Optimistic attitude is depicted in the pessimistic world by the existentialists. Existentialists look more constructive and life-lover. They are constructive not because they see the world meaningful but because they love their material life. Individualism, liberty and self-judgement being non-conformist are what existentialists look forward to. Sartre, Camus and Beckett all started their career with existentialism. However, Sartre and Camus remained existential and Beckett went one step ahead and became absurdist.

Sartre and Camus somewhere look standing and advocating for the continuation of existence whereas Beckett looks interested in breaking and discontinuing the existence. Myth of Sisyphus, End Game and Waiting for Godot reflect some of the differences between existentialism and absurdism. The job that has been assigned to Sisyphus by the God is, of course, meaningless. But, Sysiphus challenges that and tries to produce something meaningful out of meaninglessness. On the other hand, Beckett sees this world a complete heap of meaninglessness and he himself becomes the prey of pessimism. So is the reflection that we find from End Game and Waiting for Godot.

Now, the question comes if this world and our life have got some sort of meaning at all. Individual perspectives could definitely be different but still the another question remains unanswered if living for the meaningless life having meaningless struggle is worthier than waiting peacefully for the death…!

If we are really born to die, should we not think twice before we live a life in a constant chaos, struggle and confusion? Or Is there any meaningful difference between Existentialists and Absurdists as long as both accept the meaninglessness of life and ultimate reality as death?

After I finished my BA degree, many, many years ago, I started working on my MA, in counseling, psychology, drugs and alcohol, etc., a combination—then I stopped for a period of time, not really knowing what I wanted to do, so I studied theology, read 400-books in 18-months, listened to over 10,000-hours of tapes from every corner of Christendom, Christology—through theology, even went to Haiti, up in the mountains to do some missionary work, only to find out I was not meant to be a missionary, or priest, or clergy, although I did go to a theological university for six months, and studied Old Testament Studies, along with several other courses. But what bothered me was, I shouldn’t say bothered me, it was neither here or there for me, not a big issue, just a thorn in my side, was the controversy around Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. Why is there even an issue, in that: was Mary a virgin from the day she was born to the day she died? I mean, did she never have sex? Some folks said Jesus had brothers, sisters, and all that kind of stuff. And of course Joseph was a quite father in his time, and I think his time was short, and there is a reason for that, I believe he was an old man when he married Mary. Had a few children of his own, a widower.

Now we all have opinions, and I can’t prove anything beyond a doubt (nor can anyone else), but I can share what I think, and so I shall. If I hurt your feelings, don’t take it personal, it is just as it is an opinion. We shall venture into Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ life—quickly, and I shall throw some Bible stuff your way, if you like it, do some homework on your own, if you don’t—, file-13 it. Anyhow, I shall put this to rest once and for all:

1) The book of Mark, Chapter 6…and Matthew (Mt.) Chapter (Ch) 13, we see a Carpenter, Jesus, the son of Mary, and a few brothers: James, Joseph, Jude and Simon. And “Are not his sisters here with us….” We now can check out Mt. Ch. 12 & Mark (Mk) Ch. 3 and Luke, Chapter 8, and John Chapter 7. By all appearance, it looks like Christ had some brothers.

But in Bible reading I have learned you have to check out many things, the meaning of words, from the Hebrew to Greek to English, and one must read above and below the point of issue, and there are several other books, canons, not blessed, that can be reviewed; history that was not put into the bible simply because it was not necessary, or so the founding fathers of the bible (s) felt.

2) Let me point out, the Hebrew when he said: “brother” he meant just that: son of the father, as you would expect it to be. Mark wrote his Gospel in Greek and used the word “brother” or to be more exact “adelphos” (adelphos), meaning exactly what I earlier implied: blood related. Now go to John, chapter 20, see what Jesus has to say “…go to my ‘brethern’ (in some bibles brothers). He knew what He was saying. When Jesus said brothern, he meant Disciples. He even points his brothers and sisters out in Matt: 12, Mark 3; In John Chapter 7, it says, “Even his brothers didn’t believe him.”

So you see, we can get confused with the word brother and brothern, but we shall try to straighten this out.

3) The New Testament is pretty upfront about Mary’s character, in that she was a virgin at the time she was born (by the Holy Spirit). Later acknowledged by the Church—that she remained a virgin thereafter; this is part of the controversy: was she or was not? Again I say, it really shouldn’t matter that much (so I feel), but for folks that like poking their nose (like me) into history, it is worth the time.

