Eternal Life- Metaphysical Musings

Thus far all my posts have dealt with only terrestrial and secular concerns.  However, this one will be pondering on things of spiritual, religious, metaphysical nature.  This one might be considered a little "out there."  You can call it crazy if you want, you can skip reading it if you want.

Cosmic forces, space-time continuum.
One major thing I suppose needs to be addressed and gotten out of the way first thing.  The human mortal life is not immortal.  There is no way to make your current human mortal life never-ending, with your date of birth, and your family, and your home that you live in.  So get that out of your head right now.  That is not possible.  Your physical body will rot and deteriorate and decompose.  This is chemically and medically established as fact.

What we are talking about here is the abstract, immortal, eternal soul, that which gives your physical body life.

the one about Fullmetal Alchemist.  --and howw, the soul is being chipped away at, bit by bt, with every [passing]lifetime.

only an intact soooul can go on [[transcend, move ot the next level__]] to the afterlife.[[to the next life.]] <=the problem with this [[attempt, aproach__]] is that every time they leave and finish off one mortal lifetime, [[every time they administer this procedure,, the soul has__ must do a hard break, a hard splice, from that mortal life, and must quickly find another mortal life to which to attach.]]

This is synthetic reincarnation.  This places an enormous demand on the soul to have to [[jum poff, skip off from the current mortal life, to get to the next mortal life.  Due to the neergy and effort required to [[renew, recycle__]] the soul, a pice of it disintegrates.  that is the payment that is exacted from the soul.  this payment is demanded by the space-time continuum, cosmic forces, the universe, the multiverses.

however, the soul cannot regenerate in this manner.  they soul is not cpaable to_
-the sould cannot truly last foreer.  it has a finite number of lives that it [[can offer, nonon,]]__  its pieces, its exisence, can only offer mortal lives with flesh-and-blood bodies a limited  number of chances.  wait, non, it's the other way around.  the flesh and blood bodiess can only offer the *soul* a finie nmber of extensions to exist in the physical realm.

by the time the univeres ends, and we are all ushered into the next life__  unfortuaenyle, this soul that has been life-hopping is not [[qualified, adequate__suitable, -eligible]]]] to be welcomed in with the rest of us.

So it tunrs out that th esoul has actually been inadveretenly harming itself the wole entire time.
it was sort of just biding its time, simpyl delaying thte inevitable.  the soul's plan has backfiresd dramaticdally.  ___after a certain number of times, the soul ceases to exist.  it has been deteriorating piece by piece.

hmmm...  some important notes.  one does not even necesarily hve to use up all the pieces of the soul to be rendered ineligible from moving on to the afterlife.  doing this process meerly once automatically disqualifies the sould from beign eligible from having an afterlife.  because due to that one synthetic reincarnation, the soul has had a piece chipped off.

the sould jumpign from one body to another  - takes up a bit of the sould asi it leaves each body behind.  each time it leaps to a new body away from an existing one,  it leaves a pice chunk fragment of the body behind.   lke the sprinkling suet on the sacales to get a trace evidence of what was weighed, gold.

so every time the douls leaps to a new body, it dies a little. a piece of it dies. it has to.  that's the price to pay for jumping ot a new bod. no nowait am in, that's a bad way of prhsasing it.   eventually renering the sould dead once it jumps to enough((too many)) bodies.
so it is impossible to succeed in etrernal life in that way.  preciselfly __becasue__ of the method that it is conducted.  so if one tries to jump frm one body to another, the soul will eventually be eaten away,, piece by piece.  It will eventually disintegrate + vanish into dust bit by bit, and will no longer exist.

no sould will reamin at the end, it will be used up completely, bc thtath's what the proces requries.  it's like simple chemsitry turing matter into other matter, or rather, thermondynamics.  Turning matter into energy.  or actually, simple exchange or addition/subtraction reaction.  the pice of sould that is used turns into another life/body jump.  and once ou do it once, that takes away, or uses aup a piece of the sould, and that only little bit is enough to disqualify the sould from getting into heaeven.

to force the sould to work that hard and to do that many crazy jumsp, actually even once, will render thes sould finite and will _Not_ qualitfy it for a chance to get into heaven.  bc by the time judgemtn day comes, there weiill be no sould left.  it will ahalll have been used up just triyint to jump from on eobdy to another next.

