Post for Oct 9-15 2016

Still groping for topics and it is getting more difficult to maintain a 4-TaN post for I will be reducing it to 2 or 3…btw, for those who are trying to respond to this blog, please be advised that it is intended to be for my personal online thoughts and I am not exactly expecting reactions or responses. However, if you really desire to send responses and to avoid having my host site repeatedly remind me to moderate reactions to what I blog, please direct them to Thank you.
Btw, thanks for all the kind words. Please consider everything in this blogspot as common good and public domain. For as long as it conforms to the conditions and provisions of the Fair Use Notice, by all means, cite and quote all that you need. Everything is free; cannot be used for financial gain, whether personal or otherwise, and all for the common good of and for all.

And, if you have anything to share with me, like a video or article, I am only interested in anything that is available and downloadable for free and no copyright. This is in line with my advocacy for sharing everything with everyone for free and for the common good. Anything I cannot download or share or have to join before I will be given the privilege to download…I am not interested. It is written that what you have received for free, you must give (away) for free. Thank you.

Btw, I am still falling behind my posting schedule and it is not easy when your connection is deplorable despite the prohibitive cost. As to this blog site, I have nothing (much) to complain because, as they say, Beggars cannot be choosers. Have a nice day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Oct 2-8 2016

TaN: When Albert Einstein (supposedly) declared that there is no such thing as a straight line, what he actually meant was that it cannot be applied to anything object or thing in the physical reality.  In truth, there is such a thing as a straight line.

To elaborate… First, a line is a concept.  A line is not something physically or tangibly real.  It exists only in our minds.  But even though its existence is only virtual, it is nevertheless as real as anything.  Remember that reality does not consist of only those that we can perceive with our senses (i.e., material) but it encompasses even those that we can conceive with our thoughts.

A line is a description of a path or connection between two objects or points.  It does not have to be straight, of which “straight” is likewise virtual but just as real and define as the shortest distance between two points.

It must be realized and understood that what is real is not confined to the material or physical world but extends to and includes the esoteric or abstract world.  Our emotions are immaterial but are just as real as anything we sense or feel.

But returning to the topic at hand, Sir Albert is merely revealing or arguing that no distance between two points can really be traversed directly.  This is due in part to the fact that nothing is stationary; everything is in constant motion as well as change or flux.  Even as we stand pat on where we are right now, the spot where we are is spinning as the planet rotates.  And while the planet rotates, it likewise revolves around our sun which, in turn, is going around in our (Milky Way) galaxy riding in one of the spiral arms.  Meanwhile, our galaxy is hurtling through space along with other neighboring galaxies in a galactic cluster which is also rushing away from other galactic clusters and cosmic bodies.

So, when we travel in what we think is a straight path, we are actually zigging and zagging through space in every which way.

When Sir Albert Einstein refers to a straight line, he was referring to the universal setting, whereas Sir Isaac Newton was referring to planetary physics where there are (illusions of a) straight line.

TaN: For all practical intents and purposes, democracy is but a “tyranny” of the majority.  Democracy is no better — neither is it worse — than totalitarianism or authoritarianism.  In fact, if one is honest to oneself, one might say that Heaven is governed by a dictatorship.

In Heaven, there is neither voting nor concessions.  God’s word is law and what He says goes.  But one must remember that the “dictatorship” in Heaven is one of a benevolent dictatorship.

In this temporal world, since man is not perfect ergo, whatever he ideates or conjures up will likewise be expected to be imperfect or with some flaws and democracy is no exception.  First, democracy can be seen as a form of tyranny…a tyranny of the majority where the decision of the majority is implemented.  Of course, in a civilized society, the implementation of the will of the majority is done so with due consideration for the decision’s impact on those not in the majority.  This is but only the right thing to do, otherwise it would truly be a tyranny (of the majority).

Second, a democracy — as compared to republicanism — due to its definition of the direct participation of the governed, necessitates that the governed must not exceed a maximum population size.  This is because having to many people involved directly in the governing process would be impractical; it would take to long to determine the consensus of the majority (because the votes would have to be counted).  Moreover, an extensive population size would likewise mean that the process of getting the majority decision would take a long time returning to the grassroots.  It is for this reason that the United States of America has a federalistic democracy instead of pure (participative) democracy.

In addition, if we stick to the fidelity of the definition of democracy, no nation or political unit in the world (today) actually practices democracy.  Instead, they have republics — where republicanism is the governance through representatives and the existence of a fundamental charter (the Constitution) where rights and powers and other vital matters are enshrined to protect the governed against possible abuses of the (elected) representatives of the people.

In a democracy, where a fundamental (protective) charter is not necessary, there is the danger of actual tyranny of the majority.  In a republic, there is (ideally and theoretically) some sort of guarantee or assurance that those not in the majority will not have their interests at the mercy of the majority.  However, certain insidious and unscrupulous (power elite) people today have found “creative and diabolical” ways of circumventing or manipulating that protection and have their ways with the governed.

