Realism part 2          

Home Up Feedback Contents Search


Realism part 3





back to REALISM PART 1


            PHYSICS, REALITY and RELIGION:: In examination of Physics, and physics equations there is an unexpected  link to religion.  Thus reality has forced me to re-examine my beliefs, and actually dictated a change in beliefs.  The starting point for this change is in the equation that describes the expansion of the universe.  In order to be precise the exact physics will be presented here,  with the conclusions in italics.   

            HUBBLE’S LAW:: Based upon observation E. Hubble noted that far away objects appeared to be receding with a velocity, V, proportional to the distance, s, with the proportionality constant being the Hubble constant, H (note units in per second)

                                    V = H s                                                                        eq 1

            The age of the universe, tu, and the radius of the universe, Ru, are related to H such that

                        tu = 1/H           eq 2  and                      Ru = C/H                     eq 3

            Assuming that Hubble’s constant is a true constant and differentiating equation 1 :

                        ds2 /dt2  = dV/dt  = H ds/dt = HV = H2  s                               eq 4

Taking the extremes **  of eq 4  this integrates to


                        s  =  so e+Ht  +  B e-Ht                                                               eq 5


The e+Ht  term is the expanding universe term, and the second term represents a contracting universe term usually ignored in our universe.  This is a linked - time reversal - contracting contra-terrene universe paired with our own universe.

            ** note:  Taking the original Hubble equation V= Hs = ds/dt, this integrates directly to   s  =  so e+Ht  (eq 5a)  but lacks the second contracting universe term 

  B e-Ht (eq 5b) which is needed in the following derivation and should not be ignored. The extra step also is required to equate Gravity to expansion equations, so the extra step is really required to obtain the more general result.

            However there is a great deal more implied in this duality. For example in our universe the “four space” position or interval, I, from a reference (0,0,0,0) point is given by:

                        I2   = x2  + y2  +  z2  - C2 t2                                                      eq 6

and note that the time term is MINUS  C2 t2 not positive. In the contracting universe these cognate terms are:

                        I2   = x2  + y2  +  z2  + C2 t2                                                    eq 7

Thus the contracting universe is actually the more “symmetric” universe, populated with positrons and anti-protons and anti- neutrons forming anti- matter, with time reversed from the passage of time in our universe; and gravity acts in reverse as well.   All “anti-  matter” seeks to distribute itself evenly in the continua rather than being attractive and “clumping” to form planets, stars and other black hole types of bodies as in this universe.

            Thus this answers the symmetry question in Physics of where the positrons etc. that are not observed in our universe have gone... they are in the “sister” Contra- terrene (CT) universe described in that “trivial” term in eq 5. As a side note entropy tends to order in that system, and “information content” which demands at the very least a difference in state,  some binary 0 or 1,  to continue to exist is being lost from the universe as it become more homogeneous,  the differences are disappearing.  Thus while entropy in our system increases and tends to disorder, in the CT system entropy decreases and the system tends to maximal order. 


            Note that in our close sheaf of universes, each terrene system has a counterpart Contra-Terrene (CT) system with cognate constants. It is this linked paired universe system that causes some of the peculiarities we observe.  The question for example of why there is not equal amounts of matter and anti matter is resolved by saying that the two linked universes which do NOT normally interact (thank heavens!) each contains the balanced quantities of matter and anti- matter. 


In this set we may say of our universe:

            Matter (electrons moving about protons and neutrons)

            The Universe is expanding

            Gravity Exists (things attract and tend to cluster into clumps of matter)

            Time passes

            Red Shift will occur with large distances

            Entropy in increasing (Entropy is a measure of order so trend to disorder)

            There is a positive energy of time flow.


            In the CT universe these are true:

            Anti-matter (positrons moving about anti-protons and anti-neutrons)

            The Universe is CONTRACTING

            Gravity is “anti-gravity” things tend to distribute to uniformity

            Time is reversed from our universe

            There is a BLUE shift with large distances

            Entropy is decreasing ( things tend to more order, it is an orderly universe)

            The energy of time flow is negative.


(Below is a side note to Religion to develop a few more precise relationships)

            As mentioned above there also is an energy of time flow. As time passes, everything tends to get further and further apart relative to the distance at any given time. Thus the energy in any system - in any mass - is less and less.  This implies an energy change as time passes, and energy of time flow.

The energy of time flow is given by the equation:

             DEtt  m Dt                                                                          eq 8

where DEt is the change in energy of mass, m, in a time interval Dt, and t is the proportionality constant,  but it also is given by:

              t =  H C2                                                                                            eq 9

and eq 8 could also be rewritten as:

            DEtt  m Dt = H C2m Dt =  mC2  H Dt                                   eq 10

The evaluation of t is 1850.908 ergs per gm second or 0.1850908 Joules per Kg sec. Starting with eq 5 the expansion term so e+Ht taking t for a “short time” relative to the 15 billion years eq 5 may be reduced to eq 10. For very long times, or near the start of the universe the full exponential eq 5 should really be used.



There is a new way of looking at gravity that may be “peculiar” but it does give instructive results. The fundamental Newtonian equation for gravity is:

            F = m  a =   G m1  m2 / r2                                                                      eq 11

where r is the radius to the center of the mass m2  and G is the gravitational constant 6.6732 x 10-8 dyne cm2 / gm2  Then taking a man for example mass,  m1 , standing on a large planet such as earth which is mass,  m2, the acceleration on the man will be  

            F = m1  a  =  m1 ds 2 /dt2 = G m1 m2 / r2                                     eq 12

and dropping the m1 from the equation, and letting the mass of the planet with radius s be its volume (4/3 p s3) times its density, r , the equation now becomes:

                                 ds 2 /dt2 = G r 4/3 p s3 / s2= 4/3 p rG s                      eq 13

            At this point equation 13 is identical to equation 4 if we realize that the “constant” terms are equal, and thus:

                        H2  = 4/3 p rG                                                                                    eq 14



From H and eq 14  it is possible to calculate the age and radius of the universe.  Substituting the density of matter (1.5172778 x 10 -8) in the universe into eq 12 (H2  = 4/3 p rG), with the relatively poorly known constant G,  6.6732 x10-8 dyne cm2/gm2  (error ±0.0031 or 230 ppm) H may be found:

                        H = 2.05941 x 10-18  per sec                             eq  14a

(with expected error of  ±0.00047, this compares to the pure number derivation  where H was found to be 2.059429 x 10-18  per sec. )

            The limiting factor in the accuracy in H above is the value of the gravitational constant with 230 ppm error. Still this value of H is far more accurate any other value to date.


tu = 1/H = 4.85575 x 1017   seconds  or 15.387 billion years  eq 14b


Ru = C/H = 1.4557 x 1028  cm (or x 1026  meters) or 15.387 billion

light years.


            This compares quite well to present guesses near 15 billion Ly with at least  ± 2 billion Ly error in observed values.

            From later indexing theory the radius would appear to require  2164  spasons (quanta of space time) which is a value of 1.489 x 1028 cm  and a value of  H = 2.0131 x 10-18 per sec  thus the values all agree well with the probable error stated.


            WHAT DOES IT MEAN?  From a “religious” point of view,  all of this mathematics has profound implications. I assume God is orderly. If that is true then he is in that other “orderly” CT universe, not our disorderly universe. This universe is tending to disorder.  That last statement is not based upon my math above but is a well-known and accepted statement, since “entropy is increasing” is the second law of thermodynamics.  Linking order to a CT universe and disorder to a terrene universe is my contribution.

            It also has been postulated repeatedly by other scientists that a CT universe would have time reversal, so I cannot claim that innovation.  It is just adding in a very peculiar not well known relationship into the total system.

            Taking all this into account I deduce that we probably were in that other CT universe which was contracting and which had reached its limit,  it in fact would loose information content, and we had to move or perish.  So “Father” is moving everyone from the older run down CT universe to another CT universe. In the process he must go through a terrene system.  He has no choice, a direct link from a freshly created very large CT universe to a very dense highly collapsed CT universe would cause catastrophic energy flow from one (the collapsed one) to the other.  The in between step is an isolation step required by physics.  But it also explains a lot of things.  For example it explains why we don’t remember that past universe, and assuming we move on when we die to another CT system it explains why we also don’t have ghosts visiting us. We are moving the information content that make up what we are, the “spirit” essence of us, from one to the other. But that has no mass, no “energy” in the physics sense, so it can be moved from one universe to another.  If we do not live a full life then we also do not move all of that “information” with us, and thus suicide is foolish as it keeps us from moving all that we are, and being all that we can be.

The Time diagram is shown below:


We lived, in the prior universe, accumulating the first four gifts:

            1) Identity: Separate existence from God, (Father and Mother)

            2) The ability to remember - to accumulate memories and thoughts

            3) The ability to think logically - to manipulate thoughts

            4) The ability to make decisions.

            We are now learning “good and evil” the link of self responsibility for the consequences of our decisions, and how to choose for better or worse;  how to use power, and when not to use it. That last is a “god like” attribute, not using power - the temptation is great to abuse power, and the consequences usually very bad.


