Freedom Believing In Nothing

My Recent Posts

Dark Matter.  It’s Nothing.  Believe That.

 

 

Follow the timeline of the progression of an individual's belief.  In most cases the timeline is a peak and trough cycle, bouncing along and through an array of philosophical or ideological concepts, from the peak of total dedication to the trough of complete severance, and back again.

 

Many times the adherent discovers, at some stage, the Big Lie behind what they believe in.  Then the divorce proceedings commence.

 

Then a new belief is needed.  To fill the void.

 

The cycle is complete, and then it commences again.

 

The World is full to overflowing with things you could believe in, like ‘trickle-down economies’, or ‘democracy’, or any nation-founding myth you care to choose, or that sky-fairies control and/or intervene in our personal destiny, … or ‘manifest destiny’, or celebrity, or any ‘-ology’, or science, or self, or that you are an indestructible cybernetic organism with lasers for eyes.

 

Name a thing, any thing that you could choose to believe in.  Now look for the Big Lie.

 

It’s there.  Sometimes you have to dig around a bit.  But it’s there.

 

My Advice: Don’t believe in anything anymore.  A Theory Of The Moment and a small arsenal of Alternative Pet Theories is all you should need.  Anything else is probably just a lie.  In only that should you have anything resembling faith.

 

There’s a freedom in believing in nothing.

 

Yours in disbelief,

 

Wick Burner

 

 

Note: This post was first published, minutes ago and in ever-so-slightly differently-edited form (I improved it slightly before publishing here), at my shitty web-log, still the current font of all my inane ramblings.

Comments

Tubularsock Added Aug 10, 2017 - 10:57am
Wick, Tubularsock has tested your new/old/medium “Theory Of The Moment” and found that the MOMENT constantly changes and by the time Tubularsock had gotten the “Theory Of The Moment” written down the moment had changed and proceed to write now the “Theory Of The Moment” for the new moment and yet again the moment changed.
 
It was at this moment, Tubularsock means that moment not this moment, no really THIS moment, ahh forget it. Anyway, at some moment Tubularsock jumped to his very own “Alternative Pet Theories” and ALL things became clear once again.
 
Tubularsock’s central theory is not to believe in ANY theory that doesn’t pay well, so fuck it!
Wick Burner Added Aug 10, 2017 - 11:02am
Tubularsock,
That's exactly correct - who can keep up? When moments are coming and going like ...  I don't know ... a sequential progression of a human construct called time, or something crazy like that...
I too live mostly in the realm of the Alternative Pets.  None of them get me paid, but, variety is the spice of life!
Tubularsock Added Aug 10, 2017 - 11:09am
Wick, you mean Tubularsock "IS EXACTLY CORRECT", really?
 
Oh shit .............. that moment past, damn!
Wick Burner Added Aug 10, 2017 - 11:18am
Yeah, but that was then.  They were good times, back then, when you were right, for a moment...
I've been there, man. Back in '97, I was right.  I think it was a late hour on a day in July. Yep, good times.
Wick Burner Added Aug 10, 2017 - 12:55pm
Those letters just changed, from one moment to the next, right before my eyes.
And again, every time I look at your comment...  little letters, big letters... and back again...
Dino Manalis Added Aug 10, 2017 - 1:03pm
Respect people's beliefs, but don't become obsessed with any idea yourself!  We should consider new paths!
Melina Ahl Added Aug 10, 2017 - 3:45pm
I very much hope I believe nothing.
Melina Ahl Added Aug 10, 2017 - 3:46pm
"Respect people's beliefs"
 
No: I refuse. Respect is earned, not granted.
George N Romey Added Aug 10, 2017 - 5:54pm
Ive abandoned most of previous beliefs over the past 5 years. I've learned they are lies.
Wick Burner Added Aug 10, 2017 - 6:04pm
@Dannl, don't go joining the small and shrinking collective of beings that take anything I say seriously. It's a trap.
Wick Burner Added Aug 10, 2017 - 6:05pm
@Dino - exactly.
Wick Burner Added Aug 10, 2017 - 6:06pm
@Melina - I probably still believe some things, but I *know* that I know nothing...
Wick Burner Added Aug 10, 2017 - 6:11pm
@George - I've certainly churned through a few beliefs in recent years as well.
John G Added Aug 10, 2017 - 7:40pm
Seeing through the lies is one thing. The trick is to not just pick up another set of lies.
 
Saint George Added Aug 10, 2017 - 11:12pm
The trick is to not just pick up another set of lies.
 
Pot + Kettle + Black = Hypocrite
Robert Wendell Added Aug 10, 2017 - 11:21pm
I believe in flexible beliefs continuously monitored for their practical utility and internal consistency within the belief itself and all it embraces and implies as well as consistency the broader field of all my beliefs. Do I believe one thing within subject matter A and the opposite in subject matter B simply because I filed them in different mental drawers and never the twain shall meet? Every belief I have must be compatible with everything else I believe or the internal inconsistency alarm goes off and I have to revisit the issue and resolve it.
 
Having no beliefs is about as possible as never doing anything at all...ever. Thought is the gate from simply existing to actually doing something of value (or not). I just read an article on research that showed that critical thought is more important than intelligence in making wise life decisions.
 
Unfortunately, other research reveals that only about 17% (about one in six) of the U.S. population ever develops the ability to use critical thought consistently outside the context of a particular field in which they happen to specialize. Put another way, many more than 17% can apply critical thought to solve a technical problem at work, for example, while nevertheless allowing poorly reasoned impulses to run the rest of their lives.
 
Sadly, about 20% of any large population has no ability to apply critical thought to anything at all. If you were to conclude from this that this 20% is identical to the lowest 20% in intelligence, you would be very wrong. They do correlate, but increasingly weakly at the higher levels of intelligence.
 
Intelligence varies relatively little over an adult lifetime while the ability to exercise critical thought is a learned skill that can vary enormously over a lifetime. Intelligence is no guarantor of the ability to exercise critical thought over the wide range of realities that constitute a human life.
Katharine Otto Added Aug 11, 2017 - 12:50am
Then, there's the belief that anything is possible, in the spacious present . . . 
 
