Tag Archives: Thinking

Dear Religion


Dear Religion,

Logic, reason, rationale…  etc.  This train is one that has come and gone for you. If the evidence for evolution is something you deny, and you have chosen a god or gods as a guiding influence in your perception of reality, then your comprehension of reality no longer requires any other substantial reason – other than sheer curiosity.


(for your curiosity)

Typically, theism comes in a package (generalizing, here):

1) Life is a divine schematic.

2) The mind of God(s), nor the mystery of his/her/the/it/their design is not something you claim to know, or understand, or else, you’d be omniscient as well, and not require religious faith.

3) Therefore, debating evolution or abiogenesis is not a wise move – as, your alternative hypothesis relies on a magical being you cannot understand, comprehend, nor explain – beyond honesty.

4) Furthermore, upon acceptance of the divine plan – your will has been entered into a contract, and is no longer yours unless you void the transaction. In effect, this also compromises any conversation with an empiricist, as they fully understand before you enter the veritable room, that your belief system is built upon the antithesis of the refined scientific aim (aka – “Scientific Method”).

After all, how can you enter a debate on the grounds of reason when you’ve already abandoned it? You’re trying to open an account with no currency to justify its existence.

Science relies on an extremely dense type of comprehension – as, its adherents maintain empirically substantiated evidence to support their worldview.  Whereas, religious faith relies only on the will of the adherent.  It must be nice.   lol

In conclusion, you chose to abandon things like reason, logic, and science.  Any empiricist you debate, relies on a level of knowledge that is bound by tenable and testable confirmations grounded in both personal discovery and a coordinated alignment with scientific comprehension to the extent it can be understood.

Ironically, both paths wind toward attaining some degree of omniscience, but essentially lead in opposite directions.  Theists believe in a bridge of understanding reality, while empiricists build theirs.

Now, I have some questions of my own:

-Why worry about what others believe if it is all part of a predetermined plan – a destiny?  

…And, if you believe that your preach/dissent is part of that plan, then:

-If your god does not want to interfere with free will, why has he/she..etc. sent you to tamper with it?
(I assume that is the self-less version of your motive to debate, and/or “spread the word”)

It would be far easier to change my mind (or that of other empiricists) if your god(s) simply …showed up – And, not through you, either.  I see the same stuff you’re made of when I look into a mirror.  lol



Concerned Citizen

Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy

Agnostic Blasphemy


-by Catalyst

1 Comment

Filed under atheism, blog, Blogging, poetry

What is a Thought?

What is a thought?

Art by Alex Grey

At a glance, I see a few options (I dare not go much further on this one):

I could issue a palliative, and slip away.  I could begin my ascent with discussing several potentialities.  I could work on simplicity to extrapolate some form of explanatory measure.

For time’s sake, I’ll take door 3.

Firstly, for this purpose, I would hold that function is necessary to define.  I’ll work in terms of verb and noun in light of keeping it simple…


Noun – i) A manifestation of sensory interpretation.

ii) An Induction.

Verb – An act of intrinsic projection.


A little further – What is worth thinking?  Thinking is worthy of thinking. Thinking is a form of concentration. In turn…not thinking (Zen “no mind” philosophy) requires concentration, as well.  This is action in inaction.

In conclusion, focus is the very ground that thought is built upon.  As, focus is a constant of the human condition. Focus may be honed or blunted…impulsive, emotional…erratic. It may be a weapon, a tool, harnessed, or feral. Focus may take you everywhere to dream on everything. It may also take you nowhere in the name of expedition.

What’s worth thinking?

Let’s, uh, think about it. It is your reality. Turn the question to yourself, and answer to yourself – Without holding audience.  And that… may be just worth thinking.


Leave a comment

Filed under Philosophy, psychology

The Relative Variable III: Exploring the Nature of Knowledge

Fore note – This blog is part of a working series:

Relative Variable I

Relative Variable II

The feedback on this modal has pointed at the necessity of explaining it in simple terms and values. So, here it goes:

Relative Variable Dynamic

1) The IHK section represents the core of all human knowledge. That is, all knowledge first extends from the individual. The IHK field is ultimately representative of subjectivity.

2) The knowledge is then passed on to cumulative human knowledge, or, CHK, when it is agreed upon with another individual. Eventually, if accepted by a society, and furthermore, accepted Trans-culturally, the case in point may be revered as a universally consistent truth. CHK represents objectivity. This is why I would personally like to see objectivity understood as a cumulative subjectivity.

