All appearances are known to consciousness as they actually exist. In other words, as the comedian Flip Wilson so aptly put it: "What you see is what you get." Some philosophers have postulated that the unknown can be real, and that some known things can be unreal. This hypothesis is completely illogical. Only the known and useful can be real, and all unknown entities are completely useless and unnecessary.
Only consciousness can establish reality. Consciousness begins its construction of reality by its objectification of basic realities such as: "time," "space," "hard," "red," and so forth. Basic realities isolated to the mind such as: "will," "intuition," "imagination," and even "consciousness" itself are just as real as are the basic realities derived from sensory perception. If the mind can objectify it, then whatever "it" is, is real. All inner and outer basic realities are real because they all are useful. All basic realities have proven useful and real to consciousness because consciousness holds the power to combine them into systems that produce useful or useless effects. But even useless effects prove useful because they identify those useless systems that consciousness needs to discard.
Those combinations that produce useless effects relate to the unknown. Useless systems produce nothing. The unknown is equivalent to nothing, and so is uselessness. The unknown and uselessness alike constitute unreality. Consciousness cannot recognize unreality. Unreality lies completely outside the scope of consciousness. Consciousness can only indirectly recognize the nonexistence of unreality by its use of the real basic reality called the "idea of nothing." The "idea of nothing" simply points to unreality.
For example, Thomas Edison used many basic realities in his attempts to invent the system called "the light bulb." Even though all of these systems comprised real basic realities, most of these systems did not work. They produced nothing of the desired result. Every basic part of every one of these ineffective systems was real including the nothingness thus produced. But this nothingness also indicated an unreality that Edison never experienced. Yet, every useless system also proved useful in that Edison knew to discard them.
Therefore, all inner and outer basic realities, and their useful combinations are real because they all are useful. Useless combinations are also useful and real to the extent that the mind knows to discard them. Consciousness has been geared to recognize only reality. Consciousness cannot recognize unreality except indirectly by the use of the "idea of nothing."
Ideas are the tools of reason whereby consciousness possesses the power to identify, separate and objectify each basic reality as being exactly that which it is. Ideas indicate the powers of the mind to create information. Information makes intelligence and communication possible. This means that both particulars and universals are real and useful ideas to consciousness. Consciousness happens to be the only known power that can create reality.
An indistinct feeling which one cannot name supplies an example of an appearance which has not yet been formed into an idea. A feeling identified as an idea in one language sometimes cannot be directly translated into a meaningful idea in another language because that language lacks that idea.
Some philosophers contend that an external reality exists independent of consciousness. This cannot be true if consciousness is the only known power that creates reality. However, a potential reality can exist outside of consciousness.
For example, take the basic reality and idea called "hardness." "Hardness" cannot be "hardness" until it becomes a "felt hardness." A "felt hardness" requires consciousness. An "unfelt hardness " falls back to the useless and unknown. As long as it remains useless and unknown, its existence equals its nonexistence. Its existence cannot be separated from its nonexistence. It is not real.
However, at some time in the future, an "unfelt hardness" may become a "felt hardness." Only at the moment that it becomes a "felt hardness" can it become real. This means that an "unfelt hardness" possesses the potentiality to become real even though its existence equals its nonexistence. An "unfelt hardness" that never becomes "felt" remains unreal forever.
For all these reasons, the unknown can never be real. Only the known can be real. This means that if our universe were an unknown universe before the emergence of man's consciousness, then man's consciousness could never have emerged because the equivalence of existence and nonexistence would have continuously vitiated all possible creativity. In other words, in the absence of consciousness, it is quite impossible for reality to emerge from unreality. This means that prior to man's existence, an Infinite Consciousness had to exist, and still exists, who has created all of reality.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
THE ONLY GOD a poem
I serve a God who answers prayer.
He really cares.
I serve a God who came down from above.
He is forever Love.
I serve a true God with a good news story.
He is filled with great glory.
I serve a God who is a huge, mighty tower.
He has infinite power.
I serve a God who was crucified and raised from the grave.
He is the only God who can save.
He really cares.
I serve a God who came down from above.
He is forever Love.
I serve a true God with a good news story.
He is filled with great glory.
I serve a God who is a huge, mighty tower.
He has infinite power.
I serve a God who was crucified and raised from the grave.
He is the only God who can save.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
A CRITICISM OF HUME
The philosopher David Hume maintained that man's mind can discover no absolutely certain knowledge except that which it receives from a continuous stream of sensory perception. According to him, neither cause and effect nor the inductive method of reasoning can produce certain knowledge because of mistaken reasoning and future changes. Hume even objected that the force of gravity could not be certain knowledge because it might change in the future.
Of course, Hume was right to maintain that people make mistakes and systems change. This fact is obvious. Nevertheless, he was wrong to assert that no certain knowledge can be derived from cause and effect and inductive systems. Hume's only real objection to certain knowledge rested on the finite mind of man, his propensity for faulty reasoning, and his inability to predict the future. However, man's faulty and finite mind does not preclude the fact that certain knowledge can be derived from cause and effect and inductive reasoning systems.
Take gravity for example. Sir Isaac Newton discovered the mathematical language that describes how gravity works. This mathematical system is exact, and if gravity were to change, then the mathematical system that describes it must also change. On the other hand, as long as the mathematical system that describes how gravity works remains exactly the same, then the force of gravity will work exactly the same way and vice versa. These two systems exactly match each other forever. This fact constitutes exact and eternal knowledge.
