Rethinking Church: From Public to Private Domain

Churches do not impress many these days.  Something has always seemed excessive and ostentatious about their ancient, and sometimes quite ritzy displays.  Justinian’s magnum opus — the famed Hagia Sophia — burnt to the ground (fell over and THEN sank into the swamp).  I wish to make a suggestion here.  The practice of religion should always have remained private.  It should never have gone public.

  1.  Early Christianity started off this way.  They met in houses and intimate “places of prayer.”
  2. The original situation of humanity had no church or clergy (no priesthood or sacrifice) to offer.  The light of nature would necessarily have rendered prayer and service a family, and a private, matter.
  3. Judaism’s chosen public place of temple service was a slaughterhouse of the poor (sacrificed) animals, but not the synagogues, and houses in which they sometimes met.  These were far more private than the places of holiday meeting.
  4. Holiday’s and holiday meetings in most religions involve public gatherings, and they almost always involve the killing of huge numbers of animals.  This makes holidays abominable to God.  Rather, “the righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, ” and again, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain.”  This means we must show kindness to animals, not kill them!!
  5. The rise of public religion has in fact given birth to crusades, inquisitions, witch-burnings, extreme animal abuse, and a host of other social ills we would have been much better without. And without the public formation of such religious “teams,” (armies sometimes) we could have obviated these ills and crimes. Private Jihads do not often result from household religious activities.
  6. Ockham’s Razor seems to render churches simply unnecessary.  People can meet in their own houses if they wish. If they want teaching made more generally available, technology makes convenient for this purposes radio and other electronic connectivity devices, or simply books, pamphlets or website publications — or courses audited at universities, online or brick-and-mortar.  Parks make good places of prayer for an intimate setting, as do campfires at the beach (or in a backyard) — the natural settings for praying and/ or singing.

For the Sophic, Ethical Monotheist, the LON rules the form of life that our Beloved Creator expects us to follow.  It had only two people originally, and for many generations could not have had prayer and sharing the goodness of God as anything but a family matter.  It is too intimate a kind of thing to bear one’s heart in public.  This appears quite indiscreet and unseemly (What in Solomon’s tongue we might call “inadvisable and unfitting,” perhaps even dangerous) to expose to others (strangers) what God and one’s family alone should be privy to — sins and problems for which one asks divine aid.

Religious councils have often — by claiming authority they should not bear — challenged the real and regular authority of both national and international governments, threatening the good order of society — when the KJV says — “He is God’s minister” to bear the sword on behalf of justice.  It is fine for people who wish it to hold councils (board meetings are even quite profitable — well, when they guide up); but it does no one any good when they start claiming RELIGIOUS authority that could later provide a competitive alternative against the state, as has often happened in the history of western civilization.

These, and other telling considerations, make the devotional attendance of divine concerns, a private matter, and not one suited for public consumption.  The wise (Sophic Ethical Monotheist) community will want to consider this matter well in forming its opinions on such matters, and in deciding, when and how they conduct any public meetings — perhaps only to pray for wisdom and to study together.  Setting wise limits on such meetings, in accordance with the LON, suits best the purposes of wisdom and profitability.

Advertisements

Qualitative Time: Historians and the Notion of “Periodization.”

Historians are a brilliant lot, but sometimes they do odd things.  One of those oddish behaviors aims at constructing a kind of timekeeping that borrows from the socio-economic “qualities” or attributes of an era.  This “period” of time then receives a name, say, the time of Renewal or “Renaissance,” for those who love French cooking.

One could name periods of time (eras) by any number of different kinds of qualities.  In different fields of history, say “art history,” they refer to the “Romantic Period,” while those less concerned with cultural history might simply dub this “the 19th century,” or “Industrial Revolution.”  Finance people think of this as the era of “the Unstoppable Rise of the Forward Contract” (before they had “futures,” they had “forward contracts”).

Periodization, the art and science of naming specific periods of time with historically-credible labels, began early on with historians. At the first, they used empires to label periods, while imperial Presidencies helped with this labeling process after WW II — in the era of Postmodern historiography.  I am hoping next for the era of the rise of the imperial historian. Remember, historians always have the last laugh, and they control the power of collective memory.  So be nice.  Or you could end up a robber Baron extreme with multiple psychoses, and a horrific personality.

But let us return to the fascinating idea that one might keep time by labeling specific eras in historical writing — this keeps time by noting the salient features (qualities), rather than by numbering a sequence of time units like years (e.g. this happened in 1492).  Quality versus Quantity. Sometimes an event conveying a quality can even serve to begin a timeline — for example, the event we call the beginning of writing systems. Historians account the beginning of history as the same thing as (coterminous with) the beginning of writing.  The same is true with check-cashing.  You simply cannot bounce a check until you learn to write.  “History” without writing is called “pre-history,” an era when things were run by a bunch of illiterate Neanderthals who couldn’t do a damn thing write.  They invented the DMV.