            Note that we can not remember the past from the old CT universe as the past to us now was the “future” there and we never were there to “remember” it. As we live here we; however, can accumulate experiences, and identity from that past universe, this is the deja vu -the predisposition to personality which we all have experienced. Also do not forget that our present body and genetics will be established to match what we were as best possible, so the identity will be transferred with minimal problems. When we die, not that we also start into a “past direction” relative to our present universe and we literally cease to exist as far as this universe is concerned,  we are busy re-accumulating identity in that new CT universe. Only ghosts of the FUTURE,  our children and grandchildren’s personality can effect us in “passing”, and to do so they would be required to know a lot more about us that we seem to know about our ancestors.  In fact I must ask how do we communicate with that time vector being backwards? Even that is a problem. I also note that our total personality is not totally of this universe, but extended into both past CT and future CT. Perhaps that is part of why we sleep- trying to handle and sort the complex flow of massless information that is us.  That also would explain reliving our day to day experiences in dreams. This theory springs from a combination of observation and physics theory in the form of logic/ equations, and unprovable beliefs. Thus reality is influencing religion and in this case religious beliefs.


            All religions have argued over free will versus predestination.  The question always has been how much, if any, free will do we have.  Various religions have answered from none, total predestination, a fate, or luck attitude, to 100% free will, on the basis that we can not be held responsible for our actions if everything is predetermined.

            As a matter of observation I have the choice of many actions for things in my near vicinity, and less and less effect as things are more removed from me.  A very powerful man, say the President of the United States, can make decisions which have far reaching effect over many people who may be quite far in distance from him.  But the more or less average person  has little or no effect over distant actions.  For example as I sit in Texas at this instant my effect on what is happening in New York City is immeasurable small.  I can for example place a telephone order and have some books shipped. So I can have some small effect.  But in general my effect on far places and the lives and choices of some billions of people in China etc. is so near zero as to be immeasurable.  In general the effect we have is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.

            But within the choices we do have and particularly in our local vicinity we do have some free choices.  I can chose to type a letter A or a letter B or some series of letters with different meanings.  I can chose to stand up or not.  I can not choose to sprout wings and fly off.  Some thing are impossible,  we live with restricted choices.

            In addition many (most) choices do not matter at all.  No matter which option we choose we still will come to the same end point later. Our “choice” converged and was not a real choice.  For example I made an error in typing the word FROM above because my finger sequence was not quite correct and I got FORM.  But as soon as I saw the error I went back and changed it to what I really intended.  I frequently mis type “and” as “adn” and that bad choice is corrected as soon as I use “spell check” utility and find it.  The final choice thus  is “and”.  I can hold my car keys up and choose to drop them or choose NOT to drop them.  But in either case I will later choose to put them back into my pocket as I need them to drive home.  I could be persistent and leave them, I guess, but that choice would be irrational and have no beneficial point as I do not like the option of walking 5.5 miles home.   Thus the choice was not a REAL choice in overall effect on our world,  in that the “branching” caused by the two pseudo choice options converged.  Most so called choices converge sooner or later.  Even if they do not converge rapidly, the effect of choices as time passes usually disappear.  For example none of the choices made by my great grandparent with the possible exception of having my grandparents persist today (if indeed that was a choice and not a happy but unplanned event) .  Basically all of their physical attainments have disappeared.  One house still is extant,  but the crops that they planted, etc. all have “converged” into a lack of identity.  Even that house will probably disappear in identity in another century or so. 

            Few “monuments” last for long. A few things like the Great Pyramid have persisted,  but it of all the seven wonders of the ancient world is the sole survivor. The rest have disappeared.  Thus I must also question how many “choices” are real choices.  Most choices converge,  and disappear.  Thus the world as a whole is predetermined.  We have limited choice, here - now in one small zone of space and time.  But that choice is personal for us and our close associates alone, and  does not effect numerous other people.  Choices that have major effect are rare, and ones that last rarer yet.  Yet there are some choices that have long term permanent effect.  Most of those involve intangibles,  and thoughts.

            The maximal effect that all of the people on Earth have had on Mars consists of a pair of landers we have sent to Mars.  We may in the near future have much greater effect,  but as of now the total combined effect of all humanity on any other planet is so near zero as not to be expressible in meaningful terms.  The same may also be said of the effect of the whole Solar system on the Galaxy - the more removed it is the less the effect.

            Science also has precisely answered the question of how much free will we have, but that answer has not been widely recognized as the answer to the question of predestination or free will.

            The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the error in measurement of position, dx, times the simultaneous error in measurement in momentum, dp, using light to determine both values must be equal to or greater than h, Planck's constant, which is 6.626176 x 10-34 (­­­±5.4 ppm error) joule seconds per cycle. (or 1.0545887 x 10-34 ±5.4 ppm error Joule sec per radian). This also has an alternative form where the simultaneous measurement in error in energy,  dE and error in time,  dt, using photons must equal or exceed h also.

            dx    dp  ≥  h     or   dE   dt  ≥   h

            As trivial as this may seem that is the precise free will we have.  The uncertainty in the Universe is precisely the allowable free choice we have.  The conversion of that equation into everyday terms hay be difficult,  but it does precisely describe a limited choice in a deterministic universe.

            There are two major restrictions stated in the above which are not usually included in the principle.  The first is the precise inclusion of the angular or repeat terms as “cycles” or radians.  The h and h bar are related by h/2p = h bar, and thus is not usually recognized as the conversion between radians and “cycles”

since both angular units are usually ignored as “dimensionless” (which is partially true - the dimensional part of the units do cancel, but there is still a dimensionless descriptive term left which may not be ignored).  The inclusion of the restriction that the measurement was done using light, or photons, also is implicit in the derivation, and it has been generalized without recognition of that inherent restriction.  The word simultaneous also has been forgotten in that it is possible to measure one property, then assume it continues unchanged and measure the second in a later experiment, and exceed the precision implied.

CREATIVITY:: Nature is actually generous,  she in the past has provided many things freely- by “grace”.  We find fruits growing spontaneously,  and are able in cases to harvest where we did not sow.  But we also can not depend on that.  If we wish to depend on a harvest we must plant the seed.  In terms of mental progress I also have been given a good head start with the educational system.  But that was never totally “free”. I did have to make some effort. The effort was greatly reduced by having the steps that other people took written for me to follow. It is much easier to follow the well used trail than to break the new trail. If I have to discover something new, the work is many fold more difficult than learning something someone else did from a book. In terms of mental progress, I have been allowed to have many new ideas, perhaps more than my “fair share”. Many, most, just popped into my head.  But I also have observed that we must pay for what we get, and nature insists on payment in advance.  The cost is mental effort to learn any new concept,  and effort to prepare the way for new concepts. In addition I had to be ready to accept the most fleeting and wildest trace of a thought. These new concepts always were small formless thoughts that I had to cherish and let grow.  They were rather like a new born baby- you never knew where they were going to lead you until you let them grow up a bit. We must be willing to take what we get, when we get it.  And almost always I had to pay a mental price in advance by thinking on the subject,  and being willing to discard old irrelevant concepts.  Discarding old concepts and worthless processes is probably the hardest thing I have learned to do.

            IRRELEVANCE:: Every concept or variable has a domain over which it is valid.  Outside of that domain it is irrelevant and we must seek other concepts of variable with which to describe phenomena.  We should  always try to describe the domain over which our thoughts are valid.  We must do that in terms of place and time, as well as size and other social contexts.

            I observe that religion is conservative, it almost is a force opposed to discarding irrelevant social concepts.  Yet that is the price we must pay for social progress. We must pay that price or we will be condemned to misery as a whole generation of people die off; until we have that new generation after 40 years wandering in the wilderness,  which was not tainted by the old bad concepts.  I would prefer NOT to wander in misery and without hope for 40 years.

            As an example of mental payment and irrelevance; being required to toss out “valued” old concepts which were no longer valuable;  I had to toss out to stop using the irrelevant the concepts of mass, energy, momentum, angular momentum, Force, and all terms which include “mass like” terms in order to make progress in the physics of the quantization and structure of space-time itself.  Space-time (a vacuum without particles such as electrons or protons in it) does not display the properties of mass/ force/ momentum/ energy etc. so I may not use these variables to describe space time. That price appears to be too much for most physicists to pay. But until they pay it they also will be “dammed” - i.e. constrained and their progress  limited. 



            People have been seeking perfection from before the time of the Greek philosophers. They first found perfection in numbers, and the Pythagorean school went so far as to create transcendentalism in its search or real perfection. They claimed that our world was an “imperfect shadow” of the “true perfect world” and we have been plagued ever since by this rejection of reality in search of perfection.  If the world was perfect it could not include us.  Perfection is an irrational concept,  which has intruded into virtually all religions.  In physics we have “uncertainty” and that is our freedom of choice, the “elbow room” we need to be individuals.  Perfection is static, not dynamic, and thus the search for perfection also is the search for that one unique unchanging state which represents death, the final state of a totally run down universe.  Thus we must recognize perfectionism for what it is, and discard it.  The attempt to declare anything as perfect or infallible is a lie and will always introduce error and irrational behavior into the uncertainty of reality.  Usually this is a mask for someone trying to kill the minds of other people, and enslave them as zombies for his own purpose.