TaN: Although one way of defining or understanding ethics is the idea of putting others before us or ourselves in the position/circumstances/predicament of others, it is frequently complicated by dilemmas.  Ethics would not really be complicated if it were not for the dilemmas, but dilemmas are at the very core of ethics.  Without dilemmas, ethics would just be common sense and good manners (and proper breeding or upbringing).  Without dilemmas there may just well be no (need for) ethics.

It is the dilemmas that provide us with the choices to be made, otherwise it would simply be straightforward decision-making.  It would merely be mechanical.  It is the dilemmas that give “spice” or challenge to situations involving ethical issues, although there are moments when dilemmas “go overboard” and make things too challenging to the point of making it life-changing.

Still, all in all, ethics is the way to go.  It is just that one must be honest with oneself in dealing with dilemmas and not try to “redefine or philosophize” terms and situations to worm ourselves out of doing the right thing, no matter how difficult it may prove to be.

TaN: My take on Mr Duterte’s argument and beef with other world leaders on the issue of human rights is that — unfortunately, he has several serious flaws that he either refuses or is incapable of comprehending — the past human rights abuses and violations as well as those done by others cannot be used to justify present actions.  Specifically those he accuses the Mr Obama — among others, the massacre of the Moros long ago — and those he calls the USA senators of being hypocrites — among others, those currently happening in the USA — and his comments regarding Hitler and the Holocaust.

First, the massacre cannot be in Mindanao Mr Duterte keeps referring to is a thing of the past where the current USA president is in no way responsible for.  First, it must be remembered that “the sins of the father cannot be the sins of the son”.  Second, if anyone is to be held accountable, it should be the president at that time (who is now dust) and not the incumbent.  This is unfair to the current president.

Second, the USA senators were reacting as they should.  They are merely doing what is expected of them, which is to ensure that any financial, military or any other assistance to another country should not go against their own system of values and beliefs — which is not to participate, encourage, or in any way contribute to the injustice being perpetrated by the intended beneficiary country, especially with respect to human rights abuses and violations.  Just like the incumbent president, they cannot be held accountable for atrocities performed in the past, not only because they were not in authority at the time the injustice was being carried out but mostly because they were not even alive at that time.  Again, one cannot be held accountable for the sins of one’s father as one’s father cannot be held accountable for the sins of the son.

Third, Hitler and the Holocaust were not really appropriate in this particular instance.  The comparison to Hitler of Mr Duterte by comparing the number of victims cannot or is not appropriate because it would be comparing two different things (with nothing in common, like apples and oranges).  The mass genocide of the Holocaust is (supposedly, according to available or official historical accounts) due to Hitler’s bias against Jews and not due to any criminal or illegal act and Hitler (apparently) does not recognize due process, whereas the (current and future intended) target victims of Mr Duterte, being and proudly announcing to the world is a seasoned lawyer-prosecutor, has sufficient knowledge of the law and due process and is legally bound to adhere to principles of fair play.

Under present conditions — i.e., it is neither war time nor any period of abnormality — there is no valid reason for an authority not to observe and abide by the rule of law, which includes giving the accused due process as well as adhering to the principle of “Innocent until proven guilty” — “proven”, in this case, refers to a known and generally accepted competent court or judirical authority.  The way the killings, sometimes even among legitimate police operations, are being carried out is unequivocally and unmistakably far from due process.

I think it is high time that all police operations, especially when it involves the possible use of deadly force, be recorded — i.e., either accompanied by media or the operatives have several video recording devices, like GoPro cameras (please pardon this commercialization).

In any case, human rights is no trivial matter and if God does not pass judgment on us until our death, who are we do pass judgment on others while they are still alive?  Mr Duterte, I am sorry but you are way out of line in this matter.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Sept 25-Oct 1 2016

Still groping for topics and it is getting more difficult to maintain a 4-TaN post for I will be reducing it to 2 or 3…btw, for those who are trying to respond to this blog, please be advised that it is intended to be for my personal online thoughts and I am not exactly expecting reactions or responses. However, if you really desire to send responses and to avoid having my host site repeatedly remind me to moderate reactions to what I blog, please direct them to Thank you.
Btw, thanks for all the kind words. Please consider everything in this blogspot as common good and public domain. For as long as it conforms to the conditions and provisions of the Fair Use Notice, by all means, cite and quote all that you need. Everything is free; cannot be used for financial gain, whether personal or otherwise, and all for the common good of and for all.

And, if you have anything to share with me, like a video or article, I am only interested in anything that is available and downloadable for free and no copyright. This is in line with my advocacy for sharing everything with everyone for free and for the common good. Anything I cannot download or share or have to join before I will be given the privilege to download…I am not interested. It is written that what you have received for free, you must give (away) for free. Thank you.

Btw, I am still falling behind my posting schedule and it is not easy when your connection is deplorable despite the prohibitive cost. As to this blog site, I have nothing (much) to complain because, as they say, Beggars cannot be choosers. Have a nice day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Sept 18-24 2016


TaN: As another rejoinder to a series of previous arguments regarding intelligence (and stupidity).  All people are intelligent.  There are several reasons why some people are considered “unintelligent or stupid” when it is actually an incorrect description.

