Yesterday, Jordanian protesters chose Al-Dakhiliyeh Roundabout as a place to perform their demonstrations. However, I read in the Jordanian newspapers, and declarations from Jordanian officials, those who speak against demonstrating in such places namely because it is a vital place in the city of Amman, and accusing the demonstrators of causing traffic jams and disrupting the flow of everyday life.
First of all, I commend the choice of demonstrators, because such important demonstrations need to exist in highly visible places. And the fact that traffic jams occurred because of the demonstrations is not a negative thing. Justifying violence against protesters because they disrupt the flow of everyday life is such an ignorant claim.
Of course protests will disrupt the normal flow of everyday life, as it should! I find it offensive that the authorities want people to go on with their everyday life, when the country is in crisis. When the parliament does not represent the people, when police interfere with people's legitimate activities, when the intelligence agency spies on civilians, and when corruption is prevalent. Anyone asking people to act as if everything is normal is ignorant, and obviously does not care about democracy and reform.
It is very short-sighted for a citizen in Jordan to be upset that they reached their home a bit late because a traffic jam occurred while knowing that the traffic jam was caused by protests aimed at political reform. And I don't think that Jordanian citizens are that much short-sighted to be upset by that traffic jam. This is simply an excuse for the authorities to obstruct the reform process. Excuses that shows that the people who come up with those excuses are ignorant and corrupt.
In those times, the least of our concerns is normalcy. We don't need people to go on with their everyday life. We need them to be angry, enraged, and mobilized. We need people to demand and make change. And dare I say it, we need nation-wide civil disobedience! Civil disobedience is the basis of democracy, it is the ideal that every nation that respects itself aspires to.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Religions and Politics
Some people might ask, what does religion have to do with politics?! The answer is A LOT. Religion and politics have very strong ties in many aspects: psychological, socio-economical, socio-political, intellectual, and historical. In history, many countries were founded with religious regimes. Christian and Islamic crusades are prime examples. The Dark Ages when the christian church ruled that caused Europe lots of suffering. And in contemporary politics, Israel which is a state founded on religious background.
However, knowledge of those religions does not explain how religion has been able to have this drastic effect on politics. The reason that religions are powerful is that they shape the intellectual terrain, the ethics and morality of people, and is taught as truth to people ever since they are born. Anyone who studies mainstream religions find that they carry an incredible amount of evil. Mainstream religions teach hypocrisy, fear, false morality, submission, and hate. Anyone who looks at those religions objectively can see their true purpose, which is to enslave humanity.
Most religions are engineered by power-hungry people, and fed to the public to enslave them. It can be seen without ambiguity that mainstream religions pave the way to absolute tyranny. "God" this mysterious being who watches you every minute of every day, and is ready to punish you mercilessly if you disobey. It does not take a genius to figure out that "God" is nothing but the alter-ego of a tyrant government. The primary purpose of religion is to make people sympathize with the idea of absolute tyranny. To trick people into believing that being "watched", "judged", and "punished" is something acceptable. Not only accept this type of behavior, but to support it and root for it. And then it boils down to the oldest trick in the book, bait and switch. Make people accept those heinous behaviors, then the tyrant would engage in those activities without being questioned.
Once people accept the idea of being slaves, enslaving them becomes easier. So teach people that they are slaves to God, then they will be more accepting to be slaves to an autocrat. Teach people that God watches them 24/7, and then having an intelligence agency spying on them becomes acceptable. We now see people okay with governments spying on them with satellites, tapping their phone calls, putting cameras in public places. All those behaviors are facilitated by the psychological warfare that is religion. And of course, God knows everything, so the government should know everything. And God punishes people with endless suffering, so torturing people is okay, especially if torture is used to get information, because the government has a right to know everything. The parallels are endless, but you can now see how mainstream religions fit the picture. Mainstream religions are nothing more than psychological tools that rationalize the actions of a tyrant government, with God as the alter-ego of such governments. When it comes to religion, you need to accept the "facts" without questions, which is very convenient for tyranny. Tyrants don't want people to ask questions, just to obey blindly; And that's easy because they had lots of practice in their religious beliefs.
But of course, God loves us all... That's the christian way of saying: "The government does bad things, but only because they care. It's all for the greater good!"
It is no coincidence that democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Of course change needs time, and the effects of history takes time to heal. But the fight for freedom and democracy is ultimately a fight against religious institutions. The religious beliefs that made tyranny possible and even acceptable. And tyranny and religions shall fall together because they are two sides of the same coin. Anyone observing history can easily see the inverse relationship between freedom and religion. The more religious the public is, the more tyranny is prevalent. And in this time and age, religions are slowly fading away, as freedom is slowly growing more and more. Once again, it is not a coincidence that the most developed nations of our time are those where secularism is prevalent.
Anyone who follows my blog knows that I am a relentless supporter of Satanism. Satan being a symbol of Humanity and rebellion against God. However, it always was (and still is) my vision that promotion of Atheism and Satanism is not just about philosophical investigation of facts of the world, such as whether or not God exists. It goes beyond that: It is a promotion for the ethics and beliefs that will change the world from one that is ruled by tyrants, to one where freedom and personal liberty are essential part of the socio-political scene.
I urge anyone and everyone who is looking for reform in the political arena to understand the negative effects of the religious institutions to our freedom. Your rebellion against tyranny is a rebellion against "God", and rebellion against "God" is rebellion against tyranny. Because at the heart of the matter, they are one and the same. "God" is a symbol of absolute tyranny, and supporting that symbol is the greatest heresy against humanity.
However, knowledge of those religions does not explain how religion has been able to have this drastic effect on politics. The reason that religions are powerful is that they shape the intellectual terrain, the ethics and morality of people, and is taught as truth to people ever since they are born. Anyone who studies mainstream religions find that they carry an incredible amount of evil. Mainstream religions teach hypocrisy, fear, false morality, submission, and hate. Anyone who looks at those religions objectively can see their true purpose, which is to enslave humanity.
Most religions are engineered by power-hungry people, and fed to the public to enslave them. It can be seen without ambiguity that mainstream religions pave the way to absolute tyranny. "God" this mysterious being who watches you every minute of every day, and is ready to punish you mercilessly if you disobey. It does not take a genius to figure out that "God" is nothing but the alter-ego of a tyrant government. The primary purpose of religion is to make people sympathize with the idea of absolute tyranny. To trick people into believing that being "watched", "judged", and "punished" is something acceptable. Not only accept this type of behavior, but to support it and root for it. And then it boils down to the oldest trick in the book, bait and switch. Make people accept those heinous behaviors, then the tyrant would engage in those activities without being questioned.
Once people accept the idea of being slaves, enslaving them becomes easier. So teach people that they are slaves to God, then they will be more accepting to be slaves to an autocrat. Teach people that God watches them 24/7, and then having an intelligence agency spying on them becomes acceptable. We now see people okay with governments spying on them with satellites, tapping their phone calls, putting cameras in public places. All those behaviors are facilitated by the psychological warfare that is religion. And of course, God knows everything, so the government should know everything. And God punishes people with endless suffering, so torturing people is okay, especially if torture is used to get information, because the government has a right to know everything. The parallels are endless, but you can now see how mainstream religions fit the picture. Mainstream religions are nothing more than psychological tools that rationalize the actions of a tyrant government, with God as the alter-ego of such governments. When it comes to religion, you need to accept the "facts" without questions, which is very convenient for tyranny. Tyrants don't want people to ask questions, just to obey blindly; And that's easy because they had lots of practice in their religious beliefs.
But of course, God loves us all... That's the christian way of saying: "The government does bad things, but only because they care. It's all for the greater good!"
It is no coincidence that democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Of course change needs time, and the effects of history takes time to heal. But the fight for freedom and democracy is ultimately a fight against religious institutions. The religious beliefs that made tyranny possible and even acceptable. And tyranny and religions shall fall together because they are two sides of the same coin. Anyone observing history can easily see the inverse relationship between freedom and religion. The more religious the public is, the more tyranny is prevalent. And in this time and age, religions are slowly fading away, as freedom is slowly growing more and more. Once again, it is not a coincidence that the most developed nations of our time are those where secularism is prevalent.
Anyone who follows my blog knows that I am a relentless supporter of Satanism. Satan being a symbol of Humanity and rebellion against God. However, it always was (and still is) my vision that promotion of Atheism and Satanism is not just about philosophical investigation of facts of the world, such as whether or not God exists. It goes beyond that: It is a promotion for the ethics and beliefs that will change the world from one that is ruled by tyrants, to one where freedom and personal liberty are essential part of the socio-political scene.
I urge anyone and everyone who is looking for reform in the political arena to understand the negative effects of the religious institutions to our freedom. Your rebellion against tyranny is a rebellion against "God", and rebellion against "God" is rebellion against tyranny. Because at the heart of the matter, they are one and the same. "God" is a symbol of absolute tyranny, and supporting that symbol is the greatest heresy against humanity.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Democracy and Gun Rights
A number of countries around the world have established Gun Rights as a constitutional right. Some people are not aware of the grave importance of Gun Rights for any true democracy. In my opinion, without Gun Rights no real democracy can exist. And this statement goes beyond an opinion, but is a necessary conclusion of any reasonable person who understands the meaning of democracy and the dynamics of the real world.
Gun Rights are not just constitutional rights but rather a result of deep understanding of Human Rights, specifically the right to exist, also known as the right to life. Self-defense is the concept that emerges when the right to exist is asserted. Any organism that lacks the ability to defend itself from predators will perish.
At the international politics level, the right of a country to own a military army is well established. It stands to reason that a country that lacks a military army cannot sustain itself. So, it can be seen without ambiguity that the right to own a military army is intrinsically associated with its right to exist.
Wars and armed conflicts are generally frowned upon events. Many people have died in wars, and it would be really nice if there was an international law that bans all countries from owning a military army. Don't you agree? Wouldn't it be nice to have a world where no country has an army? Where all wars come to an end and become a thing of the past?
Unfortunately, it stands to reason that if you agree with the proposal above that you are an idiot! A bill to have countries without armies is equivalent to a doomsday device, with a death toll that might reach phenomenal numbers. Because all it takes is one rebellious country that creates a military army and it would invade all other defenseless countries, creating military dictatorships around the world.
So, we have established that the right of a country to own a military army is really part of its right to exist and have independence. This point is usually non-controversial. However, the claim that civilians within a country to have the right to own firearms is not recognized. My arguments lies on two relatively uncontroversial pillars, the result of which inevitably leads to Gun Rights.
The right to exist is generally considered as a human right, and this right alone gives every human a right to own firearms which is necessary for him to defend himself against any threats.
The second pillar is that of democracy. Almost every democratic constitution states that the people are the source of all the power of the state. Legislative, executive, and judicial are the three powers of the state, and the people are the source of those powers. It stands to reason that within a true democracy, the claim that the people are the government is non-controversial. As a matter of fact, this is what it means to have a democratic government.
However, democracy is one form of government. Dictatorship and Tyranny are some of the forms of government that might be competing with democracy to rule. And since in a democratic nation the people are the government, it is part of the right to exist for that government to own the means to defend itself. Those means are Gun Rights. It stands to question how a constitution of democracy asserts that the people are the source of the powers of the state without giving those people the power to defend themselves from threats to their government. Such a constitution is weak, and just like a country without an army would most certainly perish, a democracy without Gun Rights would most certainly perish!
Of course the problem of security and violence comes to mind, however this type of thinking bears dangerous resemblance to the idea of countries without military armies. A simpleton might see merit to gun control, but short-sightedness prevents them from seeing the more dangerous consequences of gun control. The consequences of gun control is giving up the right to exist, and the right to have a democratic government. Both of which are reasonable and legitimate demands.
In reality, gun control only prevents honest law abiding citizens from obtaining the means to defend themselves, while corrupt governments, mobsters, terrorists, and firearms dealers have access to firearms. Gun control gives the 'bad guys' access to the means through which they can terrorize people, while the honest and law abiding citizens remain defenseless. This is a situation that non-democratic governments have incentive to keep as status quo.
Gun Rights are not just constitutional rights but rather a result of deep understanding of Human Rights, specifically the right to exist, also known as the right to life. Self-defense is the concept that emerges when the right to exist is asserted. Any organism that lacks the ability to defend itself from predators will perish.
At the international politics level, the right of a country to own a military army is well established. It stands to reason that a country that lacks a military army cannot sustain itself. So, it can be seen without ambiguity that the right to own a military army is intrinsically associated with its right to exist.
Wars and armed conflicts are generally frowned upon events. Many people have died in wars, and it would be really nice if there was an international law that bans all countries from owning a military army. Don't you agree? Wouldn't it be nice to have a world where no country has an army? Where all wars come to an end and become a thing of the past?
Unfortunately, it stands to reason that if you agree with the proposal above that you are an idiot! A bill to have countries without armies is equivalent to a doomsday device, with a death toll that might reach phenomenal numbers. Because all it takes is one rebellious country that creates a military army and it would invade all other defenseless countries, creating military dictatorships around the world.
So, we have established that the right of a country to own a military army is really part of its right to exist and have independence. This point is usually non-controversial. However, the claim that civilians within a country to have the right to own firearms is not recognized. My arguments lies on two relatively uncontroversial pillars, the result of which inevitably leads to Gun Rights.
The right to exist is generally considered as a human right, and this right alone gives every human a right to own firearms which is necessary for him to defend himself against any threats.
