand Russell: your choices may not be our choices; but your procedures, isolating fact from emotion, how to calculate trustworthy belief apart from untrustworthy belief. Logic and philosophy applied to belief. And a Dragon Clause implicit, and by induction, needed.

.....................................................

Photos:
Fountain: somewhere in Croatia
and Spidey from the front porch.

Why Morality Cannot be Legislated. Everyman and Wittgenstein's Tractatus. Branchings and the Tree of Life. Philosophy of Language.

2011-04-04T13:33:00.005-04:00

Branchings of the Tree of Life

Why Morality Cannot be Legislated:

Philosophy of Language.
.

What one says, another cannot or does not hear.
And it makes no difference to the world.

EVERYMAN ASKS: BY WHAT RIGHT DOES ONE IMPOSE OWN MEANINGS ON ANOTHER.

A. The Philosophy of Language. Why morality cannot be legislated.

Meet the Philosophy of Language, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Within that framework, meet the 20th Century Ludwig Wittgenstein, author of many works, including Tractatus. The field is language and its meaning in itself, not to a particular person. Wars of words lead to battlefields for morality. By what authority, except for somebody's "words." Did the world really say that? Or a deity? What was meant, is it all of our own construct.

Take a pretty picture. Here, a pretty scene, tree, sheep, clouds, blue sky, ruin of a structure, an old fortification. A battle once fought here. Who can tell now. It is all so quiet.

Dybbol Banke Battlefield, near Sonderborg DK

One side looking at this perhaps takes a symbolic route and imposes a hierarchy or meaning, and stresses this Tree element in the composition. This meaning is laid upon that Tree. Another takes a total gestalt approach: seeing logic and interrelationship, this way.

Does it matter. Is there a change to the tree because one sees it as a symbol of a tree of life with religious consequence. The tree remains, thank you. So another sees the balance between sheep and pasture and and sky and that tree, but look at the scene after the battle of words and enforcement is over. The scene is not altered by the words.

B. Wittgenstein addresses all of this in ethics and religion.

What is meaning. Who puts it there. Need we? Why do we? Find four basic themes arise, see the Internet Encyclopedia at section 3: Keep the lovely battlefield picture, old Dybbol Banke, Denmark, and think with Wittgenstein: our numbering added, and italics and some comments.

1. You will not find value or meaning in the world.

2. If you are to live the right way, you must either accept the world, or the will of God, or fate, as it is, or agree with it.

That is a tough one. How about fighting it, changing it, enforcing your view of it, ranting! No. None of that.

3. If you live in that right way, the world will become a miracle to you.

[That is so. Yes.]

4. "There is no answer to the problem of life -- the solution is in the disappearance of the problem."

With that last "no answer" echoing, ask the person who analogizes and prioritizes and judges and enforces on the Dybbol Battlefield, and constructs a Tree of Life, and attaches rules and consequences and punishments for "wrong" decisions. WHOSE RIGHT WHOSE LIFE WHO SAYS.

C. Can words ever frame morality.

Who authorized whom to judge the scene as given, and decide what is more important than what. Does the judging distort the scene.

Take some words. Ask what is life? Whose counts? Who decides? Who decides what happens next? Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.

Tree of Life -
Picture of the Tree

In Words

life as laid eggs

life as fertilized eggs

life as eggs not yet laid and life as all the rest here:

may be a fertilized egg there or not life as egg waiting for possible fertilization

life presumed because may be an egg there or not

life as anything with a soul (original Genesis says animals have souls)

scripture4all go poke around

life as successfully breathing entity, even with technological assistance,
among air-breathing sorts

life as successful gills breathing entity,

among water sorts may be fertilized in a matter of hours or days

egg cell that may go all the way but is just a cell now

all other entities with cells moving, in air, sea, land, beneath, space

may be resuscitated out of it for years

but may come back heart pumping heart pumps with machine brain waves level

brain waves almost level brain waves impossibly jerky

so deformed, oh, so deformed, alive and conscious

alive (define) but unconscious

alive (define) but missing parts (where, which?)

anything with cells self-sustaining and functioning constructively

anything with cells self-sustaining and functioning destructively (cancer cells?)

who decides? things you can't see but are there

by theories in Creation Genesis 1-4 approx

by theories developed in the later patriarchy, Genesis 5 on.

by theories of the originator of a theory

by theories as added to the originator's, by people who may not even have been there

each to his own theory, at own risk right to relinquish for relocation in surrogate or petri dish

(what rights did whatshername have at 17 in that house?)

right to rename an issue so it fits better

right to continue on a path in situ

or dislodged and maintained

(when is a mitosing cell, that could become anything, instead: a 'baby", etc.)

right to decide even if a minor and how much a minor

right to exercise free will right to force

right to assert my own interest

right to force an act but at no cost to me right to NIMBY it right to exercise discretion

right to die in neglect, posy-ed in a corridor, on a floor

right to live with reasonable needs met so I can be productive if feasible- a sustenance floor

right to decide for you

right to force others to follow your views

right to be let along

right to continue on a path once initiated and in situ,
regardless if it's somebody else's womb room

right by virtue of location, location, location - what happens in me is my decision

right for me to choose a location where that life can continue hands off

right to decide how another being shall die (attention, carnivores)

right to decide how long the dying will take and in what pain

right to decide for another entity after what proceedings

and all these other rights of conducting decision-making-

secret open my government decides my religion decides for you

to conditions fostering (life, death, choice, discretion, animal life, human life, bug and plant life)

right to humane treatment no slums none right to opportunity

all to be considered soul-ful (see animals, earliest transliterations, at Animals Have Souls, Ancient Authority

to all rights afforded those with souls scripture4all no sanctity to us at all wishful thinking that

humankind hush your mouth made as gardener and she kngdv to guide

right to all steps to cure but who lives what role who go go Marge Piercy go

right to all steps to maintain a whiffle of life however defined

to not be hunted when not reasonably necessary for a person's food

Is hunting in Genesis 1-4? Go at it, Creationists. Not even meat.

Food without harm right to all rights afforded those with souls

to all steps to maintain a whiffle of life however defined at whose expense

zygote

foetus

neonate

infant

animal

plant

dying

lived long

enough

to be useful,

now a burden

lived and has no "enjoyment"

being not a deity

who decides who decides right to die

right to decide for another being right for me to kill it, or see that it cannot continue on its path

right for me to relocate it so someone else can take over

right to die with as little pain as possible even if that hastens death

right to die in pain dominion worst concept see hunter and literalism

right to whose life

like heavy-handed fake dogma

like catfish in the muddy dark *

is life all of it

and all manner of thing shall be well **

Analogy of dogma words. Prioritize the wrong stuff, have no idea of perspective or the proper proportions of the original, then put it up in a great hall. Unretouched nobility, from Sonderborg Castle DK

........................................................................

* Catfish in the muddy dark: from Loren Eiseley, All the Strange Hours

** And all shall be well. All shall be well. And all manner of thing shall be well. Julian of Norwich

Homegrown Radical Armsism. Arms Fervor like Religious Fervor. Attributes of Religious Fervor; Expand your Hearings, O House. Oppose and You Are Heretic

2011-03-07T09:56:00.006-05:00

Just Ask King:
In looking at sources of violence, radicalization --

Expand to Other Causations. Occupations.

Western corporate invasion in other lands,
gaps between promise and practice.
Even one gender "occupying" another.
One moral system "occupying" the moral sphere of others.

Fervor for arms like fervor for religion. The American tradition of the revivalist, the tent, the penitents, the buyers coming forward. How did we allow a personal religious pattern to become radical and secular Armsism, and allow it to take over public life? Terrorism. Are its targets those who intrude into private life, thus quite secular, see ://warincontext.org/2010/10/22/foreign-occupation-not-religious-fervor-is-the-primary-motivation-behind-this-form-of-terrorism/. Occupations. Supremacisms. Not just religious conversion.

This would mean that Western corporate expansion at the close of the formal colonial era, to the extent that corporations invaded other lands and cultures and stayed there, must be seen as the cause of at least some terrorism. It may well not be "religious" in origin, predominantly, but economic, according to the War In Context site.

Can it work for long? What are the time limits of policing others. Getting votes for one's own desired occupation of others. How far can any group go in trying to enlist government support for its biases.

Supremacisms. Sweden is grappling with it, as we are. Throwbacks to supremacism, resurgence of xenophobia, see ://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/09/swedish-elections.html/ What are the connections of our neo-Nazi and supremacist groups with the thinking in Sweden. Elsewhere.

Religious-type fervor. With a rise in domestic secular violence capability, shown by increases in gun sales, ownership, violence, the fervor to support further growth boils.

Armsism. Religious fervor applied to guns

Expand your hearings,
O House. Call the NRA.
Religion: Armsism.

The Supremes of Threat.
Sacrament: Open carry.
Homegrown radicals.

State of Denial.
Profit-taking: Drives force use.
Against us. By us.*

.............................................
* Will Nate Rudy Asclater become more or less inclined to use his gun, now that he has joined the NRA. See I did it. I joined.

Policing others. Gets addictive. Houses with no mirrors. Call the NRA as witness.

Invoke the Household Gods. Explore Plan B. The Lost Tribe of Dan

2011-02-24T21:12:00.007-05:00

Historic Merit: The Human Experience.
Retaining Some Elements of the Past in Times of Change

Expand the concept, of what from the past, in some way,
could be useful to the present. Then take it along.

I. Overview.

When the traditions of Plan A fail, look again at Plan B. Who would object to that practicality? What elements from a past might rise to the occasion of the present, without betrayal of principle? What have others found useful in countering fear and threat, including fear of the new, threat of change.

Example: The maligned Tribe of Dan.

A priest took along some household gods of the indigenous people, but did not worship them. Not a text at all about that "worship" -- just that they were put in the suitcases.

Why not take them along?

Old reminders can be comfort, like our old scrapbooks retrieved in a flood. Yet, the Tribe of Dan is accused by those of agenda, of worshiping pagan gods because a priest took some along. Ridiculous. Maybe he got them from a friend, for heaven's sake.

Other condemn the Tribe of Dan because the Book of Revelation does not list the Tribe of Dan, so they are damned. Nuts. Maybe they didn't have the new address. Google it, people. Find it here, perhaps. http://swedenroadways.blogspot.com/2010/12/swedish-history-its-own-entity.html

We suggest that "Dan" was so well established elsewhere by that time, that nobody who wrote Revelation had any idea.

There goes Dan -- Up the Danube and beyond. Good for Dan. But out of memory or knowledge of those left to write Revelation.

We could care less about who is in Revelation or not: end times is not something important to us. Evil in the form of exploitation and deceit ring our chimes. But others do care, so look at the issue of whether we can write an entire people off; because of our own arbitrary interpretations.

Look to others' view of universals. There may be merit. Can that aspect be included anew.

The True is in acknowledging ambiguity:
that there is not one answer.

The False is in created certainty: institutional dogma and doctrine.

Got runes?

Runestone, Anundshog, Sweden

I. Fear and threat: Meet it by carrying along old gods, for memory, for comfort. It is not necessarily "worship" of an old era.

In the flood, grab the scrapbook.

Fear and threat. Part of the human condition. Some address it, and the need to walk through it, by holding several options open. Others address it by denying any path but a chosen one, disregarding experience of the past in other ways. No person can self-actualize while feeling fear or threat, says Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Need Levels, see human needs at http://www.xenodochy.org/ex/lists/maslow.html/. First, we need basics, food, clothing, shelter, sustenance items; then we can move on to self-actualizing -- aesthetics, finer things. Never underestimate the power of fear and threat in directing and redirecting human effort.

A. Here we look at how the past addressed fear and threat: by installing and carrying about the gods of the household when the family moved; and in its customs for the family, wedlock, children. Our example is the Roman gods and goddesses pantheon, and rituals.

That is our focus here. And as we look back, it becomes a natural to see what we do today to counter fear and threat. What approaches dominate the news, the propaganda machines. See below.

II. How do we address fear and threat today in terms of philosophy?

Vet traditional interpretations of texts, secular and religious. These cite references for more detail, and for now, just mention them.

A. Ayn Rand. HIghly flawed.

Meet rational selfishness, secular objectivism, espoused by the current GOP and Tea's, with a morality fostering individual license; and rejecting obligation to use one's wealth for the needs of others: but somehow accepting (ignoring) that freedom extending, as she extends it, to the hostess having full control over her body, including as to abortion, see http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abortion.html

She rejects compassion, altruism, and advocates the individual in pursuit of the individual's interest, others be damned. That is gaining traction. Wholesale rejection of old ways. See http://sassafrastree.blogspot.com/2009/08/ayn-rand-aynism-objectivism-c-street.html

B. Ideological self-serving interpretations of scripture.

Add weird interpretations to perfectly normal events.

Meet the gap-fillers; religious theorists who take ambiguous and incomplete Biblical stories and fill in details and make conclusions to fit a desired ideology.

1.   Revisit the example of the maligned Tribe of Dan.

Dan has been long damned because one of the priests took along some of the areas indigenous ''for having taken and set up certain graven images (is that why they are excluded from Revelation, as stated by many of the agenda-ed?), e.g. http://www.hope-of-israel.org/i000035a.htm

The idea of carrying memory along to new places is an old one, and valid.

There is a human need to retain ties, is that so? It means continuity, and not necessarily "worship" of that past.   There is a higher likelihood of survival if some of the customs of the new group are observed, is that also so.

And if Jehovah made no objection at the time, then the interpretation against the Tribe of Dan is just to create more fear and threat. Find your Bible. Look up Judges 16-19.

The Tribe of Dan bringing along a priest who was also respectful and observant as to other gods -- Jehovah had no objection, and the Tribe was far less fierce than others who ran over locals in order to claim their inheritance.

2. The example of Papal infallibility.

Someone says he is inspired. Say, Peter, as in Apostle, who was an eyewitness. And even eyewitness accounts are suspect, subject to influence and agenda, as we well know, see issue laid out at http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php; and now to be heard by the Supreme Court, see http://verdict.justia.com/2011/09/07/the-u-s-supreme-court-considers-the-constitutionality-of-unreliable-eyewitness-identifications

Are all others -- say, Paul, and all the rest who were not there, but who lay hands on each other's heads also inspired? See http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp/ Entire areas of Biblical text that do not address issues to meet the needs of the institution, are filled in; and the canon itself is selected by excluding contrary viewpoints, is that so?

.................................................................................

I. HOW DO WE COUNTER FEAR AND THREAT.

Do we do, as the Romans did. Do we carry about our household gods -- objects and ideas we absolutely can't do without, and retain our identity. Customs and philosophy: define self. Can the self flex? Carrying along one's gods in times of transition -- albums, war medals, old report cards, keep photos in the cloud, grandma's silver, etc.

A. When you move, or set up housekeeping, do you reverence, as did ancient Rome

1. Forculus. Protector of the door and door leaves.

Ask not only where are your kids and your 401(k) right now; but ask where is your Forculus, who for early Romans (whose own ideas largely stemmed from predecessors, particularly the Greeks and they stemmed from others even earlier), protected the door, especially the "door leaves". See http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/rel-home.html/

Door leaves. Is that the panels, the planks or boards making up the door? No. It seems to refer to separately moving parts of a folding door, or sliding door or one of a pair of doors. http://www.answers.com/topic/door-leaf-1/

2. Limentinus. Protector of the threshhold.

Where is your Limentinus, who for early Romans protected the threshold. Were you carried over yours? Put up a little thousand-needle soft yew, cone-shape at the front door. A witch has to count them all before the witch can enter.

3. Cardea. Protector of hinges.

Where is Cardea, who for early Romans protected the hinges. When one squeaks, do you rush in with the 3-in-1, lest the evil ones be attracted by the sound?

Hinges. Important. Need protecting. Bojnice Castle, Slovakia

4. Vesta. The hearth.

Where is Vesta, who for early Romans protected the hearth. See http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-religion.php/ Why else put Santa's stockings there.

5. Janus. Doorways and beginnings, facing both ways.

A Mezuzah, see http://www.jewfaq.org/signs.htm

6. . Lares. Ancestors.

Your albums, onling cloud photos. The ancestors of the household. Which of us are free of those gone before. Whose memory lingers on, shaping us whether we will or not. Little figurines in a cupboard. More elaborate rituals called them out. Special days.

Lar familiaris. The family spirit. How do you see yourself? Stolid like the Swedes (said my mother-in-law) or better than the Catholic Irish (said my Protestant grandmother, of the Plantation), or beware the uncle who died alcoholic, etc.

Self portrait in spirit

7. Penates. Gods for the larder. Keep everybody fed. Little figurines, in a cupboard, brought out, perhaps, at mealtime.

8. The genius. Over the bed.

This was in the form of a snake, the "manhood" symbol.

Put that one over the marital bed to ensure propagation. Scary. Bible says Eden's snake was male, but Michelangelo at the Sistine painted him with bosoms and otherwise made it female. Tell that to the Republicans, that the snake is male who is the tempter, who wants to force his progeny on others. Nuts.

How is that related to geni? or genii? As in the bottle.

9. Larvae, Lemures. Dead.

The crematory urn still in the closet. Spirits of the deceased that could haunt a household. Rout them by bashing pots and spitting out black beans. See family spirit above. What has passed through generations in your own family, as though nobody got it right yet, so it will keep recurring until somebody does.

Miragoj Cemetery, Zagreb, Croatia

B. What gods and goddesses do we placate by legislation.

1. Juno Lucina (same as Juno wife of Jupiter?) Watched over births.

There used to be a birthing room, off the main fireplace room for ease of access to hot water. Where is room for that in the white glare of the cold room in the hospital?

Other spirits guarded a foetus from its very very beginning, even though powerless and uninterested in guiding the course chosen by the hostess. This was a matter of the property right of the man in that piece of property therein.

Note that birth control is a Biblical favorite. How many begats have more than one son? Eve herself chose to have two alive at once. Case closed.

We don't hear much about that Roman idea of guarding a foetus, with its later fate of perhaps an abandoned infant on the hillside, but we are not far from it. Many factions here protect the zygote, but let the born one go off the radar. Who cares. Life is tough. See Picumnus and the early life form (he invented the manuring of the fields, no sh____, and did other fertility things, see http://www.pantheon.org/articles/p/picumnus.html) and Pilumnus (more on healthy children and protecting against Sylvanus, but that gets beyond us, see Pantheon site.

Thank both for their service, before, and in the birth, and after. Too bad in our culture we are fierce about the foetus, but then let the growing breathing ones go. Just be sure the woman takes her consequence and let the babe fend for itself after.

2. Early childhood.

The Romans had other gods and goddesses who came in for the parts we ignore in current funding cuts -- breastfeeding, bones growing strong, eating well, and talking. Enter the goddess Nundina, http://www.pantheon.org/articles/n/nundina.html.

Day Eight - Name the girl. Day Nine - Name the boy! Why the day's difference? Were baby boys weaker then, as now, perhaps? Shall we name the goddess for the Eighth Day of the Girl: Octina, or perhaps Ocarina? The girl got an amulet, the bulla, that she wore until marriage; and the boy would wear his bulla until he was a man (when?) and got his toga virilis somewhere between 14 and 18 (Oh, that).

3. Other Roman customs worthy of carrying with you:

Big gateway in a life: Marriage. Common sense. Lots of ways for that to result. No deities need be present. Not their concern. Rome:

3.1. Consent, both sides. No festivities.

3.2. Boy-Girl live together one year, Girl not absent more than 3 nights.

3.3. Boy symbolically purchases Girl, takes a "Holder" of a pair of scales (is this where we got lady justice?) at the time, and 5 witnesses

3.4. Patrician families: the rich ones. Full ceremonies required or usual, in presence of "pontifex maximus" (who? the great pontiff? no popes at the time)

Marriage. Separate swimmers. Here, Poland.

Not always quiet waters. Those Rituals continued until the Christians amassed more masses, say about 200 AD, in a serious way. Then the rituals changed to suit the new ideology as promoted by the beneficiaries of the form they fostered (That would be the Gents, who usurped any role women had while J was alive. Is that why the institution worships Paul?).

Boy and Girl share sacred bread (nothing Christian here, this is pagan Rome), prayers, sacrifice, and taking of "auspices" -- what? augurs for what? ==

4. Another gateway: Getting engaged: Girl gets a ring.

Wedding: Girl wears red-orange veil, with blossom wreath, animal sacrifice, check entrails for omens, exchange vows with Boy and they are married. Funeral -- read on at the site ://www.roman-empire.net/religion/rel-home.html

C. Protecting our outsides:

In the yard, mirrored gazing balls, old idea, confuse the evil spirits with optics in the garden (put it deep inside the growths, conceal it, not just out on the lawn like a wart). See http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/gardenbuzz/archive/2010/10/31/sunday-october-31-2010-how-to-keep-witches-out-of-the-garden.aspx

15. Roman hand as talisman.

See how churches may still use the benediction idea of extended thumb and then the first two fingers also extended; but the third and fourth fingers are together. See http://www.luckymojo.com/willss19hand.htmlforeg/ It apparently is in the British Museum, called "The Hand of Power". The "Powerful Hand" at http://www.luckymojo.com/manopoderosa.html/ See the spells at http://www.luckymojo.com/protectionspells.html/

16. Runes. Why do so many games construct elaborate settings and spells. All cultures, all roots. Casting spells: we made that evil early on. Eve said she was beguiled -- as she probably was -- and even though that was not the model of how to get out of responsibility, it is a formidable defense. Note she was not banished -- go back and read. Only "the man" was. Beguiling gets respect. It was not her fault. Even the deity recognized that He had not secured the borders. The hisser got in. Is that so?