One reason is due to preference.  A good lawyer may not make a good physician simply because his/her heart is not into medicine but rather into law.  It does not mean that s/he would not make a good physician.  Had his/her heart or preference been in medicine, s/he would probably be a good physician.

Another reason is due the ill-use or non-utility of the intellect.  There is such a thing as common sense and it is called such because every person has it — hence the descriptor “common”.  However, the reason why some people may “appear” to have no common sense is because of ill- or non-use.  It is said that having a common sense and using it are two entirely different things.  If one does not use his/her common sense, it is as good as or as if s/he does not have it at all.  This is the basis of my argument that there are no dumb people but only people with different preferences.

But there are stupid people.  These are people who do not or cannot learn.

With the exception of mental disorder or sickness, one’s inability to learn is usually intentional.  This means that the inability comes from one’s deliberate and conscious decision not to learn rather than for any other reason.  It is unthinkable that there is such a person who cannot learn.  If lower forms of intelligence can learn, there is no (justifiable) reason for any person not to learn.  Learning is usually a voluntary act, although there are many cases that are involuntary but this is more of accidental or unintentional — there are times when one just happens to learn without consciously wanting to learn.

It is sad that there are people who just refuse to learn.  This could be due to some previous psychological trauma or some kind of behavioral engineering — i.e., society has a way of “pre-programming” an individual’s behavior to conform to the norm.  A case in point is aptly discussed by a Sir Ken Robinson in a TED talk where he explained that (modern) formal education has somehow “indoctrinated” students out of (their) creativity by stigmatizing mistakes.  Unlike young children who will try anything, unless their elders have done damage to their children’s natural creative instincts, and even go to the point of making mistakes.  Adults are afraid of making mistakes for fear of being ridiculed, taunted, branded, or otherwise be punished.  As a result, we no longer are willing to take the risk of exploring possibilities that may lead to innovative ideas or solutions just because of that fear.

And making mistakes is a natural part of learning.  There are only two ways by which we learn: by making mistakes (as we try different solutions) or by watching and observing and reading about the mistakes of others (which saves us the embarrassment of making the mistakes ourselves).  In any case, learning cannot be achieved without making some mistakes along the way — much like the old adage, One cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

In conclusion, it is this fear of making mistakes — the stigma associated with committing errors — that is hindering a more rapid progress.  That and our penchant for patents and intellectual property rights, driven by greed and not wanting to share freely, but this will be for another TaN (although it has already been brought up in earlier TaNs).

TaN: In this 44th anniversary of the declaration of Philippine martial law by the late strongman Ferdinand E Marcos, the headlines in my broadsheet — at least most of them, especially in the front page — are hypocritical and overkill.  “Ridiculous” because that is what contemporary diplomacy and global “economic inter-dependence” has deteriorated into and “overkill” because of how much time, resources, and effort is being used by Mr Duterte’s regime to squash Ms De Lima.

This is indeed the Age of the Two-Face.

It would appear that Mr Duterte’s henchmen, lackeys, and lap dogs are trying to upstage one another to impress and curry favor from Mr Duterte in trying to grind Ms De Lima into the ground.

Moreover, it really escapes me that Mr Duterte, with all his educational background and professional and political experience, still cannot — or is he refusing to — see and admit that the rampant killings not only by the police but by private individuals and groups are a direct result of his pronouncements.  He just cannot do a Pontius Pilate by claiming that he has never outrightly sanctioned the wanton and indiscriminate executions and killings of his countrymen, regardless of whether the victims are really guilty or not.

He claims not to give any direct orders (which is technically true) but fails to see and understand that his mere public statements and pronouncements that encourage or even just alluding or suggesting for people to “take the law into their own hands” then giving them (i.e., the police) almost a “license to kill” or an absolution from any “wrongdoing” that may be committed.  It comes across as a blanket authority to commit acts of impunity against even mere suspects — who have not yet been proven to be guilty in any competent court or forum.

This is no different from the bombing of the Davao night market which caused Mr Duterte to declare a state of lawlessness.  What or where is the difference?  When the innocent get hurt (instead of the guilty)?  But are we supposed to follow the rule of law and isn’t it the rule of law that a person is presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty?  How was it proven?  By just any individual who accuses another?  What if the accusation was mere fabrication and the accuser is just out to exact vengeance or, worse, to cover-up or tie up loose ends which may lead the guilt trail back to him/her?  Or, just as bad, it could just be a case of mistaken identity or any other kind of mistake, much like what happened and Mr Duterte made a public admission on the errors (in the narco list).