Or, you could believe that moments are only sequential in a space-time framework.
 
MJ Added Aug 11, 2017 - 1:33am
Wick, freedom in believing nothing seems to me to be just skimming the surface of life, no meaning in life whatsoever.
I am a passionate person and cannot imagine not believing in something and go out full throttle to defend my beliefs.
Wick Burner Added Aug 11, 2017 - 8:00am
@John G, yes, breaking that cycle is, I think, what I was partly intending to say.  It was a bit of a stream-of-mind piece, to be honest.  I was in a cynical mood, and I'd imbibed some vodka...
Wick Burner Added Aug 11, 2017 - 8:06am
@Robert Wendell, clearly a very analytical and pragmatic approach.  That critical thought is what is needed to see the Big Lie I mentioned - and the percentages you quote sound about right (although I usually grossly exaggerate the numbers of the totally-incapable for sake of hyperbole...).
As you say, raw intelligence can be applied in an array of directions, for many different purposes, good and evil.
Wick Burner Added Aug 11, 2017 - 8:18am
@Katharine Otto, I like that belief, that anything is possible, I think I'd call that a core belief.  The space-time mathematical progression is overt, but is scary and has no soul...
Wick Burner Added Aug 11, 2017 - 8:24am
@MJ, you're right about skimming the surface.  It is doing only that.
As I only just commented above, there are also 'core' beliefs, and I think everyone has those.  I don't think that they ever include those 'false construct' beliefs that get imposed after initial imprint, and they are what I was aiming my cynicism at - in a sort of whimsical/faux-apathetic way.
George N Romey Added Aug 11, 2017 - 8:54am
If there is one thing I can say for sure is that critical thinkers are out and drone Compliant like humans are in. And yes along with hysteria. 
Wick Burner Added Aug 11, 2017 - 9:42am
George, Critical thinkers are a threat to many. Livestock are always an asset.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 11, 2017 - 12:20pm
LOL, that's a good one, Wick (and George).
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Aug 11, 2017 - 12:29pm
Robert
 
Sounds pessimistic, those 20%....how's life anyway ?
 
George N Romey Added Aug 11, 2017 - 1:29pm
Good to hear from Robert.  Please stay on, we need your wisdom and sanity. 
Infidel753 Added Aug 11, 2017 - 1:38pm
Respect people's beliefs
 
Many beliefs are not worthy or respect.  Most religious beliefs are ridiculous, and the beliefs of Nazis and Holocaust deniers are evil.
opher goodwin Added Aug 11, 2017 - 5:05pm
Infidel that is a statement that I would concur with - Many beliefs are not worthy or respect.  Most religious beliefs are ridiculous, and the beliefs of Nazis and Holocaust deniers are evil. 
But I still think that respect is the basis for debate. Poor beliefs are shown to be inadequate in the light of reason.
opher goodwin Added Aug 11, 2017 - 5:11pm
Wick - In a sense I try to believe in nothing in that I do not attach myself to any religion or political party and I do not believe in facts.
But I do believe in many things - tolerance, freedom, love, compassion, respect, responsibility, equality and wonder.
I think life is there to be lived to the full.
I believe we should look after the planet.
I believe we should do our utmost to prevent war, put right poverty and suffering and oppose the greed and selfishness that is destroying the planet.
I believe violence is wrong and rarely necessary.
I believe in the power of education.
I believe that we need to find a global way of stopping multinationals, capitalism and the selfish and greedy from destroying the planet.
I believe that all religions are manmade.
And so on and on........
So while I believe in nothing I find myself a man of many beliefs.
George N Romey Added Aug 11, 2017 - 5:52pm
Too many evils are passed on as supposedly freedoms or self made man. 
opher goodwin Added Aug 11, 2017 - 7:10pm
Such as George?
Jeff Michka Added Aug 11, 2017 - 7:24pm
opher goodwin asks: Such as George? Geo won't answer, since he only lives for being told he's correct and right.  He never has answers, just complaints about his now low-status life, constant, along with wanting everybody to suffer.  Geo is a $3 bill.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 11, 2017 - 10:44pm
Opher, I agree with you on everything but parts of what you say about religion. It is my studied opinion that fundamentalism is the problem and not religion per se. Fundamentalism is belief in the superficial cultural trimmings and differences from other cultures as fundamental and absolute while ignoring all the things you mentioned, which are, by the way, also common to every great world religion.
 
Most importantly, the Golden Rule is common to every major religion in the world. The greatest in every such religion have cited the Golden Rule as the essence and ground of all morality. Yet much of religious history is filled with killing "unbelievers" over superficial cultural claptrap and differences in ancient cosmologies that don't hold up to modern science.
 
Many of these cosmologies are actually at least partially valid metaphorically. However, fundamentalists insist they are not metaphorical but literal. The Torah, the Christian bible, the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, the Buddhist Diamond Sutra, etc. are not books of science.
 
I don't believe they were ever pretended to be. It's provincial, simplistic, black-and-white, literal-minded thinking that is responsible for the bad reputation of many spiritual traditions. Unfortunately that kind of mindset is the most common among human beings.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 11, 2017 - 10:45pm
I'm doing fine, Stone-Eater. Hope you're doing well!
Robert Wendell Added Aug 11, 2017 - 10:46pm
Thank you, George.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 11, 2017 - 10:48pm
Reply to Jeff:
Look who's projecting everything true about himself on anyone he disagrees with.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 11, 2017 - 11:01pm
Stone-Eater, I find it interesting that the 20% severely afflicted with Authoritarian Personality Disorder and/or Social Dominator Personality coincides very closely with the last figure I heard on Trump's hardcore supporters who stick with him no matter what (21%).
 
I don't think all Trump supporters are racist, but it would be stupid to deny that very many of them are. Those who are really don't care about the rest. They are single-issue voters who like his racism and really don't give a purple flying fig about anything else.
 
The Neo-Nazis only hate Trump because he doesn't go far enough in their sick little minds. The less virulent racists don't even perceive as racist all the thinly veiled euphemisms Republicans have been using for decades to garner votes.
 