So..  The only way to gain eternal life...    is to die.

Into Nothingness- Sigh, Nope, Not Buying It

I got this one from "Harry Potter," and I have been beating my brains out trying to justify this in the realms of logic and philosophy, etc.  Ultimately, I am not convinced.  My title of this essay gives away my final verdict on this mush.

So, I managed to come up with a good explanation as to how "when an object vanishes, where does it go, into nothingness, that is to say, into everything."

water dewdrops in teh morning when the temperature drops, thereby decreasing the absorbing abilities (property) of the air in atmospthere.  the water comes out of the air (like a hole, or a tiny riptear in the atmosphere gases, allowing water to come out of this other tiny "universe" to settle + take residence in big glob droplets in this universe.) __so it has to come out of it(air), to be in it(air).

(analogous congruent to sugar dissolving in water. has to come "out of" water to be observed IN water.)

if every single person reserves a best-selling book such as harry potter, but the bookstore has only a finite number of copies, well then the books become like regular again, and are no longer really reserved status.

if every single medical specimen with tests is a STAT, then one can only do them process them in order, or one specimen at a time, so they essentially relinquish STAT status.

everything + nothing.  like if someone says ,"oh, my home is everywhere.  my home is weherever I stay over, crash for the night. so in short my home is everywhere around the worl.d."  bs.  if their home is everywehre, that means thier hone ois nowerher,.  they don't tryly have thier own home, they don't truly have a place that is a base, a rock, a solid foudnatin, a touch-base place they go to recharge, a place thye can truly call thier own and say they belong and are the leader kingqueen of the castle.

like, to broadcast the whole entire pbs special absu fams , would have to be braodcast on ALL channels at allt the exact same time. othersiwed, if it is only baodcast on this changel at tihs time, and at this channel at other time, then all a erson would have to do to ignore avoid it is switch to antoher channel that istnt playing it at a time that one channle in question IS cplaying it. bc by definition, if it is staggered braodacast playing on different channgels, then there are some times when it is one the air, that another channel chooses for it NOT to be on the air.  soetheir attack them from all angles every poss angle, or none at all.

more absrract , ie, less definite. when entering another dimension universe, an object could go all over the other universe.

but all universes are essentially, truly, existing within the fabric and particles very next to each other. so truly, in order for an object to dispappear into another universe, it owuld have to disspiate and be spread out evenly thorugout that uiverse, broken down into elementary particels, to be able to survive in that other universe and still be an intact object able to be retrieved and reassembled upon return into this universe (the univ of its origins).  preserve the integrity of the object.

so by implication, bc it owuld disintegrate temporaily [for the time being] in that other uinverse, and all its particles would be touching all the parts of that other universe, and all parts of that universe are touching all congruous/counterpart parts of this universe, therefore in essence, the object is existing everywhere in this universe.

object goes into other universe -->
object disintegrates, touching all parts of other universe -->
other universe all parts are touching this universe all parts -->
object is touching all parts of this universe.
But the object isn't really existing in this universe, is it?  it is actually existing in the other universe.  This is only a philosophical explanation of "nothingness, therefore everything-ness."
or you could say, the intact whole object is not existing => this is the "nothingness."  but considering the most sub-sub-subatomic parts of matter -strings- they can travel unharmed through/between universes, therefore the object can creep back in to this universe in this "prime-factorization" form.

Sigh.  Look, I am trying my gosh-darned damnedest to make this make sense, but I'm just not buying it.  Or as the idiotic trying-to-emulate-the-lowest-socioeconomic-class-of-blacks suburban kids say, I'm just not feeling it.

It just sounds too contrived and far too reaching.  This is trying to grasp desperately at straws, trying to force this idiotic theory to make sense in spite of the fact that it simply does not make sense.  I wonder if J. K. Rowling just pulled this one out of her butt.  No doubt, she has many philosophical declarations in her books that strike em out of the ballpark.  But she didn't have a winner with this one.