Going further, as Heraclitus pointed out, some systems change continuously, such as the weather. Yet, if anyone were smart enough to calculate the exact mathematical language that would describe the exact weather system that exists in every moment of earthly time, that person could easily predict every weather system for every moment as long as the earth lasts. Every weather system at every moment matches an exact mathematical language that describes the weather at that moment. These facts also constitute exact and eternal knowledge. Man's weak mind simply does not possess the requisite power to be able to discover all eternal and exact knowledge.
However, man's mind can know that exact and eternal knowledge exists even if he cannot know what it is. The basic principle of this knowledge is that every exact and unchanging system produces an exact and unchanging effect. Within themselves, systems and their effects never change, but from moment to moment any given system can change to another system. This means that man's mind can know that all processes of change involves a change from one exact system to another from moment to moment throughout the history of the earth.
Some systems, like gravity, change very slowly, if at all. Others, like the weather, change very quickly. Nevertheless, whether systems change to other systems slowly or quickly, every exact system and the mathematics that describes them never fails to produce exact and unchanging effects in every moment of time. Thus, any cause and effect system can absolutely be known for any moment and inductive reasoning simply reflects this fact.
For the above reasons, mathematics itself can be known to comprise an infinity of systems, each one of which produces an eternal and exact effect. 2+2=4 is an exact and eternal system producing an exact effect forever.
Man's finite mind can but know a small part of these exact and eternal systems. The entire history of mankind has been a process of discovering and inventing true and exact systems and discarding the false ones. Over the course of this history, man's knowledge has greatly increased, but man's limited knowledge still falls far short of the infinite knowledge that exists.
These conclusions raise other questions. Does anyone already know the infinity of true and exact systems that compose eternal knowledge? Does not the fact that eternal knowledge exists presuppose an Eternal Knower? When Isaac Newton discovered the mathematical systems that describe how gravity works, did they not exist before he found them? Since man is even now in the constant process of discovering new true and exact systems, does this not prove that many unknown true and eternal systems already exist which man is capable of discovering? God must exist and He knows the infinity of true and eternal systems.
Of course, Hume was right to maintain that people make mistakes and systems change. This fact is obvious. Nevertheless, he was wrong to assert that no certain knowledge can be derived from cause and effect and inductive systems. Hume's only real objection to certain knowledge rested on the finite mind of man, his propensity for faulty reasoning, and his inability to predict the future. However, man's faulty and finite mind does not preclude the fact that certain knowledge can be derived from cause and effect and inductive reasoning systems.
Take gravity for example. Sir Isaac Newton discovered the mathematical language that describes how gravity works. This mathematical system is exact, and if gravity were to change, then the mathematical system that describes it must also change. On the other hand, as long as the mathematical system that describes how gravity works remains exactly the same, then the force of gravity will work exactly the same way and vice versa. These two systems exactly match each other forever. This fact constitutes exact and eternal knowledge.
Going further, as Heraclitus pointed out, some systems change continuously, such as the weather. Yet, if anyone were smart enough to calculate the exact mathematical language that would describe the exact weather system that exists in every moment of earthly time, that person could easily predict every weather system for every moment as long as the earth lasts. Every weather system at every moment matches an exact mathematical language that describes the weather at that moment. These facts also constitute exact and eternal knowledge. Man's weak mind simply does not possess the requisite power to be able to discover all eternal and exact knowledge.
However, man's mind can know that exact and eternal knowledge exists even if he cannot know what it is. The basic principle of this knowledge is that every exact and unchanging system produces an exact and unchanging effect. Within themselves, systems and their effects never change, but from moment to moment any given system can change to another system. This means that man's mind can know that all processes of change involves a change from one exact system to another from moment to moment throughout the history of the earth.
Some systems, like gravity, change very slowly, if at all. Others, like the weather, change very quickly. Nevertheless, whether systems change to other systems slowly or quickly, every exact system and the mathematics that describes them never fails to produce exact and unchanging effects in every moment of time. Thus, any cause and effect system can absolutely be known for any moment and inductive reasoning simply reflects this fact.
For the above reasons, mathematics itself can be known to comprise an infinity of systems, each one of which produces an eternal and exact effect. 2+2=4 is an exact and eternal system producing an exact effect forever.
Man's finite mind can but know a small part of these exact and eternal systems. The entire history of mankind has been a process of discovering and inventing true and exact systems and discarding the false ones. Over the course of this history, man's knowledge has greatly increased, but man's limited knowledge still falls far short of the infinite knowledge that exists.
These conclusions raise other questions. Does anyone already know the infinity of true and exact systems that compose eternal knowledge? Does not the fact that eternal knowledge exists presuppose an Eternal Knower? When Isaac Newton discovered the mathematical systems that describe how gravity works, did they not exist before he found them? Since man is even now in the constant process of discovering new true and exact systems, does this not prove that many unknown true and eternal systems already exist which man is capable of discovering? God must exist and He knows the infinity of true and eternal systems.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
A CONVERSATION ABOUT REALITY AND UNREALITY
( Quotation marks are used to emphasize the mind's concentration on particular systems or basic elements.)