They pretend to themselves they are not, but their criteria for what constitutes racism is extremely generous. We who grew up in the Jim Crow south know those euphemisms extremely well. They don't fool us (born 1944) or any blacks who've lived through their effects.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 2:44am
Having no beliefs is about as possible as never doing anything at all...ever.
 
Robert: beliefs can be just programs, with which we grew up and had instilled into us. A belief, in itself, therefore, is suspect.
 
Wick: it is a good idea to place all or any of our beliefs in a suspect area of our mind to clear it somewhat.
 
To believe in nothing at all might be a good opening to allowing the mind to become open to seeing and learning.
 
Faith is more subtle and is an inner conviction, This word is incorrectly used to denote a religious conviction. Faith and belief are not interchangeable.
Wick Burner Added Aug 12, 2017 - 8:35am
@opher goodwin,
You and me both.  Without playing semantics on the difference between 'belief' and 'conviction' (I'm sure there's plenty of overlap in many places) - what you believe, I may be convinced of...
I disagree with nothing on your list.  Although, there are some facts I believe - but that list is short.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 8:39am
Robert - I agree that fundamentalism in all its forms and literal interpretations is the most harmful. But for me religion does not have to be fanatical to do harm. Many children are indoctrinated by ordinary religious people. The harm of threatening kids with hell or the guilt of doing perfectly acceptable things is in my view psychologically damaging.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 8:41am
Wick - I'm not even sure I exist or the world is real. Glad you agree. What is on your list?
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 9:05am
Dannl - What perfectly acceptable things?
I despair at religion. In the bible sacrifice of children was perfectly acceptable wasn't it? God said to Abraham kill me a son.
There is nothing acceptable about rape, slavery, honour killings, FGM, segregation of women, imposition of clothing, stopping women going out of doors or driving, indoctrinating children and hundreds of other things.
But homosexuals? Come of it Dannl. Aren't you getting confused with paedophiles? Someone's sexual orientation does not make them a danger to children. Get real.
In my book what two consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them. Why should it affect me?
Wick Burner Added Aug 12, 2017 - 9:18am
@opher,
Facts?
- Life (whatever that means)
- Death (whatever that means)
- Gravity
- Humans know very little
Beyond that, almost everything is up for grabs.  Current research interests are convincing me that almost all of modern history is a farce supported by a flimsy framework of fakery.  It puts one in a rather cynical frame of mind...
Wick Burner Added Aug 12, 2017 - 9:23am
@Eileen de Bruin,
I like your allusion to a cleansing/resetting achieved through compartmentalising suspect beliefs to enable objective re-assessment.
As for faith being delineated from belief, you've nailed the root of many ills there, where actions based on belief in a faith have caused so much damage and death.  If only that line weren't so blurry for so many...
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 9:58am
Wick - I like your list. I agree with life and death - with the provisos - not sure about gravity - I've experienced moments when it seemed to not be there (normally after I've hit something at speed). As for humans - I'm hoping they are an illusion.
There is nothing wrong with cynicism. It's the antidote to gullibility.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 10:05am
Dannl - "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" Luke 19:27 - so is that then OK to kill or is it still Thou Shalt Not Kill?
As I said - all ambiguous contradictory medieval crap full of prejudice and cultural rubbish from the dawn of time fuelling intolerance and justifying violence, aggression and viciousness.
Quite a tirade of bile and fury hurled at a minority who you don't approve of.
It is that intolerance and violence that I stand against. religious people are full of it. You know - righteous wrath - because it is written.
And you wonder why I am an antitheist? You demonstrate the reason. Religion is fostering hatred. 
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 10:07am
Dannl - didn't you just cut and paste a quote? It is spelt idiots BTW.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 10:54am
Dannl - what a muddled heap of hate-filled invective.
Excuse me - I haven't kidnapped anyone, bombed anywhere or condoned any such crime. I'm not a racist either. I do not condone violence. I am a heterosexual but I am not a homophobic dickhead. Neither do I condone state murder or tolerate prejudice.
You come over as a hate-filled religious fanatic to me.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 10:56am
Dannl - weird Scot's dialect. We now use injun and idjit in the English language do we?
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 10:59am
Dannl - you prove my point with every utterance. As I said - the ambiguity and contradiction in the bible and other religious texts allows imbeciles to come along and interpret it in any way they like. It is wrong to kill - unless it is someone I hate - then it's alright. Very clear. Killing means murder. We'll define what murder means. If it the state murdering people it is legitimate. If it is gays then that's alright. Do you have any morality?
Katharine Otto Added Aug 12, 2017 - 11:06am
Wick,
Your mention of "core beliefs" reminds me of the channeled entity "Seth" in the Jane Roberts series.  I know "science" and "religion" condemn such hokey contributors to the mass mind, but Seth has a substantial following and makes good sense.  I've found the books confirm many of my beliefs and take them further.
 
Seth says it's important to recognize core beliefs, such as the mass belief in space and time.  Beliefs about reality are not the same as reality itself.  Man is limited by many of his beliefs but is ultimately creative and "the point of power is in the present." He talks about the "spacious present." He insists we create our own realities.  You get what you focus on, for good or ill.  Religion, by the way, has served a valid purpose in helping man strive for ideals, but both religion and science can be limited by dogma.
 