When I talk in English to someone, I use the term “My brother…” and then the name “Mike” when we say “brother” we usually mean brother—a male sibling sharing both biological parents, this is no big research finding, just a normal everyday thing that has been going on worldwide for a very long time. But to be honest, the term brother has a wider range of meaning: sibling, biological parent, step-brother, male sibling, male sibling adopted, comrade, etc., all depending on the environment, as an issue, one must point this out, in everyday life, this is not all that important—in the overall picture, but perhaps to a few select, that try to make it a big issue to many.

4) So, the question is: did Mary remain a virgin? Aramaic had a strong influence on the New Testament Bible, one point I did not bring out above was, a word for brother can mean ‘cousin’ the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos), with the new Christians.

We can look also at: were they adoptive brothers, in trying to save Mary’s reputation of being a virgin to her death. This would do it, but I can’t find any evidence to support this. But as a counselor, I’ve learned to keep a clear head, look at what is underneath, not the surface, the surface is always the situation, not the problem or issue, and we are getting close to that.

5) It would seem to me, more likely, they were step-brothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus’ brothers by marriage. That is to say, the manuscript known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)—indicates that Joseph was a widower who already had a family prior to his marriage to Mary, and therefore was willing to become the protector, or custodian of a sanctified, and set apart virgin. (He was old at the time they married I do believe, and that is why the bible does not go on with Joseph, to the point of him being around when Christ grew to manhood.)

So did Christ have brothers? Perhaps so, if indeed Jesus was the single son of Mary, and James was the only son of Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, blood brothers that is. When we hear the phrase “brother of Jesus” we must look deep into the well, Matt. 13. You see, the word ‘brother’ meant more than that, or perhaps in this case, less, it did not mean ‘blood’ related (review the: Book of Tobit))for broader meanings)).

6) Perhaps what Eve did, Mary, mother of Christ undid. When I look at this issue I also look at who is saying what. The Church Fathers, believed Mary as remaining a virgin throughout her life; when I say Church Fathers I mean, those who could remember her, perhaps had talked to the apostles (up to the turn of the century, 100 AD or so)) if indeed Christ died about AD 30)). Also, one should look at what Pope Martin I, AD 659 insisted on at the council that she, Mary remain “ever-Virgin,” thus she was already considered that.

7) Another point of contention may be: what did Christ say at Calvary? Did he not say to John: to take his mother home with him, he entrusted her with him, why not with his blood brothers or sisters that would be the norm (John 19). Matter of fact, it was unthinkable for a Jewish mother to go live with a friend after the death of her son, if she had any other children of her own!…

In short, did Mary remain a virgin, after the birth of Christ? And did Christ have brothers and sisters? I feel, and think she did, and I can’t find anything to the contrary. And yes, Christ had brothers and sisters, but I think not blood related.

Written: 4-8-2007 (reedited 4-9-2997)

Spanish Version

María, Madre de Jesucristo
(¿Permaneció ella Virgen?)

Después de obtener mi grado de Bachiller, muchos, muchos años atrás, comencé a trabajar en mi Maestría, en psicología, asesoría, drogas y alcohol, etc., una combinación—después lo dejé por un periodo de tiempo, realmente no sabiendo que es lo que quería hacer, así estudié teología, leí cuatrocientos libros en dieciocho meses, escuché más de diez-mil horas de cintas de todas las esquinas sobre Cristiandad, Cristología—a través de Teología, incluso fui a Haití, para realizar algún trabajo misionero en las montañas, sólo para encontrar que mi vocación no era ser misionero, o sacerdote, o clérigo, aunque fui a una universidad teológica durante seis meses, y estudié el Antiguo Testamento, junto con varios otros cursos. Pero lo que me molestaba era—aunque no debería decir molestaba porque me daba lo mismo, no era una cuestión grande, solo una espina en mi costado—la controversia alrededor de María, la madre de Jesucristo. Por qué incluso es un problema, de que: ¿María fue virgen desde el día en que nació hasta el día en que murió? Quiero decir, ¿Nunca tuvo ella sexo? Alguna gente dice que Jesús tenía hermanos, hermanas, y toda aquella clase de cosas. Y desde luego José era un padre bastante paciente en su tiempo, y pienso además que su tiempo fue corto, y hay una razón para ello, yo creo que él era un anciano cuando se casó con María. El tuvo hijos antes de casarse con María, él era un viudo.

