I really feel for Michael Specter and his unlimited faith in science.  At least the standing ovation at the TED conference for his talk about “The Danger of Science Denial” must have made him feel a little better.

He is really struggling with why so many people are reluctant to take the present “given” of scientific knowledge as being the do-all and end-all of mankind’s need for a savior.

Michael sites the research done on the connection between autism and vaccines for children as a prime example of people’s reluctance to “buy in” to the idea that scientists are so proficient at what they do in bringing about a better world.  He questions how in the world anyone could possibly be influenced by the “myth” that there is any connection whatsoever between child vaccinations and autism – and he chides us about fleeing from “big pharma” into the arms of “big placebo” (to the expected applause of his TED audience.)

Maybe if Michael had to sit in a room next to a 6-month old child who had just received the full course of vaccines – which are the only injections that I know of that are routinely given to anyone that still contain thimerosal – a mercury based preservative that is known to have adverse effects on whoever is injected with it;  to sit in the next room and hear this child scream uncontrollably for 36 hours on his terrifying journey into autism, maybe he would be given pause in his opinion.

Michael might even want to ask the question about who is in charge of the investigations – and where do they get their money?  Back in Iowa where I am from you don’t put the fox in charge of the hen house.

I think this is one of the most disturbing things about TED.  It is easy enough to pat yourselves on the back about all the “tremendous progress” you are bringing about through your scientific research and development, but when the human cost of this exciting research is fully faced science is left weighed in the balances, and wanting.

Today science is routinely using the patient as the guinea pig.  The ethics of such practices have been removed to the courts or to legislators – and the average person is ill-equipped to avoid his or her participation.  Drug companies make spectacular payoffs to the FDA for the privilege of a “fast track” approval of a new drug – with a mere six weeks of testing before it hits the shelves – and drugs found to then have adverse effects on the test populations of the developed world are just as routinely dumped in the underdeveloped nations to ensure the continued profits of “big pharma” with little or no regard to the suffering that the needy people of those nations will be subjected to.  And as far as the wonders of these drugs in eradicating disease, has Michael ever heard of MRSA?

In talk after talk at TED you hear individuals, brilliant individuals, lay claim to the exponential improvements that science has brought to life on the planet – but if you listen closely you will also hear them appeal for urgent action to address the multitude of disastrous consequences that they have unleashed upon us all.

A good deal of Michael’s talk is just that – why doesn’t everyone wise up and let scientists move forward at an even faster pace so that they can solve all the world’s problems.

“We’ve never needed progress in science more than we need it right now, never, and we’ve also never been in a position to deploy it properly in the way that we can today. We’re on the verge of amazing, amazing events in many fields.”

Sure, they may have made a few mistakes, BP Horizon ring any bells? – but they were sincere mistakes, and after all – science is on the verge of making such profound advances that what we are looking at – if we dare, is a coming silicon based immortality.  Who wouldn’t want that?

Perhaps this is where the real problem lies, and that is science trying to take on many and varied roles in areas where they just don’t belong, like immortality.  Maybe if the scientific community would avoid sticking their nose into so many subjective spheres of the human experience that they just don’t understand and have little or no reverence for they would find more acceptance of their truly scientific discoveries – but this is clearly not the case.

From Sam Harris’ diatribe on the “domain of expertise” being given the authority in establishing humanity’s moral code to the present euphoria over genetic manipulation of any part of the genetic code of living things – (pigs whose cells are 15% human DNA) – and the constant religious affirmations of Darwinism as the guiding truth behind it all; we are witnessing an ever increasing attitude of entitlement from the scientific community.  Don’t forget, these are the guys who sinned in giving us the atomic bomb.

Did I just say “sinned?”  Sorry, I failed to quote J. Robert Oppenheimer, “Despite the vision and farseeing wisdom of our wartime heads of state, the physicists have felt the peculiarly intimate responsibility for suggesting, for supporting, and in the end, in large measure, for achieving the realization of atomic weapons. Nor can we forget that these weapons as they were in fact used dramatized so mercilessly the inhumanity and evil of modern war. In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose.”

Nevertheless, with the blood of tens of thousands on his hands, Robert was adamant about the unalienable right of scientists to peruse any knowledge that they deemed worthy of their superior intellect.  “There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry … There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

Too bad what this “freedom of inquiry” did for the non-combatant citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima – old men, women, and children.

Those in the scientific community can live with this kind of collateral damage – because after all is said and done, that is the core of Darwinism – the present religion of science;  the right to pursue any exploration or manipulation of the natural world that they desire, and for whatever purpose they deem necessary in their pursuit of knowledge.

If you doubt that Darwinism is a religion, you might want to read Phillip Johnson’s excellent book “Darwin on Trial”.

At this point it might be prudent to listen to the scientists who are claiming this right to exercise their domain over the rest of us.  In Michael’s talk he is clear about his views on this, “And, listen, everyone’s entitled to their opinion; they’re even entitled to their opinion about progress, but you know what you’re not entitled to? You’re not entitled to your own facts. Sorry, you’re not.” Of course, we need to be ready to forgive them when they get their “facts” wrong – like they did with Agent Orange.

Now listen once again, listen to what they are really saying, listen to the holy cow of science, Richard Dawkins himself.  “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins

Do you want to hand over your present life and liberty to people who believe such things? – because if there is indeed “nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” – then unlike Michael’s lament that we are fearing science leading us into some future darkness – we should expect that it is just a matter of time before science makes some critical miscalculation that unleashes some unexpected and irreversible consequence on us all, or upon the weakest and most vulnerable among us – or worse yet, that we are subjected to what was dramatized so “mercilessly” in the dropping of the atomic bombs where scientists and politicians employed the creation of their intellect, “the inhumanity and evil of modern war.( in which) In some sort of crude sense which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin;”

“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and argue about what to do about it only after you’ve had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.” -  J. Robert Oppenheimer

It reminds me of the famous song by The Rolling Stones, “Sympathy for the Devil”

“Please allow me to introduce myself
I’m a man of wealth and taste
I’ve been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man’s soul and faith

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
‘Cause I’m in need of some restraint”

-Jagger/Richards

Whether they like it or not, scientists are in need of some restraint.