Different disciplines will necessarily have an outlook that views history differently, each from the others, since each field of inquiry has a distinct value system, placing its work as “central to the development of the human potential.” Logicians could easily labels eras as “Aristotelian, Platonist, Nominalist, Scholastic, Predicate calculus/ Set Theory, Logical Positivism, Computational logic, the rise of Mathematical Logic,” and the like.  Yet this construction of “eras” seems in no way arbitrary, but roots itself in very important features of actual historical, and socio-cultural trends and event-complexes (e.g. “Civil War”).

It does raise some further, interesting questions, however.  If one might label eras variously, what about the ways in which the scholarly past has viewed time (Empires often conscribe the “Assyrian Period” or “Neo-Chaldean” in older textbooks); or some other important or foundational question — how we view “government,” or “math systems,” or religions.  We now live in a post-Christian era (on my view).

Again, on my view, the history of humanity is a history of a very specific kind.  It is a history of progress, the continuous, if bouncy and uneven, growth and development of wisdom and understanding — of many different kinds of cultural activities, from logic and science to art and literature.  What if, instead of using the art of periodization to indicate this progress (which is fine by me), we instead created a math and logic system that shows or accounts for this progress?  Okay — what does that mean?

For example, the growth of humans in a specific population occurs by a kind of doubling process that can be described (back to numbers again) in terms of a geometric progression and a “geometric mean.”  The population bean-counters already know this shorthand.  I have begun a “hobby-like” quest to see if I can combine both relatively simply math and relatively simply logic into a hybrid system that accounts for human history’s innovative and progressive trends.  I am not as pessimistic as are many on this idea.  People often follow in the collective rational kinds of patterns that individuals do not, and some of these patterns might escape our notice for some time.  Population growth, money growth, the growth of the value of real estate, cost of life insurance, number of people involved in charity, the administration of justice, number of patents granted (of specific kinds), and many other markers can be used to study the value and growth of human progress. I believe that the correct approach to this subject, trimmed and managed by the principles of the LON (light of nature), will in fact to some extent, show a rational set of patterns we can identify as rationality describable.  Moore’s Law expemplifies this tendency, and shows a kind of rationality to human (cultural and technological) development, or at least certain aspects of cultural development.

I shall try to keep readers up to date of my adventure in looking to this or that kind of math of logic, and how the LON inflects this or that application of it to describe the history of our progress.  This math-logic system (prob. a hybrid) will attempt a first — show the rational development of “math over time” or logic as it unfolds over time as human progress.  This effort will prove a “dynamic math-logic” that unfolds over time — transchronic math-logic system: that shows the logic of progress — without periodization.  If you think it would take a miracle to get it right, remember this.  On the Sophic, Ethical Monotheist view, three miracles form the necessary preconditions for our being here (and doing anything scholarly).  The LON is thus itself an immediate creation of our beloved, and most excellent King.  The whole enchilada is miraculous to begin with.  I still cannot get over this.  Life is a miracle (transcendent), and wisdom is its crown and glory.

Periodization, move over.

Transcending Time, AGAIN. This Time, It’s Universal and Humanitarian.

We are going to need a more universal clock than I have before suspected.  My previous blog-post, I have realized, did not go far enough in reconstructing time, as it did, by eliminating all the “temporal epicycles” that I could.  What we will need amounts to something like a way of averaging events that occur at the quantum (or at least atomic) level, that is, averaging them out over a specific period of time to create a basic unit like “one second.”  From this basic unit, we can reconstruct all of time in a progressive-linear (non-cyclical or epicyclical) fashion, one that has no need of days (Sunday, Monday, Tues, etc — which are “Christian time-units”), or weeks or months, or years (which are also the stuff of “Christian Civilization.”

The one I propose would run much, much simpler, consisting of only one unit of time, moving forward from a point of origin (say, the first writing system?), with the expected (and plotted out across history) development of human progress.  The principle of progress forms a legitimate principle of the LON (light of nature), and follows from the fact that the LON consists of the ideal = wisdom.  The closer we move toward the ideal, the more progress we display.  This is in fact what we have been doing all throughout history — progressing.

Example of legal codes and material — law code of Hammurabi, then of Draco and Solon, the Roman legal codes, the Salic Law, that of Theodoric, the Magna Carta (1215), modern Constitutions, the Geneva Convention Protocols, legal innovations in civil rights and in animal rights, etc

The Christian conceptions of time are tribal (Old Testament), primitive, superstitious (named after “gods,” like “Saturn day” — more obviously in Latin languages that from Anglo-saxon), tangled, and completely unnecessary.  Mine is neither Julian nor Gregorian.  It is scientific and universal.  Consider that one day, we will move away from our little revolving hut (planet Earth) to other planets to begin living there.  Technology and time favor this view, just as does “Moore’s Law.”

