Athena

I was in a rush this morning and posted before completing. Tripolation, might you suggest what I might change to avoid being criticized for being condescending? That is very hurtful, so of course I want to avoid it. http://www.google.co...G=Google+Search That google link is to many arguments about if Jesus is God or not. The argument that Jesus was only a mouth piece for "the word" of God, seems a good one, considering this comes from Greek philosophy about logos (the word). I didn't think I was complaining but stating facts. I remember life before women's liberation and the huge impact of seeing the word "she" where only the word "he" had been used. Unless you were a female at that time, you can not know the experience, but you can be sensitive about the experience women had, and the adjustment we are still trying to make. Please, do not think our experience has no importance because this is 2011. That is worse than condescending. It is a reminder of when we read only the word "he" and we were forced to be passive and dependent. To make that change from trying to live up to the 1950 model of the ideal woman to being the 2011 model of the ideal woman is not easy, and that change sure has not been easy for men either. The ramifications for children who do not have the advantage of stable home lives, where they feel physically, emotional and psychological safe is dreadful. How do families that no longer assumes the man is the head of the house, and that he supports the family, so the family lives near his job, and no one has to consider her career, resolve their conflicts of interest? What is the new model? My general, my argument is about the importance of literacy in understanding the mythology. The Christian mythology has many sources. Clearly at least 5 biblical stories are the result of Hebrews translating Sumerian documents, adjusting the stories of many gods to be a story of one god. The Hebrews who did this could have been linked to the people who fled Amenhotep's holy city. Amenhotep tried to force monotheism on the Egyptians, and when he and his wife died, his holy city was destroyed and buried, and his name was taken out of Egyptian records. And those of the new monotheistic religion had to flee, perhaps to Ur, which had been a city of Sumer. Also much of Christianity is Egyptian theology. However, Zoroaster also gave the world a concept of one God, and the Zoroastrian ruler Cyrus freed the Jews from Babylon and ordered that Persia would pay for the rebuilding of the Jewish temple in Israel. So much of Judaism and Christianity seems influenced by Zoroastrianism it is worth our while to learn of this religion. Understanding Mithra is certainly important to understanding the teachings of Jesus, and I don't think our understanding of Jesus is complete without also an understanding of Buddhism. As for Satan being a fallen angel, I believe this dualism of the light and darkness originated with Zoroastrianism. The Hebrews did hold this dualistic concept, but it is very much a part of Christianity. I am not sure of the origin of angels. I know the Greeks had cupids. For sure the Persians had demons and this demonology became a part of Christianity.

Communism turned against religion because of the oppressive forces of religion. To unify the US against communism, it added "One nation under God" to the Pledge of Alliance and put "In God we trust on its money". This killed any kind of intellectual discussion about communism, because people of God have nothing to gain by associating with Godless people. This political power game, using religion, deserves our attention. It goes on as Bush junior led us to war, associating the attack on Iraq with the "power and glory", and mobilizing the Christian Right so successful, he won the reelection. Religion was very much a part of persecuting Jews, and later Christian guilt which lead to forcing the Arabs to accept Israel, and tolerating Israel's on going violations of the UN mandates, which then becomes the reason behind the 1970 oil embargo, and later the bombing of Iraq because Saddam backed the Palestinians in their struggle for land, against the Jewish immigrants who are consuming their land and water, effectively putting the Palestinians on reservations in the worst regions in the hills. War is good for religion and religion is good for war. I think you might be under estimating the impact religion has on us in the present. Today, after centuries of repressing women, this is less of an issue, but not a dead issue. However, a still very alive issue is the religious persecution of homosexuals, and depending on the interpretation of the bible, can continue to inflame persecution of others as well. Some of my Christian friends, specifically the Jehovah Witnesses, are opposed to democracy, because the bible is a book of kings and slaves, not a book about democracy. The biggest problem I have with the influence of religion in our culture is what it has done to education decisions. Only highly moral people can have liberty, but we dropped education for good moral judgement and left it to churches, when we implemented the 1958 National Defense Education Act. Now our nation is in a mess, and so many believe God and morals are defined by Christians, and no one else. However, Jews keep their foot in the door, with Easter programs about how they changed the world by giving the world the word of God and the Ten Commandments, as though the rest of humanity would not have an understanding of God and morals, had it not been for the Jews. Come on, there is a lot of mythology here, that we need to bring out into light. Please, give more thought to the points of the argument. And please, don't stop at the fact that the OT God is the model of an abusive husband, but is also a WAR GOD and is very strongly impacting us today.