One of “The Four Toddlers of Atheism” – Sam Harris, is featured on a website that boasts of having “shit that is worth repeating” – or something like that?  He even receives a byline from that guru of gurus – Richard Dawkins, “Read Sam Harris and wake up.” (see the transcript of Sam’s presentation below)

Sam was a featured speaker at a TED conference – we are not conspicuously informed as to when and where – but he is on stage in front of that grand TED logo, and refers to himself as being at “a conference like this.”  Pandering to his audience?  Maybe?

What Sam’s speech is about is the “relationship between science and human values,” – and you may have information more pertinent than is available to me as to why he would self-destruct in such a pitiful manner before such an auspicious audience – perhaps he was ill prepared to give his speech due to a hectic schedule or marital or “significant other” problems – who knows what factors influence such a disaster as this short but broad appeal for science having not only a voice in establishing the moral code for humanity, but the voice.

You may have found Sam’s rhetoric and pugnacious attitude as offensive as I did – and the examples in his presentation are numerous – but for setting a high water mark for moral insensitivity – none of Sam’s remarks stand out quite as blatantly as his referring to himself as [“I’m] the Ted Bundy of string theory.”  What is even more appalling is the audience’s reaction to this utterly useless and distasteful statement, laughter.

For those of you who are unaware of who Ted Bundy was, he was a monster who preyed on defenseless young women and girls – girls as young as 12.  Before he was executed in the electric chair in Florida in 1989 – he admitted to murdering at least 30 victims.  His method was to bludgeon them with a tire iron or something similar,  and then to rape and strangle them.  What’s worse is that he decapitated at least two of his victims with a hacksaw.  With other victims he indulged himself in necrophilia with their corpses – in some cases lying with them and putting makeup on their faces until their corpses were too decomposed even for him.  There is some speculation that he may have been responsible for nearly 100 such heinous crimes.

For Sam to so callously and flippantly refer to such an example is certainly a reflection of his own immature moral sensitivities.

Perhaps we could excuse him if his position and influence was not so far reaching.

Can you imagine the visual images and the emotional pain such an example must elicit in the hearts and minds of the parents and families of these young women? – or in anyone for that matter.

If this is an example of applying his scientific knowledge and secular values in society – then it sends out an alarm to every thinking person – but, Sam doesn’t stop there.

He paints those of religious faith with an extremely broad brush, from the rhetorical “either to an eternity  of happiness with God or and eternity of suffering in hell,” to his references to “72 virgins in the afterlife” for suicide bombers, or implying that all corporal punishment involves “beating a child with a wooden board, hard, and raising large bruises and blisters and even breaking the skin,” – perhaps he thinks it is better to incarcerate the incorrigibles in our prison system where they have a good chance of being raped.  And since when were you suffering a  crime against you if you were made to feel humiliated about misbehaving in public?

But the coup d’ete has to be that no one who espouses faith in God has “made an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being.”  He even goes so far as to suggest that viewing moral dilemmas through the “endurance of religion as a lens” separates “most moral talk from real questions of human and animal suffering.”

Oh, and don’t miss his indictment that “the only people who seem to generally agree with [him]” on the idea that moral truths can be defined at all are in his opinion all “religious demagogues.”

If this is the best that a truly scientific approach has to offer in discovering moral truth – we may as well go back to the witchdoctors.

Perhaps we could just chuckle inside and say, “Give Sam a break – he and the other ‘Four Toddlers of Atheism’ are pretty new at this morals thing” – but in all honesty you just can’t ignore his core argument and the hair raising scenario that he is so subtly presenting.

Having led his audience through a series of comparisons where he contends that it is possible to find a balance point – or even several balance points along a continuum “towards something quite a bit more idyllic”  – he suggests that these points represent the moral truths that we all see the need for.  What he is really talking about is “relative truths” – kind of a scientific accumulation of opinion which will be so subjective that the average person will be patronized if they fail to see these “truths” established by “science” – or even if they do understand them and just don’t agree.  It is exactly this kind of moral relativism that results in statements like, “I am the Ted Bundy of string theory.”

 He proceeds to suggest that in the real world of science and knowledge, “a domain of expertise”, that there are certain moral opinions and practices that have no place and “must be excluded.”  He once again panders to his audience by using the most despised group in the world today – the Taliban.  Sam in using the most extreme example has an easy target, but make no mistake – his purpose in doing so is to heap the entire religious community into the category of those whose opinions of moral truths “must be excluded.”

Sam’s ideas get more radical than this – what with comparing the Dalai Lama’s chosen use of his time to how Ted Bundy “profitably” used his – to touching on much more serious ideas which he seems to believe represent science.

For example, Sam points out that “we live in a world filled with destructive technology,” and who would disagree with him there? – but then he states with equal certainty that “this technology can not be uninvented.”  He’s not talking about nuclear proliferation, is he?  Kind of reminds you of Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and ICE 9 – or the much more real and serious and far reaching choices of scientists like J. Robert Oppenheimer, who, when given the choice to develop a nuclear weapon in the face of some scientific speculation that detonating a single nuclear device could more or less toast Earth’s atmosphere responded, “It is not possible to be a scientist unless you believe that the knowledge of the world, and the power which this gives, is a thing which is of intrinsic value to humanity, and that you are using it to help in the spread of knowledge and are willing to take the consequences.”

Or to quote Freeman Dyson in the documentaryThe Day After Trinity:

“I have felt it myself. The glitter of nuclear weapons. It is irresistible if you come to them as a scientist. To feel it’s there in your hands, to release this energy that fuels the stars, to let it do your bidding. To perform these miracles, to lift a million tons of rock into the sky. It is something that gives people an illusion of illimitable power, and it is, in some ways, responsible for all our troubles – this, what you might call technical arrogance, that overcomes people when they see what they can do with their minds.”

You could argue that the sole reason we are still faced with a possible nuclear annihilation is simply because scientists failed to exhibit the moral character to resist making such a device in the first place.  Sam seems to believe, in his toddler way, that “univenting” such things “can not be” done.  Is that the moral compass he is promising us.