This is trying to squeeze out some deep-sounding philosophical pondering out of a silly amateurish bumper sticker "it is nowhere, therefore it is everywhere." It has all the profoundness of a melted ice cube.

Inspiration, Action, And Doing Good For The Community (As Inspired By TV)

Okay, this one is going to be a bit silly, because it is inspired by two TV shows.  But I hope you'll listen.

As silly as it sounds, I see what the little animal figurines mean when they say, "because you listen."  This is from the show Wonderfalls, which was allowed to air about four episodes back in 2004 and then tragically had its life cut short.  The show was cancelled because TV executives have the sort of taste that would have gotten them stoned to death in Biblical times.

I happened upon a theory of worldview (deciphering, figuring things out) while watching the TV show Dead Like Me.  This show is from the same creator as Wonderfalls; Dead Like Me actually aired a few years prior.  But I am glad I got to watch them in the chronology that I did, because things made more sense this way.  Luckily I have been able to find full episodes on the internet.

well, there are many deaths all the time, everywhere.  so there are many reapers everywhere.  but we can't see them all.  the show focuses on the 4 or five within this one particular district(precinct).

so anyway, tha animals are the same.  work along the same concept (or team organization, rather) as the reapers.  there must be numerous little animals that supervise small groups, and the group members have to carry out good deeds. which got me questioning.   why is Jaye the only one who can hear them? why aren't there more people doing good deeds in other satellite branches?  there's so much to be done.  there's so much that _could_ be done.  in the same (district/precinct, similar to how the death reapers have jurisdictions that they work within the same local area).

more to the point, there are only a few things that Jaye is required to do. understandable, a human can only do so much. but I am sure there are a _lot_ of good deeds that needed to be done even in that small area.  Jaye couldn't poss have covered them all herself.  why aren't there more good deeds to be done in the localized area network?

and the answer is, there _are_ good deeds (many more of them).  there _are_ more animals who would very much like to recruit more humans to carry out these good Samaritan, selfless, humanitarian acts.  unfortunately for them, Jaye is I<the only one who listens.>I

so, let us further investigate the questions of, why don't the litle animals operate the same way as the reapers?  I'm sure the reapers take care of ALL the deaths in the area.  all of the potential deaths have to be taken care of 100%.  there is no skipping out, sleeping on the job, no "sorry I have to be somewhere."  none escape the reapers'(notice).

this is not how the little animals work.  Jaye is only told to do as many as she can handle. and as for all the other potential good deeds that go undone, unnoticed, ignored, forgotten, oh well.  force people to do it whether they want to or not?  because death is the equalizer __. 

death _has_ to be done.  On the other hand, this good deeds is a matter of free will, unfortunately.  (just so we're clear, the too many good deeds [J only being given as many as she can handle, which is only a few in the area] is NOT Jaye's fault. the reapers also, if you'll notice, are only given as many as they can handle. divide that by the number of deaths that need to be covered, and if you've done your math correctly, you'll see that there are many, many reapers, all over the world. this is confirmed by the tv show.)

so in conclusion, there have to be many, many reapers to cover the many many deaths.  but there do NOT have to be many, many good-deed-doers to do all the many, many good deeds
+-+-+-
and another question is, if it's so damn important, why don't the animals just do it themselves? because, through humans is the only way it can be done.  they're big enough, they're strong enough, yda.
and why through the channel of little animals?

because ___ has to disperse it this way.  it has to be un-everyday (unique, unordothox) enough that humans will actually pay attention, to take the time to take notice of it.

Evolution And Behavior As Affected By Environment, Climate, Physical Environment

http://www.uwgb.edu/chancellor/FYI/april05FYI.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/humanorigins/writing.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ForestDesert.htm

Interesting theory -- that the desert, with its absolutes of life and death, fosters the development and study of absolute disciplines such as science and math.

This makes sense-- in the desert if people are note absolutely careful, meticulously rationing water and other food supplies, they will die.  Likewise, in studying science and math, you're either right or you're wrong.  There is no wiggle room for bs.  Whereas lushly vegetated areas tend to coddle and baby people, offering them the luxury of not having to accept any absolute truths.

But hang on a minute.  This does not really make sense.  I think the author is confusing two very different concepts with each other.