3) Estimated human knowledge (EHK) extends beyond basic comprehension and verifiable measures. Yet, EHK has value in principle. A fine example of EHK is the concept of infinity. It is not easily dismissed, nor is it easily conceived. However, it can be used in philosophical and mathematical fields as a logical underpinning. This particular knowledge field has no need for variable set points because it exists on the fringe of the realism dynamic. That is, it is reaching outward – toward the unknown.

4) Absolute Reality (AR) Represents the unknown, and, by extension – Realism. Every thinking mind on the planet can agree on the fact that there are things we don’t know, or possibly, ever know.

Relativity Dynamic:

I. The Relative Variable – This (refer to arrows on the right side of the model for clarification), in my opinion, is the most important function in this dynamic. The variable set points enable the boundaries of human knowledge to flex as the respective fields of understanding evolve due to either new information, change of belief, and/or perspective(s).

II. The Relative Absolute – In this dynamic, RA is marked by the oval/circular lines. These boundaries are subject to change. Absolute in the moment, but may restructure as respective fields of understanding evolve due to either new information, change of belief, and/or perspective(s).


…and then…Knowledge was power.

Feedback is appreciated!  Thanks!

Leave a comment

Filed under anthropology, Blogging, cultural relativism, culture, evolution, Human Condition, non fiction, Perception, Philosophy, Puzzle, relativity, Religion, Religion and Modern Politics, Science, skepticism, Social Evolution, sociology, thinking

The Cumulative Subjective

Don't be one!

Can beauty be objective?  (This can be applied to ethics, as well)

First, it’s important to note possibility versus probability.  Logically, anything unquantifiable is possible, but this does not denote its probability.  Said variable can only be established as probable through examination and testing.

If the question were to interchange “can” with the word “is,” then probability would be the potentiality in question. Whereas, the use of “can” is a general inquiry.  Thus, the answer to this question is – yes.

This concludes lesson one in this discussion.

Secondly, “objectivity” is often mistaken for an absolutist ideal. In contrast, it is based on a cumulative subjectivity.  This compromises the objective sentiment, entirely. Scientific study is centered on confirmed observation(s). Any proposed system of how discoveries synthesize is subject to change.  Acting as an “objective” observer simply implies that one acts without bias to the best of his/her ability.

Across history, there are a plethora of accounts where observations were incorrect, but were entered into widespread objectivity.  My two favorite accounts of this are the “Flat Earth” and “Geocentric Theory” incidents.  A good question for any critical thinker to ask at this point would be – “How do I know that the Earth is not flat, nor does it exist in a geocentric system.” In all reality, unless you’ve traveled to a point in the cosmos where you can see a round earth for yourself, or accurately verified the relationship of the planets with the sun – you cannot. At this point, you must appeal to authority for any ‘objective’ statement.

Problem? It may be difficult to see, so I will spell it out for you. In appealing to authority, one acts with bias. At this point a bias concerning said authority is developed, and sentimental judgment is employed. This tends to be problematic, as, bias is in direct violation of objectivity.

This concludes lesson two.

Lesson Three – Conclusion: In light of lesson two, we are to conclude that “objectivity” is ultimately a cumulative “subjectivity.”  This is still correctly held over personal subjectivity as meeting any prerequisites of attaining certainty, yet should not be mistaken for having attained it.  This would present the conflict of bias, as well. This is the veritable stumbling block that holds scientific endeavor away from progress. Highly achieved scientific professionals understand this. Any ‘fact’ must consistently slave to the whip of scrutiny in order to follow the general direction the ideal of objectivity travels in.

This concludes lesson three.

Lesson Four: As for reaching an objective notion of Beauty? Like ethics, beauty is contingent upon intrinsic identity. However, as with ethics, it can be agreed upon within societies and perpetuated by cultural paradigms. And, yes, as with ethical sentiments, it shows universal consistencies.  Some aspects of nature can be objectively verified as far as objectivity is enabled to encompass. The best example, according to my understanding, personal observation, and the authorities I am forced to appeal to – is sexual attraction. This type of beauty recognition is universal with the exemption of homosexuality minority and a few cases of unmoved abstinence (and, I won‘t mention other anomalies, lol). Inherent constants emerge as stimulus provoked by symmetry, health/genetic evaluation (which, symmetry recognition also serves),  hormonal agendas, and pheromones…to name a few. There are environmental, general arts, and, yes – even mathematical arguments for beauty recognition, as well.  Another factor to address is cultural and societal bias. Can you identify it in yourself?

