Signs of Creationism vs. Atheism

As you, the reader can tell, I am touching on a very sensitive subject.  I may put my personal beliefs into this post, but I am not here to pose my belief and painstakingly defend them.  I actually have participated on numerous online debates, and actually, they were very informative.  Not on the actual arguments, but on the argument itself.  I believe at the very core of this debate, can be broken up from coincidence.  I am quoting from the movie Signs:

People break down into two groups when they experience something lucky.  Group number 1, sees it as more than luck, more than coincidence, a sign, evidence, that there is someone out there watching over them.  Group number 2, sees it as just pure luck, a happy turn of chance, sure there are people in group number 2 are looking at those 14 lights in a very suspicious way – for them this situation isn’t just 50/50.  It could be bad, it could be good.   But deep down, they feel that whatever happens they are on their own, and that, fills them with fear.

There’s a whole lot of people in group number 1.  When they see those 14 lights, they see a miracle.  And deep down they feel that whatever is going to happen, there’s going to be someone there to help them, and that fills them with hope.  You have to ask yourself, what kind of person are you?

Are you the kind that sees signs, sees miracles?  Or do you believe that people just get lucky?  Or, is it possible that there are no coincidences?

And guess what the movie title is?  It is Signs.  So the movie is making a statement that there is no coincidence, that there is some forces that watch over us.  It’s a good movie, and very thought provoking, with some constant humor that will make you chuckle.  It’s a good watch.

But what I really wanted to say, is I started a huge debate online with creationism vs. atheism, and I opened with an alternative to what Mel Gibson said.  I started with a word, that I think is the correct word, however it really ticks off atheists, and that’s the word “faith.”  Simply put, I said that in whether or not you believe in a God or not, both outcomes practice faith.  That fueled the fire, but at the very end, where they stopped responding, was when I started being more specific with what I said at the beginning.  I started talking about coincidence, and how for some people, there is never a coincidence, while others there is just coincidence.  And that is what sealed it.  We argued aspects of the big bang, the cosmos, physics, mathematics, biology, what have you.  It all doesn’t matter.  What matters is if you believe in coincidence, or do you believe if there is something more?  So what did I learn?  The Creationism vs. Atheism debate fundamentally is a philosophical debate, rather than the debate on interpretation of various facts that humanity has found.

  • Faith –>  belief that is not based on proof.
  • Belief –>  confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.


  • Do you believe in coincidence, or do you believe there is no coincidence?
  • Do you have faith in coincidence, or do you have faith that there is no coincidence?

All I did was change the word and they were okay with it.  But they literally mean the same thing in this context.

There is something I wanted to explore.  Let’s assume the entirety of Mel Gibson’s analysis.  People that just believe in luck, know that they are alone, and so they have fear.  People that believe in something more than just luck, they are filled with hope.  What would be the implications that this is the case?

The first thing that comes to mind is the life cycle of empires.  In Sir John Glubb’s essay, The Fate of Empires, he talks about societies that do not believe in a God or Gods.  Which means, that according to this analysis, many people were in the state of fear.  And in this state, it makes us make decisions and do actions that would be different if we were not scared.  Now when looking at that work, there is no doubt that the US is in the Age of Decadence.  Which means, there is an increasing amount of people that are not God fearing people, which means they are scared.  Look at our society?  Fear begets fear.  It seems like it’s a snowball effect.  The media pumps out fear, and we like it because we are scared.  I’m not really sure as to why that is.  Why is it, that when I am scared, I enjoy watching things that make me scared?  I just know from personal experience, with me as well as other loved ones – they were scared, and they expose themselves to fearful stuff.  I do not necessarily understand the psychology of that to be honest.  But it also makes me wonder, what kind of society would we be if we were not scared?  What policies would we put into place?

Personally, I do believe in a God and a spiritual realm, but I have problems with particular views, however I haven’t really put in the effort to resolve these problems in either outcome.  But I feel that’s where a lot of people lye.  They are spiritual, but they do not put effort into that spirituality.

In any case, that one scene in this entire movie, encapsulated what I have learned is the core philosophical argument with the creationism vs. atheism debate.  If someone, on a philosophical level, can refute one side and prove the other, I would argue it would be for sure the best philosophical find ever, and one of the biggest intellectual leaps humanity will have ever done.

Thanks for reading!  Post comments!




The Possible Decrease of Poverty

There are many solutions to a problem.  It just it seems to me that my idea seems sound, not just by me being biased that it is me, but I see the evidence of it around me where I live.  Poverty is a problem, and when people are faced with survival, they will break the law in order to get the things they need in order to survive.  This is not the case with all crime, but a large portion, it is the case.  I firmly believe that with the money that this country has, there should absolutely be no person living on the streets.  Not only should one consider the entire budget of The United States, but consider as well the printing power that this country has.  People don’t like the idea of paying for someone else to live; they would rather have their tax money go towards other things, especially considering how little reading people do on poverty.  People figure that you can just take things into your own hands, and just get out of poverty.  Since the majority of people in poverty stay in poverty, they are perceived to deserve to be there because they do not have the ability to get out.  The whole premise of our economy, our philosophy of it, is that people with more ability should be paid more.  So if people don’t have the ability to get out of poverty, then they should stay there.

But I just argue it is the decent thing to do, and we have the money to do it.  People don’t trust the government, as they should, but I think this would be a key point to use the power of the government.  Church’s do wonderful work, but they don’t have the capital to do what I am proposing needs to be done.  Private charities I just do not trust for the life of me.  The profit incentive is just too much with those organizations, and exploit their message to make more money for themselves at the expense of the people they were paid to help.  This is why I think the government is the only entity that can really pull this off on a national level.

I have found a basic relationship where I live.  There are extremes in income levels throughout the city and county.  What I have found, is that the neighborhoods seem to be in conditions accordance with different schools, and the better the schools create better neighborhoods.  It’s a symbiotic relationship.  Meaning, both entities influence one another in either a positive or negative way.  Considering that most schools, not all, are funded by property taxes, it makes sense that better schools create better neighborhoods and vise versa.  However, it is in my belief, that with this system comes a feedback loop in either the positive or negative way.

