How to Arrive at Truth

Even the greatest philosophers, modern as well as ancient, couldnt agree on a definition of their field of learning. No set of words seem to adequately present or represent this subject which, by all accounts, must be the largest, though not necessarily the greatest, of them all. But no matter. As a race of incredibly inquisitive beings, right from the very first day that we are born, there exists within all of us a profound yearning to know.

Maybe it is as the Evolutionists proclaim. Simply that the effort to know or to find out is none other than a manifestation of the basest of all desires. And this, they say, is the quest to survive. Do you suppose that I have just arrived at some Truth? Hardly. The definition of an unTruth is that even if a thousand indicators point to a singular conclusion, it only takes one instant of something to point the other way and the entire system falls over in a pathetic heap. Not my rules, but the tenets of science as its overbearin g presence guards against any individual who dares to purport some new idea or theory.

Darwin was indeed an individual of immense capacity for genius and of course as with all people of such acumen and thinking, he was at least a generation ahead of his time. He painstakingly, systematically, methodically, scientifically, empirically, observed, absorbed and explained what he saw in nature until a central theme to all his work was born. He concluded that all life was connected. Over time, a lesser species led to a more sophisticated one by a series of mutations of its genetic code, preserving the most valuable assets while discarding the rest. He observed this purely from a macroscopic viewpoint and extrapolated to he microscopic. This propagation of the Fittest was affectionately coined as the process of natural selection.

Despite some very large scientific holes in the argument for the theory of Evolution, not least of all the hitherto unexplained gaps in the genealogy of many species, this does nothing to shake the confidence of todays scientific world in the theory. But scientists are for the most part very clever people, and they too have consciences and rather like the idea of being able to sleep a little easier at night. So, they say that any doctrine based on the demonstration of scientific rigour that is observable, measurable and repeatable, stemming from things such as mathematical proofs or empirical evidence, is true. But guess what, this brilliant method for discovering Truth has actually been more useful in keeping unTruths out than facilitating the discovery of new ones.

Ask any scientist you like: Do you think we are anywhere near to collectively knowing all there is?, and you will get the same answer. No. Now ask: How much do you think we do know, 1%, 10%, 50%..? The question is silly. Of course it is. I don't think any scientist worth his salt will put a percentage on it. In other words, the admission tha t we don't know everything is made without hesitation but as to how much we know, there is no answer. But the scientist has a very cunning excuse out of this, saying that given time, all things may be known and all things may be explained using exactly the same scientific methods. A statement of Faith if I ever heard one. In any case even this brilliant method for finding Truth is flawed. Case in point is that, for more than two centuries, Newton's laws of motion stood unchallenged until Einstein came along and said that the mass of an object can no longer be assumed to be constant under all circumstances because if it is made to accelerate near to the speed of light, mathematics as well as observable evidence suggest its mass will increase.

Given the above, did science abandon its methods? No. If therefore we can be fooled into thinking that something is true using our current methods, who is to say that any of the things we know are true. This is just cold, light-of- day logic. But surely, I hear you say, you can't seriously suggest that we should abandon our scientific methods just because one or two theories have subsequently been proven to be false? Furthermore, what about the countless examples of scientific Truth prised out of nature's grasp because we stuck to these stringent methods.

Well, I led you straight to it. A rare example of leading a horse to water AND making it drink. You see, scientists hate this idea of the majority view. Consider how justice in the world is dispensed. Judges use the idea that the majority view is the correct view. That is, if all members of a jury cannot agree on whether a person is innocent or guilty of some crime, the majority verdict is then sought. But imagine if every quest for scientific Truth was put to the test using the same criterion. For example suppose someone proposes that the moon is made of cheese. We randomly choose, say, a hundred adults, ask their opinion and if at least 80% sa y it's true, based on whatever evidence is provided, we embrace the theory and place it among our annals of Truth. How silly, I hear you say again. Yes, almost as silly as accepting the scientific criteria for discovering Truth because the majority of scientists say it is the right way and firmly believe that it can be used to discover all Truths.

Now, this brings me nicely to an individualistic method of arriving at Truth. One which also depends on a majority view but only one person at a time is asked to accept or reject it. This is where the autonomy of the individual comes to the fore. If a person accepts some system of Belief not based on scientific Truth, we call it Faith. The atheistic point of view regarding this is to say the least, blunt. The person who adopts Faith as the central tenet of his or her life is surely one lacking in confidence, preferring to look for illusory means by which to improve or enrich their lives. But I must differ. I think that the o nly thing that separates a person of Faith from the person with no Faith is that the former is prepared to believe whereas the latter is prepared to disbelieve. The important thing here is not to attempt to say that either one or the other is the better way to live. Many atheists have converted and many Faithful have turned away from their Faith based on their personal convictions and experiences, born out of the autonomy afforded to every individual.