 
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 12:00pm
Dannl - we all kill to live - though not with malice, hatred and intent.
You are a strange one - it's alright to hate, kill, use racist language, be violently homophobic but you can't say fuck.
Can't see what was effeminate about Kurt Vonnegut though. That's another weird one Dannl.
I can see you do have morality - it's just fucked up.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 2:07pm
Dannl you are a simple minded headcase. If any god takes notes from you he's one sad case.
What is all this nigger language you keep on about? Is that just your twisted racist mind?
You claim higher ideas? All I've heard from you is vile diatribe of the most unintelligent, uneducated variety. Low IQ? Sounds like you.
Fuck is about sex. Sex is OK too. Unless of course you are a guilt-ridden Christian paying heed to the customs of the Arab tribes back in the deserts thousands of years ago where it all sprang from.
You talk gibberish. Sounds like nearly every child got ahead of you.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 2:10pm
Dannl - as a biologist I have always celebrated living creatures. I'n no more leave an injured animal at the side of the road than a person. I've never hit a deer, though we do have them in England, and I've only once hit a bird. Very upsetting.
Your post about the cruelty in abattoirs is very salutary. All it tells me is that they need to clean their act up. I'm not opposed to killing animals but I'd like it done painlessly and humanely.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 4:03pm
Dannl - I already answered you. No I am not female. Last time I looked I had all male parts in full working order. I am also English and non-Jewish. Though I can't see what that has got to do with anything.
So we have another string to our bow - racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic.
I'm certainly reviewing my view of Amish. I thought they weren't toxic. If you are typical then they are guilt-ridden, hate-filled and totally intolerant.
I suppose the Amish are another bunch claiming to be god's chosen. The list gets ever longer and more pathetic.
If you doubt me then check out my books on Amazon. There's a picture of me.
opher goodwin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 4:05pm
Dannl - Light years ahead? You're back in the Dark Ages son. You still live in medieval times. You're light years back in my dust. You talk about me having a big ego. Hold up a mirror. I'm in the 21st century where we look down on bigots, racists, homophobes and intolerant people. We've moved on. Which century are you stuck in?
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 12, 2017 - 6:25pm
Wick, thank you for that acknowledgement, realisation. Yes, faith is distinct from belief. Let's re set, re think, ponder perhaps. Pondering is the stillness of the soul. Thinking is the action of the ego.
Let us .ponder on.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 12, 2017 - 8:24pm
Opher, you said, "The harm of threatening kids with hell or the guilt of doing perfectly acceptable things is in my view psychologically damaging."
 
So that is one of the superficial cultural trappings I was talking about. Fundamentalists take hell literally, and heaven, too, for that matter. Jesus himself said, "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Luke 17:20-21 King James Version (KJV)
 
 
So the Christian bible has Jesus saying here that the kingdom of heaven is not a physical place, didn't he? It's amazing how fundamentalists rationalize their way around the truly deep stuff and elevate superficial, spiritually irrelevant details, if we discount metaphor, to absolute truth. The Catholic church in earliest times accepted reincarnation as fact, for example. The church changed this later to one life and heaven, purgatory, or hell afterward because they felt reincarnation didn't inspire enough incentive to do right.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 12, 2017 - 8:25pm
Opher, you said, "The harm of threatening kids with hell or the guilt of doing perfectly acceptable things is in my view psychologically damaging."
 
So that is one of the superficial cultural trappings I was talking about. Fundamentalists take hell literally, and heaven, too, for that matter. Jesus himself said, "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Luke 17:20-21 King James Version (KJV)
 
 
So the Christian bible has Jesus saying here that the kingdom of heaven is not a physical place, didn't he? It's amazing how fundamentalists rationalize their way around the truly deep stuff and elevate superficial, spiritually irrelevant details, if we discount metaphor, to absolute truth. The Catholic church in earliest times accepted reincarnation as fact, for example. The church changed this later to one life and heaven, purgatory, or hell afterward because they felt it didn't inspire enough incentive to do right.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 12, 2017 - 8:26pm
Opher, you said, "The harm of threatening kids with hell or the guilt of doing perfectly acceptable things is in my view psychologically damaging."
 
So that is one of the superficial cultural trappings I was talking about. Fundamentalists take hell literally, and heaven, too, for that matter. Jesus himself said, "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Luke 17:20-21 King James Version (KJV)
 
 
So the Christian bible has Jesus saying here that the kingdom of heaven is not a physical place, didn't he? It's amazing how fundamentalists rationalize their way around the truly deep stuff and elevate superficial, spiritually irrelevant details, if we discount metaphor, to absolute truth. The Catholic church in earliest times accepted reincarnation as fact, for example. The church changed this later because they felt it didn't inspire enough incentive to do right.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 12, 2017 - 8:28pm
Opher, you said, "The harm of threatening kids with hell or the guilt of doing perfectly acceptable things is in my view psychologically damaging."
 
So that is one of the superficial cultural trappings I was talking about. Fundamentalists take hell literally, and heaven, too, for that matter. Jesus himself said, "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
Luke 17:20-21 King James Version (KJV)
 
So the Christian bible has Jesus saying here that the kingdom of heaven is not a physical place, didn't he? It's amazing how fundamentalists rationalize their way around the truly deep stuff and elevate superficial, spiritually irrelevant details, if we discount metaphor, to absolute truth. The Catholic church in earliest times accepted reincarnation as fact, for example. The church changed this later because they felt it didn't inspire enough incentive to do right.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2017 - 5:00am
Robert - I believe that all religions are used by men as power bases. The teaching hardly matter. It is a numbers and power game.
I'm an antitheist because I believe religion was created by people, used for power and does more harm than good. We'd be better off without it.
Christianity was a minor Jewish sect until Constantine used it to consolidate his power.
I am quite happy for people to have their personal faith. But I am not happy when it is foisted on others. Fundamentalists, who take the words literally, are beyond belief. Those words were collected long after the death of all the disciples and were part of an oral tradition before being committed to papyrus. We all know about Chinese whispers.
One can use the bible, koran or any other religious book to make a case for diametrically opposed stances simply by selecting the texts you use.
Whatever Jesus stood for has been masked in translation.
I look at these works as interesting historical documents about a period of time long gone with all its customs, beliefs and idiosyncrasies. There were some beautiful passages and great ideas too. But as a blueprint for the 21st century? Not for me.
George N Romey Added Aug 13, 2017 - 10:08am
Opher the biggest one is the "free market" myth.  Or the 'we have to fight them there or they will fight us here."  Or globalization (or at least the version we have) is helping to alleviate poverty (its only transferring its effects.)  Or that you can be anyone you want to be with self determination. Or that the Russian is bad and wants to destroy the US.  You get the picture.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 13, 2017 - 2:24pm
Opher, there have always a very rare, wise human here or there who had deep spiritual insights and communicated them with allegory and metaphor that others seeking power used and abused as you describe. I just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are components of every great religion that are in common with each other.
 