One day a man said to his friend: "I am moving away to another city, but one day I will see you again. I don't know where or when." The friend knows about his friend's promise to see him again, but all he knows about his system, "I know where or when," is that it is equal to "nothing." "Nothingness" blots out the knowledge of "when" and "where" in the mind of the friend being left. Therefore, as far as the "when" and "where" are concerned, the friend being left knows only "nothing."
This means that the friend being left is "not conscious" of the "when" and "where," but is only conscious of "the idea of nothing" which has blotted out this system. In addition, when a consciousness possesses only an "idea of nothing" about a particular narrow system such as, "I know when or where," then the "idea of nothing" has a backward effect on consciousness so that it has "no consciousness" of this system. This condition is true on a huge scale to the same extent that it is true on a narrow scale. That is, if a consciousness has "no consciousness" of a small system, then this condition is the same on a small scale as it would be if it were conscious of absolutely nothing. On a huge scale of nonconsciousness, there exists no consciousness of any system. The mind is in a brain-dead coma or actually dead.
Then, the friend who is moving asks the friend being left: "You have no consciousness of when or where you will see me again, do you?" His answer must be, "yes."
If this conversation were expanded to apply to our universe before man's consciousness existed, one should understand that in this nonconscious universe there could be no where or when. This universe could only be an absolute nothingness or chaos which exists nowhere and at no time. Absolutely nothing could happen in this nonconscious universe, not even the "idea of nothing."
The friend being left then says to his friend: "But I know I will see you again." His friend replies: "You know no such thing. You may believe or imagine that you will see me again, but for a host of reasons, you may never see me again." The friend being left then replies: "But I do know that you will know when and where you are." His friend responds: "You don't know that either. I may be dead tomorrow." His friend replies: "But even if you are dead, I know that your grave will have a when and where." His friend responds: "You will have no consciousness of that either unless someone tells you." His friend replies: "But even if you don't know when and where you are, and I don't know when and where you are; nevertheless, you must be somewhere and at some time." His friend responds: "But is it logical for you to assume that you and I can be conscious of the fact that you and I both can have no consciousness of when and where I am, but that something unknown can determine when and where I am?" His friend replies: "To be honest, no."
For these reasons, those who contend that our nonconscious universe could eventually produce life, can have no certain knowledge that this is true. This only happens in their imagined universe, and their imagined universe is a conscious one.
The upshot of these arguments is that our universe must have had a universal Consciousness that determined, and still determines, all of the "whens" and "wheres," as well as the creation of life, prior to the existence of man's finite consciousness.
One day a man said to his friend: "I am moving away to another city, but one day I will see you again. I don't know where or when." The friend knows about his friend's promise to see him again, but all he knows about his system, "I know where or when," is that it is equal to "nothing." "Nothingness" blots out the knowledge of "when" and "where" in the mind of the friend being left. Therefore, as far as the "when" and "where" are concerned, the friend being left knows only "nothing."
This means that the friend being left is "not conscious" of the "when" and "where," but is only conscious of "the idea of nothing" which has blotted out this system. In addition, when a consciousness possesses only an "idea of nothing" about a particular narrow system such as, "I know when or where," then the "idea of nothing" has a backward effect on consciousness so that it has "no consciousness" of this system. This condition is true on a huge scale to the same extent that it is true on a narrow scale. That is, if a consciousness has "no consciousness" of a small system, then this condition is the same on a small scale as it would be if it were conscious of absolutely nothing. On a huge scale of nonconsciousness, there exists no consciousness of any system. The mind is in a brain-dead coma or actually dead.
Then, the friend who is moving asks the friend being left: "You have no consciousness of when or where you will see me again, do you?" His answer must be, "yes."
If this conversation were expanded to apply to our universe before man's consciousness existed, one should understand that in this nonconscious universe there could be no where or when. This universe could only be an absolute nothingness or chaos which exists nowhere and at no time. Absolutely nothing could happen in this nonconscious universe, not even the "idea of nothing."
The friend being left then says to his friend: "But I know I will see you again." His friend replies: "You know no such thing. You may believe or imagine that you will see me again, but for a host of reasons, you may never see me again." The friend being left then replies: "But I do know that you will know when and where you are." His friend responds: "You don't know that either. I may be dead tomorrow." His friend replies: "But even if you are dead, I know that your grave will have a when and where." His friend responds: "You will have no consciousness of that either unless someone tells you." His friend replies: "But even if you don't know when and where you are, and I don't know when and where you are; nevertheless, you must be somewhere and at some time." His friend responds: "But is it logical for you to assume that you and I can be conscious of the fact that you and I both can have no consciousness of when and where I am, but that something unknown can determine when and where I am?" His friend replies: "To be honest, no."
For these reasons, those who contend that our nonconscious universe could eventually produce life, can have no certain knowledge that this is true. This only happens in their imagined universe, and their imagined universe is a conscious one.
The upshot of these arguments is that our universe must have had a universal Consciousness that determined, and still determines, all of the "whens" and "wheres," as well as the creation of life, prior to the existence of man's finite consciousness.
Friday, February 10, 2012
JOEY'S ESCAPE a short story
Granny Somer slowly pulled open her creaky front door. Her wrinkled face stared at us with an expression that seemed halfway between amusement and a scowl. She had combed her blue-gray hair into a tight bun, and tobacco juice dribbled from the corners of her pinched mouth.