If you were a woman over 50, you would not have made that argument. I remember well when women did women's work and automatically were paid less than men doing the same job. Women were as barred from some colleges and therefore some careers, as a book that didn't use the pronoun "He" would not be barred from being published. The first piece of literature I read, that didn't follow the rule was the New Woman magazine. We can not expect a man to know the huge emotional and pyscological impact of being forced into the passive and dependent role by patriarchy, and then the impact of reading "she" where always before it was only the word "he", but we can expect men to make a greater effort to understand and be sensitive to the importance of change. If you can not be sensitive to the issue, I guess that is just something you can not do, like people who have color blindness can not see all the colors. There is a huge, huge social and political impact directly tied into the gender and belief of a God. The Old Testament says God of Abraham is a jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing God. This God is a role model for men, and it is the role model of an abusive man, backed by laws that were oppressive to women. Socrates would ask, is it good to be jealous, revengeful, fearsome and punishing? We have come to the conclusion that this is not a good role model for men, nor for raising children. We could even go on to argue, what relationship might this God have with war? The God of David is a war God. This is where the importance of literacy comes in. We can learn of the common beliefs when the Hebrews came on the scene, and their possible connection with Sumer, and the impact of Egypt and Babylon and Zoroastrainism and Hellenism on religion. We can use our reason to realize the mythology.

I wouldn't say you offended Keelanz, but as a female, I am saying in general this whole God is a man thing, is offensive. We can hope New Age means an end to the centuries of patriarchy that have oppressed women, and hope for a greater sensitivity to past wrongs. Athena, my name sake, is a Greek goddess. She didn't give humans commandments like the God of Abraham, but taught them to govern themselves. She was Athens patron Goddess of Liberty, Justice and Defense, and we once knew her as The Statue of Liberty, holding a book for literacy and a torch for the enlightenment that follows being literate. Her other aspects are the Lady of Justice, who was in many court rooms, and carries the Sword of Justice and scales, because justice is balanced with compassion and wisdom. Also as the Spirit of America, who is in the mural of gods in the Capital Building. As the Spirit of America, she represents morale, that high spirited feeling that comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. I use the name Athena, because it is my life purpose to replace religious mythology with the mythology for democracy. Obviously this mythology was known in our past, but it has been forgotten, and it really irritates me that so many believe our nation achieved greatness because of Christianity, instead of because of democracy. This God issue is far more important then some realize, because of the political ramifications. The end of oppressing is one of the political ramifications, and why are you not aware and sensitive of this in this day and age? Sincerely, why isn't this better known and appreciated? We had liberal education until 1958. Liberal education begins with literacy in Greek and Roman classics, but as our country progressed, it Americanized the lessons of the classics. Then in 1958 this education for good citizenship, and to make us a united and strong republic, was replaced by education for technology, leaving moral training to the church, and now we have a real mess! Only highly moral people can have liberty, and we have forgotten defending our liberty began with being highly moral. Anyway, I don't need to invent a Goddess. She is older than the first democracy. She is older than Jesus. Yes, the bible does deify Jesus for some, and some argue this means Christianity is polytheism with at least 3 gods, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. But then don't they also need to include Satan as one of the gods? There are also angels and demons. Others argue Jesus is God himself. Then the Muslims don't deify Jesus or Mohammed, and of course Jews do not deify Jesus. All this is mythology. Marat. The God issue is very important because of political ramifications. Religious beliefs are not as harmless as believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

