Index 
(J) Journal Addenda to Old Man by the Lake: I am sure the old man sleep all day or work all day, some days, but other enjoys much leisure time. Then I bet he plays his guitar or washtub or other stringed instrument, or maybe he just sings to himself, like the coyotes. Either way, I suspect he will take Euterpe with him on his peaceful, I suspect, slide into death. Other: ISTMRN that no matter how hard we try, we cannot bridge this “awful”, some say “existential” gap between “you” and “me” and any “other person, cat, dog, or spider. To paint over that unpaintable gap, we conjure another from the “other world” we CAN access. I think many of the pictures we paint in that gap are soothing while many are vexing. For reasons that vex me, less it be irrational fear, many people it seems choose vexing pictures of God to paint in the inner world to fill the gap. (ll) Loose Leaf Review of “Denial” by Ajit Varki: You lay out an effective trap line, but became ensnared in your own denial. You deny death by claiming to be “real”: by attending to “real” life which ends in death and endures suffering. You want, and want others as well, to address “real” problems that cause death and suffering and eliminate, or if that is not possible or practical, reduce those “causes” (examples: climate change, drug policy research priority, etc.) So you still pursue “avoidance of death”, but are “practical” about it, and suggest support, both financial and moral for your brand of “denial”, more insidious than most, if not more sophisticated, but common as the modern “medical morality”. Smoking, e.g. perhaps for one the joy of smoking is worth the 5% reduction in one’s lifespan, the total joy built on years of incremental joy during each puff during many years of smoking. Death four years earlier might be a “rational” trade-off. Using the same rationale as “living with sickness = negative years of life” in your calculus, then living with joy should equal positive years in your life-span calculus. I can hear the hue and cry now, “… but, … but .. but there is NO positive effect of smoking on lifespan” to which I might disagree (e.g. joy, and stress relief seem correlated at least as firmly with reduction of health effects as smoking itself is correlated with increases of health effects). I will grant that, just as for living with pain or other malady, has no effect on lifespan other than already accounted for in mortality statistics. Quote from Varki, page 226, line 1: “.... the average human should fear .... change in the relative stability and predictability of his or her own local situation.” WOW! Really? We should fear change? We, the adaptable species that lives from the tropics to the arctic, from deserts to seashores, forests to prairies, cities to farms? We who can and have so adapted to such wide variety of “local situations”? We should fear change in those local conditions? Really? I think I see a deep flaw for this same man who appeals for more medical research to “change” the risk of “real” death and suffering (or current “local situation”). Strange, very strange.  Homosexuality: In our zeal to deny the reality of death we deny the reality of life. Aphorism 9 As an example, this entry is a severely edited journal entry of January 31. Topic: Homosexuality. The 1/31 entry is not included in this journal in lieu of this entry. In today's coliseum it seems I am being asked to equate the love of homosexuals with the love AND procreation of heterosexuals. The fundamental 'reason d'etre' of creation of 'the other world' (one of my current obsessions), the world 'above or beyond' the senses, the world where 'all men are created equal', where homosexuals are 'equal' to all, the world of samsara, the world where God lives, the world where all morality lives, where "you should" lives. In this world, therefore, the "chain" of logic (I would say "belief") for this particular but rather minor topic seems to run something like:
Therefore | I hope I got it sort of right, so far. Of course I totally disagree. This conclusion, so deep in Christianity and most other world cultures, is really just another premise that does not follow at all from the preceding premises, though they, the preceding premises (some stated as conclusions) do not obviate this "conclusion" or, rather, premise. This premise is then often extended (see the beatitudes in Christianity) to: People who "can't help themselves" deserve special "love" and we know, of course, homosexuals "can't help" their desires because they are "built in", they are "given" by this lower "physical" world, the world we CAN sense, the DNA world. ISTMRN that we confuse the shadows of Plato's cave with the light he claims shines bright outside the cave, outside in what he claims is the "real" world, the world beyond our senses, senses which CAN only see shadows. So "enlightened" people (outside the cave, in the light), "see the light" of ............... (choose your poison, but here the subject is) "love", immeasurable love, as the glue of equality. I suppose "hate" must be in that glue also, for I believe (my opinion) they come from the same well, they are indeed but other shadows on the cave wall. We often "hate" that which destroys or hurts that which we "love". So continuing my ill-advised positing of what other's are thinking, ISTMRN that others often continue along the lines started above with more assumptions, again stated as conclusions which do not "follow" similar to:
At least I have trouble reconciling the appeal to that "God", that god of "homosexual rights" (Note 2), while I see many of the same people telling the owner of fast-food chicken restaurant chain he nor his restaurants are welcome in Chicago because he opposes homosexual marriage. The Current mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emmaual and 10 or so other mayors made public statements to that effect. This is "obvious human decency" and telling people of different morality they are not welcome in our city is supporting community morality. Many of the same people celebrated the killing of Osama-bin-Laden by cowardly stealth surprise attack for which we condemned the Japanese morally. So these "adjuncts" to the "rights" make me suspect their truth, including the "truth" of their commitment to "human decency". Because, you see, I think they are "dividing their house" into "good thinkers" and "bad thinkers". And you know what Jesus said about a house divided. Wow, a bible thumping scientist who doesn't believe in god, let alone the divinity of Jesus. Yeah, but some of his ideas, or at least the ideas attributed to him, are pretty good, if good is measured by contentment. Perhaps not if good is measured by the actions casting out evil from the world. So in summary, I think society has a legitimate right (defensible in Caesar's world) to set aside the special for special treatment the man-woman union WITH its commitment to see the children through, because it is a special thing in our world, as well as in God's world, at least my God's. By the way, that's what the mortgage interest deduction is all about too: to encourage families. Note 1. The term "Human" is usually left undefined in discussions of morality, though it is often the basis of moral argument. Though undefined, the meaning seems to be generally cast in terms of "emotion", i.e. our "capacity" to care, love, feel, have compassion, cry, feel another's sadness, etc., et alia, rather than in terms of DNA where, though 99.9% the same as chimpanzees, we can "measure" differences among all humans, or some such surrogate as height. I don't know how to measure "love" or "compassion" or any other such "human" trait. That does not deny its existence, only its ability to be clearly communicated between two or among three minds. In this "other world" we are all alone with our thoughts for no one can say "my love or my pain is twice yours, or even that is it "more" than yours, because we can't know that. Note 2. The word "rights" used in the sense of "civil" rights is the same word and thought expressed by "rights" as opposed to "wrongs", so appeal to homosexual or any other "rights" are moral not "amoral civil" statements. Such statements also are god-given" in many minds (we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights), in other minds I don't know their source, but some tell me "common human decency" is the "source" of "obvious" "right actions". Some of these some, it seems don't like to talk about "morality". I suppose because they have risen "above" that, they have found "truth" that transcends "out-moded" morality (I think they assume "morality" is confined to the "Church" or other "Religion"), so "the discussion" has moved beyond that . Some claim they are moral and act in accordance based on "obvious" "common human decency" such as, in this case, love of homosexual rights, but I believe they equally worship at the altar of the "woman's rights god, the "black" rights go d, the "minority" rights god, the "weak and downtrodden" rights god, and the "anyone's" rights god. I too worship at those altars, but in my closet not my church. |