Lesson four: Concluded

There is much, much, more information and philosophical arguments (including a few interesting current discoveries) on the topic, as well.  However – I didn’t promise a book! Google is your friend! Haha…

Leave a comment

Filed under anthropology, Archetype, blog, Blogging, Brain, cultural relativism, culture, humanism, love

Mind Blade: Philosophisiticeral Violence

Mind Blade Assassin

Mind Blade Assassin

The word ‘philosophy’ is among the more abused terms in the English language.  Philosophy is primarily an umbrella term, and not for social linguistics.

There are five core divisions under the philosophy umbrella: Metaphysics, Ethics, Aesthetics, Epistemology, and Logic. Each study branches out into a myriad of primary cores and sub-division. Every thought can be traced to a study of thought. Philosophy, quite literally, encompasses every aspect of human existence. There are branches for every study, as well. Physics, Mathematics, Science (general), Art, Linguistics, The Mind, Biology, Culture, Psychology, Anthropology, Evolution, Technology, History, Politics, Life (general), Education, Religion, Economics, Legal, Naturalism, Environmental…are a few counted dimensions, among many, of modern thought. Each area, is an official designation of philosophical study.

Many put a high price on its head, expecting it to simply be this or that. It must be done this way! Or, it may be shrouded in mystery, as if dense mists move within and around it in easy, obscure flows – stowing away its secrets. Some may present it in hard edged deductive constructs. Others may envision vast landscapes, with low lush green valleys and high mountain ranges, whitened with fresh snow – Each crag and crack hinting at its mysterious process of formation. Theists have shown various shades in staking claim to it. Some were named among the pioneers such as Immanuel Kant, or the literary artist – Ralph Waldo Emerson. However, on the current cultural front, rationalism, reason and logic are noble steeds driven fiercely into deep pools of muck in jockeying for position.

Cultural storms have been crashing and brewing since the first culture rose from the soils of sentience. Informal and formal practices of debate have spread out amongst a much broader range of social discourse with the modern age of the internet. Anyone with a computer and a network connection can chime in, and sign their name to, their own unique propaganda. Many don’t realize that they are on the frontlines of culture war when they are etching their piece of mind onto a computer screen and sending it adrift in cyber space.

Religion and politics are keystones of societies, handed down by tradition. Puppetry and magic are the sources of passionate argument in open discussion, though hearts beat rapid and anger clouds clarity. Hard heads collide, as one is set upon cracking the other. These regions of the social jungles are dark with desire and rich with snakes. These topics are entangled with emotion, and furrowed brows casting shadows upon the looking eyes. Old ghosts of times lost are still held high by their bumbling followers and gallant knights. Each side screams their battle cries as they dig their heals in and push it deeper. The divide threatens and they dare not slight, sheath their swords, nor compromise; and rarer still – an apology.

Over discussion, they split each hair – And, I say welcome to…culture warfare. Through their words bare gnashing teeth and bloodshot eyes. Maturity has brought me the kindness and calm. I wonder now, what they fight for. It has been so long – I can’t see it anymore. I am lost in the gun smoke, fire and clashing steel. Wandering and wondering, my heart opens out. The scene is obvious; the cultures war.

History reminds me about these pains and plights. There is little good born by it, mostly rising tempers and misuse of the written word.  Pens are sharp and wits can dance around slower minds. Societal cancer chews away, but there’s no blood on the ground. Rhetoric is rendered , but no lives are lost, I cannot help but imagine that this is actually progress.  Maybe it is a move forward, and that is difficult to imagine. A few minds here, and a few minds there.  In this arena, the brain rises above the brawn. Thoughts playing at conflict, but this could the answer to physical violence.

Leave a comment

Filed under cultural relativism, culture, evolution, Human Condition, humanism, non fiction, Perception, Philosophy, Politics, psychology, relativity, Religion, Religion and Modern Politics, Science

The Relative Variable II – Experimental Understanding

“The words of truth are always paradoxical.”

– Lao Tzu


Part I: The Relative Variable



What is truth?