In conclusion, it would appear that Mr Duterte, Mr Putin, Mr Marcos have many things in common, the primary being the propensity for acting as judge, jury, and executioner and the insistence on practicing the letter instead of the spirit of the law.  And his (Mr Duterte’s) boast of willingness to take full accountability and go to prison is an empty pledge or commitment as he has already mentioned several times in public that convicted felons who are at least 70 years of age will no longer be put behind bars — as mentioned in “Duterte says his old age can help him avoid jail” dated August 5, 2016 by Alexis Romero (  Therefore, his willingness is hollow.

Moreover, there is a catch — the 70-years-old or older provision is applicable only on the condition that the said inmate’s “…continued imprisonment is inimical to their health as recommended by a physician of the Bureau of Corrections Hospital and certified under oath by a physician designated by the Department of Health”.  In addition, I read somewhere that the eligibility to be exempt or released from imprisonment has a further requisite which is that the inmate or convicted felon must not be (deemed as) a habitual offender.  Now, I do not know as to how to interpret the “habitual” because it could be that someone who has repeatedly displayed or exhibited or publicly admitted that s/he “encourages” or even advocated wrongdoings towards others may be considered habitual.

TaN: An article today regarding the crappy Microsoft operating system suddenly made me epiphanize that in order for the desired message to be properly received and interpreted by the recipient, the proper language must be employed.  This means that the language and the recipient’s mind must be in tune or attuned.  And this leads me to realize that the reason why many Filipinos misunderstand Mr Duterte is because the latter’s use of (not just gutter but) crappy language is not in tune with many Filipinos and that those who understand Mr Duterte must have the same crappy mind — a mind full of crap.

It is said that “Birds of the same featherare the same birds.”  People of like mind will naturally understand each other; they communicate on the same “wavelength”.

It is in this light that Mr Duterte must understand and deeply imbibe the reason for the “undesired” reaction from the international and Western community — leaders and human rights advocacy groups and the UN.  Unlike the typical Filipino — unfortunate to say but must reluctantly and possibly arguably be admitted that — the average Juan dela Cruz is not a sophisticated and mature individual.  The ordinary Filipino, even those who received or have acquired advanced academic degrees (i.e., post graduate studies), have not matured and become responsible human beings — although there are a whole lot of people in supposedly advanced and “civilized” countries who are not much better (in the grown up department).

The proof is in how the common Juan reacts and behaves whenever there is a pro-boxing event, most especially the Pacquiao fights (more like juvenile and rowdy exhibitions of man’s devolution; there is no art in it…just plain savagery).  Most everyone act like modernized Neanderthals; as if professional boxing is some sort of an achievement or evolutionary breakthrough in technology, intellect, morality, or civilization.

Well, I guess it is expected because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Things go from orderly to chaos (or Things break down).  This gives a pooh-pooh to the belief that as time goes by, humanity and things improve.  And this reminds me of a phrase I heard many, many moons ago: Progress is the ever-changing process of making things as good as They USED TO BE!

And this merely reinforces the prophecy in the Holy Scriptures, that everything will eventually go to pot before the Almighty decides it is time to choose those that are worth saving and incinerate the rest to start over.

TaN: In his press statement released today, Sept 23, Mr Duterte explains (and I paraphrase) that his marching orders to law enforcers is not to kill their suspects but that they will be justified in killing only on the condition that the suspects resists arrest, reacts violently, and poses imminent danger to the lives of law enforcers.

At first glance, it would appear that Mr Duterte is correct in his orders.  However, upon closer consideration and remembering the proper rules of engagement towards suspects by arresting law enforcers, it must be realized that there are varying degrees of (proper) responses…

Do not kill if you can maim or injure.  There is such a thing as the use of unnecessary superior force.  It is unjustifiable to kill a suspect, even if caught red-handed, if the said suspect can be subdued.  After all, isn’t it that law enforcers have regular (refresher) sessions in the firing range, therefore they should be able to capably disarm or shoot to injure or disable a suspect without killing him, especially at close quarters?

It is unfortunate that Mr Duterte has such a draconian attitude towards many of the problems plaguing the country…an attitude that does not sit well with advocates against violence and all forms and manner of physical and corporeal abuse or punishment.  In this day and age, we should already have evolved and developed into a society where people no longer resort to physical and barbaric means to achieve noble and idyllic goals and objectives.

I guess there are still (elderly) adults who have not yet grown up — giving credence to the old adage, It is mandatory to grow old but optional to grow up.  Only the immature, especially among children and juveniles, to resort to physical violence to solve problems.