I very much like your explanations. As I understand democracy, a concept of God and morals is essential, however, I am opposed to religion. It is kind of odd that the holy books tell us God is unknowable, and then proceed to give us a mythology about God that depends on the supernatural, instead of avoiding superstition and staying with the knowable. My understanding of morals is understanding cause and effect. You know the Greek question, is something bad because the gods say it is bad, or do the gods say it is bad, because it is bad? Eventually in their arguing of the gods, they conclude, reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to it. For it is logically to give up the mythology of gods, but stay a concept of God that is what gives manifestation form. To know something is wrong if it causes more harm than good. This would be Socrates reasoning. Sure we might disagree on right and wrong, but if we spend enough time arguing, reason, is likely to bring to us to agreement. In this process of reasoning God is as the X factor in math. God is important to our ability to reason, and indeed can be an important part in our ability to love and experience happiness. What project into this God is what we get back. I also take the short cut of referring to God as Him, but may be it would be helpful to stop doing this. And seriously, what is the logical of offending someone and then lecturing this person about not being offensive? Many of us would be happier if speaking of God as She were common. There is a big, big problem with having a male God, and if you are not aware of this, that means you are insensitive to the sexist issue.

I am looking for information, in response to what others have posted. I will concede my understanding of the Boston Tea Party was overly simplistic, and that the conflict was more a matter of who had authority and who did not. I should not have referred to it in this discussion. http://www.nytimes.c...cnd-budget.html On the other hand, here is Bush's promise of reducing the deficit. The plan is to increase military spending, while cutting spending on education and the health of our nation, especially the health and security of our elderly and those who hope to live longer to qualify for Social Security. I do not understand the willingness to work for supporting the Military Industrial Complex instead of working to taking care of ourselves when we can no longer compete with the young on the job market, and also the willingness to support questionable military activity instead of education. The education of our children and their future is worth giving up why? How does this work for us? By the way, that No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to give military recruiters the names and addresses of students, while creating a reason to not fund schools. Whatever, Bush's plan to reduce our deficit didn't work very well, and nothing threatens us more than our national deficit and decreasing the benefits of our hard work. http://www.infopleas...a/A0904490.html Please notice the figures for military spending at the link, does not cover the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not? It also does not mention Reagan took money our of Social Security to hide what was being spend, while we also slashed domestic spending. Let me be very blunt. I believe the Military Industrial Complex is out of control, and that there is a deliberate effort to cover this up with lies and manipulations such as not including the expense of wars in military budgets. Our military spending more that doubled once Eisenhower established the Military Industrial Complex. We are now blowing up million dollar bombs. The cost of our military is not so much paying those who serve in our armed forces, but for the military industry and development of military technology. Another price is what replacing our liberal education with education for technology for military and industrial purpose, has done to our culture. http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3036 This link says if it were not for the Bush tax cuts and military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would not have the deficit problem we have. So I ask again, why doesn't the cost of the military action in Iraq and Afghanistan show up in the static for military spending? How are we to make sense of things, when cost are hidden and the attempt to deceive the public is glaring? When Social Security was enacted, few people were expected to live long enough to collect it. Of course if we reduce our life expectancy to what it was then, we would not have a problem funding Social Security. Medicare would also be much more affordable if people dropped dead before retiring. Yeah, the big problem is people live too long. Actually our standard of living was not that high before WWII, and many people didn't worry about taxes, because they were not taxed, and did not expect to earn enough to be taxed. Perhaps going back to the conditions of the 20th Century would solve our problems? Oh, women would not be working to support the Military Industrial Complex, but would be at home caring for the children and the elderly without pay. They would be full time homemakers and community volunteers and this could mean a huge savings. And which countries should have bases in the US?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pentagon_military/Incr_Milit_Spend_table.html This link gives arguments for increasing military spending, and arguments against increasing military spending. What are your arguments? Also, I read Obama wants to cut military spending and then that the recent increase is his increase in military spending. Does anyone know how this flip would happen? How does Obama come to agree on domestic budgets he opposed and agree to increasing military spending?

Jackson 33, I love your argument and wish I had the energy to give a full reply. I spent my evening listening to college lectures and those grievances written up in the Declaration of the Independence. The subject is worth its own thread.