            Let me clearly state that I totally reject human infallibility and perfection in any and all forms.  From time to time people have made personal; claims of infallibility, or claims of infallibility for something that they wish you to accept without skepticism or question.  For example the fundamentalists claim that the “Bible is THE word of God” and thus perfect and infallible. While God may (by definition) be infallible, he is also not of this universe. We humans are NOT perfect.  We are contained in the Universe, part of it. A part can not contain the whole. We can not be greater than or fully understand the universe. This statement is not true for God, who IS greater than the universe. He thus is not constrained to anything within it.

            Our very language is imprecise. Words are abstract symbols that only partially represent the object or action in reality. Also by fitting the imperfect abstract concept into our limited brain structure and capacity it is inherently incomplete and imprecise. The words we use thus have built in imprecision sufficient to cause an inherent error in abstraction of reality in our mental representation. The very words we use are limited to what we have learned thus far and thus introduce further imprecision. That very human imprecision prevents anything which we have written or done or are likely to do from being totally correct.  While God may understand the whole universe, that implies that he transcends the universe. In order totally to understand it He must be greater than it is.  We are part of the universe, and a part can never contain the whole.  Infallibility in human understanding is as silly or stupid as asserting that some part of the universe can understand and control the whole. That argument is as old as Aristotle or Plato and both of them understood and rejected the stupidity of the assertion. Somehow in the intervening time we have forgotten this lesson and regressed to letting charlatans and shamans trick their “true believer” fools that they or something they “represent”  and control is master of the universe. 

            This assertion of infallibility seems inevitably also to accompany power politics,  trying to get people to do what the leaders want, for the benefit of the leaders, and usually against the best interests of those fools who are following them.  In fact it frequently is accompanied by the grey haired leaders sending their youth off to get killed in a war for the financial or power (usually both) benefit of those elders. And usually they themselves take no such risk but sit back and direct the slaughter.  This naturally is all for “The Cause” revealed to be “The truth” to Them exclusively as the sole Gnostic revelators or Prophets who receive “The word of God” for everyone else. This claim of Gnostic exclusive revelation is as abhorrent a lie as the claim of infallibility.  They are duping their “true believers” into irrational actions. Any time that you hear an absolute like “I know this is the TRUE church” you know it is a lie. 

WHAT IS TRUTH?  Reality is Truth, and it is itself, Reality is reality R = R. = T

            Truth is a synonym for reality. It NEVER lies. It is what it is.  R is R , It is not what we think it to be and not what we abstract it to be by words and symbols.  It is not even what we observe (think we observe) since our observations are also always erroneous and incomplete to greater or lesser extent.  Our senses are not completely reliable, - and that also introduce further errors, further imperfections into what we believe. There are a few “true statements”. Example: “I can lie”.  Others are paradoxical like “George said “I Lie”” which leads to endless circular arguments.- and can not be true.  The actual syllogism is precluded by the context of the symbols making up the statement.  The whole field of words is imperfect!  We must do the best we can with what we have.  We think with words, so we must settle for less than perfection, but we can do “good enough”.

            The word “true” meaning perfect and or infallible or without fault or flaw should tip you off that the statement is a bald faced lie. And lies coming from the Satanic side of  the list of Godly or good versus Diabolical or bad emotions and actions should warn you of the totality of package.  Usually there are various truths (bait) mixed in with the bad.  That always is true of a trap.  There always must be some desirable “bait” to entrap the unwary.  But that does not alter the overall picture that it IS a trap,  for the benefit of the oligarchy and against the overall good of those who are entrapped. 

            Perfection,  and absolute truth are perhaps possible in pure numbers, and pure absolute logic.  But when we try to connect those “pure” abstract terms to reality,  they loose their precision and become uncertain. The key thought here is that in the act of relating those adjectival descriptions to the nouns and verbs that describe the real world we introduce imperfection.  The real world is uncertain.

            SETTLE FOR GOOD ENOUGH  We inherently live with imperfection, and we should learn to state the probable errors, and learn to settle for a small enough error that we do not mind the small conflicts caused by that error. If we only need to be in the ball park, being within the bleachers is good enough. If we need to be in the infield, it is not good enough. We must also try to define what is good enough, compare that to the probable error and when we are “good enough” we should stop wasting time on seeking more “perfection” than is really required.


            MARRIAGE:: Marriage is really more of a custom than a ritual, but this custom has been observed for millennia.  Because it is so old and so successful surviving against many different experiments, I am very reluctant to suggest any changes in it. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.  Unfortunately it now appears to be broke with about half of all marriages ending in divorce, and the general customs and ethical rules behind it are being violated. This will be covered later.

            Marriage rules are closely integrated within all religions.  The leaders of all religions always try to control their followers by control of marriage and licensing sex.  They either approve or disapprove of various sex practices almost without rational reason depending only on what ever gives them more political  control.  Marriage also has been licensed by the state.  They also want to control people by licensing sex.  This is clearly unethical violating individual freedom of choice. I like the Italian’s comment to the celibate priest- “Ya’ no playa da game; ya’ no setta da rules.”

            Marriage Types: The simplest and most common is monogamy where one man and one woman live together with their children. This historically has been interspersed with polygamy where men with enough wealth almost always have been polygamists. Particularly the kings and princes of the mid east have historically had many wives.  In other places and times several men may combine to support one woman in a polyandrous association.  Still other forms have existed like group marriage where the men and women within the group all combined,  mutually supporting all children, and line marriage where men and women alternate with each man having two wives and each wife having two husbands,  forming a chain.  In cases this open chain with branching has reached amusing complexity, but overall these complex forms have not fared well as one person or another usually persists in trying to dominate the others, particularly within their same sex, causing stress which sooner or later breaks up the arrangements.

            PURPOSE of marriage:; The basic and now forgotten purpose of all marriages was and is economic, to provide a secure environment in which children can be raised. The purpose is raising children.  Thus the present concept of “homosexual marriage” is without foundation.  The marriage for ill defined sexual eros “love”  is a purely Hollywood fiction.  Marriage is for love, but of a higher order than sexual love alone. Marriages work best under economic strain where the couple must work together just to make ends meet.  Marriages fail most frequently under good economic conditions where the woman can support “her children” herself. If she can force support from the husband and have freedom as well why should she put up with a husband and cooking for him? Note the possessive term. Paternity and fatherhood is a social invention.  Men donate sperm,  and are relatively removed from the 9 month  growth process that is very personal to the woman.  They inherently can copulate and impregnate hundreds of women in a year.  Solomon and several other kings actually proved that by having more than a hundred wives and numerous children by many of them.  Ramses II had perhaps 210 children.

            Women tend to cling to one man at a time,  and want an exclusive sexual relationship and support.  Originally this exclusive sexual relationship was highly desirable to “prove” who the father of the child really was.  The father planted the “seed” which grew in the woman, and it was HIS seed, HIS child. She was just the planting ground that he owned. The present customs in the United States is the result of puritanical reinterpretation of biblical history.  Those who persecuted for example the “Mormon polygamy” an enacted bigamy laws totally ignored the four wives of Israel, and plural wives of Abraham and the polygamous kings like David.  Recognition that polygamy was traditional and inherent in the basic “Judeo Christian roots”  did not suit their purpose. So they effectively lied about what was “normal”. The Muslin laws allow as many wives as the man can afford, and four is suggested as an optimal number.  Thus the U.S. bigamy laws specifically conflict with both religions.  So much for alleged freedom of religion.

            In addition to the basic core family unit there is also the extended family structure of brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.  This extended family also aids in security, and in times past if both parents died, not an infrequent happening with contagious diseases,  the aunts, uncles etc. would take over raising the children.  The family also supplied “old age security” for the grandparents,  and frequently they in turn provided baby sitting and other services for the children.

            In china the family quite effectively has ceased or is ceasing to exist, and family structure is disappearing.  With one child, there are no brothers or sisters. And in one generation there also will be no aunts or uncles, or cousins.  Thus in short order they will have nothing but the “state” to depend upon.  I fear for the consequences in that situation as it runs contrary to all recorded history. It is an experiment without precedent.

            The disintegration of the family and marriage in the U.S. and the west is the direct result of social intervention imposing major ethical errors into the society.. Ethically speaking we have tolerated social interference where there was no delegation of any rights. Marriage in any form is, to put it bluntly, ethically none of anyone else’s business. The idiots that cry that they are “protecting the children” are really inflicting their own values on other people by force, and enslaving them.   They believe that the children have a “right” to support.  If THEY wish to support those children, then I would agree that they could grant them that “right” -voluntarily taken OUT of their own pocketbook.  But when they insist the father (or alleged father) support the children in the way that these outside people decree,  meaning the busy bodies,  and fools in black robes who are “judges” but have forgotten the basics in the mass of confusion they have perpetuated.,  then that have taken freedom and enslaved the man.  They try to rationalize their abuse of power in terms of “but  the man owes them a living” “or he should not have brought them into the world” - and that is patently untrue. If the world owed them or ANYONE a living, then father would not be asked to contribute at all.  The world does not owe ANYONE a living. If you think so then you are free to try to collect.  They are simply using primary force,  to inflict their known faulty unethical value system involving theft and slavery on someone else. 

