Janet Jackson's Breast-Reloaded
- Previously, I listed the twelve virtues-one for each month that
correspond directly to the various Ahrimanic deceptions one
may encounter. So here's some good news-the Virtues are out
there-pretty mainstream stuff. Ben Franklin was into them, the
Utne Reader includes them in their annual Urban Almanac, and
there's the Virtue project that is going around the country in
public schools. But maybe, maybe looking at these different
indications/aspects grouped in this way you can get a glimmer of
what wisdom there is in working consciously with a specific
virtue each month. And maybe this is the oldest of news.
Well, moving on then to what I didn't include-the next layer of
dysfunction that can arise. Bradford's twins split up over a herd
of cattle. It can happen. John Nash (born June 13, 1928) had
schizophrenic breaks with reality.
MATHEMATISM Mathematism leads us to the hermetic point of
view. After applying rational thought to physical phenomena we
discover the imperceptible. Measuring, counting and weighing
beyond the obvious. The dual nature of reality/not fighting flesh
PERSEVERANCE perseverance becomes faithfulness. As
above so below. The visible and the invisible correspond.
L UNFAITHFULNESS, adultery to self. Diffusion of focus
and energy with the pretense
of being faithful.
A INABILITY TO MAKE COMMITMENT. A victim.
Rationalization that there is too much
to do so why do anything. Fantasy of faith without will. A
giving up due to
PLAYING joy of the world or distractions
Thinking, feeling and willing free floating. Inability to integrate
and prove their ideas. Eccentric orientation. Highly developed
sense of play. Connect with developing ego to find others ego.
Interested in higher moral world order. Tendency towards
schizophrenia. Work with helping them bring something to
completion. This will probable be a rather radical and
unreachable idea. Their creativity will surprise you. Moves back
and forth, side to side.
So let's follow this particular dysfunction through the lens of
Janet Jackson's Breast. At door number one, we had the
prevelant and widely accepted full frontal view of personal
self-interest based on greed, ambition, attention, etc. Secondly,
we had the possibility arise that there could have been some
other motive-maybe even a sacrifice on Janet's part , she could
have been using her position and her coverage (100 million
people to make a political statement). Her at door number two
we have an either or choice. Thirdly, when the element of
time-looking back into prior events, is added then a disturbing
picture can arise. Now we don't have Janet acting out of her own
personal self-interest or Janet acting on behalf of other's
interest-here-at door number three we have other's acting
through Janet to further their interests. This is where Nash went
when he split.
Specifically, Nash may have gone to UFO land-I don't know I only
saw the movie and have not read Nasar's book yet. But before
Nash split he had the question-you know-is the maximization of
one's own self-interest the best strategy for advancement? IMO
Nash got that IN REALITY economics are based on
interdependence rather than competition in yeah, a bottom line
kind of way. But he couldn't integrate this-he could only hold this
piece-this incongruous piece-now he's looking at REALITY and
the world he lives in and what's a guy to do?
If the underlying economic premise is interdependence in a free
society what else must be true? Where, ergo, goes
freedom-freedom of the heretofore, priorly assumed (but
suddenly disproved) free market?
"EDUCATION EITHER FUNCTIONS AS AN INSTRUMENT
WHICH IS USED TO FACILITATE INTEGRATION OF THE
YOUNGER GENERATION INTO THE LOGIC OF THE PRESENT
SYSTEM AND BRING ABOUT CONFORMITY OR IT BECOMES
THE PRACTICE OF FREEDOM THE MEANS BY WHICH MEN
AND WOMEN DEAL CRITICALLY AND CREATIVELY WITH
REALITY AND DISCOVER HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
TRANSFORMATION OF THEIR WORLD"
So how do our colleges and universities operate-what underlies
their function-looks like one giant "good old boy " network to me.
"The Closing of the American MInd" by Bloom was a shot over
the bow. But let's just take science-how does science operate?