Old altar stone, Ireland

Why not just acknowledge that our traditions come from deep roots and not just X and dogma thereafter; and tap into them as we need. Is that Uncle Hector out there? Come in!

Conclusion so far:

Fear and threat: Universal life conditions. If not in the world on its own, fear and threat thrive in the institutions and media who want us afraid so we will follow their chosen ideology.

The more institutional the religion, the more humanly self-serving.

Got runes?

Fear. Works to keep people in line. This picture of Hell, from the Cathedral in Bern, Switzerland, is large because otherwise the details of what are to frighten you into the church's religion might lose impact:

Going to Hell. Cathedral, Bern, Switzerland

Plan A. Some of us may say, "Dear God, Bless this House." Did it work? Perhaps we need to broaden our horizons. Trouble is getting in anyway.

Plan B. Mutual borrowings are in order. Look back and around at Peoples of the world. How did/do they approach the need to secure the home, your very own castle of sorts, from threat, rudeness, demands, disturbance.

Gateways are symbolic, but like borders, not impermeable at all. As an introduction, in Romania, put up a big gate at the front yard, where it meets the street, to keep out evil. This great gate, off in the mountains, does not protect a house but a people: it symbolically marks as far as the mounted Mongols got in their invasion plans by that route: horses and forests and mountains did not mix, good for Romanians.

Gateways to keep out evil. Here, at Prislop Pass, Romania (marks the stop of the Mongols)

The best response to fear and threat is to preserve opportunity for flexibility.

When Roots of Belief are Propaganda. Mein Kampf: Hitler's Playbook. Threat, Fear, Slogans and Certainty. 1925 Propaganda Tactics Go To Washington.

2011-02-17T17:46:00.025-05:00

Persuasion: Threat is the furrow, fear is the seed.
Without threat and fear, can political propaganda take root?

Hitler's Wartime-Inspired 1925 Playbook:
Mein Kampf, Propaganda Chapter VI.

What of the people; What to do when the roots of belief are propaganda. What is the wake-up? Is there one necessarily? Or is this too deep as a persuasion formula that condenses power, so that its InRoad is impregnable. Obstruct debate. Do that, and you win, see See FN 1 Godwin's Law, whereby the mere invocation of Hitler imagery will lead many to exit a site, should be applied with care. An appropriate analysis of Hitler leads, at its best, to alerts when his propaganda techniques are used today.

Persuasion techniques: Beloved by the politician, the lover, the clerge, the ruler, the dictator, the anointed deity spokesperson, the jailer, the marketer, the general. It worked then, long enough for disaster. And can do so now. The propaganda invasion of Civil Governing Processes. There are variations on the ISSSFOODR regimen - Isssfoodr is 4U, as a memorable ridiculous slogan. Test it out.

Propaganda InRoad

Induce threat, survival fear, ideological loss
Spin
Sloganeer
Scapegoat
Focus on the masses
Obstruct facts
Obliterate humanitarianism
Do not debate
Repeat

The idea is as old as politics itself, and any other marketplace. Look back at the 1920's in particular, at the texts, the philosophies, the battle even then between public interest, and humanitarianism; and absolute victory, if only you do it right. See as a start, Text Paraphrase, Hitler's Mein Kampf, Propaganda Section. It boils down to a Twelve-Step Program -- and it works. See Propaganda and the1920s. The Twelve-Step Program and Other Ideas. The persuaders want your heart-felt support, and hope you will skip any deeper analysis before you commit; let them get your emotions first, and you will be theirs forever. Or close to it. Is that so? Are the persuaders right?

So ask: Who persuaded you?
.

Propaganda is so powerful it developed for War. To use propaganda in civil process undermines civil process. The Method Goes to Washington. Manipulate belief, manufacture and shape crisis Threat, fear, slogans and certainty.

.................................................

I. Background - Mein Kampf. Uses of it now. The Detrimental Effect of the Hitler Power Playbook Formula (Wartime Persuasion Techniques, see FN 1) Used in Civil Governance Here, Now. The tactics were developed for wartime. Read Chapter VI in Mein Kampf. Propaganda can aid in a war effort. Propaganda undermines civil process, however, by circumventing debate. Appeal to the emotions of the masses, get them on board without full objective information, and you win.

II. The Mein Kampf Method, examined. Is this on our plate? A party seeking policy influence:

Establish a survival struggle;

It may be a threat to way of life, adopted ideology, value system, independence, freedom (liberty is a popular word for that), honor, and/or nation's honor. Those things are threatened so strongly by evil others, that we must remove them from sight, even to the extent of deporting ten million undocumenteds, forcing gays to keep quiet, out of sight, so say the propagandists. Immigration, gender identity.

Identify and Exclude unworthy people. They get no protection.

Narrow the field. Apply a law but deny its equity side. Exclude some people from protections of due process, assembly, mobility, health. Inclusions for the Good; Exclusions for the Evil. You control the worthy believers. The worthy believers control the unworthy, is that so? Job done.

Scapegoats: Identify losers; threats to the people in the Survival Struggle. Exclude them from consideration. Or, get rid of them. People to feel responsible toward are a distraction. Separate out those who deserve freedom and independence (those who have "honor") from those who do not (those who do not have "honor"). Either the losers have honor or they do not.

Downgrade or bar humanitarianism or aesthetics; public interest be damned.

Cut off funding for public broadcasting or public service projects, mass healthcare, education and access to means to productivity. Exclude aesthetic considerations. They distract from Winning. Nanny state humanitarianism. Not for individuals, arts. Subsidies are for corporations, not people. This is War. Nature is not humanitarian. If anyone carries those humanitarian values forward after the Struggle is won, it will be because we are the ones who Won and we are chosen. Humanitarianism is dispensable and a distraction, once the Struggle is established. See Attack on Humanitarianism; a progress report

Sloganeer. Obstruct debate. Repeat. Need not be true, but must at least be "psychologically correct" if it is to fend off disillusion over time: limit information to the following --

The fact is clear.
The methods are necessary.
The necessity is correct.

Simplify. Deliver a few, very few, ideas, forcefully, and always with unwavering certainty, uniformity, consistency, no matter what. Psychological warfare, Baghdad Bob, see ://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Psychological_warfare/ Limited, focused message. Only a few points. One-sided. Highly motivational. Not even have to be true, but broadly should fit with a reality the person may confront (a psychologically correct message*).

Use any means to reach the goal.

No limit. Any means of persuasion can only be valued or weighted by whether it Won the Struggle.measured by its Winning the Struggle. The most aggressive, cruel means will be the most humanitarian, ironically, where they are applied for a brief time.

Aim for the masses. Exploit "emotion"

Appeal to Feeling for the less educated massses (simplistic slogans); and all with Repetition, Unflagging Certainty. Only the masses count. Get them, and you win. Emotion takes up a kind of permanent residence: once there, hard to dislodge. When emotion falls away, there is grief.

The measure of success for a slogan is whether it burrows into the heart, the emotions of the masses. The masses are not capable of objective, deep analysis; and forget easily. Reach them through their feelings, like women say some. Role of detail in slogans. None. Details get in the way of the message. No details. Role of assessment, comparison. None. War in politics.

Simplistic: A State with a broke budget: excuse for any number of intrusions, oligarchic measures well funded.
Distract from jobs and financial accountability with social issues. Distract. Get in the bedrooms of the nation.

No ambiguity. This is the point of persuasion. No analysis, no facts. Just repeat, repeat.

Does it matter that a belief is rooted in propaganda; and not in a reasoned fact assessment?

No. Belief is belief.

Why go to the trouble of laying out facts if you get there faster by employing the propaganda Playbook. Facts can change. That is unsettling. Ignore them from the start, and people are secure.

The certainty of a deep belief bars an essential democracy governing function: open exchange of information, for the purpose of voters acting in their interest, fact-based. Fact vs. fantasy.

"Beliefs" in personal matters are fine because no-one else need be affected. Example: Today's pundits love broccoli. I can believe that broccoli is good for me, that it leads to my eternal life and deity approval, and want it available. You do what you want.

"Beliefs" about government matters is not fine because a vote based on a personal "belief" affects others. I cannot properly believe that I have the right to force others to eat broccoli, because I believe it is the key to eternal life and deity approval. I have the right to promote its ready availability for those who also like it, or who might if they tried it, and to educate about the role of nutrition in a healthy body and mind; but I cannot shove the fork down the throat of the unwilling, or those whose deities require other sacrifices than eating broccoli

Ignore the intelligentsia. Control "reason"

Educate in controlled ways. Limited, focused. Only a few points. One-sided. Simplistic. Reason is a renter: reason may lead to change of mind, if circumstances change. That is incompatible with propaganda that does not not not change, even if circumstances do. The propaganda does not even have to be true, accordingly; because reason is not pivotal. Propaganda need only be psychologically correct *: that reality will support it enough that the intelligentsia will not feel swindled when they find out for themselves "truth".

The fact is clear (our objective is just).
The process is necessary (the method will accomplish our objective)
The necessity is correct.

* The message must be psychologically correct, as with soldiers; so that the supporter does not come into contact with a situation and find that he has been misinformed, swindled into believing what turned out not to be so. Do not paint the opposition as ridiculous; because the opposition may well be formidable.

Refer to no merits of the other side's argument. Ignore even the non-merit of the other side. Give them no attention at all. Repeat and repeat . Harp, harp, harp. Just stay with the slogans, repeat them no matter what else may change. Consistency and drumming are key to success with the masses, not a swirl of change that changes the message. The message must get through regardless of change. Certainty. 100% all the time.

No half-statements, no half-hearted support, tentative explorations of other ideas. This will make the masses nervous, cause them to question you; and offer openings to the intelligentsia to undermine the propaganda effort.

This is not a time for measured analysis, objectivity. The objective is to win over the masses, period, regardless of the merit of the position because this is War; and that is done with unrelenting certainty expressed all the time in soundbites, ignoring all other noise.

If there is a circumstantial change, the message must not change. Continuity, sustained uniformity.

Repeat your education points.

The fact is clear,
The process is necessary, and
The necessity is correct.

Certainty. 100% all the time. Assert a fact about a bill, a group, union strength, gays, those seeking choice. Affirm that the desired process (kill the bill, deport the immigrants) is necessary. Assert the necessity, the procedure, is correct. End of discussion.

III. Propaganda's Impact -- Undermines Democracy because it circumvents debate.

Tactics for policy. Use of wartime persuasion methods to attain policy goals, while circumventing debate on the issues. See immigration, economic theory, birthers, the slide of culture and individual morality issues into big government control

IV. Defenses Against Propaganda.

Name it. Since marketing in the most mild way emerged, a sales pitch tries to hook the buyer as fast as possible. Close the deal. The 1925 power tactic built on that: The formula is intended to, and does, avoid open debate. It condenses power without real consent, because real consent requires fact-assessment. The formula: Persuade by technique, not merit. Right out of the Propaganda Playbook. Hitler the Propagandist then; the methods amok now.

Don't let it pass.

Test: How closely do we watch our politicians. Or do just clamber on board. Are Americans fair-minded, do we not want to be manipulated. Are we capable of assessing whether they are manipulated, without particular alerts? Are we smarter than politicians think? Is it true that some of us may defect from the ranks of the Absolutely Certain if we find by our own experience that the certainty of the propagandist is itself propaganda. Update: hidden terms in state bills, ram them through, thanks to big financing. A Concern.

So: Name the tactic as a tactic. Then ask, how did it get so far? Who is complicit in its fostering? Media has chosen sides, it would appear. See Fodder Site. Media Channels Missing the Propaganda Boat.

With disillusion in the offing, can the counter-drummers afford to stand back, and let time dis-prove while you counter-drum, and welcome the supporters who may defect.There may be no time.

Better: Bifurcate the legislative process to place the Wartime Propaganda Playbook Formula tactics after the fact-finding. Then somebody can threaten to shut down the government, if desired, but the people will have the facts on which to judge that proposal. As with all truths, nothing is always clear. Tell the people that. That they can believe in.

A WikiDC quick look at Washington.

All these are argued to present a threat so that voters must do this or that to protect themselves. How much of that "threat" is manufactured according to the Hitler Power Playbook processes, in order to consolidate power, not fix problems.

1. Immigration policy: Absorb (some selectivity) and move on; or deport 10,000,000 undocumented people;

2. Sustainable financial future for the nation: Cut governmental spending drastically, now, in huge figures; or take the same 10 years (hypothetically) as it took to get here, to get out of it; so that those who did not benefit from the loosey-goosey goose-you last 10 years, may catch up somewhat on lost territory. Why call the base line now, when they are so far behind, thanks to those who like it on top.

3. Some absurdities, like birth proofs or religious proofs, and whether subsidies to corporations are more important than breast pumps; are unions to be demonized, but lobbyists for corporations on the angelic list; the teachers vs. oil company debate, in a sense; does substance matter, or entertainment (entertainment), etc.

VI. CONCLUSION

Propaganda is an assault on free speech because it cuts off debate. The tactics obstructing open debate in Washington sprout Right from the Propaganda Power Playbook. The "whopping lie" works. See ://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/Propaganda/Propaganda2.htm/, That is, so long as it is effectively unchallenged.
Sequence and concepts: Mein Kampf. 1925 power playbook. See Mein Kampf, Unser Kampf, Hitler the Propagandist

Are there ethical limits on speech that use that Playbook formula in civil governance, among community components nationally, getting commitment to a position by the Playbook method rather than the merits of the idea.
This is a democracy that depends, hypothetically, on informed voters acting in their fact-based self-interest. The Playbook enables manipulation of attitudes, feelings, thoughts, in ways the population may not be aware; would not choose if not so manipulated at the core.
Threat. Fear. Both open the door to propaganda vulnerability. And the threat and fear both can be products of propaganda, so the whole psychological process of seeking safety because of threat is tainted.
Speech can be shaped as to time, place, manner without violating principles of free speech.
Can we bifurcate the governing process so that the Power Playbook methodology is not in play until all the facts are on the table. Biifurcating uses of persuasion techniques in a democracy;

In the absence of emergency, can people afford to wait it out? What makes an emergency? Can you believe it?

The pan-out: Like Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle's Congress Cure, can we afford let the radishes grow where they will, anywhere the persuaders managed to plant them. Is this so: With radishes, like consequences, coming out of ears, some may reconsider the earlier support for the planting.

Two sides squaring off. Is Washington DC in the throes of Hegelian dialectic, that triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis that even Hegel could not master all the time, see ://www.jstor.org/pss/2708045 -- and that may not lead to a synthesis at all now, because well-funded propaganda tactics prevail over merit discussions. See Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel at ://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/hegel_philosophy_history.html/

Is it Huxleyan point counterpoint, from the same era -- 1928 -- see Aldous Huxley at ://www.editoreric.com/greatlit/authors/Huxley.html/; propaganda tactics vs. fact gathering, discussion, negotiation, vote.

So far, it is Propaganda 10, fact-gathering 0.

Go back to the 1925 power-consolidation Playbook. See the steps. The concept is potent. It was developed for wartime, but is used now -- with manufactured fears of internal wars by shadowy threats. Watch how an idea of a threat to lifestyle (one hue is no longer on top) can be recast in Huge in order to get huge following from frightened people.

People may not even know it is happening. Propaganda creates and fosters enemy relationships.

Does that attitude, that your neighbor who disagrees with you politically is your enemy, further democracy, or lead to an all or nothing win-lose? A "perpetual majority" -- unassailable through the system because the majority is unassailable because of stress persuasion. Only by overthow of the system. Wonderful. All hypothetical, of course.

The most efficient way to approach this may be to bifurcate governmental process: bifurcate legislation, First, the facts, discussion, hearings, data. Then parties can take positions and try to use all the propaganda they want. But no propaganda until all the facts re in. and out on the airwaves for people to lick in the jury room.

...............................................................................

FN 1 - Making a concept your own.

Where did your belief come from? Are you inspired, enlightened; or dis-informed and manipulated? Do you know?

The topic here is marketing beliefs as though they were yoyos.. Trolling for support. How it is done. How to defend. Persuaders and supporters. The great board game of power and hierarchy. The 1925 lessons writ large.

We ask because there is a Playbook on how to enlist mass support for a belief system. It is not sophisticated. The Playbook formula has been around a long time, and originated in warfare. Hitler set it out: Mein Kampf. My Struggle. It was effective then, in creating a survival struggle that convinced people. Because he turned out to be a horror is no reason to avoid reading what he had to say. What he wrote worked, and for a long, long time. Learn from it. See FN 1

Hitler. Who laid it out in 1925 is not as important as its effectiveness, then and now. We know the bad things he did. Now learn why he was so successful. Point out the Playbook method being used as you see it in its recurrent robotic tell-tale pop-up. Its use in policy matters deprives the country of the right to debate fairly by doing the following:

The propaganda steps laid out - read it several ways. Then put it in your own words.

Stage a fake emergency, a false set of factoids, a survival threat when there is none except from those who use fear to persuade you
Divide one nation into people worthy and unworthy, so you can justify any act against them

sacrifice basic humanitarianism, a high value in our country's tradition, until now
is a manipulative slogan, not information.

Claim falsely: that an unclear fact is clear.
Undermine our most basic value: to promote access to opportunity
Kill debate for power-consolidation reasons, not national well-being
Will shut down the government to get the power, is that so? Refuse to discuss, lay out facts? Invade personal lives? Those are wartime tactics, not to be used in democracy's governance.

Must the counter-drummer also stage certainty, in order to counter-manipulate?

The difference would be this: that the counter-drummer is armed with a psychological advantage in acknowledging that the only certainty is that there is no certainty -- that these are the facts, these are the choices, anyone with other options. Lay them out and we can assess. Then comes the debate about the choices with full facts in hand. We support this, they support that. Fine in civil matters. Go vote.

Absolutists? They cannot self-sustain, theoretically, without force. They stand on sandier ground, hard authority-sounding; leading perhaps to disillusion and revolt.

Killer? Change the Name, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Boehner? BOEHNER!

2011-01-14T15:13:00.011-05:00

Job-Killing as a Formal Description of a Health Care Bill

Our democratic roots deserve better.

1. Use of murder language casually feeds a climate of permission.

Violence is a matter of long-term conditioning,

not just blame this speech A for the behavior of this B.

Behavior follows climates of permission, in the vulnerable.

No specific contact with a specific speaker needed.

It is the aggregate. FN 1

Look at your own kids.

Actual contact in a given interaction as cause of it:
not needed for proof of the climate;
and how it is fostered. FN 3

2. Use of murder language casually is a Rhetorical Beckism.
A linguistic pretzel trick; also likely to tie up the original trickster.

Rhetorical Beckism Persuasion Technique:

Set up a Misleading Mix, a false or not completely true word association, then dare the target of the mix to prove it is not so.

a. Trickster offers a rumor or possibly believed factoid, without offering the specific fact base for it
(job-killing? why not job-creating, but different jobs)
b. Trickster claims that many believe it is true,
c. So that the other side is forced to deny it;
d. then, when they can't deny the baseless accusation,
e. Trickster can claim that the allegation then must be true,
otherwise why couldn't the targeted one prove it isn't?

Why a Rhetorical Beckism? Because Beck used the technique in an interview of his own;
and someone now has used it against him (with some baseless rumor
that now Beck can't disprove because it is baseless) FN 2

Meme 1

"Job-killing" - feeds a climate of permission
Casual use of murder terminology
Feeds a climate of permission,
A long-term conditioning of the population
To use violence casually, it is acceptable, expected, the norm.
You too can be a dominator.
It is the chosen way even for government.
Use murder casually, so may others find it acceptable
To consider it.
Government by veiled threat.
But there are vulnerable people out there.
The climate of permission grows
Seeds planted. A little more water, a little more permission,
An opportunity, ready equipment, and ....

Imagine the killing part, in large bold capitals in someone's head
As they perceive it, focus on it. The message.
For now, or to ruminate over in the gunny sack for later.

Do we expunge all violent references in discourse?
No.
Rush is rong. *
Not all "violence" words are equal.
Let "Target" keep its name.
It is the murder rhetoric,
Murder meme, murder hyperbole
Feeding the climate of permission for violence
The long-term conditioning
That taints.

Meme 2

"Job-killing health care" is a Rhetorical Beckism at work.
Job-killing health care bill is a Rhetorical Beckism.
Rhetorical Beckism. An "adjective" without basis shown,
Even contrary to fact,
Appended to something else.
Served up as a dare for the "accused" to deny
Anyway. FN 2

A Rhetorical Beckism. It has no place in legislative debate.

