Musings

Musings (That you may or may not find amusing)

By Robert McBride

Musings (So Far) (and poetic interludes)

Contemplation

Here I sit contemplating my navel
Thinking how to arrange the socks in my drawer
When all the sudden the urge to rave’ll
Hit me so hard that I let out a roar
And put my feet on the ground and walk out the door

To see the wonder of all creation
And ponder how and why we’re alive
And my mind gets filled with doubt and elation
About our place in the cosmos and whether we will survive
And just about then is when my grandchildren arrive

And all thoughts of my navel …

I - Genesis: The root of all evils.

Adam & Eve: a fairy tale with unintended consequences

People actually believe it, literally. Same thing for the rest of Genesis, which is just a poetic creation story. Days? What was a day? God created the universe? Ok, maybe, but not like this.
Adam & Eve and the apple & the serpent? Why do we suffer and die? Original sin? Look what we have done with this childish story! This is loaded with problems. At least, to some degree, this story was intended to explain why a good God could allow evil and suffering and death. How could He create such things? We know they exist; where did they come from? Well, they came from this nasty old devil (serpent) who was created by … who? And Adam and Eve were tricked by this serpent (actually Eve was and Adam went along – bad girl that Eve; fooling good old Adam) and they ate the apple (that is a pretty deceptive God) and were banished from the Garden of Eden and lost their perpetual youth and brought on death and suffering.
Thus, evil was introduced into the world but it was not God’s fault, it was man’s (and woman’s) fault that they would want to eat from the tree of knowledge (of good and evil). Seems that God preferred them to remain childish and ignorant.
So many things come from and are based on this childish creation story. The most pernicious element is the concept of original sin; that each and every human born since the time of Adam is a sinner, guilty in the eyes of God at birth. No such thing as an innocent baby or child; they are all guilty and damned from the moment of conception. Jesus is referred to as the second Adam. The entire premise of Christianity is actually based on this story. Jesus as Redeemer who had to die for our sins to make up for the fact that Adam took a bite of an apple. Jesus, a real person, born to undo what an unreal person did.
How can that go wrong? God kills His Son to redeem mankind. How can this make any sense? Redeem from what?
Did the death of Jesus eliminate death and restore us to everlasting life? Obviously, it did not do it for this life on earth.
Did all the people who lived between Adam and Jesus just die with no chance of everlasting life?
Did all of the people who lived after Jesus but were not exposed to the teachings of Christianity just die with no chance of everlasting life?
Are all men created equal? Are all men (and women) created in the image and likeness of God?
Could Jesus have been both God and man? If so, what was the real sacrifice of His death if He knew it was just a temporary interruption?
Is there really a Blessed Trinity? One God in three forms? How can this be?
So many questions. We are told they are mysteries. The real mystery is why we would believe them. How many times do we have to abandon our own sense of truth and reality to appease God and the people who pick themselves to represent Him?
The Catholic version of the Apostle’s Creed follows. It is based on the Genesis story.

I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Sorry, I just can’t do it. Too much can and has gone wrong from believing in this fairy tale and building a web of mysteries to support that this story as literally true.

Where does that leave us? Well, someone in early Judaism dreamt up this creation story from their fertile imagination and their understanding of how we got here and why. Jesus, as a Jewish person, was raised with the story of Genesis in his upbringing. I do not think that Jesus actually tried to create the religion that has become Christianity in any or all of its forms. I do not think Jesus ever claimed to be the Son of God any more than any other person who he said should pray “Our Father.”

In fact, there is no proof that Jesus was even literate; it would have been unusual for a person in his position to be able to read and/or write. But I do think that Jesus had wonderful insights into what God was and was not like and what God wanted humans to be like. Where did these insights come from? Where did the Buddha’s insights come from? Where do your insights come from? And here I mean your own personal insights, not those that you have been taught and told to adopt. The insights of Jesus were shocking and dangerous and transformative because they were not in line with what he was taught. They were honest and courageous and beautiful and terrifying. And they were memorable! The people he shared them with could not forget them and they changed the way they lived their lives. And they changed the way we live our lives.

Where does your understanding of good and evil come from? Do you feel good when you do a kind deed? Do you feel bad when you do an unkind deed? If so, why? If not, why? Do you think there is a God/Creator? Do you think there is a purpose to your life? Do you think there is a purpose for humanity? Do you think that your insights on these questions represent the insights of all humanity or just your own? Answer these questions for yourself honestly and then write your own Genesis story. But don’t believe in it literally. Just use it to help you deal with difficult questions that we really don’t know the answers to. And don’t force your Genesis story on anyone else. It could be, as Van Morrison said, “it just is.”

II - Genesis Reconsidered: The wild card of creation.

We don’t really know how and why it started; creation of our known universe, that is. Current thought is that it occurred some 14 billion years ago in a single event that we call “The Big Bang.” Unfortunately, like most of the things we become aware of and think we know, the Big Bang spawns more questions than answers. How do we estimate 14 billion years when there was no earth for about 8-10 billion of those “years” so it was clearly not orbiting our sun (which is how we measure a year). And there are theories that speculate that we are but one of a vast number of universes making up a multi-verse. And, of course, we are limited in what we can “see” in the cosmos by our senses and probably by our intellects.

So after that disclaimer, let me talk about some things we can see and may be able to understand. First, we are part of something that is so vast in space and time that we probably cannot fully grasp it. Second, our very existence is miraculous and, rather than take it for granted, we should be in complete awe and relish the amazing things we are able to do and the ability to be aware of ourselves and the wonders around us. It is also natural to wonder how and why it exists. And because we are aware of ourselves and our surroundings, it is natural for us to wonder if it is all about us. For most of recorded history (which is just a tiny bit of universal time) that is what we have assumed and believed. And it is natural that we would think there was a beginning because everything we know of has a beginning. So if there was a beginning it could be that it was created and if it was created there could be a creator. We have referred to this possible creator in different ways but, in the West, it is common to call the creator God. I will not use that term because it is loaded. It is often given a sex by calling it God the father. This is rooted in our own human experience (especially if you are from a paternal society). If there is a creator I will refer to it as the creative force.

Is there anything we can know about the creative force? Maybe not, but if there is, I think it would be revealed by what was created. It may even be revealed by how life and things evolved. If we believe that a creative force put the whole thing in motion, do we think it is possible that the creative force had a plan for how that motion would evolve? I think so. If not, how can there be such order in the universe and how have creatures like us come to be? The odds are incredibly stacked against us even existing on this beautiful planet. And we may see ourselves as the culmination of creation, the highest point and the purpose. But that may not be true. We should just be thankful to be and to be aware.

But we should be careful with and respectful of the many other creatures and things, both animate and inanimate, which make up our world and reside on or near the earth. We certainly depend on them for our very existence. And we should keep in mind that those non-human life forms and those inanimate objects would be able to exist and survive quite nicely without us (humans) in their world but we humans could not survive without them. I am including things like air and water in the mix but also things like plants and animals and rocks and soil and ozone layers and atmospheres. Really, I am saying that earth and all its inhabitants and properties, the whole ecosystem, can get along fine without humans. But, of course, humans cannot get along without the ecosystem. In a very real sense, the earth is our Garden of Eden but the creative force will not expel us. We may expel ourselves by making it uninhabitable.

Is it possible that when the creative force got things started we were part of the plan? That would be amazing and wonderful. It could mean that there is some purpose to our lives. If there is a purpose to our lives, what is it? And how are we supposed to fulfill that purpose? Are we each unique with our own specific talents and weaknesses, as some modern thought puts forth, or are we each part of some natural class of humans that is meant to fulfill some specific role or purpose, such as soldier or philosopher or laborer or hunter or gatherer or ruler or priest as was assumed during much of recorded history?

Is there some over-arching purpose that all of humanity has in common, some reason that our species exists, and each of our separate talents and abilities is meant to fit together to allow humans to achieve that purpose? If there is no over-arching purpose for mankind and there is no unique purpose for each human being that comes from the creative force, should humans use their intellects to come up with those purposes? (Do no harm)

When we look around us we see systems. We see the ecosystem. We see the solar system and we see natural systems that we describe as laws of physics. We see plants and animals and we see how they rely on each other for their survival. We see ants and bees and other creatures with different functions that they perform for the good of the entire colony or hive. As far as we know, they perform these roles without question or decision as to whether they should be doing that role or something else. In fact, in the plant and animal kingdoms (other than humans), we are not aware of too many questions being asked or decisions being made. As far as we know, humans are the only creatures on this planet that are thinking outside of the moment and making choices that are intended to affect them outside the present moment. These choices also affect other humans and the other beings and elements on the earth. Therefore, humans may be the wild card that the creative force did not count on or, perhaps, that the creative force intentionally allowed to alter the path of creation. Regardless of whether the creative force intentionally or unintentionally allowed humans to alter the path of what was created, humans have the power to do it.

Let’s say that humans were allowed to have free will and that gave them the ability to alter or participate in the path of creation for themselves and the planet. For good or for bad, when humans became aware and became capable of thoughts of yesterday and tomorrow and how they could influence tomorrow by what they did today, the course of creation was up for grabs.

Humans ate from the tree of knowledge and the timeless world of right now was replaced by the world of limited tomorrows. We became aware of our own mortality. We opened Pandora’s Box and the innocence of living by our instincts under the natural law was replaced by plans and decisions and choices where some could be good and some bad, some selfish and some selfless, some right and some wrong, some effective in the moment but not effective over time. In any case, the ability to drive our thoughts and actions ourselves rather than be driven by instinct changed everything. We were blameless and free from guilt when we were not responsible for making the choices.