I fully explained the responsible steps to take if you disagree with those in authority. Anyone who takes these steps all the way, and becomes the person elected to office, will need followers who trust him/her enough to submit to his/her authority. Of course no one should follow a leader who can not be trusted. God, we know we can not trust the bankers and others in the financial industry, so who is preparing to take the places of these corrupt people? Where is the education in good moral judgment that these people need? We need teachers for this. Where are they? One doesn't become a paid teacher, without a college degree, so how are the colleges preparing the teachers and professors? Who is responsible for all this being done? I am saying we should not enter wars claiming we are defending democracy, when we are not defending democracy through the education of our own citizens, and through our own actions to take care of business at home. I am not Christian, but some of the things Jesus is suppose to have said are pretty cool. We should not be trying to remove the splinter from someone else's eye, before removing the plank from our own eye. Our democracy is more threaten from within than from without, and if the price of oil continues to climb, the rioting may be on our own streets. Reagan lied to us, and now we are realizing the results his lie, and he is still listed as among the top 10 presidents of the US. I wish we could replay history, re elect President Carter instead of Reagan, continue our efforts to conserve and to develop alternative energy, and therefore, not have armed the mid east, and not have armed Bin Laden, and not corrupt oil countries with oil money and fights for power. At least Carter's course of action might lead to an informed and responsible public, instead of a mass that still believes a Republican can get us cheap oil. How can corruption be prevented when people still believe there is a Santa Claus who can fulfill all their wants, and what is happening in the mid east has nothing to do with them and their desire for unlimited cheap oil?

Now this is a debatable subject. I am not sure there are firm sides of right and wrong here. I have to use an analogy to talk about this. On a ship the captain has authority and is responsible for everyone, and the ship, on a totally different level from everyone else on the ship. The captain of the ship is like a state governor or our president. No one should come to this position without adequate preparation. The people in such positions must know all that needs to be known and also be good with people so they can lead everyone. The average person just is not that well informed, and is not desiring to be that well informed. Those who are both well informed and good with people are rare. To not submit to their leadership is just foolish. A smart person does not take a job and immediate act like s/he owns the business. I repeatedly learned the hard way, there are good reasons for things being other than I would have them. I always assumed responsibility for everything, from day one, and made a fool of myself, because I didn't know how much I didn't know. We need authority and we need to submit to authority. However, we must never give up our sense of responsibility and judgment. Unfortunately, too many people do that. They vote in the popular person and then do nothing but may be complain when the elected person is not doing right. When we believe something is wrong or that things can be done better, it is our responsibility to learn all we can about that. Then it is our responsibility to try to convince others that a change needs to be made. Because of the complexity of our institutions today, nothing can be changed as easily as in the past. It can take many years to bring about the desired change. I can mean writing those in the seats of power many times, and working with the media to raise public awareness. I can mean testifying at public hearings, and pulling in others to do the same, and even organizing political activist groups such as the Tea Party, or one to oppose it. Our responsibility as citizens, surely does not stop with voting. So we submit to authority, and we take responsibility, and take action when we think a change is necessary. The short of it is, our elected representatives don't always vote as we think they should, but ask us to trust them, when they make difficult decisions. That is when we should ask them why they voted differently than we thought they should. Now if this a big problem for you, you should prepare yourself to run for the elected position, at the next election. You take the seat of authority, by convincing everyone you are the best suited. That is how democracy works, even in the direct democracy of ancient Athens. Democracy is not the complete equality because that would be complete chaos and nothing would get done. Democracy includes as many people as possible, and autocracy eliminates as many people as possible, from the decision making process. In a large democracy such as ours, democracy is several different levels of decision making, and at the top a system of checks and balance, between the power of the people (representatives), the executive branch, and the juridical branch. The people man the ship, the president is the captain, and the juridical branch using the constitutions to be sure we stay on course. We have shifted the power from the local level to the federal level and this is both a good and bad thing. This is an area of discussion we should get into. It is not just about form, but also the area of responsibility and authority. Who should have the power to determine what my children learn in school? Who should have the power to send my son to war and make me pay for it? Should these be local decisions or federal decisions? What is the difference between private and public decisions? Should be credit record be private of public information? A democracy must decide the areas of authority and the difference between private and public decisions. That is exactly what we have, and this was the intent of the Military Industrial Complex established by past President Eisenhower. It is also what Rome did, and what Germany tried to do, and what Britain did with colonies around the world. The Prussians came up with the best system for the New World Order and the US adopted it. Hum, by best, I mean the power to achieve the goal of military defense of economic interest, not necessarily the best thing to do in human terms. As we slash domestic budgets and cut into Social Security, it is joke to pretend this very expensive military is force defending the economic interest of the common man, woman and child. I love this, the best thing to do in human terms is covered by religion, and the mythology of democracy. To the matter of the subject, without the mythology of democracy, the US can not defend it any where in the world. Until the citizens of the US are educated in the mythology of democracy, I do not think they should be going to war in the name of democracy.