Those are generally the genuinely insightful parts. Power mongers ignore them and use the irrelevant stuff to justify their evil intentions. They do this by manipulating the unthinking, literal-minded majority of their subjects using ill-founded dogma and their differences with that of others to start wars, persecute "unbelievers", etc. This does nothing to impugn genuine spiritual insight unless you've never experienced any yourself.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2017 - 2:29pm
George - I'm right with you.
opher goodwin Added Aug 13, 2017 - 2:32pm
Robert - there is wisdom in those books - inbetween the stupidities - human beings have always been intelligent, thoughtful and good at thinking. They were put together by the best minds. But they are culturally of their time and have to be read as historical artifacts bearing that in mind. To take them literally is absurd. To take them as the word of god is even more absurd.
I'm all for 'spirituality', even though I don't know what I mean by that, but religion is an abuse of those books.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 13, 2017 - 4:03pm
Then we have no disagreement on that, Opher, unless you take exception to my belief that the ground of the universe is not inert or material, but the essence of everything and is both conscious and intelligent. I believe the Unified Field, whenever they discover it, and I believe they will, is intelligent and conscious. As defined, they are looking for the root of all that exists. I believe our experience of consciousness and intelligence is merely a local, holographic manifestation of that Abstract Wholeness. To believe otherwise, in my opinion, is to believe in a violation of conservation law at the most fundamental level possible.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2017 - 4:58am
I don't have a problem with that at all Robert. It is something that I have always had an inkling for. I don't believe in god but when pressed talk about a spirituality that is akin to atomic energy. It is probably not what I really believe in but I hope it's true. I'd like to think there was intelligence somewhere in the universe because there's scant sign of it on this planet.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 14, 2017 - 6:20am
Dearie old me. It doesn't take mich to get the bashing of each other's beliefs or views does it?
 
Perhaps adopting Nothing as a starting point is not a bad idea at all.
 
Clear the mind. Look at an object. A flower, say, but without using your knowledge of the petals, the stalk, the colours and the name given to it. Just see it and think nothing. That is a very difficult thing to do, but it can still the mind and it can bring you to a different sense, without labels or prejudices, of the flower.  Or a candle. Or a table or a chair. Or whatever. See how difficult it is to NOT defining it or using your past knowledge to allocate it somewhere. Just SEE it, witness it ...
 
I like Nothing. It is above something. It is not anything at all. It is no thing.  No thing is no object. 
 
 
Robert Wendell Added Aug 14, 2017 - 12:07pm
It sounds a lot like you're talking about transcendence, Eileen, which is something I experience frequently during meditation. However, it is both nothing and everything, both empty and completely full and deeply blissful. If you truly experience it, you realize it is the essence of who we all really are and out of which everything else manifests.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 14, 2017 - 12:12pm
Good, Opher. The only thing I would add is that I believe that essential unity is the Supreme, Conscious, and Loving Intelligence that runs the whole show. What people suffer is just the result of bad action, no matter what the source of that action. I personally believe in a just universe when viewed as a whole. You can't believe that and not accept the idea of reincarnation. There cannot be a just universe without reincarnation. There is no obvious justice in a three-year-old child losing legs and an eye in the Syrian civil war. However, we don't know what that person did to earn that no matter how many lives ago it might have been. That's just my view, but I have what for me are solid reasons for it.
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2017 - 5:26pm
I wish I did Robert. I'd love to believe in Karma. I have no belief in reincarnation either.
Why should there be a just universe?
Robert Wendell Added Aug 14, 2017 - 7:24pm
You need to experience transcendence to understand why, Opher. See my reply to Eileen. That's not nearly enough, but I don't have time to elaborate right now. However, here's a link to an old article of mine here on WB:
Spiritual Minimalism
Katharine Otto Added Aug 14, 2017 - 11:01pm
Robert,
I have a theory that the Universal Field is "life force," a component Einstein didn't factor in.  The Orientals call it "qi."  
Robert Wendell Added Aug 15, 2017 - 12:19am
It is the source of life and is infinitely intelligent. Qi emanates from It. The Indians call it prana. The idea that transcendence opens you to invading spirits is born of total ignorance of what it actually is. It repels evil of all kinds from those who experience it. It is both no thought and complete fullness of intelligence. Just as a drawn bow has only great potential before releasing it to act, transcendence is the fullness of potential without anything yet manifest, including energy and life force.
opher goodwin Added Aug 15, 2017 - 4:51am
Katharine/Robert - it's a nice theory. I'd like to believe it's true.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 15, 2017 - 8:26am
Robert Wendell, no I am not talking about transcendence, I am talking about nothing like that.
 
It is purely a practical exercise, which anybody can do, which challenges us to look at something without defining it.
 
It is allowing no thing to be decked with our views on it. It is looking and seeing and nothing else full stop.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 15, 2017 - 8:28am
Opher, why should there be a just universe? As in, everything is just, as in as it should be just or do you mean something else?
 
Why shouldn't there be?
opher goodwin Added Aug 15, 2017 - 7:15pm
Eileen - I would like to believe there is a just universe but I am not convinced there is. I do not believe the universe cares for us or anything else. It just is.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 16, 2017 - 2:21am
Opher, that is interesting. To be "just" must imply good or positive to you then?
 
If it is not just, then is it by default unjust? What does unjust mean to you?
 
Or is it both just and unjust?  
 
Or is it none of those?
opher goodwin Added Aug 16, 2017 - 6:42pm
Dannl - oxygen is a biproduct from plants.
opher goodwin Added Aug 16, 2017 - 6:44pm
Eileen. I would love to think there is some benevolent, conscious force at work in the universe. I don't think there is. I think the universe is the result of random chance. It is neither just nor unjust. It just is. We should relish its wonders.
opher goodwin Added Aug 16, 2017 - 6:53pm
Dannl - I would like to believe that but it would not be true.
Wick Burner Added Aug 18, 2017 - 10:20am
Thanks all for continued utilisation of this space for banter and exchange of words.
@opher goodwin, momentary absence of gravity is just one half of the old equal and opposite.  Proof! ;-)
@Katharine Otto, I admit I am ignorant of that series, your description inspires me to look it up.  Thanks.
@Eileen de Bruin, thank you.  Ponder on, indeed.
The rest of you, behave.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 19, 2017 - 3:04am
You are welcome Wick.
 