As time passed and we made more and more choices and these choices had more and more impact on our own lives and the lives of others (and of the planet), humans came up with notions of good and bad and right and wrong and codified them as laws and systems to guide our behavior. This effort is still a work in progress and the notions of right and wrong are still evolving. And as our impact on each other and the planet becomes more profound, the notions of right and wrong are becoming more complex and, at the same time, more important.

We have been struggling to deal with this awareness of our mortality and the ability to exercise free will ever since. The problem is we haven’t gotten very far, at least not in ways that are sure and certain. Some believe that the creative force has directly intervened in our human history to make the plan and expectations more clear. I suppose that could be true, although it is hard to understand how such an intervention would be done “fairly” for all humanity unless it was just pre-programmed into each of us. In fact, as long as any religious belief promotes the golden rule and is tolerant and accepting of other beliefs and does not feel that “God is only on their side” and that other belief systems are inferior, then I think it can be a positive force in people’s lives. And since our mortality and what, if anything, happens after we die is and has been something that has pre-occupied human thinking from earliest human days, maybe it is hard-wired in our humanity.

How we think about and react to these questions determines a lot about how we live our lives. Do we believe there is a purpose to our existence as humanity or as individuals or both? Is that purpose part of a plan of creation or is it something we humans should determine for ourselves, collectively or individually? Are all humans equal or are they not equal? If they are unique, how are they equal? If they are equal, how are they unique? Our daily experience makes it clear that we are all different from each other and our different experiences make it appear certain that we are all unique, at least on some level. Are these differences good or bad? Are they intentional or unintentional? Planned or unplanned? Right or wrong? Beautiful or ugly?

Are some of us mistakes, evolving in the wrong ways? Have we (humans) gotten in the way of the creative force and diverted the plan off course? Did the creative force give humanity too much credit? Did the creative force mess up when it allowed humans to be partners in creation? Does it show up in the way the planet is behaving? Does it show up in the way that humans behave?

These questions impact how we feel about real life questions and issues. Does human activity impact the environment? Should we modify the way we behave in order to protect our planet and preserve it for future generations? Do we believe in a creative force? Are we religious? Are we spiritual? Are we (humans) equal? Should we be equal? In what ways? Are we unique? Is it okay to be unique? What if that means you are truly “different” like transgender or autistic or bipolar or psychotic? (I am not equating these ways of being different; just asking). Do these differences come from our own choices and behavior or are they passed on from our genes or are they absorbed from our food or our culture or are they part of the plan of creation and how does the answer to that question influence how we view and deal with people who have these differences?

I guess that I think the Genesis story is still being written. It is the story of the creation of our world and I think it is still happening. I think that, for good or bad, humanity is playing a significant role in creating what our world will be in the years to come. We are a large force; the wild card of creation. I hope we don’t mess it up.

Dual Duel

God looked down through space and time
And saw twisted reason and crass rhyme

He reached out his mighty hand
And said “I’ll crush them into sand”

But she reached out her gentle arm
And said “They’re children, do no harm”

“They get things wrong, they get things right
They see the stars, but just at night

Their lives are full but they feel a void
They’re quite confused, don’t be annoyed”

“But we sent our son and his brothers too
And his sisters showed them what to do”

Every power that we give
Gives them a better way to live
     And a better way to kill
They just take it all for granted
Don’t value themselves or the planet
     Did we mess up on free will?

Every one we send to show them
They pretend that they don’t know them
     And they misconstrue what’s been said
The message always gets distorted
The simple truth goes unreported
     And some religion starts to spread

Do they think we want to be adored?
And have them give all they can afford
To some preacher that’s driven
To get power and wealth at our expense
Well that just makes no sense
They should just treasure
What they’re given

“Be patient, they’re learning to be aware
Maybe in time they’ll learn to share”
I hope so; they’re to build heaven there

III - Special Theory of Relativity (does e=mc2 mean we are special?)

It started with e=mc2. Some years ago I was having a discussion with a dear friend (Darrell Cauley) who is a scientist. I told him that I thought this was Einstein’s way of saying that there is a great deal of energy in matter. He replied that it was a specific formula and not an approximation. It was not meant to say “a whole lot” of energy but precisely how much energy.

For a number of reasons, this has troubled me for some time. How can it be? The big problem for me is that I assumed that this expression is supposedly universal; it applies to matter and energy throughout our universe. But all the numbers come from and are specific to Earth. Again, how can this be? Does it mean that Earth is an incredibly special place in the entire universe?

Let’s get back to the equation, if it really is one. How do we measure the different elements of the equation? I would contend that it is especially important to consider how we measure the speed of light, C. Since it is actually squared in the equation, its value must be even more important and specific.

Furthermore, we are told that the speed of light is always the same. It is the absolute fastest rate at which anything can travel. As something approaches the speed of light, a lot of strange things happen. Time slows down relative to someone or someplace not traveling at that speed. Yet we are told that if we were traveling at the speed of light, or close to that speed, and we were able to measure the speed of light relative to our speed, the measurements would still indicate that the light around us was traveling at the same constant rate as if we were not moving at all. How can this be? Anyway, perhaps I digress, although this bit about light may come back later.

Back to how we measure the speed of light. We measure it in earthly terms. Whether it is mph, feet per second, kilometers per hour, or furlongs per fortnight, any measure we use will relate to how long it takes our planet to circumnavigate our star and how often our planet revolves on its axis during that trip. As it happens, the speed used in the equation to represent C is 299,792,458 meters per second (or roughly 300 million mps). When you square this number you get “just under” 90 quadrillion. In fact, you get 89,875,517,900,000,000 which is only 124.482 trillion shy of 90 quadrillion. “Close enough for government work.”

It is such a huge number that it is hard to really comprehend it. But that is the number that you use to multiply times the amount of mass to equate to the energy associated with that mass.

When we start to look at the E (energy) and the M (mass) it gets a bit trickier because the E can be measured in different ways depending on how the energy is manifested. It can be measured in Newtons (the force required to accelerate an object with a mass of one kilogram 1 meter per second per second), Joules, kilowatt hours, BTU’s, whatever; depends on how the energy is manifested; heat, force, light, electromagnetism, whatever. Maybe they are all the same but energy, nonetheless.

As to the mass part (M) let’s just say kilograms. At the end of the 18th century a kilogram was the mass of a cubic decimeter of water. That is not its current definition but it was the starting point. Now it defines itself as itself. “The kilogram is a unit of mass; it is equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.” By the way, that prototype has a weight very close to that of a cubic decimeter of water.

The meter was originally intended to equal one ten-millionth of the length of the meridian from the North Pole to the equator (through Paris). That distance is one-quarter of the circumference of the Earth. Why was this distance chosen? I don’t know. You would have to understand the minds of late 18th century French scientists to know why it was chosen. But you cannot doubt that it was an Earth-based measure.

So let me come up for air and catch my breath. Where am I? We have an equation that is universal but whose measurements are all derived from this planet, Earth. I understand there are some concerns about whether the equation is correct. It is really just a simplified version that is only true under certain special circumstances. It requires that you use the speed of light through a vacuum (like space). The key constraint is that the equation only applies if the object (whose mass you are equating to energy) is not moving relative to you. As an object’s velocity increases relative to you the gamma gets higher and the energy increases. Okay, let’s restrict it to objects that are in one place on Earth, the place where we are making the measurement.

I personally do not find these limitations to be too limiting. The point is, in special situations the Earth still seems to be a special place in the universe. It still appears that there is an equation between mass and energy that is in relation to the square of a very earth-centric measurement of the speed of light, which itself is a universal constant.

This could be the place where that bit about the quirky nature of light that was mentioned earlier comes into play. Since the universe is expanding, could it be that there is some different rate of expansion for different parts of the universe? Could our solar system be traveling at a different speed than other systems in our galaxy? Could our galaxy be traveling at a different rate than other galaxies in our universe? Could there be other universes? Does each body in the universe (or universes) have its own amazing formula that can be derived from its own measurements of how it fits into its time and space? Are they all special? Is Earth special?

Let’s consider what would happen if the formula had been developed on another planet in our solar system, say Venus or Mars or Jupiter or Uranus. I will take a pass on Uranus because my head is probably already far enough up mine. Let’s pick Jupiter. How long does it take Jupiter to circumnavigate the sun? Does it spin on an axis? If so, how often does it spin over the course of one trip around the sun? How long would a Jupiter second be? How long would a Jupiter meter be? What is one ten-millionth of one quarter of the circumference of Jupiter? If you made all the calculations from a Jupiter-based reference point, would e=mc2?

I guess that I cannot adequately state the question let alone comprehend the answer in these terms. I can, however, answer the initial question to my own satisfaction. Is Earth “special?” YES. It is where we live and exist and are able to ponder our existence and be grateful for our existence and where we can try to understand and appreciate the beauty of all creation and that is what makes Earth special and that is what makes us special.