The second pillar is that of democracy. Almost every democratic constitution states that the people are the source of all the power of the state. Legislative, executive, and judicial are the three powers of the state, and the people are the source of those powers. It stands to reason that within a true democracy, the claim that the people are the government is non-controversial. As a matter of fact, this is what it means to have a democratic government.
However, democracy is one form of government. Dictatorship and Tyranny are some of the forms of government that might be competing with democracy to rule. And since in a democratic nation the people are the government, it is part of the right to exist for that government to own the means to defend itself. Those means are Gun Rights. It stands to question how a constitution of democracy asserts that the people are the source of the powers of the state without giving those people the power to defend themselves from threats to their government. Such a constitution is weak, and just like a country without an army would most certainly perish, a democracy without Gun Rights would most certainly perish!
Of course the problem of security and violence comes to mind, however this type of thinking bears dangerous resemblance to the idea of countries without military armies. A simpleton might see merit to gun control, but short-sightedness prevents them from seeing the more dangerous consequences of gun control. The consequences of gun control is giving up the right to exist, and the right to have a democratic government. Both of which are reasonable and legitimate demands.
In reality, gun control only prevents honest law abiding citizens from obtaining the means to defend themselves, while corrupt governments, mobsters, terrorists, and firearms dealers have access to firearms. Gun control gives the 'bad guys' access to the means through which they can terrorize people, while the honest and law abiding citizens remain defenseless. This is a situation that non-democratic governments have incentive to keep as status quo.
Monday, March 07, 2011
My Dream Country
I believe that a hero is the man who tries to become the best, and once he is there tries to out-do himself. That's how we as people should perceive our goals in life. And my dream country is a country full of such heroes.
I dream of a country that sets an example of political philosophy that generations will come trying to achieve what that country has achieved. A political philosophy that embarrasses its neighbors, and rallies them to make political reforms.
Unfortunately, the contemporary political scene in the Arab world is retarded. It feels like the 18th century or something. However, the recent events show that the winds of change has come.
The Arab street has two common stereotypes: Those who want to go back to the 10th century, and those that want to play the catch-up game, and advance to the 20th century. A few have balls enough to enter the 21st century.
Everytime on the news someone says: "This is the 21st century, things shouldn't be like that", I have this urge to take a knife and slit his throat. The catch-up game shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to out-do the 21st century.
What I really wish to hear is someone who says: "This is not good enough, it does not meet the standards of the 25th century!".
Yes, I wish to live in a country where the people in the 25th century would look back at history and say: "Wow, what we just formulated as a standard in political philosophy, there was a country that did it before." And this is the country I dream of.
As far fetched as it might seem to realize, it would be my heartiest desire that this country be Jordan. And for that, I urge everyone who looks for political reform to not be shortsighted. Do not look for quick solutions, but for radical solutions. Do not remedy the symptoms, remedy the disease. Do not aim to imitate, do not aim to catch-up. Aim to set an example. Aim high, and aim true.
I dream of a country that sets an example of political philosophy that generations will come trying to achieve what that country has achieved. A political philosophy that embarrasses its neighbors, and rallies them to make political reforms.
Unfortunately, the contemporary political scene in the Arab world is retarded. It feels like the 18th century or something. However, the recent events show that the winds of change has come.
The Arab street has two common stereotypes: Those who want to go back to the 10th century, and those that want to play the catch-up game, and advance to the 20th century. A few have balls enough to enter the 21st century.
Everytime on the news someone says: "This is the 21st century, things shouldn't be like that", I have this urge to take a knife and slit his throat. The catch-up game shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to out-do the 21st century.
What I really wish to hear is someone who says: "This is not good enough, it does not meet the standards of the 25th century!".
Yes, I wish to live in a country where the people in the 25th century would look back at history and say: "Wow, what we just formulated as a standard in political philosophy, there was a country that did it before." And this is the country I dream of.
As far fetched as it might seem to realize, it would be my heartiest desire that this country be Jordan. And for that, I urge everyone who looks for political reform to not be shortsighted. Do not look for quick solutions, but for radical solutions. Do not remedy the symptoms, remedy the disease. Do not aim to imitate, do not aim to catch-up. Aim to set an example. Aim high, and aim true.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Can You Love More Than One Person At The Same Time?
Is it possible that humans experience love towards more than one person at the same time? It is an interesting question to ponder.
To answer this question, another question needs to be answered: Is it possible to love more than one person at different times? In other words, is love a once in a lifetime experience or something that can happen more than once?
I think that most people would agree that it is possible to love different people at different times. Love can happen again. It would be depressing to think that if you loved a person, then for whatever reason that person is no more in your life that you are not going to experience love ever again. But it is not only depressing but also unrealistic to believe that.
So now lets consider a hypothetical scenario where a person loved more than one person at different times:
It is reasonable to believe that the girl in our scenario had sincere feeling towards all three guys. And it is imaginable that those sincere feelings are all instances of love.
So now, let's imagine a different storyline about those same people, but that they were all classmates in high school. Now, from the previous storyline we know that the girl is capable of having sincere feelings of love towards all three guys. However, the dilemma lies in the fact that she met them all at the same time.
So the question now is: Could she possibly love two or all three of those guys at the same time? Does love transcend the limits of time? Or is she destined to love only one of them?
To answer this question, another question needs to be answered: Is it possible to love more than one person at different times? In other words, is love a once in a lifetime experience or something that can happen more than once?
I think that most people would agree that it is possible to love different people at different times. Love can happen again. It would be depressing to think that if you loved a person, then for whatever reason that person is no more in your life that you are not going to experience love ever again. But it is not only depressing but also unrealistic to believe that.
So now lets consider a hypothetical scenario where a person loved more than one person at different times:
Let's say it was a girl who met her first boyfriend in high school. They loved each other, they were fond of each other. Unfortunately life happens, and her boyfriend's family moved to another country and her boyfriend had to move with them. Few years later, she was in university, she met a gorgeous guy, and one thing lead to another they were madly in love. The years go by, and life happens once again. Couple of years later, she meets yet another lovely guy they have so much in common, and right now she is happily engaged to the guy.
It is reasonable to believe that the girl in our scenario had sincere feeling towards all three guys. And it is imaginable that those sincere feelings are all instances of love.
So now, let's imagine a different storyline about those same people, but that they were all classmates in high school. Now, from the previous storyline we know that the girl is capable of having sincere feelings of love towards all three guys. However, the dilemma lies in the fact that she met them all at the same time.
So the question now is: Could she possibly love two or all three of those guys at the same time? Does love transcend the limits of time? Or is she destined to love only one of them?
Recommendations for a Better Government
In the wake of the waves of reform in the political arena of the Arab world, I have compiled a list of recommendations for what I believe would be a better government and social order. Some of these recommendations are practical for the current world politics, others are progressive, and would hopefully be implemented in future revisions to governments and laws. However, as far fetched some of these recommendations might be, I hope that people would work to realize those recommendations sooner rather than later.
Constitutional Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Government representatives should be elected in a democratic process. This needs to apply to both the legislative and executive powers of the state.
Recommendation 2: Providing alternative means to representative democracy.
Direct democracy and deliberative democracy are good alternatives to representative democracy. Direct democracy was an impractical form of government due to technological limitations. Nowadays, the technological means are available to make direct democracy a viable solution.
Recommendation 3: Independence of the three powers of state: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Recommendation 4: All citizens are equal with respect to the law. There must be no discrimination against them in terms of race, origin, religion, gender, language, sexual orientation, or social status.
Recommendation 5: The right to a fair and public trial.
All people have the right to a fair and public trial. No person should be imprisoned without trial. No person should be detained without a court order or probable cause. Making trials public is a way of making sure that the proceedings are fair.
Recommendation 6: Secularization of government.
Separation of religion and government is an important aspect of a modern government.
Recommendation 7: Personal liberties must be granted.
This includes (but not limited to): Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of information, freedom to practice politics, freedom to own firearms, freedom to protest and demonstrate, the right to demand overthrowing of government.
Recommendation 8: A constitutional right to overthrow government.
There needs to be laws that recognize the right of civilians to demand overthrowing the government. Those laws can provide legitimacy and order when events similar to what is currently happening around the Arab world.
Recommendation 9: Gun rights as a constitutional right.
Gun rights are the most important civil rights. No government truly respects its citizens unless it admits that civilians have a right to own firearms. Throughout history corrupt governments fight to cease control. The events in Libya is a prime example of a corrupt government that would do anything, including killing civilians to remain in control. Installment of the right to own firearms is the only sincere symbolism of a government that allows its citizens to be in control, and provide practical means in extreme cases to overthrow government if that government became excessively corrupt. Some might be concerned about gun rights, but one quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Recommendation 10: Constitutional freedom of speech and expression.
Another extremely important civil right. The internet and the press need to be protected by the law from any governmental pressure to censor material. There have been brutal attempts to limit the freedom of the internet. Now more than ever, social networking websites might be under pressure to collaborate with governments to expose and eliminate all anti-government activities.
Recommendation 11: Constitutional freedom of religion.
The right to join and abandon existing religions must be granted. Also, the right to create new religions need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly.
Recommendation 12: Constitutional freedom to practice politics.
The right to join and abandon existing political parties must be granted. Also, the right to create new political parties need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly. The right to criticize and investigate the government also need to be recognized as part of the freedom of speech and the freedom of information.
Recommendation 13: Creation of states.
In the interest of pluralism in the government, it can be beneficial to create several states within one country, such that each state can have different laws. This implies that each state would have its own legislative power, making it possible that different state having different laws. If used properly, this allows government to accommodate the needs of a non-homogeneous community, such that citizens are provided with alternatives and make it possible to experiment with the introduction of new laws which might be controversial for some.
Laws Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Abolishing all anti-terrorism laws.
Anti-terrorism laws provide the governments with illegitimate power to abuse citizens. Laws that prohibit gatherings, allow the government to spy and detain civilians without warrant. Such laws are of a government that terrorizes its own people.
Recommendation 2: Legalizing prostitution.
Countless efforts exist to eliminate gender discrimination against women. However, it is a fact that the right to practice prostitution is the most important right for women, and the only permanent and uncompromising solution to the problem of discrimination against women. Legalizing prostitution is the means through which societies eliminate the culture of shame that has been terrorizing women for centuries, as well as, allowing them to seek protection under the law, and form unions that help ensure their security and escape abuse.
Recommendation 3: Legalizing drugs.
Criminalization of drugs is another form of civil oppression by governments. Movements for legalizing marijuana have already started to formulate to varying degrees of success around the world. People are starting to realize how such laws are nothing but tools of oppression for the governments.
Recommendation 4: Legalizing gay-marriages.
Yet another form of discrimination based on sexual-orientation. LGBT rights need to be respected an recognized under the law.
Recommendation 5: Legalizing all forms of consensual polygamy.
Polygamy while not widely recognized as a matter of human rights, it does deserve to be recognized as such. Monogamous marriages is a violation of human rights, and a symbol of oppression that goes unnoticed by many. Legalization of polygamy bears many parallels with legalization of gay marriages. This similarity is defined by the notion that all humans have the right to form relationships with fellow human beings, and to form a legally recognizable bindings if they wish to do so. Hence, the right of marriage should be provided to all.
Recommendation 6: Installment of temporary affirmative action laws.
Affirmative action laws are practical tools to fight discrimination. However, this tool needs to be temporary, because affirmative action itself is a type of discrimination. Laws that provide women with additional seats in the house of representatives, and other laws that protect women from violence (especially honor crimes) and discrimination, all of those are good examples of affirmative action laws that need to exist to accelerate the process of abolishing discrimination.
Recommendation 7: Criminalization of torture.
As part of the human rights, torture must be criminalized and punished by law. This applies but not limited to government agencies that use torture as means of investigation.
Recommendation 8: Criminalization of political imprisonment and secretive imprisonment.
As part of the right to practice politics, the right of assembly, and the right of overthrowing government, detaining civilians for political opposition of government need to be criminalized and punished by law. All prisoners and detainees have the right to inform other civilians about their imprisonment. Details of prisoners and detainees should be provided to the public record as part of the freedom of information and the right to a fair and public trial. Failing to do so must be punishable by law.
Of course, these are only a small sample of modifications that I believe are important to advance government and social order.
Constitutional Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Government representatives should be elected in a democratic process. This needs to apply to both the legislative and executive powers of the state.
Recommendation 2: Providing alternative means to representative democracy.
Direct democracy and deliberative democracy are good alternatives to representative democracy. Direct democracy was an impractical form of government due to technological limitations. Nowadays, the technological means are available to make direct democracy a viable solution.
Recommendation 3: Independence of the three powers of state: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Recommendation 4: All citizens are equal with respect to the law. There must be no discrimination against them in terms of race, origin, religion, gender, language, sexual orientation, or social status.
Recommendation 5: The right to a fair and public trial.
All people have the right to a fair and public trial. No person should be imprisoned without trial. No person should be detained without a court order or probable cause. Making trials public is a way of making sure that the proceedings are fair.
Recommendation 6: Secularization of government.
Separation of religion and government is an important aspect of a modern government.
Recommendation 7: Personal liberties must be granted.
This includes (but not limited to): Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of information, freedom to practice politics, freedom to own firearms, freedom to protest and demonstrate, the right to demand overthrowing of government.
Recommendation 8: A constitutional right to overthrow government.
There needs to be laws that recognize the right of civilians to demand overthrowing the government. Those laws can provide legitimacy and order when events similar to what is currently happening around the Arab world.
Recommendation 9: Gun rights as a constitutional right.