In regards to a positive feedback loop, good academic performance creates good test scores, good funding, and good advertisement for the school.  It puts the district or neighborhood in demand.  Raising prices, which increases funding for the school.  There is even a district where I live, that actually volunteered to raise prices for the school district.  The community recognizes the strength of education, and wants good education for their families.

On the negative side of things, poor test scores or academic performance, lowers the demand of the district in general.  This decreases the price of the real estate in the area.  With less money being funded to the schools, cuts have to be made, making learning conditions worse for the students, increasing the likelihood of poor test scores.  This makes property values go down, which further impacts the school.

There are other variables that impact property values.  The big one for me that comes to mind is crime.  The problem is crime would be alleviated if people were more educated, because they would decrease some if not most of poverty, by creating people that can land higher paying jobs, which again would decrease crime.  It’s all interconnected.

In short, by increasing the quality of education in all areas, people would be prepared to not only make better decisions, but to go to college, get a degree, and land a higher paying job.  This would create better communities to be apart of.

What is this idea?

It’s really basic.  I think what makes the most sense, if you the reader, were to read my posts on government debt, to print the money required to fund schools in need, and schools that are the center of poverty.  The funds would initially be used to modernize the facilities of the school.  Good electrical, plumping, good gyms, technological science labs, I mean the works.  There would also be money allocated, to hire better quality teachers.  Hopefully there would be enough funds available, to try and keep class size low.  With better facilities, and better teaching staff, it is up to the staff to provide favorable test scores.  I will note, that I think it would be better to teach multiple subjects, rather than just a test.  If you were to teach the kids well, the ACT or SAT would be just another test to study for.  To take the entire year to teach this test, you rob the student’s potential of learning important aspects of our world and society.

Tax payers are going to want the money to be paid back.  Essentially the school should be run like a business.  If a teacher is under performing, make warnings, but then don’t be afraid to fire.  All expenses, including the salaries of administration, should be termed “expenses.”  The profits are then sent back to the government to be paid back in full over time.  The incentive to pay back the government at a decent rate, is to have that money paid back into the school.  Once the government is paid back, (yes there will be instances where schools will fail and should be learned from) the government can take a database of statistics on the program, and ultimately can be used to learn how to attack the issue of poverty further.

It’s a really basic idea, founded upon a basic relationship I have found in my community.  At the very least, I would hope this idea could start a conversation on how to infuse government capital into education.  We spend trillions of dollars for wars, yet we refuse to educate our own people.  And honestly, I think that it is intentional.  As a Rockefellar was caught saying, “I want a nation of workers, not thinkers.”

The only thing we can really do, is express our voice to the people in power.  Honestly, I have lost hope there, but I am going to write to my representatives about this issue.  Ultimately I think what gets a voice in Washington is money, but at least I will have the ease of mind knowing I did what I could to bring an idea that I have to fruition for America.

The Book of Eli Analysis

This is an older movie so I am not too stressed out about spoiling the movie. I did want to take the time to dive into what the movie was trying to say, and at one point the writers view is the core message of The Bible. I don’t think I am even going to take time to summarize the movie.

Eli you learn later is blind. “I see by faith, not by sight,” he is quoted to saying, and he literally can see from faith. He wears sunglasses not to protect his eyes from the sun, but to not show people that he is blind. He has been given special privileges from God so to speak. He took on a task that has taken him over 30 years, surviving off of a wasteland. It isn’t just the surviving from the elements, but from gun fire. The first gun fire scene Eli was literally standing with no cover, and the audience hears bullets flying by. This maybe typical in other Hollywood movies, but this one had a purpose. It was showing that God was protecting him on a more literal level. Not to mention when he gets shot, and somehow by God’s plans, a friend comes and helps save his life.

He takes life and he hates taking it. Probably the coolest action scene is towards the beginning of the movie. He uses his blade. And after he was done protecting himself, he slams his blade with disgust. It’s to show that he follows what he reads. He knows it was to protect himself, but he hates taking the life of another.

What made the movie more interesting was the stance of the antagonist. He wanted to use The Bible as a means of power. By using their faith, they could be more righteous by building more towns, or something to that effect. He wanted to use faith as a means of expanding his power, of having his people follow him. By slanting the word of God, he could control his uneducated citizenship into doing things mainly for himself. I feel considering the statements made in his movie, the writing are showing not only what was done in the past with God, but also what should be done instead.

When I think about religion being used as a means of power, I automatically think of The Crusades and The Inquisition. As I understand it, by using what the bible says about bringing Christianity to all parts of the Earth for the second coming, this justified eliminating or saving the heathens. This created more conquest, and therefore more power. Depending on how you worship Christianity, there are some denominations that have you pay money to help loved ones pass into the after life – in the olden days, you had to pay the priest in order for your prayer to be heard by God. The Inquisition brought fear to the church, a fear that was used as a means of power. You fear the church, you do as the church says. These were once dire moments of our history, but people of God have evolved so to speak. Now through the Christian faith, there are different flavors of worship, but I believe what The Book of Eli said as to the main message of The Bible, is basic but very true.

Keep in mind Eli has been reading this book (it’s in braille) every night for 30 years. He is asked by his friend, the one who saved his life, indirectly, “what did you learn from this book?” Keep in mind she has no concept of God, of Jesus, or Creation, I mean anything. It’s the last Bible on the planet. Eli said, “Do onto others you’d want to do onto you.” The Golden Rule basically. This message is shown through love and caring throughout the entire Bible. I would argue that at some points the love is hard to see – however especially in The New Testament, love is a theme found throughout the book.

On this issue of spirituality, and faith, I think there comes to be two kinds of people that approach this phenomenon on whether or not to worship a certain religion. The first kind, take a leap of faith and believe in that God, to later find the evidence for that religion. The second, are people that require proof in order to worship whatever said God. The main difference that I can see, is for one the second group have to put forth loads more amount of effort to even come to a decision. The first group is able to put their belief into something and not require proof. This is admirable, but did they make the right decision? Only faith will tell.