Wow, which nation is attacking us? I was not aware that we had enemies mobilized to attack us. other than a few Muslim fanatics. What is the military capability of this nation that is attacking us? Does this justify having troops stationed around Europe?

Okay, you are not asleep. Why did the colonies of the north America rebel against the taxes imposed by the English government? Why did England keep taxing the colonist in spite of all the protest? Why did the US demobilize after every war, except the Korean war? What are US citizens paying for their military force? Like how much of the national debt is about military expenses? If you can answer these questions, then perhaps I am not justified in saying what is happening today is the worst kind of slavery. I say it is the worst kind of slavery, because we are supporting the Military Industrial Complex and know very little about it and what it is costing us. A slave who knows he is a slave can accept his fate or rebel against it. A slave who is a slave, but doesn't know it, can not choose freedom.

If you stick to writing about the subject, without adding your opinion of me and attacking my character, I am sure the exchange of thoughts would go much better. Next subject, should the US be a global police force? Libya is Islamic. I am sure these religious people can manage evil without our interference. I really like the original Star Trek shows and the rule against interfering. I also have some knowledge of our own bloody history. We survived our wars without help from a global police force. The colonies of north America separated from England, rather than pay the taxes for Britain to be a global police force. This is not to say I am not emotionally moved by the horrible news of killing around the world, but I don't think we should base our actions on our emotions. What does the Koran say about the conflict and how it should be managed? Martin Luther believed God determined who ruled and who served those who rule, and considering Muslims believe they should base their government on the Koran, I think we should stay out of their conflict. Opposing the rule of England was considered an act against God by some, and who are we to disagree with the Muslims who believe all they need is the Koran? This is a religious conflict and I think we leave it to the Muslims to resolve. It is pretty egoistical to think we should determine what is best for them. Democracy is secular. It is not our place to interfere in Muslim affairs. What we are doing to our own domestic needs, while tax payers support the Military, Industrial Complex or New World Order, is insane.

US citizens wake up! Your are working to support the New World Order and you are giving up everything to do so, including the security and happiness of those around 40 who will never see the Social Security benefits for which they are paying, unless the citizens unite and take back their government. What is happening is the worst kind of slavery any tyrant to imagine. The US demobilized after every war, except the Koran War. At that time Eisenhower embedded the Military, Industrial Complex in the US. This is what Hitler called the New World Order, and this is the greatest cause of our national debt.

Wow, your first line is an attack on me. Know I do not read post that cause me to feel unpleasant. The native Americans varied a lot, but we learned about democracy by observing them, and reading Greek and Roman classics. The countries of which you speak, Keelanz, have nothing like the bureaucracy above them that we do in the US. When we adopted the German bureaucratic model, we shifted power from the individual to the bureaucracy above us. There are benefits to this shift, but we are also paying a high price for these benefits, and the democracy we once were is becoming a forgotten memory. The word Frank, as in the Franks who came to be known as Germans, could mean both free and spear. Our symbols of freedom and liberty hold a Sword of Justice. This speaks of a different kind of allegiance than what we have today. Today our allegiance is to the New World Order on which we depend for our jobs and everything else, and we have given up our personal sovereignty for the power of the beast. I think the people of which you speak, Keelanz, are innocent of the power of the beast, even if they live under a tyrant, because their tyrants have nothing like the power of the beast to control even the minutist aspects of their lives that we live under. I am wondering if there is another way to get my point across? We have government on the city, county, state and federal levels. We can attend meetings on these different levels, where we can ask questions and state our opinions, and we can communicate with our representatives on all levels, but really how often do we do attend these meetings and make the communications? How much do we really participate the process of government? My point is, people are okay leaving the work of governing to someone else, so they are okay living under a tyrant, as long as they believe the tyrant is doing a good job of governing. But we have laws that so regulating our lives, that we have lost our sense of personal power, that those living under tyrants still enjoy. Our property is not our own to do with as we please, but every property decision is regulated, and we might as well spend a life time living in our parents home, considering what we have done to our government.