What is a Rhetorical Beckism?
Put a description next to legislation.
Force the opposing side to deny it;
And the mere time spent on denial
Tends to suggest there is something there to worry about.

Here, the manipulative nature of the Rhetorical Beckism continues.
Name the legislation with a Rhetorical Beckism,
Then offer no hearings or opportunity to deny.
Allegation made concrete by the allegation
Is baseless, but

Then say Aha!
I, Mr. Boehner, hear no denial that this is true,
No proof that it is not true,
Therefore it must be true.
Job killer bill!
Rhetorical Beckism.

Rhetorical Beckism can backfire because people can put out their
Own rumors, as has happened to poor Beck.

Meme 3

Persuasion, cultural ideas implant
Spontaneously, by some kind of remote transmission, reception, unawares.

The point these days is not a requirement for direct contact,
But a far more complex cultural process
We are only beginning to understand.
Imagine the meme fostered,
Even if a Vulnerable person
Does not actually see or hear the name of the bill.
The meme gets out, springs.
The climate of permission fosters it.
As does created "rapport", selective information conveyed:
Tactical Realities, below.

An aggregate of thoughts, like genes replicating
In separate individuals
But the same way,
How to capture, prove a climate of permission.
A climate fostering.
It wafts but is.

Study "rapport." Establish rapport,
Foster uniformity, similarity ideas,
Whether in the military or the NRA or the political bus
And rapport gives you access to the minds.

More at how to make us uniform
At world-information.org/trd?trdid=M

Meme 4

The propaganda effects, when ideas take root

Vetting roots. Ugly. Can individuals make a difference? Here, Maine.

Are hard to uproot.
Read Tactical Realities,
Cultural Intelligence and Social Control
at ://world-information.org/trd?trdid=M/
Map out the process.
Start with a taste, Tactical Reality-inspired:
Big Persuasion, Democracy's Pitfall,Techniques,

Rush to read
Edward Bernays: How to Regiment the Public Mind
Edward Bernays from 1928 FN 3
An absolute mastermind of persuasion
Whose theories guide the think tanks today:
Just ask Rove.
Reports from WikiSnoops sitting in on his think tank
Are due shortly.
Rush, do not walk, to ://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html/

Proof: Look at the Rush going on
To deny the effect of association, repetition.
A game! Another Rush. Another Rhetorical Beckism.
We say the Heritage Foundation has adopted Bernays
As Guide in Chief.
Deny it. No answer? It must be true.

Health care becomes a linguistic killer op.

Groan at the hacks who thought that up,
Who feeds the climate of permission
To murder, to kill.
Tame the murder meme process. Too late?

Ideas can go from memory to memory,
Fostered by rapport.
Or, if that is too peculiar to suggest,
Think of the climate of permission
That language used generally fosters.
No actual contact needed.
Now that's worth meming.

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

FN 1 Climate of permission. The meme at work. Memes were popular especially in the 1990's, as an idea or usage held in memory that can be copied to someone else's memory. Cutting edge here, Rush and Krauthammer. Fostering memes are a stock in trade of persuasion. Here, we look at the transmission of ideas more as a climate of permission that is created by the aggregate of violent terminology, especially murder-focused words, acts, visuals.

FN 2 The meme concept is less spoken of now, but remains a concept in image creation, putting out ideas without stating them as true. Or making people explain away baseless claims. And when they don't rise to the bait, suggest that the claim, then, must be true.

Job-killing Health Care Bill Meme.

If the use of "killing" is not actual incitement (anybody would "know" that murder is not being suggested, although use of the term so casually feeds a climate of permission); it is meme abuse. A Rhetorical Beckism. Put it out there, requiring others then to prove it is not so.

Rhetorical Beckism? Misleading Mix, a false association comprised of lack of factual bases or selective, incomplete references, leading to an unwarranted conclusion. Death panels. Yes. The description may well be false; no facts are given in support (why not call it a job-creating bill, noting the jobs may be different from the present allocation). Glenn Beck does this effectively: make people explain away charges that have no known basis in fact at all. A Trickster Ploy. See the interview exemplify Rhetorical Beckism:

Woven, then caught in own net, is that so. See account at ://thebrowntweedsociety.com/2009/11/02/glenn-beck-case-part-1/; and ://knowyourmeme.com/memes/glenn-beck-rape-murder-hoax/

See oldish, sites above: Somebody did a Rhetorical Beckism and put out a rumor that Beck did bad stuff back in 1990. See Beck lose that 2009 case, at://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck_loses_domain_name_case_over_parody_website/ Review it anyway. Then the somebody asked why Beck never addressed the rumor. If he has nothing to hide, why won't he deny? Brilliant. Once you notice, you see it everywhere, is that so. Technique in creating memes, example: Make a baseless reference to a baseless accusation. Then leave it up to the targeted person to have to deny the baseless accusation.

Does Beck still deserve his own methodology? You decide. That case was lost, but the legacy lingers on.

Glenn Beck did a Rhetorical Beckism as to the Muslim Congressman; an internet fellow is doing it to Glenn Beck; and the Republican Majority Leader Boehner is doing it to all of us with "Job-Killing Health Care Bill". Who can rise to deny? No hearings on the issue are allowed. Ha! No denial! It must be true!

See ://motherjones.com/riff/2009/10/glenn-beck-vs-internetsn: even the process is the subject of a lawsuit by a media fellow against those using his technique against him, see Glenn Beck vs. Internet at ://motherjones.com/riff/2009/10/glenn-beck-vs-internets

FN 3 Contact. Optional element.

We are looking at long-term conditioning.

Any analyses of Arizona's gun murder tragedy that limits itself to causation effect only where there is actual contact proven as to this particular event is Rong. There's another meme -- rong. Think you're original, then go look it up, and find it already on the loose. Rong.

Memes. Edward Bernays' Propaganda is at work in newly identified ways, not to get spooky, but the "secret knowledge" or the new "dark arts" of mass persuasion are out there. Go again to Tactical Realities at ://world-information.org/trd?trdid=M, and see how long term conditioning of a population sets the stage for political commitment, acting. Look at think tanks and talking points, hiding in plain view. The text of Edward Bernays' work from 1928 (the art of public persuasion is not a new idea - look up Aristotle's Rhetoric) is on the web. The modern angle is not just how to persuade, but that it must be done. People must be controlled by telling them what to think. Now at new levels of memory replication -- just get the Word out by association and repetition and absurd extrapolation and you win. A must-read for every book club, every individual concerned for our kids and selves.

Definition from ://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/09/on-changing-the-name-of-the-longevity-meme.php. Fair use, and to be sure full credit for this good definition is given -

"meme: an idea, viewpoint, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture; an information pattern, held in an individual's memory, which is capable of being copied to another individual's memory"

Biblical Interpretation. Stuck in N for Nomad. Nomadic Prisons in Literalism

2011-01-02T10:41:00.013-05:00

Nomadic Roots in Biblical Interpretation
Stuck in N for Nomad

Gender roles; and treatment of strangers.

Immigration.

Literalism won't work for either.

In practice, enforcement of anything

depends on whether the result profits those in power; not on "religion"

Read:
Empire. Lust of Sway. Holding Pattern.

Shall we upgrade the nomadic ideas -- finally.

Shift the Blinkin' Gear!

(Grind, grind.)

How culture uses religion.

Prisons. Can cultural origins and early religious ideas once useful become prisons down the road. If practices outlive the cultural need, and continue nonetheless as somebody's assertion of status and power, yes. Ask as to religious origins: What religion originating in a nomadic, homogeneous context, and meeting needs there, with small mobile groups, has made the transition to massive urban. The transition brings with it a calcification of cultural identity rules, exclusions, dysfunctional control issues as to gender and other attributes. Not even Judaism made it, is that so, and certainly not Christianity. Add buildings and administrations and there goes the religion, now a culture.

Even with a root religion, Zoroastrianism, consider the process: First, a Founder; then an Administration. After the death of Zoroaster, only then came the "laws of ritual and practice." Our religions: the culture survives, but the religion of the nomad, or the Founder, did not. There were true Christians until Paul arrived, is that so, and then in came the Institution; and soon all the laws and rituals and exclusions. It looks like all culture when it comes to religions: a conflict of interpretations eating each other. For all people of any angle of the Book? Deep divisions ensue. Even for Zoroastrians, see ://www.religioustolerance.org/zoroastr2.htm

These ideas are is not a religious exercise. This is looking at how culture sneaks in and uses religion, how power uses religion to justify its own ends.

Here we compare two sets of religious precepts stemming from nomadic times -- many religious would hold on to idea a as "moral", but ignore idea b as impractical.

a) Idea: genders and gender practices must stay in narrow lines to maximize reproduction and minimize strife; and

b) Idea: strangers are to be welcomed, no vexing, no withholding justice, hospitality. Immigration.

All arbitrary. Literalism (who defines what the literal meaning is?) or a selected interpretation as to one group's religious ideas applied to a large, disparate cultural group requires the kind of bully enforcement that tends to a police state with a steeple. FN 1

1. History roots. Nomadism, Agriculture, Role Interplays

Nomads formed a culture that suited their environment and illiteracy, and did it well: they survived. Their culture evolved a Book with nomadic-survival precepts. Call it N. Why are we still stuck in N when there are millenia of new roads and understandings we know well. Why the original division, the fear that led to putting groups in cultural prisons; and why do they persist. Roles that once served a purpose: Control men who were interested in each other, lifetime or for a time, and women; and women in general.

Nomads. Also found as itinerant tradesmen in any culture. Travel light, and the equipment doesn't change.

Itinerant, nomadic shoemaker bench. Like Nomadic equipment. Keep the same equipment for Nikes?

Here is a site that makes observations like this:

Power imbalances: The discovery that one gender could do what the other couldn't. Unique. Without which no survival. The other could not learn how to do it. Gender differences in many ways. Most important,what is the logical analysis, what the result.

1.1. Quantity people.

One gender makes only quantitative changes. Easily understood. The "duh" factor. Hunts, herds, sets things up and tears things down. Adds to, subtracts from. He makes something out of something, but the components are easily dissected. This is made of that, and this is the process, see? A substitute for the transformation of reproduction that they cannot do, for the nomad mind, is the lab -- find a place they can do it, and make it Important.

1.2. Qualitative people.

Another gender transforms, makes qualitative changes: Reproduction, cooking, planting. Not easily understood in early times. The changes are process, not seen as the changes happen. The result is more than went into it. The process is associated with gathering and agriculture, birth, planting, and what happens afterwards. See something entirely different emerge from the effort of putting a seed in the ground, the transforming soil (Homer, a hymn to Demeter, apparently) letting a liquid ferment. Seed, plant, grain, bread, grind, preserve, heal. The components of a healing are not easily dissected, because much is in the preparation and that is another transformation. Can't put it back.

Even within her own body, she is the ultimate transformer -- and the association with blood is there throughout in primitive cultures and ours. See Nomad and Settler in Patriarchal Religion, by Carol Ochs, at ://www.jstor.org/pss/3177724 (JSTOR Feminist Studies Volume 3 Number 3, 1976). A mystery.

She, too, can put together and tear down; but has been largely prevented from expanding in that direction lest she disturb the Quantifier who wants it for his own. That brings us to:

2. Psychological, drive to empire.

Take it beyond: The transformative capability is wonderful, to be desired, and out of reach of the quantitative group. Envy, fear, mystery. Must control.

And once folks put together an event at day 1 with what happened at the end of 9 months, the prisons went up. Lust of Sway. The Drive to Empire, Power.

A mystery, but the process of transformation for reproduction, even cooking, is so necessary to the group's survival that early interventions maximized the opportunity for the transformation.

The quantity-change one had to control the quality-change one to be sure she did her job. That brings us to prisons -- The transformers, restricted in many ways.

3. Inter and Intra Gender activities. Restrictions, denial, prisons of sorts, for gender-role activities.

See Catching the Phoenix, The Social Construction of Homosexuality by Nick Yee, at://www.nickyee.com/ponder/social_construction.html. Prohibit on one hand, for ordinary persons; but wink at the powerful, see The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Society, by James Niell, at http://books.google.com/books?id=1ha9GgWNmy0C&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=lists+of+homosexual+rulers&source=bl&ots=MJOysbo0Dm&sig=kSMim-PKMvgu8CT2fZRbz6VPfyo&hl=en&ei=-JggTb_cCYOB8gbq35ChDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false/

How are those concepts related to original nomadic concerns for maximizing reproduction, now not a concern at all. Women's roles, gender roles of all kinds, stuck in N. Biblical interpretation is a mix of agenda and people's various ideas of "inspiration". Powder keg.

Ask anyway: The needs of the Nomad as our cultural and religious arbiter. What?

The reaction against is eloquent - protests, self-definition, control of one's own environment, see Marge Piercy Right to Life at http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=158293757743&topic=14341/ Love it -- "A woman is not a basket you put your buns in to keep them warm." Men laying claim to her pastures for their grazing, fields for growing your babies like so much iceberg lettuce. Marge, Marge. Somebody already has her work on Facebook.

4. We are stuck in N -- not for neutral, but for Nomads

Look again at Nomadism -- the patriarchal societies that evolved where geography required wandering, and smallish groups, see The Nomadic Lifestyle of the Ancient Hebrews, the Ancient Hebrew Research Center, article by Jeff A. Benner at://www.ancient-hebrew.org/ /33_nomadic.html/ Nomadic groups were limited to 25-50 people, get bigger and a group slices off to start on its own. Controls are easy in 25-50.

Fast forward to cultures that are not nomadic -- urban, even ancient urban. Needs and context change. Histories of homosexual and bisexual and ambisexual rulers are all over the internet -- next up will be transgendered.

But the prison set up around the transformers remain. Kill the spirit, collateral damage to making her produce. Marge Piercy: poems. Go see.

Cut the tip end of the leg of lamb off before putting it in the oven. Why? Ask Mom. Mom, why should I cut the tip end of the lamb off before putting it in the oven? Says she: I only did that to make it fit in the pan. You have a big pan. Why are you cutting off the tip end of the lamb before putting it in the oven? Because you did! Oh, what did I raise .... no brains.

5. The Anti-Cherrypick solution. All Provisions Apply to Everyone. Separate the culture empire-building from "religion"

Let's say this about cherrypicking: All puns intended. If anyone wants to apply one set of provisions out of an entire nomadic religious tome to any individual or group today, then all the rest of the provisions in the nomadic tome must be applied to every individual or group.

If anyone could enforce that, so that if any nomadic impositions on the goose are applied, then all nomadic impositions are applied to the gander, watch the bars break. Dietary laws, all the prohibitions, apply! Apply!

6. Follow the shifting gears. Immigration, Aliens, The Strangers Among Us

How would this Universal Cherry Pie, apply. Look at The Dream Act and Immigration Reform and Women's Rights. What if the Transformers reject the nomadic customs, finally.

Do what the Bible says if that's what we or you or they say they are doing. If precept A does not get changed because of changing times and needs, then precept B does not get changed.

Directives on aliens.

Is this so: The Bible says to be kind to the alien living in your country, do not mistreat him, take advantage, do him wrong, don't make life hard for him, don't vex him, Leviticus at://bible.cc/leviticus/19-33.htm; and cross-references to Exodus and Deuteronomy, for heaven's sake. The nomads mean business! Be kind to the elsewhere-born among you. This is not an exegesis into the concept but get the gist: you are cursed if you withhold justice from the alien, fatherless, widow. Etc.

Directives on gender behavior.

Is this so: The Bible also says, some say (disagreements on linguistics, meaning, role of context, etc) behave yourself the Nomad Way. So, if you enforce the alleged prohibitions that are interpreted to mean (not all agree) that men cannot lie with one another regardless, and women with women, and women have to have babies planted in them without regard to who, what, why, when, where. Nomadic holdovers. Like the tip on the leg of lamb.

Enforce it all. See how much "religion" is left. Watch the complaints.

On immigration, accept all immigrants everywhere into the country freely, without regard to who, what, why, when, where. Add the dietary laws, punishments, all that. Good Nomads.

What happens to the game of Let's Get Biblical.

See how culture expresses itself in religion, not religion expressing itself in culture. If some say one group has to play by nomadic survival rules in an urban-ultrasound world, then so does everybody. Literalism requires a return to nomadism and its mindset. Is the Deity really requiring people to go back to the desert? Even old Jerusalem was far removed, and calcified.

Shift to R for Right for Reverse, if that is what the Right wants. If we do, watch the shift from N for Nomad, to P for Profit as the criteria. N for Nobody wants that stuff applied to them unless it P for Profits them. And that is a shift to P, for Park, and that still gets us N, for Nowhere.

Do windmill mindsets apply to nuclear. Not literally, Sweden.

...................................................

FN 1 We all knows which precept gets enforced: The ones that adds to the power and perpetuate the status of the dominant, or would-be dominant, cultural group. Inch the human car along in some ways, but v-e-e-e-ry slo-o-o-wly.

What holds us in Nomadism, using the literal as a club to put people in line, as though we still are what we (or our cultural-religious ancestors) once were -- small, comparatively homogeneous, with a frontier. Look at the simple roots of stagnation: Reluctance to change; then the complex: Loss of face, fear of competition.

To agree to open doors is to become vulnerable.

Life Events Ex Churchio. Religion at the Bottlers. Will People Recycle?

2010-12-17T20:18:00.005-05:00

Life Events Ex Churchio
A Series of Monologues With Tableaux

Life Events Mainstreamed in Five Settings

I - Funeral - Ex Churchio
II - Wedding - Ex Churchio
III - Funeral - In Somebody's Churchio but let me Out-io
IV - Childbearing or Not - Church Late-io
V - Immigration, Help and Change - Teachings Ignorio

Playbill Program Teaser Summary:
Religion at the Bottlers. Will people recycle it?
.

Life Events Ex Churchio

CREEDS LEFT BEHIND; IN FIVE SETTINGS

1. Monologue I - Death -

No Creediness

Soliloquy. Soliloquist sits on tall stool.
Just attended this life event, and grieved.

Death, sudden, unexplained,
A 19-year-old
While on a treadmill
In the basement.
Found, too late,
By a brother who tried
To resuscitate.
Too late.

No "service"
Just funeral home series
Of remembrances.
Fine.
Exit

2. Soliloquy II - Marriage -

No Creediness

Soliloquy. Stands, paces.
Did not attend this life event.
Would have wanted to.

A couple, marrying each other.
Not even invited.
Immediate family only,
Mom, dad, sibs.
We aren't that.
No church.
No problem.
No Marriage at Creation and other Eden Ideas

Still, we love a life celebration.
And had our own for her
As we
Rejoiced at a niece
Marrying at city hall,
Or some such.

Boy-girl life event. Not religious.

Rejoice, love hoped for,
Continuing. We hope.
Exit.

3. Monologue III -
Death with Creediness, but unwelcoming

Soliloquey. Soliloquist appears in and leans over from high box, upper stage right.

Back in a church.
A dogma-ridden funeral
With Words, References,
We are Chosen.

Say not so.

Here, older lady
Body now gone.
Words, words words.
Would an outsider feel welcome.
Creeds creeds creeds.
Savior idea? What? Who? say what to whom?
Must people of other ilks really recite all that
Just to say goodbye to a friend?
Don't all Systems believe they are It?

Redeemer etc. That took theologians and history
And people hiding texts and promoting texts
And mistranslating texts and
Battles among sects killing each other
For the Right Wrong Words.

Note to culture:
Need: a universal care-and-respect-for everyone
Service, Celebration, Mourning setting
For life events
Where anyone from anywhere
Could say, yes, this is likely so
And I can in good faith with myself say it..
Says to say. Have you read
Their/ourCreed lately? What?

Not. But grieve nonetheless.
Go anyway. Just keep quiet.

4. Monologue IV - Birth or Not.
Miscarriage; Abortion.

No creediness, but Church Lately Intrudes anyway.

Soliloquy. Soliloquist appears from lobby end, center aisle, moves toward stage.

Foeti lost.
Or child given up.
Or zygote disrupted, out, gone.
Secrets.
Sorrow, disbelief, or relief.
Matter of intent, context.
Whose business.
Whose concern.
Hush, respectfully move aside.
Abortion a new hot button.
Strict constructionists suddenly Git Up and Bar the Winder - recent fabrication.
Strict Constructionism and Abortion. Used to be non-issue.

Tell that to the judgers.
All life has a soul
Say earliest texts, scripture4all.
Church ducks out, except to judge now.
Used to respectfully move aside.

Bury it outside hallowed ground
If unbaptized. Old days.
How to baptize a foetus.
What if all life is ensouled
As old texts say.
Vetting Roots: Where did we get sanctity just for human life.

Dogma doesn't care.
Church changes tunes over the years
To suit the powers.
Now:
Tout the human over all, says dogma.
And this pre-human cluster over the breathing human.
What makes a human.
Life without breath.