Gun rights are the most important civil rights. No government truly respects its citizens unless it admits that civilians have a right to own firearms. Throughout history corrupt governments fight to cease control. The events in Libya is a prime example of a corrupt government that would do anything, including killing civilians to remain in control. Installment of the right to own firearms is the only sincere symbolism of a government that allows its citizens to be in control, and provide practical means in extreme cases to overthrow government if that government became excessively corrupt. Some might be concerned about gun rights, but one quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Recommendation 10: Constitutional freedom of speech and expression.
Another extremely important civil right. The internet and the press need to be protected by the law from any governmental pressure to censor material. There have been brutal attempts to limit the freedom of the internet. Now more than ever, social networking websites might be under pressure to collaborate with governments to expose and eliminate all anti-government activities.
Recommendation 11: Constitutional freedom of religion.
The right to join and abandon existing religions must be granted. Also, the right to create new religions need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly.
Recommendation 12: Constitutional freedom to practice politics.
The right to join and abandon existing political parties must be granted. Also, the right to create new political parties need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly. The right to criticize and investigate the government also need to be recognized as part of the freedom of speech and the freedom of information.
Recommendation 13: Creation of states.
In the interest of pluralism in the government, it can be beneficial to create several states within one country, such that each state can have different laws. This implies that each state would have its own legislative power, making it possible that different state having different laws. If used properly, this allows government to accommodate the needs of a non-homogeneous community, such that citizens are provided with alternatives and make it possible to experiment with the introduction of new laws which might be controversial for some.
Laws Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Abolishing all anti-terrorism laws.
Anti-terrorism laws provide the governments with illegitimate power to abuse citizens. Laws that prohibit gatherings, allow the government to spy and detain civilians without warrant. Such laws are of a government that terrorizes its own people.
Recommendation 2: Legalizing prostitution.
Countless efforts exist to eliminate gender discrimination against women. However, it is a fact that the right to practice prostitution is the most important right for women, and the only permanent and uncompromising solution to the problem of discrimination against women. Legalizing prostitution is the means through which societies eliminate the culture of shame that has been terrorizing women for centuries, as well as, allowing them to seek protection under the law, and form unions that help ensure their security and escape abuse.
Recommendation 3: Legalizing drugs.
Criminalization of drugs is another form of civil oppression by governments. Movements for legalizing marijuana have already started to formulate to varying degrees of success around the world. People are starting to realize how such laws are nothing but tools of oppression for the governments.
Recommendation 4: Legalizing gay-marriages.
Yet another form of discrimination based on sexual-orientation. LGBT rights need to be respected an recognized under the law.
Recommendation 5: Legalizing all forms of consensual polygamy.
Polygamy while not widely recognized as a matter of human rights, it does deserve to be recognized as such. Monogamous marriages is a violation of human rights, and a symbol of oppression that goes unnoticed by many. Legalization of polygamy bears many parallels with legalization of gay marriages. This similarity is defined by the notion that all humans have the right to form relationships with fellow human beings, and to form a legally recognizable bindings if they wish to do so. Hence, the right of marriage should be provided to all.
Recommendation 6: Installment of temporary affirmative action laws.
Affirmative action laws are practical tools to fight discrimination. However, this tool needs to be temporary, because affirmative action itself is a type of discrimination. Laws that provide women with additional seats in the house of representatives, and other laws that protect women from violence (especially honor crimes) and discrimination, all of those are good examples of affirmative action laws that need to exist to accelerate the process of abolishing discrimination.
Recommendation 7: Criminalization of torture.
As part of the human rights, torture must be criminalized and punished by law. This applies but not limited to government agencies that use torture as means of investigation.
Recommendation 8: Criminalization of political imprisonment and secretive imprisonment.
As part of the right to practice politics, the right of assembly, and the right of overthrowing government, detaining civilians for political opposition of government need to be criminalized and punished by law. All prisoners and detainees have the right to inform other civilians about their imprisonment. Details of prisoners and detainees should be provided to the public record as part of the freedom of information and the right to a fair and public trial. Failing to do so must be punishable by law.
Of course, these are only a small sample of modifications that I believe are important to advance government and social order.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Nightmares That Kill 2
A second look at things that are bad for your health.
Papa Roach in "Be Free":
Papa Roach in "Be Free":
I'm thinking I am starting to see
I have become everything I never wanted to be
I'm really getting sick of myself
Cause when I look into the mirror, I see somebody else (Full lyrics)
Friday, February 11, 2011
Victory of the Egyptian People Against Dictatorship
This is a glorious day that will enter history. With freedom comes responsibility. Today is a day for celebration, and tomorrow is the day the real hard-work needs to be done: Taking the responsibility of maintaining this freedom, and using it for the good of the nation.
Congratulations to the Egyptian People.
Congratulations to the Egyptian People.
Monday, February 07, 2011
The Egyptian Revolution
I rarely speak in favor of the actions of Arabs, but brace yourselves, that's a precedence... The recent events in Egypt is something praise worthy. The people finally got over their lazy asses and demanded actual and tangible change in a positive direction.
Most Arabs are quick to play the blame game. They blame everyone except themselves. America and Israel are mentioned as the greatest evil.... Boohoo, they were either ignorant or cowards to state the truth that the leadership itself was the real enemy. The people were the greatest enemy of their own, because they stand idle while their freedoms where taken away from them.
Those actions are commendable, because this is the first time in a very long time that fingers are being pointed in the right direction, toward reform from within rather than reform from without.
On a more critical stand, I think that the Egyptian Revolution is a step forward, but not a resolution. It creates a chance to make things right, rather than something that sets the record straight in and of itself. Lets hope that this political reform will lead to a liberal-democratic government that respects the rights of its citizens, rather than yet another political system that sacrifices civil liberties for self-serving agendas.
Most Arabs are quick to play the blame game. They blame everyone except themselves. America and Israel are mentioned as the greatest evil.... Boohoo, they were either ignorant or cowards to state the truth that the leadership itself was the real enemy. The people were the greatest enemy of their own, because they stand idle while their freedoms where taken away from them.
Those actions are commendable, because this is the first time in a very long time that fingers are being pointed in the right direction, toward reform from within rather than reform from without.
On a more critical stand, I think that the Egyptian Revolution is a step forward, but not a resolution. It creates a chance to make things right, rather than something that sets the record straight in and of itself. Lets hope that this political reform will lead to a liberal-democratic government that respects the rights of its citizens, rather than yet another political system that sacrifices civil liberties for self-serving agendas.
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Friday, February 04, 2011
Intimate Partner Violence (Domestic Violence)
Introduction:
Throughout the years one of most visited posts I had was the emotional rape post. Many people have acknowledged that post touched a relevant topic to people. In this post, I will address the social phenomenon of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), which I believe is a topic of extreme relevance, especially in the light of women issues.
This post is based on data and research done in the USA, and I am pretty sure that things are even worse when applied to Jordan and the general region that surround it. I am going to address this topic from surveys and sociology perspectives.
First, we must identify the two major types of IPV:
On the other hand, Intimate Terrorism is a much more dangerous form of IPV, and is believed to be less common compared to CCV. Intimate Terrorism is characterized as proactive, strategic, and motivated by desire to control the partner. Intimate Terrorism involves physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
Common Couples Violence:
CCV is a sad reality of many intimate relationships. Everybody is pretty much familiar of how it happens; It starts with a heated argument, that escalates to name calling, then psychological aggression, and then physical violence starts. This physical violence manifests itself in various forms: Leaving the room angry, and slamming the door on the way out. Throwing something at the partner. Throwing a dish on the floor. Things might get even uglier where one partner hits, kicks, pushes, and maybe even punches their partner. There are several myths that surround CCV (and IPV in general), and I will address them now:
MYTH 1 - IPV is rare: Reasoned thinking might suggest that two people in a loving relationship would not hurt one another through violence. However, reality is not that simple; many people engage in violent behavior directed towards their significant other. In one survey, conducted by Straus in 1980, 12.1% of husbands and 11.6% of wives admitted that they engaged in physical violence against their partner. Note that this survey used self-reports methodology, in the sense that it asked participants to describe violence that they committed (as opposed to what they were subjected to). Obviously, this percentage is actually high, even considering that it must be an underestimate, since many people would not be willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior.
MYTH 2 - IPV only happens between unhappy couples: Some people might argue that IPV only happens between unhappy couples or loveless marriages. Evidence does not seem to support this claim. Some studies have shown that 50% of newlywed couples (who also report that they are happy) engage in physical violence. Another study in 1992 has shown that high rates of engaged couples who engage in physical violence eventually get married.
MYTH 3 - Only men are violent: As the 1980 study by Straus suggests not only men are violent, but women too. In more recent studies, that also used self-reports methodology, women were reportedly being more aggressive than men. However, those studies have two known weaknesses. First, this result does not show that women are necessarily more violent, it could just mean that they are more willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior. Secondly, those studies focused on behaviors without regard to impact. So, even if women were more likely to slap or punch their partners, the physical damage incurred in such occurrences is not symmetrical to a slap or a punch from the male partner towards the woman. So, studies that focus on violent behaviors can be misleading when the impact of violence is neglected.
MYTH 4 - IPV only happens between married couples: The rationale here is that only committed couples stay in violent relationships; Non-committed couples would simply walkaway. As previously mentioned, some engaged couples who experience violence do eventually get married. There is evidence that violence in relationships also happens in teenage relationships, college relationships, and cohabiting couples. Even some dating couples continue a relationship despite of violence.
Common Couples Violence can be categorized by the impact into two categories:
Many couples do not recognize violence as a problem in their relationship. In one study, women that were seeking couples therapy were asked: "What is the most important problem that you hope couples therapy would resolve?". Only 6% reported IPV as the answer to that question. On the other hand, 56% of those women reported that violence happens in their relationship. In other words, 50% of women seeking couples therapy reported that violence exists in their relationship, albeit it was not the reason they were seeking couples therapy.
This suggests that many couples don't see CCV as a problem in and of itself, but rather a manifestation of some other problems. So, if for example, one couple were arguing over a financial situation, and this argument escalates to physical violence, those couples are more likely to think that financial difficulties is the real problem, rather than CCV.
Intimate Terrorism:
Definition: A systematic and sustained effort to control and dominate a partner through physical violence, verbal and psychological abuse, sexual coercion and abuse, economic and social control, and threats.
CCV is reactive. Couples who fail to properly channel their anger and frustration, would let verbal fights escalate to physical violence. In CCV, couples lose control over their behavior an engage in hostile acts. However, Intimate Terrorism is proactive. It is purposeful and systematized. And the purpose of Intimate Terrorism is to control and dominate the partner. To put the partner in a state of fear and submission.
One of the mostly important contributions to the field of Intimate Terrorism is the "Power and Control wheel" (pdf).
This wheel shows "Power and Control" as the center as all the behaviors that are exhibited have one common goal, which is to gain power and control. The rim of the wheel shows "physical violence" because all of the behaviors being described are enabled through the use of physical violence. The behaviors mentioned are as follows:
One of the questions that arise is: Why do women who are with an abusive partner remain in the relationship? The question is difficult, but there are some good reasons that explain this behavior. First of all, those women are usually helpless. As explained by the behaviors mentioned above, those women are in a state of terror, their confidence is eroded, their ties with the outside world is limited, they are emotionally and financially dependent, and they are afraid that any attempt to escape will create extreme violent reactions from their partner. In USA, there are battered women shelters, which host battered women, give them protection, and in extreme cases those shelters would give the women new identities so that they can escape safely from their partners. However, some women in abusive relationships might not even know of the existence of those shelters, because their partner has cut down all routes of information which may be used to seek help.
Another important reason is revealed through the cycle of abuse (pdf).
The cycle of abuse happens in three phases (some might say four):
Conclusion:
As usual, awareness if the first line of defense. So being educated about those issues should be crucial to battling those phenomena.
PS: This entry is based on lecture by professor Benjamen Karney, titled "Managing Differences, Part 2"
Throughout the years one of most visited posts I had was the emotional rape post. Many people have acknowledged that post touched a relevant topic to people. In this post, I will address the social phenomenon of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), which I believe is a topic of extreme relevance, especially in the light of women issues.
This post is based on data and research done in the USA, and I am pretty sure that things are even worse when applied to Jordan and the general region that surround it. I am going to address this topic from surveys and sociology perspectives.
First, we must identify the two major types of IPV:
- 1- Common Couples Violence
- 2- Intimate Terrorism
On the other hand, Intimate Terrorism is a much more dangerous form of IPV, and is believed to be less common compared to CCV. Intimate Terrorism is characterized as proactive, strategic, and motivated by desire to control the partner. Intimate Terrorism involves physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
Common Couples Violence:
CCV is a sad reality of many intimate relationships. Everybody is pretty much familiar of how it happens; It starts with a heated argument, that escalates to name calling, then psychological aggression, and then physical violence starts. This physical violence manifests itself in various forms: Leaving the room angry, and slamming the door on the way out. Throwing something at the partner. Throwing a dish on the floor. Things might get even uglier where one partner hits, kicks, pushes, and maybe even punches their partner. There are several myths that surround CCV (and IPV in general), and I will address them now:
MYTH 1 - IPV is rare: Reasoned thinking might suggest that two people in a loving relationship would not hurt one another through violence. However, reality is not that simple; many people engage in violent behavior directed towards their significant other. In one survey, conducted by Straus in 1980, 12.1% of husbands and 11.6% of wives admitted that they engaged in physical violence against their partner. Note that this survey used self-reports methodology, in the sense that it asked participants to describe violence that they committed (as opposed to what they were subjected to). Obviously, this percentage is actually high, even considering that it must be an underestimate, since many people would not be willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior.