Ahora todos tenemos opiniones, y no puedo probar nada más allá de una duda (tampoco nadie más lo puede), pero puedo compartir lo que pienso, y entonces lo haré. Si daño tus sentimientos, no lo tomes personal, es como es una opinión. Nos aventuraremos en la vida de José, María, y Jesús— rápidamente y mencionaré algunos pasajes de La Biblia en el proceso, si te gusta, realiza una tarea tú mismo, si no—archívalo. De todos modos, pondré esto a descansar de una vez para todas:

1) En el Evangelio de Marcos, Capítulo 6…y en el de Mateo, Capítulo 13, vemos a un carpintero, Jesús, el hijo de María, y unos hermanos: James, José, Judas y Simón. Y “no están sus hermanas aquí con nosotros…” ahora podemos comprobar en Mateo, Capítulo12 y Marcos Capítulo 3, y Lucas, Capítulo 8, y Juan, Capítulo 7. Por todas las apariencias, pareciera como que Cristo tuvo algunos hermanos.

Pero en la lectura de la Biblia he aprendido que tienes que comprobar muchas cosas, el significado de palabras, del hebreo al griego y al inglés, y hay que leer lo mencionado anteriormente y lo siguiente del punto en cuestión (el concepto entero), y hay varios otros libros, cánones, no benditos, que pueden ser revisados; historia que no fue puesta en la Biblia simplemente porque no fue necesaria, o porque los padres fundadores de la Biblia lo sintieron así.

2) Dejarme indicar, que los hebreos cuando dicen: “hermano” quieren decir solamente eso: el hijo del padre, como tú esperarías que ello fuera. Marcos escribió en su Evangelio en griego y usó la palabra “hermano” o para ser más exactos “adelphos”, queriendo decir exactamente lo que antes impliqué: pariente de sangre. Ahora vayamos a Juan, Capítulo 20, veamos lo que Jesús tiene que decir “…anda donde mis hermanos…” Él sabía lo que Él decía; cuando Jesús dijo “hermanos”, Él se refería a sus “discípulos”. Él incluso indica a sus hermanos y hermanas en Mateo, Capítulo 12, Marcos, Capítulo 3; en Juan, Capítulo 7, dice, “Incluso sus hermanos no lo creyeron”.

Entonces tú ves, podemos confundirnos con la palabra hermano, pero trataremos de arreglar esto.

3) El Nuevo Testamento es bastante claro sobre la naturaleza de María, en el sentido de que Ella fue virgen en el momento que nació (por el Espíritu Santo). Más tarde reconocido por la Iglesia—que Ella permaneció virgen desde entonces; esto es parte de la controversia: ¿era ella o no era virgen? Otra vez digo, esto realmente no debería importar mucho (eso pienso), pero para la gente que les gusta indagar en la historia (como yo), vale la pena.

Cuando hablo en inglés a alguien, uso el término “mi hermano…” y luego el nombre “Miguel”. Cuando decimos “hermano” por lo general queremos decir hermano—varón que comparte a ambos padres biológicos, esto no es ninguna investigación grande, solo una cosa normal diaria que existe y continua en el mundo por mucho tiempo. Pero para serte franco, el término hermano tiene una amplia gama de significado: hermano, del padre biológico, el medio hermano, el hermanastro, el hermano adoptado, el amigo, etc. todo esto dependiendo del ambiente, como una cuestión, hay que indicar que esto en la vida diaria no es muy importante—al final, pero quizás si para unos cuantos seleccionados, que intentan crear una cuestión grande para muchos.

4) Entonces, la pregunta es: ¿María permaneció virgen? El arameo tenía una influencia fuerte sobre el Nuevo Testamento de la Biblia, un punto que no recalqué fue, la palabra hermano puede significar “primo” la palabra Aramea ¡ahá! habría sido dada literalmente con la palabra griega para hermano (adelphos), con los nuevos Cristianos.

Podemos ver también en que: ¿eran ellos hermanos adoptivos?, en la tentativa de salvar la reputación de María de ser virgen hasta su muerte. Esto lo haría, pero no puedo encontrar ninguna prueba para apoyar esto. Pero como psicólogo, he aprendido a mantener una cabeza clara, mirar a lo que está debajo, no a la superficie, la superficie es siempre la situación no el problema o la cuestión, y nos estamos acercando a ello.