"Good morning, Granny," Mother said cheerily. "Here's Joey and Sarah. I hate having to go back to work. I got some insurance money when their father was killed, but now it's running low. Anyway, I'll be back about five thirty."
Granny said nothing, nor did she change her expression.
Mother turned to us and pointed her finger. "Now, you two had better mind Granny or I'll have to spank you. Everyone knows her to be a good, Christian woman. Bye now."
We watched mother step quickly up the dirt path that led to the front gate. A high wooden fence surrounded Granny Somer's front and back yards.
Granny spat a stream of tobacco juice into the dirt yard and motioned us into her slightly lopsided, unpainted house with a quick jerk of her bony left hand. We stepped into a gloomy den so dark we could see nothing but the dusty tops of old furniture barely lit with yellow sunlight seeping through grimy shades. I felt a little nauseated from the stench of must and old grease.
We hesitated, but Granny pushed us through a short hall into her tiny kitchen. A little more light streamed through her dingy window here, so Sarah and I crawled onto two cracked chairs at her rickety table.
Granny slammed a black iron skillet onto her rusty old wood burner. Into this skillet, she dumped some greasy, left-over turnip greens and a couple of slices of dried cornbread. She heated this mixture for a few minutes, mashing it all together with a wooden spoon. Then, she slopped this soupy mess onto two chipped plates and threw them down in front of us.
She grunted but two words. "Lunch, eat."
I gagged on the cold slop. Sarah simply stared at hers.
Granny growled. "I guess I'll hav'ta feed you two like babies." She shoved a spoonful of the swill into Sarah's mouth. Sarah stiffened with fear and swallowed hard. Granny then fixed her squinty eyes on me. I thought about pleading for mercy, but I knew that in those cold eyes there was none.
My doom was sealed. "I'm really not hungry," I weakly warbled. Amazed at how strong sheer terror could make me, somehow, I got the stuff down.
When the sickening nightmare called lunch was finally over, Granny pushed us out into her bare front yard.
"Y'all play out here and keep quiet," she snapped. "It's time for my nap."
Granny kept chickens, so I saw only dirt, chickens and chicken litter. I shook my head and whined. "How are we going to play in this mess?"
"There's a pile of sand in that corner," Sarah said, "maybe we could make a sandcastle."
We began to dig into the moist sand with our hands, but soon we gagged on the foul smell of some gooey lumps that kept sticking to our fingers. "Stop, Sarah!" I yelled. "It's full of chicken litter. We need to go into the house and wash our hands."
We pounded on the door for a long time, but Granny never answered. Tiring, we plopped onto the edge of the sagging porch. I dangled my hands over my knees. "I guess we'll just have to sit here with nasty hands," I groaned.
We sat for what seemed an eternity, just staring at the ground. Finally, I got an idea. "Let's go see what's around back," I suggested.
We strolled around the small house. We saw nothing there but more dirt and chickens.
Then suddenly, our ears were struck with a strange sound like the mixture of a creaking door and a high-pitched groan. "Ba-a-a!" was what we heard.
The ground sloped away at the back of Granny's house, leaving room for a small wire pen underneath it. Over the top of the wire, a gaunt, long-faced creature with horns and whiskers stared back at us. "It's a goat!" Sarah exclaimed.
"Ba-a-a," the goat sounded again.
We gazed at the goat. The goat eyeballed us with marked indifference.
"Look," Sarah said, "the goat is chewing something. What is he chewing?"
I knew the goat was chewing his cud, but just to tease Sarah I said, "maybe he is chewing chewing gum."
Sarah's face lit up with that idea. "Wow!" she gushed. "I didn't know goats chewed chewing gum."
I rolled my eyes. I should have told her the truth, but I was just happy that her amusement had lightened an otherwise heavy day.
Sarah enjoyed watching the dumb goat chew his gum, but I soon tired of him. I wandered back and sat on the edge of the front porch again.
Soon, Sarah joined me. We studied the shifting shadow patterns that sunlight cast through overhead leaves onto the ground. We yawned at the sleepy drone of a nearby bumblebee.
At Sarah's suggestions, we went to see the goat three more times. Finally, Sarah looked at me and groaned. "Ya know, this is gettin' kinda boring."
"No kidding," I murmured, in keeping with my mood of being nearly brain dead.
Then without warning, a big, red rooster who had been strutting around the yard, flew at Sarah, flapping his wings and clawing at her with his fast talons. Sarah screamed and crawled quickly toward the wall. Putting her hands over her face, she pulled her knees to her chin, crying and trembling.
As Sarah moved back, I threw myself between her and the rooster. It continued its attack, scratching at me. I yelled and also retreated. I collapsed in front of Sarah, both of us sobbing and wailing.
Thankfully, the bully ceased and started strutting again. Our hope that this torture was over was short-lived. The beast attacked again. I shut my eyes and threw my arms around Sarah. We could do nothing but scream and cry.
When the brute began strutting again, I lept to the door, banging wildly. "Granny! Please! Help!" I cried. "Let us in." Granny didn't answer or come.
The fiend quickened his strut. He had done this just before his second attack. I knew that another one was coming. What am I going to do? I thought. I prayed to the Lord for help.