Excuse me, Socrates did not spoon feed anyone with information. He asked questions. Usually his questions were about raising self awareness. Democracy is an ideology of relationships. Before we rush into a war to defend democracy, what do we know of that ideology? The US had education for democracy from around 1840 until 1958, when we replaced our liberal education with education for technology. Instead of transmitting our culture and preparing everyone for good moral judgment, we stopped transmitting our culture and left moral training to the church. How long would Christianity be a force in our lives, if churches stopped teaching from the bible and focused on math and the subjects chosen by the National Defense Department? Come on, if we do not learn of the ideology, we can not manifest it, and we sure as blazes can not create a democracy with weapons of war. It breaks my heart when people say democracy simply means rule by majority. But thank you for demonstrating the problem with replacing liberal education with education for technology. The original purpose of federal government mandated free public education was to make us a united and strong republic. We are no longer the united and strong republic we once were, and at a time when we have far greater capabilities for educating the masses, than ever before. Try, democracy is rule by reason, and therefore, the best possible way to raise morality and the human potential. In a democracy is not people who rule, but reason that is suppose to rule. Hopefully the majority have the best reasoning, but without education for democracy that is not possible. The Spirit of America was understood as morale, that high spirited feeling that comes from believing we doing the right thing. She stands with the Lady of Justice, who holds a scale as justice is balanced with compassion and wisdom. The lady of Justice also holds the Sword of Justice. The Spirit of America and Lady of Justice stand with the Statue of Liberty, who holds a book for literacy and a torch for the enlightenment that goes with being literate. Together they defend our democracy and protect those who stand for liberty and justice. Our Declaration of Independence, could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility, as in the US, it was the individual citizen hold responsible for the institutions. However, this has changed, and the worst change was replacing our education with Germany's model of education for technology for industrial and military purpose. Now we fight angrily in the streets for the power of the majority, while our President stands almost alone speaking to us of the need for reason. How can he lead people who understand not our democracy? Our reality today is very sad.

Who here can name 10 principles of democracy? Until the majority can discuss democracy with an understanding of logos, reason and morals, I would say the US is shirking its democratic responsibility. I want to add, democracy does not mean a lack of authority. A household with no authority is not going to be a pleasant household. The goal of democracy is not to eliminate authority but assure the best possible authority.

http://therealnewsjournal.com/?p=6359 The link is about the effects of the Chernobyl melt down many years later. There is a book claiming at least a million were killed, it we look at the longer term effects. With the high rate of radiation in US milk, I am concerned about the long term effects of radiation from Japan. I live in Oregon and I am sure we got plenty of radiation in our rain. That means my garden may not be as safe as it was a year ago? The alternative to not eating what I grew is starvation, so I will eat what I grow, but I would be happier if I had no reason to be concerned.

This change in brain function has employment ramifications. There are some jobs better suited for older people and some are better suited for younger people. Good luck training older people to be better multitaskers. I don't think this is going to happen, because of changes in brain metabolism. http://onlinelibrary...m.1444/abstract That is only part of the story. There are other aspects in brain metabolism as well. I think we need to consider energy conservation. Our brain does a few things to conserve energy, and if it did not, we would have short life spans. For example, we generalize rather then see every tree or every human as individuals we are learning for the first time. We see all trees, all Mexicans, all Jews, all men, all women, etc. not individuals we are learning of for the first time, as a young child is learning all these things for a first time. That is distinctly a brain slow down. When we learn to drive a car, we have to think about so many things, that later become automatic. Imagine trying to drive if every time took the same effort as the first time! When we learn a new route from home to work, our brains are working very hard, and later we drive the route on automatic. A major change in brain function happens around age 8, and this is very important to conserving energy and living longer. I would assume the later changes also serve the same function of conserving energy, only now we have less energy in general, and just getting through the day can be challenging. A morning of heavy thinking can make a nap unavoidable. For sure my thinking is not as good in the evening as in the morning when I am full of energy. I experimented with pot when I was young because I was told it improve my concentration. It improved my concentration too much. Instead of reading dog, I read d o g. When our energy is low and we slow down too much, it seems to take even more effort for d o g to be dog. Now, throw in a physical distraction like pain or hunger, and we get d o huh, pain, hunger, d o, d o, d oh forget it, I am going to eat, take a pain pill and then take a nap. Not so different from my experience of smoking pot.