When we move even beyond our own “Milky Way” galaxy, one day, we are going to have a good laugh at the primitive thinking that suggested what my previous blogpost did —  assumed that all solar systems would use the Earth’s concept of a day, season or year.  These same concepts would amount to something quite different in a different solar system, and then commerce between them would require more “time zone” changes than the one’s we already have.  Eventually this would become unmanageable and convoluted as the number of solar systems involved multiplies.  What to do?  Defeat the problem in advance with a universal time-keeping system — one that employs events commonplace in all galaxies — perhaps subatomic ones, averaged out, to create a universal calendar.

This is what we should start using when convenience allows, since our sciences are easily advanced enough to manage the project, AND it is counterproductive to continue favoring a time-system developed in the Middle Ages (Julian and Gregorian) that has nothing to commend it, and much to rebuff it (Ockham’s Razor, etc).  You will recall that this was the same “authorizing bunch” who came up with this time scheme who also argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and burned witches at the stake — in under 10 minutes.

My suggestion?  Never ask THESE people what time it is (It could be five minutes til the next stoning).  Ask Stephen Hawking instead.

During the first Copernican revolution, we were increasing our knowledge at both the level of the large scale (the telescope) and the lesser (the microscope).  We having been moving by way of improvements in both directions ever since, PROGRESS-ively.  Strangely, the one that I believe will rule the day among the stars is NOT the large-scale, but the small-scale (quantum), by providing the best basis for a unit of time as foundational as the atom was thought to be by the Greeks, or as in our day, the Higgs-Boson.

What is the optimal time-unit?  It may well need construction from an averaging process (stochastic time).  It should be managed, if I am correct, in units of ten, and as the simplest among apparently “optimal” choices.  These principles of the LON will lead the way.  I believe that it may be the result of several inferences using such principles, but there is an optimal, most basic time unit (temporal Higgs-Boson).  This will replace the entire Christian system, centered on crucifixion, or “crucified time.”  Crucifixion? Nah, he said I could have freedom.  (Monty Python knows).

The stochastic-temporal model instead would be based on the “freedom,” or rather, the contingency of quantum events.  The Wikipedia entry for “quantum clocks” indicates that we already have progress in this direction:

“In March 2008, physicists at NIST described a quantum logic clock based on individual ions of beryllium and aluminium. This clock was compared to NIST’s mercury ion clock. These were the most accurate clocks that had been constructed, with neither clock gaining nor losing time at a rate that would exceed a second in over a billion years.[42] In February 2010, NIST physicists described a second, enhanced version of the quantum logic clock based on individual ions of magnesium and aluminium. Considered the world’s most precise clock in 2010 with a fractional frequency inaccuracy of 8.6 × 10−18, it offers more than twice the precision of the original.[43] [44]     The accuracy of experimental quantum clocks has since been superseded by experimental optical lattice clocks based on strontium-87 and ytterbium-171.”

Although this kind of accuracy transcends the needs we have in regard to establishing a universal timekeeping unit, it remains quite impressive. And the most accurate might form the basis for the time unit we are looking for.   Quantum clock technology will certainly aid in the quest.  I have no doubt.  What would Lucretius do?   Good science versus bad religion.  The choice is clear enough.  Universal time needs good science. Perhaps light itself (the photon) might provide the answer, since it seems basic to all life.  Since our beloved Creator placed us here on Earth, we might consider it an objective point of reference that the Sun is about 93 million miles from Earth (the Anthropic Principle, as they call it, does something quite humanitarian — it places life at a premium: plant life, animal life and human life).  This kind of point of reference for constructing time goes precisely in the opposite direction of “Crucified time” of the Christian system.

The speed of light across this distance could form the basic unit of time (as “the speed of life”).  This (93 million miles divided by 186, 000 miles per second) would yield a basic unit of time that compares to the one we now use as something like 7.5 minutes (roughly) as a basic unit — the basic unit of life, as the basic unit of time. Then we could impale and replace the Christian system (Vlad time no more).

Once we decide on the basic unit of universal time, we could easily create wrist-watches that keep time “as universal time,” and that could display it translated into the time-frame anyone else might be using — all on the same digital face, and at a glance.

Contra “Ekklesia:” A New View

This blog post offers something that might be regarded as a startling insight.  I regard the Roman emperors who outlawed Christianity, or more particularly, the Christian Church (before Constantine). to actually have been correct in this particular prohibition.  By doing so. they were actually protecting the best interests of the state.