MYTH 2 - IPV only happens between unhappy couples: Some people might argue that IPV only happens between unhappy couples or loveless marriages. Evidence does not seem to support this claim. Some studies have shown that 50% of newlywed couples (who also report that they are happy) engage in physical violence. Another study in 1992 has shown that high rates of engaged couples who engage in physical violence eventually get married.
MYTH 3 - Only men are violent: As the 1980 study by Straus suggests not only men are violent, but women too. In more recent studies, that also used self-reports methodology, women were reportedly being more aggressive than men. However, those studies have two known weaknesses. First, this result does not show that women are necessarily more violent, it could just mean that they are more willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior. Secondly, those studies focused on behaviors without regard to impact. So, even if women were more likely to slap or punch their partners, the physical damage incurred in such occurrences is not symmetrical to a slap or a punch from the male partner towards the woman. So, studies that focus on violent behaviors can be misleading when the impact of violence is neglected.
MYTH 4 - IPV only happens between married couples: The rationale here is that only committed couples stay in violent relationships; Non-committed couples would simply walkaway. As previously mentioned, some engaged couples who experience violence do eventually get married. There is evidence that violence in relationships also happens in teenage relationships, college relationships, and cohabiting couples. Even some dating couples continue a relationship despite of violence.
Common Couples Violence can be categorized by the impact into two categories:
- 1- Moderately Aggressive: This includes throwing stuff, grab, shove, slapping, non-excessive punch.
- 2- Severely Aggressive: This includes: Bruising punches or slaps, heavy beating, threatening with a knife or gun, and attacking with a knife or gun.
Many couples do not recognize violence as a problem in their relationship. In one study, women that were seeking couples therapy were asked: "What is the most important problem that you hope couples therapy would resolve?". Only 6% reported IPV as the answer to that question. On the other hand, 56% of those women reported that violence happens in their relationship. In other words, 50% of women seeking couples therapy reported that violence exists in their relationship, albeit it was not the reason they were seeking couples therapy.
This suggests that many couples don't see CCV as a problem in and of itself, but rather a manifestation of some other problems. So, if for example, one couple were arguing over a financial situation, and this argument escalates to physical violence, those couples are more likely to think that financial difficulties is the real problem, rather than CCV.
Intimate Terrorism:
Definition: A systematic and sustained effort to control and dominate a partner through physical violence, verbal and psychological abuse, sexual coercion and abuse, economic and social control, and threats.
CCV is reactive. Couples who fail to properly channel their anger and frustration, would let verbal fights escalate to physical violence. In CCV, couples lose control over their behavior an engage in hostile acts. However, Intimate Terrorism is proactive. It is purposeful and systematized. And the purpose of Intimate Terrorism is to control and dominate the partner. To put the partner in a state of fear and submission.
One of the mostly important contributions to the field of Intimate Terrorism is the "Power and Control wheel" (pdf).
This wheel shows "Power and Control" as the center as all the behaviors that are exhibited have one common goal, which is to gain power and control. The rim of the wheel shows "physical violence" because all of the behaviors being described are enabled through the use of physical violence. The behaviors mentioned are as follows:
- Emotional Abuse: Belittle and name calling. The idea is that the abuser tries to convince the victim that she is worthless, incompetent, and even not worthy of love. The abuser might say something like: "You are worthless. Luckily for you, I love you, because if I didn't love you, nobody else would!". The idea is that if she believes that she is worthless, then she would be broken, yet feeling in-debt to the abuser. Hence the abuser gains complete control.
- Sexual Abuse: Spousal rape. Disrupting sleep to have sex. Forcing unwanted sexual activities. Unfounded accusations of sexual infidelity.
- Isolation: To control who the victim knows, sees, or interacts with. Cutting ties with the family and the outside world, to make sure that the victim cannot get the help she desperately needs.
- Minimizing, denying, and blaming: The abuser denies that his actions are violent, convinces the victim that she is overreacting, blaming her for the violence. The abuser might say something like: "Well, had you done the things I asked you to do, I wouldn't have had to hit you. So next time be a dear and do exactly as I say."
- Using children: Making the victim feel responsibility towards the children, possibly by threatening violence towards the children if she does not obey.
- Economic Abuse: Denying women the right to work and making them dependent on the abuser. Closing their bank accounts, cutting their credit cards. All of these actions make the victim dependent on the abuser, and consequently giving them control.
- Male Privilege: Using social norms and gender roles to enforce and justify the situation.
- Intimidation, Coercion and Threats: Making threats of using physical violence.
One of the questions that arise is: Why do women who are with an abusive partner remain in the relationship? The question is difficult, but there are some good reasons that explain this behavior. First of all, those women are usually helpless. As explained by the behaviors mentioned above, those women are in a state of terror, their confidence is eroded, their ties with the outside world is limited, they are emotionally and financially dependent, and they are afraid that any attempt to escape will create extreme violent reactions from their partner. In USA, there are battered women shelters, which host battered women, give them protection, and in extreme cases those shelters would give the women new identities so that they can escape safely from their partners. However, some women in abusive relationships might not even know of the existence of those shelters, because their partner has cut down all routes of information which may be used to seek help.
Another important reason is revealed through the cycle of abuse (pdf).
The cycle of abuse happens in three phases (some might say four):
- Tension-building: The abuser shows signs of discontent, creates tense situations. This phase lasts for several days.
- Abusive incident: This is when the violence happens.
- Reconciliation: This is the most crucial phase. In this phase the abuser apologizes, promises to change, and promises the abuse would not happen again. The problem is that this phase creates positive reinforcement. After the abuse, the victim feels rewarded by for sticking around and not walking away from the relationship. The victim feels rewarded for forgiving her partner. It is also important to realize that the victim is highly motivated to believe those promises, because she is dependent on the abuser, and she is forced to a certain extent to put up with the abuse. And hence, this "honeymoon" phase is misinterpreted as a positive experience.
Conclusion:
As usual, awareness if the first line of defense. So being educated about those issues should be crucial to battling those phenomena.
PS: This entry is based on lecture by professor Benjamen Karney, titled "Managing Differences, Part 2"
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Problem of Infinite Regress
One particular argument for the existence of God is as follows: Given that the universe exists, there must be something that created it. So if God is defined as the creator of this universe, then God must exist.
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is infinite regress. If the universe exists, then God exists. If God exists then a God of God exists. And this argument can go on forever. This question of "Who created God?" is the problem of infinite regress.
Consequently, some people would argue that the statement: "If X exists, there exists something that created it." is itself false. And consequently, the concept of "The God of God", becomes unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that the concept of "God of the universe", is also unnecessary in this particular view.
In other words, if we are willing to accept that God exists without a creator, why not accept that the universe exists without a creator as well?
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is infinite regress. If the universe exists, then God exists. If God exists then a God of God exists. And this argument can go on forever. This question of "Who created God?" is the problem of infinite regress.
Consequently, some people would argue that the statement: "If X exists, there exists something that created it." is itself false. And consequently, the concept of "The God of God", becomes unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that the concept of "God of the universe", is also unnecessary in this particular view.
In other words, if we are willing to accept that God exists without a creator, why not accept that the universe exists without a creator as well?
Monday, January 10, 2011
Nightmares That Kill
Papa Roach in "Blanket Of Fear":
So hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality
Hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality
I'm falling in my dream; I finally hit the ground
I'm falling in my dream, I finally hit the ground
I hit the ground
Because I, I cant keep my mind from going into dark places (Full lyrics)
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy
This post handles the issue of open-relationships, however it approaches the subject from the point of view of the emotions that are relevant to relationships. The notion of love is very critical to the conception of interpersonal relationships, because the emotion of love is one of the determining factors to the nature of that relationship.
Love is a general term. Consider the following statements:
- "I love chocolate."
- "I love science."
- "I love my parents."
- "I love my son."
- "I love being in love." (Or a general case of loving a particular emotion)
- "I love that person." (In the context of friendship)
- "I love that person." (In a context of romance)
As it seems, there are different notions of love. There are different types of things that can be the object of love. And there are numerous ways to love an object of a given category.
However, the general theme of love has to do with the feelings that are accompanied with the object of love. Generally speaking, pleasant and positive feelings. So when you say, "I love chocolate" your love is contingent on the 'reinforcing' feeling that occurs when you experience eating chocolate. Same applies to the statement about loving science, which implies that there are pleasant feelings that accompany the experience of studying science.
Let's take a moment and talk about the concept of a 'reinforcing feeling'. I will not discuss the causality issue of reinforcing feelings, but the phenomenon of it. A reinforcing feeling is the type of feeling that you will want to experience again. You eat chocolate, you like the taste, so you will want to eat more. You find studying science enjoyable so you will engage yourself in that activity. And this relationship between an experience and the feelings that accompany that experience, coupled with a contingency that the feelings in question are pleasant (hence reinforcing feelings) would be the basis upon which the emotion of love is realized.
So, let's further our discussion to the cases where the object of love is a person. In those cases, the interaction is more elaborate, and the concept of reciprocal love comes into light. If you love chocolate, the interaction is strictly one-sided since chocolate is an inanimate object. If you love your cat, the situation gets slightly more complicated since the interaction is two-sided. However, when you love a person there are many more elements that come into play. Reciprocity in love becomes a major element. However, in my personal view which is consistent with the view of reinforcing feeling, love of one person to another is independent of being 'loved back'. Hence, one-sided love is an actual possibility. In general, reciprocation of love acts as an amplification tool. In other words, if you find that being with a person is a pleasant experience, and they in return find your company pleasurable, two things will happen: First, the two-sided positive interaction will make the experience more pleasurable, and hence would enhance the 'quality' of the experience. Second, the two people are naturally going to spend more time together, and thus will increase the 'quantity' of the experience. And the combination of those two effects would amplify the experiences which realizes a more profound notion of love.
This conclusion is important, so as to differentiate love as a feeling directed towards a person, and love viewed in the context of a relationship. This implies that the conception of love in the context of a relationship needs to be a pleasant experience in the case of bestowal of love, as well as, the reception of love.
While the concept of love that I just described is highly self-centered, but still this love involves the concept of a relationship (in the general sense) and can also be related to interpersonal relationships. If we consider the statement "Person-X loves Object-Y", we are describing an interaction between 'Person-X' and 'Object-Y', and not only are we implying that there is an interaction, but that this interaction is considered to be a pleasant experience from Person-X's point of view. And this interaction embodies the relationship in question.
After this crude introduction to the emotion of love, let's divert our attention to the emotion of jealousy. Again jealousy means different things to different people, but the most general theme about jealousy is fear of loss. This is the main property that I will assume to be characteristic to the emotion of jealousy. And to make a stronger notion of jealousy, jealousy is about fear of loss of ownership.
To make an example outside the realm of sexuality and fidelity, let's consider this typical scenario concerning children. Let's consider two little kids, and they are playing together in a room. And in that room there is a toy that belongs to one of the kids. At some point the kid that does not own the toy, goes ahead and starts playing with that toy. Now, the kid who the toy belongs to would notice this action, and this would trigger the emotion of jealousy, and consequently would go to the other kid and asserts his sense of ownership. He might say something like: "Give it back, it's mine!". This scenario illustrates a display of the emotion of jealousy.
And this is exactly what happens in a sexual context or even a pseudo-sexual context. If a man sees another man hitting on 'his woman', it would trigger an emotion of jealousy, and would consequently try to assert his sense of ownership. Needless to say, this is a general theme that applies to girls being jealous towards another girl, and it also applies in a context of non-heterosexuality. That being said, the general theme here is that people are acting based on a perceived sense of ownership.
However, this sense of ownership needs to be put in question. It is a generally accepted notion that people who are in love 'belong together'. But jealousy is actually demonstrating a different notion that people who are in love 'belong TO each other'. Personally, I consider both notions to be misleading. And I also consider the notion of 'belonging-to someone' as not only misleading, but insulting as well. In other words, I would consider the notion that 'Person-X belongs to me' as an insult towards Person-X, and I -personally- find that insulting someone I love as an action that is not in my best interest. Likewise, I would put into question a statement of love from a person who is insulting me.
So, if we go back to the view that love is correlated to pleasant feelings, I find that insult does not fit the profile of love, and consequently jealousy and love are at direct contradiction (at least based on that particular view of insult and unpleasantness).
There is a notion that some people believe that jealousy is an act of love. The argument would go something like: "If you love a person, it is a normal -maybe even healthy- to display the emotion of jealousy." Personally, I dismiss such an argument based on my above mentioned views. However, there are some more generalized accounts based on which we might dismiss this argument. One such account is the view that jealousy is a 'distancing emotion' and it also is a display of distrust. Jealousy at its core is a fight of "me" against "them", and in this mental picture, the person views himself at a distance, and views that his partner and the third party are forming a bond which he needs to break. And hence, the person who feels jealousy continuously perceives the relationship to be in flux, where the relationship is suffering from continuous ups and downs that he needs to fix. This shows that the person feeling jealousy sees the relationship as 'hanging-by-a-thread', and also shows a great amount of insecurity regarding the trustworthiness of his partner.