Apply don't ask, don't tell to abortion?
Why even that?
It is a life event. Why hide.
Marge Percy and her iceberg lettuce.
://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=158293757743&topic=14341/
Look that one up.

So: Make the incubator-ready gender
An incubator for any seed.
Despite a total humanity,
Restrict her because you can.

Sanctity of this life, over that?
Lalalalala.
Exit

5. Monologue V - Newness and Change.
No creediness. The Migrant Among Us.

Not recognized in liturgy.

Soliloquy. Soliloquist stands stage center.Looks left, looks right.

Change. That's what's happening now.
Take one. Migrations. Not new,
But there used to be a frontier.
A place to go where nobody would mind,
Or at least you could overcome who was there.
Like Sigge. Sigge Fridulfson. Successful migrant.

Now: Big scale. But no frontier, migrants and strangers
Can't beat up the locals.
And there is No Church Service at All
To Welcome the Stranger. Welcome change. Is that so?

Church keeps that one
out of the life playbook.

Your prayer book.
Liturgy. Is there anything for this life event:
Welcoming the stranger.
All you get:
Just stand up with your name tag. A peace passed.

But beseeching that we may see this Samaritan
As our neighbor.
The Tishbite.
Natural Pragmatism: The Place of the Tishbite Among Us
Not the focus of formal liturgy. Inconsistent.

Liturgies:
Role is to Define, exclude, self-tout.
Promote the Ins. Acknowledge the Outs
But protect against their causing us loss.
Loss aversion, see ://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/02/loss_aversion.php/
It's your old frontal cortex again.

Turf. System demands: Bring in new members.
But welcoming the stranger as the stranger is.
No change. Just here they are, welcome.
Do as you will. Join or not. But Welcome.
Not. Is that so?
Or jaundiced?

Old equity. Apply.
Immigration estoppel.
Immigration Deportation March vs. Rhapsody

So: Take in the stranger,
No vexing, no withholding justice
From the alien in your country.
Leviticus 19:33-34
Or somewhere.

Immigration clean hands.
Puttin' On the Writs
Nobody has them.

What to do with hopes.
Look at your own last name.
Forbears' aspirations echo.
Gypsies, Roma. Surname Romney

Salvation to the rest of us is assumed,
If you are of our elect,
Says the mainstream religious conserves.
But amnesty to anyone else?
We prefer to forget they are part of our own system.
Is that so. Go look.
Bring Back the Equity Maxims

So: What we got
We do not pass on.
We hang on to what we got
O Siepacque Culture Research

Ha. Immigration.
Hang 'em up
Because somebody transgressed. Had hopes.
Skip the equities.
.

The Tishbite Among Us

Our kids may be laggards
But we won't let those others
With tint
Show them up.
Line 'em up and shoot 'em
And if that doesn't work,
Deport 'em.
Exit

CLOSING CURTAIN.

Soliloquists appear stage left, take turns on couplets

Monologues on life events
What boils down.

Manufactured assurances
Of things to come: of course fall apart.

So what was there
Before your particular manufacture?

Go back to original texts
Everybody.

And hold hands. It's kindergarten.
Exeunt.

Panoply Deism: Season's Deist Catalogue. Ancient Wisdoms for Modern Reality

2010-12-13T04:55:00.014-05:00

Season's Deist Catalogue

Corporate Polestar Deism

Gender Supremacist Deism
Monotheism: My Property
Chocolatiers Rule
S&R
Which fits your lifestyle
Order Now. Be Happy.
Wisdom of Ancients

Has there always been
A panoply of powers
In the universe

Joke on us: not One.
Each group markets own polestar.
One hand does not clap.

Forces collide. Fierce.
Overwhelming common good
Cancers in cultures.

Hush, child. Why must you
Wake up and write each fool thought
That enters your head.

Anybody got their eye on this spider here? *

* See Thomas Paine, Deism at ://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Thomas-Payne.html

Intelligent Design. The Prostate Isn't.

2010-12-05T14:07:00.005-05:00

Vet Intelligent Design

Superior Understanding -- Nonsense.

The Gents' Equipment was a Prototype.

Never Used Before.

Badly Needed Upgrades

Never Happened.

All things are perfect
And executed as the Designer
Or the Thrower-Together
Willed. So say some. *

Let's test.

[sing with gusto, if you can afterwards]

Bathrobes and catheters
And surgery for strangled
Body exit points cancer-magnets
Growing choking. Tangled
Tubes because counts went high
Weigh what to do
With age and circumstance,
Sometimes surgery welcomes you!

Took all human time.
To get to where robots

Could get in there with three
Incisions
Not slicing the belly up.
Darned thing's wrapped around crooked
That's not intelligent design.

That's bad outcome
Happenstance.

Muttering heard from the gurney on the loose: Any reasonable designer could have coped with temperature issues otherwise. Turkey.

.................................................................

* If you must, see how creatively people can argue for anything, the religious spin machine at//creation.com/the-prostate-gland-is-it-badly-designed. And if you have no head for fine music, think Raindrops on Roses, see a real person on her favorite things at ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXwRG5uVDko/ The susceptibility of prostates is nobody's favorite thing so let's not pretend, shall we? Unintelligent design.

Intelligent Design. Do have your operation just after Thanksgiving so somebody can jam the carcass into a big pot, no seasonings, cover it with water, and let it boil two minutes then simmer covered for four full hours. Strain. Dump junk. Keep broth. It jellies right up. That's Intelligent Design, that. Freeze in little servings. Also good for making rice.

Intelligent hospitalization. Shove a fleecy throw in a backpack along with basics. They may let you stay in the room overnight. Also good for sleeping in waiting area. Surgery takes 3-4 hours to get the thing out, add recovery and/or post-anesthesia care, another 1-2. Help with minor comforts, or messages to nurses, during night.

For The Swedish Patient, ours repeated optimistic affirmations: about fast and full recovery, awaking and remaining in comfort and wanting ice cream. Was allowed in with earphones and a CD player looping nice sleepy music while on the runway and going in, still going on after in the PACU. Did they keep it on, as requested, to block operating room chatter? Unknown, but recovery is going well, with confidence and comfort high. Also wants ice cream. Mindset of the Afflicted doesn't affect the judgment call about the unintelligent design of the blinkin' prostate itself, however.

Next?! Ystad, Sweden

The President's New Banquet Fills the White House, With Others! Wolf Packers Disgruntled, But Asked For It.

2010-11-18T14:08:00.004-05:00

President's Conciliation and Planning Dinner with Congressional Wolf Pack
Muckety-Mucks is Off.

Rescheduling to be at the Automat.
New Banquet already filled

The President's scheduled dinner with Congressional Wolves at the White House will be held with a new guest list. Certain Wolves from Congress, becoming known as the Wolf Pack to those interested in animal models, had been invited several weeks ago, to meet with the President to plan for the new term, see what common ground there might be on contentious matters, and to demonstrate mutual common sense. The Wolf Pack Alphas have decided to herd their caucus cats instead, however, and have just told the Appointments Secretary that they would be a no-show. There is a new invitee list, however, and the time for the Banquet will be at the President's pleasure for them, not the Wolves' scheduling, and certainly not on November 30. [update: there was a breakfast at the Blair House]

The Wolf Pack earlier allowed as how they just might be available on November 30, if nothing else came up, and tsk-tsked about the waste of time in between, and whispered among themselves, don't hold your breath, Prez.

Ah, said the people. Why should the President bother? We are here!

New hopeful Invitee, President's Guest List, Banquet (Wolf Packers are too busy with their community organizing to fuss about the country)

Our reporter, a fly on the wall, has filed this report, in two parts, after the Banquet.
I. Summary, After the Banquet; then
II. Full Press Release.

I. Summary after the New Banquet

WHITE HOUSE REALITY SHOW.

The scheduled banquet went on,

with those in need in attendance,
Room for the needy? Not there, but here.

and thanks to the past decade there were millions
as the President had directed;
invitations were accepted by

the unemployed, the unemployed with no more benefits, the uninsured, various charity implementers and clients, veterans, and others of good will and honest intent to serve.

And what's this? There was still room and food for all.

Great is the cheering thereof among those who understand
and applaud the President his presence of mind in opening up the White House for others!

And the certain Wolf Packers earlier invited, who had begged off,
busy with their unruly caucuses and their mirrors,

they gnashed their ideologically edgy teeth

and did not smile at seeing the good times within

because they have lost the knowing how.

Smile any more? Only at someone else's expense, is that so?

Lo, they are all tangled up in the 24 hour news cycle, twisting their tongues,

spinning their Appearances every which way
and now left out (serves you right, sniggered some who watched them on cable),
victims of their own zeal

in trying to upend a country

and stop the presses to get things done,

for their own sakes.

II. Full Press Release

A certain President made a great supper, and bade many in the weeks before.

And sent his Appointments Secretary a few days before supper time to say to them that were bidden, "Come at the appointed time, for the things are getting ready."

And they all, with one consent, began to make excuse.

The first said unto him, "I have bought a piece of ground within the caucus, and must needs go and see it, lest someone else get in if I am not there, and narrow its bounds another way. I pray thee, have me excused."

And another said, "I have bought five yoke of airtime in my opponent's backyard cable area, and I go to prove them. Please have me excused."

And another said, "I have just shot my friend in the face, and must go find another."

And another said, "I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. Family first."

Bikini Girls, mosaic room, Roman Villa del Casale, Sicily

"See more at ://www.thejoyofshards.co.uk/visits/sicily/romana/," said that other, hustling on his way.

And so the Appointments Director came, and showed his President these things. Then the President, being angry, said to his Appointments Director, "Get out quickly into the lanes and streets of Washington DC, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind."

Veteran, invited to the feast, came and with his wife

And the Appointments Director said, "Mr. President, it is done as you commanded. And yet there is room."

And the President said to the Appointments Director, "Go out into the highways and hedges,

Highways and hedges. Invitees, come in!

and compel them there to come in, so that the White House may be filled. For I say unto you, that none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper."

Senate Minority and House Majority Wolf Packers Packing it In. Lo, the chickens they sowed soon came home to roost and still they did not understand, making jokes about chicken crap we didn't say that they did.

Refer loosely to Good Gospeler Luke 14:16-24, or at least some ideas thereof. The inspiration anyway, like on HGTV. Invite from the highways and hedges. Good idea.

And so he did. And that President, legendary in his own time for acumen, even if action takes too long, was pleased that his response was relaxed, measured, biding its own time, no flap. He also had learned about wolves in sheep's clothing. There were those out to take Dominion, waving Ideologies, see Dominion and the Wolf Culture. And the people also Knew. Wait and see, said the people. We like what he is trying to do, and if it takes more than 2 years to change 250 years of absurdity, corruption and self-interest in governmental dealings, so be it. He is on the track. We think he can. We think he can. We think he can. And if not he, the next of his mindset. Herd caucus cats. My foot.

Isms. Pragmatic Secularism. A Sensible Alternative to Aggressive Religionism

2010-11-08T14:33:00.000-05:00

Ism's in the News.

The Pope decries "aggressive secularism"

What? Has he joined the label fights?

Look at aggressive Religionism. That has done enough mischief.

Caused enough deaths, in body and spirit.

Response: No to "aggressive" secularism,

but Yes to Pragmatic Secularism.

1. The Pope decries aggressive secularism.* But the record of his church and other institutional churches as acting through its religionism for the common good, caring for neighbor, and everyone is indeed your neighbor, falls short.

Does that mean he promotes more aggressive religionism? Again?

Teutonic Knights, Malbork Castle, Poland (2 of 3 in get-up)

Is this excessive force based on religious slogans the approach to global issues, and local? We have had enough of any religionism as an -ism. Is that so? Religionism as an institution cares more for its perpetuation than the theology of caring for neighbors, and seeing everyone as its neighbor. Like any corporation. Answer to the shareholders, not the people.

And the use of the term "aggressive" itself promotes conflict. So how else can the discussion be framed, avoiding "aggressive" anything, to keep us in the same room.

2. Weigh the issues. We have indeed fostered aggressive religionism in the past, with disastrous results. See Western Ethnic Violence Timeline. With those millennia of killing In The Name, can religionism be tempered to operate below the aggressive stage in the future. Not likely. There is the taste of blood.

So, if we have any religionism at all in the process of Deciding, it is bound to be aggressive religionism for the foreseeable future, based on past patterns. That will blow us all up.

3. Look at the idea of secularism, suggested by the use of its counterpart, religionism? Secularism has religious roots in itself, but those roots are carefully pruned, see see ://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/Secularism_Separation_What_is_Secularism_Who_Are_Secularists.htm/

Answers.com is simplistic and has it wrong. Secularism does not "reject" religious considerations, deny validity of any religious root. See ://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_secularism/ Secularism instead shelves them from final consideration when issues come to final shaping. The religious aspect cannot be the decider. That is different from "rejecting". Discuss, identify, then move beyond to other ways of framing issues.

Listen to its advocates. Go to R G. Ingersoll at ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cP39GF8wi0I/

Pragmatic secularism. Fishing on Sunday is fine, just don't steal the bait from your neighbor. Secular concepts ground the law.

4. The Pope asks, why not use "aggressive secularism". No. Aggressive anything leads to conflict.

Proposal: term and implement secularism not as "aggressive secularism", but as pragmatic secularism.

There can be no corresponding pragmatic religionism, if he asks, because religion polarizes all who seek to impose their views on others.

5. The role of religion. Still there. Consider people's religious views as another component in the stew; then turn, pragmatically, to a resolution that shelves specific religious terms and justiifications; and do not use a religious consideration as The Decider.

Pragmatic Secularism. Yes.

.............................................

* See ://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1107/In-Spain-Pope-Benedict-XVI-lambasts-aggressive-secularism/.

Rorschach Takes a Walk. Belief Systems 101. Testing. The R-Series in Need of a Narrative.

2010-10-27T14:05:00.009-04:00

Rorschach takes a walk.

Belief Systems 101

Testing: The R-Series in Need of a Narrative

R-Series 1

Who?

R-Series 2

Who? What?

R-Series 3

Who? What? Why? Where?

Is this meanwhile .... or was it before? a dream?

R-Series 4

But, over there ....

R-Series 5

When did this happen? How? First? Last? Middle?

R-Series 6

Hmmm. Same? Not? Lesson?

R-Series 7

Whither? No lesson at all? Nothing? Oh, but....

R-Series 8

HOT OR COLD?

R-Series 9

What was that?

No! Not That!

R-Series 10

How fast?

If this looks like a Rorschach test, Rorschach term now in the public domain, see more about Rorschach test at ://skepdic.com/inkblot.html/. Culture crutches. Economics. Religion. Power struggles.

................................................

Context:

This is for anyone of any religious or philosophical persuasion, east or west, north or south. Native indigenous, later invader, feminist, Buddhist, Baptist, Hindu, Jewish, Catholic Orthodox or Roman, Agnostic, Atheist, Naturalist, Paganico, Supremacist, My Orientationist, or Protesting Any Established Institution anywhere.

Prepare a narrative for the following photographs. In your own order.

Grab your scissors, feel free to cut these out for your own puzzle sequence construction, and narrative. Put these back in the envelope provided when you are done, and we will hide them in the Biggest Library in the World about religious origins, where they will never be seen again, if the Librarians have their wish. Is that so?

Exam: Course Belief Systems 101, global version.

They are in no particular order. They are numbered for purposes of the R-Series identification only, and have no significance chronologically as to time of discovery, importance, etc. You are free to sort and mix them as you like, but you must use every photo and use them to create a narrative, a belief system, to be adopted by a group of later people in forging their identity. These photos represent the sole remaining original fragments of

the oldest texts possible
from early people
making sense of their world, and
putting it down as best they could
for the next comers
but not recorded until at least 75 years after the events represented. In some cases, a thousand years.
and not recorded by anyone who was actually there

From these, you are to construct how to pass on their meaning, their lessons. Remember, these are incomplete. You have no idea what is missing, or if these were selected out and earlier versions discarded by earlier people. This is important work. People around the world will look at what you say and many will find it to be Authoritative; and pass it on as their unique system. You are to identify the characters, state the action, what is happening, and what is to be concluded from it.

Regretable Collectible. Tatras are Back.

2010-07-26T08:25:00.003-04:00

Belief in Trappings.

The Big Black Tatra.

The Nightmare of Eastern Europe is Back.

Does that make it Nice now?

Clap-trap of Trappings.

See its history: Romani Under Communism: Tatra.

Must-have Trophy Car *
With the fun-fierce-fin vroom-roar.
Show-offs salivate.

A sign of the times
More than hemlines. This car meant
(Means) I. Am. Power.

Since 1850.
Unforgiving High Tatras.

High Tatra Mountains, Poland. Slovakia just beyond. Run!

Motors perverted.

Secret police. Chase!
Nazis. Fascists. Knock, pound. Pain.
A fun Buy? Recall.

......................................
Regretable.://dictionary.reference.com/browse/regretable. Deplorable. Also spelled regrettable. Soon looks like vegetable. Words move.

* The Tatra is apparently the most sought-after vehicle these days, among the vintage car collectors seeking to outdo their own block, see ://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/automobiles/collectibles/25contest.html/ This brings back bad memories for Roma (Gypsies, Romani), others not in the power structure in repressive regimes.

History: at ://www.tatra.demon.nl/cars_history.htm/; see also Bodacious Tatras at http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/a-brief-illustrated-history-of-tatra/ Note that Ferdinand Porsche designed the VW bug (Beetle); and the Beetle was so close to the Czech Tatra design that Porsche VW in 1961 finally paid a settlement amount (3 million marks in 1961 equals what?) to Tatra. The bug was a miniature Tatra but no fin -- the article describes it as a Tatra "mini-me". The design similarity of the Tatra with the Beetle was so close that Tatra had to pay Porsche to settle a patent dispute. The Nazis took over the Tatra factory when they took over Czechoslovakia in 1938, the 87's apparently then in production and favored for Nazi officers. The next model was the 97. The Czechs loved the 97 model driven by the Nazi high-rankers because it crashed so often (tail-heavy oversteer or some such). Still, the Autobahnmobil easily cruised at 90mph with 75 hp. See Bodacious.

Video: at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfqZ2XBOVnk

Secret police loved them, see ://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/classiccars/5421110/Tatra-T603-buying-guide.html; available only to communist officials in CZ, see ://jalopnik.com/303924/project-car-hell-czech-edition-tatra-or-skoda

Jay Leno has one of the 87 model Tatras, see ://www.jaylenosgarage.com/at-the-garage/antiques/tatra-t87/

The Fey in Religion and Politics. Let the Fey Decide. Expand the Political Belief System.

2010-07-12T21:34:00.016-04:00

The Fey. The Different. Not the Expected. The Canny.

In Politics? Let them in.

When a candidate is really of the people; and makes really canny choices
with really uncanny results.

Do old supremacist assumptions, about what a candidate should be, work any more. Did they ever. Consider Candidate Alvin Greene, College Graduate. If he stays in as South Carolina's Democratic candidate for Senator, does that foster a redefinition of qualifications for Public Office - a changing idea. America's Don Quixote, or is this one real.
c
Does he represent the level of analytical facility and expressive abilities of most of the electorate. Could be. Our educational water level is not great. Or is his candidacy a hoax, in some way, an ultimate manipulation of the field. With credible information on that (is he far more capable than so far let on, see http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/54303, somebody vet the awards) our view may change. This is based on WYSIWYG for Greene, and we haven't seen behind much. Even if there is fraud, what are Vic Rawls' options at this late date.

Do voters, so far, really have a representative or senator who is like them, and understands; if not an Alvin Greene. Candidates really of the people. A new concept. Follow its changes.

The Role of Multiple Intelligences in National Decision-Making. A role in the making.

Who gets to decide. Washington DC hallowed legislative halls.

More questions than answers. The intellectually differently enhanced; or intellectually un-enhanced. The unpolished. What does a Degree signify. What is the role in public life of the unmolded, the fey, the fay,

any Out-of-Mainstream intelligence, the "Disabled" or Counter-Abled, and Who Is "Abled?"

1. The example in political life. What if an unknown, who appears to have the undeveloped analytical skills and interest, and less articulate expressive abilities, of many voters, gets a big vote.

Is that not perfectly appropriate: that voters at different skills levels and interests, have someone who knows them serve them.

We are thinking of Alvin Greene, the South Carolina political unknown, disgruntled at events and absence of events in his life (as all of us, probably), and a college graduate, see ://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061002499.html, the sudden Democratic candidate for Senate. He has not been a shining light in economic life, or in the military, and seems to have no second sight, is not a visionary.

But he has uncanny wits, if he indeed acted on his own to get on the ballot; and if, in turn, voters were
a) bona fide working within an election system that allows crossover-party voting between parties in the primary, and allows voting whether or not the voter is informed, not informed or misinformed; and
b) not doing trick-voting, to skew its results.

Alvin Greene did what our system should applaud: work within the process for his ideals, to right perceived wrongs, instead of just kvetching, and on his own. Is that so. What if he indeed wins the election? That may be the best thing going.