Moreover, this is a very dangerous and unsustainable solution to many problems because: (1) we do not have the right to take another’s life due to the fact that we were never given that right and it is not a natural or inherent right — most of all by God, for He only gave us free will and time and nothing else; (2) taking a person’s life runs the risk of depriving the world of a possible future descendant who may become a great leader, inventor/innovator, healer, peace-maker, etc; and, (3) it must be remembered — and it has been repeatedly proven — that it is the certainty of punishment rather than the fear of death (or capital punishment) that is the true deterrent of crimes.
(1) It can be argued that this world (and everything in it…living or not, sentient or not, conscious or not) have an inherent right to exist even though it is a (cruel but stark) fact that only life can sustain life so it is necessary to take another life in order to continue surviving.  However, this does not mean that we can now freely and indiscriminately  This would be both unsustainable and irresponsible — which is what we are all experiencing now, what with all the extreme weather, extreme poverty (and wealth gap), extreme violence and crimes, and so on.
(2) Killing someone will prevent a future descendant from being born, a descendant who might have been “destined” to do great and beneficial things.  Moreover, killing someone who is perceived to be evil now may prevent him/her from repenting and being good in later life, much like that of the “good” thief who made a complete 180-degree turnaround and “defended” Jesus at the crucifixion and was then promised a place in Heaven.  Killing someone now robs or deprives that person from that opportunity.  Who are we to “play God” and pre-judge someone else to forever be evil just because s/he is doing and/or has done some evil or criminal act, regardless of how despicable it was or is, with no hope of repentance or reformation.  How dare we!
(3) It has probably been reiterated ad nauseum that it has been proven repeatedly and consistently that it is the certainty of punishment and not the fear of death that is the true deterrent to wrongdoings and evil acts.  Moreover, it is the consistency of punishment and not selective justice — where the wealthy can somehow delay or even elude punishment — that will truly bring about a more law-abiding (rather than law-avoiding) citizen.

And in connection with this, it is best that laws should be crafted with as few or no exemptions whatsoever for it is the exemption that breeds corruption, especially when the implementor or enforcer of the law — police, prosecution, and judicial segments of the criminal justice system — has the discretion and does not possess a strong moral fiber.  Frequently, these corrupt officials of justice will find (creative) ways by which the wealthy can circumvent the punishment and take advantage of the exemption/s, whereas the poor must (oftentimes) suffer and endure the full force of the law.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Sept 11-17 2016

TaN: In truth, there is no such “animal” as chaos, at least not in the contemporary definition.  In truth, there is order, a system everywhere — even when it appears to be none — be it obvious or subtle.

The main reason is due to our limited or narrow view of the world.  “Limited or narrow” means that we are accustomed or have the habit of generalizing from a restricted view or a pre-conditioned perspective.  This can be better understood by the phrase, Looking at the trees but missing the forest.

One case in point is Albert Einstein’s — I hope I have cited correctly — pronouncement that there is no such thing as a straight line (except in theory), which is in contrast to the declaration of Sir Isaac Newton that “The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.”

We measure out straight lines and flat surfaces almost daily but in truth they are neither straight nor flat.  Even with the aid of a plumber’s level or a ruler/meter stick, we cannot really measure out anything straight nor flat.  This is because we live on a roundish planet.

What is perceived to be straight or flat is because the curvature of the arc (of the circle or sphere) is so slight that it gives the illusion of straightness or flatness.  This can readily observed when we draw several circles of different sizes and look at the amount of curvature of the circumference.  The larger the circle, the less bent or noticeable is the arc of the circle.

Another case in point would be finite in infinite and infinite in finite.  It seems contradictory but the world is full on contradictions.  There is finite in infinity because even if the number series is infinite, the numbers that make up the series are finite.  As for infinite in finite, there are an infinite number of fractions between two finite numbers, like between 0 and 1 — there is one-half, one-third, one-fourth, one-fifth, one-sixth, until one-infinity, all less than or never equal to 1 but greater than zero

Therefore, going back to chaos and systems, in any perceived chaos or randomness, if one observes carefully enough (and probably distantly detached enough), one will and can see patterns emerging and those patterns mean there is order or a system.

Take the case of astronomical and cosmic bodies and star systems.  There is now evidence that the apparent random spacing between stars, star systems, galaxies, and star clusters may be part of larger “picture” or pattern that constitute or form strings.

So, given this, there is really no chaos but only systems and patterns of order that we cannot see.

TaN: Eating healthy does neither make nor guarantee longevity but that it merely provides the needs of the body to perform properly.  And it is not even as simple as eating the correct foods but the matter in which the nutritious food is prepared and consumed.

And in connection with this is the fact that viruses, bacteria, fungi, and whatever mainstream medicine and science blames as the cause of our diseases are not actually the cause but rather only the trigger or instrument by which we become diseased.  The actual reason why we get sick is due to a weak or weakened immune system.  This explains why, when someone in a cold sneezes in an enclosed room with other individuals, not every person catches the cold — assuming that the probability that there will be at least one person with a fully functioning immune system otherwise everybody gets the cold.

If the microbes and what-have-yous are responsible for our diseases, then whenever an infected or diseased person spreads the sickness, every person should get sick.  But this is not the case, therefore the argument pushed by mainstream medicine and science does not hold water.

And this is not to mention that mainstream health experts are — wittingly or not — endangering people’s health by espousing and openly and publicly disseminating their erroneous and misguided advocacies.