Katharine, the mention of getting what one focuses on, for good or ill, Seth saying to create our own realities harkens back to yogiism. As in we do indeed create our own lives.
To relate this in a practical exercise right now, if you choose any object, say an elephant or a caulifower or a ballet dancer or a word.....at the beginning of a day, then pop it into your mind having focused on it for a while, see what happens during the day.
It is said that what we seek we shall find.
 
Opher, plants and trees are everything that we need to live on the planet. They have energy fields just like we do and everything else. We are all part of the whole and entirely connected and we, especially, are dependent on the natural world.  That is a huge something.
 
To be or not to be eh?  Nothing like it Wick! Great thread.
 
 
opher goodwin Added Aug 23, 2017 - 4:49am
Wick - what is this momentary absence of gravity?
Eileen - we are totally dependent on the natural world and should stop destroying it immediately. I feel their energy fields.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 23, 2017 - 12:36pm
The intellect artificially subdivides the fundamental unity of natural structure with its analysis. In the so-called process of analysis-synthesis-analysis, the intellect takes its analysis literally and views its synthesis as an intellectual artifact, when the reverse is true.
 
Disbelief in the fundamental and literal unity of the entire cosmos has been called since ancient times "the mistake of the intellect". This ignorance of the fundamental nature of reality is like a deep sleep in which we vividly dream that we are still awake. This is the deepest infirmity with which humanity is afflicted.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 23, 2017 - 3:14pm
Opher, yes, we should. Why do we destroy?
Robert, yes, absolutely, our intellect is our ego isn't it?
 
We are ignorant to the truth. Presumably, this is why we can destroy without a conscience.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 23, 2017 - 11:47pm
Close, Eileen. The hierarchy as I understand it from obviously manifest to subtle and highly abstract is:
Senses
Mind (sensory processor)
Intellect (organizes, processes meaning)
Ego (most fundamental, abstract sense of         individuality/identity as distinct from self-image and therefore independent of current and past function, environmental or social context; NOT superficial sense as in "I'm a doctor, executive, lawyer, worker, homeless person,..." etc.)
Soul
Robert Wendell Added Aug 23, 2017 - 11:57pm
Addendum to my last comment, Eileen:
What people commonly mean by ego is self-image; an intellectual construct stored in memory; a story about yourself you tell yourself. The ego in the sense used in my previous comment is the enduring sense of identity that survives intact throughout life from preschool to student to adulthood and through all possible conditions and circumstances of life. It's the deepest sense of individual selfhood. The soul as used in my comment is deeper still, embracing others' deepest sense of identity as essentially identical with one's own and as worthy of respect.
opher goodwin Added Aug 28, 2017 - 5:52am
Eileen - we destroy for greed and selfishness and because we have a genetic predisposition to enjoy destruction.
The most popular booth at the fairground was the one that you threw wooden balls to smash the china. As soon as a kid leaves his sandcastles, that took him/her hours to build, someone will jump on them.
We have to curb that inherent nature.
opher goodwin Added Aug 28, 2017 - 5:53am
Wendell - the universal mind is an interesting concept. The unity and harmony of the universe is prevalent in most forms of spirituality. Could it too not be a product of our intellect?
Robert Wendell Added Aug 28, 2017 - 1:36pm
Opher, the universe is holographic and fractal, so it's the other way around. Our intellect is a local reflection of THE Intellect. We call the little pieces of that we've discovered so far natural laws.
 
The Unified Field that a "theory of everything" seeks as its bottom-line premise is not conceived as a local field such as magnetic field, but the single entity underlying all fields everywhere. If the cosmos is a fundamental and literal unity embodied in such a global, abstract field, then if we're intelligent, it is also intelligent, since we cannot live outside it. On the contrary, we are a local manifestation of it and can only exist within it.
 
 I do not separate the physical and the spiritual, but view them as opposite poles of a single continuum from local to cosmically comprehensive, meaning global in a cosmically inclusive sense. To say only the physical is real makes no sense, since "physical" can have no meaning other than whatever it is that exists without implying a conceptual non-physical reality in contradistinction. To say that only the physical is real not only denies our experience of our deepest selves as consciousness, but unwittingly implies a subtle version of Cartesian dualism.
 
The big question facing modern theoretical physics right now is:
 
1) Is reality fundamentally random and natural law in our universe merely a lucky happenstance among an infinitude of non-lawful universes?
OR
2) Is natural law universal and randomness only apparent and local?
 
In other, more scientific words, is randomness global and general-case and order local and special-case or the other way around? My bet is on the latter. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to local, closed systems. That already implies my bet is the winner.
 
That's without mentioning correlated particles, which I view as a special case of the general principle that nothing in the universe has zero effect on anything else in the universe. The fundamental, literal unity that is the cosmos is infinitely correlated within itself. This is much more rational than the Copenhagen Interpretation, which turns statistics on its head and pretends that local randomness can somehow impose order on macroscopic phenomena in the absence of any kind of macroscopic coherence.
 
Statistics is intrinsically inductive, inducing from relatively macroscopic, more global observation the relative probabilities of more local events. The Copenhagen Interpretation violates conservation law in principle at every level. Occam's razor says it makes much more sense and generates no internal contradictions if we assume that since it is in principle impossible to assess the influence of every particle in the cosmos on every other particle.
 
So the apparently statistical nature of quantum events is merely a consequence of this simple fact. This harks back to correlated particles as simply a local, special-case example of a general-case principle that applies comprehensively to how the whole of natural structure operates.
 
This also eliminates the need to depend on chaos as a driver of cosmic evolution. Evolutionary theory depends on general laws governing apparently random local events to drive cosmic evolution from the generation of galaxies and first-generation stars to supernovae and second-generation stars with orbiting debris that lawfully coheres in gravity fields to form orbiting planets, and then on to unicellular and multi-cellular life, plants, and animals, and finally us.
 
So natural law is so structured that it creates economic pressure everywhere locally to generate subsystems that increasingly reflect the nature of the whole. This drives evolution to generate organisms that have evolved to the point of reflecting the abstract, global nature of the whole locally as consciousness in organisms who can ask how we got to be. This is a beautiful, unified view of reality that generates no "hard problem" of consciousness, since the latter becomes axiomatic to existence itself. First principles are always axioms.
 