Relativity

I’m not sure how many people really cared
The day it was revealed that e doesn’t equal mc squared
But I have seen people become emotional wrecks
When they consider the relative size of their paychecks

Yes it’s true that blood pressures rise as do our emotions
When our paychecks stay the same and others get promotions
We never stop to think that if we’re doing the best we’re able
We can be content with what we’re doing to put food upon the table

To some degree we’ve fallen prey to the evil ad man’s greed
They’re alchemists who try to burn desires into a need
And if they find a potential flame, they look for ways to spark it
Next thing you know, we’ve become part of their target market

We’re naturally susceptible to the glamorous messages they tell us
Because there’s a common human trait that makes it easy to be jealous
We don’t often think for ourselves and are glad to let others do it
So when we’re told things make us happy, we’re ready to pursue it

So if the Joneses have it, we must keep up or stay ahead
Otherwise, we can’t be as happy, at least that’s what the ad man said
Are we really as stupid as we seem or is it just lack of trying
All the crap for which we dream just makes me feel like crying

If we really must look at others to gauge our own circumstance
Then think of all the things we’ve got and that except for chance
We could have been raised in outback China living life one day at a time
Or some drug lord from the projects for whom murder’s not a crime

But even those relative notions obscure our chance of seeing
It’s not about winning and losing, it’s all about the being
Here’s the law that seems apparent as regards relativity
The less it takes to make you happy, the happier you’ll be

IV - Response to my Relative on Relativity

I sent the musing titled Special Theory of Relativity to my wonderful, very smart daughter, Amy. In fact, I send many of my written thoughts to Amy. I always treasure her replies and her feedback. In turn, she sends some of her written work to me; she is a gifted writer and I always love to read her work even if I am not able to understand it sometimes.

In this case, her comments on my Relativity musing were understandably dismissive. I mean it is rather preposterous that a person with relatively little training and study of physics who doesn’t even intuitively “get” the need for the International Dateline (see related musings) could have a valid point about why e=mc2 could mean that the Earth is special or that we earthlings are special.

Her response was that the same sort of equation would hold on other planets or heavenly bodies but there would just be different units of measure, sort of like the temperature conversion from Fahrenheit to Celsius. That could be true, but to me it misses the point.

To me, it is an amazing coincidence that this equation could be found and be true when it is entirely based on earth-centric units of measure and that these units of measure existed before the equation was discovered. Again, recall that the unit of measure for mass (the kilogram) was originally based on the weight of a cubic decimeter of water. And the measure for the speed of light, which relates to distance and time, is also peculiar to our earth. The distance (meter) is an almost incredibly arbitrary number but it is earth-centric: one ten-millionth of one quarter of the earth’s circumference (running from the North Pole to the equator through Paris). The time measure is completely earth-centric as are all time measures we use. Do we have any time measures that do not relate to how long it takes our planet to orbit our star and how many times our planet revolves on its axis during that journey? If so, what are they and why do we have them?

Again, for me, this equation (e=mc2) is really incredible for many reasons but the fact that the speed of light is squared makes it incredibly incredible (incredible squared). It also seems to make it harder to say we can just convert this equation into different units of measure like going from Celsius to Fahrenheit.
Maybe I am too hung up on this point. Let’s try changing the unit of measure for C (the speed of light) to some other earth-centric measure and see what would happen to the equation. I am tempted to use furlongs per fortnight because it has such a great ring to it but I think it would be too difficult. Let’s be American and try miles per hour. The commonly used speed for the speed of light in the U.S.A. is 186,000 miles per second. This would mean that the speed of light in miles per hour would be 3,600 times that or 669,600,000 miles per hour. Now let’s go to the equation. In this case, the speed of light squared would be 4.48364160E+17 according to my phone calculator. What does that look like? It’s a big number: 448,364,160,000,000,000. Actually, if I adjust the speed of light to 186,282.4 miles per second to make it more equivalent (less rounded off) to the 299,792,458 meters per second typically used in the equation, then the speed of light in miles per second is 186,282.4 and in mph it is 670,616,640 and the square of that is 449,726,678,000,000,000 (just under 450 quadrillion).

A little more on this change in units of measure for the speed of light: are the numbers correct and what is the impact on the equation? First, the numbers for the revised C are correct. If you take the 299,792,458 meters per second and divide by 1,609.344 meters in a mile you get 186,282.4 (rounded) miles per second and if you multiply that by 3,600 seconds you get the 670,616,640 miles per hour. The conversion factor is actually 2.236936921 or thereabouts. So if you take the 299,792,458 meters per second and multiply by the conversion factor (3,600/1,609.344=2.236936921) you get the 670,616,640 miles per hour. Furthermore, if you take the square of the conversion factor you get about 5 (actually 5.0038867885 or so) which is the difference between the value of C squared in the meters per second formula and the value of C squared in the miles per hour formula. Try it if your calculator goes to that many decimal spaces. Or just divide 450 quadrillion (C squared using miles per hour) by 90 quadrillion (C squared using meters per second). You get 5.

So it all works out very nicely. All you have to do to make e=mc2 using the miles per hour unit of measure is divide the unit of measure for the Mass by 5. Great! But what happened to the cubic decimeter of water (kilogram). Well, it was sort of arbitrary anyway so it just gets 80% more arbitrary (it was 1 kilogram and now it is 0.2 kilograms). I’m sorry but this compound level of arbitrariness is starting to get to me. (I wonder what would have happened with furlongs per fortnight.)

Remember, we earthlings had these units of measure before we came up with the equation. How would it work for some intelligent life-form living on another heavenly body in the universe? Did we kind of stumble onto the equation? Would we have discovered the equation if we had vastly different units of measure at our disposal in the first place? Does time go at the same rate in other places as it does on earth? Could someone on another planet in another galaxy take our equation and convert it into something that makes any sense to them? My mind is boggled and my head is spinning (you should see it!). Here’s what is coming out.

If e=mc2 is really a precise equation, then Earth must at least be in some sort of mathematical sweet-spot in the universe. Could it be that what we are able to see around us in the universe is what is available to us under that equation and that what we call “dark matter” and “dark energy” are things that are governed by different equations?

And one last thing, back to that theory that if someone was travelling at or close to the speed of light it would still appear from their viewpoint that the speed of light was constant at its normal value. This gets into differences in how time would be measured from the 2 different perspectives and that really gets hard to imagine. But that could well be the key. Maybe each entity in the universe is travelling at its own speed and has its own “time signature” and its own equivalent for energy and matter.

I still think our e=mc2 is special. Earth is special. Let’s not use e=mc2 to blow it up.

While I am at it, here are a few more thoughts and questions about the physics of our world.

The same earthly measures that make the Theory of Relativity seem special would also make other scientific theories, like Newton’s Laws, seem “special” in the same way. And what is so special about multiplying a number by itself (squaring the number) that makes it show up in so many equations, like Newton’s formula for gravity? Is the Creator a mathematician?

The theory of relativity redefines the gravitational force as a curvature in the space-time continuum. That may be true for objects in orbits around large bodies in space but it does not seem true for smaller bodies, like mine, and why it is pulled to earth. It is hard to believe that it is the curved geometry of space that makes a high jumper fall into the pit or that makes an apple fall from a tree or that causes me to weigh a certain amount on earth. Newton’s formula is much more satisfying as an explanation for my weight than the curvature of space caused by the Earth and my heavenly body.

And another crazy question: Is quantum mechanics related to free will? And vice versa? The randomness and the unpredictability and the probabilistic nature seem to correspond in some ways with free will and away from determinism.

A Brief History in Rhyme

Bang, we’re off, some 14 or 15 billion years ago
The puzzle pieces scattered and there’s not much that we know
As we try to figure out how we got here and why
To try to see some purpose for why we live and why we die

First of all, if the Big Bang created space and time
Let me deal with a few basic questions at the outset of this rhyme
Where did this Big Bang happen, if there was no space ‘til then?
And, I guess, up until that moment there was no such thing as when

If our universe is still expanding (at an ever greater pace)
What’s it expanding into; is it still creating space?
And what about this expansion; why can’t we sense the motion?
Here we’re hurtling through space and we haven’t got a notion

And time too is expanding, with each beating of my heart
Is it also moving faster now than it was back at the start?
It seems my own life is moving faster as I pass through middle years
But just like the hurtling planet, it’s probably not as it appears

Regarding basic questions, could it be that time, like space
Also has three dimensions, with past, present and future in the place
Of length, width and depth in the material things we see
Which are part of a six dimension universe of was, is and what could be?

In any case, let’s move forward with this history we’re writing
And not get carried away on tangents, no matter how inviting
First, all matter is energy, that’s a point worth stressing
For the first few billion years the atoms were coalescing

After vast periods of time, the stars came into sight
Unfortunately, I have no clue when it comes to explaining light
And as for Black Holes and Dark Matter, I can only smile
You see we’ve just “discovered them,” though they’ve been there all the while

Even against the vastness of the setting, our existence seems like a fluke
And I know that in so saying I risk considerable rebuke
It’s accepted in our age that there are countless other intelligent creatures
You can even watch “Star Wars” and get an idea of their features

From the time of the first stars, many have come and others gone
Galaxies, solar systems and planets, including the one that we ride on
It’s all too vast to fathom and the time it took we cannot ken
And somehow bacteria turned into creatures and creatures into men
Our, so-called, recorded history covers the blinking of an eye
It’s in that time that humans learned to talk and then to fly
But we’re sure we rule the planet, we’ve been killing all the rest
And among ourselves we’re always trying to prove our side’s the best

It’s always seemed so big out there and we seem so miniscule
So we focus on the petty things so we won’t look the fool
Actually, it’s kind of scary to consider the vastness of creation
It’s more comfortable to focus on what’s inside the borders of our nation

But when we get the chance, we dismiss the notion of a creator
As if tracing back to the “Big Bang” makes our own role greater
In fact, it is the only moment of creation of which we are aware
And if we destroy what’s been created then we had better beware

It seems obvious that we’re part of something very, very large
What plagues us is trying to figure out who or what’s in charge
Are we as insignificant as time and space make us feel
Or is there something special about us, some curious appeal

If so, what is it, does it relate to our awareness?
Are we here to gain perspective, to learn of love and fairness?
Is there some greater awareness that is aware of us too
Or is this all there is and when it’s done we’re through

Perspective involves time and space, in fact, all six dimensions
But it also involves our attitudes and our true intentions
The glass is half empty and half full; life can be that game
Is it a setback or a chance to learn or are they both the same

So it all comes down to me; you knew it would before I’m done
This is the 55th time I’ve ridden the earth around the sun
And for the most part, the ride’s been a lot of fun
But my time’s not even a blip since the ride was first begun

(Note: it’s been a while since this poem was written; I am well into my 75th trip but some of the themes from this poem still seem to pertain.)