5) Me parecería, más probable, que ellos eran hermanastros: los hijos de José que se convirtieron en hermanos de Jesús por el matrimonio. Es decir, el manuscrito conocido como el Protoevangelium de James (120 años después de Cristo) —indica que José era un viudo que ya tenía una familia antes de su matrimonio con María, y por lo tanto estaba dispuesto a convertirse en el protector, o el guardián de un santificado, y dejar a la virgen de lado. (Él era anciano en el tiempo en el que ellos se casaron realmente creo, y es por eso que la Biblia no continúa con José, al punto de no estar él alrededor cuando Cristo creció a la madurez.)

¿Entonces Cristo tuvo hermanos? Quizás, si efectivamente Jesús fue el hijo único de María, y James fue el hijo único de José, entonces Jesús y James no habrían sido literalmente hermanos, hermanos de sangre esto es. Cuando oímos la frase “hermano de Jesús” debemos mirar profundamente en el pozo, Mateo Capítulo 13. Como ves, la palabra “hermano” significaba más que eso, o quizás en este caso, menos, esta no significó “familiar de sangre” (revisa el: Libro de Tobit por significados más amplios).

6) Quizás lo que Eva hizo, María, la madre de Cristo lo deshizo. Cuando miro a este tema también miro a quién lo dice. Los Padres de la Iglesia, creyeron que María permaneció virgen toda su vida; cuando digo los Padres de la Iglesia quiero decir, aquellos que podrían recordarla, quizás los que hablaron con los apóstoles ((hasta aproximadamente el primer siglo, 100 años después de Cristo o algo así) (si efectivamente Cristo murió alrededor del año 30 después de Cristo)). También, habría que mirar a lo que el Papa Martín I, en el año 659 después de Cristo, insistió en el Concilio, de que María permaneció “Siempre Virgen “, de esta forma ella ya había sido considerada así.

7) Otro punto de discusión podría ser: ¿qué dijo Cristo en el calvario? No le dijo Él a Juan: que llevara a su madre a su casa con él, Él la confió con él, por qué no con sus hermanos o hermanas de sangre que esa sería la norma (Juan Capítulo 19). De hecho, ¡era inconcebible para una madre judía ir a vivir con un amigo después de la muerte de su hijo, si ella tuviera otros hijos propios!…

En resumen, ¿María permaneció virgen, después del nacimiento de Cristo? ¿Y Cristo tuvo hermanos y hermanas? Siento, y pienso que ella lo fue, y no puedo encontrar nada de lo contrario. Y sí, Cristo tenía hermanos y hermanas, pero no hermanos(as) de sangre.
Escrito: 8 de Abril del 2007 (corregido el 9-Abril 2007)

See Dennis’ web site: http://dennissiluk.tripod.com

Recently I was asked, Is a theory, a “truth,” or just a more truthful picture? My response?

Answering this question requires we leave the realm of physics and venture into the realm of the philosopher. You see, the word “truth” is in fact more a philosophical state than a literal physical fact.

So why do most folks see these two things as the same? Or at least as the truth and the proof of truth? I’d guess, because, we ourselves are physical beings whose consciousness is based in light. We literally know things because we see pictures. Thus, we have a hard time believing in the things we cannot picture.

Conversely, we can believe a whole lot of false things just because we can picture them. For instance, believing the world is flat and held up by four turtles. Or by an Arnold Schwarzeneggar type character. Obviously, today, we know these things to be untrue. However, because they could easily be pictured, we once mistook them as true.

This, in fact, is what makes the famous picture of the Earth as seen from one of the early satellites so important to our sense of truth. We finally could see with our own eyes that the Earth is round. And blue.

As for “theory,” what might help here would be to know where this word comes from. Years ago, a young doctor taught me that in ancient Greece, medical doctors studied in amphitheaters. Something like the operating theaters in which modern medical students learn.

Similar to what we do now then, in ancient Greece, the doctors “in a teaching hospital” operated on the patient in the center of the amphitheater, down on the ground level. Then the more experienced doctors sat in the seats and observed. In fact, where in the seats these doctors sat was determined by their level of experience. The more their experience, the higher they sat. Which meant the most experienced doctors had the greatest overview, as they sat in the highest seats.

The word “theory” comes from what they called these seats. They called these seats, the “theoria.” Which, in Emergence Personality Theory, relates directly to what is contained in Layer 2 of personality; explanations, excuses, and “logical” why’s.