I closely watched his every move. His strut seemed like bragging to me. So, you're proud of yourself for scaring the life out of us, are you, I thought. Well, I'll show you , you little---. Because of his bragging and from sheer desperation, a slow rage began to boil inside of me. Fortunately, I found a sawed-off piece of a broom handle lying against the wall. I grabbed it, clenched my teeth, and waited.
When the expected assault came, I swung the broom handle hard, whacking the mauler squarely against the side of its head. It crumpled into a pile, barely twitching its wings. I've killed it, I thought.
However, in a minute, the monster staggered to his feet. It reeled off through the yard like a drunk man, throwing out a wing now and then to regain its balance. Sarah and I began to giggle at this silly bird, and also from sheer relief.
Then, the front door creaked open, and Granny Somer poked out her scowling face. "Don't you be a'hittin my chickens," she barked. We blinked as she slammed the door.
"Strange," I said to Sarah. "She could hear me hit her chicken, but she couldn't hear me banging on the door." Sarah just laughed through her tears and swallowed me in a big bear hug.
Eventually, the rooster wandered into the backyard and did nothing but stare at a hole in the ground.
I held Sarah for a long time until she finally calmed down. Then, I began to feel so weary inside that I knew that I could not stay there one minute longer. I had to run away. "Sarah," I said, stroking her brown hair, "let's run away. We'll walk home."
"We can't do that," she whined. We'll get into trouble."
"I don't care," I retorted. "I'm leaving."
"But the gate is high and latched on the outside," she answered. "You can't get out."
"I'll find a way to get out," I replied.
I walked to the gate and inspected it. If only I could get high enough to reach over, I might be able to unlatch it, I thought. I looked around but found nothing that would help me. I went to the back yard, and under Granny's house, I found an old, rusty washtub.
Standing on the tub, I could barely stretch my hand over the top of the gate, so I couldn't reach the latch. On tiptoes, I still couldn't reach it. Then, using both hands, I pulled myself up until my chin reached the top of the gate. Holding myself with my left hand, I reached over with my right hand and released the latch.
I started through the gate, but Sarah grabbed my arm. "Please don't go," she pleaded. "Mama will spank you. Besides, what if that rooster should come back."
I cradled her dirty, little face in my grimy hands. "Getting out of here is worth getting a spanking. And don't worry about that rooster. I think he's pretty much out of it."
Never in my life had I felt such a sense of joy and freedom as when I cleared that gate. I ran the two blocks to home. I climbed the China berry tree in my yard, and played pirate in the crow's nest of a tall-masted ship. I waded in the bubbling creek below the house and caught crayfish. I lay in the sun and daydreamed.
Later, after Mother had come home, I sat on my bed in my room where she had banished me, waiting to get my spanking.
Mother came in with the paddle in her hand. She looked tired and worried. Then unexpectedly, she tossed the paddle onto the bed and plopped down beside me. "Sarah told me about the rooster. I'm proud of you. I can't understand why Granny wouldn't let you in. I'll find another babysitter."
Then, equally unexpectedly, she suddenly jerked and ignited. "Still, I ought to spank you. Joey you know how scared I've been since your daddy didn't come home from the war. What if you should get hurt, and I'm not there to help you?"
I hung my head. "I'm sorry Mama. I promise I'll never run away again." I peeked up at her hazel, sparkling eyes.
She pulled my head against her shoulder, leaned her cheek against the top of my head, and stroked my unkempt, blond hair with her tender hand. "It's all right, my son," she said softly, choking back tears. "It's all right."
"Good morning, Granny," Mother said cheerily. "Here's Joey and Sarah. I hate having to go back to work. I got some insurance money when their father was killed, but now it's running low. Anyway, I'll be back about five thirty."
Granny said nothing, nor did she change her expression.
Mother turned to us and pointed her finger. "Now, you two had better mind Granny or I'll have to spank you. Everyone knows her to be a good, Christian woman. Bye now."
We watched mother step quickly up the dirt path that led to the front gate. A high wooden fence surrounded Granny Somer's front and back yards.
Granny spat a stream of tobacco juice into the dirt yard and motioned us into her slightly lopsided, unpainted house with a quick jerk of her bony left hand. We stepped into a gloomy den so dark we could see nothing but the dusty tops of old furniture barely lit with yellow sunlight seeping through grimy shades. I felt a little nauseated from the stench of must and old grease.
We hesitated, but Granny pushed us through a short hall into her tiny kitchen. A little more light streamed through her dingy window here, so Sarah and I crawled onto two cracked chairs at her rickety table.
Granny slammed a black iron skillet onto her rusty old wood burner. Into this skillet, she dumped some greasy, left-over turnip greens and a couple of slices of dried cornbread. She heated this mixture for a few minutes, mashing it all together with a wooden spoon. Then, she slopped this soupy mess onto two chipped plates and threw them down in front of us.
She grunted but two words. "Lunch, eat."
I gagged on the cold slop. Sarah simply stared at hers.
Granny growled. "I guess I'll hav'ta feed you two like babies." She shoved a spoonful of the swill into Sarah's mouth. Sarah stiffened with fear and swallowed hard. Granny then fixed her squinty eyes on me. I thought about pleading for mercy, but I knew that in those cold eyes there was none.
My doom was sealed. "I'm really not hungry," I weakly warbled. Amazed at how strong sheer terror could make me, somehow, I got the stuff down.