Ethical Monotheists believe in only ONE transcendent Source, and in one authority chain following from it, for all real authority — wherever its jurisdiction may situate.  This would (and does) preclude any church from having authority, in addition to that of the state.  Indeed, the “paper pope” of the Protestants, and the real one of the Catholics, both pretend authority beyond that of the state, implying a clear and distinct challenge to the former, if and when they disagree — or are interpreted by church leaders so to do.   Even their own “Bible” makes clear the “incommensurability of paradigms” here — one with Jesus as a living emperor (a false emperor and a fiction on the SEM view represented here), having authority over churchgoers in every land, as well as that paradigm of the real state authority, which has no such emperor ruling within its boundaries — the USA does not allow either kings or emperors to act within their office, exercising authority from it, within its borders.

This precludes Jesus (assuming hypothetical the Christian view) from exercising any authority as emperor on US soil.  This implies a ban on Christianity, since such exercise of authority is implied by their (illegal) baptism, which comes with the confession that “Jesus is Lord” — where “Lord” means “Son of God, and highest human authority.”  The prohibtion of the USA against domestic kingship and the like aims at forbidding the conflict of material interest involved necessarily in having two separate chains of authority in any one land.

The separation of Church and State was a good start in the USA (Brown v. Board of Education, etc), but it does not go nearly far enough to protect the actual authorities from the usurpation of such forbidding incursions against real authority.

Fathers should shepherd the family, not churches.  And the state should have its authority protected.

More on this topic later.

Quitting Theology Like a Man

Another of my late-night insights bids me suggest that doing theology tempts one to take the wrong cognitive course of action.  We should instead be studying economics, philosophy, history, the literary arts and sciences.  Theology, it will turn out, pinions on the study of “religion as rooted in holy (divinely-authored, that is, forged and pseudonymous) books” — just what we do not want.

Philosophy, on the other hand, looks to the transcendentals (categorical and propositional), to rational, empirical and profitable modes of thinking — not Peter Pan mythologies and bogus, crucified-superman traditions.  We should “be doing philosophy” and not theology.  I have decided to quit theology like a man, and to embrace philosophy — the true love of wisdom — instead.

Its time for theologians to man up and drop out.

Transcending Good and Evil by the Light of Nature: How to Rise Above Traditional Morality

  • You might find this one difficult to believe, until you read it, but there is something to the old Nietzschean canard that we need to “rise above” the slave (traditional) morality of the Christian religion.  He was — after a fashion — correct.  The concepts of “good” versus “evil” as a dichotomy (paired polarity set) set in relation to other popular ideas (justice versus injustice, etc) in a specific cognitive and collective arrangement (paradigm) arises from an abuse native to our ordinary use of the English language.

In other words, our crappy “christianized” (botched) English screws up our heads by “mis-orienting” our thinking in ways not consistent with the real world, and the light of nature (the divine design).  The personification of this botched pair — good versus evil — takes on personsified counterparts (God versus the devil, Batman versus the Joker, Ahuri-Mazda versus Ahriman (Zoroastrianism’s “Odin versus Loki”), etc.

This botched pair has important, and quite material, social consequences that we do not want. In English-speaking society, this dual concept takes shape in our lives when its is externalized from our thinking and stamped into the social order’s concrete forms and institutions (cities, colleges, businesses, etc), CAUSING its social counterpart — “good behavior” and evil behavior (crimes, perceived “moral failures” and transgressions).

Well-known ill behavior patterns, and questionable choices, common to some in society (not to mention tax evasion) have dotted the landscape of human history as far as we can remember.  This has given rise historically to legal lists of do’s and don’ts, like the law code of Hammurabi and the Ten Commandments.  Some have been taken as mere human constructions, and others as divine mandates.

These legal codes aim at the restraining of “evil” people and their wayward options.  But there are problems with these.  First, each legal code both presupposes (some people will commit crimes) and forbids (no one may commit crimes) exactly the same behaviors.  So the project dooms itself from the outset.  These legal codes in effect “formalize” and give judicial force to the dual concept of good and evil by providing the standard that both creates (what it means to do good or evil) and then separates, and specifies punishments or awards for them.

Here is a second problem: justice, represented by legal codes, is not ideal.  This must be true since the existence and practice of the administration of justice requires: Criminals and lawsuits (conflicts at law).  The light of nature is ideal, while the administration of justice is not.   This insight hit me like the proverbial “brick ton” recently when studying the topic of nature’s light and aretology.

I am still working on just what this implies (and does not imply but might seem to) for other related subjects.  Wisdom is eternal, but justice requires criminals and conflicts, so it is not eternal, and in a certain way, stands OPPOSED TO WISDOM!  This is NOT what I learned from studying the Proverbs of Solomon !!  And this is where those proverbs err.