Eli basically said if you were to remove knowledge of all the various characters of The Bible, and all the various stories, that the main message is the golden rule. Imagine, as John Lennon would say, what our society would be like if we treated others as we would like to be treated. It’s really difficult to be that way in our current society, with how people are vultures with our money. As they should be, because it seems if there is a financial incentive to do something, regardless of the ethics involved, you do it. As I have said before, our society is individualism. You could expand individualism to units of people, like your immediate family and friends. It’s okay to look out for the ones you love, but it is not okay to do that at the expense of others livelihood. People have forgotten that, people have forgotten the message of Eli. I wouldn’t be so against capitalism if it didn’t corrode the souls of so many people that partake in it. We seem to be taught the golden rule, but we refuse to execute that into our lives. Admittedly, that is the hard part. It is much easier to learn of a concept, rather than to incorporate that change into your life. I hope we can come together as a people, rather than be divided. We are so divided on so many levels. But class, sex, race, religion, political ideology just to name a few, we are so separated that we aren’t even an American people. What drives this conflict, is money, even where race is involved. Didn’t this book say money is the root of all evil?

When Eli prayed, he didn’t ask for anything. He thanked the Lord for everything. He will only take that of which is given to him, and what is planned for him, but he will not request it. If we all showed that humility, our world would be a much better place.

“Image no possessions,
Wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world.”

“Imagine” by John Lennon


Image result for naturalism

In this post, I will be focusing on two definitions of naturalism:

  1.  The doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
  2.   Adherence or attachment to what is natural.

I’m going to edit the first definition for me, in that natural processes are very important, but so is spiritual philosophy.

When I read about nature, and science, I feel that our universe is perfect.  The common denominator of all things, is energy (Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy).  I just read that the quantum engine, or QE, is being tested in space by NASA.  Essentially this works by taking the minute energies that are found in the vacuum of space.  Then the device produces thrust, just from being in space.  Infinite fuel, infinite speeds.  Nature is a beautiful thing.

However I have a personal story that has me convinced that nature is where we were meant to be, without the conversation that our ancestors grew up completely in nature.  Growing up I was an extremely happy kid.  I spent literally the entire day being outside, riding my bike unless it was the winter.  Then I was sledding!  When there was no sunlight, I would come home, do homework, and game.  As school became more strenuous, my time outside drastically decreased and I predominately gamed at night.  Towards the end of my high school career, I was pretty depressed.  Now I know this is a basic story, and I refrained from getting very descriptive about my childhood, but multiple factors can explain why I became depressed.  The predominate reason in my opinion, was I was not spending as much time outside than when I usually did.  Part of that has to do with an increase in studies, and another, has to do with my growing attachment to video games.

I have stated this earlier in my blog, but Eric Fromm has a very interesting theory as to overall happiness of people.  Essentially what makes us happy is finding what makes us more human, by finding the essence of man.  The essence of man has no clear definition, but it is what makes us human, what makes us who we are.  Currently, society is idolizing, and gorging themselves with products, services, drugs, and sex.  Well sex is controversial, because there is actually no “disorder” of having too much sex.  Apparently it’s really good to have sex.  But that is besides the point.  We use man-made technology, to the point of worship.  I infer that living in cities, separates us from not only what makes us human, but our sustainability or I should survivability as a person.  If you were to take group A, and put them in nature from childhood to adulthood, there would be less conditions and health ailments as group B, who live in a city.  Simply put, nature is a part of who we are.  We are a part of the biosphere of this planet, we tend to separate ourselves from the animal kingdom.  Which is justified, but we forget how we are connected.  Nature is our true home, but we separate ourselves from nature to make life easier.  Maybe the best way is to hunt for our food, rather than pick up meat at the grocery store.

The planet Earth.  It strives to be in equilibrium.  Considering the vastness of chemical reactions, in both the animate and inanimate world, there is no contention that the Earth is striving for a state of equilibrium.  Not many know this, but every single chemical reaction goes into a state of equilibrium.  It is when the rate of the forward reaction equals the rate of the reverse reaction.  Reverse reaction?  What about iron and water?  Rust?  Wouldn’t that be only a forward reaction?  If you were to enclose the iron and water, theoretically iron-oxide and hydrogen would react in the reverse way to create iron and water.  This can be tested by altering the concentrations of either the products or reactants.  If the hydrogen was reacted with something else, the equilibrium would shift to the right speeding up the rate of rusting (in an enclosed system).

The point in all of this?

Since there are chemical reactions everywhere on this planet, everywhere from the ground to the sky, the result is the planet itself strives for equilibrium within the entire system.  This means, Gaia will induce conditions on the planet to re-stabilize itself in response to temperature change (regardless if it is man-made or not).  That is perfect.  Gaia will always remain until it is engulfed by the sun.

This intricate system of our universe, or reality, is a self-sufficient self-evolving system.  That is perfect.  That is our world.  If we are closer to our world, we are closer to who we are, and we are closer to finding our essence of man.

Thanks for reading!

The Double Helix of Science and Spirituality

To start off this post, I’m going to share a poem that I have written.

“Spiritual Stars”

Man travels through life
Easily distracted by immersive information
The progress of our ancestors
Rests as Man’s foundation
Planting an addiction for answers
Our understanding – blossoming flowers.

The floret never touches the sky
It can never reach the stars
(The universe expands to infinity);
No matter the sacrifices and the scars
Path to Truth has utmost affinity
For Man to rip each others’ humanity.

An honest man looks at history
The Enlightenment the most recited
Men upheld to their ideals
Dividing which once was united
The Church never allowing appeals
Ignoring reason, and what it reveals –

Men ahead of their time
Their knowledge grinds with society
Shedding assumptions of culture
Their deeds proclaimed notoriety
The Church, feeling their credibility will rupture
Men killed in response for all their glory and wonder.

It was times of blood, and the victim was reason
All to keep the established beliefs
Most people blame the irrationality on religion
As a result people suppress spirituality underneath
People strive to make a logical decision
Rather to look onto God with submission.

Humanity does not know for sure,
if there is a God or not
Logic declares each a possibility;
Usually spirituality is negated
Blamed for taking the essence of humanity
Theories constructed, for God is hated
Something at some point had to of been created.

God may not be accurately expressed in our texts,
Could not spirituality and reason co-exist?
What would unfold, with the double helix
of reason and religion?
The floret would grow past the cold mist
When we show humility and make that admission
Our understanding would only depend upon our ambition.