In fact, by his own admission, he isn’t promising us anything – he is simply arguing that we should relinquish the establishing of our moral standards to “science.”  “I’m not saying that science is guaranteed to map this space, or that we will have scientific answers to every conceivable moral question.”

Excuse me, isn’t’ that what “scientific truths” are supposed to be about?

And perhaps this is where the scenario does get hair raising – when science becomes so smug in its self-evaluation that it can stand in the public square – much like a toddler who has just discovered that his parents must react to his temper tantrums – and not only demand a voice in things they themselves admit they know little or nothing about – but to go as far as to boast that through science the day is coming “when we meddle with our genomes in such a way that not being able to run a marathon at age 200 will be considered a profound disability.”

But remember, there is no guarantee as to if or whether they will be able to understand or harness the great forces of love and hate, war and peace, and the incredible ability of human beings to overcome in the face of overwhelming adversity – just by faith, and if there is no “guarantee” then what exactly is Sam’s point?

It lies in these few words, the “domain of expertise” – and the consequent obeisance of the uneducated and the uniformed – and those outside the fraternity of the chosen, the scientific community.  Sam and his colleagues are eager to establish the idea that they are the only ones who represent “true” knowledge – and as such that they should have the power to decree “scientific moral standards” – after all, power is useless unless you can exercise it.

I will give Sam credit for one thing – he does question the present almost pervasive exploitation of women and the sexualization of female children.  Perhaps this is a good place for Sam and his colleagues to start, by discovering the truths of a single moral issue – the treatment of women worldwide.  It is easy to say that such truth would immediately impact and be embraced by at least 50% of the human race – women, along with a good percentage of men.

Once they have shown how their “domain of expertise” can be applied to a single issue – then perhaps the rest of their argument is worth considering.  I wish them a hearty “good luck” in tackling this single issue – but until they can solve it, moral issues might be best left to your poets, and your priests and prophets.

The following is the transcript of Sam Harris’ presentation at TED.

I’m going to speak today about the relationship between science and human values. Now, it’s generally understood that questions of morality — questions of good and evil and right and wrong — are questions about which science officially has no opinion. It’s thought that science can help us get what we value, but it can never tell us what we ought to value. And, consequently, most people — I think most people probably here — think that science will never answer the most important questions in human life: questions like, “What is worth living for?” “What is worth dying for?” “What constitutes a good life?”

So, I’m going to argue that this is an illusion — that the separation between science and human values is an illusion — and actually quite a dangerous one at this point in human history. Now, it’s often said that science can not give us a foundation for morality and human values, because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It’s often thought that there is no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures.

Why is it that we don’t have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don’t we feel compassion for rocks? It’s because we don’t think rocks can suffer. And if we’re more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it’s because we think they’re exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is this is a factual claim: This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity and the possibilities of experience well then we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects.

And there is no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I’ve ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes. Even if you get your values from religion, even if you think that good and evil ultimately relate to conditions after death — either to an eternity of happiness with God or an eternity of suffering in hell — you are still concerned about consciousness and its changes. And to say that such changes can persist after death is itself a factual claim which, of course, may or may not be true.

Now, to speak about the conditions of well being in this life, for human beings, we know that there is a continuum of such facts. We know that it’s possible to live in a failed state, where everything that can go wrong does go wrong — where mothers can not feed their children, where strangers can not find the basis for peaceful collaboration, where people are murdered indiscriminately. And we know that it’s possible to move along this continuum, towards something quite a bit more idyllic, to a place where a conference like this is even conceivable.

And we know — we know — that there are right and wrong answers to how to move in this space. Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea? Probably not. Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye, so that when bad things happened to them they immediately blame their neighbors? Probably not. There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths.

So, in talking about values we are talking about facts. Now, our situation in the world can be understood at many levels — ranging from the level of the genome on up to the level of economic systems and political arrangements. But if we’re going to talk about human wellbeing we are, of necessity, talking about the human brain. Because we know that our experience of the world and of ourselves within it is realized in the brain –

whatever happens after death. Even if the suicide bomber does get 72 virgins in the afterlife, in this life, his personality — his rather unfortunate personality — is the product of his brain. So — the contributions of culture — if culture changes us, as indeed it does, it changes us by changing our brains. And so therefore whatever cultural variation there is in how human beings flourish can, at least in principle, be understood in the context of a maturing science of the mind — neuroscience, psychology, etc.

So, what I’m arguing is that value is reducable to facts — to facts about the conscious experience — of conscious beings. And we can therefore visualize a space of possible changes in the experience of these beings. And I think of this as kind of a moral landscape, with peaks and valleys that correspond to differences in the well being of conscious creatures, both personal and collective. And one thing to notice is that perhaps there are states of human wellbeing that we rarely access, that few people access. And these await our discovery. Perhaps some of these states can be appropriately called mystical or spiritual. Perhaps there are other states that we can’t access because of how our minds are structured but other minds possibly could access them.

Now, let me be clear about what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that science is guaranteed to map this space, or that we will have scientific answers to every conceivable moral question. I don’t think, for instance, that you will one day consult a supercomputer to learn whether you should have a second child, or whether we should bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, or whether you can deduct the full cost of TED as a business expense. (Laughter) But if questions affect human wellbeing then they do have answers, whether or not we can find them. And just admitting this — just admitting that there are right and wrong answers to the question of how humans flourish — will change the way we talk about morality, and will change our expectations of human cooperation in the future.

For instance, there are 21 states in our country where corporal punishment in the classroom is legal: where it is legal for a teacher to beat a child with a wooden board, hard, and raising large bruises and blisters and even breaking the skin. And hundreds of thousands of children, incidentally, are subjected to this every year. The locations of these enlightened districts, I think, will fail to surprise you. We’re not talking about Connecticut.
And the rationale for this behavior is explicitly religious. The Creator of the universe Himself has told us not to spare the rod, lest we spoil the child: This is in Proverbs 13 and 20, and I believe, 23. But we can ask the obvious question: Is it a good idea, generally speaking, to subject children to pain and violence and public humiliation as a way of encouraging healthy emotional development and good behavior? (Laughter) Is there any doubt that this question has an answer, and that it matters?