Axioms have no proof, but are usually empirical in origin. Our consciousness is, among human beings at the very least, empirically validated and universally replicated among us. We can't even prove it exists to each other, but can only assume everyone experiences it as we each do. We assume this rather than assuming all others are nothing more than biological automatons wondrously able to simulate our own experience of consciousness.
 
When we experience consciousness alone with itself, only aware of itself with no other object of awareness, it is perfectly competent to recognize its own nature as a local reflection of the abstract foundation of
Robert Wendell Added Aug 28, 2017 - 1:37pm
all that exists. This is extremely ancient knowledge. Western scientific method is in effect a social noise reduction system using redundancy (experimental replication) and filtering (experimental design) to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of our communication with natural structure.
 
The ancient method is to reduce noise in the individual awareness via meditation to arrive at the same ultimate conclusion. Gisin et al have shown that correlated particles are space-time independent with regard to their quantum behavior. This has led them to suspect that correlated particles are actually a unitary phenomenon at a level deeper than space-time, underlying and generating it. I believe that level is what we experience as our own consciousness in its noise-free purity.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 28, 2017 - 3:18pm
Correction to first post of this last comment:
The following sentence eliminates the word since. That was an editing error. It should have read like this -
 
Occam's razor says it makes much more sense and generates no internal contradictions if we assume that [since does NOT belong here] it is in principle impossible to assess the influence of every particle in the cosmos on every other particle.
opher goodwin Added Aug 28, 2017 - 4:45pm
Robert - I enjoyed that. I am tempted.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 29, 2017 - 1:10am
I'm glad you enjoyed it, Opher. Many of the specific concepts I have outlined do not come from any source I have come across. However, I experience these insights as implied by their integration in consciousness of reams of very diverse sources that I have come across.
 
For example, I know of no one else who has contrasted ancient spiritual ideas and modern scientific method as different approaches to noise reduction in communicating with natural structure in order to better appreciate and understand its lawful behaviors. That tendency comes from a combination of my background in audio electronics and troubleshooting Dolby noise reduction circuits and my more general interest in communications theory as it applies to many superficially unrelated fields. The same is true of my insight that pretending reality is strictly physical is nothing more or less than a self-contradiction that unwittingly implies a version of the Cartesian dualism it intends to deny.
 
I could go on to mention other examples of original thought, but the ability to have such insights comes in the first place from my practice of a meditation technique that is extremely powerful. That I owe to a great master who revealed it to the west. It owes its great power and effectiveness precisely to its innocent simplicity and the resulting spontaneous ease of its practice.
 
Many who practice other techniques criticize it as being "Mickey Mouse" because of its innocent simplicity. I like to think it's sort of like breathing. The latter is incredibly natural and easy for most of us to do, but it is also correspondingly powerful and essential in its ability to support our lives. Anyone capable of thinking a thought can practice this technique, including children.
 
I know of no one who knows how to practice it in the innocent, easy, natural, and spontaneous way it is designed to operate and who has also tried multiple other techniques of meditation who nevertheless fails to appreciate its vast superiority and practical effectiveness compared to any other. This is not any kind of quasi-religious dogma, but the result of personal experience in its many, many practitioners.
 
Its successful practice has no dependence whatsoever on any belief system. The only kinds of belief on which it could possibly have any dependence would merely be whatever it takes to bother to begin its practice. Then its correct practice is immediately self-reinforcing. It is, in a nutshell, a simple, lean, mental analog of the process that drives all of cosmic evolution.
Eileen de Bruin Added Aug 29, 2017 - 3:10am
Opher, I am not sure that we can curb that inherent nature.
 
It is. 
 
Perhaps it is about development of it or enlightenment of it?  Curbing will just create more friction. Or action, reaction.
opher goodwin Added Aug 29, 2017 - 11:16am
Robert - It is good to read some original thinking.
opher goodwin Added Aug 29, 2017 - 11:19am
Eileen - I think when I say we need to curb that violent streak of ours I mean that, through education, we can develop a happy society where this aspect of our nature is greatly reduced. I agree that if we were to create a system that restricted and contained we might well build up a head of steam that would have to come out somewhere. Not a good idea.
Robert Wendell Added Aug 29, 2017 - 11:08pm
Physical, chemical, and psychological stress, by which I mean abnormal distortion in an otherwise perfectly functioning human organism, are intimately intertwined. They don't exist independently. Evolution doesn't automatically guarantee systems that are not distorted by less than ideal functioning in the systems it evolves.
 
However, human evolution involves factors that include social evolution. After all, even insects have evolved very complex and sophisticated social systems. Humans do this in a much more individually independent way. Our philosophies, religions, and sciences are the products of the interaction between social and individual motivating factors.
 
We have libraries and now other, much more technologically convenient information systems the evolution of which is collectively controlled by various subpopulations of humans. This includes culture and traditions of various kinds. For example, we have evolved at various times in different cultures spiritual traditions, some of which include means by which such extra-biologically evolving social information structures (i.e., external to biological evolution) encompass the means for individuals to eliminate the aforementioned distortions of ideal function (physical, chemical, neurological, and psychological function viewed as interdependently integrated as a single wholeness of function).
 
Violence, deception, manipulation, overweening self-interest, etc. are, in the final analysis, counterevolutionary forces that the long term thrust of evolution tends to eliminate. I hold that this tendency manifests as the highest and most effective approaches to spiritual development resulting in a state of enlightenment free of all such counterevolutionary forces. History has shown that those who have reached such a state are rare and tend to be honored by history as great sages, master teachers of the deepest and most cherished human values, and indeed, as saints in one tradition or other, sometimes including their founders.
opher goodwin Added Sep 3, 2017 - 9:21am
Robert - that sounds a very Buddhist concept.
William Stockton Added Sep 3, 2017 - 10:36am
I was surprised to find, after reading through the comments, that nobody in this thread had said a word about postmodernism specifically.  Wick's article supports postmodernism but never mentions this political theory.
 