Even if we are taught one way or another during childhood years, our autonomy does not mature until we are free to accept or reject those teachings in later years. So, here now is the crunch. Those who have some sort of Faith in God, believe also that there is a much greater, infinitely superior existence beyond the one being experienced here. For whatever reason, we are earthbound for a period of time and when this ends, the sum total of our actions, reactions and inactions is used to calculate for us a place in our spir itual destiny. This is undoubtedly an extraordinary statement of hope and comfort to all those that Faithfully devote themselves to their creed. As for the atheists, they prefer to think that they cannot allow themselves to be fooled by the trappings of some Religion that for the most part seeks to restrict even the joys that are possible. When we are free to choose, there is no criterion other than that which weighs heavily on our hearts.

The right to choose and the choices an individual makes are the real ingredients of Faith and Truth.

I am the author of a supernatural/fantasy novel called Will of Dreams which I hope the article above will incite sufficient interest within you to consider clicking on the link http://www.willofdreams.com leading you to the website dedicated to my book.

Author:: Yigit Djevdet
Keywords:: Truth, Evolution, Religion, Belief, Faith, Darwin, natural selection, Survival, Fittest, Philosophy
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Thomas Jefferson Died Broke Is Our Nation Going to End Up the Same Way?

Most all Americans know that Thomas Jefferson was a great man, a thinking man, but so many people do not know he died broke. A good book to read on the subject is; Saving Monticello, as it describes the Levy Family who moved into the Estate after Thomas Jefferson died and restored it the mansion and landscaping too.

This brings me to another topic of conversation and purely intellectual only, not trying to make a point one way or the other. If Thomas Jefferson died broke and owing money and bankrupt then one ought to ask; Was he good with money? Did he envision something grander than he could afford? And if so would we be wise to follow all of his words in regard to our Nation?

In other words is the utopian environment he built for himself unaffordable by his then standards and costs. And to t hat point is his concept of a perfect country more divine than is actually possible then or now? And if so should we be re-considering what our politicians of our current day are adding in the way of costs to this on-going perfect Utopian concept of America?

Should we have a reality check on all this? In other words can we afford Free Health Care to everyone and all the services and infrastructure with our current and near future assets or will we end up spending America into oblivion?

No need to answer or debate. Chew on that thought for a while and consider the next period and future generations as we pass the golden baton to them and depart. Think on this in 2006, philosophically of course, nothing more.

Lance Winslow - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Thomas Jefferson Died Broke, Nation, Going to End Up the Same Way
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

It's Not Your Fault!

Saying goodbye is easy for the traveler. I am a person who traveled so much that I had no roots except within and I learned to be connected to What IS.

In the movie Good Will Hunting there are many great insights about the rat race and cycle of violence. I never was beaten but I had a horror show caused by the social system due to a schizophrenic mother. But I empathized with the Psychologist played by Robin Williams because I have always been there to counsel those in need or trouble. I had studied just like Will Hunting a lot of the books on philosophy and psychology. Before I was ten I dare say I had read more than the average Doctor of Psychology.

It was good to see both the main characters get on with their life and do the right thing. The Right Thing is what I have been doing ever since I decided to fulfill my purpose. That meant I had to face the music and the rat race or bureaucracy again. You could say I am determined to be historical like Gertrude Ste in or die trying. But I dont have a salon in Paris. I live in a group home for the flotsam of society called insane. I write my books in hopes that someone some day will decide to join me in a quest beyond fighting City Hall. Just like Gertrudes unwillingness to see the politics that lead to war I am moved to see what really causes these behaviors.

Ego and fear are so hard for people to get past. I have been perceived as a threat to society or an agent of change people choose to avoid, for a couple of decades. In the last few years I have taken the message of soul and connectiveness to the World Wide Web communities. I am now retiring from such ego and flaming wars. Who can say what lies ahead? I dont really care if anyone actually learns the data I dump and my writing is only going to reach a few people while I am alive. Life on earth may not exist past that if our leaders choose to continue the current direction or leave to colonize space with the chosen ones.

The important thing about learning and all the research I have done in writing about sixty (60) books including an encyclopedia, is this. We are connected and all energy has structure an consciousness or soul. It is being proven in science but I knew it long ago. I have seen many of the CONnections and lots of CONstructs. The joy of creating, I mean really creating, come through in the kind of thing Nils Bohr said. He said every great truth has an opposite which is also true, and a trivial truth has an opposite that is simply false; or something to that effect. When you see or feel a template or integrate the data that once seemed confusing there is a rush of creative realization (Thank you Bucky!) which is almost orgasmic or better. I hope Teilhard is right about one template seen by one person will impact all that is. I trust there are people who will decide to make a real difference rather than pursue animal rights or abortion and the myriad other issues that create conf usion and lead society away from ethical constructs. I wonder if there are enough?