Now, many of you might worry that the notion of wellbeing is truly undefined, and seemingly perpetually open to be reconstrued. And so, how therefore can there be an objective notion of well-being? Well, consider by analogy, the concept of physical health. The concept of physical health is undefined. As we just heard from Michael Specter, it has changed over the years. When this statue was carved the average life expectancy was probably 30. It’s now around 80 in the developed world. There may come a time when we meddle with our genomes in such a way that not being able to run a marathon at age 200 will be considered a profound disability. People will send you donations when you’re in that condition. (Laughter)

Notice that the fact that the concept of health is open, genuinely open for revision does not make it vacuous. The distinction between a healthy person and a dead one is about as clear and consequential as any we make in science. Another thing to notice is that there may be many peaks on the moral landscape: There may be equivalent ways to thrive; there may be equivalent ways to organize a human society so as to maximize human flourishing.

Now, why wouldn’t this undermine an objective morality? Well think of how we talk about food: I would never be tempted to argue to you that there must be one right food to eat. There is clearly a range of materials that constitute healthy food. But there is nevertheless a clear distinction between food and poison. The fact that there are many right answers to the question, “What is food?” does not tempt us to say that there are no truths to be known about human nutrition. Many people worry that that a universal morality would require moral precepts that admit of no exceptions.
So, for instance, if it’s really wrong to lie, it must always be wrong to lie, and if you can find an exception, well then there is no such thing as moral truth.

Why would we think this? Consider, by analogy, the game of chess. Now, if you’re going to play good chess, a principle like, “Don’t lose your Queen,” is very good to follow. But clearly it admits of exceptions. There are moments when losing your Queen is a brilliant thing to do. There are moments when it is the only good thing you can do. And yet, chess is a domain of perfect objectivity. The fact that there are exceptions here does not change that at all.

Now, this brings us to the sort of moves that people are apt to make in the moral sphere. Consider the great problem of women’s bodies: What to do about them? Well this is one thing you can do about them, you can cover them up. Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community that while we may not like this, we might think of this as “wrong” in Boston or Palo Alto, who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags? And who are we to say, even, that they are wrong to beat them with lengths of steel cable, or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?

Well, who are are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human wellbeing that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this? I’m not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil — women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I’m concerned. But what does voluntary mean in a community where, when a girl gets raped, her fathers first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame?
Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: Your daughter gets raped, and what you want to do is kill her. What are the chances that this represents a peak of human flourishing?

Now, to say this, is not to say that we have got the perfect solution in our own society. For instance, this is what it’s like to go to a news stand almost anywhere in the civilized world. Now, granted, for many men, it may require a degree in philosophy to see something wrong with these images. (Laughter) But if we are in a reflective mood we can ask, “Is this the perfect expression of psychological balance with respect to variables like youth and beauty and women’s bodies?” I mean, is this the optimal environment in which to raise our children? Probably not. Okay, so perhaps there is some place on the spectrum between these two extremes that represents a place of better balance. (Applause) Perhaps there are many such places –
again, given other changes in human culture there may be many peaks on the moral landscape. But the thing to notice is that there will be many more ways not to be on a peak. Now, the irony, from my perspective is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogues of one form or another.

And of course they think they have right answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind, not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being. In fact, the endurance of religion as a lens through which most people view moral questions, has separated most moral talk from real questions of human and animal suffering. This is why we spend our time talking about things like gay marriage and not about genocide or nuclear proliferation or poverty or any other hugely consequential issue. But the demagogues are right about one thing, we need a universal conception of human values.

Now, what stands in the way of this? Well, one thing to notice is that we do something different when talking about morality — especially secular, academic, scientist types. When talking about morality we value differences of opinion in a way that we don’t in any other area of our lives. So, for instance the Dalai Lama gets up every morning meditating on compassion, and he thinks that helping other human beings is an integral component of human happiness. On the other hand we have someone like Ted Bundy: Ted Bundy was very fond of abducting and raping and torturing and killing young women.

So, we appear to have a genuine difference of opinion about how to profitably use one’s time. (Laughter) Most Western intellectuals look at this situation and say, “Well, there is nothing for the Dalai Lama to be really right about — really right about — or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about that admits of a real argument that potentially falls within the purview of science. He likes chocolate, he likes vanilla. There is nothing that one should be able to say to the other that should persuade the other.” Notice that we don’t do this in science.

On the left you have Edward Witten. He’s a string theorist. If you ask the smartest physicists around who is the smartest physicist around, in my experience half of them will say Ed Witten. The other half will tell you they don’t like the question. (Laughter) So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference and said,”String theory is bogus. It doesn’t resonate with me. It’s not how I chose to view the universe at a small scale. I’m not a fan.” (Laughter) Well, nothing would happen because I’m not a physicist, I don’t understand string theory. I’m the Ted Bundy of string theory. (Laughter) I wouldn’t want to belong to any string theory club that would have me as a member.

But this is just the point. Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count. How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering? Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. (Laughter) How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human wellbeing? (Applause)

So, this, I think, is what the world needs now. It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals, and even for whole cultures to care about the wrong things: Which is to say that it’s possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality. We live in a world in which the boundaries between nations mean less and less, and they will one day mean nothing.

We live in a world filled with destructive technology, and this technology can not be uninvented, it will always be easier to break things than to fix them. It seems to me therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human wellbeing, than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers. Thank you very much. (Applause)

The magnitude of the catastrophe that we simply refer to as “Haiti” is a study reserved for those with sufficient determination and resources to discover its roots and causes – and is an investigation that is not recommended for the faint hearted or the fearful.

Most of those involved with attempting to address the rescue and recovery of Haiti’s people have in increasing numbers concluded that simply restoring this nation to its former condition – that is – to the state of affairs proceeding the massive 7.0 earthquake that struck Port Au Prince on January 12, 2010 – is not enough. There seems to be a growing global consensus that the Haitian people need far more than this.