In conclusion, it is no longer enough to eat organic foods because commercial and for-profit food processors and producers have found the flaw in the organic definition and can and are now implementing it to sell and market their deficient products to the unsuspecting health-conscious consumers — this is to plant crops in nutrient-deficient soil and raise livestock with nutrient-deficient “natural or organic” feeds.  Free-range is meaningless if the farm or feed area is full of mineral- and nutrient-deficient soil.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to live healthily everyday, what with for-profit businesses continuously finding ways to skirt regulations and procedures.

TaN: In this (temporal) reality, all of creation is divided into matter and energy but only matter has the characteristic of time — as well as the other physical dimensional properties.  Energy has a different set of characteristics or qualities unique to it.

The problem is that matter is so obvious that we cannot seem to get pass it and focus on the real world…the metaphysical.  This is the world that really matters.

Most people live in and acknowledge the material world and give little significance to the immaterial world.  It is easier this way.  They fail to realize that it is the immaterial world that truly controls and manipulate the physical world.

It is said that “What the mind can conceive, the body can achieve.”  This means that the mind — not the brain but through or via the brain — that we control our body.  Our body, aside or with exception to the autonomic system/s, respond to the commands or directives coming from the brain and, in turn, the brain is being controlled or instructed by the mind to give out specific “orders” for the body to perform.

For instance, unless and until the arm receives the command to clench, it does nothing.  It is because our brain sends out an electrical impulse to the specific arm muscle group that the arm responds.  In turn, the impulse from the brain is sent out due to a conscious instruction from our mind.  We are our mind.

In much the same way, the key or secret to strength of material is not the material itself but the design.  A case in point, a piece of paper is limp and cannot support a book placed on it.  However, if the same piece of paper is rolled into a tube, it can easily support a regular book.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Sep 4-10 2016

TaN: Once again, I reiterate my argument that, according to the Holy Scriptures, since man was made in the (figuratively) image of God, this would have many implications, the first of which is that we likewise have free will.  Another implication is that we are co-creators — i.e., we likewise possess not only the ability but also the “itch” to create (where “create” is defined as producing something that was never before and not something from something/s else, which would only refer to re-arranging and re-inventing but not creating).

It is man’s destiny or God’s intention that man join Him in His eternal desire and love to create and share goodness and righteousness to all.  To this end, we are given free will and time to prove ourselves worthy to be His “partners” in His quest to share all that we can with others.

Those among us deemed unworthy (or not up to par to His standards) shall be discarded, but not after giving us all the opportunities and time we need to prove our worth.  We are given so much redundant opportunities and time that, if we still fail, there will be none to blame but ourselves.

To be God’s “partners” is a monumental responsibility and this is why He gives us free will and all the time and opportunities.  He cannot afford mistakes for it will be disastrous and messy.

It is for this reason, likewise, that there will be two judgment days but only one resurrection.  After the resurrection, those who will be given second and the ultimate chance will, for the entire duration leading to the second judgment, there will no more deaths.  Death will have been conquered in the resurrection.  And along with Death will be all of the other worldly concerns, such as diseases and food and families and fame and wealth, but focused on living the way God has intended

TaN: To ensure that natural or universal equilibrium is maintained, it is necessary that as time passes or progresses, good things get better but bad things must (accordingly) get worse.  Observing Rupert Sheldrake’s theory on Morphic Resonance (and if I comprehend it correctly), it is to be expected that things become easier and easier to repeat or replicate — as in DNA testing, genome mapping, etc.

It is the “balanced” influence of the constructive and destructive forces and events in this ever-evolving temporal world that ensures and maintains equilibrium.  Once constructive or destructive forces “get out of hand” and the complementary force is unable to respond or react properly and within a particular lapsed duration that things begin to unravel and become awry.

But this will never happen because God has designed it this way.  There will never come a time or a situation when/where nature will be “unbalanced”.  There is a built-in mechanism to ensure continued equilibrium.  It is just that sometimes the complementary response takes a long time to occur — much like when the pendulum swings all the way to one side, it will take a longer time for it to swing back.

No matter how “unbalanced” man makes or impacts the environment, it will eventually restore equilibrium to itself.  Sometimes, the reaction time is so long that many species, including man, may have to become extinct before the reactive response brings everything back to equilibrium.

This is where man should be wary of and take extra care not to come to this point (of no return for us).  It is my fervent hope that there will never come the time when man negatively impacts so much to the environment that he will not survive the consequences of his irresponsible (and unsustainable) act/s and normalcy or equilibrium will return only after man’s disappearance.

If and when this happens, there will be none to blame but ourselves, our selfish, arrogant, stupid selves.

TaN: There is really no such “animal” as chaos; there is order, a system, in everything in this temporal world.  More accurately, there is order or a system in all of creation, from the obvious to the subtle.

No matter how chaotic a situation or something is, there will always be a pattern to that chaos and this is the order or system that I am pertaining to.  Even in randomness, there will be some kind of order; it is just that we may not be able to “see” it (yet).

Even in an explosion or a quake or a storm surge, the destruction or resulting scenario that is left after the devastation will always have a pattern and that pattern is order.