It seems to me this paper questioning if life on earth evolved from bacteria, needs to be considered, along with the consideration of if meteorites transport life around the universe. How would a bacteria that uses sulfur as life energy, evolve into organisms that use the sun's light or protein for energy? http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html This explanation of the flexibility of RNA and a RNA world seems to explain why life began with so much variety and is reduced to so little variety.

I don't have such a negative understanding of our desire to belong to a group. This comes in our genes, as we are a social animal. Perhaps no human beings are more cooperative than those who live in harsh climates and truly do depend on each other for survival. I think perhaps large cities that have made us strangers to each other are our worst challenge. Instead of being somebodies in a small group, we are nobodies in a very large group. This has strong moral implications, and makes the teaching and learning of principles even more important. In a large or small group is a person maybe compelled to be immoral and unprincipled. A culture that does not prepare the young with an understanding of principles and virtues will necessarily become a police state. Replacing education for good moral judgement and independent thinking, with "group think" and focusing on technology, was a terrible decision. Its is our need to belong, not exactly our ego, that results in sub cultures. The druggies sub culture is as important to the druggie as the drugs. At the other end is the gentlemen who meet at the golf club, and the Elks, Moose, Masons, Odd Fellows, Rotary club, etc.. We need to belong because we are genetically programmed to belong to a collective. However, this does not necessarily hinder individuality. Hum, I remember my younger years when it seemed common for my peers to need to "find themselves". We are programmed to seek an identify separate from our family. This is manifest in much arguing with our families and creating distance. Part of this process is usually identifying with one's peers, or a role model. Another term we can use for understanding our identity is "cohort". A cohort is the group of humans who come of age the same time we do. They are the ones who share historical moments. My cohorts tend to know where they were the day John F. Kennedy was shot. We remember the 1950 tys and the ideal woman was a good daughter, mother and wife, and possibly a community volunteer and room mother at a grade school. She did everything for everyone without pay, because this was her role in society, and considering the cost of replacing her with paid help, I am not sure women's liberation was good for our economy in the long run. We remember the beginning of the Hippie movement and when the ideal woman was like the mother earth goddess, the Beatles sang of love and peace, and all the folk singers sang anti war songs. I belong to this cohort, as none before nor those after, can belong to this cohort. It is in every cell in my body, not just my head, and I have feelings attached to all of it. The experiences I share with my generation, are very much a part of who I am and who they are. However, I am not Christian and regret I do not have the sense of belonging to a church that many of my neighbors enjoy. I think that pretty much establishes my individuality, because I just can not believe as most my neighbors believe. A few of us never got married or had children, and they get kind of left out of the conversations about family, sons, daughters and grandchildren. They are individuals simply because they can not be included in these discussions with their own stories. As a gerontologist, I have contemplated a lot what brings us together and what holds us a part. Our identity is very much about those we associate with and those we do not. Our physical features, size, color of skin and sex, directly effect our identity. There is how we identify ourselves and how others identify us, and this may not be in agreement. Of course we are known as doctors, waitresses or whatever, we do,and much of our identity changes as we go through life. A young person is building an identify, and an old person has shaken off many past roles, and has a very different relationship with his/her ego. Instead of needing what is outside of ourselves to build our identity, we have to sift through what is on the inside, and decide what to keep and what we want to forget. Laugh, one of our major challenges is forgetting all those things we don't want to remember. That brings me back to the idea of reincarnation. We need to forget these lives, so we can have new ones. May be some people want to continue the lives they have forever, but I look forward to having a new one.