This post will essentially talk about this poem, and well, a specific song that talks about the same thing.  “Science” by System of a Down.  Here is the song and the lyrics:

Making two possibilities a reality
predicting the future of things we all know
fighting off the diseased programming
of centuries, centuries, centuries, centuries
Science fails to recognize the single most
potent element of human existence
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
science has failed our mother earth
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
letting the reigns go to the unfolding
is faith, faith, faith, faith
Science has failed our world
Science has failed our mother earth
Science has failed our mother earth

(Sorry for the format issues.)

First, I want to talk about the song specifically.  If you notice, he takes a Platonian view of matter in this world.  “Spirit moves through all things” is like the lifeforce that Plato theorized about.  (Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy)  Secondly, the message that is trying to be portrayed is that science has hurt mother nature, however I would add science has really benefited humanity at the expense of mother nature.  Not to get too political, but when we have the technology to not only take care of our planet but provide the needs of our society, it is usually shot down simply because of money.  An example of this is renewable technology.  Arguably, it might be that science isn’t at fault, but rather the desires of men.  The desire to maximize an electronic spreadsheet, at the expense of not only the planet, but of humanity itself.

There is a common message, between my poem and System of a Down – in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the poem was inspired by System of a Down.

It’s the idea that not only is spirituality not credible in the realms of science; not only is it obvious to see that spirituality (energy) is in all things; what of the possibility of spirituality being accepted in science?  What about that possibility?

As my poem suggested, the actual ways of the spirit realm may not be expressed in all of the world’s religious texts.  It could be expressed by one, who knows.  The point is that either possibility is an unknown, so why not study objectively with the possibility that spirituality exists?  Furthermore, I pose the possibility that aspects of the spirit realm is actually found.  Wouldn’t finding Truth behind those properties of this spiritual realm, wouldn’t that open our eyes to other aspects of our universe as well?  Thus, looking for aspects of spirituality in science, not only has the same benefit as studying science without it (IF God or Gods are not out there), but prepares humanity for finding something that could climb us ever closer to Truth.  Meaning, if we are open to the idea of a spirit realm, it could either not be true (the same as not looking for spirituality at all), or it could be true and we unlocked another world to our perception.

If we were to find a spiritual realm, the double helix of spirituality and science would be created.  One as part of the other.  And with this deeper understanding, the closer to Truth we would become, having spirituality and science being the genome of our expression.

To close, the song by System of a Down is very artistic.  When the music turns into a different beat and melody, it’s Spirit.  They’re trying to portray the strength as well as aspects of this spirit that they are talking about.  The harsh and grungy sound is science, while the pleasant and tribal sound is spirit.  It’s peaceful, no?

And with that, comes my second attempt at changing how frequently I post.  Again, I am completely open to the concept that I could be flat out wrong, and that others may disagree with me.  I just hope that my reader, that you’re actually thinking along these lines and came up with thoughts of your own.

Thanks for reading!

Plato’s Lifeforce –> Energy



The Ancient Greek philosopher Plato, theorized that there was a life force in all matter on this planet.  However, people knew through working with stone and rock, there were no living parts or systems of these materials.  Since there was nothing to be observed for this theory, there was obviously scrutiny.  Understandably, people wanted observable evidence to this theory than to accept it – which is understandable considering human nature.  Even to this day, physicists and mathematicians create theories without possibility of acquiring evidence, or in other words to test the theory.  The prime example of this is string theory.  It is a mathematical marvel, however physicists are starting to shift to other areas of thought, simply because they want to work towards something that is testable.

Is it possible that we are thinking about this in the wrong way?  After all, all matter was created from energy.  The energy that drives this planet, to make the planet’s systems sustainable, comes from the sun.  The sun is pure energy.  As we learned in elementary school, foliage consumes sunlight, which is then in turn consumed by other animals.  Either by sucking in oxygen, or by consuming the plants themselves, or by consuming other animals that consumed those plants or other animals.  Thus, the food pyramid.  The food pyramid is one of the mechanisms by which the sun’s energy is transferred.

My contention that everything has some sort of energy, and thus is the lifeforce that Plato was talking about.

What about rocks?  They act as transferring heat from itself to what is around it.  In fact, it has been theorized that when energy is transferred through the rock, and it is in a pool of hydro carbons (like pools by volcanoes), eventually the atomic structure of the rock would change.  Why?  Because the rock is becoming more efficient at transferring its flow.  (The Constructal Law)  Look at water.  The movement of water, either by potential energy or by direct energy through the sun, brings about movement to fuel the life on this planet.  Each organism consumes this energy in some way, and is used to create energy for that organism, while its waste is used as energy for other organisms.  It’s a complete cycle.  If one were to consider that the transfer of energy, that substance or organism “has” energy, then there is energy in all things.  There is a lifeforce to this universe, which means Plato was right.

But what other aspects of this lifeforce are there?  I think energy can be expressed in a wave, with a frequency and amplitude.  These different frequencies make things like heat, light, and compounds.  In fact, one could argue that matter is a certain frequency of energy.  With that said, I think anything living, are in tune to these frequencies that energy produces in them and other things.  A common example of this would be dogs.  Cesar Millan, the gentleman behind The Dog Whisperer, has a theory based upon the “energy” of the dog.  Meaning, how does it feel to be around the dog?  The reason why these dogs exert these energies, is because different states of mind metabolize its fuel differently, and changes the physiology of the dog.  The energy of the owner, or in this case Cesar Millan, interacts with one another like two waves coming into contact, creating a resultant.  This “resultant” wave, is the wave that is perceived, and thus is responded to.  In essence, the dog communicates how he or she feels to Cesar, or any owner that is in tune with their dog.  This is possible because the energy is transferred through the air, literally affecting the air molecules.

I would argue the same happens with plants.  If I were to walk in a state or national park, I would feel at ease assuming I didn’t run into predators.  That is because the energy of water, the wind, and trees and plants, provides a sense of relaxation that is not felt anywhere else but nature.  Simply because our physiology evolved from nature.  I suppose if natural selection is true, some time down the line humans would start to evolve to the conditions of the city, rather than nature herself.  I don’t think we would live to see the day.