The third problem is that we have sought to define morality in terms of attribution, badly following Aristotle, when our moral conceptions should have fallen out from sophic and functional definitions.  In other words, from the light of nature, we should wish to know, whether some proposed moral action works against, or else flows from, our divine design.  Did our beloved Creator make us so that if we practice X it will conduce to our well-being since we were designed to act this way?  Not “is it evil,” but “Is it wise, strategic, resourceful, and profitable for others?”   What is the criteriology here, but the principles of the light of nature?

I will here try to set forth as plainly as I might the differences in the ways of thinking involved. All humans being were created to be “the good guys,” so there is no objective “good people versus evil people,” except what we have brought into the world ourselves by our bad social and linguistic constructions.  “Good and evil” are real enough, but ONLY because WE (not God) have made them real.  And we can unmake them, and must unmake them, by carefully following the light of nature.   It is very doable, and practically so, contrary to everything you have ever heard about the “problem of evil” in the world today (yada, yada).

  1.  By the study of the light of nature, we must determine what are the REAL virtues our Great King intends us to display, and then work to inculcate those into our lives, shunning the false virtues and botched, social and linguistic constructions of traditional morality.
  2. I believe that the entire project of “fixing humanity” centers upon the  reconstruction our thought-world and language use, to conform much better to the light of nature, and to eliminate botched conceptions from our thinking, replacing them with their more accurate counterparts.
  3. Language is the key.  The philosophers of language are correct in this assumption.  But here, they are in fact “doing metaphysics” even if they insist otherwise — and they will. The McCaw bears this out.  Its singular emphasis upon activity is speaking — learning from the wise (modeling) and saying only what it has rehearsed.  And so — for its wise speech alone — it wears the rainbow and flies among the heavens (in the wild anyway).

Win at wise speech, and you win all.  Our thinking (see George Orwell and Noam Chomsky) follows our speaking, and so do our deeds and value systems.  What does this mean for the Sophic Ethical Monotheist community?  It means whatever we have for a legal code will probably have these innovative features:

It begins with a blessing upon the All-Wise Creator, upon the Sophic Ethical Monotheist community, and upon the animal kingdom, and indeed upon all humanity and all creation.  It bears encouragements to perform and encouragements to avoid rather than prohibitionist mandates.  Be wise my son, and fill your heart and mind with wisdom’s light (i.e. the written wisdom-tradition).  We tried prohibitionism (with alcohol) in the USA in the 1920’s, and it turned out to be one of the greatest disasters in our history — another fine democratic social program paid for by everyone (a thousand times over).

Question: what if tradition legal codes ALL turn out to be just another form of prohibitionism, each of which creates the “forbidden fruit” syndrome — by the very nature of their many forbiddings and commandings, which actually stir up opposition to what they are supposed to procure?  This is what the LON seems to suggest for a wise nation:

  • Encouragements to right behavior in writing (memorized as rehearsed speech by all = wisdom tradition, but not so much legal codes, not so much commandments and forbiddings)
  • Principles of the LON — studied and built into our language, and thus into all aspects of our society.  Not COMMANDMENTS lists.
  • Morality focuses on what is necessary, successful, valuable and profitable, and what is according to the wisdom of divine design — not (over-) simply what is “GOOD” as opposed to what is “EVIL”  (i.e. Crap morality).
  • Invoking Blessing upon all (others), built into our lives — as a way of life, not merely as occasional (Think reflexively).

We must rethink what legal codes should contain and what they should omit, and how we must carefully hug the principles of the LON in building these.  We must carefully build out as a community, and as individuals, the wisdom-tradition (one 3 x 5 index card at a time) that forms the rehearsed speech language we will use as a people — even if it takes 50, 000 such card-speech units.

When one community/ nation inculcates the form of life found in the principles of the LON, and stamped into the cards, an entire society will emerge as wiser than any other we have seen before, and will act as self-governing agents of wisdom, who almost never break the law, especially if (when) there are fewer laws to break. Wisdom in the heart both motivates one to do good works, and to shun unprofitable behaviors (worthless wastes of time (crimes)) need never occupy the mind of a wise person long enough to interest them.

Finally, Short Greek as I have called it, will enable us to perform innovative and critical-thinking feats never before imagined (as with transcending the good-evil dichotomy in practical ways, securing to the world far greater profitability than we have yet seen.  My solutions then are six-fold:

  1.  The right nation and people, a people that loves wisdom above all else, convened to build the greatest nation in the world.
  2. The World Peace Conference, and council of Sophic Ethical Monotheists, which works to enable the proposals found at this site, and others implied or taught by the LON we have yet to learn.
  3. The creation and perfection (best we are able) of the Short Greek language, sculpted into existence exclusively by the principles of the LON.
  4. The study of those principles and LON-based aretology.
  5. The Wisdom tradition of the “official” (council approved) LON rehearsed-speech units for the wise nation.
  6. (Two Official Books)   The Book of Prayers and Blessings;  The Book of Success and Success Sayings.