When the sickening nightmare called lunch was finally over, Granny pushed us out into her bare front yard.
"Y'all play out here and keep quiet," she snapped. "It's time for my nap."
Granny kept chickens, so I saw only dirt, chickens and chicken litter. I shook my head and whined. "How are we going to play in this mess?"
"There's a pile of sand in that corner," Sarah said, "maybe we could make a sandcastle."
We began to dig into the moist sand with our hands, but soon we gagged on the foul smell of some gooey lumps that kept sticking to our fingers. "Stop, Sarah!" I yelled. "It's full of chicken litter. We need to go into the house and wash our hands."
We pounded on the door for a long time, but Granny never answered. Tiring, we plopped onto the edge of the sagging porch. I dangled my hands over my knees. "I guess we'll just have to sit here with nasty hands," I groaned.
We sat for what seemed an eternity, just staring at the ground. Finally, I got an idea. "Let's go see what's around back," I suggested.
We strolled around the small house. We saw nothing there but more dirt and chickens.
Then suddenly, our ears were struck with a strange sound like the mixture of a creaking door and a high-pitched groan. "Ba-a-a!" was what we heard.
The ground sloped away at the back of Granny's house, leaving room for a small wire pen underneath it. Over the top of the wire, a gaunt, long-faced creature with horns and whiskers stared back at us. "It's a goat!" Sarah exclaimed.
"Ba-a-a," the goat sounded again.
We gazed at the goat. The goat eyeballed us with marked indifference.
"Look," Sarah said, "the goat is chewing something. What is he chewing?"
I knew the goat was chewing his cud, but just to tease Sarah I said, "maybe he is chewing chewing gum."
Sarah's face lit up with that idea. "Wow!" she gushed. "I didn't know goats chewed chewing gum."
I rolled my eyes. I should have told her the truth, but I was just happy that her amusement had lightened an otherwise heavy day.
Sarah enjoyed watching the dumb goat chew his gum, but I soon tired of him. I wandered back and sat on the edge of the front porch again.
Soon, Sarah joined me. We studied the shifting shadow patterns that sunlight cast through overhead leaves onto the ground. We yawned at the sleepy drone of a nearby bumblebee.
At Sarah's suggestions, we went to see the goat three more times. Finally, Sarah looked at me and groaned. "Ya know, this is gettin' kinda boring."
"No kidding," I murmured, in keeping with my mood of being nearly brain dead.
Then without warning, a big, red rooster who had been strutting around the yard, flew at Sarah, flapping his wings and clawing at her with his fast talons. Sarah screamed and crawled quickly toward the wall. Putting her hands over her face, she pulled her knees to her chin, crying and trembling.
As Sarah moved back, I threw myself between her and the rooster. It continued its attack, scratching at me. I yelled and also retreated. I collapsed in front of Sarah, both of us sobbing and wailing.
Thankfully, the bully ceased and started strutting again. Our hope that this torture was over was short-lived. The beast attacked again. I shut my eyes and threw my arms around Sarah. We could do nothing but scream and cry.
When the brute began strutting again, I lept to the door, banging wildly. "Granny! Please! Help!" I cried. "Let us in." Granny didn't answer or come.
The fiend quickened his strut. He had done this just before his second attack. I knew that another one was coming. What am I going to do? I thought. I prayed to the Lord for help.
I closely watched his every move. His strut seemed like bragging to me. So, you're proud of yourself for scaring the life out of us, are you, I thought. Well, I'll show you , you little---. Because of his bragging and from sheer desperation, a slow rage began to boil inside of me. Fortunately, I found a sawed-off piece of a broom handle lying against the wall. I grabbed it, clenched my teeth, and waited.
When the expected assault came, I swung the broom handle hard, whacking the mauler squarely against the side of its head. It crumpled into a pile, barely twitching its wings. I've killed it, I thought.
However, in a minute, the monster staggered to his feet. It reeled off through the yard like a drunk man, throwing out a wing now and then to regain its balance. Sarah and I began to giggle at this silly bird, and also from sheer relief.
Then, the front door creaked open, and Granny Somer poked out her scowling face. "Don't you be a'hittin my chickens," she barked. We blinked as she slammed the door.
"Strange," I said to Sarah. "She could hear me hit her chicken, but she couldn't hear me banging on the door." Sarah just laughed through her tears and swallowed me in a big bear hug.
Eventually, the rooster wandered into the backyard and did nothing but stare at a hole in the ground.
I held Sarah for a long time until she finally calmed down. Then, I began to feel so weary inside that I knew that I could not stay there one minute longer. I had to run away. "Sarah," I said, stroking her brown hair, "let's run away. We'll walk home."
"We can't do that," she whined. We'll get into trouble."
"I don't care," I retorted. "I'm leaving."
"But the gate is high and latched on the outside," she answered. "You can't get out."
"I'll find a way to get out," I replied.
I walked to the gate and inspected it. If only I could get high enough to reach over, I might be able to unlatch it, I thought. I looked around but found nothing that would help me. I went to the back yard, and under Granny's house, I found an old, rusty washtub.
Standing on the tub, I could barely stretch my hand over the top of the gate, so I couldn't reach the latch. On tiptoes, I still couldn't reach it. Then, using both hands, I pulled myself up until my chin reached the top of the gate. Holding myself with my left hand, I reached over with my right hand and released the latch.