Therefore, not only is energy in all things, as fuel, but as a means of communication and ultimately influences the perception of living things.  When you go about your day, and you are in the presence of friends and family, pay attention to what you feel like when you encounter them.  It is true, that a bad day may influence these feelings, so I suppose pay attention over time.  Each person feels different, because they metabolize energy differently, resulting in different waves, which against changes the resultant wave.

One might be able to consider that energy can act like a neural network.  It flows through all living and nonliving things, and provides a very subtle way to communicate to everything on this planet.

This is why I do not discredit Plato.  I actually think he was right, and were thousands of years ahead of his time.  It is astounding, to think at the very beginning of our universe, during the big bang, pure energy would shape, provide fuel, as well as a means of communication for the universe entirely.

Thanks for reading!  Feel free to submit questions and comments.  And thanks for sticking with me, I haven’t wrote on this blog for a long time.  I do hope to change that.

Government Debt –> What is it? How does it work?


There is a common debate being displayed on the internet when discussing the national debt.  First, a person will chime in saying the debt is unsustainable when looking at the interest payments and the amount of taxes the government receives.  Then another person will chime in and say “the debt isn’t what you think it is.”  The first person just can’t fathom a debt that doesn’t matter as much as he or she perceived, and since they refuse to read up on the issue (it takes some time), while misunderstanding how the system works, he or she continues to disagree with what person B is saying.  Usually, people who view this “new” national debt are labeled as liberal, and the other party as conservative.

The best way to understand how the system works, is to view the economy as a flow of money.  The flow of money has three major segments.  Treasury to the Banks, the Banks to The Fed, and The Fed to the Treasury.  I would argue that this triangle is the core of our financial system, as the flow between these three bodies encapsulates the whole process of printing.  Let’s start with The Treasury.

The Treasury has two accounts.  Its “tax” account, and its “spending” account.  The Treasury has a target amount of money to work with each day.  Meaning, the goal is to reach that same amount day after day.  It isn’t precise.  The Treasury is able to print treasuries, or basically T bonds, or treasury bonds.  A bond is when a person gives a principle amount of money, and after the lifetime of the bond, the principle plus interest is paid back.  With a treasury, the bond is backed by the US government.  It is literally an asset that is safer than money itself.  If I am a billionaire and I have my assets as cash in banks, if an account is more than 250k it isn’t backed by the FDIC.  If the banks go under, then my cash goes with it.  But if I buy bonds that are backed by the US government, the US government will pay me back.  Therefore, this asset is in high demand, especially right now.  And treasuries, are the back bone of this entire system.

National Debt –>  Total outstanding treasuries.

Outstanding in this context, the financial context, means issued and sold.  So when the national debt clock increases over time, that means more and more treasuries have been bought.  Treasuries, like any other bond, has different lifetimes.  Month, three months, six months, year, ten years, even thirty years!  Over the course of the bond’s lifetime the interest on the bond is readjusted in accordance to the market’s conditions.  This is fundamentally important, because this means not all treasuries have to be repaid at once.  It is obvious, but becomes increasingly important as more is learned.

At the beginning of the day, The Treasury pays out what is due in expiring treasuries.  The remaining money that is in the “spending” account, is deficit spent.  Meaning, it is just spent in government programs.  (This is why fundamentally, regardless of ideology, the government is going to continue to grow in size.)  The Treasury then calculates what taxes they will receive from the bond holders later on in the year, and credits their spending account with tax money from their tax account.  Then, the remaining amount of money needed to put The Treasury’s spending account current, or in this case, the target amount of money that The Treasury works with each day – the required amount is printed in treasuries and they are ultimately sold.  This puts the spending account around the same amount of money it was at at the beginning of the day.  Currently, we are printing treasuries to pay for interest on treasuries.  Meaning the amount of money the Treasury prints is more than the amount of money The Treasury pays out.

When money is deficit spent, it is new money being deposited into the economy.  New money that gets spent on government programs, contracts, and employees.  They deposit money into their banks, and their banks get new deposits.  This increases the total liabilities that the banks have, which means their reserve accounts go up.  A bank, when it is issuing a loan, takes three main points into consideration.  What is the market for loans?  What is the customer’s credit?  What is the current reserve situation?  More reserves do not promote lending, however it allows for more lending.  That’s really important.

With more reserves being added to the system, eventually loans are made.  Loans are made through credit creation.  This basically means banks just fabricate the loan from nothing – they created credit out of thin air.  With all of these loans being made, and considering that loans are paid back over time, the net result is the expansion of the money supply.  This is crucial, because you need a growing money supply to meet the demand of money of the entire economy.  If there was a finite amount of money, the economy would screech to a halt because everyone would save their money because there would be no more to earn.  A growing money supply allows people to make more and more and more money.  Where this is relevant, is this allows people investing in treasuries, as well as new people to invest in treasuries, which allows treasuries to be bought consistently.

So a quick recap.  The Treasury pays out to bond holders that have expiring treasuries, and deficit spends.  This money ultimately increases bank reserves, which allows for more loans.  This expands the money supply, allows for more money to be invested into treasuries, who buys treasuries to put The Treasury’s account current.  Rinse and repeat.

As one could tell, it’s a feedback loop.  Deficit spending in essence takes the old bank loans and puts them back into the reserve system.  That’s important, because banks do not create reserves when they issue a loan.

There is one more step.  If one were to think about it, with the increasing amount of treasuries bought, the amount of treasuries to be paid out increases.  This decreases the amount that can be deficit spent.  Eventually the entire spending account will be used to pay out expiring treasuries.  Every year, The Fed transfers its “profits” to The Treasury, thus expanding the spending account.

How does The Fed make money?

The Fed makes money by providing services for banks, interest by providing loans to/for banks, and interest from the treasuries that it buys.  All of this interest is put in a server running a program that buys and sells currencies on the foreign exchange market.  The Fed then determines its expenses, and the remaining profit is then transferred to The Treasury.  This allows The Treasury to pay out existing debt, deficit spend, and sell debt at an expansionary rate.