There are so many ways this discussion can go. I will use my mother's experience as a key punch operator for my argument. You may know the first computers were huge, and information was stored on cads by punching holes into them. The computer would read the information on the card. Key punch operators, used a machine to punch the holes in the cards. It was very important to sit at the same machine every day, because the machine would adjust to the user. If someone else used the machine, it would not respond as well for the regular user. Each machine is made the same, but they are individual machines, and in away they develop their own personality. Our genes make things more complex for humans than machines. Two parents do not produce exactly that same children, but each child is unique. From there, the position that child holds in the family, a first, middle or last child, will determine some things about the child. From all the factors that make us individuals, we each experience things from our own unique point of view, thus increasing our individuality. Siblings can have terrible arguments, about what happened, even though they were both involved in the happening, because what happened is experienced differently by each child. So here we get back to the individual computer. It did not exist before it was made, and it will not exist when it is destroyed, but the atoms of which it is made will return to the pool of atoms. An interesting thing happens when we age. We might come to a time when we realize we are not our ego's. We realize this or that event did not make us as we are, and we can rethink what happened in our lives, and change our inner experience of life. Being too attached to our ego is not a good thing, as this prevents us from being all we can be. The more we can let go of our ego needs, the need to be "who I am", the more liberated we become. When we experience this, the saying, "I am a spiritual being having a human experience" makes sense. I leave open the possibility that I existed before I was born and may exist when after my body is cremated, if who I am is not limited to who I am in this incarnation. Like a neutrino, I might pass through many life times unchanged, and yet be able to store information? That makes cleaning up the information I store very important! For me, peace really depends on how much I love God. Not the God of Abraham, but the God of the universe and beyond. I think being one with God is completely letting go of one's ego. The air we breath and water we drink, once passed through dinosaurs, and what passes through us will pass through want comes. It is our egos that keeps us separate, not reality.

I love your explanations. But I no sooner get an ah, ha, and then think I don't comprehension everything yet. I just spent a half hour pondering the explanation, thinking of UV as the rabbit in a race with a hound, and taking 5 hops for every hound stride. I need to visualize the explanation or I just don't get it. I am also using my dictionary to better understand the terminology. This is a real mental exercise. Could we liken UV to Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction and transformation? UV ionizes atoms, transforms them and causes damage.

Thanks John, I read the link and followed it to another. I will be buying the best sun glasses on the market. For those who don't want to read the link, children are at greater risk of sun damage to their eyes, because they are not already damaged. To a point sun damage to the lens causes a yellowing of the lens and increases our protection. Of course when this reaches the stage of cataracts it is not a good thing. Also, as we age we loose melanin which also helps protect our eyes from sun damage, and again we need more protection. Also, want to say with a bit of frustration, that UV is broken into several different UV degrees. Like sometimes things get too complex. I am reminded of Socrates who gave up on science, because it lead to the study of smaller and smaller things, until coming to the atom, and as Socrates suspected, even the atom is not the end of studying small things. Okay, I was able to google that transfer of energy. This appears to be a site for children, and that is what I need to understand things. http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Rules/EnTransfer.htm Here it says heat is a measure of how fast molecules are moving. Now here comes the confusion again. Isn't all light photons? So when we name them we are talking about the speed they moving, not really different things? Then faster moving photons are carrying more transferred heat from the sun than slow moving photons? Or us there something else that makes the UV different besides speed? Why would one photon carry more transferred heat from the sun than slow moving photons? That is, if it is only transferred heat, why the difference? Annoying kid

My goodness, Moontanman, reading your fuller description of the eye damage caused by UV makes me regret I did not take better care of my eyes in the past. I have neighbors loosing their vision and what you posted seems to explain why "it burns the back of the eye and destroys the tissue that detects light and send the impulses to your brain." I know for sure I need much better lighting than I did when I was young. Is it as important to wear sun glasses in the winter as in the summer? I am thinking because UV rays cause heat, on cold days we are safe. But obviously on a hot, sunny summer day we need to protect our eyes. I only recently started using sun glasses and have been careless. I knew about the catracs but not the more serious damage. I think this year I will take protecting my eyes more seriously.