As always, the question is not only how to provide such civic and social engineering – but more critically – how to implement such a vast rebuilding project that is truly sustainable. Recent history is blemished with costly failures – Katrina for example – and Haiti – the most impoverished nation in the Western Hemisphere, presents formidable challenges.

Some, perhaps men like Richard Dawkins, might reasonably be expected to argue that Haiti presents a unique opportunity to transform a society that has been steeped in superstition and ignorance by employing all the intellectual prowess of science and technology – thereby fashioning a model of evolutionary adaptation – the fittest simply applying the principles and truths of Darwinian discovery and understanding and thereby achieving such a remarkable transformation.

It is a stand that you most likely will not see Richard or his friends take because it is fraught with sensitive issues – pitfalls for the optimistic and the zealous, and for those who don’t recognize that we have gone down this road before.

You only need name the ideologies, the locations, and the experiments to conjure up the most blatant obstacles to the application of evolutionary theory on ours – or in this case – Haiti’s evolutionary destiny.

Tuskegee, the Volk, Sterilization Laws, Nuremberg Laws, Aktion T4, eugenics, and in its cardinal departure into madness, Auschwitz, Rwanda, and Darfur.

Of course, the Neo-Darwinist or the “evolutionist”, (whatever their choice of designation), will argue that the connection between these and a true understanding of evolutionary thought is unwarranted and untrue. They would term this subject “Social Darwinism”.

Darwin himself had observations on the subject in “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex” – Charles Darwin, 1882. “Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (emphasis is the editor’s)

Remember – we are exploring here how we can improve Haiti in its rebuilding – and whether the prowess of man’s evolutionary development can be brought to bear resulting in the transformation needed there. In a world of dwindling resources and increasing populations – there is ample room to speculate that some – whether they call themselves Social Darwinists or not – must be looking at Haiti wondering what a sustainable response would be?

Or could it be that we are beyond even the great shadow cast by Darwin’s evolutionary theory? – as a recent commentary by Alan Weisman entitled “Is the Earth striking back?” on CNN explores – questioning whether the real legacy of democracy – which we assume will be part of Haiti’s entitlement – is going to be world-wide cataclysms as the industries of free trade and progress built on the use of carbon fuels change our atmosphere – melting the polar ice caps – and bring on a chilling scenario of an Earth’s crust that is somehow responding and “has begun to stretch and rebound.”

In such a Gaia worshiper’s or Gaia scientific understanding – how does the transformation of Haiti fit in? Is it even a good idea to attempt what UN analysts predict will be a minimum $11.5 billion intervention – with a very distinct possibility of failure?

Surely modern science has the answers.

One thing is obvious – the restoration of a city or nation and the healing of its citizens is no small challenge. Recent disasters have given us a large study group of how individual people respond to and recover from major man-made or natural disasters – and although the task of rebuilding is daunting enough – the challenge of finding ways to help people recover from their great emotional and physical losses and the resultant stress is by all accounts even more far reaching.

Perhaps you believe that science has the answer to that, too.

Recently in reference to a prolonged and ongoing natural disaster an atheist stated that he had heard that some people in the disaster area had resorted to praying – and he chided them, assuring them that modern science would save them. It begs the question – if science has so many answers, why did science fail to save them already – and if science is going to save them, when?

It seems that there are some people on Earth who are only here on loan. They are the kind of people that light up every room that they enter – and seem to be able to touch everyone they encounter – from the bus driver and the waitress to the business mogul and the official – they don’t seem to have any fear. If you are ever privileged enough to call one of these people your friend, then you are privileged indeed.

I first met Jack in New York back in 1976 – and he seemed to have the energy of a group of people. Perhaps that is what his gift was. Buckminster Fuller, the inventor and visionary who gave us the geodesic dome, is credited with “discovering” the word synergy. Synergy is where different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome. When we talk about synergy we think of a group of people, who when they find the keys of working together in harmony and enthusiasm are able to sort of channel a form of energy that is greater than the sum of their individual contributions. It is what happens when a really good band finally hits their stride – and the music becomes powerful and engaging. Jack had synergy all by himself. He didn’t need anyone else to participate, although he was the first one to open the doors and let others enter into the delight and the wonder.

I can still see him, just like it was this morning, stepping right up to me – face to face, and looking in my eyes – with that little bit of mischievousness that he always employed when he started working the magic of the muse. It was not about what he said. It was the way that confrontation with the spirit required your participation.

With people who are on loan, you seldom get the opportunity to spend as much time as you would like to with them. The gift that they have to give is just much too valuable for you to be allowed to hoard it. They belong to everyone. Jack belonged to everyone, and God sent him to influence as many as he could. Through the tears of having to say goodbye – I was always able to smile – even laugh – knowing that Jack would not really be very far away from me even when he was half way around the world in some distant land – and knowing that whenever I saw him again – he would be the same man, with the same gift.

The last time Jack and I walked together was some years ago. We were both attending a music festival. Like every other time I have been around him, my time with him was brief, and the things we said are now forgotten – except one.

During the Second World War when the Japanese invaded the Philippines, the final stronghold of the Allied Forces was Corregidor – the island fortress at the mouth of Manila Bay. A story is told of how an important message for reinforcements had to be taken up the Bataan Peninsula through the Japanese lines by foot – all radio communications had broken down – and the commander had to try to get a message through to reserves behind enemy lines – though it was almost certain death for the messenger. Assembling his exhausted and wounded men in a single rank, the commander asked for a volunteer to step forward, and after momentarily glancing down at his communications, he was shocked to look up and see the rank unbroken. Leaning to his lieutenant he remarked, “Sir, has not a single man stepped forward?!” The lieutenant’s reply? “Sir, you do not understand. Every man has stepped forward.”

I can’t tell you when Jack heard the call to step forward, to carry his light, to be faithful to his calling and his commission – to reach out and touch the hungry and the heartbroken and the needy. I can’t tell you what price he paid to fulfill his mission. I can only tell you what he said to me in those few steps we shared before our last goodbye. “You and me, we are the walking dead.”