Can you now see what theories are? In effect, they are what you see of life as seen from the highest seats, far from the blood and suffering of the world but with the greatest potential for generalized insights. Which is just another way to say, they offer us the greatest potential for developing explanations, excuses, and logical reasons for whatever happens in our world.

By the way, can you now see what makes me so like Jacob Needleman’s “theater of the mind” metaphor?

To see what else I had to say on the nature of theories, click here.

Steven Paglierani is a writer, teacher, personality theorist, and therapist whose work on learning and human consciousness is read weekly by thousands all over the world. He is the author of Emergence Personality Theory, and his mission is to make the world better for children by restoring and deepening their love of learning.

He can be read or reached at his site, http://theEmergenceSite.com

Our 1960’s signaled the era of postmodernism - deconstructive postmodernism. Fragmentation, indetermination, and plurality led us to the situation of disillusionment, alienation and estrangement that generated grotesque characters in the world. The problem with grotesque characters is that they know the world but world does not know them. So, the deconstructive postmodernism externally seems to support marginalized and silenced voices but at the same time it also dislocates and displaces the most authentic and most intellectual voices from the society. As we know, equality is not possible but as a postmodern personality we should at least hope for equity. Let not displaced and alienated one class from the society while uplifting the marginalized class.

Can we not blend a transcendental and immanent method to make this world a harmonious one as is expected by, hopefully, all? Digging out the history is very interesting but leaving it with holes without reconstructing is probably not a constructive way of performance. If reconstruction is not possible, do not go for the destruction. Both reconstruction and destruction should simultaneously go together with a constructive vision. One should not forget “anxiety of influence” of Bloom while remembering Derrida and Foucault. Association of sensibility is what we are looking for - a blend of reason and passion.

Shaking the foundation of metaphysics by dismantling the logocentricism and hierarchy with the play of binary opposition is a great job. However, leaving a chaos by destablishing order, system and structure without a proper finalization is nothing but an incomplete job. Now, the job of today’s critics is to pay attention on it and complete the job that has been left, intentionally or unintentionally, incomplete by the 60s’, 70s’ early 80s’ postmodernists and poststructuralists.

This work attempts to show that Bohmian mechanics is vague and absurd on two basic grounds. Bohmian mechanics essentially postulates the existence of a subtle force called “the quantum potential” which pervades all space and provides direct connections between quantum systems. It suggests that a total order in the whole universe is contained, in some implicit sense, in each region of space and time. And the quantum potential corresponds to such “implicate order”. The first of the two grounds states that no idea of (spatial) force, e.g. gravitational or magnetic force or the quantum potential, can be a substitute for any simple or, moreover, complex intelligent (spatial) structure, e.g. a neural structure found in human brain, as the concept of force is a mere abstraction, a vague idea, which does not provide (spatial) mechanistic explanations. (For example, Newton’s idea of gravitational force fails to explain “action at a distance”.) Therefore, a region of space and time, though containing quantum and possibly infinite number of super…quantum potentials, simply cannot contain a neural order, for example, unless containing an appropriate (spatial) “structure” representing the order. The second ground considers the Bohmian mechanistic idea/remark that “the (spatial) implicate domain”, corresponding to the (spatial) quantum potentials, could equally be called Idealism, Spirit, Consciousness. This idea/remark means that Bohmian mechanics considers consciousness to be spatial which, however, contradicts the NSTP (Non – Spatial Thinking Process) theoretical axiom/“self-evident truth” that ‘consciousness is non-spatial’. In short, Bohmian mechanics is vague and absurd.

The NSTP (Non – Spatial Thinking Process) Theory

The NSTP theory is a (philosophy of mind) semi-idealistic as well as semi-dualistic theory that the material universe, where some peculiar phenomena like quantum non-locality exist in, is exclusively a group of superhuman as well as non-superhuman thinking processes existing in the form of (non-spatial physical/material) feelings (i.e. states of consciousness). In computer terminology, it regards the (material) universe as a non-spatial computer, with hardware of (non-spatial) feelings and software of superhuman as well as non-superhuman thoughts/ideas, including those of space, which is then an illusive/virtual/merely apparent entity. The mere existence of the superhuman thoughts is responsible for the empirical (i.e. a posteriori) order in the non-superhuman ones. The theory, however, accepts the possibility of the reality of space, the space where the phenomena like quantum non-locality do not exist in. The theory is constituted of 6 axioms, 1 theorem, and 3 conjectures. The key strength and novelty in the theory lies in its axiomatic/self-evident foundation, its innovative semi-idealism and semi-dualism, and, in general, its road to idealism and dualism.