So how do the ancient cultures of the Mayans and Aztecs fit into this?  The climate that they inhabited was primarily tropical forest.  Yet they had a remarkably accurate calendar; and had indoor plumbing running water.  They had very sophisticated civilizations.

A cruel, unsympathetic desert would only allow its inhabitants to comprehend life and death.  the only thing they would have the patience for, and indeed the inclination for, is to simply survive.

Beginner, rudimentary mathematics and science are concrete, hardscore, and conducive to basal life.  Such as 1+1.  Or, "don't eat this berry, it's poison."  That is not really an academically sophisticated discipline.

People who are trying to eerk out a hardscrabble living, just trying to survive in an unforgiving clime, are not going to have time to pursue lofty, higher-order modes of intellectualism such as science and mathematics.  People who had to fight off deadly glaring sun from turning them into a crisp-- are not going to prioritize any studying or scholarly pursuits, endeavors_]]].  you think someone trying to grow wheat in a harsh snow desert is going to be concerned with learned, erudite endeavors?

To desert populations that lived in harsh, unforgiving climates,, the best course of action indefinitely was to make sure they kept themselves from burning or starving to death.  They had to devote all their energy towards making sure they did not die.  They hunted, sure.  They found shelter, sure.  But that is not science.  That is following basic instincts of survival.

for eg.g,::: [[case in point]]  rationing food and water is not exactly higher-level thinking.  it is a simple matter of dividing.  they had to make sure every member of the tribe got enough food to survive.
They did not entertain more lofty ideas such as scientific theory.  __--scientific process requires patience, painstaking attention to minute detail.  I seriously doubt they prioritized__

--they did not have time or energy to devote to higher orders of thinking.  they were too busy just trying to survive.

[[[good, expert,,__]]] knowledge in any given scientific discipline requires extended education for a reason.
a peson can only __ ifff devote__ ample time towards thinking and contemplating, pondering the universe's mysteries profoundly.  A person can only do this if their basic needs of food, water, survival, and shelter are already met.  A person does not have time to waste on discovering the existence of bacteria if they are starving.  The only thing on their mind would be finding sustenance.
A person can only dedicate years of their life towards cerebral goals if they have all their basic needs of survival already met.  If their house is collapsing, on the other hand, they are not going to concern themselves with such bookish, egghead conceits.
If someone's house collapses, they learn that they need to rebuild it more strongly, with sturdier columns and supporting structures, foundations, and framework.  That is not science.  That is common sense.

Hmm...  Astounding revelation.  it seems that this guy is displaying certain patterns in his thinking -- the same patterns I detected a few years ago.  Middle-class whites think that just because mathematics and science are absolute disciplines, this automatically means those are easier to understand than fluid, elusive, abstract studies like philosophy, psychology, flip-flopping on political views, etc.  Not concrete.

I am finding that this kind of reinforces what I have been saying for years.  Too many people think that because science deals in absolutes (unlike philosophy or creativity), this must mean it is easy to understand or that technology is easy to innovate.  they think that because science has definite answers with clear demarcations of right and wrong, that this must not require any more intelligence than securing a clean, dry, free-from-marauding-lions cave [[[stable, safe place]]] in which to live.

This guy here simply took that line of thinking [[[interpretation]]]] one step further.  He, unfortunately for him, thinks that people living in a harsh atmosphere where their basic survival is not guaranteed from one day to the next, would somehow be able to grasp concepts of sine, cosine, and tangent.

Nope.  hwere people must fight for their survival,
sciecne deals in aboslutes, suyre.  [[[smth abut learnging the theory behind the common sense observances.
A person cannot just stumble upon ideal gas laws if they are worried [preoccupied]]] about whether they will be able to eat dinner that day.

+
also an interesting talking point --  in this essay, the author asserts that large environmental factors such as climate and population density, are factors that shape human behavior, evolution of technology, and therefore paths of history.
+
Note that both credit external factors contributing to a person's behavior.  Neither says anything about the innate goodness or badness in an individual person.