All of this bears a good deal of “thinking the matter over.”   I regard this blog-post as the result of a series of extraordinary insights (a paradigm shift) by which I am still astonished, and as a gift from my beloved Creator, whose blessing I continue to study.  You are invited to do likewise.

Aretology: Rethinking Virtue — Don’t Bother “Keeping the Faith” “Brother”

In my theological studies, I have come to some new conclusion, that have required me to discard some long-held (Christian) beliefs.  I no longer believe that faith and hope are virtues at all, and that the biblical metaphor for faith (pure gold) is actually fool’s gold.

Why do you now believe this, you say?  Because in most forms of theology, we consider that God contains and exhibits, by the light of nature, all forms of virtue, and to its greatest degree.  When held consistently, this requires some interesting conclusions.

Does God have all knowledge and wisdom?  Of course, He does.  Does He have faith?  Nope. Does He have hope?  No.  Why not? Since He has all wisdom and knowledge, He has no need of either of these.

But if God contains all virtue, and has not either faith or hope, then these are not virtues.  These are counterfeits, like the Donation of Constantine, that would in fact prevent us from pursuing and acquiring the better virtues (real ones) of wisdom and knowledge (instead) like God our Father.

Think it over.

Continuing the Reconstruction of Time

I regard this blog post to be among my most important.  It supervenes earlier ones on the same topic.  I regard this as a new Copernican Revolution in the keeping of time.   Nicolaus Copernicus, you will recall, reduced the number of “epicycles” needed to explain the “retrograde” (backward moving) motion of the planets in the night skies involved in the model of the solar system given by the Almagest of one Ptolemy (not from the ancient Egyptian dynasty that bears that name).

The new model Copernicus offered reduced the number of epicycles from 80 something to 30 something, by specifying that the earth revolved around the Sun, as did the other planets, and this relative motion of the planets created the appearance of retrograde motion in the nocturnal skies.

What we did not notice in the Copernican [Scientific] revolution is that the revolution had its precursor in time.  We keep time just this way — with many epicycles that are unnecessary.

We do not need weeks or months at all in our calendars.  And Ockham’s razor bids us “shave these off.”  This would mean that proper time-keeping practices would have us number first the year, and then each day would also bear a number, namely 1 – 365.  This would tell us the time of year at a glance.  We simply do not need weeks or months, or names for particular days of the week — i.e. Monday, etc.  We should simply drop these from our vocabulary, and name each day by its #.

This Copernican revolution of time eliminates a whole batch of unnecessary clutter — temporal epicycles.  I believe it was these temporal epicycles in our timekeeping system that caused the retrograde (cultural) motions [Economists might call this a cultural Fibonacci retracement — grin], that we call the Renaissance and Reformation  –  just after or during the Copernican revolution.

This new way of timekeeping leaves us with only the “annual” epicycle preventing a thoroughgoing “linear-progressive” ideal of our grasp of temporal development.

There does not seem to be any good reason, other than current convenience (because of established tradition), to go on using the arbitrary “second” as a basic unit of time.  It constructs minutes, and minutes hours, and then hours construct days.

Both the daylight 12 hours or so (solar day) and the night-time 12 hours or so (lunar night) should be broken down into 5 equal units of time.  This mimicks our hands and feet, units of 5, making up ten, the most natural number for treating question of management of the environment.  According to the principle of necessity (or economy), we should always work in tens or else fives, round numbers, whenever possible.

I propose that we call these 10 units, each one, the “penteos,” or five-fold unit, even though we would have ten, five for the day, and five for the night.  Each penteos would last 2.4 hours (144 minutes) on our current time-scale.  This would replace the “hour” as an arbitrary unit of time-keeping, with the unit suggested by the principles of the light of nature.

The new (replacement for the) “minute,” would be 1/100th of a penteos, lasting 1.44 minutes by our current scale (about 85 seconds, instead of 60).  This would be called a “Pentos,” dropping the “e” from the term for the “hour” (PentE os).  This shows it to be the same kind of thing, but shorter.

1/100th of a new “minute” or the penteos, we would call the “pendon” (similar to the word “Second”), which would last about .85 seconds, as measured by our current scale.  This is non-arbitrary, even if it artificially averages out each day and night as exactly 12 hours — when Alaskans never see this happen in their, quite northern, world.

What if this new timekeeping accidentally allows seasons to drift across the calendar?   It makes no difference since we have no months.  If day 360 lands us in hot weather times (what we now call July), who cares, since we do not have a July!

This puts an end to excessive, needless and quite-Christian, timeframes, and promises the new Copernican Revolution — and New Enlightenment — just around the corner.