I yam wut I yam.

Author:: Robert Baird
Keywords:: Creative realization
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

A Thought for Our Loved Ones

How to Connect with Loved Ones in the now through Telepathy.

For all those who find that they are separated from their Loved Ones, I would like to say that they are just a thought away.

Thought is something we take for granted, but is one of the most important tools we have. We quite often find that our Thoughts are either in the past or the future.

When they are in the past we may be thinking of the Loved Ones we are separated from and when in the future we may be dreaming of the time when we come together again.

But in reality our friends and Loved Ones are only a thought away. We can think of them now, in the now, in a positive loving way without the feeling of loss or separation.

We may have experienced communication with those we love; close family members, our mother or father, a Loved one or relative. This communication is using a different sense than our usual five senses of touch, taste, sight, hearing and smell. You could say a sixth sense, of Telepathy or thought transference.

Telepathy uses our feeling and emotions to transfer a message. Distance is no object; we dont need to know where they are. All we need is a memory and the loving thought we want to transfer and to feel this memory deep in our hearts.

Then on a deep level of feeling, visualise the thought you want to convey to this Loved one. Use all your senses to help in this process. Feel the touch of the person, smell them, hear their voice, see their face, and taste them. Visualise them in your minds eye in as many ways as you like.

When you feel the Connection has been made just, in an effortless way, think of the thought you would like to send them. Imagine their reaction, the warmth in their heart, the love that flows between the two of you. Give this love freely from the depth of your heart; give it unconditionally as a free gift. Feel the warmth in your own heart as you give the thought to the other; feel how uplifted y ou feel in yourself.

By living in the now we have all choices open to us. We can create what we want in the moment. We dont need to feel the sorrow of loss or separation, as when we try to remember them from past experiences. Create the feeling you want now.

It does not even matter if they have passed over to the other side of the veil. They are still just a thought away and can send a loving thought back to you in an instant.

Message channelled by George Lockett (C) Copyright 2006, All Rights Reserved.

* New book * A Journey into the Self -- the multi-dimensional nature of being human: HealerGeorge Web Site and New Book

Description: What is this book going to do for YOU? For those who are seeking a complete energetic makeover, as you read it you will feel a stirring and awakening in the depths of your heart. For those who have questions about Shifts in Consciousness, Energy Balancing and Healing within the body, you will find clear answers.

Read HealerGeorges Blog: Curezone Blog or ask at question at: Ask HealerGeorge

Author:: George Lockett
Keywords:: Telepathy, Loved, Ones, Connect,Thoughts, Feelings
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Be Careful of Religious Interpretation of Meanings

So many people take the religious works of our day literally, yet it seems that much of it, is not meant to be taken literally and if it were, there are significant issues with the current definitions of the words today with the uses of those words in the previous periods in which they were written. We should all therefore be careful not to read too much into these the Religious Literature of former times and be extremely careful in the interpretation of the meanings.

Recently on an online forum Think Tank; a biblical scholar, albeit totally self-proclaimed made some harsh comments about a particular religion. He came up with some truly bizarre interpretations. These self-professed religious nuts are the best and funniest of all, as they come up with some real do zees sometimes indeed. He stated to the Think Tank that it was very important that we all ran over to his Blog right away; Please see my blog and then decide. Once on his Blog he had written Look at the hidd en Advent Site and you will see that purify (a misuse of the biblical meaning) means BURN WITH FIRE!!!!

He tricked us I thought, but then I see there is a lesson here you know. You see, of course this is the problem with literal interpretations over time, the meanings change. But isnt this true in all religions? All works of literature, which have been turned into religious doctrines? Can you think of a religion or religious work, which is not riddled with ambiguity or hypocrisy? On this online forum think tank site there is a section for Religion, perhaps he might wish to discuss this issue in greater depth and compare this to other religions or discuss the implications of potential misuse of biblical meaning or literature. When we mentioned this, he would not participate so there is not a lot a think tank can do with a religious nut case like that now is there?

Indeed it is always of interest to discuss problematic eventualities, which rear their heads when usi ng religious belief systems to guide ones life experience or direction of a group, nation, culture, civilization or World direction, dont you think? What are your thoughts on literal interpretations of religious literature? Think on this in 2006.

Lance Winslow

Author:: Lance Winslow
Keywords:: Religious Interpretation of Meanings
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

Gestalt: Law of Similarity

The law of similarity is one of four visual perception laws as theorized by Gestalt psychologists. Paul Martin Lester, the author of Visual Communication, an expert in the field wrote: The law of similarity states that, given a choice by the brain, you will select the simplest and most stable form to concentrate on. This law stresses the importance of basic shapes in the form of squares, circles, and triangles.

