What is LOVE?

"Love is just a word until someone comes along and gives it meaning." ~Paulo Coelho

At the center of almost every known galaxy lies a Black Hole

 

"The wound is the place where the light enters" ~Rumi

10/28/2018 After the tragic events of Saturday's shooting at a Jewish Synagogue, in Pittsuburg PA (USA), the above quote leaves me pondering, conversely, what then is hate? Perhaps, hate is an evil seed lurking deep within the hearts of all men, stirred into action by misunderstanding? By mistrust? By envy? By those seeking an angle toward regaining power? "... And those deeds you strive to keep hidden shall be borne into the light." This is my ongoing prayer, as always.  May Peace and healing eventually find their way to those who have suffered such great loss in this senseless (soul-less) shooting.  Love and Hate, but a stone's throw away from one another in the duality of our human nature, along the continuum of our existence .. (which I happen to believe is 'circular' in nature, with my profound belief in re-incarnation).

Technology: Does it make our lives better or worse?

So I am driving home from a full day of classes a few days back.  I'm listening to talk radio and at the top of the hour the hosts commence  with a run-down of cool/top stories in the news around the planet.  One topic in particular jumps out at me.  Apparently, a town in China is planning to launch an artificial moon into earth orbit by January 2020.  Instantly, flashes of the dreaded Deathstar from  "Star Wars" movies pop into the forefront of my mind.

The purpose of this artificial moon?  Well, the Chinese city officials claim their faux moon will serve solely to act as source for gathering light to reflect down upon their city at night, thereby eliminating the need for electrically powered street lights. This sounds plausible and is maybe not an entirely 'bad' thing from an energy conservation standpoint, right?  But what about the other ramifications of such a BIG artificially imposed man-made structure looming in earth-orbit space? Surely we cannot entirely dismiss the potential for weaponizing such a space-based structure?  And how about the fact that the artificially imposed light source might actually be considered a form of light pollution from certain perspectives (e.g., an influx of super-imposed light would greatly hinder star-gazing into the nighttime sky).  And wouldn't they have to change the children's nursery rhyme to "I see the moons, the moons see me?" ; )  One wonders exactly how bright  (in terms of lumen) this moon's artificial light would be?  Then there are "biological clock" issues.  Meaning, would the net result of this additional artificially imposed light be something akin to near 24-hour daylight cycles witnessed by those living in Alaska and the like?  What long term impacts would this extended light cycle have on biological processes, people, animals and plants alike?

At the conclusion of my pondering all of the above, I am left wondering:  if we look the sum of our modern-day technology are the collective benefits derived from our technology --the whole spectrum from cell phones and social media to faux moons and everything in between-- a net-sum 'good' or 'bad' thing for our society as a whole? Beauty as well at truth lie in the eyes of the beholder, I suppose.  But at some point, don't we have an obligation to begin an honest discussion about the long term ramifications of where we are headed, and more importantly where we want to be headed, technologically speaking? And then, of course, there is the whole issue of 'governments' having the monopoly on scientific investigation.  We, in the United States, have this 'control' with respect to the government funding dispersed via  National Science Foundation --offshoot of 'National Academy of Science'-- which is responsible for driving, funding and deeming credible the larger portion of scientific research, particularly at the University level.  Then of course, there are the numerous other government funded contracts to private corporations and some universities --I happened to work on one of these in my earlier college days.  One could argue that such 'regulation' --mostly by way of controlling funding for research-- is not necessarily beneficial to the overall process of scientific discovery from an outcome bias and limitations standpoint (e.g., 'climate change' study).  Creativity and innovation, not to mention objectivity, from what I have personally witnessed function best outside the rigid confines of a bubble, any bubble.  One wonders if government 'oversight' of the process of scientific discovery also does the people a disservice by biasing/controlling the information that actually reaches average citizen with respect to specific scientific discoveries --most especially in the absence of a robust media coverage ... for media benefits from an apocalyptic take on science, do they not?  That is to say, a worried audience is more likely to tune into to news coverage each day, aren't they?  I would argue further that in the absence of a truly informed citizenry, the voice of "we the people" is diminished. What say you???

10/28/2018  Well, it may be awhile before we have to worry about China launching its faux moon? But at least the Chinese get some credit for trying to decentralize government control of some science-based entities.

Schooling the Mainstream Media?

"Definition of mob (Entry 1 of 2) 1 : a large and disorderly crowd of people especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action.  " ~Miriam Webster Dictionary entry

The circle of mainstream media denials of the above definition would, surprisingly enough, have you believe otherwise?

Do not the rights to Free Speech of an individual end whereupon they begin to infringe upon, or worse yet endanger another person? In the absence of the latter standard we lose all hope for civility not only in our politics, but in nearly every aspect of our daily lives. An acceptance of this mob-mentality behavior outright disregards the very principles upon which our representative democracy was founded and our leaders on both sides of the political aisle have an obligation to denounce this type of behavior as being unacceptable, falling well outside the realm of Free Speech and the right to PEACEFUL Protest.  If shouting down those who happen to disagree with us on philosophical or political issues --especially when going about the business of our private lives-- with simplistic, repetitive mono-syllabic rantings in the absence of meaningful facts and mutual dialogue becomes the new acceptable norm in America we will have turned a very sad corner in our nation's history.  And when we add violence to this mob behavior we run the risk of needlessly endangering lives.

Keep this in mind when your cast your mid-term ballot in November.  Is your vote going to be for dismantling meaningful dialogue, bending to the will of a mob-like "acquiescence or be crushed" mentality moving forward in our nation ? Or will you find the courage within yourself to think and act outside box, choosing to vote for candidates --be they Democrat, Independent or Republican-- who put forth action-based ideas that will  make your life tangibly better in terms of economics and security? And finally, please do consider this: Do you really want to live in country where you no longer have right to independent thought? In my humble opinion, the right to independent thought is not only unique as  a key founding principle of our nation, but independent thought is essential for our individual spiritual evolution.  Independent thought (and individual accountability) is the cornerstone upon which a foundation for a return to sacredness in our daily lives is built.