There are some details that I left out, but I covered pretty much the entire printing process.  It’s really basic, it’s just people have to go out looking for it.  In my opinion, from the scholarly articles, journals, and books that I have read on this issue, our basic economic courses need an upgrade.  For example, my macroeconomics text book says banks create money from fractional reserve, where I read a study where economists were able to follow the books of a bank in Europe.  They created credit from nothing.

There are many implications and further understanding to take this.  But I want this post to be about how we print specifically.  Once that is understood, it can be seen that what we are doing is totally sustainable.  There are some people that think we can print as much as we want how fast as we want, and there will be no consequences.  I tend to think there are consequences on any action in this universe, so I do believe you can print too much.  But that is part of the reason of taxes.  It decreases the amount of you have to print to make The Treasury’s accounts current.  In essence, it slows the rate at which the national deficit increases.  If you have GDP increase as well, you can keep a certain target debt to GDP ratio.  Our is around 1, and Japan is over 2 and they are doing fine.  Yeah Japan has had some contractions/recessions/depressions however you want to define it.  But it is ignorant to think it is solely due to their debt levels, and not something else as complex as an economical system.

An indication on if you are printing too much is inflation.  However, it is usually the case with central banks, to keep inflation around 2 percent.  Not sure why.  If that starts to change significantly you can decrease demand by increasing taxes, or interest rates, or both.  If you would want to ease up on the taxes and interest rates, then it would be wise to deficit spend less.  Deficit ultimately helps put more money in the economy and thus increases demand.  If supply can’t keep up, prices increase.

I hope you all enjoyed this post!  Leave your comments/questions below.  Thanks!

Global Warming –> A Hunch


This post will encapsulate what I believe is happening with regards to society, oil companies, and global warming.  I am going to apply what I am learning from a documentary series on how the Earth works.  With the knowledge of early Earth history, as well as the events taking place, there is a basic, simple, easy deduction in regards to what might happen to the future of the planet.  I think it is this reasoning that I believe scientists are calling the future inhabitable.  Now, to the post.

When global warming was introduced in the seventies, everyone, including oil and coal companies knew it was true.  They did what tobacco companies did.  They hired think tanks, panels, scientists, experts, what have you, to contest the data at every way.  They were successful.  Because now I have to say I “believe” in global warming.  When it is obvious, when looking at the events of early Earth history, that carbon dioxide is a green house gas, and was required to create the early atmosphere, by warming the planet.  Everyone knew this.  The goal of oil and coal companies is to make money, but in a way that not everyone knows.  When looking at satellite images of oil reservoirs throughout the planet, more and more oil is found when you travel north.  It is speculated upon, that the arctic has the largest oil reservoir on the planet.  So, warm the planet to melt the arctic, harvest the oil, and say ef it to the future of humanity.  Why?  Money.  It’s pure evil.

When the Earth was first forming, clunks of asteroid matter rammed into one another.  As more and more did so, the gravitational field got stronger.  Thus, a feedback process emerges (VERY common occurence of nature).  Eventually, the physical Earth emerges.  With all the asteroid ramming, a molten core is started.  This eventually starts volcanic activity.  Volcanoes eject carbon dioxide, as well as other compounds, into the sky, starting the early atmosphere.  This warms the planet to a temperature habitable for life.  Since the inanimate tends to transfer energy more efficiently over time (The Constructal Law), life is eventually created as the further facilitate of energy.  These primitive life forms, were the most successful life forms in the history of the planet.  They covered the Earth for about 3 billion years.  What did they do?  Photosynthesis.  They took water, sunlight, and carbon dioxide to create oxygen.  This steadily changed the atmosphere to less carbon dioxide and more oxygen, resulting in these species to die off, while evolution took another route with aerobic respiration.

This is all that is need to be known to deduce the future of this planet.

We are releasing carbon dioxide at a rate never before seen on the history of the planet.  It’s going to warm the planet, because that is how the Earth was created.  It’s all known.  Which means, not only will temperature go up over time because of our lust for money, but the concentration of oxygen will increase.  With the added CO2, the heat will greatly affect the biosphere.  I’m presuming, a lot will eventually die off.  This is less usage of oxygen over time.  The primitive life forms of the Earth will reign once again, converting the highly concentrated carbon dioxide back into oxygen.  This means the concentration of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere will be more than now over time.  Which means three possible alternatives.  Either humanity leaves the Earth (too much oxygen is actually damaging to the body), humanity will evolve over time to the new conditions of the planet, or humanity will fail.  A reset.  The new conditions will spawn a new kind of evolved life on this planet, and it wouldn’t be humans.  However, it is still possible that intelligent life will be created.



Gaia doesn’t care.  She will wipe us out instantly if that means the preservation of life itself, because Gaia doesn’t exist without life.  Scientists are trying to accurately model the future of the unknown.  They say in about 100 years, the planet won’t be habitable.  I think what we are doing to the Earth, will be stabilized billions of years later, and afterwards, if “humanity” lives it is another species.

Honestly, it makes me wonder if these secret societies worship Satan or something.  Because it is just evil.  It is evil to destroy this perfect super-organism that is our own, because of an economy.  Especially considering there are other theoretical economies out there that isn’t the isms, and isn’t bartering.  It’s absolutely maddening and awful to me.

This is the stepping-stones of us becoming the aliens of the universe invading planets to harvest their resources.  We just consume more and more, and don’t design a society that is in harmony with the environment, determining sustainability.  So the very “evil” that is portrayed in our stories, we are becoming.  The universe has a lot of resources, but we will eventually die off.  We would live longer, probably to the edge of the end of time, if we learned to be more sustainable.  When the universe cools, there is nothing we can do.

I know we are talking maybe billions of years in the future, but we could drastically increase our lifetime in this universe if we respected the universe, and not exploit it for an electronic spreadsheet of money.

What “National Debt” Really Means

Newman, Frank Neil. Freedom from National Debt. Minneapolis, MN: Two Harbors ; Distributed by Itasca, 2013. Print.