Jack had no other purpose than to be what God had called him to be. He had no other destination then to be sent. He had no other desire than to share God’s love with everyone he met. His life was not his own, he gave it freely. I am one of the privileged few who can say that Jack called me his friend. It is an honor that I will not soon forget, and it is a constraint that I pray I will not fail to answer.

“And let them make me a sanctuary . . . “

When the God of Israel commanded (the priests) Moses to make the Ark of the Covenant – He charged Moses to “make [them] after their pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount” – The Exodus 25

The Ark thus fashioned had mystical powers – it was better than a refrigerator – because the Israelites even put a bowl of manna in there – which they recorded “bred worms and stank” if they tried to keep it over night – they put a bowl of manna in the Ark “to be kept for your generations” and the manna didn’t rot.

Righteousness is the pattern.

Far too many preachers and pundits attempt to interpret the messages of the Ancient texts in current terms and viewpoints. There is a great deal of our perceptions that are based on our present surroundings and understandings. The High Priest of Jesus’ time was the heir of a thousand year fellowship of mystics – from Moses who spent 40 years listening to God while tending sheep in the wilderness down through generations of men dedicated to spending their lives as mediators between God and mankind.

These men did not watch television or go to the disco – they did not know about distant lands and cultures – save for those stories from traders and warriors who sojourned among them. Some were exemplars of their office – others were embroiled in commercial, military and political intrigue. They lived in a world that had little dramatic change in our view – for we are a generation that has experienced change in ways that are redefining who and what we are. For some, even what it means to be human.

During the illegal trial of Jesus of Nazareth before the Sanhedrin (transgressions of established jurisprudence not the least of which was the trial being held at night and in darkness) – the high priest Caiaphas “rent his clothes.” Similarly – after Jesus was crucified – the veil of the Temple (a curtain of either the inner or outer court depending on your particular persuasion) “was (also) rent in twain”. Why?

We may not be able to give an acceptable answer to the specific question – but one thing is certain – a rent is a violation of the integrity of the pattern. “Even the most perfect Earthly pattern could not inherit the righteousness of heaven.” – Apollos

Righteousness is the pattern.

And the evidence is everywhere – intrinsic as far as the creation is concerned. From the wonders of the sun and the moon and the stars – to seasons and kind – the seed, and the structure of the molecule and the atom – elements – earth and water – fire and air – the matrix and the sanctuary – when these exist in perfection with no rent or tear or violation . . .

Righteousness is the pattern.

“While the earth remaineth – seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” – The Ancient Texts

“The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast.” – Bob Dylan

Unless we begin to align our thoughts and actions with the pattern – we cannot prosper. God set the pattern. You might not like Him or the fashion of it – but ignoring and violating the pattern is futile – like trying to stop the rain – or empty the ocean with a cup.

The pattern exists – and it is written in stone – not as carnal commandments, “but after the power of and endless life.” – Apollos 7:16

The Ancient texts are overflowing with examples given as keys to this understanding, and mystics in diverse cultures have glimpsed through the veil and perceived these universal truths.

In like manner, the soothsayers and the Chaldeans have employed these truths for social and financial gain – and scientists have pursued the unlocking and manipulation of these codes of the matrix in a nearly pathological fervor – themselves understanding that the Masters of the Keys are destined to rule – their seat and authority a mandate from the God of Forces – as they access the powers of the pattern.

A rent then, is the violation of the pattern and the codes – the weakening of the foundations and the structures – and if serious enough – the beginning of destruction.

Caiaphas was keenly aware of the meaning of Jesus ministry and teaching – for Jesus claim to be the Son of God violated the pattern of man’s relationship with God as the high priest understood it – “and Caiaphas rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy.” – Matthew the Publican

And the rent of the Temple veil? Mark records that at the moment of Jesus’ death, “the veil of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.” – in this case exposing the pattern of the eternal, and revealing the power to restore mankind from the scourge of sin and death – the apocalypse – contact with the other world!

“God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” – Apollos 1:1

“But unto the son he sayeth . . . Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity.” Apollos 1:9

Righteousness is the pattern – “without spot or blemish – undefiled.”

When sinful man slew the Christ, tearing his body with scourgings and crucifixion – mankind’s rebellion against the righteous pattern that is set within every sphere of the Creation was manifest.

Envy and strife, emulations, greed, covetousness and lust, pride, selfishness, revenge, persecutions, murders, violations, imprisonments, brutality, degradations, infidelities, wickedness, excess, the forward the profane – all weaknesses in the character of fallen man – all symptoms of the rents and tears in the pattern of this present world – all bringing forth death instead of life.

History shows us that in every attempt of man to establish governments these rents and tears manifest themselves – and the empires crumble into ruins. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, and Rome.

The Earth is a graveyard of the failed endeavors of man – the Third Reich, the League of Nations, the CCCP, Pol Pot, Chernobyl, Rwanda, Darfur – The Federal Republic . . .

all casualties of the rents and tears – though brilliantly conceived and dedicated – not “long endured.”

Unless the New World Order is built on redemption – “the curse is cast.”

History has condemned men who attempted to formulate and establish empires that aspired to become the guiding light and principles for generations to come. You need but utter a single name to establish a mandate of judgment and righteous abhorrence – Hitler! – a name so despised that his blood family renounce it in their own lifetimes.

But there were others – Lenin and Stalin – Idi Amin – Ceausescu – Napoleon – Mussolini – Pinochet – Tito – the Bilderburgers and the Club of Rome – the Caesars and the Czars. Men with visions of the federation of mankind – man as the master of his world – man as the master of the universe – living in peace, productivity, security, diversity – men with a vision to establish a culture and government so advanced that it would transcend the flaws and aberrations of the heart, and the mind, and the soul of man. All their visions based on the transforming power of ideas and social structure – of a transforming culture and government – and of mankind raising himself to the challenge.

Today Humanism and Evolution – and science and pharmacology are seen as the gateways to utopias thus conceived – and still with all attempts to establish such Utopian societies failing in the most basic component of their design – the untransformed human heart.

An obscure carpenter from a tiny Middle Eastern village said it best, “Keep they heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.”