V - The International Dateline

What is it? What is its purpose? Is it a service or web-site used by multi-cultural single people to find love and companionship? Is it a different kind of web-site that shows all of the different holidays and noteworthy dates in different countries and parts of the world?

It is neither of these. It is an imaginary line on the earth’s surface drawn from pole to pole half way around the world from the prime meridian, pretty much down the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Actually, it is not a totally straight line; it zigzags a bit but, for the time being we will not concern ourselves with that. Anyway, that’s what it is. But what does it do and why is it needed?

Well, what it does is it changes dates. If you are west of the dateline and it is Friday and you move east and cross the dateline, it is now Thursday. Conversely, if you are east of the dateline and it is Thursday and you travel west and cross the dateline, it is now Friday. Seems pretty strange to me. Why is this necessary?

The key issue and the reason it is necessary is the part about moving from one place to another on the globe. For a person who is not moving and crossing time zones, the International Dateline (IDL) has little relevance. Let’s start by considering the perspective of a relatively stationary person. Most of us are relatively stationary most of the time. We stay in our own time zones or, occasionally travel across time zones but usually not too many at once. And rarely across the IDL. It is conveniently placed pretty much in the middle of nowhere.

As a stationary person, let’s say someone who lives in New York City. Let’s say it is noon on Thursday and the part of the earth that you are on is pointing at the sun. The earth spins on its axis for a while, let’s say 12 hours, and the point on the earth where NYC is located it pointing away from the sun; it is midnight. When this happens, the date changes to Friday in NYC. The earth continues to rotate and 12 hours later it is noon on Friday in NYC. The same thing is true for someone who lives in London or Paris or Tokyo or any other large city.

Hold it. What was that part about the date changing from Thursday to Friday at midnight in NYC? I thought we just established that the dates change at the IDL. What are they doing changing in NYC? Well, the fairly intuitive answer is that dates change wherever it is midnight on the globe. In fact, this is the way we are used to experiencing date changes. So there are two ways that the date changes, midnight and the IDL. And when midnight comes to the IDL it’s the same day all over the world.

It’s not midnight that needs to be explained. It’s the IDL. Why do we need an extra way to change dates? It seems that midnight serves the purpose quite well and there is no real need for the IDL to serve as a separate way for dates to change. In fact, for most of recorded history, humanity got along just fine without having an IDL.

The best (and only) explanation I have seen is that if you are traveling (fast) around the world and you are crossing a lot of time zones, things will get out of whack if you don’t have an IDL to keep your dates in order. Here is what Wikipedia says about the IDL.

A person who goes around the world from east to west (the same direction as Magellan's voyage) would gain or set their clock back one hour for every 15° of longitude crossed, and would gain 24 hours for one circuit of the globe from east to west if they did not compensate by setting their clock forward one day when they crossed the IDL. In contrast, a west-to-east circumnavigation of the globe loses an hour for every 15° of longitude crossed but gains back a day when crossing the IDL. The IDL must therefore be observed in conjunction with the Earth's time zones: on crossing it in either direction, the calendar date is adjusted by one day.

Of course! That seems straight-forward and simple enough (ha). Somehow, I doubt that Magellan was overly concerned. But the whole connection with time zones seems to be crucial. I doubt that there were time zones when Magellan was trying to keep his ship afloat. There was probably still some doubt about whether he was circumnavigating the globe or getting ready to fall off the end of the earth. But really now, unless you are flying to someplace that is half the world away, why would you care? And even if you are, what day it is would be the least of your concerns. What happened to me and where can I find a comfortable bed are the questions you are more likely to ask. If you tell me it is Thursday, I can go with that. Friday? Okay, it’s Friday!

Now let’s consider how it would be if the IDL was shifted 180 degrees so that it ran through the center of London, along the prime meridian (0 degrees longitude). If you lived on the west side of London and had a meeting scheduled with your banker on the east side of London, it would be quite confusing because when you crossed from the west side to the east side of London you would lose a day. So if it was Friday morning where you lived, it would be Thursday morning at your banker’s office. There may be a few circumstances where this would be an advantage but for the most part it would cause a great deal of confusion and inconvenience.

Since the placement of the prime meridian is completely arbitrary and prior to the late 1800’s other meridians were used for navigation purposes running through such places as the Canary Islands or Paris, France (or other places, I imagine), it follows that the IDL is also arbitrarily situated.

Where am I going with this whole thing? Many years ago, a very smart friend of mine (Mike Stamford) said this about the IDL, “You either get it or you don’t.” I embarked on this musing in hopes that I would be one of those people who “gets it.” What a disappointment! But, fortunately, my wife does and she explained it to me. What a relief (and another reason I have been happily married for nearly 48 years). I can’t even find my way around my neighborhood without her.

VI - More Idle Thoughts on the IDL

Before you start to read this, make sure you have read the preceding musing titled The International Dateline. Why? Because it provides background information and it was probably more fun to read. This one may end up being a bit tedious and it may hurt your head.

Let’s consider the IDL from a different perspective. This time we will not focus on its purpose for world travelers; we will focus on how it relates to dates and time zones in different major cities and the impact on worldwide communication. We talked about the Prime Meridian running through London and the IDL being 180 degrees away, on the other side of the globe. So at noon in London it is midnight at the IDL. If it is noon on Thursday in London, then 15 degrees to the east it is 1 PM and 30 degrees to the east it is 2 PM. Again, let’s remember that the Earth is considered to be a sphere which encompasses 360 degrees. Since there are 24 hours in every day, the 360 degrees is divided by the 24 hours to give 15 degrees per hour (or per time zone). Conversely, 15 degrees to the west of London it is 11 AM on Thursday and 30 degrees to the west of London it is 10 AM (still on Thursday). In fact, at this happy moment, 180 degrees to the east it is 12 hours later and 180 degrees to the west it is 12 hours earlier.

Oops! It seems that that cannot be. 12 hours earlier (moving to the west) is 12 AM on Thursday morning and 12 hours later (moving to the east) is 12 AM on Friday morning. But it is true because 180 degrees from the Prime Meridian is the IDL and on one side of it, it is Thursday morning and, on the other side of it, it is Friday morning. For a blessed moment (or hour) just before midnight east of the IDL, it was Thursday all over the world. I think we are beginning to make some progress. Let’s try another London-based situation and see how it works.

Now let’s say it is 6 PM on Thursday in London. Again, the same thing happens when we move east or west by 15 degrees into different time zones. For example, moving east to Paris shifts the time to 7 PM on Thursday and moving further east to Moscow shifts the time to 9 PM on Thursday. Moving west to NYC shifts the time to 1 PM on Thursday. (This example does not consider daylight savings time, if it happens to be in effect, but that is another issue and not worth much consideration). So what happens if we move 180 degrees to the east of London? Well, it is 12 hours later; it is 6 AM on Friday. And what happens if we move 180 degrees to the west of London? It is 12 hours earlier; it is 6 AM on Thursday. Again, it seems that they cannot both be true but they are because the IDL makes them true.

And here are a couple of key points. First, the date is always changing on the other side of the Earth from London (at the IDL) and second, it starts to be understandable why this should be; why we have an IDL. If we moved 195 degrees east of the Prime Meridian in London and there was no IDL, it would be 13 hours later than London time. Again, if we are talking about 6 PM on Thursday in London, it would be 7 AM on Friday 13 time zones away to the east. And if we moved 23 times zones to the east of London without the benefit of the IDL, it would be 23 hours later; 5 PM on Friday (when it is 6 PM on Thursday in London). I’m starting to see some benefit to and purpose for the IDL. And I’m starting to see that the initiation of the IDL had more to do with high speed world communication than it did with high speed world travel.

So, the IDL is 180 degrees and 12 hours away from London and that is true no matter what time of day or night it is in London. What does that mean for other major cities and places that are not located on the Prime Meridian? Are they also 180 degrees and 12 hours away? Clearly, the answer is no. But they are at constant distances and hours from the IDL (again, not considering Daylight Savings Time shenanigans). So how does it work for places like NYC or Tokyo? Let’s have a look. (I may be off by a time zone or so depending on the time of year but the essential point is the same).