2. The issue. The Established get noses out of joint when elites aren't automatically In.

Whither elite supremacism? Why the fuss, except for the obvious, that vested interests may be left behind if candidates really of the people actually get voting power in government. Why didn't we take this seriously! Why didn't we vet! Imagine the heel-of-hand slaps to some South Carolina foreheads.

The issue is more interesting than that. Greene's success highlights the role of a whole belief system that supports elites in decision-making. Funnels them to the fore. Is there a way to counter elite supremacism, or do they have too much money to control the spin.

What do elites really have to offer, except self-perpetuation, we should ask.

The elites are falling! The elites are falling! What next!

The original great mind or estate founder may have been brilliant, had a vision, could implement it, but how about the kids or the kids of the kids. Elite also, and we put them there; but as talented? Any more deserving except for the man-made laws of inheritance. See America Builds an Aristocracy, at ://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/opinion/12madoff.html/ Elites join forces so easily, for profit. Andrew Carnegie had an answer to elitism - voluntary divestment of property before death, no reliance on inheritance, but that in an era of no income taxes; see the footnote at Unified Media Ownership (and the skewing of facts).

3. Our property and institution belief system. Can we think of other ways to meet a common good?

Or are we so into Ayn Rand that there is no respect for common good. Is that the real debate. Property and institution-protecting laws are there because they are meritorious, promote the best in human society. Is that so? Capitalism and profits. Pass the plate.

Politics is as much a matter of belief systems as is religion. Ayn Rand presents a belief system. So does the NAACP (Alvin Greene is scheduled to speak at their convention, see ://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204471.html, the AARP, the Y and all other groups.

Is this so: Each sets roles for people, institutions like hierarachies and measurements and criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Our belief systems put into slots different kinds of people and their beliefs, the mainstream and the intellectually unenhanced, who is considered elite and a decision-maker, who is non-elite. Elite win. End of story. From churches to politics, the role of some defined out, like women in some churches and minorities in politics; has been shunted aside, to the detriment of the culture.Knock knock. They're past the door already, and that is a good thing. Institutions and political and religious dogma have not been friendly to outsiders.

If you have money, you deserve it. If your past life lacked a certain decorum, the image-makers will re-do you. Elect them anyway. Too much image-making. What really counts. Not the gender, should not be the bank account, but it is, but the way the person relates to issues. Solve a larger problem, or get re-elected. Traditional huffy rules and decorum are over-rated. Look how stiff they look being critical on TV. Having no fun in life.

Put others in.

How to limit the self-indulgence of both parties, promote cooperation and respect, with more money showered on you if you don't. Here, Sicily.

3.1 The unschooled, or those who did not excel academically, may have better answers.

The intuitions of the non-intellectual may be on target. They may be less cluttered with packaged reactions. If the issue is lack of expertise, an information base, framing approaches, alternatives, offer them advisors, as everybody else has, and what's to lose. Scott Brown has schooling, for example, but was no shining light on judgment calls, where is that calendar. He did have a flair for trucking. He has hardly an original thought in his head any more, though, that he will speak up about before taking several days with his Advisors. Wise. When people speak up spontaneously, they get in trouble, is that so. Once elected, all you have to do is vote. Get your advisors to tell you what to do. And having someone like that may end up bridging gaps that otherwise would widen. He is framing himself as an independent thinker in some ways. Fair enough.

Alvin Greene. He has schooling also, and he paid his filing fee and get his name on the ballot, and he won the primary for the democratic ticket, Senator for South Carolina. Inadvertent on the part of voters, fluke, whatever. He is there. What has he to offer now that he is there? Should we simply enjoy the ride, and trust the process, and help him be what he wants to be: someone who rights wrongs, especially those where he has been on the receiving end, as he believes. So do we. How are we different in assessing our lives? O, Invisible Hand, Lead Me On.

3.2 What does the culture say about persons out of the intellectual-elite mainstream.

a. Hollywood. Nonintellectuals are okay if they are cute.

We receive these, especially when they are white, as Warm and Fuzzy.

Forrest Gump, with intellectual disabilities, and physical disabilities early on, was received by the public warmly as he went into the Army and made money shrimping and getting the wonderful girl, but he never challenged the real power structure. He was an anomaly, said the folks, no human bad acts, just a good, well--meaning individual who had wits on his own terms.

The Rain Man. Endearing. Interesting, but functioning differently. Still, much to contribute to those who took the time to get beyond the tics.

Special Olympics: Congratulations for what they do not do, as well as what they do. They do not rely on the cute in funding needs of the intellectually disabled. Pictures and photos are of real people, real life. They go beyond the more obvious athletic programs, to include civic interest, health, skills in public speaking, world-citizenship. It represents going out of the box, out of the intellectual, educational-elite mainstream to show value in places otherwise shunted.

Scott Brown relied on Optics, not content, to get In. Time for all of us to cut through Optics Manipulations. He may do well, but the point here is that the belief system in What You See: If It's Entertaining, Grabs You, It Must Be Right.

Alvin Greene. He does not get far here. He does not get out of the box of a lack-luster appearing person easily; he probably would not be defined culturally as cute, or charismatic, ready for the Big Screen, and he has no long record of public service. Can we get beyond the tics, as we could with the Rain Man. Find the core. Who knows. He does not have a leg up in this area, however. No flair for trucking, the photo op, the OPTICS. Has to find another way.

b. Politics. Nonintellectuals are okay if they are smart about hiding their smarts. Otherwise, ridicule and dismiss the loose cannon.

The myth says that answers come from the elite, the connected. We want to know what they think, now, and forever, and don't dare reassess and change your mind. Too much money out there to go to just anyone. Anti-intellectualism can get votes. So people can and will tout and stage their non-intellectualism, act out a persona in their little trucks, and be very smart in doing that. The living inconsistency.

Alvin Greene: He lays himself out. He may be a puzzle, but he does not appear, at least, to be devious. So he, because his very success at what he had the intelligence to try, appears to be an affront to the system that worships itself. How dare he go out on his own, beyond the regulars.

But he did. And people voted. If they did not know the person they voted for, that is a symptom of the system, and the systemic educational lacks of the electorate, and the voters' problem if they have regrets. No problem for Alvin Greene. Get broadband into every home, and a computer, and the opportunity to vet and fact-check, and watch Fox run.

3. Myth and role. Archetype in Culture. Take with a grain of salt.

The recurrent myth and tale type, the fey, the fay, those with second sight, who receive memes and disseminate ideas without direct contact, who "know" -- they are in every culture, probably. What if one of those gets elected? Safe enough. The fey offer their insights with an "out". Oracles always were ambiguous.

We make little room for even the oracle in our culture, however. We prefer data to knowing.

What is the place of the fey in an economic-profiteering culture, one that devalues anything that does not produce money to the proponent personally or to his or her corporation, now considered a mouthless disembodied person and to be worshipped like Baal, see our own Supremes bowing in obeisance. We prefer the octopus who picks sports winners.

3.1 The Fey.

Other cultures assign a valid role to the fey, the fay, the ones who cut through the societal pretzel and actually highlight truths.

Fey. Make room at the table. There is a mix of meanings, from fey as in faerie or magical; to fay as in fated; destined for something, has to go that way. Or fey as simply not all there. Here is a magic well with its rag-tree in Ireland. Make your wish, say your prayer to the spirits, tie your hankie or piece of cloth to a branch. Look closely.

Rag tree at magic well, County Mayo, Ireland. Wishing well, place of miracles, perhaps

"Not all there": We have many ways of saying that someone is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, or absent some hinges. Attributes are lacking that we think comprise a fully intellectually/physically formed and independently functioning human being, see ://www.thefreedictionary.com/fey

If you meet the fey, ask what the person sees. How does fey perception inform the concrete? When is slightly fey faked. Who is being faked out. Alvin? Or not. Military awards? Those do not go to the fey. Do they?

3.2. Multiple Intelligences

What other thinking processes, other than the multiple choice, produce solutions, insights. See Howard Gardner's ideas about the varieties of intelligence, not just those that glow at answering multiple choices, at ://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm/

For example, how to foster multiple intelligenes. Do we really learn most effectively, reach out to new horizons most creatively, when we are having fun at it. This is not a new idea. See the 18th Century Czech Teacher of Nations, Jan Comenski, at Jan Komenski. Spellings vary over centuries, and with linguistic roots and alphabets applied, so do a general search on your own.

3.3. The Fated

Cassandra. How many others, do your own searches, have predicted, seen things, and noone believed. People went to Delphi to get predictions, and got gassy ladies inhaling sulphurous fumes telling them what to do.

Fate. Fates. Karma. Genes. What. Was Pandora fated to open the box and let all the evils out, and only shut the lid in time for hope to remain. Was McCain fated to open another Pandora's box, What rudes-and-means will get out to get us, before that lid is shut. Watch what is let loose.

4. Back to Alvin M. Greene

The Democrats in that State and nationally should rally around on principle. The opponent is unacceptable, so why not assist with Advisors, and see what Populism can offer. The big tent.

What Alvin Greene has said he wants to work for, that is any different from an ideal American goal. Fair play, recognition for those who earn it, jobs, healthcare. Go, Alvin. Scott Brown takes no position without days with advisors; why not give Alvin Greene the Advisors as well.

Give him a choice of Advisors, and he, like others with barely wits to get along except a fine face and body and truck and the rudeness to shout out at whoever they like, may do fine. We accept the boors, as part of gaming the system.

Alvin, folks should rally here and give what assistance you decide you need. Many of us would rather elect a poor him or her than a rich one.

Add caption

Plenty of money for this, but not that. Here 1928, before the Crash. No change. Not even change, Do you believe it? Plus ca change.

Nothing is worse than boors in Washington. You are a self-starter, with common sense, even with a patchwork record like many of us have in our own ways.

Did we think to put ourselves on a ballot to get the laws we want, to keep others from wrong? No, Political positions require advisors, but in simply stepping forward, Alvin Greene did all of us smarty-pants one better. He did it, and he put his money out there to do it, and he won.

Go, Alvin. Candidate South Carolina Senate. There are worse behaviorally there already. Answers of the unschooled. Attention must be paid. And if you are fake, that's America as well.

Religious Oreo. Originalism and Extremism v. Pragmatism and Moderation. Force in between.

2010-06-23T10:38:00.010-04:00

Can Moderation, Compassion and Tolerance
Survive Extremism, Ideology and Intolerance,

Islamic and Christian.

Or are both driven by Groupthink.
If so, how do Individualists defend?

The Dance: The common human drive for The Takeover:
Religious, Economic, Political.
See Force. And counter-Force in defense.

Force used by the tolerant and the intolerant

With so much extremism in the news, east and west, we are exploring history's Islamic moderates.
To us, a moderate is one who can accommodate opposing views. Can moderation co-exist with those driven to overcome the Other. As to Salafism in particular, we believe its roots to have been in moderation: now forms of it, and Wahhabism are "schools of Islamic thought that Taliban fighters generally adhere to." NYT 7/5/2010 at A6, Government in Pakistan Calls Meeting on Terrorism, by Jane Perlez.

We found this sampling:

1. Contemporary

Ismail Serageldin, Director of the Library of Alexandria, fostering reason in Islamic life;

2. Modern historic reformer

Muhammad Abduh 1849-1905 and originally moderate Salafism; and

3. Medieval historic Harun el-Rashid,

Ruler of Persia 786-809, contemporary, and friendship, with Charlemagne. Both men are violent within their cultural parameters in seeking their goals; but keeping out of each other's way and turf. Respectful and accommodating as to each other, see The Life of the Emperor Charles, Foreign Relations, at ://www.celtic-twilight.com/charlemagne/einhard/einhard_charlemagne_c16.htm/. And this at a time when other Saracens were over the Pyrhenees and past Bordeaux, see Einhard and Notker the Stammerer (the Monk of Gall), Two Lives of Charlemagne at ://books.google.com/books?id=L7Rf2PsyvowC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Notker+the+Stammerer+Charlemagne+Saxons&source=bl&ots=raZiCBta7f&sig=39RqxVxuEy_t1SnNaUDltlTlz8c&hl=en&ei=KlUzTJHyLYa8lQeQt4TBCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Notker%20the%20Stammerer%20Charlemagne%20Saxons&f=false

Christianity also has a history of moderates, those who accommodate the less ideologically inclined, but that not the main topic here (Christianity's extremists also are not the main topic here). Ask about the moderate roots of both religious systems, the Founders' willingness to let Others go their way; how did we get to the clash of interpretive extremists today, and the absolute force to conform. Especially, from current news, look at the ordinary Faisal Shahzad who tried to set off the car bomb in Times Square, and how did his ideas grow. Salafism. It began in moderation. Its range now is broad. How did it evolve Muhammad Abduh.

Is today's clash a dance of sorts, with mutual causations - who invaded whose turf with what - Shahzad and others use violence to further a goal of (on example) getting the West out of Muslim lands, where Muslims are being killed; but where the West sees legitimate contemporary, economic, political and religious reasons for being there. Is that so? See the confluence of issues, claims, history, competing belief systems, that lead to troubles.

From Shahzad's extreme, we started looking for Islamic moderates, tolerant people, in history. We find many. Can Western moderates, tolerants among us, resolve what extremists on both sides inflame, or do the extremists have all the cards - motivation, ruthlessness, utter certainty in their cause. Who wins with what Groupthink.

From the tolerant to the intolerant on both sides. Similarities in Groupthink in Venerable Traditions

I. East and West. Can the tolerant survive the intolerant.

East and West may be more alike than we first think. Each - anyone anywhere - drives to take over, or seeks to defend against takeover. Is that so? Religious systems in both culture complexes offer gradations in scriptural text interpretation, from the strict doctrinal literalism, to the looser and contextual interpretation: and all use force to get what they want.

Like the fabled Oreo, East and West both have extreme status quo ante originalists and literalists; and, at the other end, change-agent reasoners and pragmatists. Each relies on force - the center that holds the extremes together.

Even for pacifists, force is needed to make others less forceful against others. Force is needed to gain compliance by others as to whatever it is that is being codified: even when that codification is for less force and more tolerance.

For the West, how do competing liberty interests coexist: can one individual's liberty interest in choosing to be intolerant of others and clearing them out, coexist with another's liberty interest in having his or her position tolerated.

Our tolerant people are under attack by the intolerant; just as our intolerant people are under attack by the tolerant. Whoever gets the laws enacted wins. Do those elements also appear in Islam.

II. The tolerant in Islam.

Medieval Historical:

Harun el-Rashid. This was the ruler of all Persia, with vast lands extending to India. He and Charlemagne, the ruler of the Franks, with vast lands extending into Spain, France. Germany, Italy, were mutually respectful, accommodating, exchanged great gifts. Here is a fair use quote from Einhard's Life of the Emperor Charles, see it and the original in Latin at ://www.celtic-twilight.com/charlemagne/einhard/einhard_charlemagne_c16.htm/

"His [Charlemagne's] relations with Aaron [ie Harun Al-Rashid, 786-809], King of the Persians, who ruled over almost the whole of the East, India excepted, were so friendly that this prince preferred his favor to that of all the kings and potentates of the earth, and considered that to him alone marks of honor and munificence were due. Accordingly, when the ambassadors sent by Charles to visit the most holy sepulcher and place of resurrection of our Lord and Savior presented themselves before him with gifts, and made known their master's wishes, he not only granted what was asked, but gave possession of that holy and blessed spot."
Modern:

Ismail Serageldin, current Director of the great library in Alexandria, Egypt, see A Voice in Egypt for an Arab Age of Reason, at ://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/world/middleeast/03egypt.html?_r=1&ref=religion_and_belief/; and the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations site at ://www.unaoc.org/content/view/42/

Recent Historical:

Mufti Muhammad Abduh. See ://arabnews.com/lifestyle/books/article37096.ece/ and this fair use quotation from a fine biography at ://www.cis-ca.org/voices/a/abduh.htm/ Worth a full reading.

".`Abduh maintained that religion must not be made into a barrier, separating men’s spirits from God-given abilities in the knowledge of the truth of the contingent world. Rather, religion must promote this very search, demanding respect for evidence and enjoining the utmost possible devotion and endeavor through all the worlds of knowledge."
Muhammad Abduh was a 19th-early 20th Century reformer. Mufti roughly means one who gives legal opinions, see ://www.thefreedictionary.com/mufti/ As we understand it so far, Muhammad Abduh, a revered Mufti, founded Salafism; and watch how an originally moderate school of thought has become broad, with extremes. See biography at ://www.cis-ca.org/voices/a/abduh.htm We are not focusing on violent Extremists here, East or West, except to analyze where the extremism lies in the spectrum. And to acknowledge that there is a moderate end of the spectrum in each system.

III. Getting a Grounding

As a start, look at Muhammad Abduh. This site offers subcategories of Islamic Salafism, a moderate approach in Islam, at://i-cias.com/e.o/salafism.htm/. We met this Muslim moderate from a hundred years ago, Muhammad Abduh 1849-1905, at ://i-cias.com/e.o/abduh_m.htm/. He was a mufti, religious leader dealing with juridical issues, Egypt, 1899-1905.

Look at all the categories we use today, east and west in concept: Our drive to labels makes things worse because they shortcut analysis of the real people involved.

1. Is Muhammad Abduh a Jihadist, our Extreme Right; we are talking the violent ones here, who act in violence even where their own scriptures and teachings would not do so.

2. Is Muhammad Abduh a Salafi, his own movement; our Originalist; Conservative. We are talking the ones who value tradition here, look there first; with lines blurring into extremism and intolerance of other views even of what the "original" was.

3. Is Muhammad Abduh an Islamist, our Moderate, even Liberal; these take context into consideration; how to live together.

4. Is Muhammad Abduh a Discontent, our Extreme Left. These tend to be willing to dump present and recent tradition and get the change they want by any rationale that fits. Now. Lines all blur here.

What was Muhammad Abduh?
None of the above because Salafism began as one concept, that later splintered into those groups.
Of the above, he would be a blend (we think) #2 and #3: valuing reason and the practical over the literal and original; but valuing tradition.

East and West Meet Here, in Analyzing the Motivations of Faisal Shahzad

From that, we asked how alike are our religious and political divisions, and propensities to violence against those who disagree. Watch the similarities in how humans approach, interpret, implement their view of proper religious / political frameworks.

IV. Salafism. An example of changing labels, changing concepts.

A. Salafism as an approach to Islam began, through Muhammad Abduh, as a reasoned approach, moderate. Since then, it has been applied to extremes as well. Like "Christianity", the word means little as a label - look to the denomination, the mindset, instead.

The four subcategories of Salafism as laid out are an analytical tool. Not etched in some stone. We think this is what it means:

B. Outlines

1. Salafiyism means the original followers of Mohammed.

2. Mufti Muhammad Abduh characterized the original followers of the Prophet as "rational and practical" in their understanding of society.

2.1 Thus, the rational and practical as principles can govern how societies function; and how text is interpreted; not the literal.

2.2 Accordingly, there is a place for individual judgment. The Qur'an is a combination of divine inspiration and the personal views of the Prophet, thus not all of it is the "Word of God." The words and works of the Prophet are not dispositive, the hadiths and sunna, see ://i-cias.com/e.o/hadith.htm/, as we understand them. Interpret the Qur'an through reason, not literalism.

2.3 Vet the stories, the siras. Authenticate. How credible are the tellers, the recorders, the changes. At the early stages of "canon" - as in the west, people took the traditions, and boiled down and excluded and included.

2.4 To this moderate view, sharia law is based more on the stories than on actual parts of the Qur'an, thus the disputes are appropriate about applicability in a given case, authentication, roots. Why should Sharia apply when the stories and experiences on which it is based can be so disparate, fail under vetting. Is that so, for a moderate Muslim?

IV. Faisal Shahzad. He would not be in this camp. He is no Islamist Moderate.

But would he have been or remained moderate, if the West had not intruded into East, if history had not moved as it did. Mohammad Abduh's reason and practicality do not seem to be part of Faisal Shahzad's mindset. What changed it? Do we need to look at the dance.

Muhammad Abduh, the Islamist, Moderate, reformer, how would he respond today. Would his thinking also evolve through lobby and persuasion (and force) for and by different groups, How do the tolerant become intolerant. How do the intolerant become tolerant.

Look at Toy Story 3 - how did the bear change. It started with actions of others, then twisted by the one on the receiving end.

Where is Faisal Shahzad in the other groupings:

1. Jihadist. Probably so.

Literalist. Originalist. Willing to use violence and terror to get what they want, what they think must be done for ideological reasons. Compare our violence advocated in posters, guns, anonymous postings, take-them-out, hang in effigy, Ku Kluxers of another time morphed into now, all that. Violence. Use it when you need it, say they. They see their cause as just, so conquer they must. Etc. Here are literalists, Bible-thumpers, force my views on you, gun-toters, macabre-poster worshippers.