“For out of the heart of man come murders and adulteries – and all excess, extortion, volition, perniciousness and concupiscence, idolatries, hatreds, lust and greed, insubordinations, rebellions, witchcrafts, departures from that which is pure and holy and lovely.” – The Fool

When you depart from the pattern then behold, for destruction is at hand – and the Destroyer is upon us. If you look closely you will see him there lurking in the shadows – seeking to overthrow and devour – subtle and having the eyes of the bottomless pit – and a tongue speaking lies – and a heart consumed with evil.

Mankind’s final attempt to establish his final government and New World Order will bring forth a time of trial that will try men’s souls. It is soon coming upon us – and the time of escape is far past – “as darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the people.´- Isaiah

“The walls and the towers tumbling down.” – The Finn

“And they rent their garments – and cried, ‘Alas, Alas – that Great city wherein were made rich all the merchants of the Earth, for thy judgements are come. Alas! Alas! Alas Babylon!’”

“For in one hour is so great riches come to naught.” - the Beloved Apostle

Peter the Fisherman left his tiny village on the shores of Galilee to follow an itinerant preacher, a man who some thought was mad – or even worse – possessed of an evil spirit. But the Fisherman was transformed, so much so that the record states that even his shadow could heal the sick. This man Peter’s words and testimony come down to us through the centuries, “we have not followed cunningly devised fables . . .”

If we are honest with ourselves as human beings – and we take the time to reflect on the universal failures of man in his attempts to become the master of his destiny – our only reasonable response in acknowledging the monumental failures of empires past, is to accept the futility of such endeavors – and to reach beyond ourselves for the power and wisdom needed for our transformation. To do less is to lay the foundations of our new order in the sands of our own limited abilities and our vast weaknesses and sins, and then face the sure truth that “a house built on the sand in foolishness and pride is destined to fall.” – Ossian

“Prepare thine ark with truth, and righteousness at the helm, bring neither guile nor dissimulation on board – neither hatred, nor envy, nor strife – lest we once again be forced to abandon ship against some cruel reef of brutality and excess – and our deliverance be lost beneath the waves, and the tumult, and the Great Confusion, the fear and the loathing, the destruction, and we perish in the violence of the storm that is forever brewing in our hearts.” - The Finn

In the course of establishing its mandate – every empire has been forced to employ extreme prejudice against the rebellious, the non-conformists – the free thinkers – the incorrigible – the prostitute and the thief – the poet and the priest – and always to its own unraveling. – for therein lies the nature of the Beast.

The challenge that has been set before us is not addressed through monastic studies and persuasions – neither by power and might, incarceration, humiliation or executions, neither by apathy nor abdication. Nor will it be solved through the establishment of governments or consensus alone – for these supply but a meager restraint, the purpose of which is to provide the framework for the universal citizen to be nurtured and to grow to full stature – else all of these – emancipation, fraternity, equality, autonomy, liberty, justice – jeer and mock us as fleeting apparitions of sustenance to the wayward and famished – and as elusive riches and treasures imagined – pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

The challenge that is set before us is to learn what the true and righteous pattern is – and to fashion ourselves accordingly.

“For the time is far spent that thou shouldest awaken from slumber – and brace thyself with the icy waters of truth – and lift thine eyes to the consequences of they transgressions and thy sins.

Righteousness is the pattern.” – Ossian

Man was not made for the Sabbath

�Man was not made for the Sabbath � but the sabbath for man.� � The Carpenter

Mankind, down through the ages � and most recently in nearly every manifestation of government � has clamored for law. From the Sunni & the Shiite � to the socialist, the communist � and the capitalist � everyone wants a set of rules to live by. Guidelines for themselves � and restrictions for their neighbors and friends.

Cameras, DNA, RFID, universal numbers � Dachau and Treblinka revisited � all for the common good.

But how does it all fare for the common man � or those who, in their penury are �below average�?

Not well,

From the commuter who misses the bus � who makes eye contact with the driver who refuses to slow down, open the door � and deliver him safely home to his loved ones � for punctuality and regulation; – to the man and his family evicted by the loan sharks who operate within the law � we are all victims of our own perniciousness.

�Of whom will you stand in judgement � and who will you accuse in your menial and insignificant office?� � Ossian

�For if there had been a law which could have given life � verily righteousness would have been by the law.� - Saul the Murderer

The weakness of the law is not in the volume of jurisprudence, but in the concupiscence of the regulator and the judge. � The Fool

There is no office too obscure,

Nor position so small.

There is no personality

So despised or abhorred

That � given leave to judge

Will fail to exercise their dominance

Their severance, their pain.

And then from frailty and failure

We must all begin again.

The heart of the law is mercy � but unless we learn what it means � all efforts � every debate, every legislation � every courtroom proceeding � the judgments and the conclusions are all in vain.

Then �where?� you ask to find our way? The misty morning beckons us to gather at the river�s bank � to contemplate the ebb and flow, the moon, the stars, the rainbow�s glow and all creation comforts us that we will know. � that we will know.

Covenants and Covens

The political leaders of our modern world continue to strive for the placement of international agreements on subjects as diverse as carbon emissions and trade barriers � to the uses of atomic energy � human rights, financial regulations, intellectual piracy and copyright, media access � the list of topics being negotiated is almost endless � and the hammering out of the details of treaties and agreements consumes hours, days, weeks & years of diplomacy. When these efforts fail � more drastic measures are employed � taxes, restrictions, tariffs, public denunciations, sanctions, even war.

We are all made aware of the scope and gravity of these global governance negotiations through the media. These issues are the subjects of movies and music � and are the focus of academic studies and research.

Volumes of material addressing these issues that discuss, explore and comment � and persuade, are added to our collective libraries and archives on a daily basis.

Covenants are at issue in each and every sphere of human endeavor, pursuit, and experience � and they are increasingly being adopted on a supranational level � overshadowing and replacing the force and propriety of local legislation and jurisprudence.

As far as covenants are concerned � we are sailing in open waters on a heretofore uncharted course � and our national identities and personal liberties � however limited or frail � hang in the balance.

But there is another equally significant propagation of understanding and global influence that is taking place � an even more hidden and in some ways more powerful development � covens.