The problem is in the size of the pattern.  Just like when Albert Einstein declared that there is no such thing as a straight line — I hope I quoted and attributed correctly — we measure or draw straight lines and surfaces every day, with rulers and meter sticks and with plumber’s levels, yet we know that the earth is not flat.  The explanation is that the planet has such a huge circumference that the slight bending in the tangent of the arc is so unnoticeable that we perceive things as straight and flat.

This is the same with the patterns in something seemingly chaotic.  Usually, when it is not obvious, the pattern is either too small to be noticed readily or too large and requires that we shift our perspective — much like the writings on streets as we approach them but is almost unrecognizable when viewed from the air or above.  This is usually because we have been conditioned to look or search for patterns within or in proportion to our size or significance.

TaN: We should encourage businesses that can significantly and really improve people’s lives and frown or discourage — by not patronizing or boycotting — those that are purely for profit and self-gratifying and self-indulging only.  Businesses or income/revenue-generating endeavors like manufacturing junk (and the deceitful and unscrupulous who pretend to produce organic or healthful but are really toxic and unhealthy) foods, engaging in professional sports and athletics (where one plays for money instead of prestige and for pure sport), designing and creating clothing and garments more or primarily for appearance (and uniqueness or “one-of-a-kind”) rather than for functionality (like most of those seen in fashion shows), marketing and advertising deceptive and harmful products and services where the original worthwhile purpose has been twisted into creating and spreading deceptive information just to turn (mostly) a profit rather than to benefit others, and those in the gossip and rumor industry (where the main purpose is to pry into the private lives of publicly well-known personalities and not for investigative purposes), to name a few.

It is sad that so much time, effort, and resources are poured into such activities that do not improve the lives of fellow human beings (and the environment), not to mention the unsustainable ravaging and wanton destruction of natural resources and the environment.

As mentioned in earlier TaNs, consumers must unite and have the political will and commitment to demand that businesses be responsible for all its activities and hold them accountable.  Business should not (or no longer) be permitted to “ride roughshod” over and at the expense of the environment.

We must understand that, no matter what we do and however long it takes, man can never remove himself from nature.  Man can never exist, let alone survive, outside or without nature.  And as we have recently — as in noticeably last 2015, especially among the coastal and island or archipelagic nations and areas — witnessed and, unfortunately, experienced, extreme weather disturbances is becoming the (new) normal.  And this is no thanks to the protracted and sustained unsustainable exploitation and practices of the utilization of the (natural resources of the) environment by business.

It is therefore paramount for man to take care of the environment if man intends to survive, not to mention live comfortably and under “pleasant” weather and climate conditions (in contrast with the extreme weather experienced currently).

In conclusion, regardless of whether we would like to live with fairly good weather and climate conditions or not, the environment must be properly managed and this can only be achieved if and when we set aside profit motives or at the very least put profit as third or lower in our priorities list.  In the temporal world, man’s welfare — i.e.. all of humanity and not just the privileged few — must be paramount and only second to God’s.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post for Aug 28-Sep 3 2016

TaN: The trouble with solving (national or public) problems by modeling or imitating the successes in other countries is that there are instances where adaptation must first be done prior to implementation — much like what Japan has been doing ever since end the of World War II in its rebuilding efforts.

Remember that different cultures and societies (may) have different values and customs and terrains or environments and climate conditions — i.e., temperate zones with four seasons as compared to tropical zones with only two seasons (wet and wetter, ha-ha) — and these affect and determine how solutions to problems are crafted and implemented.  Just because a solution to a similar problem has been successful somewhere else does not necessarily mean that it will equally be successful when adopted — not adapted — and implemented en toto and without the slightest bit of alteration or change.  This is a common fault in many “less mature” countries.

In fact, a good example would be a manufactured but not immediately consumable good or product (as compact electronic gadgets such as computers and household electrical appliances).  Many electronic gadgetry with a primary market in industrialized temperate countries may not be designed to operate (as efficiently and effectively) in tropical, especially archipelagic, areas where the humidity is high and the air moisture are probably saturated with moisture and salt, both of which severely impact the performance and life span.

Extra moisture and the salt content in the atmosphere gets into the internal components and corrodes the more sensitive circuits and gears which lowers the performance and shortens the productivity life span.  Manufacturers should take into consideration and “customize” products that are intended to operate or be used in different environmental conditions.

Another good example is in packaging of certain foods that are sealed — in plastic or plasticized packages or in air-tight containers.  When such products are brought to markets located in significantly higher altitudes, the air pressure equilibrium inside and outside the product package or container is compromised.  The external air pressure drops (in the high altitudes) which causes the internal air to expand.  In the case of packaged goods, they tend to balloon and, if the packaging is not strong or durable enough, pop open whereas in the case of rigid containers,  the product becomes difficult to open normally and, if the container material is not sturdy enough, will cause bulging and even cracks or damage to the container integrity.

What I am explaining is that when adopting solutions, one must always consider the differences in situations, therefore changes and alterations may be in order to ensure that application success is maximized.