            And the children respond by being disobedient brats.  They know that they do not have to help with work in the family or obey father’s rules.  They know the corrupt courts will get them what they want by force,  if they yell loud enough, and if they can not get it by being overly obnoxious and demanding at home. If the do gooders wish to take over and adopt the child, and fully support that child then they do have a “right” at least to so offer.  If they do not offer support, then they should have no say.   All the nonsense about child neglect,  and so on of late arises from a lack of basic understanding of delegation of rights.

            GOLDEN RULE: He with the gold makes the rules.

If a parent sees so little value in his own child that he is willing to let that child starve, society has no rights to accept or to delegate.  They may take over support for the potential value they see in that child, or even just contribute support OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET- (not public funds - that would be “welfare” theft)- but may not force the parent to accept their personal value judgment.  That is the freedom of religion and freedom of values which they now are violating.  They can step in in cases of physical harm,  the child does have the rights to delegate to stop abuse. The abuse is a definite positive action causing physical harm which can be stopped.   But when they try to force an someone to take an involuntary action,  they have overstepped their bounds. 

            Child custody in divorce ethically speaking also is a clear cut case - the parent who supports also must have full custody.  If the parents wish to split it in any way agreeable to both parents,  society may not interfere.  If they don’t like it and the child also agrees,  they can offer to take over - all obligations, and all responsibility. The key is not to tolerate splitting responsibility and “reward” or authority.  That is what is unethical.

            WELFARE:: This concept in the form of collectivism has ruined more than 100 civilizations, from the “dole” of Rome which bankrupted the Empire, to the parasitic bureaucracy of Egypt ca 1100 BC. to the present day out of control mess with soaring deficits, and “social programs” in the United States, England, etc. Governmental welfare has never worked.  It has worked in voluntary cases, particularly in some specific religious orders.  The whole ethical key is the word voluntary,  versus the force involved in collecting taxes.  Welfare in taxes is doubly destructive. It removes incentive to produce by depriving the worker of his reward, and deprives the recipient of incentive by rewarding him not to produce.  Thus  it destroys the very fabric, the economic basis, of the society that is silly enough to let that rot get into the system.  It is theft, pure and simple, taking from one person with a gun in the back , and giving to a third party who does nothing - returns nothing of value (in fact usually quite the contrary) to the person stolen from.  The welfare / dole recipient all too often riots for more “bread and circuses” since they are unoccupied, having excess time on their hands since they are not working to obtain what necessities they get.  Society must never institute a minimum wage- many of these people are not worth what ever value is selected so can not be employed at all under those conditions.  Society can insist on a FAIR wage for what ever services are performed. That is justice, not charity.  Historically the migrant farm workers, for example, have been cheated .

PRAYER::  What “Prayer” is correct? Pray in private, count your blessings: saying thanks for good things, recounting values, remembering what is of value, and what is not. Praying, meditation helping to “think things out” is also a valid use of prayer. Praying for health also is valid. In addition to the “placebo effect” which is proven to help in disease and injury; Witch doctors pray over patients if they can not do anything else. This type of attention is also proven to have positive and unexplained effects. So we should not disparage what we do not know; if it works it works. The mind has much more control over our bodies than we now know how to explain. I would hope that we would eventually learn how to do this, and remove it to the status of a science.  But until we do it rightfully belongs in the realm of things not understood, and as such it still belongs to religion. One cynical definition of religion was a collection of those which which we do not understand.

The “Laying on of Hands” and “anointing with oil” also works. Mental control of body function is real. Mental worry can make a person ill, and relief can cure them.  The mind can do things which we only dimly understand,  and thus we should not disparage what actually works, until we do understand (when it will be science) we should continue to use it as “religion”. Mass public prayer is a form of mind control and thus comes under brainwashing. Public “Prayer” per Christianity is actually prohibited by Jesus himself. You are supposed to pray only in secret otherwise ye have your reward.. being seen in public praying so you look pious..= (sanctimonious. hypocrite) 

            The Muslim prayer five times a day also has been turned from a positive force into a social event with overall bad results by misuse of men. It was intended to have the effect of welding the Muslims into a “brotherhood”, and to humble men compared to Allah, hopefully reducing or eliminating pride. Pride is one of the major “sins” in Islam, and I agree that it is a destructive force which we would be better off to eliminate. Unfortunately it does not work to eliminate pride in egomaniacs. They can pray side by side with their people and then persecute them.  By the way this is NOT Islam, but a mockery of it. I condemn the action of some men, not the religion. The public prayer was intended to promote equality, helping leaders to understand, and justly to control the followers and allowing communication in both directions. It is now used as a man to man political power creating an “US - THEM” social distinction, allowing Jihad holy war between the Us and the Them factions, From that point of view is very bad for humanity.  Prayer also should be a matter of personal need, not an enforced custom with social sanctions for those who do not conform. While this is one of the five pillars of Islam,  social pressure to conform deprived people of their personal freedom of choice.  This has gone too far in one direction. The mutual social pressure in Islam causes most to conform to this custom,  and thus it is a deprivation of freedom and thus unethical at the individual level also.

            WHAT is or can be WRONG in PRAYERS:: Asking in public for physical things, particularly for miracles, or actions, events which are false to reality such as “pray for rain”, or give me this desired (coveted) item  -  wishing rather than working for what you want. is a major fallacy which needs to be terminated.

            “Political” use of Prayer::, Prayer also is used -abused- to transmit emotions, and emotional rhetoric to listeners, going via emotions directly to the dinosaur brain without ethical censorship available in the thinking part of the brain, without adequate application of skepticism. And since it bypasses reasoning, since the prayer often is not screened against lying / and is mistaken for “word of God” not differentiating “to God”  from  “from God”, it can cause irrational harmful behavior.

            Promises of miracles, undelivered and particularly for pay, is a form of theft. Asking for donations to “prove” faith. is unethical,  mixing reality with belief. Those who charge for religion are asking for reward in real values for intangible values. It is generally wrong to mix tangible values and intangible values. The payment for intangibles should be intangible and the reward for tangible values should be tangible..


            SING A SONG:: Songs generally are meant to transmit, to raise, or to cause emotions. They can cause GOOD or BAD emotions. There are sad songs, happy songs,  War,(Pride in Country) songs, Sexual songs, Blues, Join our organization, Praise to God, and an endless variety of songs. Almost any emotion you can name can also be expressed in a song. When a singer sings a song, what is the emotional intent?  Value often depends on emotional intent?.

            Songs are rhythmic, in fact semi-sexual in nature, and as such tend to by-pass the thinking part of the brain, and thus enter the lower reptilian brain directly.  They transmit emotions because of this better than the words would if used alone.  Sex is good, and so are songs if not misused, or abused.

            We should seek happy songs (raise a joyful sound to the Lord) versus songs which center on guilt, shame, self fault, repentance, remorse, contrition, penance,  debasement, humble, put down,  degrade, profane, disgrace, sorrow,  pain, or that belittle, and induce bad emotions. 

            Seek songs that “raise up spirits”, -but not politically oriented “uber alles” patriotism to the exclusion of everyone else. - Avoid “Give me some men who are stout hearted men”, war songs,  like the “Army Air Corps”, - or “Caissons”, German WW II songs/ US “Over There”. songs which are designed to get men to go fight and possibly get themselves killed in irrational actions.

 Madonna music of both types?!!! ::There are  religious songs like Ave Maria, which are beautiful and inspire higher emotions.  Then there are straight sexual songs from another more modern day materialistic “Madonna” that if followed without contraceptive precautions will also lead to motherhood. Which is not really a good godly result, unless society makes it bad.  If either type song cause irrational behavior, then they are wrong, and if either can be used to gain empathetic pleasure without ill side effects, they are both acceptable and good.  The key word here is responsibility- maintaining control of mental processes, and not letting direct emotional influence via stimulation of the reptilian brain using  sexual rhythm to cause irrational and thus bad actions.

US - THEM UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR:: It is unethical religiously to form “exclusive” sub- societies,  or to use of “social sanctions” to control behavior.  This exclusive “Us-them” divisions will for example allow one group to enslave another group. The ethics of “us-them” allows use of any distinction such as race as a basis for granting special privileges, and denial of that benefit to the other group. Sex, is another such difference that has been used.  Ethics demands that we consider the other individuals; it does NOT demand that we give everyone the same treatment.




            The single most stupid fallacy of the last two centuries is that all men are equal. This is an over reaction to the abysmal treatment given some men by others who considered themselves “superior” in some way to the other group. The Slave, master relationship comes to mind as well as the serf- nobility relationship. In both cases one group used a distinction to steal from the other.

            No two men are the same. Men all have differing characteristics, and because of that have differing needs, values, and thus desires. To use a simple example I like Musical Comedies, like limited classical music, tolerate some older  rock and roll, and dislike the very loud Rock with emphasis on dislike hard rock.  I can find other people who more or less totally reverse that value judgment.