Jealousy in terms of the objects that the dynamics are occurring can be thought of as a 'threesome'. It is a 'threesome' in the sense that it involves three entities. The lover, the object of love, and the rival. When talking about jealousy we are often discussing the theme of a love triangle. A guy is in love with a girl, and there is another guy trying to win the love of that girl. However, if we take one step back, and see the larger picture, we find out that jealousy (in the sexual context) is actually a 'foursome', the fourth entity being society. This is in the sense that the jealous person is not only concerned about his personal interest in the loved one, but also concerned about the feelings of shame and embarrassment that is associated with infidelity. There is a social pressure that if a man sleeps with your wife, then you will be socially rejected. If we want to discuss jealousy in terms of fear of loss, we can easily see that a person has not only a loved person at stake, but also a perceived notion of 'honor' as it is applicable in the social context. I will not go into further details about this problem, but it is obvious that the social context of a relationship is influential.
In addition to jealousy, there is a related -but very different- aspect of negative emotions that are emphasized in closed-relationships. This aspect is mostly illustrated in discussions I have about open-relationships with guys, namely envy. The argument goes as follows: "Imagine that you got a girlfriend, you agree to have an open-relationship, and the end result is that your girlfriend is having sex with a new guy every day, while you are failing at finding any sexual partners. Would you still want the relationship to be open?" Now, obviously this argument reduces open-relationships to a contest of which partner 'scores' the most. Envy is the emotion that is characterized by distress over other people's good fortune, which is exactly whats going on in this particular argument. This kind of argument shows deep misunderstanding of the person making that argument as to what open-relationships are really about, but it also demonstrates a very negative aspect of closed-relationships. Jealousy is an emotion directed towards a third party, who is perceived as threat to what we own. On the other hand, envy is an emotion directed towards your partner in such a way that you'd hate for good things to happen to your partner. And this emotion of envy, in my opinion, is at much more contradiction with regards to love, compared to jealousy. In other words, if the concept of love leads to destructive actions directed towards your partner, then that conception of love is self-refuting.
Now, let's talk about a concept that many people have, namely 'true love'. The notion of 'true love' implies the existence of another notion of 'false love'. I am not interested in the exact definitions of those notions, but the fact that we differentiate those categories is revealing. The distinction implies that 'true love' has specific features that do not exist in the general concept of love. And since we are considering love in terms of the feelings that accompany it, this means that the person making the distinction has a different set of feelings to describe 'true love' as opposed to 'false love'. So, for the sake of argument, let's define 'true love' as the type of love someone is interested in. Which means that the person looking for 'true love' is looking for a specific set of feelings that accompany that emotion of love.
Going back to the emotion of jealousy, some people might argue that in fact jealousy leads to pleasant feelings. To demonstrate that, let's go back to the example of the kids, where one kid starts playing with a toy that does not belong to him. To view the events in terms of causality we can say that:
1- The kid who displays jealousy has a perceived notion of ownership of the toy.
2- The kid then perceives a situation where his sense of ownership is threatened
3- Based on that perception the emotion of jealousy is triggered
4- The kid decides to act upon his sense of ownership
5- The kid consequently asserts his sense of ownership
And at stage 5, our example has ended. But let's consider the continuation of this scenario, by supposing that the other kid concedes and gives back the toy.
6- The toy is returned
7- At this point, the kid to whom the toy belongs to might get a sense of authority over the other kid.
8- This perceived sense of authority is interpreted as a pleasant feeling.
We can see that jealousy has a causal relationship with pleasant feelings under some circumstances. And this leads some people to find a correlation between love and jealousy. Basically, the person who asserts that his notion of love requires sexual fidelity, is indirectly trying to satisfy a need for authority. So when a person tells a loved one: "I expect you to be sexually faithful", he is indirectly saying: "One of the pleasant feelings that I experience with you is a sense of authority, and you need to keep it that way, because my love for you is contingent on that pleasant feeling." In other words, love is reduced to a tool using which a person maintains his sense of authority.
At this point we can go back to the notion of 'true love', and ask ourselves: "Is that sense of authority a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?". For some people the answer is 'yes', but for me, the answer is 'definitely not'. Obviously, this argument implies that open-relationships does not work for everybody, only the subset of people who reject the view that jealousy is a desirable feature of love.
Of course, some people would argue that expectations of fidelity have less to do with the sense of authority, and more to do with the sense of security. I agree that in this view expectations of fidelity can be viewed less harshly, but once again the question is raised: "Is that sense of security a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?"
Finally, this series of posts handles only a small part of my personal theory of open-relationships. Open-relationships can be approached in terms of emotions, psychology, dynamics of relationships, ethics of relationships, or practice. This post discussed the emotions of love and jealousy. But this is not the most important issue regarding open-relationships in my opinion. The issue the I think is most important is the dynamics of the relationships, which I introduced (without details) in this post. In the context of that post, love is part of the motivation to be in a relationship. And thus, this series is merely one aspect of the broad topic of open-relationships.
In this series:
About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy
About Love - Part 2: Love and Curiosity
Next: About Love - Part 3: Love and Sexuality
Next: About Love - Part 4: True Love
Love is a general term. Consider the following statements:
- "I love chocolate."
- "I love science."
- "I love my parents."
- "I love my son."
- "I love being in love." (Or a general case of loving a particular emotion)
- "I love that person." (In the context of friendship)
- "I love that person." (In a context of romance)
As it seems, there are different notions of love. There are different types of things that can be the object of love. And there are numerous ways to love an object of a given category.
However, the general theme of love has to do with the feelings that are accompanied with the object of love. Generally speaking, pleasant and positive feelings. So when you say, "I love chocolate" your love is contingent on the 'reinforcing' feeling that occurs when you experience eating chocolate. Same applies to the statement about loving science, which implies that there are pleasant feelings that accompany the experience of studying science.
Let's take a moment and talk about the concept of a 'reinforcing feeling'. I will not discuss the causality issue of reinforcing feelings, but the phenomenon of it. A reinforcing feeling is the type of feeling that you will want to experience again. You eat chocolate, you like the taste, so you will want to eat more. You find studying science enjoyable so you will engage yourself in that activity. And this relationship between an experience and the feelings that accompany that experience, coupled with a contingency that the feelings in question are pleasant (hence reinforcing feelings) would be the basis upon which the emotion of love is realized.
So, let's further our discussion to the cases where the object of love is a person. In those cases, the interaction is more elaborate, and the concept of reciprocal love comes into light. If you love chocolate, the interaction is strictly one-sided since chocolate is an inanimate object. If you love your cat, the situation gets slightly more complicated since the interaction is two-sided. However, when you love a person there are many more elements that come into play. Reciprocity in love becomes a major element. However, in my personal view which is consistent with the view of reinforcing feeling, love of one person to another is independent of being 'loved back'. Hence, one-sided love is an actual possibility. In general, reciprocation of love acts as an amplification tool. In other words, if you find that being with a person is a pleasant experience, and they in return find your company pleasurable, two things will happen: First, the two-sided positive interaction will make the experience more pleasurable, and hence would enhance the 'quality' of the experience. Second, the two people are naturally going to spend more time together, and thus will increase the 'quantity' of the experience. And the combination of those two effects would amplify the experiences which realizes a more profound notion of love.
This conclusion is important, so as to differentiate love as a feeling directed towards a person, and love viewed in the context of a relationship. This implies that the conception of love in the context of a relationship needs to be a pleasant experience in the case of bestowal of love, as well as, the reception of love.
While the concept of love that I just described is highly self-centered, but still this love involves the concept of a relationship (in the general sense) and can also be related to interpersonal relationships. If we consider the statement "Person-X loves Object-Y", we are describing an interaction between 'Person-X' and 'Object-Y', and not only are we implying that there is an interaction, but that this interaction is considered to be a pleasant experience from Person-X's point of view. And this interaction embodies the relationship in question.
After this crude introduction to the emotion of love, let's divert our attention to the emotion of jealousy. Again jealousy means different things to different people, but the most general theme about jealousy is fear of loss. This is the main property that I will assume to be characteristic to the emotion of jealousy. And to make a stronger notion of jealousy, jealousy is about fear of loss of ownership.
To make an example outside the realm of sexuality and fidelity, let's consider this typical scenario concerning children. Let's consider two little kids, and they are playing together in a room. And in that room there is a toy that belongs to one of the kids. At some point the kid that does not own the toy, goes ahead and starts playing with that toy. Now, the kid who the toy belongs to would notice this action, and this would trigger the emotion of jealousy, and consequently would go to the other kid and asserts his sense of ownership. He might say something like: "Give it back, it's mine!". This scenario illustrates a display of the emotion of jealousy.
And this is exactly what happens in a sexual context or even a pseudo-sexual context. If a man sees another man hitting on 'his woman', it would trigger an emotion of jealousy, and would consequently try to assert his sense of ownership. Needless to say, this is a general theme that applies to girls being jealous towards another girl, and it also applies in a context of non-heterosexuality. That being said, the general theme here is that people are acting based on a perceived sense of ownership.
However, this sense of ownership needs to be put in question. It is a generally accepted notion that people who are in love 'belong together'. But jealousy is actually demonstrating a different notion that people who are in love 'belong TO each other'. Personally, I consider both notions to be misleading. And I also consider the notion of 'belonging-to someone' as not only misleading, but insulting as well. In other words, I would consider the notion that 'Person-X belongs to me' as an insult towards Person-X, and I -personally- find that insulting someone I love as an action that is not in my best interest. Likewise, I would put into question a statement of love from a person who is insulting me.
So, if we go back to the view that love is correlated to pleasant feelings, I find that insult does not fit the profile of love, and consequently jealousy and love are at direct contradiction (at least based on that particular view of insult and unpleasantness).
There is a notion that some people believe that jealousy is an act of love. The argument would go something like: "If you love a person, it is a normal -maybe even healthy- to display the emotion of jealousy." Personally, I dismiss such an argument based on my above mentioned views. However, there are some more generalized accounts based on which we might dismiss this argument. One such account is the view that jealousy is a 'distancing emotion' and it also is a display of distrust. Jealousy at its core is a fight of "me" against "them", and in this mental picture, the person views himself at a distance, and views that his partner and the third party are forming a bond which he needs to break. And hence, the person who feels jealousy continuously perceives the relationship to be in flux, where the relationship is suffering from continuous ups and downs that he needs to fix. This shows that the person feeling jealousy sees the relationship as 'hanging-by-a-thread', and also shows a great amount of insecurity regarding the trustworthiness of his partner.
Jealousy in terms of the objects that the dynamics are occurring can be thought of as a 'threesome'. It is a 'threesome' in the sense that it involves three entities. The lover, the object of love, and the rival. When talking about jealousy we are often discussing the theme of a love triangle. A guy is in love with a girl, and there is another guy trying to win the love of that girl. However, if we take one step back, and see the larger picture, we find out that jealousy (in the sexual context) is actually a 'foursome', the fourth entity being society. This is in the sense that the jealous person is not only concerned about his personal interest in the loved one, but also concerned about the feelings of shame and embarrassment that is associated with infidelity. There is a social pressure that if a man sleeps with your wife, then you will be socially rejected. If we want to discuss jealousy in terms of fear of loss, we can easily see that a person has not only a loved person at stake, but also a perceived notion of 'honor' as it is applicable in the social context. I will not go into further details about this problem, but it is obvious that the social context of a relationship is influential.
In addition to jealousy, there is a related -but very different- aspect of negative emotions that are emphasized in closed-relationships. This aspect is mostly illustrated in discussions I have about open-relationships with guys, namely envy. The argument goes as follows: "Imagine that you got a girlfriend, you agree to have an open-relationship, and the end result is that your girlfriend is having sex with a new guy every day, while you are failing at finding any sexual partners. Would you still want the relationship to be open?" Now, obviously this argument reduces open-relationships to a contest of which partner 'scores' the most. Envy is the emotion that is characterized by distress over other people's good fortune, which is exactly whats going on in this particular argument. This kind of argument shows deep misunderstanding of the person making that argument as to what open-relationships are really about, but it also demonstrates a very negative aspect of closed-relationships. Jealousy is an emotion directed towards a third party, who is perceived as threat to what we own. On the other hand, envy is an emotion directed towards your partner in such a way that you'd hate for good things to happen to your partner. And this emotion of envy, in my opinion, is at much more contradiction with regards to love, compared to jealousy. In other words, if the concept of love leads to destructive actions directed towards your partner, then that conception of love is self-refuting.
Now, let's talk about a concept that many people have, namely 'true love'. The notion of 'true love' implies the existence of another notion of 'false love'. I am not interested in the exact definitions of those notions, but the fact that we differentiate those categories is revealing. The distinction implies that 'true love' has specific features that do not exist in the general concept of love. And since we are considering love in terms of the feelings that accompany it, this means that the person making the distinction has a different set of feelings to describe 'true love' as opposed to 'false love'. So, for the sake of argument, let's define 'true love' as the type of love someone is interested in. Which means that the person looking for 'true love' is looking for a specific set of feelings that accompany that emotion of love.
Going back to the emotion of jealousy, some people might argue that in fact jealousy leads to pleasant feelings. To demonstrate that, let's go back to the example of the kids, where one kid starts playing with a toy that does not belong to him. To view the events in terms of causality we can say that:
1- The kid who displays jealousy has a perceived notion of ownership of the toy.
2- The kid then perceives a situation where his sense of ownership is threatened
3- Based on that perception the emotion of jealousy is triggered
4- The kid decides to act upon his sense of ownership
5- The kid consequently asserts his sense of ownership
And at stage 5, our example has ended. But let's consider the continuation of this scenario, by supposing that the other kid concedes and gives back the toy.
6- The toy is returned
7- At this point, the kid to whom the toy belongs to might get a sense of authority over the other kid.
8- This perceived sense of authority is interpreted as a pleasant feeling.