Let’s say that NYC is 5 time zones to the west of London and Tokyo is 10 time zones to the east of London. That would mean that the IDL is 7 time zones to the west of NYC and 17 time zones to the east of NYC. Actually, since NYC is in one of the 24 time zones, there would only be 23 other time zones so the IDL would be in one of those; so let’s say that it is 6 time zones to the west (and 17 to the east). Likewise, for Tokyo let’s say it is 2 time zones to the west of the IDL and 21 time zones to the east of the IDL.

Let’s take Tokyo. If it is 6 PM on Thursday in Tokyo and we move one time zone to the east it would be 7 PM on Thursday. If we move 2 time zones to the east, it would be 2 hours later, 8 PM on Thursday. However, if we move one more time zone to the east we will cross the IDL. Let’s find out what time it is there by moving to the west. If we move one time zone to the west of Tokyo it would be 1 hour earlier, 5 PM. If we move 2 time zones to the west it would be 4 PM Thursday. If it is 6 PM on Thursday in Tokyo and we move 21 time zones to the west of Tokyo, it would be 9 PM on Wednesday. Likewise, if we move 3 time zones to the east of Tokyo, it would be 9 PM but, since we crossed the IDL from west to east, we drop a day and it is 9 PM on Wednesday. So the proximity of the IDL to Tokyo means that dates change much closer to it. But since most of what is east of Tokyo is the Pacific Ocean and the nearest big city in that direction is probably San Francisco, it does not seem so strange that the date would be different much of the time.

Likewise, NYC has its own particular relationship with the IDL. If it is 6 PM on Thursday in NYC and we move 6 time zones to the west, it is noon. However, if we move 7 time zones to the west we cross the IDL and it is 11 AM on Friday. That is because we cross the IDL going from west to east and we have to add a day. Another way to look at it is if you move east of NYC by one time zone it is 7 PM and by two time zones it is 8 PM on Thursday. If you move east of NYC by 17 time zones it is 17 hours later; 11 AM on Friday.

Hooray and Halleluiah! The IDL is coming to ya!

DAYNIGHT

I’m in the bag
It’s such a drag
Back in the sack with jet lag

It’s midnight oil
On foreign soil
Watching the pot that will not boil

I toss and turn
My eyelids burn
Keep hoping sleep will return

This awful prose
Brings sweet repose
A rhyme in time allows me to dose

I start to nod
I thank my God
Rest is the best thing for my bod

VII - Fundamental Divides: (and their role in selecting a candidate)

America is for any and all or America is for Americans (see definition). Related issues include racism, immigration, religious bias, sexual orientation issues.

Government is good, trustworthy and necessary or government is not good or trustworthy and should be reduced to certain minimal functions. Related issues include economy, health care, climate change, education, gun control, abortion, defense and others.
America should reach out to the rest of the world or America should only protect itself from the rest of the world. Related issues foreign policy, globalization, foreign trade and defense.

These are actually serious issues and the answers are not as straight forward as people on either side of the divide think. They are based on the perceptions, feelings, thoughts and fears of real people. And as we all know, there are good-hearted people on both sides of the divides. The political parties have seized on the different sides of the divides and done all they can to exacerbate the feelings of doubt and distance and fear between the 2 opposing views. This must stop. Each party within our 2 party system must, by necessity, represent a variety of views and each party should refrain from vilifying the other party and its members. When it comes to selecting candidates I will look for the ones who are least divisive and who do more than just say that “I will be the President for all Americans.” I will look for the candidates who can best bridge the divides, understand both sides, and actually influence others by the depth of her or his empathy, intellect, and persuasive powers.

This president has been completely one-sided in his views and has drawn his power from that group of voters despite the fact that he has never been a supporter or proponent of these policies or positions prior to running for office. It seems to be more of a case of Trump identifying the existence of the base and then building his campaign (which is constant and ongoing) around appealing to it. The Republican party has followed him step by step even if it meant changing some of their past positions and policies. When it comes to selecting candidates I will look for those who are the least tied to their party and who accept that elements and representatives of their party have the right and the obligation to follow their own consciences and represent their own constituencies on issues. This may be very hard to find but I will be looking.

The divide has caused some serious changes in the way our government functions. In particular, the houses of congress are so divided and partisan that they can hardly agree on anything and they have been relatively weak and ineffective. The Presidency has taken the opportunity to expand its power. This has been a trend over the last 40 or 50 years but, like climate change in a way, it has been more pronounced in the last 20 years or so. This could prove to be very dangerous to our form of government. When it comes to selecting candidates I will look for those that truly respect and understand our form of government and are fearful of accumulating too much power in the office of President.

What is an “American” per the first point of division? I think that this is the most important of the divides and in some ways it influences or even drives the 2 other divides. An “American” in this context is the person you see in the Norman Rockwell painting. I love Norman Rockwell and his paintings and I think of his art as American. Almost any of his paintings will do to illustrate what I mean by “American” in this context but perhaps Four Freedoms does it best. However, in their own way The problem we live with and The Golden Rule also speak to what I am referring to when using the word “American” in this context. The little black girl with a pig tail being escorted to school by 4 white men in suits with yellow arm bands in 1963-1964 was very “American” then and still pertains in many ways. That image says a great deal, both good and bad, about what it is to be an “American.” I can only assume that the little black girl and her parents and her community were meant to be included in the “we” who are living with the problem. As for the people from all nations shown along with the white, “American” father, mother and child in Golden Rule, it is certainly noble but it is also clear who the “others” are that we are to do unto.

Anyway, before this becomes an art study which I am completely unqualified to attempt, let me say that for the purposes of this divide I define an “American” as a straight WASP (slightly expanded to include Catholics and Mormons). We can even accept that some blacks may be “Americans” because our forefathers brought them to our shores without their consent to be one of the building blocks of our economy in the formative years of the country so if they are willing to see the opportunities they now enjoy as “Americans” they can be “American.” However, blacks and other races that have come from “shit-hole” countries in recent years and have not worked hard to fit into the culture are not “Americans” in this context. When it comes to selecting a candidate I will be looking for those who will respect other peoples but who will enforce our immigration laws. If the laws are flawed in their eyes, I will look for the candidates who will work to change them.

What is the role of government per the second point of division? This is not a new question and it is not likely to be solved by the next president. Even the Founding Fathers had widely differing views and, in some ways, it is part of what makes our experiment in government vibrant and alive, so long as we stay within the broad boundaries of the constitution. In a sense, this is the area where you can say “the issues” reside. When it comes to selecting a candidate I will be looking for those who reflect my own positions on these points. I have my own views on the issues and my own emphasis is on how the candidate views health care, climate change, and gun control.

What should be America’s role in world affairs per the third point of division? Again, this is an old question. It has been discussed and debated for the entire time of the country’s existence and it is another area where you can say the real “issues” reside. When it comes to selecting a candidate I will be looking for those who can show that they have some understanding of how these issues play out in our smaller world today and who can help me to come to a better understanding myself. I would like a candidate who can articulate a new “Monroe Doctrine” of sorts that makes our policy clear. As it is, I think U.S. foreign policy has been inconsistent and short-sighted and usually wrong for the past 50 or 60 years. I would like to think that America can actually be the beacon on the hill helping other countries find their way but I do not think we can actually force other countries to think and govern like we do. We can only show and lead by example and I’m afraid we have not done that very well. When we meddle in countries and cultures that we do not understand or agree with we have little chance and no examples of success.

Before assuming a right and wrong position on any of the 3 divides, select the position you are immediately less in favor of and spend some time putting forth all of the arguments that you can think of that are in favor of that position. Put yourself in the shoes of someone you think would favor that position and then consider the hopes and fears, the opportunities and the barriers, the economic and cultural impact on your life and the lives of your loved ones, that influence their views. If you cannot be genuine and empathetic then you and we are in trouble.

Just Because

It was simpler when I was a kid
And I needed to explain something I did
The complete answer to "why" was
The profound reply, “just because”

But the other side was simpler too
When I questioned something I was told to do
Authority challenged my need to know
It sufficed to say “because I said so”

But for all the reasons that went unspoken
There was a premise which was unbroken
That obedience was needed at the start
And authority had my best interests at heart

For some this wasn’t always true
And continually being told what to do
Can lead to backlash and crowd out thought
And reduce reflection on what is and what ought

Time went by and the rules of my youth
Broke down when authority stopped telling the truth
Miscalculation and hubris led to very bad places
And ideals took a back seat to the saving of faces

We’re still reeling now from this absence of facts
As both sides condemn how the other side acts
And make incredulous arguments that we should dismiss
About why they want that when our side wants this

Before our generation goes out of sight
We need to make some wrong things right
To live up to ideals and banish flaws
And if you ask why, it’s "just because"

VIII - God is Love RJM - 1/12/20

God is Love. God is kindness. God is beauty. God is truth. But my truth may not be your truth. What resonates as truth in my mind and heart may not resonate in yours the same way. If my truth is not based on love and kindness and beauty, then it is not God’s truth and it is not true. Likewise, if your truth is not based on love and kindness and beauty, then it is not God’s truth and it is not true. However, if both of our truths are based on love and kindness and beauty but they happen to be different in some ways, then they are both true, at least for each of us, and they should be respected by the other.

If your truth is that Jesus was the Son of God and is the means of your salvation as well as the example of how to live your life, then that is wonderful for you and you should pursue that truth in everything that you do because that is your path to God. However, if that path strays away from Love and Kindness and Beauty, then it is no longer true and you should modify your belief to get back in the correct framework. The same is true if you believe that Allah is the one God and Mohamed is his prophet. As long as that belief stays within the framework of love and kindness and beauty then that is wonderful for you and you should pursue that truth in everything that you do because that is your path to God. However, if that path strays away from Love and Kindness and Beauty, then it is no longer true and you should modify your belief to get back into the correct framework.

The same can be said for any religious belief or for any philosophy or any set of moral principles. In fact, there is no “one true religion.” The one belief system that is better than all others actually resides in each of us and is our spiritual essence as human beings. At their best, religions help us tap into our essential love and kindness and beauty. At their worst, religions try to divide us and lead us away from the common truth that we all seek, and to put one set of man-made beliefs above any other.

Unfortunately, the essential truth of love, kindness and beauty, which we can think of as the light, is not the only thing that is inside us. There is also a dark side which is made up of fear and selfishness and hate, or lack of love. These elements lead us away from God and away from our true purpose. They lead us down a false path that causes harm to ourselves and to others. Despite the fact that they are not good for ourselves or others, they can appear to be very attractive and good for us individually in the present moment. They can be very tempting but they are not good for us. They are dark and false.

Our lives boil down to choices we make between the light and the dark; between the true and the false; between the good and the evil. These choices are all around us and they are deep inside us. Making the correct choices is called living within God’s plan or doing the will of God. Or, if you do not believe in God, it is called living a good life and being a good person. Making the wrong choices is called doing the work of the devil or being a bad person.

The choices are not always clear. Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between what is good and true and what is not good and not true. Sometimes the very religions that we rely on to guide us will not be true. Religions are run by humans; the religions may have been inspired by God and goodness originally but they have been administered and run by humans for long enough that some dark and false elements have infiltrated and distorted parts of the message.

Our job is to become good at discerning between what is authentic truth and what is not. A good test is to ask yourself if the teaching is based on love, kindness and beauty. If it is not, then it is not truth. Another way is to think about whether you and those you love will be happy with your choice in the future. Will this make me a better person? Will this make the world a better place? If your choice is made from fear or selfishness or hatred then you and the ones you love will not be happy about it in the future. It will not add to the love, kindness, and beauty in your world, their world, or the world.

One choice each person can make is whether some religion helps them find what is true for them. But no one can choose what religion is good for someone else or what religion is true for everyone else. It is fine to make people aware of what you believe and what you find to be true and beautiful about your chosen religious belief but only if you are ready to listen to what the other person finds to be true and beautiful about their religious belief or about their lack of religious belief. You may come away from the conversation thinking that your religious belief is better than theirs and, if their belief is not grounded in love and kindness and beauty, you may be right. But their decision to change their religious beliefs has to be something that comes from their own search for truth and the only way you can truly influence them is by being a loving, kind person.

How we raise our children is extremely important. Typically, children are raised in and taught by the religious tradition of their parents. Since any authentic religion is based on the principles of love, kindness, and beauty, each religion is capable of helping children learn the difference between good and evil. However, when a religious belief strays away from the truth and teaches children that other religions are wrong or bad, then those untrue religious teachings can do a great deal of harm to the child and to the world. Unfortunately, there are many examples throughout history of such teachings and of the bad outcomes that resulted. Of course, it is not only children that can be poisoned by false religious teachings but that is where it starts and that is where we must be most careful.

Love, kindness, and beauty exist in all humans and in all religions so no one religion can say that people from other religions or other beliefs are not worthy of God’s love or God’s fullest blessings, in this life or in the next, if there is one. Any religion or religious teaching that claims exclusive access to God or to God’s blessings is not true.

I was raised in the Christian tradition and I think that Jesus made it very clear. Jesus said that all of the laws could be reduced into 2 overarching laws. First, love God with your whole heart and soul. I interpret this as living with a sense of wonder and gratitude for all of the blessings that come with just being alive and being able to love and be aware of the goodness and beauty that surround us. The second law is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Jesus even went on to say who your neighbor is in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The fact that the Samaritan was outside of the Jewish religious tradition is significant to me. In today’s world, our neighbor could be the Good Muslim or the Good Buddhist or the Good Hindu or the Good Atheist or any person we meet who shows love and kindness in the way they live their life.

I do not believe that God needs people of any religion to protect It. I do not think that humans can hurt God. But I do believe that humans can hurt other humans and I do believe that God is inside each of us. So to that extent, we can hurt or diminish the divine within ourselves. If we feel that people of another religious belief need to be converted to our belief system in order to obtain God’s blessings then we feel that they are not equal to us in God’s eyes. I do not think this is true.

I believe that there can be much to gain from learning about other religions and seeing what is held in common by all of them. When it comes to defining what God is like or what heaven or the next life is like they may be somewhat different but, if we are honest with ourselves, we don’t really know and we are not capable of understanding what God is like. The great religious teachers throughout history and even in our own times, like Mohandas Gandhi and the Dalai Lama, tell people to find God in their own religious belief systems but to accept that other belief systems can also lead people to God. After all, God is Love.

Humble Prayer

Oh Lord, You know, help me see
Help me to know what I should be
Oh Lord, You know, give me a clue
Help me to know what I should do

Give me the heart, give me the soul
Make me a part that helps out the whole

IX - Responsible Party
March 12, 2006 (I wish it had happened)

Today is the first day of the Responsible Party. It is founded for the following reasons and purposes.

The current two-party system in the U.S.A. is broken and ineffective. It has become more and more divisive and corrupt to the point that it is very difficult to believe that either party is acting intelligently on behalf of Americans. The two major parties (and their pawns in the press) try to use words like “liberal” and “conservative” to cover a large range of issues and then lump all Americans into one label or the other.

Most of our elected representatives are far more concerned with their own re-election than they are with doing what is best for the country and the world. And those same representatives are looking out for their own welfare by representing the interests of the large corporations and industry groups that actually run the country.

We are at a decisive point in world history and it is time for a new set of “Founding Fathers” (and Mothers) to examine what government is supposed to do and how it is supposed to do it. In most cases, this re-examination will result in a re-commitment to the precepts set forth at the beginning of our country, many of which we have drifted away from in recent years. We are blessed with the best form of government yet conceived and executed by humanity. It was this very system which overcame Fascism and conquered Communism in the last century. It is that very system which is helping millions around the globe to attain a better standard of living. However, the more we stray from the true essence of those principles, the more our own way of life and the lives of millions around the world are jeopardized.

The first requirement of the Responsible Party is that no party member or office will accept contributions from any organization. The only contributions that will be acceptable are from individuals and individual contributions will be limited to $1,000 per year.

The Responsible Party will not be a financially driven organization. Once the party is established, it will operate within a budget and any funds received that are surplus to the budget needs will be donated to non-political charities.

The Responsible Party will run responsible campaigns. The party will use the Internet and the media to communicate the positions and proposals of its candidates. The party will not build huge campaign “war chests” and, under no circumstances will Responsible Party candidates enter into negative campaign tactics. Responsible Party candidates will have too much respect for the intelligence of the electorate to sink to that level.

Membership in the Responsible Party is free. However, you may not be an active member of either of the two major parties. In some states, you may have to register in one of the two major parties in order to vote. We will work to allow registration as a member of the Responsible Party or as an Independent, which is much the same.

One of the immediate goals of the Responsible Party will be to break the grip of the two major parties on the political process in America.

One key assumption of the Responsible Party is that any and all organizations will act in their own interests and attempt to increase their own power and influence. This is true for any type of organization, whether it is a political party or a government agency or a business entity or a charitable organization or a church. Organizations are started to achieve some objective or serve some purpose. However, even if the objective is achieved or determined to be unachievable or if the purpose is served or not served, the organization will attempt to survive and grow and sustain its own existence.

The Responsible Party will spell out its objectives and its purpose and will stick closely to its mission. The Responsible Party will also be watchful for any instances where government organizations have either outlived their usefulness or lost sight of their true purpose with the intention of eliminating the associated cost, confusion, and bureaucracy that unfocused and purposeless organizations generate.

X - Power Struggles

Maybe greedy, power-hungry politicians are the only ones that we can trust because we will always know what motivates them and they will know what motivates each other. Maybe Trump and Putin and Xi and the goon from North Korea and the other despots of the world understand each other and know what lines can be crossed and what lines cannot be crossed.

Of course, that would be too bad for unprotected countries like Taiwan and The Ukraine. And there could be squabbles between the despots over unprotected regions like the Middle East and its oil reserves and the continent of Africa and its natural resources, but, what the heck, there are already squabbles over those places.

And things could get a little out of control if one or more of the despots gets too paranoid about controlling their own peoples and does stuff like Hitler did or Stalin did or like Kim Jong Un is doing now in North Korea. And it could get messy when these despots decide on what groups are the enemies that are bringing down their supporters because most of the despots like to have scapegoats that they can blame for any problems. In the case of Hitler, it was the Jews and gypsy’s and other groups that were targeted. With other despots it is other groups of people who are persecuted and, in some cases, eradicated.

And history has also shown that life inside the countries ruled by despots is not always so good. Basic rights and freedoms start to disappear and any chance to form or hold views that are not held by the despot’s regime are not allowed and are subject to punishment. Life can be orderly and harmonious as long as you are a member of the select group and you are ready to support that group in all things, including the persecution of those outside of that group. Diversity is not an option.

The arts and society in general will probably be rather uninspired but it may not be too much of a problem because you will be spending most of your time watching your neighbors to make sure that they toe the party line. And it is only human nature that you and your neighbors will start to compete to see who can be the most pure and in line with the politics of the despot. As time goes on, things that were acceptable last year will not be acceptable this year. All the more reason to be absolutely fervent in your beliefs and pure in your behavior.