            Women are not equal to men; Period, and viva la difference!  Both sexes have different needs, values, and desires.  The repression of women and enslavement of them was and is wrong.  The demand for “equality” is just plain stupid, causing some foolish women to try to be second rate men rather than first rate women,  and making themselves, and those around them, miserable in the process. (Did you ever see a Woman’s libber who was really happy?)  The question is not one of equality but justice. The past ethic of involuntary enslavement of women is not tolerable, but “equality” is not the answer either as it does not provide for the very different values, and needs of women. Society needs better consideration of the desires, and to halt artificial barriers - i.e. to allow freedom,  but not to “give” them unearned privileges that they also do not deserve. Both extremes are bad.

            “HAND SIGNS” In order to separate people into groups all sorts of differences have been used, such as “LODGE SIGNS” meaning the sign of the cross, or the salaam. or what ever - all are recognition signs.. for the purpose of  inclusion or really “exclusion” into an us and them society.  It is the Us- them mentality that is bad, not the sign itself. If used as a sign of reverence, it is desirable. If it is used for exclusion it is bad.

MUTILATION  - Circumcision The Jewish male circumcision may serve health purposes for cleanliness. It also may have some bad side effects causing female vaginal cancer. I will not prejudge this without reason, but if used for Us-Them mentality it is an error.  Female circumcision as used in Africa for a rite of passage to womanhood is an unmitigated harm. Many girls die from infection, and the process does no good. It should ethically speaking, be forcefully discontinued. It is a painful unnecessary and harmful process without redeeming value.

            In places people also practice scarification,  particularly to create body patterns. Again this beautification process needs to be abandoned, and the people taught better ethics. Another religious practice that goes along with mutilation is self flagellation (whips etc.) - people publicly whipping themselves for penance for their “sins”. Most of those sins are imaginary or imposed as a guilt trip by the religious leaders who are using this as a method of control.  These deserve no more acceptance than any other form of control.

            Punishment for real “sins” is perfectly valid.  But that also is generally not a matter of religion.  It is a matter for “civil” authority, and lies in the realm of reality not “belief”  We punish children, because that is the only way that they can learn at their level of ethical understanding. This may be continued if it is the only way,  but once people reach the “age of reason” then this should stop and words should be substituted for physical punishment. Painful words can take the place of painful physical actions.  Some people are still at that primitive level and need physical pain to learn ethical behavior. This can be taken to extremes, too much punishment for too little harm is irrational & not justice. But in some cases punishment may serve useful function to halt similar repeat “sins”.

            Another Us-Them lodge sign can be the way hair is cut. This can be expanded to include facial hair, and in social groups even to minor extreme of peculiar hair cuts-  long hair, short hair / bald heads/ beards,  or no beards, etc. These are neutral and must be respected as within the freedom of choice of individuals so long as they do not serve to establish “us them” differences, or serve as part of mind control, or removal of self love or freedom. In those cases, no matter how old the tradition they are bad and should be halted.

            People have practiced and still do practice piercing of all types. The most common by far is ear rings, followed by nose rings,  lip plugs/rings, genitalia piercing and rings, nipple piercing, American Indian body hooks, and what not, frequently in name of  “beautification”.  As long as no real harm is done, and this is restricted to adults who should be able to make up their own mind,  I must place this into the realm of freedom of choice.  My personal opinion is that the human body should not need this type of alteration, and particularly lip plugs and excessive ear lobe enlargement are silly. But I also am attracted to gems and other such sparkles “baubles, bangles and beads” - “rings and things” myself.  I do suggest that children should not be pierced, until and unless they are competent and can make up their own mind. Otherwise if the adult wants to tattoo themselves, it may be a barbaric rite, but they are entitled to be barbaric with themselves.  sub note::  cosmetics -These are often used to make people look like what they really are not. It also can be used to “cover up” defects, and to make people more “normal” Women, and men, have used lipstick, face paints, body paints, think of negro tribes with white faces and colorful patterns on their bodies, eye make up - Egyptian Kohl used as eye makeup, for millennia.  While I think it is something we as a race will grow out of doing,  personal freedom must allow all such. As a footnote the Kohl in Egypt served to prevent certain eye diseases, so was more than “beauty” and served a functional purpose.

            RITUALS  APOLLIAN and DIONYSIAN   There are in general two types of ritual: Apollian and Dionysian. The Apollian rituals are quiet, taking place largely or even totally in the mind.  This could be a nun praying alone in her cell,  but experiencing a sort of “rapture” that is equivalent to a full sexual release.  It takes place virtually only in in the mind.  The Dionysian ritual might by contrast be the proverbial Roman orgy,  with physical celebration, also reaching physical sexual release time after time.  The Roman matrons of ca 70-80 AD wore necklaces with phallic symbols on them to designate how many times they had copulated in the last day.  One matron had a set of 25 necklaces with from zero to 24 penises on them.  She had on occasion had to combine two necklaces to reach the right total!!  This physical rapture is Dionysian.  Which is proper?  The answer is either and/or both.  I must add a foot note also listed elsewhere that with the current presence of STD (sexually transmitted diseases) I must conclude that promiscuity of the Roman Orgy type is prohibited by nature (i.e by God).  In order to be “safe” people must confine their Dionysian rituals to a very strictly limited known clean “group” which are strictly faithful to one another. The word group here can be one man and one woman.  In fact monogamy probably is  by far the major form of family “marriage” group that is viable.  It takes people of a much more mature type of love than I usually observe to form larger associations. Jealousy in particular tends to destroy larger “marriages”. But I do not condemn larger units, I just observe that  they are difficult to form and maintain.  If people can do so then these are more rewarding that smaller groups.  It is a matter of ability and  that ability is provable beyond most people. If anyone wishes to expand outside their group then that must be allowed, but it must be done with full knowledge and consent of those inside the group before the party going outside re-enters into sexual relations within the group.  The promiscuous party is free to go outside on their own judgment,  and own self responsibility,  that is full self control.  But they must also inform the others as soon as practical,  and either admit the new party to the group,  or the rest of the group must be free to disagree and reject the new member, or to re-form into new relationships with any mutually agreeable group relationships.  The one common denominator is that the children must be considered, and they must be taken care of as the one prime consideration with the future and present sexual relations being secondary to that prime consideration. Raising children is the prime purpose of marriage mentioned again below.  The sexual relationships are secondary.  Yet frequently we place the cart before the horse.  In fact today marriage is usually primarily for sex and children are the afterthought - if they are thought of as all.  Again this value system must be allowed within freedom of choice.  So long as ethics are not violated we must tolerate anything that does not harm anyone else.

RITUALS: Real tangible things should have real tangible costs and rewards, intangible things should have intangible costs and results. Any time there is a cross over asking for real payment for intangible reward, it in general is unethical. It is this payment in tangible value for “heavenly” rewards that has been the most despicable confidence game running continuously throughout all history without ever stopping.

We need to make this a real social crime and provide commensurate social punishment for anyone doing it.  In general it is not proper to mix intangible mental, belief type things involving religion with observable reality. Real things require real responses.  Intangible things, require intangible actions, they change your mind.. We need to keep the two separated as far as practical.  Note however that real actions, observations, also can be used to change you mind.

            Ritual:: In the process of practicing religion people do all sorts of peculiar things- they” Sit,  kneel, and stand,  bow head, give deep bows, genuflection, hand waving & signs, (like benediction sign of the cross), use sensors,  sacraments (bread, wine) Jewish unleavened bread, bitter herbs,  prescribed daily ritual such as prayer (five) (three) times a day,  light candles, spin prayer wheels, construct and keep shrines, sacred relics, do ablutions, offerings - abstinence of food, drink, sex, (perhaps should try not breathing?)- the list is endless, and harmless in general, but also meaningless in general also other than as a means of control of the devout worshiper by the leader (Priest / shaman or what not) leading the activity.  I can not help think of someone doing calisthenics, and the cute girl doing jumping jacks out in front, bouncing away.  At least she is pleasant to watch and the activity has a purpose - to get exercise!

            There also are proscribed rituals such as no pork, no fish on Friday, no sex,  no wine, no coffee-tea (in front of one another), fasting, refrain from talking, wearing  ashes/ sack cloth - again an almost endless list.  If a person is overweight then fasting can be beneficial, but doing ANY of those things as a part of a belief is mixing intangible beliefs with actions in reality and that is one of the irrational beliefs, marking religion out of control.

All of these actions tend to be based on the “Give up this world syndrome”. In Bali and other far east nations realm of the “spirit world” is so confused with reality that they the spirit world has become more real to them than life in some cases. This does not seem to hinder their happiness, so if the “spirit world” beings happiness, so be it.  It is NOT part of my own belief system, and it seems to have “dead ended” them into a stagnant culture. They must abandon their religion to make progress... a sad commentary. In any case where people pursue “spirit world” to the detriment of this world then the answer is to go join that world- it is in the end one form of saying if they want out so bad why not commit suicide? In places people have done that.