 

 

Divine Providence, Socio-cultural Reflections and the Age of the Earth

Recently, I have changed my views on the age of the cosmos, and of the earth, to a view requiring more time than I had previously supposed.  Some of the reasons for the added time stem from new discoveries of mine in other areas of study, which do not seem at first directly related to the chronological questions at hand.

But the inferences I have drawn from these, and other forms of study I have included in these reflections, have led to a more ancient view of “ancient times.”  I do not expect that these will satisfy too many people, but that they should invite curiosity on these and related subjects of study.

In fairness, I have to allow enough of full disclosure to mention that I have come to believe that people have been created by God to be (and that we are) “transcendent.”   This stems from what should be obvious on any creationist account.  The creation of human beings was miraculous.  We are the product of immediate contact with the divine, and this fact falsely led Christians to declare that man was created “in God’s image.”  But they had the right idea, “divinely appointed to do as God does” (transcendent) makes us intrinsically good and wise by inclination — the desire to learn, study and grow, and do what is right arises from this condition.

Humans are divine miracles.  So is the rest of creation, on our view.  This is strange, but should not be, and it bears a good deal of consideration on our part.  Christians have thought historically that what was yielded by a divine miracle was somehow specially blessed (and we are), as with their “sacraments” (holy things).

This means that when we become more of what we are (say vegetarians by diet), we find that we have new talents, clearer insights, better judgment, etc.  We grow “more transcendent” by practicing what is indicated by the light of nature.  We should expect that as we grow wise as a (global) race, we should be capable to doing what almost seems miraculous.  The effect is like the Cause.  The advance of science, economics and other critical arts and disciplines, promise insights and discoveries that will boggle the imagination, and the limits it has today.

It would also seem that what God created by a miracle would be precious to Him, and that He intends it to be eternal.

These considerations above led me to try certain assumptions on, and assume that the things human create that seem to bear special significance can do what we would not expect — can teach us many of the things we wish to know.  Here are some odd coincidences I began to notice, and then to “pick up” for thoughtful reflection and seasoned ponderance.  Also note, that by socio-cultural reflection that I call a truth inversion (because of the Bible — it starts off one way, and ends up with the opposite; original goodness becomes … the Fall; the proverbs start with “the righteous” and end with “the wicked,” and the NT presents as the greatest good what is human sacrifice — darkest evil.  Here, this inversion (it is assumed, cause space to represent time, and time to represent space — the inversion of temporal and spatial relations is assumed below).

  1. The Egyptian pyramids spatially represent “permanence”  (inverted as “all time.”).   These unique monuments bear unique mathematical sets of relations, one pyramid being comprised of of four triangles, and each triangle of three sides. Here I began to notice “spatial relations” indicated by the #’s 3 and 4.
  2. I also happened across another unusual set of spatial relations among the nations.  Four nations have about the same size as the United States, and these are distributed in the four directions — North (Russia) [some 8.8-9] million sq. mi.], South (Brazil) [8.7], the United States (West, 8.7) and China (East, 8.7).  These show spatial relations.
  3. Another odd fact is this: in the ancient world, only 3 cities had grown in population to include about or just over 1 million people — Rome (1M), Antioch (1M), Alexandria, Egypt (1M), and the occasional (during the holidays, Jerusalem would swell to over one million, per Josephos) city was Jerusalem, with about 500-600 thousand regular residents. Added up, these run about 3.5-6 million.  This is about the same age as I have for the earth.
  4. I began to think of the biblical account’s view of time, in contrast with the evolutionist’s view of time.  Here is something to consider: what if they are both wrong (the Deist view), but together are still correct, since transcendent people are right even when they are wrong, often in ways we would not expect?

Here is what I mean. Suppose the biblical account of time is just as short as the evolutionists’ view of time is long.  That is to say, 4 thousand years (biblical chronology) is to 4 million, the way 4 million years relates to 4 billion years.  If we suppose that the cosmos is around 4.25 million years, then (after a fashion) the evolutionists are wrong just as the Bible fundamentalist is — but in precisely the opposite direction. And their speculations run (approximately) symmetrical on this view.  And this is just about half the number one finds with the four nations of equivalent size (again, approx. equivalence).  I realize these look like mere coincidences to many. I get it.  But I am not so sure of this, since these themes keep repeating all throughout human history, especially the 3 and 4 thing.

Why not the shorter chronologies?  The earth would have formed sometime after the Big Bang, so we cannot treat the date of the origin of the cosmos as the same as that of the earth.  The Sun had to ignite (come online, as we say), and then the earth had to cool, while the Sun’s radiant energy — a constant source of heat — would tend to make it take considerably longer for the earth to cool down.  And even then, its oceans would remain too hot for some time to sustain life.