2. Salafi. Probably not.

The modern use of the term is for those who reject the violence, but are originalists when it comes to behavior. They imitate the earliest followers in their actions. How did they do it. Then we do it that way, too. At the mild end are the Plain People, Amish, others going to a simpler time's ways. At the veiled violence end, are the communities that subjugate women. As though there is anything originalist there.

3. Islamist. Among Christians, this group would include those moderates and liberals who value text or form criticism, intention and reason over literalism that arose in a very different context, met different needs.

For the modern Islamist, interpretation also is appropriate. Apply text to the times, using the religious concepts of the past in reason and adaptibility. As with the Bible and its many traditions, some interpret the Qur'an, apply reason. Others take texts as complete and irrefutable "inspiration" and go no further,

4. Discontent. Not.

The Discontents do not stop with religious concepts in figuring out rules. For change, they freely go elsewhere as well, for principles. Seekers. Look to the world, all cultures, who has worthwhile views, who learned what from what. The Bible for the Western Discontent is not the end-all for all-inquiry; and certainly not where translations and transliterations - vet them all - show a very human hand.

So: East, West. Similar divisions in religious approaches, different terms, with the exception being this: the acceptance of extreme violence as a means. Violence as an add-on to good founders' ideas. There is nothing originalist or literal about violence - once the vettings have separated out the non-inspiration.

VIOLENCE

Can violence be re-steered, once it is experienced and one becomes addicted. Can history be used to legitimize moderation. Can cultures look at their own programming. We had our Crusades, Charlemagne himself forced all the conversions - not a result of free attraction, persuasion. We have violence in our institutions. We use profit and economics and power to engage in various kinds of violence against each other and others.

Other groups' extremists? Can individuals be convinced away from the Kool-Aid or is The Cause Too Just. Is the person Too Convinced. Faisal: Who has the right to get in his head. Anybody? The tolerant have to use force to survive against the intolerant; the intolerant use force to impose themselves on the tolerant.

Mohammad Abduh. Come back. Reason and practicality are drowning.

Conclusion: Groupthink as the better analysis.

We need to change the paradigm. Not just originalism and intolerance on the top, and pragmatism and tolerance on the bottom, with force gluing the societies together. The oreo becomes Groupthink at the top, the intolerant; and indivdualism within a framework at the bottom, the tolerant; with the mutual dance of force in between.

Because Charlemagne and Harun el-Rashid got along, were they moderates?

Not at all. Each subdued everybody else in sight. Get the groupthink on your side, and go. Groupthink fosters propaganda.

The Saxons who refused to submit to Charlemagne for so long, were they the individualists below. Have to look up that culture. The common ground is the clash, the violence in takeovers, economic, religious or military. Individualism tolerance on the bottom, and violence, the sweetness in between. Each sees reason and right on his side. Can we look to history to legitimize moderation, or were those moderates also violent, as Charlemagne. Groupthink as persuasion technique. He did it well.

Uses of force in enforcing tolerance and intolerance. Any way out? The religious oreo uses force as the center glue. Religious moderates and extremists.

After the Flood: The Irish. Biblical Roots of Migrations

2010-06-08T14:23:00.011-04:00

Egyptian Roots and Irish Origins

Middle East Hub for Migrations: Hebrew, Scythian, Other

Go Back to the Flood, the Caucasus, the Red Sea

Tales of the Egyptian Princess Scota, Scotia: and the Milesian King.

Old Testament as History, Legend.

The Old Testament as History, recorded legend, not "inspiration" here. There are cultural legends tracking Irish origins back to Noah, or at least, to the Egyptians, or Scythians, or Hebrews before they were Jews: An Egyptian princess, or queen, with grave in Tralee and hieroglyphics. And her Milesian husband, who died before their group landed.

Mechanics, support for migrations: We know that Carthage and ancient Egypt allied, and controlled the Mediterranean including Spain before Rome fully bloomed. A leather pucker shoe from 3500 BC is found in Armenia, and looks like "an old Irish pampootie," reports the New York Times at ://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10shoe.html/. Here is a pampootie pattern and discussion at ://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/SHOES/SHOE57.HTM/. Genetics show Jewish groups believed to be separate, to have common roots, see ://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59938/title/Tracing_Jewish_roots/; and find the Heber identification recurring, traces in Spain, and harp connections to Ireland.

The idea of ancient migrations from the Middle East to the Western Mediterranean and north are not outlandish. Does the influence even go the other way? See ://www.irishoriginsofcivilization.com/irishoriginsexcerpts/book1_chap10.html. That theory has Egyptian origins in ancient Celts, so read on. Our focus here, however, is not in that direction. Yet. Ante-diluvian is its own topic. Here we are diluvian, and after.

Eras of movements conflict. Or all are so. Recall the Red Hand of Ulster. One of its tales stems from an Old Testament quirky birth - Zahar who lost out to Phares. There are foundations to any legend, and here we look at the Old Testament to see what people or events are noted there, that may support roots, a migration, a move, of somebody to Spain and parts unknown. We do find a pharaoh, Necho, with different spellings, that may or may not fit. But daughters are mentioned, not named. And time frames vary widely. Holding our interest in Irish origins are the DNA and Rh-Negative information emerging about Irish differing from others. See ://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/celts.htm/ Listen to legend. What does it say. Egyptologists also are interested. See ://egyptologist.org/discus/messages/24/18636.html?1215167929

Scota as a warrior, leading the group after the death of Miletus: This fits with Scythian custom: women were indeed warriors. See ://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=52282/. So if her husband is Scythian, any interest she had as an Egyptian would not be opposed? Miletus was a city in Turkey, see ://www.planetware.com/map/miletus-map-tr-mile.htm/ It engaged in trade with Egypt, see ://www.bookrags.com/research/thales-of-miletus-sixth-century-bce-eoph/. Scythians: Caucasus, nomads, fierce. It was originally settled by Cretans, and Paul was there once. See ://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/miletus/.

Scythian does not appear in the Old Testament, but in the Septuagint Judges, it is said that some like that group settled at Scythopolis, as Beth-shean, and there are other references. See ://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SCYTHIANS/ Their origins are in the Caucasus, and they attacked through Assyria it is told. See also ://www.azargoshnasp.net/history/Scythians/scythioric.htm/ See the Gaels, and their common ancestor, Gaythelos, at ://egyptologist.org/discus/messages/24/18636.html?1215167929. Discussed here later.

So we go back to the Bible as history, not as inspiration, to see what we can see. Who from the Old Testament ended up in Ireland, by way of Spain.

Starting source:

We are using as a convenient starting point a heavy unfolding nearly posterboard-size cardstock copy of The 1890 Timechart History of the World for the Old Testament references. It is a Victorian wall chart now at the British Museum, in a form updated to include up to 2004 AD. We do some crosschecking, but so far are taking that outline for Biblical references. We may change some entries as they prove flawed.

Go back to the Flood for the Irish, as for everybody else since everybody drowned except for the Noahs.

I. THE FLOOD

A. SURVIVORS AND WHERE THEY WENT

See another chronology at ://crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol1/milesius.htm/, not crosschecked against the wallchart yet:

Then there were eight: We start here: 3248 - 2348 BC est.* Flood dates vary. The 1890 Victorian Wall Chart lists 8 possible dates.

MR. AND MRS. NOAH. Parents on board: Mr. and Mrs. Noah: Noah lived to age 950. They had three sons.

1. JAPHETH.

Noah's son Japheth and wife: Japheth was the elder. Genesis 10:21. Japheth and wife had seven sons, but none went anywhere in terms of lineage, according to this site. Lines stopped. Japheth also did not do much other than father the sons.

But this modern site finds rather direct connections (!) between Japheth and Ireland eventually.

Look at this modern site: This has Japheth's line going to Scythia, through the son Magog who was given Black Sea lands, see ://crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol1/milesius.htm/ For another geneology from Noah's time, this one also focusing on Nephet, Magog and adding Gomer (who?), see The Scottish Tradition at ://clanmaclochlainn.com/mlegend3.htm

Chronology: Niul was invited, so it says, to go to Egypt, and he did. When they left, under Sruth, they landed at Crete. And, under another leader, Heber Scut, returned to Scythia. Then, with the span of generations here, to Libya and Portugal. Meanwhile, Milesius (of Spain) went to visit Scythia, and his reputation was noted by Pharaoh, and he invited him to Egypt. He went, then went back to Spain, and from there to Ireland in 3500 BC. No mention of Scota at that point. See ://crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol1/milesius.htm/ Heber Scut's geneology is also at that site. There is also a Heber Glunfionn.

There it is: scroll down to Ancient Irish Nobility and find Scota. One of their six sons is Heber Fionn. And Heber Donn - note that one Heber got Ulster, and another got Munster. The whole tale is laid out there, but we haven't checked anything. Chronologies, geneologies of the Milesians, etc.

And on down to Fergus Mor who went to Scotland.

And:

2. SHEM.

Noah's son Shem and wife: Shem talked with Methuselah. Shem lived to age 600: he talked with Abraham and Isaac, and outlived Lot's Wife. Shem and his wife had five sons. Arphaxad #1 talked with Abraham; Elam #2 did not last long. Asshur #3 built Nineveh Genesis 10:11; Lud #4 didn't do much; Aram #5 also not much.

But back to Arphaxad #1 son of Shem. Arphaxad and his wife had son Salah who talked with Abraham and outlived Sodom's burning; and we find some origins of the identity "Hebrew" - or is that coincidence? Start slow, then speed-read through the begats:

Salah and wife had son EBER (a/k/a Heber) and remember that name. Sound like "Hebrew" or "Hebron"? This was in about 2247 BC. This name appears in many places - Heber, Heber, Heber.
Heber outlived Abraham, and lives in same time as Isaac (overlaps for 79 years) and even Jacob (overlaps for 20 years). And Abraham bought some land near Hebron for a family sepulchre. Genesis 23. Did Heber die in about 1817?

Digression: And a recap on Heber, to show all the twists and turns with names recurring.

There is a son of Scotia and King Milesius, named Ir. One of his sons was Heber Donn who later (aeons later) ruled Ulster, see ://biographiks.com/pleasant/ireland.htm/ but who knows. They named Ireland after the father, Ir, son of Scota, so it says.

Biblical Heber and wife had sons Peleg and Joktan. Genesis 10:25. Peleg then fathers (assume wives here) Reu; Reu fathers Serug; Serug fathers Nahor; and Nahor fathers Terah.
TERAH - Terah fathers 1) Haran. Haran fathers Iscah (no info) and LOT;and Terah also fathers 2) ABRAM - ABRAHAM and 3) Sarah (she later became her brother Abram's-Abraham's wife)
ABRAHAM cavorts with Hagar, servant, and they have ISHMAEL the father of the Tribes of the Arabs (Saracens?) and the sons are called "Princes."
Abraham and Sarah then have ISAAC.
ISAAC marries Rebekah and they have Esau (who married a Canaanite, much to the grief of his parents; and Esau thus became father of the Edomites);
Isaac and Rebekah also have JACOB. Esau and Jacob both got their wives in Mesopotamia. All familiar so far? And we skip the smooth Jacob cheating hairy Esau out of his inheritance.
JACOB has 12 sons and ultimately they go to Egypt 1706 BC. Skip Joseph's pit and coat story. Another son was Judah, who had sons PHAREZ, who had son Hezron (Esrom); and ZARAH. Genesis 46:12. And son Simeon who had 6 sons, including Zohar.

Judah's twin sons, PHARAZ AND ZARAH. Paydirt! 1740 or 1769 BC-

ZARAH - THE FORGOTTEN TWIN

Birth of Pharez and Zarah. Not exact date, of course. These were twin sons of Judah. Judah was one of those twelve sons of Jacob. Recap: Jacob and Esau were sons of Isaac, and Isaac and his brother Ishmael were sons of Abraham. All this from the Timechart.

Twins. Now: the first born would inherit everything. Zarah stuck his arm out first, so the midwife tied the red cord around his wrist.

Then Zarah messed up, and pulled his arm back in and Pharez was fully born first. And Pharez got it all, even though Zarah had a red hand out at one point.

It is Zarah that, the story goes, left with his band - his tribe of Hebrews - and ended up in Spain (Zaragoza), and from there, descendants to Ireland - Scota? Pharez' line ultimately produced David and Solomon, and, ultimately, Jesus.

The Red Hand. The red hand: also seen in Irish origin tales: See http://biographiks.com/pleasant/ireland.htm -- fair use small part -- and see the Red Hand of Ulster, fair use thumbnail from mysite.verizon.net/

"And why a red hand? The emblem is claimed by the O'Neills, McGinnises -- and the O'Bryans. It comes from a chieftain who won a realm in a boat race by being the first to touch land. Falling behind in the race but determined not to lose it, our ancestor cut off his own hand and threw it to shore -- thereby touching the land first."

Spain:

Look now at those sources that track those early invaders in Ireland through a Spain path, from Galicia at Spain's northwest corner, and the town of Zaragoza. Zarah's town? Spain does make sense to legend-history buffs - see ://www.irishidentity.com/extras/places/stories/martello.htm/

Spain was an easy landing from the Mediterranean in southeast Spain; or across from North Africa. See a map. To Spain, some tales say, the Old Testament (yes, Old Testament) Zahar [Zohar? Zarah? The names are not clear] came, leading his band from the Middle East (Hebrew, from "Eber" or "Heber" or Hebrew, before they were "Jews"), landing, and moving on up along the side of the Pyrenees, see Zaragoza, Zahar of the Red Hand.

And DNA seems to tie in the Black Irish, or Dark Irish, with the Middle East, is that so? See DNA of Ireland at ://israeliteidentity.com/dnaireland.htm/

So, Shem's group split: one part stayed put, Pharez in Palestine. Is that so? And the other twin who got nothing after all despite his red hand, Zarah, went west, by land or sea.

3. HAM.

Noah's son Ham and wife: Ham was the youngest, Genesis 9:24. Ham and wife had four sons:

Cush, whose son was Nimrod, the mighty hunter who founded Babylon (Babel happened under his watch) Genesis 10:10;
Mizraim, who settled Egypt;
Phut. What about Phut?; and
Canaan, who had two sons: Sidon who founded the city of Sidon; and Heth who petered out.

Is it through Mizraim, then, that we also get to Egypt.

Overall, it looks like Ham's group went east and south.

B. EGYPTIAN CONNECTIONS

1. Suspect sources. Fast forward from Noah's progeny, from Shem and Heber, to Abraham, to Jacob, Judah, Pharez and Zarah. They (except for Zarah's group) did big things: David, Solomon, all the way up to Jesus. But here the Victorian wall chart makes a big mistake. It says Joseph is in the line of David. Not so. It was Mary. But we can't expect people to rise above their cultures, can we. That puts the whole project using this source in question, but we forge ahead.

2. It seems clear, though, that at the time of Pharez and Zarah, Egypt was at its peak. Its empire was broad.

Pharoah Thothmes III, the "Egyptian Alexander" - Thutmose? His conquests included Arabia, Syria, Assyria, Babylonia, Phoenicia, Armenia, Asia Minor, the Isles of the Danai and it is speculated that that is the archipelago), Cyprus, Ethiopia, Libya and Nubia. The New Empire of Thebes XVIII Dynasty. The Exodus pharaoh was Manephtah? May well be, see ://www.bible-history.com/smiths/P/Pharaoh/

Where can we find Queen Scota, Queen Scotia, or Princess at the time. This source says that the Pharaoh who was Scota's father was Nectonibus. See ://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198506/ireland.s.cleopatra.htm/ That site is justifiably skeptical about details of the story, but finds parts that do seem to fit. Now - whose name is like Nectonibus? The word looks Latinized.

3. Lists of Pharaohs include no Nectonibus, but several Necho's.

a) This was our start from the Victorian timeline chart, for the ancient period: No Nectonibus. But watch all the spellings.

Aahmes; Amen-Hotep; Thotmes I; Hotimesi; Hatasu (Queen) (Hatshepsut?); Thotmes II; Amen Hotep II (son); Amen Hotep III; Amen-Hotep IV; Saanikut or Tutankhamen; Hor-em-Heb; Seti; Sesostas; Rameses.

But a Pharaoh Cincris is elsewhere said to be the father of Scota, see ://egyptologist.org/discus/messages/24/18636.html?1215167929 , and we do not see him, yet. Our sources go to Necho. Again Gaythelos, or Gael, as in later Gaelic, enters - with a Moses legend and a snake bite, see that site. This topic must have interested many people. No snakes in Ireland? Gael with blessing, having been saved by Moses from venom?

b) Then we found more. Compare these with the list of Biblical Pharaohs at ://www.bible-history.com/smiths/P/Pharaoh/ Pharaoh Necho is at paragraph 9 at that site.

Necho: Motivation for study. See also ://www.theroyfamily.com/p43203.htm/ Now, this just has to be fun. This person who did the site, a Robert Roy (Rob Roy??) lists his found ancestors and family names related to him - and there is Necho. That huge list of everybody related includes McClure and that is part of us. So, we are Egyptian royalty? Disclosure statement! Disclosure! Rats. Two Ferguses are there. No Scota or Scotia. That means Mr. Rob Roy here is clearly out of the in-crowd. Then again, we are also Black-MacGregor, as in Rob Roy MacGregor? See ://www.theroyfamily.com/ui20.htm

Time frame reference: 2247 BC - Tower of Babel

4. Pharaoh Necho VII. We do find a Pharaoh Neccho VII much later, in 275 BC (nearer the second time frame for Scota - she was either far BC or near BC and this is near BC) . The map at that site shows Egyptian empire lands including Palestine, see ://www.myalternatehistoryplace.com/saitetimeline3.html/. It says he died without heirs, and the throne went to the Queen's nephew. Then in 245 BC, there is Necho VIII, who added to the Carthaginian and Egyptian (both cooperatively) naval defenses against Rome.

5. Egypt's influence throughout the Mediterranean, making travel easier. It allied with Carthage.

Iin 236 BC - Carthage invades and takes most of the Iberian peninsula - that's Spain! Carthage and Egypt join in a formal alliance, and enjoyed big victories over Rome and they emerge as the most powerful empires of the time. See map ://www.myalternatehistoryplace.com/saitetimeline3.html/ Spain is there as conquered.

6. Pharaoh Necho IX - the "Roman Slayer".

So, there are several Necho's. If Scota is from this near-BC time period, as an Egyptian, the pathway of her band to Spain is no problem.

7. The Biblical Necho.

PHARAOH NECHO - see ://dictionary.crossmap.com/definition/necho-or-pharaoh-necho.htm/ At time of Josiah, King of Judah, for example. Josiah opposed Necho when Necho went against Nebuchadnezzar -- Biblical references to this pharaoh - see II Kings 23:29 to II Kings 24:7; II Chronicles 35:20 to 36:6. To be looked up, but those references are given.

8. Spellings again.

NEKAU II -- ANOTHER SPELLING. Necho is given as Nekau II, of the 26th Dynasty, at ://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/necho2.htm/ Throne name: Wah-em-ib-re. Reigned in 595 BC.

Palestine became an Egyptian possession.

Nekau II Defeated Josiah in 609 BC it says. Deposed Josiah's son who was Jehoahaz, and replaced him with Eliakim (Jehoiakim) , II Kings 23:29-35. Many fine exploits, relationships with Greeks, many advances. He left a son and 3 daughters, but they are not named at the site. Read it all at ://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/necho2.htm/

See Biblical references to pharaohs, but no daughters named such as Scota or Scotia, at ://pharaoh.redconceptual.com/

The Timeline at the British Museum only shows Ptolemies in Egypt at that time.

C. MIGRATIONS FROM PALESTINE:
CONNECTIONS WITH THE SCYTHIANS of the CAUCASUS

Travel, travel. Everybody travel.

There is a map of migrations of Scythians from their start on the north shore of the Black Sea, island, with lines going to Spain and/or Portugal both by land and by sea, to Libya, to Egypt, to Crete -- Scythia to Egypt, Egypt to Crete, Crete to Scythia, Scythia to Libya, Libya to Portugal, Portugal to Scythia, Scythia to Egypt, Egypt to Spain, Spain to Ireland, etc. The Journey to Ireland, see Judy Smith map at ://crossedbrushstudio.com/windowsintoourpast/Vol1/milesius.htm

ARRIVAL IN SPAIN

Go back to the stories of Queen Scota or Scotia, and the founding of Scotland and Ireland: Milesians. Iron Age. Reorient, because dates for Scota vary widely. 3000 BC, 1200 BC, 350 BC.

1200 BC - Iron Age in Middle East. "Iron Age" means different time frames depending on the place.

In the Middle East and Southeast Europe, the Iron Age may be 1200 BC. In the rest of Europe, the Iron Age may be 800-700 BC (8th Century BC). Iron Age in Europe Iron is found as a compound with ore rocks, and furnaces are needed to smelt it out. See ://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-iron.htm What is the order here? First, stone age (paleolithic, mesolithic, neolithic: start maybe with 25000 BC?). Second, the bronze age (Greece 3000 BC? see://www.answers.com/topic/bronze-age). Bronze is a mix of copper and tin. Then, third, the iron age ( See ://www.answers.com/topic/iron-age. No dates are exact. Give or take a century or more.

