METAPHYSICS·
ANCIENT HISTORY· SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUES· AGRICULTURE· DIRECTORIES
Q & A
|
Q & A |
|
|
Questions & answers on metaphysical, social and political issues(formerly The Arizona Forum of Esotericism) While a particular subject may often be addressed by the public, in most cases requiring answers, it seems the common questions are always lacking somehow... as if you can't get a good answer without posing a good question. Some subjects, of course, are effectively taboo... that both questions and answers are subject to 'political correctness'. For these reasons, to get a straight answer we oftentimes must ask ourselves these questions instead (as often the case herein). (2005-2006) Question (January 2006): Iraq, a growing nightmare? Answer: Although I'm no prophet, in fact I'd make a lousy one, this is the way it looks to me... for Americans, it could easily turn out to be worse than Vietnam. For Iraqis, they'll likely be in turmoil for the next 100-200 years. It will likely be one civil war after another. I base this analysis on their religious fanaticism. Unless the decision to invade Iraq ultimately denies the Arab world nuclear weapons, being therefore 'worth it', the invasion will undoubtedly go down in history as the most egregious an American administration ever made. Question (December 2005): There is a totally insane nature about smoking laws becoming increasingly strict and the ever increasing tobacco taxes, it is reminiscent of the lunacy surrounding the Salem witch hunts. Might there be a better characterization? Answer: There seems nothing to compare... it is lunacy blazing another trail. Question (November 2005): While it often seems humanity has reached a point whereby one can feel free to disbelieve anything, and to openly state their disbelief, that's not the case with the Jewish holocaust (WWII). That is curious because not even the stated disbelief in God draws attention anymore. Yet there is always an uproar when a celebrity states they doubt the holocaust occurred. Isn't this due to the holy book of political correctness? Answer: Since World War II society has been intimidated into believing in the holocaust... but this pressure only makes one wonder (even more) about the truth of the matter. And the louder these howls get, the more suspicious it becomes. It is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition... lacking only the burning at the state the disbelieving heretics. However, since a holocaust is a relative matter in terms of the deaths involved, then perhaps the term 'holocaust' could apply. The event was, of course, terrible enough even if the deaths weren't so many. Yet, 'holocaust' could apply to other World War II decimations as well... like the losses Russia suffered or those of the Japanese. It is not logical to call one event a holocaust and not its equals. It would be the same thing as calling Gettysburg a holocaust but not Antietam (Civil War battles). As a result, when 'holocaust' isn't aptly and equally applied, it becomes a 'politicized' term which will always stand awkwardly in the history books. Furthermore, World War II was the real holocaust... so there can't be, hieratically speaking, another within it. One holocaust such as WW II could, however, be comprised of 'lesser holocausts'... but not one of the same order. At any rate, the lingering doubts stem from the highly questionable claim six million Jews were murdered. For one thing, as often pointed out, the German facilities couldn't have accommodated that many and secondly, it is a known fact that the victors always write the history books. Further, the conquerors are always sure to make the vanquished look as disgusting as possible. It's moral justification (for the history books) and the facts are invariably skewed. Historically, this has held true. The world may not know the truth for another 100 years... although some truths much older have never been made public. Question (October 2005): Spiritual-wise, is there really a downside to material possessions? Answer: It is only because they tend to distract us from our spiritual side but this can be overcome. Actually, watching television is more distracting than having a barrelful of possessions. To deny possessions is to deny joy and we are, of course, supposed to enjoy life. It's simply a matter of not forgetting one's spiritual side. Although, having few possessions does not automatically make one 'spiritual'. Question (September 2005): How much alike are humans anyway? Answer: While we've always thought of ourselves as unique individuals, that is only true up to a point. While our conscious mind is unique, there are sufficient reasons to believe humans share the same subconsciousness (see the August 3, 2003 Divine Intellect 'session' and/or Plotinus). Question (August 2005): The more I learn of the English language I find it remarkably utile. Thoughts? Answer: Being humanly created, the English language is a remarkable achievement although it is not without its shortcomings. For one thing there are no words available to adequately express sensory experiences and it is doubtful it will ever possess them... nor will any other language. Currently there is no effective way to convey the smell of a flower or the sound of a saxophone for example. Languages are simply not structured