We can see that jealousy has a causal relationship with pleasant feelings under some circumstances. And this leads some people to find a correlation between love and jealousy. Basically, the person who asserts that his notion of love requires sexual fidelity, is indirectly trying to satisfy a need for authority. So when a person tells a loved one: "I expect you to be sexually faithful", he is indirectly saying: "One of the pleasant feelings that I experience with you is a sense of authority, and you need to keep it that way, because my love for you is contingent on that pleasant feeling." In other words, love is reduced to a tool using which a person maintains his sense of authority.
At this point we can go back to the notion of 'true love', and ask ourselves: "Is that sense of authority a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?". For some people the answer is 'yes', but for me, the answer is 'definitely not'. Obviously, this argument implies that open-relationships does not work for everybody, only the subset of people who reject the view that jealousy is a desirable feature of love.
Of course, some people would argue that expectations of fidelity have less to do with the sense of authority, and more to do with the sense of security. I agree that in this view expectations of fidelity can be viewed less harshly, but once again the question is raised: "Is that sense of security a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?"
Finally, this series of posts handles only a small part of my personal theory of open-relationships. Open-relationships can be approached in terms of emotions, psychology, dynamics of relationships, ethics of relationships, or practice. This post discussed the emotions of love and jealousy. But this is not the most important issue regarding open-relationships in my opinion. The issue the I think is most important is the dynamics of the relationships, which I introduced (without details) in this post. In the context of that post, love is part of the motivation to be in a relationship. And thus, this series is merely one aspect of the broad topic of open-relationships.
In this series:
About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy
About Love - Part 2: Love and Curiosity
Next: About Love - Part 3: Love and Sexuality
Next: About Love - Part 4: True Love
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music
Music fans commonly wonder about the guidelines to distinguish the different genres of music that they listen to. Couple of years ago, I used to listen to the Metal and Rock categories. But the subtle differences between the different sub-categories sometimes still puzzle me. Unfortunately, I never to this date found any properly illustrated guide to this category of music. However, nowadays, I am all into Electronic Music, and Trance in particular. Interestingly, I have found a proper guide to Electronic Music. So if you ever wondered what's the difference between Trance, Techno, and House, today is your lucky day. Even all the sub-genres of those encompassing musical genres. Everything with excerpts of typical songs that belong to that particular category!
Details can be found in Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music.
Details can be found in Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Raped Freedom of Speech
Read this shocking news item!
Enough said.
It might be a good idea to start encrypting all your communications online!! At least this is technically a good way to protect your freedom of speech and privacy in a world where laws and regulations don't respect our basic human rights.
Enough said.
It might be a good idea to start encrypting all your communications online!! At least this is technically a good way to protect your freedom of speech and privacy in a world where laws and regulations don't respect our basic human rights.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
No Giving Up on Open-Relationships
This entry is an addendum to a previous post: The Most Drastic Fear
I have already explained that my worst fear is disappointing myself. The thing is, everytime I think of what my life needs to have the quality of being good enough, so as not to be disappointing, is love.
My friends tell me that I over-analyze things, and that sometimes something catches my attention so much that I focus my attention to that detail so much such that it seems essential to everything.
And that's actually what happened. I do all that, and I have over-analyzed the concept of love, and discovered through my analysis that there is only one kind of love that is so meaningful, to the point of making it so satisfying that you can be sure to never be disappointed. This love is the one that happens in the context of an open-relationship.
I have mentioned before that I would explain my position on open-relationships. This post does not explain the analysis used to reach that conclusion, but it explains why I wish to realize this type of relationship so fanatically. It is seems to be the only way to a love that I can swear by!!
I have already explained that my worst fear is disappointing myself. The thing is, everytime I think of what my life needs to have the quality of being good enough, so as not to be disappointing, is love.
My friends tell me that I over-analyze things, and that sometimes something catches my attention so much that I focus my attention to that detail so much such that it seems essential to everything.
And that's actually what happened. I do all that, and I have over-analyzed the concept of love, and discovered through my analysis that there is only one kind of love that is so meaningful, to the point of making it so satisfying that you can be sure to never be disappointed. This love is the one that happens in the context of an open-relationship.
I have mentioned before that I would explain my position on open-relationships. This post does not explain the analysis used to reach that conclusion, but it explains why I wish to realize this type of relationship so fanatically. It is seems to be the only way to a love that I can swear by!!
The Most Drastic Fear
My dad always tells me that I should fear nothing in life, and that he has no fear of anything. I believed him, but never understood the extent of what that meant. However, recently he told us somethings that showed me the extent of how much a man can fear nothing. My dad works currently in Saudi Arabia, not in a city, in a village secluded from civilization. My dad when he feels bored on weekends, he like to go drive far away. So he takes the car and drives away, and he does not turn back. No.... when the night hits, he parks a little off-road in the desert, puts a sleeping bag on the sand and sleeps.
This stricked me as something only a truly fearless man would do. He can sleep in the middle of the desert, when he could have just as easily turned back and eventually sleep at home. And it makes me think how much my life could have been different if I were as fearless as my father.
I have contemplated on my own fears, and was very conflicted when I tried to see if I had so many fears, or so few of them. I could not understand whether or not I have too few or too many fears. However, in a moment of clarity, I saw the answer to my question. I have conquered all fears, including the fear of death.
However, there is still one fear that tops it all: The fear of disappointing myself. My only fear is that when I see my end, and death would be near, I would take a look back at my life... similar to the flash backs they say a person has when he's dying, say falling from a tall building. So I only fear for my future self, to witness such a flash back and be disappointed. Every other fear I have conquered, except this one!
PS: As a postscript, it is also worth mentioning, that I fear for myself only those few moments before death, but no concern at all for anything after that, because death would be the complete inexistence of my conscience, so there is no me to be concerned about. I also don't fear sudden death, where I would not have seen that flash back. And from this I understand that I don't fear death itself.
This stricked me as something only a truly fearless man would do. He can sleep in the middle of the desert, when he could have just as easily turned back and eventually sleep at home. And it makes me think how much my life could have been different if I were as fearless as my father.
I have contemplated on my own fears, and was very conflicted when I tried to see if I had so many fears, or so few of them. I could not understand whether or not I have too few or too many fears. However, in a moment of clarity, I saw the answer to my question. I have conquered all fears, including the fear of death.
However, there is still one fear that tops it all: The fear of disappointing myself. My only fear is that when I see my end, and death would be near, I would take a look back at my life... similar to the flash backs they say a person has when he's dying, say falling from a tall building. So I only fear for my future self, to witness such a flash back and be disappointed. Every other fear I have conquered, except this one!
PS: As a postscript, it is also worth mentioning, that I fear for myself only those few moments before death, but no concern at all for anything after that, because death would be the complete inexistence of my conscience, so there is no me to be concerned about. I also don't fear sudden death, where I would not have seen that flash back. And from this I understand that I don't fear death itself.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Cleanternet: For A Cleaner and Safer Internet
Who doesn't want a cleaner internet?! Who doesn't want to put a stop to Child pornography, as well as, all the other evils that come with the internet. We all do want a cleaner internet, and Cleanternet is the solution. Lets all raise our hands in support of this progressive movement....
Click here for a video demonstration about the proposal for Cleanternet...
Click here for a video demonstration about the proposal for Cleanternet...
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Barack Obama Speaks About Religion And Secularism
Click here for a Youtube video, showing a very interesting speech made by the US President, Barack Obama.
I loved the whole speech, especially the part that says:
For the full speech click here
I loved the whole speech, especially the part that says:
"Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.
To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason." - Barack Obama
For the full speech click here
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Some Comments Have Been Lost
While I was browsing some of the old blog posts here on my blog, I noticed some posts that had "0 comments", which I was pretty sure that I did receive several comments on. Needless to say, I never authorized such a deletion of contents and I am very disappointed how Google would let something like this happen. I did not suppose Google would be unreliable so as to lose dozens of comments on this blog.
I am going to communicate with Google in an attempt to retrieve as much as possible of the lost comments (I think its unlikely they lost the content for good, although I cannot be sure how co-operative they will be in this regard).
Anyways, any concerned blogger should recheck old posts for missing comments. If my observation is correct, the affected posts are those made during or before the year 2006.
I am going to communicate with Google in an attempt to retrieve as much as possible of the lost comments (I think its unlikely they lost the content for good, although I cannot be sure how co-operative they will be in this regard).
Anyways, any concerned blogger should recheck old posts for missing comments. If my observation is correct, the affected posts are those made during or before the year 2006.
Digital Copies Are Not Theft
Some proponents of digital copyright laws make the conjecture that "pirating" movies and music is an act of theft, and that it constitutes in some way stealing. However, this is completely ludicrous as the concept of theft is directly constructed on the concept of starvation.
The concept of starvation is that when someone steals an item, the owner of that item loses it. So if a thief steals your car, you can no longer have that car. While theft might not be universally evil in all situations (consider a starving man stealing food to stay alive - X-Ref), but digital copies are in no way resembling the act of theft. Simply put, there is no starvation in a digital world. Pirated copies are, as the name suggests, "copies" and the content in question is still available to its original owner.
However, don't jump to conclusions. Proving that pirating digital material is not theft, is not a sufficient argument for the legitimacy of piracy. However, it is imperative to make this distinction when corporations are willing to make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to delegitimize digital piracy.
The concept of starvation is that when someone steals an item, the owner of that item loses it. So if a thief steals your car, you can no longer have that car. While theft might not be universally evil in all situations (consider a starving man stealing food to stay alive - X-Ref), but digital copies are in no way resembling the act of theft. Simply put, there is no starvation in a digital world. Pirated copies are, as the name suggests, "copies" and the content in question is still available to its original owner.
However, don't jump to conclusions. Proving that pirating digital material is not theft, is not a sufficient argument for the legitimacy of piracy. However, it is imperative to make this distinction when corporations are willing to make any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to delegitimize digital piracy.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Richard Dawkins Planning to Get the Pope Arrested
Richard Dawkins - atheist campaigner and evolutionist - is planning to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he comes to Britain later this year for "crimes against humanity".
As most people know, Pope Benedict XVI has been accused of involvement in the cover up operation of child-molestation executed by some priests. However, at that time there was no legal action taken against him to hold him responsible in helping the priests in question avoid legal liability.
The major setback in this case is that the Pope is head of state (the Vatican), which provides immunity from prosecution. However, Dawkins is hoping to create a legal case which can circumvent the immunity given to the Pope.
Another case-in-point is that this alleged cover up has been done while the Pope was still a Cardinal. This is useful, because the immunity from prosecution is given to crimes that the head of state commits while being in the said position -not before. Hence, the Pope would be charged for an offense before he actually became Pope, and this might help make a legal case for the prosecution.
Click here for news item
Click here for Richard Dawkins blog entry
As most people know, Pope Benedict XVI has been accused of involvement in the cover up operation of child-molestation executed by some priests. However, at that time there was no legal action taken against him to hold him responsible in helping the priests in question avoid legal liability.
The major setback in this case is that the Pope is head of state (the Vatican), which provides immunity from prosecution. However, Dawkins is hoping to create a legal case which can circumvent the immunity given to the Pope.
Another case-in-point is that this alleged cover up has been done while the Pope was still a Cardinal. This is useful, because the immunity from prosecution is given to crimes that the head of state commits while being in the said position -not before. Hence, the Pope would be charged for an offense before he actually became Pope, and this might help make a legal case for the prosecution.
Click here for news item
Click here for Richard Dawkins blog entry
Monday, March 15, 2010
Clouded Vision
I have been asking myself lots of questions these days... Am I happy? If not, can I ever be? Would I ever figure out what I need to get there? Have I done the right choices in my life? Have I done the wrong choices? How can I find out? And if I figure that I have done wrong choices, would there be anything to do to fix them? Or is it too late for fixing critical mistakes?
I have went to study the masters in the United Arab Emirates, I left home, family and friends. I thought this would be an opportunity to change my life, or even maybe myself. My current environment is completely changed. But neither my life nor myself have changed... I find that I have changed everything but myself... Is this a sign? Does this mean that I love my life and I don't want it to change? Or does this mean that I am repeating my past mistakes? How do I know the difference? Would changing my environment yet again help me to a fresh start? Or would I end up repeating the same mistakes yet again?
Is there something flawed in my method? Or is it that I have simply not been given the opportunity to reap the fruit? Can I ever forgive myself for the disappointment? Or do I have no reason to be disappointed in myself?
Am I too critical of myself that I don't see the greatness of my achievements? Or have I been too easy on myself that I put myself on a path of disappointment? Should I try harder or let go?
Questions, but no answers!! Is it too late to find the answers?
I have went to study the masters in the United Arab Emirates, I left home, family and friends. I thought this would be an opportunity to change my life, or even maybe myself. My current environment is completely changed. But neither my life nor myself have changed... I find that I have changed everything but myself... Is this a sign? Does this mean that I love my life and I don't want it to change? Or does this mean that I am repeating my past mistakes? How do I know the difference? Would changing my environment yet again help me to a fresh start? Or would I end up repeating the same mistakes yet again?
Is there something flawed in my method? Or is it that I have simply not been given the opportunity to reap the fruit? Can I ever forgive myself for the disappointment? Or do I have no reason to be disappointed in myself?
Am I too critical of myself that I don't see the greatness of my achievements? Or have I been too easy on myself that I put myself on a path of disappointment? Should I try harder or let go?
Questions, but no answers!! Is it too late to find the answers?