Meet Queen Scota or Queen Scotia as she relates to Scotland at Caledonia, Scotia, and Scotland Before Scotland. Women Warriors. Then dig deeper with Ireland, at Tralee, Queen Scotia, and Slieve Mish.

Science: DNA shows the Irish to be closer to the Spanish, and even the Basques (who are not "the Spanish"), than to the Celts, who stemmed from Central Europe, Hungary. See discussion of migrations and the Dark Irish at ://killarney-ireland.info/genealogy/dark-irish-celt-genealogy.html/ And further from the Irish to roots in Africa, Middle East, Europe, see all the topics on genetic anthropology, see ://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/humanmigration.shtml

ARRIVAL IN IRELAND

Go back to this site, ://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198506/ireland.s.cleopatra.htm/

And then Irish Expansion into Scotland

Fast forward to 320 BC - Prince Fergus in Ireland defeated the Scots, the Kingdoms of the Britons At time of Alexander the Great. See ://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/fergu000.htm/ - especially that the line of rulers before Fergus is long, and nobody agrees on the geneologies. See the Mindspring site. We found no name of a Queen like Scotia; but this site does - it looks at the angles and finds enough of a faint possibility that all this is true, that why not. Records then are not like records now, and puzzles win. Do spend time at Saudi Aramco World's article on Ireland's Cleopatra, at ://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198506/ireland.s.cleopatra.htm/

So: No Scota in the Bible; but people and tales are consistent in how Middle Eastern people could and, by DNA, did end up in Spain and Ireland, and then Scotland. Pharaoh Nectonibus, you have a lovely daughter. Milesius, great warrior King, your Queen was also a fierce warrior. Scota, next trip to Ireland we will look you up. Many cultures are interested, see an interest of Islam in this scholarly account at ://www.grandestrategy.com/2009/07/594949-story-of-princess-scota.html/.

D. OVERVIEW - AND NON-CONCLUSION

Whether scholarly or amateur, Egyptian connections and Ireland are not a new issue: see about the tartans and Egypt even, at ://www.alfayed.com/news-and-opinion/copy-of-christmas-parade-2009.aspx/; Tara and Atlantis connections at http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1693.html/; trace the Harp as logo, national symbol, back to David; and more pre-Christian research at ://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/celts.htm/ To explore independently, however, means that what is found is not so easily dismissed.

Sampling of the variation in legend-story-history: The Greek, King Gaythelos ** variation.
See Ralph Ellis' book referenced, Scota: Egyptian Queen of Scots ://douglashistory.co.uk/history/articles/Scota_EgyptianQueenofScots.htm/. Both were exiled and ended up, through Spain, in Ireland's lore. The husband, a/k/a King Milesius, died before getting there, and Scota spearheaded the invasion after. That was in the second millenium BC. Or much later. See the * for other accounts that Gaythelos long preceded Miletius, but both lines ended up in Spain.
Names and spellings and linguistic variations make research difficult. Gaythelos came to us late, and we are still working on it.

Accounts vary. But it appears that Scythians (mentioned obliquely in the OT) and Milesians, and persons with names that recur, do suggest a Middle Eastern root. DNA at least clinches that. And Egypt and Carthage did take over much of the Mediterranean world, including Spain.

So: What Biblically would support a Queen Scota, or Scythians ending up in Ireland? In the Old Testament. there are sites that track Noah's progeny, and lead to fanciful connections to "red hand" - see incarnation of that in Ulster. There are also lines of Pharaohs of the time. for the Zaragoza enthusiasts, Judah's line includes the Twin that Lost, Zahar of the Red Hand, said to have founded Zaragoza, Spain. There is the Red Hand of Ulster. Other say it was Ui Neall who hacked off his hand in order to claim land ahead of his competitor in the next boat.

We find some things, lay them out. Nothing is clear, but this is so far back that no-one should be surprised.

Back to dates. Either extreme BC, or proximate BC. Here is a recent era for Scota or Scotia - 450 BC, see ://biographiks.com/pleasant/ireland.htm/ The double-theory on dates is supported here as well, at an article on Scotia as Ireland's Cleopatra, at ://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198506/ireland.s.cleopatra.htm/ Debates go on about the Biblical references, and if she is there, is she at the time of Moses or Jeremiah -- see ://www.cai.org/bible-studies/was-scota-one-royal-daughters#2.

A definitive collection of all the stories, pros and cons, may be at this big source: The British Chronicles Volume 1, 2007, by David Hughes (p.46). http://books.google.com/books?id=QnDtohOe8-QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+British+Chronicles&source=bl&ots=NSGoRBEgDI&sig=j0p7_-JH9-9FSK1Kmp9m4fD9CuM&hl=en&ei=bM0OTKTZDoe8lQfzyqzSAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false/.

ADD FERGUS.

Another tale, or is it part of the same Fergus line, is that a Queen, from Egyptian Royalty, was in and even led the group that landed in Ireland from Spain. And before that, came from somewhere in the area that was controlled by Egypt in the Mediterranean.

The Old Kingdom of Egypt 2800-2500 BC included Palestine, see map at http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml/ Queen Scota, or Scotia. That landing group, and her sons became the Kings of Tara.

Does that ancient family fast forward to a much later Prince Fergus? Look up Fergus of Dal Raita who may or may not stem from those roots, finding connections perhaps in Spain, from ://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/fergu000.htm/: fair use portion to whet whistles --

"Like other Irish dynasties, there are genealogies which allege to trace the kings of Dál Riata [roughly, an ancient kingdom including northern County Antrim in Ireland, with migrations to Argyll and elsewhere in western Scotland] back to Adam through the "Milesian" dynasty traced by the pseudohistorians from the mythical Míl of Spain. As with other Irish genealogies at the dawn of the historical period, it is not possible to say with certainty where the valid genealogy ends and the fiction begins, but the vast majority of the earlier generations were concoctions of the Irish synthetic historians. In the case of the Dál Riata pedigrees, they agree only back to an alleged great-grandfather of Fergus named Óengus. Three different versions of the genealogy back to Forggo mac Feradaig are given here for purposes of comparison. Of these genealogies, the one from Genelaig Albanensium is the shortest. The two longer genealogies also do not agree, with each having generations not present in the other."

Bottom line: there were people and stories that conform enough to several theories, that no matter which we adopt for fun, it looks like Middle East folk indeed moved through Spain to Ireland. Is that so? To that, add all the Eber, Heber, Hebrew? references and recall that Palestine was indeed a colony of Egypt, and where from there.

.........................................................................
* Alternate Flood Dates:
2348 English Bible
2288 Hebrew
3145 Josephus
3246 Septuagint
...........................................................................

** Gaythelos. Is this the same "Milesian king" who married the Egyptian princess and went to Spain and she carried on to Ireland with their sons.

See accounts of the Irish Milesian Legends http://clanmaclochlainn.com/mlegend3.htm/

That offers the Scots tradition, that Gaythelos fought for Pharaoh and for his service, received Scota, the Pharaoh's daughter, as wife. When Pharaoh drownded in the Red Sea as the Israelites escaped, Gaythelos led followers to north Africa, for a wandering period (42 years). They then went to Spain, founded Brigantia, and headed for Ireland. Nennius had identified the group as Scythian. Later, John of Fordun, perhaps using the same sources, identified the group as from a country of Greece. Same, or different? See the site.

Gaythelos. The Irish Gaedel Glas? This is not Milesius, we are fairly confident.

Many generations later, the kingship fell on Milesius, according to the Scottish tradition. It was Gaythelos who had the two sons, Hyber or HEBER, and Hymec, who went on to conquer Ireland . Heber went back to Spain, leaving Hymec; so when Milesius' group came on the scene, it was "sparsely populated." This is not for the faint-hearted. The names and spellings and years blur.

Fair use small quote: From ://clanmaclochlainn.com/mlegend3.htm

"Feinius Farsaid, a quo the Feni
Scota, a quo the Scots
Gaedel Glas, a quo the
Gaedil

"To this list we may add:
Heber Scot, a quo Iberia (Spain)

" In addition, 'Heber Scot' was obviously originally intended to be a son of Scota (hence the surname of Scot from his mother). The Irish redactions have completely lost the significance of his name (s. of Sru s. Esru). Only Fordun's version lists Heber Scot in his proper place, as a son of Gaythelos and Scota. Note also that in the Irish redactions the name Heber Scot (a quo Iberia) is associated with Scythia, not with Spain. Here again Fordun's genealogy correctly associates the name Heber Scot with Spain and because his version retains the original eponymous significance of his name it is probably the earlier version."

Love and Haiti. Corinthiana in a Time of Empathy

2010-01-19T21:22:00.005-05:00

A Short Service for the At Home on Sunday
In Times of Tragedy to Others

Empathy in Corinthiana

Sermon in the head: Corinthiana as a Theology of Identification
13th Chapter 1st Corinthiana in the heart
.

A transliteration of 13th Chapter 1st Corinthians, fair use of small portion of all of New Testament

"if-ever to the tongues of-the humans i may be talking and of the messengers love yet no i-am-having i-am-become copper resounding or cymbal screaming and if ever i may be having before averment and i may be perceiving the close-keeps .... ***"

See http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co13.pdf/.
............................

1. No matter how persuasive we are to ourselves and others about the justice of our own cause,*
if we have no empathy, we clang.

2. If we have rhetorical and research gifts, and understand (we think) many things; and believe we have “faith” on our Saturdays and Sundays,*
and even accomplish great things, but have no empathy we are nothing.

3. If we give away our unwanted stuff to the poor, and even give our lives for them [for the adult discussion group later -- who these days does that? perhaps literally the military, or in a figurative way, workers in urban areas?] *
but have not empathy, we gain nothing from it.

4. Empathy is,

patient,
kind,
grateful,
modest,
courteous,
accepting,
forgiving,
concerned,
joyful where truth is found,
sorrowful where others are in ill circumstances,
protective,
trusting,*
hopeful, as may be within our reach as flawed human beings,
perseverant, a) in advancing the interests of those with whom we empathize, and b) in keeping before our consciousness the needs of those with whom we do not yet empathize.

5. Empathy never fails. Foretelling the future will fail.*
Our languages and knowledge will disappear.

6. We know some parts of truth that are here, some are there, and that suffices for us now.
In time, our imperfection, in understanding and capacity, will also disappear,and we will know more;*
as a child outgrows childishness and moves to the next stage – a form of adulthood where truth, fair-dealing and inclusion become the lodestones, not Acquisitions and Mergers.

6. Faith, hope*
and empathy.

7. Love is the ideal - greater than empathy --*
but perhaps all we can muster for our fellow human beings in distress is empathy.

8. We have before us, 1) a faith that takes as many forms as there are spiritual drives, that there is more than here; and *
2) hope that there is an ultimate benevolent plan for Creation; and 3) at most love, or at least, empathy.

9. The greatest of these is love, *
or for us who cannot muster the sacrifice that love requires, at least, empathy.

II. What next?

I Corinthians 13.

Persons in need of empathy from us: Gypsies (Roma) foraging, dump, Romania

* Take deep breath at each asterisk. Hold. Continue.

Evolution, Androgyny, and Which Split into Whom. Genesis Papers. Ambiguity.

2010-01-19T15:19:00.004-05:00

.
Genesis Papers.
Scriptural androgyny?
.
Here:
EVOLUTION and ANDROGYNY.
Or, the Original Hermaphrodite:
Can we tolerate the thought OMG.
.

Who was EADM, or ADM. The Human, originally created "in the image of".

Adam and Eve, Androgyne? Sonderborg Castle, Chapel, Denmark

Did Adm survive the division into Aish and Ashe. Man and Woman. If Adm was not Man before the division, who was Adm, the Human. Who, after the division, is "in the image of"?

Evolution, Androgyny. Hermaphroditism as holy. Or, vastly to be avoided, see the beard requirement to show that one is not, at ://www.islam.tc/beard/beard.html/. Despite dogma in various cultures, what was First; and which split into whom, when, and how; and who protesteth too much.

...........................................................
.

1. Evolution and its analysis of genetics

tends to conclude that the woman appeared first (she has XX genes)

and that the man came after (he has XY; still evolving into a clearer "Y").
.

Eve. Adam. Adm. Human. Humankind. MaleFemale. Male or Female. Male and/or Female.
.
Recent news articles focus on the significance of the Y as visually crooked, like a squiggle, resembling a poorly-made X; and , and the Y only relatively recently showing changes that move away from the appearance of X, to finally morph into a real Y. Is the Xy, the male, more "evolved" because it is changing from XX, the female, into more purely two distinct whatsis. But look how little the y is. It has to become something, or it what, dies? Is overwhelmed? This, fair use thumbnail from: http://staff.um.edu.mt/acus1/Mendel1-web_files/image004.jpg
.

.
There is spin in articles. This concludes that because the man's gene, the little y, is only now cleaning itself up, to look like a real Y, that its late efforts to evolve makes it somehow now more "evolved". See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/genetics/article6987092.ece/. Not just catching up, after all this lack of definition.
.
Does this help explain the violence against homosexuality - because on some level the male does not know who he is. Search for chromosomes XX and Xy and see the proportions.
.
The X is the large component, in red; the y is the very small blue.
.

.
Which is dominant, visually? Does size matter? This, fair use from http://www.technology.am/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/x-y-chromosome.jpg
.
With these optics, spin the article the other way, from the same visual evidence: why not say that the the little y is and has been unstable and incomplete all these millennia, and is only now finding out who it is or should be.
.
This amorphousness of the y is confirmed with recent updates: See the inherent weakness of the XY: many more male fetuses aborted after 9/11 and its presumed stress on the mother, see http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/25/9.11.miscarriage.bereavement/. Female fetuses (fetae?) coped. Or note the fact that the males get The Dystrophy - see http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/children/adolescenthealth/articles/aa_muscular_dystrophy.aspx/. And this one is fun: the AB axis is strong, but the Xy is weak. That from martial arts. The Internet enlightens. And, the opposite can also be shown: the X gets illnesses that the y does not, as often, we are sure.
.

2. Traditionally interpreted Biblical texts, however,

are unequivocal that the male came first.
.
Is that cultural, passed on like an agenda in a telephone game, or was that really the original idea?

.
Is it justified to believe that the male came first?
.
How can any researcher arrive at "fact" apart from spin. Spin accepted for ages may signify validity, or just how effective repeated spin can be.
.
The search is difficult. One good result mayh be here. An example of Biblical source material providing "fact" and not just cultural or religious legend, myth, supportive of spiritual matters is Women, Stem-cells and the Darwinian Debate: Developmental Biology May Have Created the First Woman, see http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1450153/women_stemcells_and_the_darwinian_debate.html/.

That is a religious site that proposes going back to the Bible for facts, not evolution. The site poses this issue against evolution: That belief in evolution would mean that 1) both women and men came from the same source; and that 2) the man's XY genes (men have XY) somehow morphed into XX (women have XX); and that 3) the first beings would then have had to be androgynous or self-perpetuating until the gene pool had an abnormality that split us into male and female.

Is that so absurd? Look further.
.

3. It is reasonable to conclude that the "first" being was androgynous

.
This idea is not even new.
.
a. Go to old Hebrew in transliteration.
.
Androgeny: See "eadm" meaning "human", not a gender, see http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf . Androgeny is part of the Hebrew oral tradition. See http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewish-view-on-gender-differences A reason for ultimately dividing them, could be this: that neither would be self-sufficient. Is that accurate? Or culture?
.
b. And then see where the reasoning, in trying to be definitive, falls apart.
.
Must androgyny mean that the genders appeared simultaneously. If the genes say that the female was first (the XX and the distorted slater XY), can the ideas be reconciled by dominance: one gender was the stronger.
.
Hebrew translations avoid that like a little theological plague. Text, we are looking at the transliteration at http://www.scripture4all - the woman was created because God saw that something he created was not good - it was not good to leave the adm composite human alone - that entity (is it already somehow morphed into male?). So the fix to make it good was to add the mentor, the guide: If the first being was indeed androgynous, or even hermaphrodite, that may not have been working out well - the tea needed two.
.
Need ezr kngd v - the concept of a helper, a mentor, a guide, "in front of" the first being. And we have no pronoun for the androgyne - it is not neutered, not an "it" - we just have no word.
.
Now to go into the linguistics.

Adam and Eve, St. Mary's Cathedral, Ribe, Denmark. Very alike.
.
Ezr KNGDV means a source of power and strength, guide to be in front of him. In Ribe's Cathedral, she stands over, he looks beseeching. Is that so?
.
Is there an element, just an element, in older understandings that culture later changes. The woman by the texts is to be a guide in front. We explore that elsewhere, at Found: Bereshit source, Phonetic Spelling, Hebrew Ozr KNGDU. Eze kngdv.
.

4. Next step - go back even further, BEHIND the Hebrew.

.
Game of clue: what preceded the Hebrew. There must be multiple versions. A work in progress. See KNGDV - Tainted Founts
.
At that site, find the linguistic analysis so far. It is heavy going. Languages, symbols, but they do point in a consistent direction.

It appears so far that linguistics support the idea that the ezr is the "help" in the same sense of power and strength, and using the very same word, as the deity is to the person in trouble - a very present help - help me, O Lord, etc.
Sites list all the uses.
But the k ngd v is the modifier: this "help", unlike the deity, is similar to, like unto, and - here is the interesting part - in front of the man. Pulling, guiding, even military in assistance. A shield.

Language.
.
Words and their origins - cut through the spin, even though it is too late to do anything about it.
...........................

Genesis Papers. XX and Xy. Change, change.
Ambiguity: explore through transliteration, translation, and word meaning sources:

Transliteration: for both Hebrew and Greek (who has Aramaic?), see http://www.scripture4all; the words are numbered there. The numbers can be researched for all the uses of that term.
Translation: for Hebrew and the Old Testament, see http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com;
Lexicon: for compendia of word usages, both Hebrew and Greek, see http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html. For any term, fill in the word number, the "Strong's" numbering system is right there.

St. Jerome Ignores Ezer Kenegdo. KNGDV is not "Similem Sui". Latin Vulgate, Linguistics and Patriarchy

2010-01-14T18:40:00.067-05:00

St. Jerome Ignores Ezer Kenegdo. KNGDV. Ezer Kngdv.
When Roots of Translation are Flawed.

Culture Defined the Interpretation Chosen for Words Excluded;
And Sent It Off the Mark

The Genesis Papers.

St. Jerome substantially jump-started the patriarchal bandwagon that clinched Old Eve in the back ranks. In the old Latin Vulgate, he translated the role of the "helper" to the human as

'yZUr KNGDV.

עזר כנגדו׃

(read that right to left - we think that is it); phonetically, "ezer kenegdo" or, in some verisons, the phonetic ozr kngdu.

He translated that as the helper as to the human being merely "similem sui" or"similar to him." See http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C002.htm#V18/.

Linguistic roots, however, go in a different direction. The word "helper" "ezr" means power and strength, not just a go-fer. And the position of the helper is in front of, not behind, not back in the kitchen, but in front, as a shield, a guide, a mentor. See K NGD V; Interpretations and Ellipsis or Minimizing Defenses Against.

No religion or culture, apparently, can free itself to follow words where they go, instead of using them to affirm cultural musts. This appears to have happened in another instance, at least: in translating from the original Greek to the Latin, Jerome interpreted a word found in the Greek lexicon as "crucify", when the actual word for "crucify" is a slightly different one, with the original as "impale." See Religion's Ambiguities. Does it matter? Is that understanding so? Why not lay out an ambiguity where there is one. Etc.

Western religion does it, changing meaning to suit culture or other later sensibilities, as does Islam. See the debates going on with varying interpretations of the Qur'an, including how the original place of women and reverence for Judaism itself is presented (denigrated) after the fact, and after the new culture took its shape. See ://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran

Here:

A Look at Patriarchy from Ancient Texts:

Patriarchy as The Great Transgression;

Jerome and the Rest Careen Wildly Down the Road

Patriarchy's Coach Amok. Old print, Dickens, Tom Pinch

Overview:

Here we look at the earliest definition of the female role we can find - Hebrew transliteration - and find it has been truncated and distorted and otherwise flamboozled up beyond all recognition. The ancient text, ezr k ngd v - see KNGDV - Ezer Kenegdo Word Study.

the "ezr" we understand means power and strength; although it gets traditionally and patriarchally minimalized [herein tapm-ed] into "a help";
the "k ngd v" or "kenedgo" we understand means "in front of", shield, guide, one who pulls, stretches, one who "meets" the other in power and strength; although it gets reduced linguistically into an interpretation as merely "suitable".

See also the linguistic support in the ancient Mandean, Aramaic, at KNGDV, Aramaic and Mandean Linguistic Support as to Ezer Kenegdo.

Current spur to interest: The legitimacy of patriarchy as based on merit, or mere power asserted at the expense of the other. How did that get started.