I started through the gate, but Sarah grabbed my arm. "Please don't go," she pleaded. "Mama will spank you. Besides, what if that rooster should come back."
I cradled her dirty, little face in my grimy hands. "Getting out of here is worth getting a spanking. And don't worry about that rooster. I think he's pretty much out of it."
Never in my life had I felt such a sense of joy and freedom as when I cleared that gate. I ran the two blocks to home. I climbed the China berry tree in my yard, and played pirate in the crow's nest of a tall-masted ship. I waded in the bubbling creek below the house and caught crayfish. I lay in the sun and daydreamed.
Later, after Mother had come home, I sat on my bed in my room where she had banished me, waiting to get my spanking.
Mother came in with the paddle in her hand. She looked tired and worried. Then unexpectedly, she tossed the paddle onto the bed and plopped down beside me. "Sarah told me about the rooster. I'm proud of you. I can't understand why Granny wouldn't let you in. I'll find another babysitter."
Then, equally unexpectedly, she suddenly jerked and ignited. "Still, I ought to spank you. Joey you know how scared I've been since your daddy didn't come home from the war. What if you should get hurt, and I'm not there to help you?"
I hung my head. "I'm sorry Mama. I promise I'll never run away again." I peeked up at her hazel, sparkling eyes.
She pulled my head against her shoulder, leaned her cheek against the top of my head, and stroked my unkempt, blond hair with her tender hand. "It's all right, my son," she said softly, choking back tears. "It's all right."
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
THE DOUBLE NEGATIVE and REALITY
(* Quotation marks have been used to indicate a strict and isolated "mind to object" relationship whether solely within the imagination or coming into the mind through sensory perception.)
Mark 4:22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. KJV
Some philosophers contend that they do not know what he word "thing" means. They should have no problem with the meaning of "thing" if they would realize that it refers to any individual appearance to consciousness whether restricted to the imagination or coming into the mind through sensory perception. There are basic "things" such as "red" or "hard," and then there are combinations of "things" such as "man" or "machine."
When one observes appearances, one notices that all "things" are separated by "nothing." Reality consists of something and nothing blended together. In addition, each thing can be recognized as an individual "thing" because the mind realizes that it is "not" anything else. This means that the "not" can never diminish the "thing" nor can the "thing" ever blot out the "not." They co-exist together.
However, the mind does hold the power to isolate individual "things" by considering all other "things" to be equal to "nothing" so that the individual "thing" can be recognized and named. The "nothingness" thus used by the mind never diminishes the reality of the other things since each one of them can also be isolated by the use of "nothing." The mind simply temporarily considers all other "things" to be equal to "nothing" so that the isolated "thing" can be recognized as such. This shows that the mind also holds the additional power to form combinations of "things" in the world or in the imagination and add or subtract "things" to or from these combinations by the use of a "nothing."
When one considers Jesus' statement in Mark 4:22, one understands that the mind can use two "nots" to consider each other cancelled so that a particular combination can be isolated as having a real meaning. If the "nots" cancel the statement, it can have no meaning. When the "nots" cancel each other, then Jesus' combination reads: " For then is (no)thing hid, which shall (not) be manifested,....." which constitutes the exact meaning of Jesus' statement.
The fact that our minds readily and easily understand what Jesus meant, even with the "nots" included, demonstrates that the mind possesses an "idea of nothing" that is useful, and therefore, real to the mind. If both the "idea of nothing" and "things" prove useful to the mind in order to isolate that which is real, then evidently the mind has been geared to recognize only that which is real.
However, if everything is real, then how can anything be false? We know that a real falsity exists in the world. Where is it?
Consider Jesus' statement again. Jesus' statement is a combination of real "things" called ideas and His statement means that at the end of time all "things" that people believe they have forever hidden; God will manifest them and judge the people by them. If this actually happens at the end of time, then Jesus' statement consists of a true and real combination of real ideas.
On the other hand, if God does not reveal all hidden secrets at the end of time, then Jesus' combination of real ideas, taken as a whole, will prove false, and therefore, not real. Jesus' statement will prove unreal even though each individual "thing" in the combination, including the "idea of nothing," must be real in isolation. Of course, all true Christians believe that all of Jesus' statements are true and real.
At the end of time on judgment day, Jesus' statement will prove either true or false, either real or unreal. In other words, His prophecy will actually happen or it will come to nothing. This shows that the real ideas of "nothing" and "falsity" are equal. One can use the idea of nothing to recognize falsity. In fact, this is the only way that falsity can be recognized. But if both "falsity" and "nothing" are real, where is the "not real?" If the mind is geared to know only the real, where is the "not real?"
When one considers the combination of real ideas called the "not real," one realizes that this combination means that the mind has temporarily considered all that is real to be equal to nothing; that is, that all appearances have disappeared. In this case, all that can be left is the "idea of nothing". But if the " idea of nothing" can only be real in combination with "something," then what can this "nothing" be? Apparently, or actually not apparently, this "nothingness" can only be a kind of "nothingness" which can never appear, even as an idea. Unreality must be an absolute nothingness or chaos which never appears to the mind. The mind can only indirectly recognize unreality by using real ideas that indicate it such as "nothing" or "falsity."