Kedar Joshi- Superultramodern (SUM) Science and Philosophy

HOW POWERFUL THESE WORDS ARE? A GIRL OF THE MOMENT!!!!!!!!

When those words reflect so clearly how do they impact each and every one of us as teenagers

I had the privilege of speaking to Lizabeth Zindel, the author of the book “a girl of the moment”

Why did she write this book? And most importantly what was her message? Her passion, her drive and what place was she at when she began to write the very first words in this book?

Teenagers can have such a high fantasy, a world of no reality; follow a celebrity, their lives, their dreams and their achievements the so-called “HUGE SUCCESS”. PARTIES to be invited to, the admiration of others, the attention they so love, the beautiful designer clothes, shoes, accessories, the outrages hairstyles and the never ending smiles.

They all want to be there, experience it and feel the HIGH of life, people around them, music, dancing, and believe that they are special, talented, wanted and always loved.

Yes, indeed.

But what truly happens after the hours, when they go home and their feet hurt from wearing the 4 inch high heel shoe barely holding their feet, the dizzy feeling in their head for not eating enough to maintain the small size so noticed, and the empty void hitting them without a warning.

Who are we between those walls? when no one sees us. When nobody is talking to us or listening to our voices, where there are no arms to be running to or a tender kiss on our lips meaning the true words of love. Whispering softly, you will always be a STAR.

Lizbeth knew and lived that world hands on. She felt it and she understood the dreams of others, letters written with passion and such intimacy, delivering their entire personal world and no replies. The easy notion of expression, wishing that they can be them or help them so someday soon they will be happier.

Lizbeth had a great model to cherish, her Father, a very talented special man with vision, poise and success. Paul Zindel won a Pulitzer Prize writing his play. She looked up to him, she loved him.

And when she lost her Dad, his departure took a new hold on her. She understood so clearly, what the past meant, what the future holds and where is the key to inner joy and meaning. Indeed in the MOMENT, IN THE NOW. This huge event let her to the passage to write this book developing her passion to, bridge the teenagers and the celebrities’ lives, reality and dreams.

Her message is clear. Don’t expect so much. Celebrities are people too. Day and night they must deal with demands, traveling, the camera and their personal feelings and expectations. Lots of their plates.

One big tip; be you, be an original, appreciate their beauty and talents but more so understand them. They cannot be there for you, the teenager 24/7. They need a break too, to refuel, recharge and breath in the success so amazingly wanted.

The destination is sweet and rewarding. Enjoying the process and seize the NOW is the trick, after all time stops for no one and time will fly by whether we hit it big or not. We still matter.

We feel, we think, we laugh, we cry, we love, we give, we understand, we run, we stay, we move, we grow, we imagine, we will be in the high and the low of our lives regardless to it all, while the sun will keep on shinning and the stars will hide at times behind the dark clouds.

Life is like weather and we must dress up accordingly, The beauty of it is the connections we made, the kindness we expressed, the support we gave and how we made someone feel good for just a moment, and all because we cared while the experience was magic.

I am delighted that I met Lizbeth Zindel, a thrilling experience, looking forward to a lasting connection building our separate original lives inside out and outside in as capable as we are in the NOW.

Ana Weber
http://www.anatherelationshipexpert.com/_main/

Ana Weber is a professional speaker, a relationship coach, author and freelance journalist. Her passion is to bring out the SHINE in others. We are all original as she says and there is no reason why should we concentrate on our lack? or what where the improvement is needed to reach perfection. The key is to appreciate and acknowledge the HAVE while in the process enjoy every step of the way. Find your WHY? YOUR GOAL AND YOUR REASON and go with it.

Ana Weber was born in Romania and presently she lives in California.

Ana Weber appeared in numerous nationwide television interviews, featured in magazines and newspapers and heard on the radio around the world. She is a genuine people lover.

By the end the nineteenth century science, rather than philosophy, was the discipline that stood first and foremost in peoples minds in their quest for truth. Indeed scientific reasoning influenced many early twentieth century philosophers, who sought truth in logical investigation of thoughts and language rather than grand philosophical systems. Such philosophers belonged to the school of analytic philosophy, one of the two main schools of Western philosophy which sprung up during the twentieth century. Philosophers such as Frege and Bertrand Russell worked towards a mathematical scheme for analysing the factual content of thoughts, and later this lead to a view of truth, espoused by the Vienna Circle of philosophers, which excluded ethics or aesthetics as being things that could not be accounted for by means of mathematical tautologies or empirical facts.