            Data input:: TESTIMONY::  Here the Legal system offers some help. In court we have found that people lie so much and exaggerate so much what they have heard that we can not depend on other than direct testimony. To be acceptable and credible it must not be gossip or at the very least must say WHO, WHAT WHEN WHERE, (why?) in factual format, and must not be of the hearsay “someone did this”,”I have heard that” or “it was said that” the courts prohibit hearsay, as they in general are just repeating lies and expanding the lie distorting it more and more with every re-telling..I suggest that we do the same, and insist on something approaching legal standards of testimony. (The STANDARDS are NOT the pack  of lies in usual court corrupted proceedings).

FICTION :: Fiction must be labeled as such. We are a race of story tellers. Our stories perhaps more about us than our history!  But they are stories, NOT recorded fact, and as such reflect mental constructs. To the extent that they also reflect reality and are believable, they can teach us about reality,  and teach faster than history since we can compress more into a story that actually happens in reality. But we also can mix in major mental errors,  i.e. the “uplifting”(?) story of “The Robe” must be labeled first and above all a fiction,. No matter how wishfully “uplifting” to “serve a good purpose” it still is not the truth, and therefore is in part based upon a lie, and thus a lie.  It has been taken as “gospel truth” by many people. Remembering who is the father of all lies, that totally negates any good effect a story might have had, & places it into the “lies” and often into the “better off without it” category.  Fiction can tell more truth, more rapidly, than facts!! Stories also can do more harm or good than history. That also is the problem with “gospel” truths since they are frequently taken without criticism and almost all have major distortions in them from mis-translations and mis-copying over the years. People want to take these as the “Word of God” but they are not. It says so right on the label- in general it says who wrote them to whom and often why. They are books written by men, to men, and even the “inspired men” argument does not help with the errors in translation and mis-copying problems. If you really want to see God’s word expressed, without any distortion go look at a butterfly, a blade of grass, a flower, or a little girl.  That is HIS book, and how he expresses his word!

            We need to realize that just expressing an event in terms of words has distorted it. Our languages is limited,  and an abstraction of truth. All books no matter how well intended (including this one) contain lies and distortions.  Some are deliberate lies to sell more copies, and lie for business reasons. People would often rather have a lie than the truth.  This then also pertains to the ethics of “National Enquirer” journalism,  the freedom of the press must extend only 1) to tell truth,  or 2) fiction labeled as such or even 3) speculation labeled as such; but never speculation or fiction mis-labeled as fact or truth.

            CLOTHING::  There are many valid purposes for wearing Clothing. The most obvious is temperature control, we wear clothing to prevent our bodies from getting  too hot or too cold. The Eskimo bundles up for warmth and the Berber wears his mass of robes to prevent getting too hot as Desert gear. The “Space suit” adds a new dimension of keeping air / pressure available also.  We also wear sports gear for bodily protection; head gear for cycles, helmets and all sorts of padding for football, including most specifically the “jock strap” and “bra” for anyone who is doing heavy exercise. We use gloves to protect hands, and in the past used Armor for knights in wars to stop sword blows and such - may we not need that again for that purpose! -all of these serve purposes. Even thin Egyptian wraps were used to keep off gnats/ mosquitos etc.  Another valid purpose is to create sexual excitement. Women generally are “sexier” half undressed than totally nude.  Those garments are meant to be removed,- to display the merchandise - not necessarily to protect it. (“Clothing for men” , but worn by women.)

            CLOTHING:: CONTRA:: Clothing also is used to keep people apart, and to create an Us-Them situation. CLOTHING is also used for “social status”, to cause recognition. Is that a purposeful, ethical reason? - The rich want to display their “status” via rich robes.  If it creates an Us-Them situation it can be detrimental. Clothing also is frequently used for   “Modesty”  - someone better define what they mean by that word, how it relates to being ethical. and why is it ethical??  Most so called modesty is a hang over from the Puritans and is a rejection of the body. Ethically we need to get rid of that poison in our social system. bathing suits for example may hide sexual organs,  and I would agree that the athletic supporter and bra part of the suit may serve a valid function,  but overall I would suggest we need to adopt social nudity,  and get rid of body tabus as both irrational and unhealthy. They are a socio- mental disease- (disease means causing physical harm, but from mental patterns caused by social conditions)

            Finally we need to list bad clothing:: Priest’s robes of all sects- from saffron of Hindu to black habit of Nun priests / to nude / Franciscan/ Benedictine monks etc. Jewish “beanies” and Russian Jewish robes (see Fiddler on the Roof), prayer beads, belts,  women covering everything but eyes in Muslim nations, all have religious basis and all without exception are irrational. Most come from prudery, a. rejection of  body,. and need to be discarded. Good ethics probably should reject all bodily tabus that separate mental and physical health..

            SPIRITS 1: Most “spirit” arguments I discarded with one observation. Spirits, minds do not come without bodies in reality. While I believe I have a soul,  it is very attached to my body, and I do not propose to separate the two. Like the story of the philosophy student who stormed into the professor’s office and pounded on the desk “I don’t believe I have a soul!” - The professor looked up, mildly stated ”Well you should know.  I do!  Good Day!” and went back to his papers.  

            The old “spirit” “Spirit world” arguments, have been raised time and time again, offering all sorts of unlikely stories (we are a race of story tellers!) without a shred of proof,  which leads me to believe that it is mythical and without observational “proof” basis.  I do accept some things, but only as they relate to observations.

            RELIGIOUS ORDERS -what is their purpose? If it is to “serve”, then we should ask whether to serve people, or those in the orders?  They will say to serve God, but does he really need or even want to be served? I think not. He is both intangible and unprovable. The answer all too often is that the organizations are self serving,  for the benefit of those in control. SUB CYNICAL Comment: Or are they “mental institutions “ where we can safely allow the mental cripples to support themselves, and get out of the way of “normal” society! 

            All too frequently these “orders” have Gaudy buildings for ostentatious show of wealth, an exhibition of conspicuous waste / rather than to serve a function,   This pretentious exhibition has a purpose of publicity, it provides a spotlight, it is good advertising.  These organizations are business. No more no less.  And they need to be treated as such.  They are usually controlled by pious..= sanctimonious. hypocrites, with excessive self PRIDE. All tend to have Us-Them  vanity of some sect.   At least they are useful in archeology!

            Having huge altars of gold, , excessive splendor, and so on, which cater to the vanity of the church leadership, rather than using resources to help the members (church) improve themselves...can be called many names:: arrogant, vain and self serving, pompous, pretentious, flagrant, blatant, obscene, crude, vulgar, flamboyant.  ostentatious come to mind. But none are good names.

            CHARITY:: A definition of ethical charity:: providing help to improve a value perceived in an individual,  as opposed to unethical pseudo - charity which involves destruction of value through consumption without achieving an increase in the value of an individual.  There is a major misconception that charity is just giving away values - “alms” for the beggar who will not use it to improve himself, but will just buy another drink and wind up drunk in the gutter again.. Sub note, just staying alive may be a primary short range goal, a necessary part of the problem in achieving a longer range goal of self improvement, so alms may not violate ethical charity.  Charity; however,  is always personal, and may not be done on a governmental basis. Taxes taken by force,  and given as welfare to someone else is wrong. Taxes must return to the taxed person value equal to the taxation.  It can not ethically be used to redistribute the wealth. That is theft. So what is ethical for a person to do voluntarily, is unethical if it is done by force. The key element is freedom of choice, and free choice of values. I must be allowed to help someone for the value I see in them, and to try to convince you to do the same, but I must not apply force or social sanctions of any sort to deprive you of your freedom to choose your own values.  The religious welfare or an orphanage supported by the people who gather together volunteer to raise monies is a high order ethic.  The same done by a state with taxation taken by force is theft.  The whole key is the use force.  Make no error that taxes involve force. If you try to resist, the government will eventually resort to police with guns who in the end will kill you if the resistance goes far enough.  That is the problem with the recent major decline in all nations,  the government got involved with the very best of intentions in redistribution of wealth, and trying to do those things that the individuals should have been allowed to do voluntarily with the wealth that was NOT taken by taxes. 

            Governments are inefficient. In fact 80% waste, 20% going where it was intended,  was estimated by the Hoover Commission for federal funds. Local governments are more efficient since they are closer to the people who can see what is going one and provide closer control of waste. Still historically speaking we need to minimize value flow through the governments, and maximize flow by individual control. The person making the value generally knows best how to spend it.  He know what the value is. By “laundering” value in a state slush fund the value gets forgotten, and thus it is easily stolen.  Thieve of all sorts, usually called politicians, are quite happy to reclaim these funds and pocket this forgotten value.  Always MINIMIZE government.  Government by the very definition of to govern is opposed to freedom. I assumed Freedom was a value.  Thus while some giving up of freedom is required to maintain order in a disorderly world, we should retain maximal self determination and freedom and minimize government.

            SACRIFICE:: Sacrifice: defined as destruction of value is unethical. Sacrifice meaning to value one thing over another and doing without the one to achieve the other is just seeking a higher value.  Destruction is what is wrong. Libation meaning to pour out for the “gods” is destructive sacrifice, and burning meat / fat also is destructive without purpose or benefit.  The Egyptian “sacrifice” consisted of placing a picnic on a table in front of the “gods” and waiting for roughly a half hour for the immaterial gods to have their fill of the “spiritual essence” of the food and then digging in and eating the rest of what the “gods” left is very practical.  (They also noticed that the gods were not heavy eaters, and so they left most of the food,  as they did not begrudge the gods their “share!”  Sacrifice meaning destruction of value is wrong and needs to be recognized as such. Giving goods to someone else or having a picnic is allowable.