for it... at least not yet, perhaps not for several centuries yet. Aside from that, often one must identify the applicable sense in order to convey a thought. By the very fact it is often necessary points out that languages have trouble dealing with more than one reality. Adopting the past, present and future tenses solved part of that problem however. Actually, the English language isn't just a collection of words in order to communicate... but a powerful tool and, although so far unrecognized, it is potentially a force. Fully developed, languages could have the power equal to many spiritual forces. This will become increasingly evident as the ability to express oneself is further improved. While it may never be possible to effectively express sensory experiences, nonetheless the power of the English language should be evident even today. The ability to use a combination of words to clearly identify a thought is critical to our understanding... although to have a more complete understanding languages must eventually contextualize the spiritual realm. So far, the ability of humans to communicate with each other has been taken for granted and therefore the whole process has been underrated. Languages should be put upon a pedestal, recognized as perhaps the greatest of all human accomplishments. After all, it is primarily through languages that mankind has progressed. Even without the full ability to express sensory experiences, the future for languages looks as bright as anything experienced by any branch of science... but not until most all metaphysical concepts can be expressed in a way all can relate. Question (July 2005): Is there 'power' in spiritual beliefs? In other words, can believing in something strong enough make it come true? Answer: This is hard to explain since there is often a fine line between 'believing' and 'hoping'. Depending on how these actions are stressed (in our mind) determines how wide the difference is. In other words, one can simply 'believe' or simply 'hope' (hope has no spiritual value) but often these terms don't remain true to their meaning and can become intermingled (in our mind) to a point of being indistinguishable from each other. There may be cases when there is no distinction between them (at all) because, in almost all psychological matters, a multitude of 'senses' seem to exist. By 'senses' I mean all the existent variables of reality. At any rate, this is my theory... one must first 'believe in the power of belief'... although the use of the same word as both a noun and verb is confusing. To put it another way... it is to truly believe, absolutely and positively, that there is power in believing. It is not automatic power but potential power however... as in it CAN exist. And, it appears to be a multi-step system. In other words, before one can create a belief (make it happen) it seems one must first be sufficiently empowered to cause it beforehand. To become empowered is a highly spiritual matter for which one must prove themselves worthy. In short, it will takes years of faithful dedication to God to achieve worthiness. For more on this see the Divine Intellect Question (June 2005): With health care now unaffordable for millions, for those people it might as well be the Stone Age when there wasn't any professional health care at all. Shouldn't the government step in? Answer: Putting aside the question of federal intervention for the moment, let's look at the state governments first. State governments, once charged with managing the welfare of the American public within their state... are now only interested in generating taxes. It should be their responsibility, as the managing agent, but they'll do nothing to control health care costs, absolutely nothing. Further, state health and welfare programs are but shells compared to yesteryear, originally meaningful, and today exist only for window-dressing. The funding that does exist is gobbled up by consultants and counselors with little direct aid for those citizens in need. Some city governments don't demonstrate any welfare concerns either... like outlawing trailer houses over 15 years old. The owners, mostly retirees, can't afford to 'upgrade' and these local governments simply don't care what becomes of them. This may be a surprising statement but the federal government is now our only hope... and their first order of business, aside from regulating health care costs, should be to straighten out the state and local governments. State and many local governments have become drunk on their unbridled power, due largely to public apathy however, of resignation and non-involvement, and are in the fringes of being totally tyrannical. States now make the feds look like choir boys. I say to h--- with states rights since local control routinely ignores the Bill of Rights. Tobacco taxation is but one example of their trampling on rights. Further, the homeless are American citizens too, not animals. As far as the federal government ever controlling health care costs, because the states won't, they eventually must. Otherwise, like you said, it will be the Stone Age all over again... except worse. At least during the Stone Age money wasn't an issue nor the age of a dwelling. Actually, government shouldn't have gotten envolved with health care in the first place. Good ideas always end up