God had to wait for the oceans to cool down before He could create life in what would otherwise be a bubbling cauldron.  This takes time, and the biblical account is wholly unaware of these problems.  The Sun shining upon the earth, would have caused it to take a good deal longer to cool down than otherwise.  This means we need more time.  My current scenario, I maintain, continues to assume Ockham’s razor, that we ought not add more time than proves necessary for the survival and flourishing of the miraculous creation.

When you may be tempted to think otherwise, remember that the world is fundamentally very good (very excellent) and wonderful — because it is the miraculous work of God.  Here is my current adjustment in years to the age of the earth/ cosmos question:

  1. About 4.3-4 M.Y. ago, God creates all things (The Big Expansion)
  2. About 3.5 M.Y. ago, the earth forms by God’s special superintending providence (with loving care).  This is right between the numbers 3 and 4, written as millions.
  3. About 2 M.Y. ago, the oceans begin cooling down sufficiently.  Crustal pressures (with cooling) begin to form tectonic plates as different pressures from different directions, press crustal zones into each other, until they crack and break into plates that shift over time, and move away from each others and occasional move into each other (earthquakes, etc).
  4. About 1.5 million years ago, the mountains begin to arise out of the waters (move upward).
  5. About 1.25 million years ago, God performs the second miracle, the creation of life in the waters — seas and rivers, etc.
  6. About 1 M.Y. ago, mountains are at their present height (fully formed), and have all kinds of shells etc left behind as a result of their sub-oceanic formation.
  7. About 1 M.Y.’s ago to some.9 M.Y. ago, God creates the land animals, and mankind upon the earth.  Dinosaurs roam the earth, but start off fairly small.  They continue growing as long as they live, and get very large, but are used to the other animals and do not notice them much.
  8. Somewhere around .6M years ago, we get hammered by a stone from the sky, which whallops Siberia, and brings something of an apocalypse (a semi-global, butt-kicking).  This causes a hemisphere-wide flood, and a consequent famine.  Dinosaurs begin to turn carnivorous and dangerous, while humans create and venture into caves for safety.  The dinosaurs eventually capitulate to disaster, starvation, and, well, mutual competition (they kill and snack each other), and wax extinct.
  9. Later, (unsure timeframe, perhaps 120 thousand years ago) humans emerge from cave-dwelling, and find great bio-diversity had spread across the globe; they begin settling in agricultural areas, trading, hunting, gathering, etc., but they remain without a writing system, somewhat primitive — but with some tools.
  10. Just after 10 thousand years ago, some migratory groups move into the fertile crescent (Mesopotamia) and Egypt’s Nile Valley, and eat many fishes.
  11. Shortly thereafter, they begin to develop writing systems — Sanskrit, early Chinese, Mesopotamian Cuneiform, and Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

From the invention of the first writing systems until now, we went (in about a mere 8 thousand years) from a writing system to advanced computers and laser dentistry by the twentieth century.  This time frame is remarkable.

From about 1 MY ago to about 8 thousand years ago, very little advancement really happens on planet earth. But once we get a writing system, we boom like no one has ever thought about growth before, in just 8 thousand years.   This is a very collapsed time frame for this much cultural development.

The writing systems made the difference.  The question is this:  Why did it take so long to get to the point where a writing system was invented?  All that time and … nothing.  Then, with the first writing system, only 8 thousand years to laser dentistry, hypersonic jets and microwave ovens!

I believe that it is these writing systems that create the socio-cultural reflections that can teach us so much about ourselves, the world and the past.

I shall continue this blog post when convenience allows.

Natural Mathematics and the Light of Nature

One of the most interesting things about human people is that we often do not notice what truths about ourselves plainly present themselves.  For instance, the obvious fact that we have ten toes and ten fingers, each paired as two “fives.”  If we take the human, somatic structure (physical body) as a guide for the divine intention, we find much the same categories presented to us that Dr. Kant describes in his more technical volumes.

If we consider just what fingers are purposed for, it is immediately evident that we count with them, and we use them to manipulate our environment.  We use them to fit screws to wood, or manage screwdrivers, hammers and nails, etc.   But we do not often put these “finger-uses” together.  The better management of the environment — tool-making — represents what we might call “early technologies.”  And the study of the rules and formulae that make them useful, and their application to the planned development or use of tools, based on numbers, we could call “young science.”

By following this somatic pattern, we learn that the numbers of greatest interest to us, when we do economics or work at the sciences, should be ten, five or two.  Our hands, feet, legs, etc. come to us in pairs (2’s).  We have almost 3 of nothing.  The number 3 has to be inferred as the difference between five (as with fingers) and two (as with our hands).

Our bodies prove symmetrical, which is of the nature of rules of “equality,” commutative, associate, reflexive, and distributive properties of equality, for instance.

I shall continue this blog post when convenient (Ei theos thelei)