            HIERARCHIES and RANK  Any hierarchy which uses rank or positions is really a “military” organization of men for men, and the ranks specifically are for the benefit of men at the top of the hierarchy.  In fact all “ranks” or titles tend to be means of recognition for monopolistic control, and are not for the benefit of the public, for the followers, but for the leaders..  The titles confer status, sometimes earned, but not always,  and status which is used to structure society for their benefit.  These use rank to set up Us-Them rational to shift wealth (steal).

            In the Army the General bosses the Colonels, who in turn boss the majors, who boss the lieutenants, who form the officer corps, all elites and beyond the “social” level of the enlisted men.  The Sergeant is on top of their structure (and they can talk to receive orders from and even give advice to the officers!), followed by corporal and finally privates at the bottom of the heap.

            In religion you may have a Pope dominating the Cardinals who dominate the archbishops, who dominate the bishops who boss the priests who boss the “lay” people deacons who are the elite of the congregation (church) with women being offered virtually no status within this hierarchy at all. 

            In other religions you have Imams and Ayatolahs bossing mujtahids and or shamans, etc. - the names change but the basic structure and intent does not.  They all are religions in a “mature” stage,  and the purpose is to create and maintain a power base, to control the whole structure.

            Mormons have a Prophet, Apostles, (Assistants to the “quorum of 12), Patriarchs,  Bishops, Seventies, Elders, Priests,  Teachers, Deacons, and then people of no rank, notably again including all women who do not take part in the hierarchy. The Synods of the Lutherans or the Presbyters of the Presbyterians all serve to elect Pastors and to control their churches. Their hierarchy; however; is somewhat less complex and more limited. Each organization tends to give out titles, which mean differing things in each context,  but are intended to confer respect (probably unearned) and to allow a military “line of control” structure.

            In academia the President of the University is followed by Deans, Chairmen of Departments, Professors Emeritus, Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors,  Lecturers,  and so on. 

            The business the hierarchy will probably have a President (and/or Chairman of the Board) leading to Vice Presidents, to Division Chiefs, to Branch Chiefs, to Section Chiefs to Managers, to leads (Lead Engineer) to the “engineers” who themselves come in several groups such as Junior Engineer (grade 16), Engineer (grade 15), Senior Engineer (grade 14),  Engineering Specialist (grade 13), Group Specialist (grade 12), etc. the lower the number the higher the prestige.

            The government GS grades are reversed from above and the higher the grade the higher the “rank” - (And I am ranker than you are). . You have to know the system to know the rank involved,  but as long as you know there IS a system, you know the nature of the organization.

            By the presence of this sort of nomenclature you may recognize an organization which has reached a “mature” structure.  You can be sure that those at the top of any pyramid have set it up so as to minimize risk of those below supplanting the ones at the top.  The normal progression by seniority assures each person’s place. A counter possibility is to take over an organization,  supplanting the top hierarchy, or for people to “jump” from one organization to another to jump ranks.  By staying within the structure you are assured of security and stability, - and that you will never rise to the top.  Sticking with any mature system is playing the game by the rules set up by someone else letting them select the field of battle, always to their benefit,  assuring their superiority.

            If you establish a company, you are expected to do the same.  With stock companies, it is possible for the founder eventually to be replaced, the stock holders can vote him out and someone else in. That someone else frequently will buy up sufficient stock, or obtain proxies,  to gain control.  But this person never takes part in the pecking order,  and is a rogue bull challenging the old tried herd master for control of the “harem”.  Thus the animal kingdom also has “pecking orders”  the very term deriving from the barnyard behavior of chickens. 

            AUTHORITY- AUTHORITARIANISM.   Authority is a claim to ability. Albert Einstein once said  “I have been punished for my contempt of authority by being made into an ultimate authority”.  If the title is applied from outside as a title of respect for actions accomplished, as acknowledgement of accomplishment,  it is valid and one of respect.  If the title is hereditary, or self proclaimed, it is a lie, worthless, and even more to the point destructive of the title itself.

            With so many dictatorial “Presidents” that title has been degraded to a title of very dubious distinction in many cases.  Its prestige is upheld by having one “President” in the United States whose power and accomplishments are still worthy of respect.  But when any title such as “Prophet” is self assumed too many times by frauds like Jim Jones, David Koresh, and others, the value is lost- the shepherd cried “wolf” too many times.  If a person claims a title then one must ask what they DID to deserve that title.  If they did not earn it, then it is a lie and they are must be devalued as a disgrace to the dishonesty they perpetuate.  When a Boy Scout says that they are an Eagle Scout you know that he has earned a specific minimum number of merit badges,  and what work that title means  Any person who claims the title of Medical Doctor presumably has passed a course of study, and internship to warrant that title.

            People with a title tend to guard them jealously,  particularly those whose titles are for meaningless of minimal performance which can be “faked” easily.  This is a reptilian defense of territory reflex. It is exhibited most strongly by those who have the most reptilian brains. In the case of the MD the actual course content - the hoops he jumped through, bears only minimal relationship to the actual practice of medicine which is taught separately by preceptors as part of the internship.  It indeed helps lay a foundation,  but a lot of the study is more or less worthless and will never be used in the actual practice itself.  It is simply a “lodge ritual” to limit access and minimize  competition to the lodge higher levels. This has been proven time and again by practicing “doctors” who never earned the degree, not going thru all the useless motions, but who were able to practice quite effectively.  Thus the procedure is a reptilian relic that needs to be discarded.  The title and license for exclusive practice  is NOT for the advantage of the patient, as falsely alleged, but for the benefit of the MD’s - allowing them to become rich.

            This fallacy of the title not matching the real competency needed for practice has now happened in virtually every licensed occupation.  Thus it is a major argument for the doing away with all licensing - unless the test actually matches realty it is a fraud.  Our whole society is filled with such barriers to real progress and such frauds.  Unless terminated bad ethics will destroy the society.



We individually learn by trial and error and as a race we are busy making every possible error. But we need to be sure that we do not make the racially fatal error of allowing something racially that will kill everyone off, a Nuclear holocaust, or bacterial warfare, etc.. And in so doing we need to place limits that are allowable on all humans- they individually can “go to hell after their own fashion” but must not allowed to take actions that will take the rest of us with them. 

            This then demands that those accused of making nuclear arms, biological weapons, or chemical weapons be “arrested” (stopped dead in tracks), be “frisked”, like it or not - on the basis of any reasonable accusation, suspicion that they may be involved in such contraband activities. We all must allow inspection and prove such suspicion false, and if they do not welcome such proof they must be assumed to be guilty and the whole rest of the race, in self protection, declare war against the culprit to wipe out that threat of racial extinction.   We need to declare weapons of excessive mass destruction - treaty or no treaty, sovereignty or not - no matter what   ”off limits” and insist on full cooperation in this case.  If they ignore a stated suspicion it must be taken as “admission they are guilty”   NO weapons of mass destruction allowed period and no exception.

All major nations have agreed not to use Chemical or Biological weapons, virtually no matter what. Even at the end of WW II Hitler did not try to sue his stockpile of Chemical Weapons. The same general evaluation pertains to Nuclear weapons.  Thus this is simply re-stating the ethical evaluation of virtually all rational men, and putting some teeth into the ban, proposing that nations do as men do, and treat rogue nations like we treat rogue men, outlaws or anti social outcasts.

THE VALUE OF CHILDREN::  Somewhere in all the rush of our society, the value of children has been forgotten. Many people are so self centered that they do not want to be bothered with having children. These women who also are irresponsible enough to get pregnant are the ones who want abortions. They do not value babies enough to want to care for one.  I believe that their ethics are badly flawed.  But this also is a self correcting situation. If they do not have any children and I do,  and if I teach my children my ethics,  then in one generation or so their ethic will be extinct, and mine will be all that survives.

            That is survival of the fittest applied to a social value.  Let me add more comments on abortion. First of all as soon as the egg and sperm unite  that is a living organism. That genetic combination, half hers and half his. sets what the child’s potential will be. There is still tremendous variation from environmental effect, for example from learning in school,  but the single most important part of the pattern took place out of our control.  The prospective mother does not need to let that egg become parasitic within her body. Various contraceptive measures will deny that egg implantation.  In absolute ethics,  she is saying “I do not owe that living creature a parasitic free ride” and the world does indeed NOT owe any living thing a living. It cannot survive without that parasitism; however, so it dies of starvation.  Eggs that are never fertilized are not viable, and not a living thing.

            Once implanted that is another story.  The pregnant woman supposedly “wants to control her own body”.  But in abortion arguments that is a lie.  If she was in control, the pregnancy would never have happened in the first place.  Thus abortion is a second irresponsibility to counter the first irresponsibility,  and two wrongs do not make a right.  Killing that fetus no matter how small still is killing.  It is a form of murder in my value system.  And since that little baby is half herself, she also is denying her own value to a major extent.  If she loved (valued) her sexual partner she also is denying that value as well. Thus the whole basis of abortion is unethical by my religion.  Yet I must conclude that those who do that are free to do so. Nature and God allows it, if it happens it must be possible. If God really opposed anything, it would not be possible within his laws. But in the long run the person is denying their own fitness, their own value, and thus they judge themselves. I do not have to do so, and I should not. I must not apply force to stop them - but I also should not be asked to pay for or in any way condone what I perceive to be a wrong action.