TaN: After watching several episodes of the Flash where he repeatedly returns to the past to prevent the deaths of his parents, I suddenly realize that it has been ordained that man cannot and will not be able to go back in time.  This is because going back to the past will involve bringing back to life the dead and it has been explicitly and repeatedly specified and demonstrated in the Holy Scriptures that it is the sole prerogative and province of the Lord.

Moreover, even philosophically or logically, going back in time does not make sense.  In the repeated episodes, Flash goes back in time and, according to the screenplay, creates a new alternative time reality.  If we continue with this, this would mean that there will be new realities every time we go back in time.

The argument now is: What if other people — who have their own respective consciousness — are able to go back in time.  This would mean that each other person who goes back in time will create another new and his/her own version of reality.  How now can you imagine, if you are able to grasp the enormity of it all, a universe where there are so many alternate realities existing simultaneously?

Each person has his/her own consciousness.  Now, with so many alternate realities, imagine what it will be like when more than one person goes back in time (and create a new alternate time-line).  Imagine the confusion, the pandemonium, the chaos.  Imagine how the consciousness of each person in all of the alternate realities created.  What happens to the consciousness of every person in the other alternate realities?

This illustrates the absurdity and inanity of even considering that we can go back in time.  Going back in time remains and will always remain wishful thinking — unless we change the definition of “going back in time”, much like what we are doing today when people can lie without hesitation and remorse, especially many politicians and unscrupulous public personalities.

TaN: “Do as I say and not as I do.”  This is frequently the rule or situation with most people most of the time, especially among the elderly, those with moral ascendancy, and those in positions of authority or influence.

This adage illustrates the weakness of the human spirit and will over the temptations of the (material) world.  It shows man’s eternal struggle to extricate himself from the primary or fundamental base desires and needs of man.  It further demonstrates man’s propensity to choose the easy but wrong way over the more difficult but rightful way, to give in to our bestial side rather than to reach for loftier and better levels.

Moreover, it shows how we frequently merely pay lip service to doing what is righteous (because evil just proves to be too irresistible).  We want to project an image of righteousness but without having to make the sacrifice of actually putting our money where our mouth is or walking the talk.

It implies that we would like to reap the benefits — being hailed as good and righteous — of teaching others how to behave rightfully without having to lead by example.  It is shameful and lame to want others to behave or act in a particular manner but we ourselves do not do it — unless, of course, it is because we are really and truly incapable, in which case it would be justifiable (but this justification would be under the assumption and condition that there is no malice involved).

TaN: It is so incredibly unbelievable that so many people (still) believe in the myth of gender equality (or inequality, as the case may be).  It is still incredible that people, especially the educated — probably because they were wrongly or mis-educated — do or cannot comprehend the gender issue.

People fail to understand that equality does not (necessarily) mean sameness.  People can have commonality by being different.  Our differences is a common factor — i.e., we are all equal in that we are all different (from each other); we are unique and it is this uniqueness that makes us equal.

In this light, gender equality means that no gender can do everything; there are things that both genders can do but there are likewise particular things that only one gender can do.  Equality of the genders means that both genders share in their respective responsibilities.  One gender complements the other.  This is the essence in the wisdom of the Holy Scriptures.

Eve was created (from Adam’s rib) to assist Adam because he cannot do everything that needed to be done.  There are things only Eve can do — just like there are things that only Adam can do.

The problem with the world today is that people think that equality means literally equal.  How can that be possible and logical when the obvious is glaring.  For instance, men cannot be pregnant and give birth while women cannot sire children (although this is not in the same category as pregnancy and giving birth, it is still a difference) — cloning and bio-genetics aside.

Moreover, with the exception of assistance from or with bio-mechanical exoskeletons, women cannot (and should not) do heavy lifting.  This is because their physical anatomy is not built for such work.  The curvature of the spine is greater — which is intended for pregnancy — so to subject the spine to heavy lifting would cause irreparable damage (down the years), even if she practices proper heavy lifting — as in using the huge thigh muscles instead of the (lower) back muscles as most people ignorantly and improperly frequently do.

Each gender is created and designed to be complementary to the other and it is for this reason that both genders are equal.  Actually, if you want to be very “honest” or biblical about it, the bad news is that in the Holy Scriptures, God’s order is: The Father is at the top, followed by the Lord Jesus, then by men with the last being occupied by women.  This is the “natural” order of things according to God.

In conclusion, it is not so much the “anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better” thing.  It is all about sharing and doing what we can for the other.  It is about doing what is our responsibility/ies and what we can and not take over what is intended for the other gender to do — even if one is able to do it.  It is about defining what is the responsibility of each gender and sticking to it and, on occasion because the necessity arises, partially assume the responsibilities of the other.

The duty of the woman is to be the companion of man whereas the duty of the man is to take care of the woman.  There is no shame in being taken cared of — women’s liberation is wrongly defined and implemented, because women have been liberated since the Biblical times.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment