evidence

The
past only
survives via
evidence. Why?
It no longer
exists,
and

Is it
that the
future exists
only as a theory?

Advertisements

The Future

One scare might be the gap between the haves and have nots would keep getting larger because of the tech revolution. Everyone should have a solid base education (through college if needed or wanted) in order to be able to determine one’s own destiny in this new age.

An education teaching life skills like Technology, Language, Finance, Reading, Creating (writing, etc.), Health, Philosophy, and Psychology. Math and Science could be electives.

air water food and fellowship

How can we improve the
quality of life on
our planet?

We need to 

find and install cleaner technologies and more
and more energy sources which are renewable and nonpolluting
(sun, waves, wind, thermal, gravity, and maybe fusion)

get better information about health by promoting more research into what can keep us and our surroundings healthy
(based on past performance, we can’t depend on our government to get it right because special interests spoil the process, so, each of us needs to find our own path to health)

find out how to provide ourselves with better governance
(take the money out of politics)

find better and better ways to eliminate poverty
(starting now, make sure everyone gets a high-quality education and let the top-tier rich pay for it because they will receive a huge financial benefit down the road and will be able to reminisce about how they saved the country), and…

Today, we
humans are
polluting the air
we breathe, the water
we drink, and the food we eat.

What needs to be changed? We need the United Nations to strictly enforce antipollution laws and complete its goal of spreading basic human rights throughout the world. Our UN needs to get some backbone and fly right. It needs to be a better tool for humanity.

Is the UN a start in the right direction? Does the world need a president and a congress with the presidents of countries becoming governors of their countries?

With everyone having the right to vote in a world with police but no soldiers and no weapons of war. It wouldn’t be a utopia but there’d be a lot less suffering in the world which would probably produce more happiness, contentment, and security.

This is a dream of many folks, and sometimes dreams come true. When? Will it be now or during the next generation, or will it happen when it’s too late?

We are all
in the same pot,
so, shouldn’t we admit it
and
forgive old wounds for the sake of the future?

Will we be able to stop poisoning ourselves and the life around us? Otherwise our home could slowly degrade to the point all life will be choked out except bacteria.

If bacteria survive, they would be the parents of earth’s second generation which might turn into a nightmare because of the pollution left by the first generation.

 

 

able to carry on

Can time and space exist without each other? Do they
come as a type or form of super synergy?
Do they create each other?
Is it time and matter
instead of time
and space?
Or are
the two
part of something else?
A stage fitting almost all of a stage’s definitions?

A setting for what? Life?
Of course this is
looking
back.
Is it
good
we can’t
know for sure there’s no
purpose for which the universe came into being?

Is being able to carry on not knowing
for sure about a lot of things
the best part
of life?

Why is
every future
created in the present?
Is it because the future can only
be built and happen in
the nowness?
Or never
happen
at all?

the genius has appeared

In Alan Watts’ 1966 book The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, he details the world-wide disruptive force of organized religions on humans and religion’s use of our fear of the unknown to trap gullible children and adults with with the promise of a joyous eternal life after death and by using the same beliefs be able to escape a life of eternal torture. And then almost all religions say, you must choose our beliefs to make it happen. In this way religion divides humanity.

After covering the above, he states:

“It might seem, then, that our need is for some genius to invent a new religion, a philosophy of life, and a view of the world that is plausible and generally acceptable for the late twentieth century, and through which every individual can feel that the world as a whole and his life in particular have meaning.”

“our need is for some genius” The genius has appeared!

His name is Sam Harris. He’s already known world-wide via his many books, essays and articles in which he uses reason to assist others and uses it too to work against folks who divide up humanity by spouting magical stories and promising “happiness ever after.”

Now comes his tour de force:

Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion

If interested, the above link will take you to the book on amazon.com so you can get a taste for yourself.

In a century or two the book could have billions and billions sold and may have the title The Message because that’s what it is.

belief and doubt

Is doubt smart and belief lazy when it comes to religion, but in marriage, is it just the opposite, believing is smart and doubt lazy?

How does a thing change from good to bad? With a stranger, would doubt be smart and belief lazy? Is it always the situation that determines what’s smart or lazy?

Do doubt and belief differ in the way they point to one’s thinking about the future?

Is it that belief makes us feel we a sitting on dead center and need not change a thing, while doubt causes us to get out the saddles and go adventuring.

It seems organized religions are in love with belief and almost all professional scientists are in love with doubt. If so, who do we bet on?

Are the odds even? Are the odds close to the difference between a balloon and a golden ball the same size? Belief stays the same as reason continues to change.

But both are claiming to be the golden ball. So who is almost 100% sincerely wrong about the future of the dead?

social problems

How to better get along in the world:

Is it that we don’t make mistakes on purpose when we judge the actions and intents of others…but we do make mistakes?

It’s common to imagine things that aren’t really happening. And based on these imaginary happenings, do we then expect certain things to happen in the future?

What causes these mistakes (called “fundamental attribution errors”) of observation? Social psychologists Lee Ross & Richard E Nisbett* say in their book The Person and the Situation we naturally give attention to human beings and mostly ignore their situations.

And so social problems come about naturally when we don’t pay attention to context. Is a noun almost useless without a verb?

* Ross, Lee; Nisbett, Richard E. (2011-10-25). The Person and the Situation Pinter & Martin. Kindle Edition.