++++++++++++++++++
all this hemming and hawing this guy does over wondering why matristic societies survive or come to existence at all - .  he says other philosophers argue that matristic societies are more evolved bc they are too patient and forgiving and do war-protest sitouts.  he argues that patristic societies should exist more bc they ensure the physcial survival of all individuals, albeit a harsh, suppressed, rigidly controlled civ.  this "quandary" can be solved in a simple statement.  duh!  humans are _struggling_ with the conflict between their more primitive attributes and their more evolved characteristics. that's all it is.  we are caught in both, belonging entirely to neither.  sometimes we think that the more mushy interpretation is the solution to life's problems, and sometimes we think the more violent, confrontational behavior is the solution.  we as humans, homo sapiens, are not expert enough in either type of behavior.  we cannot control and [precision] our violent urges, and we cannot keep ourselves from making the mushiness too extreme.

*[most human beings will not achieve this in their lifetimes.  we cannot; we are unable to; it is not in the "pantheon" [repertoire] of human abilities.  in 500,000 years of human existence, no human has ever accomplished this.  not while living, walking on this physical earth.  the only way to truly achieve peace and harmony with the soul, finding a resolution between the spiritual soul and raw, instinct.  reconcile between the two halves of the human soul, to [connect] this apparent dichotomy, these two opposite extremes of the human characterization spectrum. ...is to die.

I've Noticed A Lot Of Things About Marriage

I've noticed that my own thoughts and opinions on some things have changed.  This is regarding my emotions, the way I react to certain things and react to certain situations.

in all honesty, maybe it's not necessarily for the better in the grans scheme of things in reagrds to the greater cosmic forces of good and evil, in the space-time equilibria.  but it does direclty impact my relationship and my newfound role in life, the way I have to adapt now to relating to all these new people that are now suddently key people in my life.  but it is personal (but to give details wiil show too much about our family drama), and I would like to respect some of our privavcy, so I will not give any detaisl.   ((((i'm talking aobut the, it's not about the bs that people spew from time to time about, oh do the right thing, stand up for justice or some other claptrap liek that.  it is about taking sides. and actually, talking your wife's side at all times _is_ the right thing.  at the end of the day, litera and figuraltievelyk, yoru wife is the perosn you go home to. your wife is the person you have to live with, spend the most time with.  so I suggest that the right thing to do, the _wise_ thing to do, is take your wife's sifde.  lok at the greater pictre, look at the big picture.

I realize thisi is not necessarily better for overcoming social illsl  injustice, simply taking someones's side, like for esxaple a court trial jury should not take any sides.  they are supposed to be impartial, umbiased, make logical rational decisions based on lopgic , reasonsoing, and keep their personal neuroses preferences and hang-ups out of the courtrrom. or liek that one episeode wehre the big gy asked, whose sldie asre you  on, and hte blonde layd sayid, I didnt' realize evidence took sides.

and Im aware it doesn ont always work.  if it is a big thing like your relative or bestest friends is agaisnts the civil rights movemtn, you should do the right thinkg, and do not simply take sides just 'cause taht is your bestest freirnd.

like that episode of zebna where her baby dady stood for the right thing, sttod for justice and took the opposing side in a war bc it was the right side, and did not supprot esxxana bc her side was the wrong side even though they got knocked up.

I was just a huge advocate for taking sides.  in all materrs of the family, pick a side.  the one that you are closer to.  I realized how importatn this was, how essential it was to hold your immediate family together in commuity, and in that instant I realized-slash-decided that all that bs about impartial unsided unopinionated social dealings(activism) do-the-right-thing crap flew and crashed out the window. no. that is no longer the matter.  the most important thing is taking sides.  but I have cooled down a bit and mellowed since then. ))))

oh, we've been tested.  all sorts of shit, in-laws being a great factor.  (in this tangled web we call life.)

Marriage Is A Grown-Up Commitment

A big to-do about how, in marriage, you have made a commitment. You have chosen to be with this person.  You have to mature, you have to grow up.  It's not the same as it is with your parents.   If it's your parents, you can just walk away, or just get of your parents' house out and drive back to your own damn apartment.

It's not the same with marriage.  You cannot just walk out or leave, or more to the point, you _ should_ not just walk out and leave.