Perhaps it would be best not to allow the people as a whole to have any choice in how they are governed. They only make a mess of it most of the time, especially when the reins of power have to pass from one leader to another. It would probably be simpler if the passage of power was done in a very straightforward way, like from father to son. We could even groom those sons to take power efficiently and effectively. We could call the sons princes and the fathers could be called kings.

Although this may sound like a backward step, perhaps thousands of years of humans living under this type of system made it comfortable and appealing to a large percentage of humanity. After all, it is much more straightforward than trying to have all of the people involved in the work of governing. In kingdoms or feudal systems, everyone knew where they stood in society. You were born into your role and that’s where you stayed. What was lost in terms of human potential and personal development was presumably made up for by orderliness and simplicity.

The United States went against the grain and pursued the ideal that all men are created equal and should have equal opportunities as well as an equal voice in determining who will govern and how they will govern. But it was not a fully formed vision and it has been a long and difficult process trying to get closer and closer to that ideal.

In the nearly 250 years since those ideals were declared, there is no doubt that progress has truly been made as equality of opportunity and governance no longer belong solely to white male land owners but have gradually become available to blacks and women and citizens who do not have wealth or property. But even as progress was made, there were many who did not look at it as desirable or beneficial. It has always been a struggle to get closer to the ideal and there were always people on both sides of the struggle.

At this point in our history, we honor those who led the efforts to reach the ideals. MLK and Susan B. Anthony are among those who are honored but there were many other courageous visionaries who took huge risks to advance their causes and moved the country closer to the principles which it declared that it stands for.

Today there are also many who think that the ideal has been achieved and further actions are no longer necessary. They say, “Of course, Black Lives Matter. It is an insult and a very poor choice of words to suggest that it needs to be pointed out.” And women have all the opportunities that men have educationally and economically. The Equal Rights Amendment has happened; there is no need for any more protection or expansion of women’s rights.

Many people who feel this way are white men who have seen the dramatic changes that have taken place in the last 50-60 years but have not experienced the “before” or “after” conditions of blacks and people of color or of women. Regardless of how bad it was, after all the changes that have been made it must be good now. For these people the term “systemic racism” no longer applies. The system has been fixed. And a woman’s right to decide about an abortion ignores the right of the fetus to have a life, which is a more important right. The fact that some man was involved in creating that fetus is not relevant, even if that man takes no responsibility and pays no price.

Some of these white men are worried that further advantages for blacks and women will result in disadvantages for themselves and they feel that things are already difficult enough as it is, both economically and socially. And it can be hard for white men to recognize and accept that they have been the beneficiaries of a privileged status for centuries. Being put on an equal footing with people of color and women could feel like being in a disadvantaged position of “systemic equality.”

Whatever the case, we are certainly in a period of dynamic change in the U.S. and in the world and, hopefully, it will be for the better. But I think it is arrogant to look back with today’s eyes of political correctness and say that all prior generations were horribly flawed and that we would have been much more effective and enlightened and courageous in identifying and righting all wrongs if only we had lived in 1619 or 1776 or 1781 or 1865 or 1917 or 1941 or 1965 or whatever year or decade you choose. Let’s hope future generations don’t speak too harshly about us.

Maybe it is time to be grateful for what has preceded us and build on it. Maybe it is time to unite behind a common cause of reaching the ideal, and not divide over what took a long time to accomplish. Maybe it’s time to appreciate the other principles that got us here like personal responsibility and courage and patriotism and be grateful for what our forebears accomplished and for the beacon of hope that we have been for much of the world.

I personally do not think we have reached the goal. Perhaps we will never truly reach the ideal where all people are treated with equal respect. But I believe that we should continue striving toward that goal. If we want to be that beacon, we must keep working toward the ideal. Despite the messiness and imperfections of the process, I believe it is vastly superior for people to have a say in their own government than to have greedy, power-hungry politicians be in charge, whether they are Russian, North Korean, or American.

RJM
2/8/24
The Tangled Web

It’s okay to be a humble believer
In things you really don’t understand
And it’s good if these beliefs drive you
To give others a helping hand

But if these beliefs and good deeds
Make you feel you’re superior to
Then your humble beliefs may lead you
Down a path that is just not true

Do good deeds make you superior?
Do your beliefs make you superior?
What are the core beliefs that drive you to perform good deeds?
Are these core beliefs only found in one religion or philosophy?
Christianity has great core beliefs (kindness, humility, honesty, courage, tolerance, gratitude - KHHCTG) that come from the teachings of Jesus. But it also has superfluous creedal beliefs (the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the only path to salvation) that were developed in the decades and centuries after the death of Jesus to make the Christian message and movement more attractive.

Again, what a tangled web we weave. Maybe some of the early church fathers were not just attempting to pull off a religious power grab. Maybe they were willing to stretch the truth about some “incidentals” (divinity, trinity, virgin birth, etc.) so they could sell the bigger messages of KHHCTG. Maybe they felt that they needed the miracles and the deity to attract the masses. After all, the Romans (and others) were saying that their emperor (or their pharaoh or their ruler or chief) was divine. Maybe they thought that the common man would go for the religion that they thought had the greatest chance of impacting their lives and they needed their deity to be at least as powerful as the other options available at the time. So, it seemed necessary to ascribe some god-like magic powers to Jesus.

Unfortunately, as is always the case, straying from the truth (even for what was judged, at the time, to be a good purpose) led to very bad results in the end. The “incidentals” (creedal beliefs) ended up being the dogma and the bigger issues (core beliefs - KHHCTG) were thrown under the bus. Oh, for sure, those cards have been played over the years when it suited the church fathers to play them. But they were not on the table when the inquisition was running strong and they were not in sight when the Pope Pius XII met with Hitler and shared a pleasant afternoon (and failed to speak out against the atrocities and the unjust war and then allowed over 1 thousand Roman Jews to be taken to Auschwitz and murdered).

It makes me wonder what would have happened if the early church fathers had not felt the need to stretch the truth and mythologize the story of Jesus. For one thing, there would be no trinity. I am not sure whether there would have been a “Christian” religion at all. Without the need to believe that Jesus was God, there may not have been a split from the Jewish faith. It is certainly possible that there would have been a sect or a few sects of the Jewish faith that focused on the teachings of the Rabbi Jesus but, like today, there seems to be room in the Jewish religion for a variety of religious practices and interpretations.

The three Abrahamic Religions would not exist as they do today. If there was no Christian religion, there would probably not have been Crusades. It is possible that Islam and Judaism would also not be so separate and hostile if there was not a Christian wedge between them. After all, even today they both profess to worship the same God of Abraham.

There could be much speculation about what Constantine would have done if he had no Christian religion to adopt as the more inspiring religion of the Empire. The Christians were much more aggressive in marketing their religion than the Jews were. So, without Christianity, Constantine may have had to rely on the old set of Roman gods to unite his armies and his empire. It is unlikely that the old Roman gods would have been very inspiring and the empire might have collapsed sooner.

On the other hand, Saul/Paul was a Jew and he was the marketing genius behind Christianity. And during Paul’s time, Christianity was just a sect of Judaism. But Paul did much to separate it from Judaism, especially with his teachings of the risen Christ. This creedal teaching was the powerful center to Paul’s message and, without it, he may not have been so successful. So, it is unlikely that Paul would have or could have been as successful marketing Judaism. I’m not sure what other options Constantine would have had to inspire his armies.

It is hard to speculate what European history would have been like without Christianity. And, for that matter, what Western History would have been like. In both cases, the dichotomy between the core beliefs (KHHCTG) and the creedal beliefs (Jesus as God, trinity, Jesus as the only path to eternal life) determined whether Christianity was beneficial or detrimental to society. When the core beliefs were stressed, the results were beneficial. When the creedal beliefs were stressed, the results were harmful.

Here are some examples of creedal beliefs that went wrong: the Crusades and other holy wars and atrocities, the Inquisition, the Holy Roman Empire, the Papacy, the teaching of Infallibility, the Holocaust. I guess it is possible to argue that the church acted as a restraint on kings and other forms of government to protect the people from even greater abuses and there are probably a few instances where this is at least partially true. However, more often than not, the church just stood by or even aided in the abuses.

The examples of beneficial actions are harder to come by but probably much more numerous because they would normally happen at the person-to-person level or on the congregation or parish level when the core beliefs were stressed and put into action. It makes sense because acts of KHHCTG happen on an individual, personal level.

It’s hard to say which way the scales would tip if we were able to weigh all the harm and all the benefits over the centuries but one can certainly wish that the core beliefs could have been made available without the creedal beliefs.

As far as Western and World history (from a Western perspective) are involved, supposed superiority of a religion or societal structure has been used throughout history as sufficient cause or explanation for why it is right for people with the best weapons to dominate and enslave and eradicate the people who do not have the best weapons. “We will convert them to the true religion and civilize them.” The examples of this thinking and its ramifications are too numerous to mention but they are pervasive in Western history.

Colonies and empires throughout the world were justified by the notion of superiority. Certainly, slavery was also justified by this notion. The fact that the “superior” group was also gaining huge economic and financial advantages was not emphasized although it might have been acknowledged. After all, there were slaves in the Bible and it was all these people were fit to do. Whether on Southern plantations or in the Belgian Congo (or many, many places in the world), these people are inferior and simple and they are meant to be exploited (oops, wrong word), or better put, used for the good of greater mankind (sure, right).