            Children also need a long time to grow up and are a “long term investment” which in all too many cases do not pay off.  They certainly do not return the investment to their parents!  Or rarely so.  Yet they are the future,  they are the only long range hope of our race.  If we do not put minimal maintenance into this future project then the race is worthless.  We need to educate the children as best possible,  and the public schools have reached a point where they are not meeting the task.  Children often learn despite the schools.  The alternatives of “Home schooling” now are looking better and better, but lack teaching social interactions. With the gangs and drugs in public schools I am not sure but what THAT also may be a positive factor for home schooling also!

            Education MUST be part of any religious belief, and education of children thus also is applying self values to others, a form of love.  We should seek out the best possible education for ourselves and our children.  The child grows and eventually leaves home.  That after all is a goal. A child who never leaves home is a retarded, and in all honesty wasted, human being.  The bird must teach their brood to leave the nest and to fly and eventually, hopefully, to have a brood of their own. So it is with all nature. “Love is a song that never ends”.

            Bastardy- there are NO illegitimate children, only misbehaving parents. The children should not ever be penalized for their parents social non-conformity.

            When do children start having sex? The answer should be when THEY are ready for it.   They need to know the basic biological facts ahead of time, so that when they are biologically and emotionally ready they will also be informed and can act with responsibility. Recently there was a add in the newspaper which advocated teaching children to abstain rather than to have “safe sex”. This was based on the premises “sex is bad” which is puritanical and which I have rejected.  Trying to teach kids to abstain rather than copulate with responsibility when they emotionally and biologically are ready is an affront to nature. .I think that the most ethical parents I know were faced with this decision and faced it in an unusual way. Their 15 year old boy was “in love with” a similar aged girl. It was obvious that they were going to have sex one way or the other,  so they just allowed the girl to move in with the boy and sleep in his bed or to go “home” as she liked.  Some years later,  post college, they got married and had progeny. But this permissiveness faced the problem, let them recognize that they were too young for a family, having too much schooling ahead of both of them,  and allowed both to fulfil sexual needs without hiding it  and while staying in school.

            I tend to go even further,  in that I also recognize that the optimal biological age  for a girl to have her first baby is about age 18.  With our educational system she still has several years of school ahead to reach full potential, so I ask how she can do both - have her baby and still continue with education?  I think we need to change our social structure to allow that.  In the future we will have even more education necessary, and putting off children until after “completing their education” will be even less desirable.  These are not mutually exclusive activities.

            What I propose is that we discard the concept of “finishing” education totally, and instead propose education be continued through all life.  With this attitude, it can be arranged so that we will slow the intensity of formal education down to accomplish these other urgent higher priority goals. But that allows having children to go with continued long range education.  We need also to change our support philosophy for education.  We need to have like aged women and men combining to help “baby sit” and teach their mutual children,  while also relieving mothers and /or fathers part time for other “business”. They could go to their own classes or do homework. In addition I would propose that they also allocate some time to work to support themselves. Thus group support offers a way to do all three activities.  Each will be diluted, but it is possible to do all three and sacrifice none of them to the other. NOTE: There is a trap, I have seen the refocus of a new mother upon her baby so much that she discards other values. This is natural but the extreme, loosing self to baby, must be avoided if the above is to work. 

            Religion in its organized form also should help with this sort of problem. It should ask the hard questions and seek answers to them. It should not be a “stable and unchanging ritual” which accomplishes nothing, and which is dead- non growing, unchanging.  That is a dead religion.

            Organized religion also usually offers social events, acting as sponsor of such social events as dinners,  athletic events, boy scouts, girl scouts, etc,  and in general aid in “mating and  courting” rituals, with dances and places where boy meets girl.  Those are SOCIAL functions,  not directly attached to the religious beliefs.  Yet they are valid functions for organized groups of people.  People need to socialize and doing that under the umbrella of religion make as much sense as anything else, so long as it is clearly labeled for what it is, and not confused with being part of the belief structure.  This lies in reality, the beliefs are intangible.


MASS PSYCHOLOGY:: People have wanted to belong to something bigger than they were since recorded history started.  In politics this is the basis of the “band wagon” psychology, come join the winner!.  In religion all successful religions have been active in proselyting,  and that has unfortunately included some rather forceful “proselyting” - of the form of the Knight sword in hand offering that if you will join my(the Muslim  or the Christian) faith I won’t chop off your head.... last chance to change religion!  Neither of these unholy wars can ethically be justified. The inquisition in Spain possibly ranks as one of the lowest ethical points in recorded history, and that torture and killing was “justified” in the name of someone who was called the “Prince of Peace”. I feel sure that he rejects, (very pained mentally!) all such action in his name.  That is the exact reverse of what he taught. Mob psychology has burned witches, killed heretics who had different ideas, and  persecuted all minorities since time immemorial,  and in general is the anathema of ethical behavior and thus of all ethical religion.

            People are social animals, and they want to be in crowds, in packs in herds- the herding instinct.  Any religion that does not take this into account will fail. Yet to be ethical a religion must accommodate the social needs without letting the leaders direct the people into such mob activities as were used above as a horrible example.  The mass events of a Soccer championship, or Rock singers putting on a major concert performance, and the Mass of a Pope or a Hitler Spectacle with a million people in a mass of humanity as far as the eye can see all are mob events.  They cater to emotions rather than logic,  and the “true believer” is not operating on his conscious mind, but from the reptilian brain functions.  And that is precisely why they get out of control so easily. The reptilian portion of the brain has virtually no consideration of anyone else, no ethics. Actions and responses are not adequately filtered by the rational process, and thus riots happen.  Or the religious leader in the case of Shiite religion can get them to so stupid things that in the end will cause them to die for “The cause”, probably also causing equal or higher numbers of other deaths,  and untold property damage. For that reason ethical religion must curtail or sharply restrict use of mobs. IF we are promoting intelligent self responsibility, then emotional reptilian response is the opposite direction from our stated goals.


            I find it hard to totally dismiss the mythology of past religions. They all may (probably) have elements of the truth mixed with distortions caused by errors men made in the first place, and more errors which were added as they were passed down verbally, and a few more errors from written miscopying and mistranslating.  Still there is a common theme which I wish to reiterate.

            There is a God mentioned in the Creation story in the Bible and El Koran  whose personal name in Arabic  translated to Roman alphabet and English is Allah, and in Hebrew also converted is Ellohim. But there also is another Biblical God with personal name in Roman alphabet translated from Hebrew of Jehovah (JHVH) or in the Greek to English translation Jesus; Both of these are supposedly the same, and neither of which match the Aramaic Yashu which as best I can tell was the name his mother would have called him.  It matches the diminutive Yashua (Joshua) who fought a battle at Ya her  ree ko (Jericho).  Note that Jesus has the US added for Greek masculine ending, the s would be sigma but in Hebrew it was the Sh sound, and the J is a quite modern insertion matching the older Ya.. with the Latin Jesu (Yay soo) being perhaps a bit closer than the Greek mixed triple translation from Aramaic to Greek to English.  I find it amusing that many preachers say “Believe on his holy name and be saved” and yet they can not tell me his correct name!. It appears that Yashu was our elder brother (He said so, “Our Father who art in Heaven”) in charge of transfers out of this particular world,  and we all are children of His Father, yours and mine and  His Father, was Allah/ Ellohim.  I assume that all the people here His spiritual children, and I am quite sick and tired of the sibling squabbling over “beliefs” that is going on.  There also is another GOD (level 3) personal name unknown who is the father of Allah/ Ellohim and HE was in charge of perhaps in the bigger picture of this whole Galaxy.  There logically would then be another GOD, (level 4) personal name also unknown to me, in charge of this whole universe. 

            If everyone on this earth who qualifies as MAN- not the pre-men (Homo proto-sapiens, prior to writing,  prior to smelting metals, prior to weaving on a loom, and pre- pottery) but those who lived post writing etc. are added up we would get some tens of billions of people.  There are 4 billion alive today,  but the sum of all that went before is only perhaps 10 times that number,  order of 40 billion. We all are HIS children.  That then implies that His Father would need some 40 billion or so planets. And that is the right general number of star systems in this galaxy, so “Grandpa GOD”  is in charge of the Galaxy.  And there are in the whole universe about the right number of galaxies to allow “Great grandpa GOD” to be in charge of the universe as a whole, each of his children having his own galaxy to try to keep up with.  Note some are larger and some smaller,  depending on ability perhaps. Thus the cosmology and this mythology all come together into a coherent picture of a family migration to another universe,  with jobs commensurate with skills in packing all the kids off and herding this unruly mob toward an overall destination.





Home ] Up ] Feedback ] Contents ] Search ]

Send mail to with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2002 The Nexial Institute