I have been busy to say the least, but as I have said in the past, I’ll never forget about this blog.  I have been studying and discussing as well as reading discussions on modern economics.  My goal is to write a formal essay with my overall understanding.  It is actually progressing rather nicely.  I have two more papers ready to be read, and I need to work hard to try and find a good source on The Fed.  I have to be careful, because there is a lot of speculation.  I will say, that my understanding of The Fed is not from good sources, and I know this because the information is not consistent.  Therefore, I will try to refrain from talking about The Fed.  Really, with the last two sources that I read, they both focused on The Treasury.  People that even worked The Treasury didn’t understand how The Fed has their money.  When The Treasury needed some money, it was provided in exchange for bonds by The Fed, and when those bonds expired, the account is credited closer to zero with the appropriate amount.  There is no transfer of money.  Again, this is based off of discussions rather than reliable texts.

So, what does national debt really mean?  The National Debt, that everyone is concerned about, is total outstanding treasury securities, that are held by either The Fed, private banks, or private investors.  Outstanding in this context means bonds that are issued and sold.  That means, the number you can keep track of by looking online, are the actual amount of bonds bought.  There maybe still some bonds on the market!  Treasury securities, or otherwise called Treasury Bonds, T Bonds, is a bond backed by the United States Government.  It is literally the safest USD asset on the market.  It is safer than money itself.  If someone is a billionaire, and they had cold hard cash, if banks were to go under, they may lose that money.  The Government has the resources of The Treasury and The Fed to provide a safety net for the Treasuries that are purchased.  Treasuries are safer than money.  Bonds in general have a lifetime associated with them.  So the text mentions one month, three month, one year, five years, to even thirty years.  In other words, if I buy a thirty year bond, I won’t be paid back with the interest until thirty years later.  By agreement, at certain time intervals, the interest on the bond changes in accordance to inflation and other factors.

That means, there are treasuries that have various lifetimes.  Which means, not all treasuries have to be repaid at once.  Only a fraction of the outstanding treasuries retire.  Once these treasuries retire, they are removed from the system.  However, treasuries are also printed.  What happens, as described by this text, is The Treasury will have a certain amount of money in their account at The Fed.  They use that money to pay off treasuries that are expiring, and then the rest is used for deficit spending.  That money, some economists theorize has a multiplier.  This means, that for every dollar that is deficit spent in the economy, since it passes through so many hands, it will wind up at around 2.5 dollars.  In any case, by the end of the day, the same amount of money that The Treasury spent on deficit spending and expiring treasuries, is put back into its account with the purchase of more bonds.  The Treasury receives money for the bonds that it issues.

At this point in the book, I was wondering about the interest.  It is common for investors once their treasuries expire, to take the interest and then reinvest the principle into treasuries again.  I started to think that the paid interest on bonds was expanding the money supply.  But there is something to take into consideration.  First, The Treasury can get bank money whenever they want by selling bonds to The Fed.  Second, The Treasury can control how many securities it is putting on the market.  Thirdly, by collaborating when The Fed they can manipulate interest rates on the bonds.  The Fed can declare what the overall interest rate is, affecting all interest rates in some what or another.  But that isn’t how The Fed manipulate bond interest.  The way that interest rates are determined on treasuries, is by an auctioning process.  The author did not go into great detail exactly how it works, because I suppose he didn’t want to overwhelm the reader, and it maybe extremely complicated just to determine interest rates.  I am inferring, that the overall supply of the bonds have an effect on the resulting interest rate.  Therefore, The Treasury while getting instant bank money from The Fed also manipulates the interest rates on the bonds by the remaining supply of treasuries available for investing.  Remember, the overall supply can be determined by The Treasury.  What this means, is that The Treasury can always be in a favorable position.  There is a specific example in the book, that directly addresses my issues with the bonds.  It has huge implications.  So I quote on page 49:

Interest payments do not affect the money supply.  Suppose The Treasury pays 100 dollars of interest from its Fed account (talking about interest on the treasuries).  That 100 dollars becomes cash flow to the holders of the treasuries.  If 20 dollars is paid back to the government as income taxes, investors will be left will 80 dollars increase in their bank accounts.  The Treasury then issues 80 dollars of new securities, with investors placing 80 dollars from their bank accounts to the treasuries, and The Treasury fully replenishes its account with The Fed from the 80 dollars from investors and 20 dollars from income taxes.

With people that don’t really follow the Modern Monetary Theory scene, this has huge implications.  It has been explained in the community, that it is required by law for The Treasury to be in the black, or negative.  Keep in mind it is technically true that The Treasury prints physical currency, but it does not create money electronically.  The Treasury can only print treasury bonds.  So, basically The Treasury exchanges money for bonds that it prints.  The government uses the money from The Fed to deficit spend.  Once the treasuries expire in The Fed account, money is credited, but obviously there is a perception that The Treasury prints faster than the treasuries retire.  This deficit spending, is one of the primary ways that the money supply expands, and since The Treasury is by law to be in the black, that debt is understood to never be repaid.  From what I gather in the community, the majority of the national debt is owned by The Fed.

I will get back to the thought I am about to say later, but that quote up above, shatters the perception in the MMT community.  The author, was the Associate as well as The Secretary of Treasury.  I think it is a very reliable source.  First, he has stated numerous times, that The Treasury would have positive accounts.  Second, he clearly says interest on bonds don’t expand the money supply.  The Treasury prints bonds to The Fed to pay interest, and in combination of taxes and issuance of new treasuries, the money is put back to the account with The Fed.  Thirdly, he uses taxes.  This is actually contested by a paper of economists that I have read.  They essentially say that in order for The Treasury to gain access to the money from printing securities, it has to send taxes to The Fed account.  With the perception that I had at the time, and the majority I would say of the MMT community, the taxes are essentially destroyed.  Simply because you are putting money into a deep black hole of negativity.

Well, it seems that The Treasury uses taxes.

Even though this particular source wasn’t 100 percent accurate, there was still some very valuable concepts discussed.  It goes to show the nature of learning economics.  There’s no pdf file that describes exactly how the economy works.  So when I navigate the information world on figuring out how the economy works, I try to find credible sources, and try to refrain from taking the word of other people.  I have already had instances where someone who seems to be more credible than me, is wrong in my eyes, simply from the readings that I have done.  A lot of people try to logically reason the process of the economy based upon assumptions that they know of the time.  What I have found out, is a lot of the time my assumptions are wrong.  The only way is credible sources.