The other strand of Western philosophy that developed during the twentieth century was the Continental school, which rejected the view that scientific and logical analysis were the best means of handling philosophical problems. Many philosophers in this school also take into account culture and history when trying to understand phenomena, and many philosophers were influenced in particular by the horrors of the Holocaust and the Second World War. Edmund Husserl was the first to break from the prevailing analytic view by discussing the role of subjective experience in viewing phenomena. A major influence on all following continental philosophers was the work of Martin Heidegger, who turn the focus of his enquiry on the nature of Being In France, Sartre developed his philosophy of existentialism and Camus asked how one deals with the conflicting dichotomies of human existence.

However with the hindsight of time, the twentieth century will perhaps most be remembered as being the century in which Eastern philosophy penetrated into the Western consciousness. The first steps in this process were laid by Swami Vivekananda with his electrifying speech at the 1893 Parliament of World Religions, and further elaborated upon with the teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda in the West. In India, the use of the philosophy of ahimsa or non-violence as a force for mass action by Mahatma Gandhi in the independence struggle captured the imagination of the world. However it was not until the sixties that, with many young people drawn to the lifestyle of Indian and Buddhist philosophies. Many teachers came from to be of service to in their quest for truth and to look for ways to adapt Eastern philosophy to western living; for example, the philosophy of one such teacher, Sri Chinmoy, aims to harmonise Western dynamism and Eastern poise in an integral balance.

In the later part of the twentieth century, Western philosophy was very much influenced by the work of one man whose ideas did not fit cleanly into analytic or continental philosophy. Ludwig Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, in particular, influenced much of the current generation of philosophers in its view that meaning lies not within concepts of language but rather the context in which it is used. In particular, it influenced a whole new branch of the philosophy of science led by Paul Feyerabend and Richard Rorty which viewed science as a sociological community interaction.

The author, has a Ph.D in particle physics, but has been interested in philosophy all his life. He is a member of the Sri Chinmoy Centre, which espouses an integral philosophy combining Western dynamism with the ancient paths to stillness of the East. He can be reached on his personal site at http://www.shanemagee.com

The Cosmic Mind personalized is an infinitesimal part of God in man. Just as a drop of water from the ocean has all the ingredients in the ocean, this mind has all the powers of God. However, just as a drop of water from the ocean does not make up the ocean, the mind of one person does not make up God’s mind. All the drops joined together become the ocean, all the minds in the universe together make up God’s mind.

Mind is the source of all happiness, all misery, health, and disease, abundance and lack, riches and poverty, joy and sorrow. As the greatest English poet John Milton suggested, it can make a hell out of heaven or a heaven out of hell. Our mind is a microcosm and creates our universe.

Like a laser beam, mind can focus its attention on the smallest atom or see the whole universe as if it is a speck. Mind can become part of the environment and the cosmos.

The speed of thought is more than the speed of light. In a millisecond, mind can reach the farthest galaxy, billions of light years away. It is instantaneous and unlimited by space or time. For example, the precocious genius Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart said that he could hear a musical work as a single event and not successively and Professor Aitken remarked that he could run through half an hour’s music in half a minute.

What mind is and where it is situated has been debated for centuries. Rarely two philosophers agree on one definition or location for mind.

Rene Descartes, French philosopher, scientist, and mathematician said that there is a total and absolute distinction between mental and material substance and that mind is situated in the pineal gland.

Endocrinologist Ernest Gelhorn thinks that mind is an activity of the entire nervous system. Hughlings Jackson, a neurologist, thinks that consciousness and mind are the same, whereas Percival Bailey, director of the Psychiatric Research Institute, disagrees.

Mind is nonmaterial and cannot become part of a material brain, pineal gland or amygdala. We can go through every nerve cell, analyze electrochemically, spectroscopically, mass-photographically, electronically, and, using all known tests, we will not find any indication of mind. There is no single location for the mind. The human mind is distributed throughout the human body and its environment. Every cell has its own mind and has the ability to function independently or jointly with all the cells of the body.

For example, a neuron is capable of deciding whether it will transmit information to another nerve cell and, if it will, to which one among the thousands of cells with which it is in contact. Similarly, endocrine cells decide whether they will respond to a demand for a particular enzyme by cells in another far corner of the body.