What does this mean? We tend to group similar shapes together and often times, we try to attach some type of meaning to them. For instance, if we see a row of small triangles, we tend to perceive them as a row or line. We are less inclined to regard them as separate triangles, but we are more inclined to view them as a line of triangles.

Another factor about the law of similarity has to do with what we identify first when viewing shapes and Forms. We are prone to notice matching shapes, colors, and Forms (as opposed to looking for what isnt similar). Our human minds quickly identify patterns faster than the separate parts of the pattern. We like to look at how the pattern flows together. We love designs with repeating shapes, Forms, colors, and textures.

The Gestalt theory refers to how we see things in general. The Gestalt laws refer to how we typically assimilate visual information particularly from the onset. This does not mean that we do this all the time and never wish to look at things more in depth either. However , understanding the Gestalt laws are of benefit to graphic designers, because this knowledge teaches us to incorporate similarities in our layouts.

Another place where the law of similarity is at its peak is seen in retail stores. When retailers set up displays where the same product designs are repeated over and over, it looks really smart to us. In fact, sometimes the repeated patterns look grand! When consumers separate the product from the display and throw it into their carts, most often, the magic is gone!

Graphic designers are concerned with how information is received. Many of us receive visual information quickly and effortlessly as we gather information. If a graphic artist understands the law of similarity, they can anticipate what their viewers are noticing at a quick half-hearted glance. Graphic designers will anticipate how the product will look when grouped together in the store where the law of similarity is capitalized. This information can impro ve visual communication and save corporations millions of dollars on their advertising campaigns. (revised 2/15/2006)

Debbie Jensen, Graphic Designer and Photographer http://www.debjensendesigns.com

Author:: Debbie Jensen
Keywords:: Gestalt, law of similarity, Forms, Gestalt theory, visual communication, sensual theories, d jensen,
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips

How Small Is Small?

It may not be quite obvious but the word Small is indeterminate. It is relative not only because it has to refer to some physical attribute but also it has a large range to it. There are Small stars and there are Small insects. It is even difficult to define the range, especially its lower end.

It had been clear even to the ancients that if you keep dividing something into Smaller and Smaller parts, ultimately it ceases to be a physical thing. It becomes an idea or a concept. The philosophers believed that all the multiplicity of things in the universe could be traced back to a single entity. Leucippus and Democritus thought that this entity was the Atom, which was eternal, indivisible, and indestructible. Much earlier a school of ancient Indian philosophy (vaisheshik) had stated the same idea that the Atom (Sanskrit word kana) was the elementary unit from which everything in the universe was made. Vedanta went a step further and did not even bother about the Smalles t entity. It proclaimed that the ultimate reality behind all existence was Smaller than the Smallest, thus making it formless and nonmaterial.

Not too long ago the Atom was considered indivisible even in science. We now know that the Atom is divisible. It consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Even protons and neutrons are composed of other particles known as quarks. In fact there are no elementary particles now; they all result from different configurations of vibrations (energy). Even though these particles (energy packets) combine in different ways to form matter in diverse forms, they are not objects in the usual sense of the word. They are merely concepts. Yet all physical phenomena can be correctly explained through these. The behavior of concepts cannot be described by everyday language and that is why the language of mathematics is needed for their exact description.

When we talk of division the first thing that comes to mind is a set of numbers. T he simplest division is division into two parts and the process can be repeated indefinitely. Take any number and performing this continued division you keep getting Smaller and Smaller numbers; thus you can get as close to Zero as you want but can never actually get there. At some point therefore it becomes meaningless to continue the process.

This is exactly what happened in particle physics. When it got to electrons, photons, and quarks there was no further splitting. Since everything is ultimately described in terms of wave functions, waves (or energy) must be the end point. The string theory in different versions simply leads to the conclusion that energy is the prime entity which gives rise to everything in the universe. Energy is all pervading and cannot be divided. In that sense it is also infinit e. It is both the beginning and the end.

The equivalence of matter and energy is an established fact. The transformation of matter into energy is well understood. The challenge to science now is to find how energy is transformed into matter. Ancient philosophies (Vedanta, Sankhya) have suggested ways in which this transformation occurs. These are, of course, qualitative suggestions and as yet there is no way to test them. But in physics also this is only a concept and the process of production of particles from string vibrations is yet to be demonstrated.

Dharmbir Rai Sharma is a retired professor with electrical engineering and physics background. He obtained his M.S. degree in physics in India and Ph.D. in electrical engineering at Cornell University. He has taught in universities here and also in Brazil, where he spent sometime. He maintains a website http://www.cosmosebooks.com devoted mainly to philosophy and science.

Author:: Dharmbir Sharma
Key words:: Small, Smallness, Atom, Zero, Limit to Smallness
Post by History of the Computer | Computer safety tips