Monday, October 12, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Going Away.... To The Future
Infected Mushrooms in "The Cities of the Future":
I, a long time ago, have promised myself to leave all that I have known for something better..... Someday!
We gonna run run run
To the cities of the future
Take what we can and bring back home
So take me down to the cities of the future
Everybody's happy and i feel at home
I found myself going away
Never wanting to go back again.
Leaving all my thoughts behind
Searching for some new ones inside. (Full lyrics)
I, a long time ago, have promised myself to leave all that I have known for something better..... Someday!
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Pelagianism: An Unorthodox Christian View
Pelagianism is Christian denomination that reforms the understanding about salvation; that is, the means by which humanity and God are restored to a right relationship. Pelagianism challenges two views held by most Christian churches, namely: The concept of the "Original Sin" and the salvation provided by the crucification of Jesus. Pelagianism was founded by a British monk called Pelagius.
Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam's sin merely "set a bad example" for his descendants and Jesus "set a good example" for mankind (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation before he sinned. Pelagius taught that salvation could be attained through free will alone, without the redemption of divine grace.
Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.
Thusly, Pelagius claims that humans are fully responsible through their free will, for both sins and goodness. Because by denying the effect of the original sin on mankind, humans cannot justify their actions as a consequence of the original sin. Likewise, humans are responsible for their own goodness and their own salvation. In a certain sense, and according to the teachings of Pelagius, Jesus' existence was a living proof that humans can be good, and had no redemption value beyond that.
Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin (the Fall) were restricted to themselves only; and thereby denied the belief that original sin was passed on to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. Adam's sin merely "set a bad example" for his descendants and Jesus "set a good example" for mankind (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). Pelagianism teaches that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation before he sinned. Pelagius taught that salvation could be attained through free will alone, without the redemption of divine grace.
Pelagius taught that man has an unimpaired moral ability to choose that which is spiritually good and possesses the free will, ability, and capacity to do that which is spiritually good. This resulted in a gospel of salvation based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to do so.
Thusly, Pelagius claims that humans are fully responsible through their free will, for both sins and goodness. Because by denying the effect of the original sin on mankind, humans cannot justify their actions as a consequence of the original sin. Likewise, humans are responsible for their own goodness and their own salvation. In a certain sense, and according to the teachings of Pelagius, Jesus' existence was a living proof that humans can be good, and had no redemption value beyond that.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Meta-Religion: RHP vs LHP
One of the main concepts that need to be addressed when analyzing religions is the difference between a Left Hand Path (LHP) religion, and a Right Hand Path (RHP) religion. Since the exact definition of the RHP and LHP is not well established, I will approach those concepts from a point of view that is most meaningful for my personal views.
Most mainstream religions follow the RHP; Examples include all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). Most Satanic divisions follow the LHP.
So what do those paths entail?!
The main difference between those two paths is their views to individualism, morality, meaning, and the way their followers perceive idealism. First of all, LHP religions emphasize individualism and self-reliance. The RHP emphasizes the need for a deity or a divine being. The RHP believes that humans cannot achieve goodness on their own. The intent of "Right-Hand Path" belief systems is to attain proximity to divinity, or integration with divinity. That's why we find RHP followers try to connect with a divine being through different methods. The RHP conceives perfection of its deity, and tries to achieve that perfection through methods dictated by that deity, or by imitating that deity.
We find that this issue in particular is a major attack point of RHP followers against LHP followers. Although atheism is not strictly a LHP (some atheists might subscribe to the RHP), but we find that RHP followers are afraid of atheists. Atheists are usually described as being immoral while "God" followers are described as moral. A common argument that RHP followers usually present is that they attain their morals from their holy books and their God, then they ask where do the atheists get their morals from?!
If we look in depth at that argument we find that those RHP followers cannot perceive morality to be attained without a deity. This approach is very dangerous; A good article on this subject called: "Positive Atheism: Ethical Stability" demonstrates the volatility of the RHP approach to morality.
While the above quote handles a slightly different issue that might not apply to all RHP religions, this is another argument about the moral volatility of some mainstream religions.
In short, the RHP religions are based on the belief that humans need a deity to achieve goodness, morality, idealism, giving their life meaning, deliverance, and many other concepts that they believe that they cannot achieve on their own. In contrast, the LHP is based on the belief that humans need to work on and make an effort to achieve goodness, morality, meaning, ...etc, and that humans can achieve those results on their own. Results may vary, one person might find meaning different than another, another might find morality different than another, and some might define goodness different than others. Some might achieve their set goals, other might not. No deities are needed, no supernaturals, only the work of human hands. As we can see, choice and responsibility are very necessary for the LHP.
RHP is based on the belief that humans need to be part of something larger than themselves. They need a deity to give their lives meaning. The RHP religions usually require submission to a collective group and\or a deity. For this reason, we find that RHP followers are usually involved in working for a "greater will", a "divine plan", or "God's will"!! All those concepts diminish the value of the individual because those individuals are only perceived to have value through their connection to the deity. On the other hand, the LHP emphasizes the value of the individual independently of any groups they might participate in. The LHP is solitary, individualistic, personal, based on self-development, self-analysis, and self-empowerment.
This shades some light on the common questions Satanists receive by those with a RHP background. "Why do you worship Satan?", "Who do you worship?", as pressing as it might seem to the RHP followers to know "who to worship", this question is of least significance in the LHP, and is also pretty much meaningless question. The need of an object to worship is a characteristic of the RHP that can be very blinding when applying this methodology to a LHP religion. The RHP followers fail to perceive a religion where there is no-one to worship, where there is no leader to follow, where there is no absolute book of truth.
Another aspect where the LHP and RHP differ is their attitude toward the concept of darkness. LHP usually embraces darkness, while RHP usually fears darkness. Darkness symbolizes lack of sight, or more generally lack of knowledge. Darkness also symbolizes the unknown.
So why does the RHP fear the darkness while the LHP embraces it?!
The reason is that RHP is based on the belief that the humans lack the ability to learn and to explore the unknown. RHP is based on the concept of guidance. RHP depends on a divine being guiding its followers, a divine being to light up their path and show them the way. In contrast, the LHP is based on self-reliance. LHP encourages exploration of the darkness. LHP is based on the the humans' ability to create light in the darkness. So LHP does not avoid the darkness, but encourages its followers to explore that darkness, uncover its deepest secrets, and bring it into the light.
The conception of "God" is an obvious example of the RHP disbelief in the humans' ability to explore the unknown. While the exact details of the origin of the universe is unknown, the RHP simply does not give humans the chance to explore, and discover the reality of the origins of the universe on their own. Instead, the RHP provides unfounded conception of "God", thus releasing its followers from the need to explore.
In addition to what has been said, the LHP differs from the RHP in that the LHP emphasizes on freethought, whereas the RHP is usually dogmatic with strict rules. The LHP expects its followers to individually investigate, analyze, and decide their own set of beliefs, morals, ethics, make their own decisions, and plan their own lives. This is evident in all LHP literature that leaves so much for the individual to decide on their own. On the other hand, the RHP expects its followers to follow a strict set of rules and dogma. Many followers of the RHP become too engaged with following rules, and if no rules exist in their books, they might consult a theologian of their respective religion. Some RHP religions reach ridiculous extents in such rulings, that some RHP religions interfere with the personal life of its followers. For example, Islam and Judaism have strict rules of what its followers may and may not eat... In my personal opinion, those fine-grained rules that handles the most trivial issues, such as what and what not to eat, shows how much those RHP religions are absorbed in the process of dogmatism and the dire need for submission.
To make it in few points:
Most mainstream religions follow the RHP; Examples include all Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). Most Satanic divisions follow the LHP.
So what do those paths entail?!
The main difference between those two paths is their views to individualism, morality, meaning, and the way their followers perceive idealism. First of all, LHP religions emphasize individualism and self-reliance. The RHP emphasizes the need for a deity or a divine being. The RHP believes that humans cannot achieve goodness on their own. The intent of "Right-Hand Path" belief systems is to attain proximity to divinity, or integration with divinity. That's why we find RHP followers try to connect with a divine being through different methods. The RHP conceives perfection of its deity, and tries to achieve that perfection through methods dictated by that deity, or by imitating that deity.
We find that this issue in particular is a major attack point of RHP followers against LHP followers. Although atheism is not strictly a LHP (some atheists might subscribe to the RHP), but we find that RHP followers are afraid of atheists. Atheists are usually described as being immoral while "God" followers are described as moral. A common argument that RHP followers usually present is that they attain their morals from their holy books and their God, then they ask where do the atheists get their morals from?!
"Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy." — Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League
"How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world." — Tim Wildmon, American Family Association
If we look in depth at that argument we find that those RHP followers cannot perceive morality to be attained without a deity. This approach is very dangerous; A good article on this subject called: "Positive Atheism: Ethical Stability" demonstrates the volatility of the RHP approach to morality.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." — Albert Einstein
While the above quote handles a slightly different issue that might not apply to all RHP religions, this is another argument about the moral volatility of some mainstream religions.
In short, the RHP religions are based on the belief that humans need a deity to achieve goodness, morality, idealism, giving their life meaning, deliverance, and many other concepts that they believe that they cannot achieve on their own. In contrast, the LHP is based on the belief that humans need to work on and make an effort to achieve goodness, morality, meaning, ...etc, and that humans can achieve those results on their own. Results may vary, one person might find meaning different than another, another might find morality different than another, and some might define goodness different than others. Some might achieve their set goals, other might not. No deities are needed, no supernaturals, only the work of human hands. As we can see, choice and responsibility are very necessary for the LHP.
RHP is based on the belief that humans need to be part of something larger than themselves. They need a deity to give their lives meaning. The RHP religions usually require submission to a collective group and\or a deity. For this reason, we find that RHP followers are usually involved in working for a "greater will", a "divine plan", or "God's will"!! All those concepts diminish the value of the individual because those individuals are only perceived to have value through their connection to the deity. On the other hand, the LHP emphasizes the value of the individual independently of any groups they might participate in. The LHP is solitary, individualistic, personal, based on self-development, self-analysis, and self-empowerment.
This shades some light on the common questions Satanists receive by those with a RHP background. "Why do you worship Satan?", "Who do you worship?", as pressing as it might seem to the RHP followers to know "who to worship", this question is of least significance in the LHP, and is also pretty much meaningless question. The need of an object to worship is a characteristic of the RHP that can be very blinding when applying this methodology to a LHP religion. The RHP followers fail to perceive a religion where there is no-one to worship, where there is no leader to follow, where there is no absolute book of truth.
Another aspect where the LHP and RHP differ is their attitude toward the concept of darkness. LHP usually embraces darkness, while RHP usually fears darkness. Darkness symbolizes lack of sight, or more generally lack of knowledge. Darkness also symbolizes the unknown.
So why does the RHP fear the darkness while the LHP embraces it?!
The reason is that RHP is based on the belief that the humans lack the ability to learn and to explore the unknown. RHP is based on the concept of guidance. RHP depends on a divine being guiding its followers, a divine being to light up their path and show them the way. In contrast, the LHP is based on self-reliance. LHP encourages exploration of the darkness. LHP is based on the the humans' ability to create light in the darkness. So LHP does not avoid the darkness, but encourages its followers to explore that darkness, uncover its deepest secrets, and bring it into the light.
The conception of "God" is an obvious example of the RHP disbelief in the humans' ability to explore the unknown. While the exact details of the origin of the universe is unknown, the RHP simply does not give humans the chance to explore, and discover the reality of the origins of the universe on their own. Instead, the RHP provides unfounded conception of "God", thus releasing its followers from the need to explore.
In addition to what has been said, the LHP differs from the RHP in that the LHP emphasizes on freethought, whereas the RHP is usually dogmatic with strict rules. The LHP expects its followers to individually investigate, analyze, and decide their own set of beliefs, morals, ethics, make their own decisions, and plan their own lives. This is evident in all LHP literature that leaves so much for the individual to decide on their own. On the other hand, the RHP expects its followers to follow a strict set of rules and dogma. Many followers of the RHP become too engaged with following rules, and if no rules exist in their books, they might consult a theologian of their respective religion. Some RHP religions reach ridiculous extents in such rulings, that some RHP religions interfere with the personal life of its followers. For example, Islam and Judaism have strict rules of what its followers may and may not eat... In my personal opinion, those fine-grained rules that handles the most trivial issues, such as what and what not to eat, shows how much those RHP religions are absorbed in the process of dogmatism and the dire need for submission.
To make it in few points:
- RHP is the path of dependence on and\or submission to an ideal being, with perceived perfection, usually a deity.
- RHP is the path lightened by the perceived ideal, and guidance is provided through that ideal or its teachings.
- RHP is the path of integration with something larger than oneself, usually a deity, or the group of followers.
- LHP is the path of independence and self-reliance.
- LHP is the path of freethought.
- LHP is the path of responsibility through choice.
- LHP is the path of creating your own conception of morality, goodness, and idealism.
- LHP is the path of unguided explorations, and uncovering the unknown.
- LHP is the path of appreciating your own individualism and uniqueness.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Get 'Em Boys
Hamas launches over 70 rockets towards Israeli civilians...
One Israeli civilian killed.
Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is a hero!
He threw a pair of shoes at G. W. Bush, the president of America.
Egypt saves the day.
Egypt sends ambulances to Palestine in response to Israeli attacks that killed and injured hundreds.
One Israeli civilian killed.
Muntadhar Al-Zaidi is a hero!
He threw a pair of shoes at G. W. Bush, the president of America.
Egypt saves the day.