Even sponge cells exhibit a similar capacity of awareness. When a piece of sponge is ground up and individual cells are suspended in solution, they will come together and become a complete sponge within a few hours. This indicates that each cell has a mind of its own to decide to combine with another sponge cell and with which of the thousands of cells floating in solution.

Just as each of the thousand pieces of a splintered mirror will show the same reflection of an object as the whole mirror, each cell reflects our mind and each cell in the universe reflects the universal mind.

Dr. Simon is a retired research scientist and philanthropist. Visit his website at http://simonsecret.org and read his books, The Missing Piece to Paradise and The Philosopher’s Notebook

This work presents the NSTP (Non – Spatial Thinking Process) theoretical (philosophy of mind) idealistic solution to the problem of Yang-Mills existence and mass gap, the millennium problem announced by the Clay Mathematics Institute. As stated by the institute, ‘Quantum Yang-Mills theory is now the foundation of most of elementary particle theory, and its predictions have been tested at many experimental laboratories, but its mathematical foundation is still unclear. The successful use of Yang-Mills theory to describe the strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property called the “mass gap:” the quantum particles have positive masses, even though the classical waves travel at the speed of light. This property has been discovered by physicists from experiment and confirmed by computer simulations, but it still has not been understood from a theoretical point of view. Progress in establishing the existence of the Yang-Mills theory and a mass gap will require the introduction of fundamental new ideas both in physics and in mathematics.’ If the property of mass gap contradicts the special relativistic law that no massive entity can travel at the speed of light, the point of this work is to understand that special relativity is not fundamental to nature. The new physics required to solve the problem has essentially “an idealistic framework” and the new mathematics contains terms such as “non-spatial consciousness”. Though the problem is officially expressed in a conventional symbolic mathematical language, the appropriate solution necessarily has an unconventional superconceptual mathematical language, just as its radical non-spatial computational physics does.

The NSTP (Non – Spatial Thinking Process) Theory

The NSTP theory is a (philosophy of mind) semi-idealistic as well as semi-dualistic theory that the material universe, where some peculiar phenomena like quantum non-locality exist in, is exclusively a group of superhuman as well as non-superhuman thinking processes existing in the form of (non-spatial physical/material) feelings (i.e. states of consciousness). In computer terminology, it regards the (material) universe as a non-spatial computer, with hardware of (non-spatial) feelings and software of superhuman as well as non-superhuman thoughts/ideas, including those of space, which is then an illusive/virtual/merely apparent entity. The mere existence of the superhuman thoughts is responsible for the empirical (i.e. a posteriori) order in the non-superhuman ones. The theory, however, accepts the possibility of the reality of space, the space where the phenomena like quantum non-locality do not exist in. The theory is constituted of 6 axioms, 1 theorem, and 3 conjectures. The key strength and novelty in the theory lies in its axiomatic/self-evident foundation, its innovative semi-idealism and semi-dualism, and, in general, its road to idealism and dualism.

Kedar Joshi- Superultramodern (SUM) Science and Philosophy

It is widely known that Einstein, while meditating, talked to God. It is also known that energy can not be created or destroyed. So whatever we talk, the sound waves of the conversation will stay on this earth. It is only a matter of catching them to hear the conversation again. A few years back, scientists tried just that- catch what Einstein talked to God.

They succeeded in catching bits of his talk with God. He was heard asking God to forgive him for the atom bomb. He was heard talking to God about his Special Theory of Relativity. Einstein was heard, “So God, I told the world what relativity is. I now know how things work.” “Well done son,” God said, “But why are you sad?” “Because nobody understands the theory; they think I am a fool,” was Einstein’s reply. “Don’t worry, child. Tell me what it is. I will understand,” God said.

So Einstein began explaining to God what relativity is. That there is no preferred inertial frame, that all are equal, motion between two frames is relative- you can call any one at rest and the other in motion. He gave God all the formulas, all the derivations. After three hours of explaining, he asked, “So God, now do you understand?”

God said, “Child, you are very technical. That is why nobody is understanding the theory. Can you tell me in layman terms what is relativity? So that everybody understands it?” Einstein was completely blank. He said, “God, I don’t know how to explain it in simple terms. I can give the formula but can’t explain it.” God said, “You are right, my child. For after all, it may be you who formulated relativity, but I created it!”