The entire history of the human race consists of a process by which the real is continuously being separated from the unreal. Man constantly observes or invents combinations of real "things." If such combinations prove useful and true, then these combinations are real. If other combinations prove useless and false, then these combinations are unreal even though the "things" that compose them are always real. Even "nothingness" and "falsity" are useful and real ideas because by means of these ideas the mind identifies useless and false combinations which then can be usefully discarded. Man uses many systems; such as in religion, philosophy, government and law, science and technology, as well as in a study of history itself, in order to observe or invent combinations of real ideas that, in time, either prove to be useful and true or produce nothing and prove false. Yet, even the real ideas of "nothing" and "falsity" are useful because they indicate those useless combinations which should be usefully discarded. However, unreality itself is an absolute nothingness which never appears.
At the end of time, God will reveal absolutely everything that is real and all of man's lost reality will be recovered. All that is unreal will be left far behind and will forever be subject to absolute nothingness.
Mark 4:22 For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. KJV
Some philosophers contend that they do not know what he word "thing" means. They should have no problem with the meaning of "thing" if they would realize that it refers to any individual appearance to consciousness whether restricted to the imagination or coming into the mind through sensory perception. There are basic "things" such as "red" or "hard," and then there are combinations of "things" such as "man" or "machine."
When one observes appearances, one notices that all "things" are separated by "nothing." Reality consists of something and nothing blended together. In addition, each thing can be recognized as an individual "thing" because the mind realizes that it is "not" anything else. This means that the "not" can never diminish the "thing" nor can the "thing" ever blot out the "not." They co-exist together.
However, the mind does hold the power to isolate individual "things" by considering all other "things" to be equal to "nothing" so that the individual "thing" can be recognized and named. The "nothingness" thus used by the mind never diminishes the reality of the other things since each one of them can also be isolated by the use of "nothing." The mind simply temporarily considers all other "things" to be equal to "nothing" so that the isolated "thing" can be recognized as such. This shows that the mind also holds the additional power to form combinations of "things" in the world or in the imagination and add or subtract "things" to or from these combinations by the use of a "nothing."
When one considers Jesus' statement in Mark 4:22, one understands that the mind can use two "nots" to consider each other cancelled so that a particular combination can be isolated as having a real meaning. If the "nots" cancel the statement, it can have no meaning. When the "nots" cancel each other, then Jesus' combination reads: " For then is (no)thing hid, which shall (not) be manifested,....." which constitutes the exact meaning of Jesus' statement.
The fact that our minds readily and easily understand what Jesus meant, even with the "nots" included, demonstrates that the mind possesses an "idea of nothing" that is useful, and therefore, real to the mind. If both the "idea of nothing" and "things" prove useful to the mind in order to isolate that which is real, then evidently the mind has been geared to recognize only that which is real.
However, if everything is real, then how can anything be false? We know that a real falsity exists in the world. Where is it?
Consider Jesus' statement again. Jesus' statement is a combination of real "things" called ideas and His statement means that at the end of time all "things" that people believe they have forever hidden; God will manifest them and judge the people by them. If this actually happens at the end of time, then Jesus' statement consists of a true and real combination of real ideas.
On the other hand, if God does not reveal all hidden secrets at the end of time, then Jesus' combination of real ideas, taken as a whole, will prove false, and therefore, not real. Jesus' statement will prove unreal even though each individual "thing" in the combination, including the "idea of nothing," must be real in isolation. Of course, all true Christians believe that all of Jesus' statements are true and real.
At the end of time on judgment day, Jesus' statement will prove either true or false, either real or unreal. In other words, His prophecy will actually happen or it will come to nothing. This shows that the real ideas of "nothing" and "falsity" are equal. One can use the idea of nothing to recognize falsity. In fact, this is the only way that falsity can be recognized. But if both "falsity" and "nothing" are real, where is the "not real?" If the mind is geared to know only the real, where is the "not real?"
When one considers the combination of real ideas called the "not real," one realizes that this combination means that the mind has temporarily considered all that is real to be equal to nothing; that is, that all appearances have disappeared. In this case, all that can be left is the "idea of nothing". But if the " idea of nothing" can only be real in combination with "something," then what can this "nothing" be? Apparently, or actually not apparently, this "nothingness" can only be a kind of "nothingness" which can never appear, even as an idea. Unreality must be an absolute nothingness or chaos which never appears to the mind. The mind can only indirectly recognize unreality by using real ideas that indicate it such as "nothing" or "falsity."
The entire history of the human race consists of a process by which the real is continuously being separated from the unreal. Man constantly observes or invents combinations of real "things." If such combinations prove useful and true, then these combinations are real. If other combinations prove useless and false, then these combinations are unreal even though the "things" that compose them are always real. Even "nothingness" and "falsity" are useful and real ideas because by means of these ideas the mind identifies useless and false combinations which then can be usefully discarded. Man uses many systems; such as in religion, philosophy, government and law, science and technology, as well as in a study of history itself, in order to observe or invent combinations of real ideas that, in time, either prove to be useful and true or produce nothing and prove false. Yet, even the real ideas of "nothing" and "falsity" are useful because they indicate those useless combinations which should be usefully discarded. However, unreality itself is an absolute nothingness which never appears.
At the end of time, God will reveal absolutely everything that is real and all of man's lost reality will be recovered. All that is unreal will be left far behind and will forever be subject to absolute nothingness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)