Egypt sends ambulances to Palestine in response to Israeli attacks that killed and injured hundreds.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
The Book of Lucifer:
The "book of Lucifer" is my personal favorite part of the Satanic Bible. This is the book of Enlightenment. While the "book of Satan" states many of the Satanic beliefs, it lacks presenting explanations and justifications for those beliefs. The "book of Lucifer" is basically the more explained and justified part of the bible.
Lavey provides this magnificent introduction:
The Roman god, Lucifer, was the bearer of light, the spirit of the air, the personification of enlightenment. In Christian mythology he became synonymous with evil, which was only to have been expected from a religion whose very existence is perpetuated by clouded definitions and bogus values! It is time to set the record straight. False moralisms and occult inaccuracies must be corrected. Entertaining as they might be, most stories and plays about Devil worship must be recognized as the obsolete absurdities they are. It has been said "the truth will make men free". The truth alone has never set anyone free. It is only DOUBT which will bring mental emancipation. Without the wonderful element of doubt, the doorway through which truth passes would be tightly shut, impervious to the most strenuous poundings of a thousand Lucifers. How understandable that Holy Scripture should refer to the Infernal monarch as the "father of lies" - a magnificent example of character inversion. If one is to believe this theological accusation that the Devil represents falsehood, then it surely must be concurred that it was HE, NOT GOD, THAT ESTABLISHED ALL SPIRITUAL RELIGIONS AND WHO WROTE ALL OF THE HOLY BIBLES! When one doubt is followed by another, the bubble, grown large from long accumulated fallacies, threatens to burst. For those who already doubt supposed truths, this book is revelation. Then Lucifer will have risen. Now is the time for doubt! The bubble of falsehood is bursting and its sound is the roar of the world!
References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
The "book of Lucifer" is my personal favorite part of the Satanic Bible. This is the book of Enlightenment. While the "book of Satan" states many of the Satanic beliefs, it lacks presenting explanations and justifications for those beliefs. The "book of Lucifer" is basically the more explained and justified part of the bible.
Lavey provides this magnificent introduction:
The Roman god, Lucifer, was the bearer of light, the spirit of the air, the personification of enlightenment. In Christian mythology he became synonymous with evil, which was only to have been expected from a religion whose very existence is perpetuated by clouded definitions and bogus values! It is time to set the record straight. False moralisms and occult inaccuracies must be corrected. Entertaining as they might be, most stories and plays about Devil worship must be recognized as the obsolete absurdities they are. It has been said "the truth will make men free". The truth alone has never set anyone free. It is only DOUBT which will bring mental emancipation. Without the wonderful element of doubt, the doorway through which truth passes would be tightly shut, impervious to the most strenuous poundings of a thousand Lucifers. How understandable that Holy Scripture should refer to the Infernal monarch as the "father of lies" - a magnificent example of character inversion. If one is to believe this theological accusation that the Devil represents falsehood, then it surely must be concurred that it was HE, NOT GOD, THAT ESTABLISHED ALL SPIRITUAL RELIGIONS AND WHO WROTE ALL OF THE HOLY BIBLES! When one doubt is followed by another, the bubble, grown large from long accumulated fallacies, threatens to burst. For those who already doubt supposed truths, this book is revelation. Then Lucifer will have risen. Now is the time for doubt! The bubble of falsehood is bursting and its sound is the roar of the world!
References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Beginning of Unwisdom
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
Richard Dawkins
Enough said.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Sado Maso 2
A second look at the dark side of life:
Mortal Love in "I Want to Die":
Mortal Love in "I Want to Die":
We have touched for the last time
You are long gone, in love with someone else
I now fear nothing but life itself
And I have learned that living is just a slow way to die
I do not believe in life or in love anymore.
The joy I feel are the joys of emptiness
I hate myself for loving you
The fear I feel night after night has developed into a disease
No-one can see the emptiness in my eyes.
To escape life itself now seems the only solution
With relief I look forward of letting go of the pain
Finally... there is peace in my soul
To lie dead without a concern, without a tear,
You own my heart
And life without you is so immensely painful
Just to think of you, talk about you, dream of you,
makes tears stream down my face
I cannot imagine happiness without your beautiful smile,
your angelic face,
your wonderful body and your good heart:
You are everything, I am nothing
I want to die
But really... I am already dead (Full lyrics)
Monday, December 01, 2008
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
The Book of Satan:
The "book of satan" is composed of five parts. It contains several verses that contains relevations about the falsehood of several religions and the 'religious institutions'.
Lavey provides this introduction:
The Devil has been attacked by the men of God relentlessly and without reservation. Never has there been an opportunity, short of fiction, for the Dark Prince to speak out in the same manner as the spokesmen of the Lord of the Righteous. The pulpit-pounders of the past have been free to define "good" and "evil" as they see fit, and have gladly smashed into oblivion any who disagree with their lies - both verbally and, at times, physically. Their talk of "charity", when applied to His Infernal Majesty, becomes an empty sham - and most unfairly, too, considering the obvious fact that without their Satanic foe their very religions would collapse.
The Book of Satan I:
References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
The Christian Bible / The New Testament(*) (PDF)
In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
The "book of satan" is composed of five parts. It contains several verses that contains relevations about the falsehood of several religions and the 'religious institutions'.
Lavey provides this introduction:
The Devil has been attacked by the men of God relentlessly and without reservation. Never has there been an opportunity, short of fiction, for the Dark Prince to speak out in the same manner as the spokesmen of the Lord of the Righteous. The pulpit-pounders of the past have been free to define "good" and "evil" as they see fit, and have gladly smashed into oblivion any who disagree with their lies - both verbally and, at times, physically. Their talk of "charity", when applied to His Infernal Majesty, becomes an empty sham - and most unfairly, too, considering the obvious fact that without their Satanic foe their very religions would collapse.
The Book of Satan I:
- In this arid wilderness of steel and stone I raise up my voice that you may hear. To the East and to the West I beckon. To the North and to the South I show a sign proclaiming: Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!
In this verse, Lavey admits the truth that the "Rule of the Jungle" is the supreme law. This law is justifiably true - and in my personal judgment is also fair. - Open your eyes that you may see, Oh men of mildewed minds, and listen to me ye bewildered millions!
- For I stand forth to challenge the wisdom of the world; to interrogate the "laws" of man and of "God"!
- I request reason for your golden rule and ask the why and wherefore of your ten commandments.
Lavey publicly and clearly states his challenge to the "laws of Man": The laws of man are those laws that are created by people to control other people. He also claims a challenge to the "laws of God". In this context, Lavey mentions God in its Christian interpretation [hence he uses "God" with quotes]. - Before none of your printed idols do I bend in acquiescence, and he who saith "thou shalt" to me is my mortal foe!
Lavey states his refusal to follow divine idols or commands. The term "thou shalt" means being given orders, but Satanists hate to be given orders, and so Lavey states animosity towards those who give orders. - I dip my forefinger in the watery blood of your impotent mad redeemer, and write over his thorn-torn brow: The TRUE prince of evil - the king of slaves!
In Christian mythology, as Jesus [The son of God] was on the cross, "a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS." (Luke 23:38)(*). Lavey mentions this incident and states the slogans he would think be more befitting:
1- The TRUE prince of evil: Lavey states that Jesus is the true evil, because his story is meant to spread lies, teach hypocrisy, and enslave his followers through a questionable sacrifice.
2- The King of Slaves: Many followers of the Abrahamic religions consider themselves as slaves to God. Hence the name the King of Slaves. Here we notice that Christianity and other religions are trying to take away the poison of the concept of Slavery. Slavery and enslavement is a very great offense, but we find that in those religious circuits people would be calling themselves as slaves without any sense of shame or indignity. - No hoary falsehood shall be a truth to me; no stifling dogma shall encramp my pen!
Lavey makes a solid statement about his and other Satanists' commitment to the truth. He states that he will not believe in falsehood, or support false religions or ideologies. - I break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and happiness.
Ethical Egoism: Every person has a duty to be happy and successful. Lavey and other Satanists need to accomplish that duty even if that meant having to break customs and conventions. - I raise up in stern invasion the standard of the strong!
- I gaze into the glassy eye of your fearsome Jehovah, and pluck him by the beard; I uplift a broad-axe, and split open his worm-eaten skull!
- I blast out the ghastly contents of philosophically whited sepulchers and laugh with sardonic wrath!
Again, Lavey is challenging other religions to prove their worth. Lavey issues a personal challenge to Abrahamic God and his teachings, and describes them as being powerless and philosophically corrupt.
References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
The Christian Bible / The New Testament(*) (PDF)
In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Introduction:
It is important to note that, although the book is titled "The Satanic Bible", it does not represent satanism fully. Satanism has no authoritative books that can be taken as absolutes in Satanism. Further more, this bible was written in the late 1960s by Anton Lavey. Anton Lavey has created what is called The First (above-ground) Church of Satan, representing satanism as a religion at par with other religions. And in his view, creating a church and a bible was necessary. Many Satanists have criticized Anton Lavey and what he has done, especially that for many Satanists, Satanism was never meant to be an organized religion.
Personally, I don't agree with everything Anton Lavey says in his book. Nonetheless, I do recognize the importance of his work. Anton Lavey's work has created a sect called "Laveyan Satanism" to differentiate them from other Satanic beliefs.
The Nine Satanic Statements:
References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
The Christian Bible / The New Testament(*) (PDF)
PS: The italicized parts are explanations quoted from The Satanic Bible
In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
It is important to note that, although the book is titled "The Satanic Bible", it does not represent satanism fully. Satanism has no authoritative books that can be taken as absolutes in Satanism. Further more, this bible was written in the late 1960s by Anton Lavey. Anton Lavey has created what is called The First (above-ground) Church of Satan, representing satanism as a religion at par with other religions. And in his view, creating a church and a bible was necessary. Many Satanists have criticized Anton Lavey and what he has done, especially that for many Satanists, Satanism was never meant to be an organized religion.
Personally, I don't agree with everything Anton Lavey says in his book. Nonetheless, I do recognize the importance of his work. Anton Lavey's work has created a sect called "Laveyan Satanism" to differentiate them from other Satanic beliefs.
The Nine Satanic Statements:
- Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence!
Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary defines indulgence thusly: "To give oneself up to; not to restrain or oppose; to give free course to; to gratify by compliance; to yeild to." The dictionary definition of compulsion is: "The act of compelling or driving by a force, physical or moral; constraint of the will; (compulsory, obligatory)." In other words, indulgence implies choice, whereas compulsion indicates the lack of choice. - Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams!
This is for the most part a criticism of prayer in other religions. Many religions advocate wasting one's life on prayer and other 'spiritual pipe dreams'. On the other hand, Laveyian Satanism advocates living the moment, in an effective manner, by taking action. After all, actions speak louder than words.
The Satanist realizes that man, and the action and reaction of the universe, is responsible for everything, and doesn't mislead himself into thinking that someone cares. - Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit!
The Satanic Bible starts with this excerpt to show the amount of hypocrisy and self-deceit advocated by some religions, including Christianity:
"On Saturday night I would see men lusting after half-naked girls dancing at the carnival, and on Sunday morning when I was playing the organ for tentshow evangelists at the other end of the carnival lot, I would see these same men sitting in the pews with their wives and children, asking God to forgive them and purge them of carnal desires. And the next Saturday night they'd be back at the carnival or some other place of indulgence."
"I knew then that the Christian Church thrives on hypocrisy, and that man's carnal nature will out!" - Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!
This is a direct contradiction to the Christian teachings of "Love your enemy"! This obviously is another act of hypocritical self-deceit that is mentioned in #3.
You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love everyone and everything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up being a pretty poor judge of character and quality. If anything is used too freely it loses its true meaning. Therefore, the Satanist believes you should love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!
Love is one of the most intense emotions felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. - Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek!
This -again- is a direct contradiction to the Christian teachings of "And unto him that smiteth thee on the [one] cheek offer also the other;" (Luke 6:29)(*). This Christian teaching is flawed in every possible way. When someone hurts you or attacks you, you should not standstill welcoming for a second attack. Maybe the black slaves should have not fought for their freedom, and offered their children for slavery?! Right?! Wrong!! But thats the kind of behavior that Christianity is teaching.
He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog!
"Love one another" it has been said is the supreme law, but what power made it so? Upon what rational authority does the gospel of love rest? Why should I not hate mine enemies - if I "love" them does that not place me at their mercy? - Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires!
I already discussed the need to recognize and immobilize psychic vampires. (X-Ref). - Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all!
- Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!
This should be interpreted in the light of the first statement: "indulgence instead of abstinence". The moral taboo advocated by religions create compulsion through abstinence. Satanism represents the abolishment of religious taboos (aka sins). - Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!
A very satirical -yet very true- statement of the relation between Satan and the Christian church.
References:
The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey (PDF)
The Christian Bible / The New Testament(*) (PDF)
PS: The italicized parts are explanations quoted from The Satanic Bible
In this series:
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 1
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 2
Readings From The Satanic Bible - Part 3
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The More I Live, The More I Ignore!
Papa Roach in "Not Listening":
I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I learn, the more I ignore
I'm not listening, not anymore
The more I hear, the more I ignore, the more I ignore
Cause I've lost my innocence
And I'm a stranger, A life changer
I'm a man thats not afraid of danger
I walk my own path, and blaze my own trail
Because I'm not afraid to derail
I won't get in line or be a middle man
So fuck you I'll make my own plan
And I got respect and I don't neglect
The people that I really care to protect
Am I a failure if I got nothing to lose
No, I'm not a failure, I got something to prove (Full lyrics)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