In the news: Who really is the guide, and who is the one needing the "help".

News flash. New York Times, January 19, 2010 at A20, article fair use portion, More Men Marrying Better Educated, Wealthier Wives, by Sam Roberts:

"We've known for some time that men need marriage more than women from the standpoint of physical and mental well-being," said Stephanie Coontz, a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., and research director for the Council on Contemporary Families, a research and advocacy group. "Now it is becoming increasingly important to their economic well-being as well."

So - we see some public recognition at long last for what many would whisper to each other, in confirmation, is true:

Patriarchy may rule, but not because or merit or because it serves more people better. Like any political stance, patriarchy rules because the way was skewed early on, and the trappings and spin followed.

Women's strength is culturally suppressed. Even in women in war, see the military prowess, power. See also ://womenshistory.about.com/od/militarywar/Military_and_War_Womens_Roles.htm/.

That muscle without wisdom is folly. Add this reference: that the ancients matched wisdom and war with the female goddess Minerva; and only war, no wisdom, marked the male Mars. Ezr - power and strength; k ngd v - in front.

Minerva, Goddess of Wisdom and War, Armory, Graz, Austria

Patriarchy

A Walk Down the Primrose Path

Patriarchy is the general human society model that evolved once agriculture became the anchor for group survival, see ://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/patriarchy,2.html/.

Before that? Matriarchy, argues the site, from archeology and texts, Biblical and otherwise. Well entrenched over some 9,000 years now, patriarchy shaped transmission of property and control of family and inheritance as part of that property. It is easy to assume it is natural, after centuries of the practices, including active enforcement and - what do we call it? Femicide? See Femicide at ://www.dianarussell.com/femicide.html/ and more of Diana Russell and Jill Radford at Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing at ://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/femicide.html/.

Is our global violence related to it, see the 2002 WHO Report on Global Violence at ://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/9241545615.pdf/ and note that males are three times more likely to kill than women. Violence against women? Still going on. See the 2009 WHO report on the Multi-Country Study on Women's Health and Violence Against Women at http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/en/ Look at the number of unaaccounted for, missing, women, unnecessary deaths in childbirth, so-called honor killings, deaths not even recorded.

1. Using Linguistics to Find Roots, Original Blueprints

Shape thought by shaping language. Where there are alternatives in shading meaning, choose the one that suits the culture, regardless of evidence of meaning to the contrary. Here, we look at some of the ways patriarchy it became entrenched: how was the thought process controlled. One way is indeed through language. Scriptures passed through cultures and eras, believe this on faith say They, and the people, with little or no access or position to contest or question, say they do.

2. St. Jerome the Translator.

Jerome is widely revered, of course. Linguist, scholar, he is no different from others whose questions and word choices were affected by culture, and in an era of chaotic multiples of choices. Somebody had to come up with something definitive. Enter Jerome. The issue remains even as to saints: cultural taint. Even if we find it, will anyone pay attention who already has a firm belief that his work was "inspired" and "irrefutable"? Probably not. We are doing this for us, and because facts to us are important. Sally forth. See Joy of Equivocating: Jerome Effect Trumps Fact Check. Trump no more. What is out there?

What do we find. Role of Eve. Not addressed?

Jerome, St. Jerome, translated the Bible and other works from Hebrew into Latin. See ://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_jerome.htm/. The Genesis translation was done in 401AD, as part of the first 5 books, the Pentateuch. His version became known as the Vulgate, although he did not use that term.

Where did he start?

This should be easy, and we will correct our tentative conclusions when we are convinced reasonably.

But so far, details are convoluted as to what he was using as his base for the translations. Did we misread? He had broad knowledge of languages, but sites on first look get confusing as to his starting point. Was he led by his Christian militant conformist uniformity ideology of the emergent institution, or was he a scholar, objective. We believe, with all respect and consideration of his times, that he was not at all objective.

See FN 1 for a route backwards. What did Jerome use, and how do we know it; what was not available to him at the time, that we now have (earlier Phoenician linguistic roots that moved in a lateral pirhouette into the Hebrew)

PALEO HEBREW: What did Jerome have available for Genesis 2:18? This?

-

-
.

HEBREW: What version did Jerome use? This?

ויאמר יהוה אלהים
לא־טוב היות האדם
לבדו אעשה־לו עזר
כנגדו׃

Or, phonetically,

2:18 VY'aMUr YHVH 'aLHYM L'a-TVB HYVTh H'aDM LBDV 'a'yShH-LV 'yZUr KNGDV.
........................................................

We know what Jerome concluded: in what is known as the Latin Vulgate, Genesis 2:18--

"2:18 dixit quoque Dominus Deus non est bonum esse hominem solum faciamus ei adiutorium similem sui."

...............................................................

In the 19th Century, we have this translation: Young's Literal Translation says, same verse, "And Jehovah God saith,"Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper --as his counterpart."

.......................................................................

So: what other words did Jerome have available to translate the "helper" idea. Did he convey those in the words he used; or did he perpetuate a cultural system, a hierarchy that was assumed correct and God-ordained. But was it so ordained. Not if we look at the linguistics. The components. The roots.

Ezr and K ngd v.

See the complexities at FN 1.

What difference does it make now? None, because noone moves from a position long taught by authority and absorbed emotionally, just because facts change. So. Fix supper and move on.

............................................................................................

FN 1. What Jerome used and what he knew when he made his linguistic choice is important, and we may never know. We only know that "similar to him" or "similem sui" is inadequate, misleading, and led thinkers down that erroneous path ever after. Try researching all this yourself.

What did Jerome know and how did he know it, in translating ezr k ngd v

This site says Jerome translated directly from the Hebrew, see ://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/. See also http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_jerome.htm/ Even if he did, he should have used the earlier Paleo-Hebrew and not the later Hebrew that itself was a translation from the Paleo-Hebrew.
Find the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet at ://www.hebrew4christians.net/Grammar/Unit_One/Paleo-Hebrew_Alphabet/paleo-hebrew_alphabet.html/ Apparently it derived from earlier Phoenician. Look up the part about the deity looking for a help to the human suitable for him, Genesis 2:18, and see (in our alphabet)

"abyw mymçh pwu lk taw hdçh tyj lk hmdah nm myhla hwhy rxyw"

And for Genesis 2:20, read the part about the deity seeing the first not-good thing he created - the human alone, still needing a help suitable

"tja jqyw nçyyw mdah lu hmdrt myhla hwhy lpyw"
Wonderful. Now what?

But, if we are reading this ISBE site right, this site says it was not from Hebrew versions, or even the earlier Paleo-Hebrew from which the later Hebrew stemmed. His starting point was indeed the Greek: a Greek translation from Hebrew from the 3d Century BC known as the Septuagint. See the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia from 1915, at ://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate1.html/ Seventy-two scholars had been ordered to do the translating, and the process itself is complicated, see The Septuagint Online at ://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/.

Regardless, the point is that

a) if he translated from the Hebrew, we can go back to the Hebrew that he used and check it out; and

b) if he translated from the Greek, we can also go there, but then we have to critique the Greek against the Hebrew, and the process of that looks impossible. Competing interests all around. Do read the Kalvesmaki.com site.

Texts at the time. Think in multiples of multiples. We need to find pre-Christian texts to translated the "helper" idea.

SEPTUAGINT. See FN 1, because so far we think he went from the Hebrew. Go to FN 1 for problems if he used the Septuagint.

....................................................................

FN 1 If Jerome used the Septuagint, either as base, or as a check against his own linguistic knowledge of Hebrew:

Scholars have worked on inconsistencies, textual differences, in the translations as soon as competing copies emerged. For example, there was an old six-folded chart of sorts comparing the main versions of the day, by Origen; but only fragments remain.

So how to recover what the pre-Christian texts said. Septuagint can refer to any number of documents - all of them translations from the Greek.

Translations into other languages based on the Septuagint version known as LXX seem to predominate, and appeared in Arabia, Ethiopia, Old Latin, Armenia, Coptics and Old Church Slavonia. However, LXX or other Septuagint material was not used for the Syriac Church: it used the Peshitta. The Peshitta is pre-Christian; and is a direct translation from the Hebrew. And, a very early Hebrew text form is not available to us. It was used for the Septuagint(s) and is gone.

Take a quick look at the Septuagint online - free download at ://www.apostolicbible.com/ There is an interlinear transliteration available there, and it is even more different than the various transliterations- translations at hebrewoldtestament.com, or scripture4all.org. We will stick with the Hebrew, but get nervous that so many translations of our Bible are based on the Greek Septuagint and not the oldest Hebrew. Should we be? Suddenly in the Septuagint Greek, here transliterated into English - see the patriarchal influence already, far more than the Hebrew, we think: Taint at an early stage?

the creation of the human becomes creation of the "man", and
"let us make a helper according to him" and
"but to Adam there was not found a helper likened to him"

The Gender of Angels and What They Do - Giovanni di Paolo and others

2010-01-01T13:59:00.002-05:00

When Art is the Teacher, The Artist Controls What is Taught

When Original Texts are Hidden Away,

Who is to Challenge the Institutional Interpreters

e-adm [the human] and e-ashe [the woman]

Issues of Deity Delegation of Enforcement in Moral Issues (none here - we can all keep out)
And Deity Discretion in Punishments (a great deal here - differing, and backpedaling are fine)

Giovanni di Paolo in 1445 painted a story-picture called "The Creation of the World and the Expulsion from Paradise". See it in the New York Times, Time, the Infinite Storyteller, at ://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/arts/design/01time.html/ Think of Adam and Eve, or in the old text letter symbols, e-adm and e-ashe, see scripture4all at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf/ Think of driving outs, and angels. The focus of the article is not the verity of the representation, but the impact the representation of any story has on those who see it, and remember, and are influenced. That is our interest here. What if the painting is in error. People without access to original text learn the "painting" instead.

Compare the painting with this: Does the deity delegate enforcement (no) and the cherubim in scripture holding the flaming sword, to bar return of the man to get at the tree of the lives, not shown here, is female. Examples only of discrepancies.

A small excerpt example of the Creation and Expulsion as given in transliteration at Scripture4All::

"and he is sending away him Yahweh Elohim from garden of Eden to to serve of the ground which he was taken from there and he is driving away the human [e-adm] and he is causing to tabernacle from east to garden of Eden the cherubim and flame of the sword the one turning herself to to guard of way of tree of the lives"

Go back to the painting. Here is a thumbnail from Luminarium, at ://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/giovannidipaolo.jpg/. Go there for the full-size.

The painting is all mixed up, like children's magazine's "find the mistakes" image, to keep them busy and test their observation skills. Yet, it is probably the image most who have been taught by institutions think is just fine.
.
1. From the Genesis transliteration points, and some others, is it fair to conclude, contrary to di Paolo's representation.

Jahweh does not delegate enforcement of his issues. When something is to be done, he does it, including the driving out. Contrary to the id Paolo painting showing him pointing to an angel who ushers out the pair, it is Jahweh himself doing the driving. No enforcement authorized to others. If Jahweh wants a consequence imposed, he will do it, thank you. All of us who like to impose our views on and punish others, stand aside.
Jahweh did not expel both of the pair. He sent out only the man. If she chose to go ahead, with him, fine. She is to be the guide, in front of him, according to the transliteration of "helper as in front of him" ozr k ndg v at scripture4all, see Genesis 2:18 transliteration. In original text, the man is put out, in the Bible Scripture4All, and not the woman. That fits with God's concern about the man getting knowledge of the lives (not the woman, apparently; she is no concern for what she might do with it). But in the painting, both are out. Instead, Jahweh decides what punishments will be imposed, and what it will be.
The job of the cherubim is not to enforce. The deity does the dirty work himself. And note that the angel with the flaming sword, not shown here, is not to keep the pair out of all of Eden. It is to bar the way to the tree of lives - so they won't live forever.
The angel here is made up. We see a male angel with a strategic posy and no bosom at the usual gender points. Perhaps the angel is just a flat-chested lady, but it does not look like that. Go check. This angel is directing the pair out, while the deity is giving orders;
The missing angel with the flaming sword. Women in war. She is female, the guardian of the way to the tree of the lives. We see no diPaolo equivalent of the angel with a flaming sword, so perhaps he is not comfortable with a woman being the guardian of the most important entity left in Eden, barring the man from life.
Asides with probably little theological impact, except for the prurient: Duds for the nude dudes. By the time of the driving out, the pair were clothed. Not in the picture. Only the angel is posied.
There are also lots of serpents. Many deceivers got into Eden, and lots of fruit trees. Eve is exonerated: who is to know which was forbidden. No clear directions. Interlopers: who are those with the deity, with weirdly grinning bodiless winged heads, over the nice round world that would have come to knowledge with Galileo.

2. We have so many conflicting interpretations of anything, that we propose everybody put into a can all they have been taught, and start with Eden. What were the roles, at that ideal time. Who betrayed whom. Who decided and implemented which enforcements. The beginning is a good place to start. What does culture add as time goes by?

This is a hobby only. Nobody ever persuades Anybody of anything, but Somebody can open a door or two to see if Anybody goes in for a peek.

Creak.

Castle door, with minidoor, Salzburg, Austria

3. Voice: And I will make you foolers of men.
Whisper: from audience. What? No! Go back to the oldest texts. Fishers! Fishers! I tell you.
Voice, still intoning: I will make you foolers of men.
Whisperer: rises, leaves. Fine. Plus ca change?

4. Disclaimer. The discussion here is no matter of anybody's "faith" at all. It is a matter of seeing discrepancies, objectively, between those who teach what the Word of Scripture is, against those words themselves. We have no interest in anyone's faith here. This is an amateur text criticism - using the head.Reconsider what has been taught, and depicted in art: Go to scripture4all, which is a transliteration site (or pick another), and see what is in the earliest
Back to transliterations: Go to words-interpretations of text, at ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf/. Compare that to the painting. See also Hebrewoldtestament.com for more parallel translations, and a different transliteration, at ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C003.htm#V23/.

Gospel of John - Transliteration, "Christmas" Prelude. Gospel of John 1:1-20

2009-12-21T11:21:00.007-05:00

Gospel of John - The Roots of The "Word"

John 1:1-20 - "In the beginning was the Word"
Or Was it?

Gender reflected may be in the Words, but later slant.
Culture rules scripture words? Is that so?

A. Transliteration of the usual Christmas Prequel; and the earliest words / meaning through transliteration. Compare to versions read in institutions.

B. How the interest arose

........................................................

A. Transliteration of the usual Christmas Prequel:

Gospels vary. Here's John. A mystical place.

A Greek Gospel of John
Prelude to Christmas

.

John 1:1-20 transliterated, interpretations at Part B here.

In original was the saying and the saying was toward the god and god was the saying / this was in original all thru the god * same became and apart from same / all thru same became and apart from same became not-yet one who has become / in same life was and the light was within the light of the humans * / and the light in the darkness is appearing and the darkness it not down-got/ became human having been commissioned beside god name to-him John */ this one came unto witness that he should be witnessing about the light that all should be believing thru (sic) same / not was that one the light but that he should be witnessing about the light / it was the light the true which is lightening every human coming into the system * / in the system He-was * and the system through him and the system through same became and the system him * not knew / into the own He-came and the own-ones * / as many as yet got him he gives to them authority offsprings * of god to be becoming to the ones believing into the name of him / who not out of-bloods not-yet out of-will of-flesh not-yet out of-will of-man * but out of-god were generated * / and the saying flesh became and booths in us and we gaze the esteem of him esteem as of-only-generated beside father* full of grace and truth / John is witnessing about him and he-has-cried saying this one was whom I-said the-one behind me coming in-toward-place of-me has become that before-most of-me He-was / and out of the filling of him we all got and grace instead of-grace / that the law thru (sic) Moses was-given the grace and the truth thru (sic) Jesus anointed became god not-yet-one has seen as when the only-generated son the One-being into the bosom of the father that one unfolds him / and this is the witness of-the John when commission the juda-ans out of jerusalem sacred ones * and levites that they-should-be-asking him you any are / and he avows and not disowns and avows that not am i the anointed /

Gospels vary. Here's Luke. An agenda here.

* * * * *

..........................................................................................................

B. How this interest arose:

This small portion of our continuous-form narrative from the mechanical version is 20 verses out of the entire New Testament transliteration, this based on ://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf/.

The Scripture4All site is a scholarly compilation of the entire New Testament. Our presentation of the small excerpt is the flow-narrative that the scholarly word for word produces, if put in a line easy to read. This compares to the traditionally-read Christmas portion in John.

Making some small portion readable when it was not, is fair use of the interlinear words, because there is no other way to get meaning from the necessarily disjoint and barely figure-out-able five-line mechanical transliteration from original Greek. You can see the modern interpretation of the mechanical in the margin at scripture4all - a "normal" Biblical version - or just look in your own Bible.

Gospels vary. Here's Mark. Pretty spare.

.

It is indeed Greek to us how we got from the lovely, mystical, evocative John and the cosmic ideas of his story, to our narrow, hardline translations in institutions that tie our feet down and blindfold us as though there were no other interpretation. Is that a reasonable conclusion?

Our approach:

No capitals, unless in the phonetic Greek. If we see "theos" (OEOC roughly), uncapitalized in the phonetic and meaning "god", or "ton theon" (TON OEON roughly), uncapitalized in the phonetic and meaning "the god", we do not capitalize.
No punctuation and no separation into verses or sentences. We seen none in the Greek.
Backslash. We do add a backslash / (but no numeration) where our modern Biblical verses end so you can count back and see where we are.

Gospels vary. Here's Matthew. Lots of stories..
.
Big questions: Why do we see no gender in the Greek phonetic for god? Is theon or theos or theou the masculine form in itself? Could be. Would the feminine be thea? Why is "humans" translated into "men" all the time in the margin Bible narrative?

Gender: We are not Greek scholars. Just asking about illogic in given words. Overview -- No "sons" of God. "Humans" instead of "men". "System" or kosmos instead of "world". What role has culture in shaping what is taught. Are there ellipses, parts left out entirely from the original, in the translation.

More Gender: We do see the word "patros" for "father" coming later on. This is a patriarchal bent. But bosom of the father always seemed to be an androgynous picture; see the discussion of generation as opposed to begetting, below. The usual gender equipment is needed for begetting, but not for generating. Is that so? What does that mean to our art? Our very representations of scripture as to gender reflect culture, not Word, is that so?

Culture rules scripture words. Gender reflected may be later slant, and not necessarily the original text.

.....................................................................................................

* Small glossary of Things

as when - The Greek phonetic pOpote - a question on meaning from the transliterator there shown as ?-as-? when

father - The Greek phonetic patros (no capital) (not used in the same way as theos or theon?)

generated - The Greek phonetic egennEthEsan, transliterated as generated. That generating is a different concept from "begotten" or "begetting" - think of all the Old Testament begets. This "generated" is different, and not sexual, is it? There are generations in our language, and labs generate things, not the same as impregnating and waiting for results. See "only-generated" - Greek phonetic monogenous. Same idea? Not the only child of, just the only one "generated". Then, again, the only generated one is beside "father" or "patros" (no capitals). So, did theos cause the generation through patros (ou est mater?) and iEsou is up there beside patros with theos overlooking the progress? Still, confusion. Is patros the same as the theos. Or different? There's an interesting thought. A hierarchy among the deities. The theos generates through patros, but is not the same entity. Somebody out there knows.

He-came - The Greek phonetic Elthen (with capital); He-was - The Greek phonetic En (with capital); him - The Greek phonetic auton (no capital)

human, humans - The Greek phonetic anthrOpon (with the interior capital) - this is the word that the transliteration says is "human" - but that we see in usual Biblical translation as the male "man" - but anthrOpon is a species-sounding term, not a gender one, so we vote for humanity, not the mere masculine of the species

of man - The Greek phonetic andros, transliterated "of man" - but see human, humans, above - anthrOpon is human not a gender, is that so? If not, there must be an andra-type form to correspond to the andros. If not, then doesn't the word merely mean one of the humans? A human?

offsprings - The Greek phonetic tekna, that the transliteration says is offsprings. But the Biblical translation down the side says "sons". On what ground, pray tell?

sacred ones - The Greek phonetic hiereis, transliterated as sacred ones, but usually Biblically given to us as "priests" (the males). Were there any female sacred ones? Experts, you know these answers. Please help.

system - The Greek phonetic kosmos - This is the word that the transliteration says is "system" but that we see translated as "world" - sounds broader than our mere world - a cosmos ide. The entire system, the cosmos, even the galactic system or system of galaxies is evoked. Not just our "world." The "system" or "kosmon" also suggests pattern or order, not just a specific example of it. Is that so?

John - The phonetic Greek iOannes, with the interior capital O so we include it as a proper name, John. We have yet to see a capital in theos or theon or theou. Also, Jesus, as the Greek phonetic iEsou, with the interior capital, we capitalize

own-ones - The phonetic Greek idioi - ha. Idiots? Childish joke. Take it out. No, I am a child.