bad... healthcare costs are testimony. Question (May 2005): It seems the same people who shamelessly admit shirking jury-duty have no qualms griping about justice. It seems to me jury-duty is the chance for an ordinary citizen to do something about it. Answer: Exactly. While jury duty can take a bite out of one's schedule for awhile, perhaps an inconvenience and in some cases be a money-losing proposition if their employer won't compensate them for being absent from work, still, it is that very 'chance' you speak of. Given the chance to be on a Grand Jury is even better. Citizens should look at jury duty more as an 'opportunity' rather than an 'obligation'. It's sad however that many people will braggingly admit using one lame excuse or another to avoid jury duty... as if in vogue to do so. What's so cool about escaping jury duty? There are only two things keeping a system, any system, from becoming totally tyrannical... defense attorneys and juries. Question (Apr 2005): Even though it seems conformity is more prevalent today than ever before, despite this, nobody will admit being a conformist. Those guilty always like to fancy themselves as 'independent thinkers' but their opinions and actions say otherwise. Why is it people cannot (or won't) recognize themselves as conformists when in fact they are? Answer: I think it's more the fact they'd rather not recognize themselves as conformists... after all, there is nothing charming about being a conformist. I think most people realize it deep-down though, especially if they purposefully live by the axiom "go along to get along". They do it to capitalize on the financial and social benefits of group thinking. Even if they don't agree with something, they are quick to adopt whatever is the most prevalent thinking of the day, quick to adopt whatever is in vogue... like bashing smokers. Question (Mar 2005): When the American government goes about advocating democracy around the world, the 'rule of law' is often mentioned as if an integral part... leaving people with the impression it exists only within a democratic state. But laws are laws it seems, no matter how they became laws, whether democratically legislated or by dictatorial decrees, so how is it that laws are more strictly adhered to in a democratic state? It seems rather doubtful a democracy would make a difference. Answer: Well, first of all the Wikipedia encyclopedia says this: "The rule of law implies that government authority may only be exercised in accordance with written laws, which were adopted through an established procedure. The principle is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases." So, as to whether a political system would necessarily make a difference, it really doesn't, it depends more on that country's devotion to the rule of law. Just because it is a democracy doesn't make it automatic. If he had wanted to, a Czar could have decreed all Russians must abide by the rule of law... after all, it was his laws. Apparently even Hitler was hesitant about doing things against the law. If there was something Hitler wanted to do that wasn't lawful, he simply had that German law changed. Actually there are a lot of things which can affect how well the rule of law is adhered to. In reality, it's more a matter as to the extent of compliance because no country adheres to the rule of law 100%. Besides the ugly side of human nature constantly undermining the rule of law, there are many other reasons for its precariousness. For one, unexplained court rulings in America... for further details see Unexplained Rulings Threaten Rule of Law (external link). Another reason is that when laws are overly flexible (too many triggers), they can make almost any situation technically a violation. This creates instances whereby judgment calls are often necessary as to whether charges should be filed or an arrest made... in that case then the rule of law does not exist. Question (Feb 2005): The following is the first paragraph of an email I received from Global Exchange. Would you post it along with the link to the story? (That's my question) "Dear Friends, Please take a moment to ACT to stop the global corporate takeover of PUBLIC SERVICES, let by the United States in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Multinational corporations are right now directing trade negotiators in Geneva to strike a deal to expand the WTO that would force countries to open up PUBLIC SERVICES like health care, education, energy services, water, electricity, mail delivery, transportation, and communication to unaccountable foreign corporations." http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto/FTAAWTOServices.html Answer: So shall it be written... so shall it be done. Question (Jan 2005): It has often been said that philosophy (ontology) is dead, or more quaintly put, that it has no 'pulse'. Agree or disagree? Answer: I would have to agree because ontology just hasn't gotten us anywhere. If it does have a pulse, it can thank the universities. The reason for its failure is because almost everyone has got the wrong frame-of-mind in order to get anywhere with metaphysics. Only empirical reasoning of a spiritual nature is capable. (for the years 2003 - 2004, go to archives) >TOP >HOME ... the place of smoke signals from the spirit world |
A.O. Kime articles —AGRICULTURE
|
|
|