Yesterday, I was looking at the SETI website-just to see what
these guys are up to now that Sagan's departed and they have
an article on the possibility of cosmic quarantine-the possibility
of big brother in the sky-and it includes this sentence below on
one of the underpinnings of science (non-phenominological) as
it is taught .
"Astronomers understand perfectly well that the Drake Equation
cannot prove anything. Instead, we regard it as the most useful
way to organize our ignorance of a difficult subject by breaking it
down into manageable parts. This kind of analysis is standard,
and a valued technique in scientific thinking. As new
observations and insights emerge, the Drake Equation can be
modified as needed or even replaced altogether. But it provides
the necessary place to start."
And now this next article came out this summer when I
personally was in deep navel contemplation so I may have
missed its posting to this list. But it's interesting also if you are
following the news that this "dissent" is really, REALLY not a
dissent at all. It's an acknowledgement of the hard evidence that
has been steadily presented in scientific journals and
publications for the past several years.
Over 400 Eminent Scientists Sign "A Scientific Dissent From
SEATTLE, Washington, July 22, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Eighty years after the infamous Scope trials, more than 400
scientists from all disciplines have signed onto a growing list of
those who are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random
mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of
"Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of
contemporary thought," said Dr. David Berlinski, a
mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery
Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). "It is large,
almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe."
Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from
Darwin in 2001 and a direct challenge to statements made in
PBS' "Evolution" series that no scientists disagreed with
"The fact is that a significant number of scientists are extremely
skeptical that Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life,"
said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the CSC. "We expect
that as scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist
evolutionary theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at
an even more rapid pace than we've seen this past year."
In the last 90 days, 29 scientists, including eight biologists, have
signed the "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism." The list
includes over 70 biologists.
The most recent signatories are Lev V. Beloussov and Vladimir
L. Voeikov, two prominent Russian biologists from Moscow State
University. Dr. Voeikov is a professor of bioorganic chemistry and
Dr. Beloussov is a professor of embryology an Honorary
Professor at Moscow State University and a member of the
Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.
"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism, which is sold
by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology,
seriously hampers the development of science and hides from
students the field's real problems," said Professor Voeikov.
"Lately in the media there's been a lot of talk about science
versus religion," said West. "But such talk is misleading. This list
is a witness to the growing group of scientists who challenge
Darwinian theory on scientific grounds."
The list includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley,
UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of
Washington among others.
Simultaneous with the public presentation of the list of scientific
luminaries, Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti has published
his book entitled "Why is a Fly Not a Horse?" which maps what
he depicts as a growing scientific case against neo-Darwinism.
Sermonti challenges the myth that all critics of Darwinism are
American religious fundamentalists and argues that since
genetics does not explain even the present forms of life, genetic
mutations cannot alone explain their origin.
Dr. Leendert Van Der Hammen, a member with Sermonti of the
Osaka Group for the Study of Dynamic Structures, defended
Sermonti's book. He said that by tying together insights from
disciplines often studied in isolationgenetics, molecular
biology, morphogenetics, physics, chemistry and
mathematicsSermonti was able to uncover new weaknesses
in the modern theory of evolution.
Sermonti is a retired Professor of Genetics at the University of
Perugia. He discovered what is called genetic recombination in
antibiotic-producing Penicillium and Streptomyces and was Vice
President at XIV International Congress of Genetics (Moscow,
1980). He is Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia, one of the world's
oldest biology journals still in publication.
See the list of scientists:
So, to conclude, I see the country, yes under the frontal assualt
to the will through fear-that's clear but I think it masks something
deeper. I think we, as a nation are deeper into dysfunction than
we know which isn't necessarily a bad thing. What I'm saying is
that we're alot farther down the road, maybe than we know. The
fear factor, IMO, goes back to the Civil War as does the question
of federal supremacy over the soveigntry of the states as does
the supremacy of an industrial society over an agrarian one.
These are not new themes. Only the names have been