Though covenants can engage and direct mankind�s intellectual and physical realities � covens lay hold on men�s ideals, psyche & thoughts � even unto the subjugation of his independent moral character, his free spirit, and his eternal soul.

Through the influence of covens we are slowly being initiated into the thought processes that will be the compass and sextant of the coming world order. The initiates who embrace these understandings fully will be given special privilege and recognition � and those who reject the teachings and refuse the accompanying rights of passage will be judged miscreants � to be pursued and prosecuted � first with the power of the covenants � and finally with a solution determined by the high priests of the covens themselves � not unlike the final solution embraced and carried out by the Third Reich.

]]> http://www.undertheolivetree.com/2010/02/21/263/feed/ 0 http://www.undertheolivetree.com/2010/02/19/258/ http://www.undertheolivetree.com/2010/02/19/258/#comments Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:21:24 +0000 BBennettJ http://www.undertheolivetree.com/?p=258 Chernobyl

“There are some things that you seal in concrete – they have their times and their seasons – nuclear meltdowns, times when your emotions run at a fever pitch – power that can only be tempered with a harsh winter wind – the javelin’s point in the ice, fractured and violated in ecstatic wonder – the beads of water skittering across the seething oil – the melting of the candle transformed but still the same – the heart that desperately cries out a name – the unrelenting fever – the torture and the pain – some are borne on hurricanes, some on gentle breeze – the all-consuming fire and the never-ending flame.”  – Ossian

Without faith – life is unbearable.  There is too much to assimilate, too much to understand – too much to taste – too much to see – too much to do again.  Too many ways to miss the mark, too many ways to lose – without an everlasting love and eternity to gain – life is much too short to live, too little joy and too much pain.

By faith we’re traveling to our home –

no more to wander – no more tears –

no violent thunder – no more storm –

but time to live and to explore

the deeper timeless crystal pools

the understanding and the light

the tender touch – the open soul

to hold in awe and deep content

the secrets of the breath of Spring

unfolding in experience

and capturing the twinkle

Of childish eyes – or basking

in the warmth and beauty

Of the Knighted and the wise.

-     The Fool

Love that transcends

The dark of night

The terror and the fright

The width, the height, the depth

The separations – and the strain

The victory over sin – and, yes

The victory over death.

The Next Wave

Surfers know � almost anyone who experiences time/space transcendence knows �

Waves come in sequences � and regardless of the rhythms � sooner or later � there is a �big one�.

Michelangelo was one. So was Edison � and so was Hitler.

The Einsteins and Newtons shine down through many generations � whether it is The Beatles in music � or Mao in managing the multitudes � every sphere of human endeavor has its waves �

In 1993 we did �Countdown to Armageddon� � and we led to the climax that the stage had been set � and the curtain drawn for the final act-

I don�t think we missed the Mark by very far �

But what we may have misunderstood is just how far man would reach in his achievements � and the nature of the Beast at its onset.

We may have looked at the waves in a very analog way � the three dimensions of the digital age � in 1993 � were yet to come.

When you observe the successive waves in an analog manner � the tsunami becomes the most likely outcome � and the incarnation of Evil becomes a predictable manifestation of sanctions and cruelty � and hate � and abomination personified � a mere amplification of present sorrows and grief.

But that is not where we are headed.

The next wave � rather than a continuation � will be a departure.

Like C.S. Lewis� ever expanding garden � that increases in size as you enter its inner confines � we are on the verge of an explosion of knowledge that is unheard of � yea � scarcely imagined.

The Anti-Christ will not come on the scene as an oppressor � or a demagogue �

No . . . . rather � we will see the intelligence and ingenuity � the very precociousness of the human race � rise up in a way heretofore unimagined � glorious and benevolent � full of grace and understanding � and all a sham.

The next wave will be exhilarating in its portent and its magnitude � and its influences � and its redeeming qualities.

The Son of Perdition will appear � a Saviour and a friend � solving insurmountable problems � and proclaiming a new age � and a new understanding.

�(But) when they shall say Peace and safety � then sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child � and they shall not escape.� - the Ancient texts

We are on the cusp of another explosion of knowledge � the application of which will catapult us into a new age � man as his own Saviour � fulfilled and exonerated.

No longer linear � but exponential. Not even calculus � but quantum mechanics. No longer theory but application. Executable. Repeatable � harnessable.

When the Preacher of Jerusalem set himself to know wisdom and folly � he lamented . . . .

�all is vanity � and a striving after the wind.�

�Though one bring forth a company � and a company a thousand � and a thousand a million � and a million become as the stars � and as the sand which is by the sea,

Yet for want of an apology � it will all come to naught.� – Ossian

The Snapshot

She held up the picture � and there in the corner were the burning numbers

04:07:97

�This is my child,�- she said with a smile � �this is my child�. � The Fool

From the little daily departures of our ever increasingly disconnected lives, to the bigger events staring down at us from our past � we take �snapshots� � and we base our opinions, our activities, our consuming, our relationships. � even our legacy � on snapshots.

From JFK to Vietnam � the Berlin Wall, or Columbine � from a TV ad to a movie line �

We put the snapshots in a drawer � and in the case of those events that left their stain indelibly upon our hearts and souls and minds . . .

We take them out again as reference points � we step inside the snapshot and we once again � through images long past � and consequences long ago washed on some distant shore � we live again inside that frame

Remembering our joys � our sorrows, and our pain

And elements there frozen � locked within dimensions of that single plane � the color or the black & white � the people, places and the things � the negative and positive � our aspirations and our dreams � the watershed events defining who we were, and what we gained � or what we lost � so often remembering the cost

These snapshots � just a single point in time � not even seconds � just a blink, a shutter falls � an aperture is set � the film advances, life goes on �

The moon will rise

The sun will set

And tides will ebb and flow

Some things will die

And some will grow

Our snapshot lives are not a true reality � especially when we live again through our most troubled times

The snapshot captures just one frame � and though these pictures can define our experience, our journey

We must not let them rule our present day � though some in their transcendence should be placed for all to see � there are some snapshots that should be filed away � for all eternity.