Postmodernism is a cancer to all intellectual advancement humans have ever made including science.  In fact, postmodernism rejects science.  Anyone who says, "I believe in science", and then follow with, "Truth is relative", has not ever understood science and is following third-wave intellectualism (aka intellectual suicide).
 
For those of you still debating if there are any objective truths or an objective reality, I suggest you start with the basics and review the precepts of science.  Postmodernism is a deadly pathogen infecting the brains of many "elite" scholars in our education system.
 
Lecture about postmodernism here
 
William Stockton Added Sep 3, 2017 - 10:48am
Gad Saad, a liberal, talks about postmodernism and anti-intellectualism pervasive in social science and institutions of "learning".
Robert Wendell Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:11pm
The idea that truth is relative does not define all liberals by a long shot. This is black-and-white, pinheaded conservatism of the worst kind. I'm conservative on some issues. Conservatism is not a dirty word in my vocabulary unless it's used to refer to this kind of lumping everyone under a single, simple-minded label, something the worst kind of conservatives do habitually.
 
This kind of conservative can't perceive anything as subtle as gray. It's mostly either black or white most of the time. I'm as disgusted as anyone by the idea that we all have our own "truth", as if there were no objective facts at all. In fact, conservatives like Stockton witlessly use this kind of relative "truth" in their arguments every time they pretend their arguments are just as worthy of respect as anyone else's no matter how stupid they are on their face.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:24pm
Opher, this is quintessentially eastern and common to many religions in that part of the world. You can even find it in the more so-called "mystical" versions of Christianity and even some historical corners of Judaism. Taoism, the many sects of Buddhism, and above all, the Vedic tradition of India, the ultimate source of all the branches of yoga, are different from the similarities in western perspectives only in that they make this way of viewing spirituality the essential focus.
 
In my opinion, that is as it should be. If you look at the deepest level of western religions, this perspective is what is most common to them all, and in my view, the most essential. Fundamentalism, to its great discredit, virtually ignores the essence and stays stuck in the superficial cultural differences This results in their respective "believers" killing each other over them in stark violation of the deeper truths embedded in their own religions.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:26pm
What I've just described in my last reply to Opher is an excellent analogy in religion to the stupidity I just described in politics in my reply to Stockton.
William Stockton Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:34pm
LOL Wendell.  So, let me get this straight.  You objected to my use of the word "truth" because I am a conservative?
 
What word should I use then?  
 
What exactly are your objections?  Can you describe this intelligently without the body slams?
Robert Wendell Added Sep 3, 2017 - 12:48pm
Typical of your "logic", Stockton. Where did I object to your use of the word "truth"? You just made this up in your own mind. I put "truth" in quotations referring to exactly what your objection to postmodernism was. The idea that each person has his own "truth" worthy of respect regardless of how stupid and bogus is what you objected to in your comment. I agree with you that there is no such individually fabricated "truth", hence the quotation marks.
 
Your subtle powers of discrimination are indeed a wonder. Read my comment again with your head screwed on and ask yourself just exactly how you can justify your wildly mindless response.
William Stockton Added Sep 3, 2017 - 3:32pm
Wendell.  You make me laugh.
So you agree with what I wrote (there is objective truth) and then called me "witless" and "stupid".  LOL
OMG haha
 
Again I ask you, what are your objections to what I wrote?  Can you answer that without insults like "head screwed on" or "mindless response"?  
 
So much hate wendell.  
William Stockton Added Sep 3, 2017 - 4:13pm
And for the record Wendell, I never said that there is no such individually fabricated "truth".  I don't know how you can agree to something I never said.  HAHA   There obviously is an individually fabricated truth.  That is called personal belief.
 
LOL -- this just keeps getting better.  Try not to get distracted.  Please answer my question above.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 3, 2017 - 8:41pm
Stockton says, "...what are your objections to what I wrote?  Can you answer that without insults like 'head screwed on' or 'mindless response'?"
 
Good grief, Stockton. Those terms refer to your response to my comment on your comment. It has nothing to do with your comment, but your reply to my comment on it. So how can I answer a question that has nothing to do with anything I said or referred to?
 
What do you do, put my words from both comments in a blender and then interpret the result according to whatever you randomly decide to believe about what I say or think? You clearly don't understand what I write despite its relatively amazing clarity (until it ends up inside your head). I'm not inclined to waste my time with that kind of incoherent craziness.
William Stockton Added Sep 4, 2017 - 12:24am
"Those terms refer to your response to my comment on your comment. It has nothing to do with your comment, but your reply to my comment on it."
Oh my lord.  Bravo!  Bravo!  I could read that 50 times and not have understood it.  You, sir, have such a supreme intellect that you are able to write such brilliant statements which nobody can understand.   Wow, you once again have proved yourself correct!
 
"You clearly don't understand what I write despite its relatively amazing clarity (until it ends up inside your head)"
You are right.  Such amazing clarity until it ends up in my head.  LOL
 
Joking aside.  I had my doubts you would be willing to explain.  If you were confused about my question, you could have asked . . . and you didn't.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 4, 2017 - 1:42am
Uh, duh, sure, genius! Has it occurred to you that intelligent people can actually see for themselves how clear what I wrote is and how utterly twisted and nutty your replies are? You have to log in to write articles and comments or recommend, but anyone can read what we write. You seem to be so clueless you have no idea how stupid your understanding of simple English has been. Ten-four over and out! No wonder you believe any horse stuff the right sells you. You even eat your own stuff.
William Stockton Added Sep 4, 2017 - 10:05am
"You have to log in to write articles and comments or recommend, but anyone can read what we write."
lol!
 
target="_blank">Gad Saad posted a video about intellectual imposters (you).  Those who write barely comprehensible nonsense.  When people question the text, those authors refuse to (actually can't) explain and accuse others of intellectually inferiority and insult (also you).  His video identifies you perfectly.  
 
By the way . . .  Gad Saad is a lefty.  I listen to and read him regularly.  He is great!  He is a very accomplished author and professor of science (human behavior).  He has identified a neurological malady affecting the left (and you) today.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 4, 2017 - 11:01am
Sure, Stockton. Whatever you want to think.

Recent Articles by Writers Wick Burner follows.