You may know something to be truth; however, that is not a governing truth.  Rather, it is a truth.  Your ability to understand rests on your own shoulders.  The ability to explain it in simple terms, rests on mine.  This is a path we will have to walk down together.

Truth is God.  The god I believe in, however.  I feel that if truth could be known – so could all that is – or, god.  I cannot give you all truth…anyone who says they can does so in dishonesty.  I can give you an understanding of what I understand to be a rational approach to conceiving a truth.  Through this, you may contemplate the whole.  Or, perhaps nothing will be achieved here.  The understanding is purely experimental.

Think on this – First, know truth to be evolving.  In all reality, it may not change at all, but it is relative to your understanding of it.  Therefore, what a human can know as a truth can only ever be relative to his/her knowledge of it.

How does this work?  For explanation, I draw upon three basic logic modalities.

1) Absolutism

2) Relativism

3) Realism

Absolutism states that truth is absolute and can be fully known.  Relativism states that the truth is only ever relative.  Realism holds that the truth cannot be known.

Traditionally, these have been seen as contradicting schemes – aside from dualism, which combines absolutism and relativism.  If you ask me – this is simply a classic example of a conceptual stone made so heavy that it cannot be lifted.  These models have always been pieces to the same puzzle.  The problem lies within the misunderstanding that these concepts need to function separately.   These conceptual identities have never been applied so that each provide a solution and sustain explanatory properties without exception.

A common misconception about logic modalities is the idea that one model, and one alone, must be chosen and adhered to.  Though, in vulnerable moments of honesty, we will apply all three at different times – for different uses – and, all regardless of former preference.

First – let me redefine these modalities as “components of mental technology.”  Each are equally useful – which, is why they have survived antiquity.

Using the three models, build a complete schematic for truth.  They must all be applied equally and simultaneously – as if to form a large model with dynamic function.

Picture an atom:

Absolute Reality is dualistic in function.  It serves as the unknown absolute – incorporating both realism and absolutism dynamics.  The outer circle represents truth in its entirety.  The inner circles represent the extents of various categories of human knowledge.  The variable set points represent the contact between human knowledge within its own categories and AR – Absolute Reality.

EHK – Estimated human knowledge is for the very brink of scientific discovery.  This would apply to concepts (I.e. mathematical) that are grounded in an undefined dimension.  Subatomic particles and quantum mechanics belong in this region.  EHK borders the edges of the known and simulates abstractions from AR.  It is the cutting edge of science.

The idea simplifies to the point of explaining that human knowledge is absolute, but only in respect to variable dynamics in relation to the outer dimension.  In Absolute Reality, human quantification is limited to a degree that may be infinitely altered, thus obscuring any identity within – as defined by human knowledge.

Simply stated – A truth can only ever be relative to the unknown.  Though, the model can be expanded further displaying inter-dynamics.  The model is a map – a conceptual map.  Human knowledge can be both relative to its other categories and the realism dynamic.

Also, Human Knowledge can be absolute to the extent of established variable set points.

Stating that a ball is round is an absolutist statement within the dimension of human knowledge.  This statement only maintains value within human knowledge dynamics.

How does this apply to your life?  It may take some time, but through comprehension, reflection, and meditation an unparalleled awareness may dawn.  This was how I reached these conclusions, however.  I suggest you take them to meditation.  When approached with sincerity these realizations can humble the greatest scientist and the most devout preacher.  New findings using the scientific method can be plotted according to their certainty.  Most importantly, this is a reminder that we are always toying with infinite possibility, potentiality, and probability.  This opens the imagination and yet specifies boundaries.

Exercises in thought:

Answer each question, by referring to the model schematic and explanation above:

Consider – If reality is merely based on agreed upon conclusions, then, imagine, if you will, that the conditions are subject to change.

i) What certainty is possible then?

ii) Is every certainty possible?

iii) If so, what factors serve as contributive to sculpting out the finality?

iv) How is, then, said finality narrowed down to its actual conclusion?


Epistemological application:  How can you know a thing to be true?


The actual test will be explaining realizations (if any) to a friend.  Your ability to communicate it will demonstrate your comprehension – as this writing is a test for me.

Defining truth with a tone of both humility and honesty should be a reality now.  Why is that important?  This question is solely your quest.  Meditate on this.  Use the model schematic.  The task is to reach a deeper level of awareness concerning the nature of both knowledge and reality.



Filed under Philosophy, relativity, thinking