I am not saying that creedal beliefs of religions were the sole factor behind every one of these evils but they were certainly reluctant to get off the sidelines and fight for the core beliefs of the religions. There was no effort to be the truth standing up to power. In my mind, this is a serious failure. Spreading lies is clearly harmful but hiding from the truth can be just as insidious. The core beliefs (KHHCTG), especially honesty and courage, were not on display.

I think that the belief that no one can attain heaven or eternal life without being a Christian is a creedal belief. I don’t think that Jesus ever said this. And I think that this creedal belief provided a wonderful excuse for doing whatever was deemed necessary to convert the non-believer to the true faith (while, at the same time enhancing your own power and wealth).

Regardless of what could or would have happened if Jesus was not mythologized and creedal beliefs were not introduced, if you feel like I do that these creedal beliefs are harmful, the question is, what can we do to reduce or eliminate the harm?

Does it make sense to try to dismantle Christianity? It may not be as difficult as it may seem initially. It is already crumbling under its own weight. Church attendance is low and getting lower every year. The old narrative is just not working. Still, completely dismantling Christianity won’t happen quickly because there are too many parties with vested interests who will fight hard to retain their power and status.

In addition, dismantling Christianity could involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The core beliefs of Christianity are worth retaining. Maybe a better idea would be to detoxify Christianity by de-emphasizing or doing away with the creedal beliefs as much as possible and retaining and emphasizing the core beliefs. Although this would also take some time, it could be done more quickly than dismantling Christianity and it could retain some of the existing structure and hierarchy (which would reduce that pool of resistance).

In any case, the best solution would involve stressing the unity of all religious traditions. I think it is true that, to a great degree, all share the core beliefs of kindness, humility, honesty, courage, tolerance, and gratitude. These are the beliefs that affect us in this life, in this world. The creedal beliefs are generally metaphysical and uncertain. They are mythological. And when considered objectively, they are not really that different from one religious tradition to another.

Jews and Christians and Muslims share the same God and, despite the fact that Christians have portrayed God in works of art, the three religions agree that God is unknowable to mankind. We can’t imagine or hope to understand the essence of God. Each ascribes certain traits to God. Jesus went so far as to say that God is like our father and that God is aware of us and cares for us. I don’t think the other two religious traditions would quarrel with that interpretation of the divine although they may see it a bit differently.

Eastern religions have other interpretations, from Buddhism which has no deity to Hinduism which has thousands of deities. But, to me, it is not that important whether you choose to believe in one God that cannot be described or understood, or no God, or thousands of Gods. I believe that God is a concept that can help us to make sense of our lives and help us to lead better lives.

For me, I believe in a spiritual and transcendent essence of our lives and of our universe. I believe in the power of love. I believe in the practice of kindness. I believe in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus and I hope for the chance to share love and joy with loved ones who have passed. And I am grateful for the life I have.

RJM
2024

Creation Stories and Their Impact

There are lots and lots of creation stories. Nearly every geographic location and society on earth has their own creation story. Some of them deal with the creation of the earth and the heavens and then of the features and creatures of the earth and of humans. Although they may appear to be preposterous today, even when they were first told they were probably not thought to be literally true; they were just an allegorical explanation of some over-arching issues like good and evil or light and darkness or how we came to be, which were beyond explanation. In some ways, the creation stories reflected the ideas and values of their society and in some ways they probably helped shape them.

In some cases, religions were instrumental in developing the creations stories, as is the case with the Judeo-Christian creation story, where God created everything in “7 days” and Adam and Eve were the first humans. Islam has a less detailed creation story that has some common elements with the Judeo-Christian story.

Hinduism has its own detailed creation story featuring the creator, Brahman, the mysterious ultimate reality. In a Brahman quote taken from the Bhagavad-Gita: “I am the self that dwells within every mortal creature … In this world nothing animate or inanimate exists without me.” This resonates with my own notion of God as the “ultimate reality.”

As far as creation stories go, Buddhism is a bit of an outlier since it “has no creator god to explain the origin of the universe. Instead, it teaches that everything depends on everything else: present events are caused by past events and become the cause of future events.”

I do not find the Buddhist view to be very satisfying because I am predisposed to think of things in terms of beginnings and endings. But there is a lot to be said for the notion that speculations about creation are a waste of time. The Buddha did not feel that such speculations were necessary for living a righteous life or for shaping our future life.

But let’s look a little closer at the Judeo-Christian creation story and its impact. I won’t take the time to get into the details of the story like the seven days of creation or Adam and Eve and the snake and the fruit, but it is interesting that Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden and they lost their perpetual youth and brought on death and suffering because they disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

There are many things that come from and are based on this story but, to me, the most pernicious is the concept of “Original Sin” (as the Catholic Church called it). Under this teaching, all humans (except Jesus) are sinners from birth and all sinners are in need of redemption. The entire premise of Christianity is actually based on this story, or, at least, on this concept. Jesus is referred to as the “second Adam” - the Redeemer who had to die for our sins to make up for the fact that Adam disobeyed God and took a bite of the forbidden fruit. For this reason, redemption was necessary to restore us to the good graces of the creator and to eternal life.

I know that this is a simplistic story but I think it had unintended consequences. To try to make it hold together it was necessary to invent a whole lot of dogmas and doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth and the Holy Trinity and other doctrines that we are told we should not question and must believe because they are “Divine Revelation.” By the time the church fathers were through, they created a God who was so vengeful that He would kill his own son to get retribution for Adam’s (mankind’s) disobedience. Oh, what a tangled web we weave!

I think that Jesus was a real person who was trying to move away from the Genesis creation story with its belief in sinful mankind trying to deal with a harsh God. I think Jesus was telling us that God is like Our Father and that He loves us as we are – the “Good News.” I think that the teachings of Jesus were simple and easy to remember - God loves you and you should love God in return and love your neighbor as you love yourself. But they were also revolutionary; for example, He said the weak and the poor are blessed in the eyes of God and it is difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. He pulled no punches.

I think that the ideas and the message of Jesus were spun by the religious and political powers over the centuries to make it suit their purposes of controlling ordinary people. I think that Jesus rebelled against the idea of a harsh, judgmental God and I think Jesus also rebelled against the idea that we need intermediaries between ourselves and God who claim authority over the details of how we should behave and live our lives.

Thus, I think it is ironic that the message of Jesus, which essentially threw the old creation story under the bus, has been spun and twisted over the centuries, especially in the first few centuries after Jesus died, into a religious doctrine that features Jesus as the fulfilment of that very creation story that he trashed. I think that Jesus was a rebel but I think that the very teachings and teachers that he rebelled against were able to turn His story upside down and use him to strengthen their hold on power and authority.

And before we get too smug about the simplicity of the Genesis creation story, or any of the many other creation stories, maybe we should consider the fact that our current creation story, the “Big Bang Theory,” is also just an attempt to explain something that our current understanding falls short of explaining.

And there is a great insight tucked into the part about eating the forbidden fruit taken from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When humans ate from the tree of knowledge (or evolved into cognitive beings) the timeless world of right now was replaced by the world of limited tomorrows. We became aware of our own mortality. For good or for bad, when humans became aware of time and became capable of thoughts of yesterday and tomorrow and how they (humans) could influence tomorrow by what they did today, the course of creation was up for grabs.

We opened Pandora’s Box and the innocence of living by our instincts under the natural law was replaced by plans and decisions and choices where some could be good and some bad, some selfish and some selfless, some right and some wrong, some effective in the moment but not effective over time. In any case, the ability to drive our thoughts and actions ourselves rather than be driven by instinct changed everything. We were blameless and free from guilt when we were not responsible for making the choices. That was no longer the case once we ate the fruit (once our cognitive brains developed and we became aware of the impact of our actions and choices).

As time passed and we made more and more choices and those choices had more and more impact on our own lives and the lives of others (and of the planet), humans came up with notions of good and bad and right and wrong and codified them as laws and systems to guide our behavior. This effort is still a work in progress and the notions of right and wrong are still evolving. And as our impact on each other and the planet becomes more profound, the notions of right and wrong are becoming more complex and, at the same time, more important.

I think that it is unfortunate that the Judeo-Christian creation story was so human-centric, making it appear that the creation of humans was the main, if not the sole purpose of creation. Some other creation stories were more respectful of the many other creatures and things, both animate and inanimate, which make up our world and reside on or near the earth. We certainly depend on them for our very existence. The words of Chief Noah Sealth (AKA Chief Seattle) reflect this broader view of creation. “The earth does not belong to us; we belong to the earth.”

And we should keep in mind that those non-human life forms and those inanimate objects would be able to exist and survive quite nicely without us (humans) in their world but we humans could not survive without them.

I am including things like plants and animals in the mix but also things like air and water and rocks and soil and ozone layers and atmospheres. Really, I am saying that earth and all its inhabitants and properties, the whole ecosystem, can get along fine without humans. But, of course, humans cannot get along without the ecosystem. In a very real sense, the earth is our Garden of Eden but the creative force will not expel us. However, we may expel ourselves by making it uninhabitable.

I guess that I think the Genesis story is still being written. It is the story of the creation of our world and I think it is still happening. I think that, for good or bad, humanity is playing a significant role in creating what our world will be in the years to come. We are a large force; the wild card of creation. I hope we don’t mess it up.

Things I think about