When we first began our married life together. (I think this was after the honeymoon phase.)  When I first moved out here, I kept thinking to myself, if my spouse messes up the slightest bit even once, I'll leave.  I'll go back the hell to SC and just stay with my parents until I can get back on my feet.  I'm sure they'll take me in.  But then I realized that my husband has been so wonderful.  And more importantly, I began seeing him as a human being.  you can't just abandon a human being, not a wonderful, sweet caring, understanding one that you have started a life with, one that you made a commitment to being together.  It is wrong to just leave.

That depressed me at first.  But then I realized something.  Since I had made a commitment to stay with this guy, this works both ways.  Since you have to face this person every day, you have to be honest with each other about everything.  And you have to be strong and confident enough in the relationship that you can say whatever you need to, to each other.  To keep the communication open.  To keep the relationship trusting and honest.

I'm talking in circles, aren't I?  Here's what I mean.  If I got mad when I thought I could just leave any time (just leave the next day), I would shut off cold and not say anything.  Not have expression of myself.  My reasoning was, why not?  That's exactly how I conducted all my relationships with people.  And plus, it was that feeling of, "Forget it. It's not important."

But then I found myself thinking, "no.  That's NOT how I want to start this one."  That's not how I want my marriage to be.  I don't want to shut off and bottle up resentment inside me for longer and longer until it explodes and one day I just get completely fed up.  But then I thought, we HAVE to be honest with each other.  We HAVE to be open, and we have to keep the communication open at all times.  Otherwise the relationship will go sour.  And I don't want to make that mistake yet another time the way I did with friendships or family relationships in the past.

Once I realized this is for real, this isn't just kids' stuff, this is grown-up stuff (or rather, I have to be a grown-up now), then I simply made myself grow up.  I forced myself to realize that I made a commitment.  And I'm not leaving.  I will stay here and work things out.  Isn't that the point of marriage?  You two made a commitment to each other.   You have to honor that commitment, and you have to work through the hard times.

(one day your death will affect him, and his death will affect you.) (blah blah balhs)
[[[[[[it was gorgeous, it was beatufiul. .she packed so much power, so much impact, into one short story.]]]]]

Worse than Racism

Necessity is the mother of invention, for better or for worse

This will sound

What with all the liberal nutbags diluting the word racism, screeching and screaming and misusing the word anytime they see something they mildly disagree with.  Unfortunately they are taking away its true meaning.  They are taking away the word's power, which is NOT AT ALL like taking away the power of a derogatory word like the n-word (don't look at me like that, I'm not black.)

A word like racism is supposed to call out true injustice wherever it lurks.  A word like racism is supposed to ___

With this word being thrown around like cheap confetti, it essentially renders it meaningless.  You have to pay for your food.  That’s racism!  You have to have the minimum qualifications and skills to be hired for a job.  That’s racism!  Teenagers should not be having sex, but if they do, at least use birth control so these juveniles with bad judgment don’t reproduce.  That's racism!  Stop selling drugs.  That's racism!  Study for your SATs.  That's racism!

No doubt, real racism does truly exist.  Job discrimination, education discrimination, apathy and ignorance from law enforcement.  Inaction, frozenness, carelessness.

But those are not the worst crimes that black people fall prey to.  The world is a sick, filthy, vile, nasty place.  And there are evils terrors far worse than those trivial petty irritations that befall people of color from time to time.  Lynching is but one.  Hate crimes.

I'm not even going to bother writing them all down.  I think 99.999% of the people reading this know exactly all the things I am talking about.

We need a word beyond just "racism" to describe things that are actual crimes against blacks and other people of color.  "R-A-C-I-S-M," like I said, is so watered down that it does not mean much anymore.  So I truly feel that it does not really apply to many situations in which an actual violation of human rights has occurred.

There are actual violations of someone's right to bodily autonomy.

"Racism" is not accurate enough.  It is not serious enough.  It does not truly convey the sick, soulless, depravity of any moral fiber that would have to be prerequisite to committing those atrocious acts.  These are crimes against humanity, crimes against nature.

I really like Wilhelmina Slater from "Ugly Betty."  Hehe, Wilhelmina Slater.  The only woman I know who can make that heels-tapping-on-the-wooden-floor noise while wearing tennis shoes.