I got distracted.

So another perception of the MMT world is that The Fed owns pretty much all or most of the national debt.  As of 2013, there was 11 trillion of national debt.  1.7 trillion was owned by The Fed, which means the rest, 9.3 trillion is owned by the private sector.  So that’s trumped.

So the begging question, what expands the money supply?

One thing that is not contested, and that is thoroughly understood, is that bank loans expand the money supply.  Banks create credit from nothing.  Issuance of loans turn the wheel of the economy, and expands the money supply, which allows an expansive amount of purchasing of national debt.  Finally, there is a huge black area of understanding that I have right now in the process of the economy.  What encompasses most of that blackness, is The Fed.  That’s my next project.  I want to find a good, credible book, on The Fed.  I have short papers to read as well, that have to do with overall economic policy, but I hope to one day solidify the process in my mind by reading a good book on The Fed and how it works.  As the author put it, if he ever wanted money The Fed had it and would give it to him.  How?  So I still have a ways to go, but I have learned a lot.

There is one more thing that I want to touch base on.  Foreign countries owning our debt (securities).  Our debt, is the safest USD asset, a treasury bond.  That bond, when it expires issues US currency.  US currency can only buy goods and services in the US.  If, these countries want to trade our currency for another, the person who bought all the US money, has the same problem.  Do I buy goods and services in the US?  Do I re-invest in the US?  Or do I trade currencies?  If he trades, then the person he traded with has the same problem.  Put simply, that money is going to be used to drive the US economy in one way or another.  It is good for us.  It isn’t true that China can demand on their debt and it will bring our entire economy to a halt.  The fact that China has trillions of dollars in US assets, means that’s trillions of dollars for us.

What is interesting is the author’s take on overall policy.  When the economy is slow and needs recovering, then it is good to print securities to pay for securities.  In fact, The Treasury has been printing securities to pay for securities since 1791!  It helps boost the economy.  When the economy is doing wonderful, he actually advocates for a more austerical philosophy.  You can think austerity as the traditional view of the economy, or another way to say it, a state’s budget.  A state can’t print their currency.  So a state, like Missouri which is where I live, can only spend money from state taxes that it collects.  Essentially that is what he was saying.  When the economy is hot, spend what you get in taxes.  When an economy is hot, The Treasury will manipulate securities to the point that more securities retire than printed, assuming The Government practices austerity, and that the economy is booming.  This results in a decrease of national debt.  Of course, there are other philosophies out there, but it is something to take note of and to think about.

For all who read this blog, I truly thank you.  I hope you learn something, and at the foremost, I hope it makes you think.  If you don’t agree, I just hope it made you think.  We all strive to be better and smarter people.  I hope you enjoyed your reading experience, and I hope you will continue to visit my blog.

Tron Legacy Analysis


This movie I have really enjoyed recently.  I felt when I first saw it about five years ago, I didn’t really appreciate the fullness of the film.  It’s beyond the great special effects, music in accordance to action, and the wardrobe.  I mean these costumes look like they were engineered in the future.  They did a good job.  Daft Punk being in the futuristic bar was a great touch.  The story is well written, and brings about themes of love, perfection and imperfection, as well as God and creation.  It’s a very compelling movie, and really makes the viewer reflect on the statements on these themes.

It starts with the father son relationship, of the Flynn’s.  His father decided to pursue ideas that were way ahead of their time, get enveloped in creating utopias, while realizing that “perfection” was right at his finger tips (more on the perfection them later), and it was that of his son.  I quote, “I would give it all up for just one more day with you.”  In order to really appreciate the power of those words, I have to explain the premise of the movie.

Flynn was able to take the human image and put it into a digital self.  Sort of like a Matrix I guess, but different intentions and conditions.  In this world, Flynn is God.  He created a program to protect users (himself) named Tron.  He then created a program, a digital representation of himself, to create the perfect system.  That program was named Clue.  With those three, they created utopias.  First one they created, only programs could exist in the world.  They finally after that attempt, started over and made a utopia for both programs and users.  In a super computer for the time it was made, in the bottom of an arcade, there was a universe and Flynn was God.

In fact, the image that is presented in this post, is my favorite part I think.  It is the moment that God revealed himself to His creation after many cycles.  Everyone goes in to awe and fear was expressed.  There was a program that was praying the in the presence of Flynn.  Imagine that?  First, imagine being God.  Isn’t that insane?  He created all of that.  As shown later in the film, Flynn has powers that only He can have.  Since He has the master file on his disk, He can manipulate what He created.  Imagine seeing God right in front of you.  I would just wait and stare in awe honestly.  To actually be with the Creator, brings a mixture of emotions I can’t describe.  Imagine living in a world where they know there is a God, and they know who He is.  That society has a much different psyche than ours, and in a sense, I envy them.  I would love to have the luxury to have seen my God and know that He is there.  What is interesting, is Flynn doesn’t hear prayers.  It’s something I have thought hard about with our Creator, does he actually listen to prayers?  Or does he let the system run and does something else?  I will never know.

Now it is understood the strength of those words, “I would give it all up just to spend one more day with you.”  He would give up being God to be with his son again.  He was forced to stay in The Grid because the portal closed.  He hadn’t seen his son in years, and he thought he would never see him again.  Flynn knew what had to be done in order to get The Iso and his son out.  That is why he said,”one more day” because he was going to merge with Clue and create an instant explosion followed by a complete reset.  Flynn died, but The Grid remains to be manipulated, or improved, by his son.  Flynn knew he was going to die, and it would of given up his life’s work, at being God, to be with his son more.  That was more important to him.  That is really strong, and shows what we all desire and what usually happens.  Father’s aren’t home making the cheddar, and some get so caught up in their career it is more important than family.  A song that shows this well is “Cats in the Cradle.”  It’s a cycle.  The boy mimics a distant father and becomes a distant father.  Most of us yearn for a close father because not only is it human, but a lot of us have had distant relationships with our fathers because of our society.

There is another love story.  The son Flynn and The Iso.  Iso’s were literally a result of The Grid.  They were a different race of people created by The Grid.  Flynn, God, not only created a digital frontier and utopias with programs, but created another being that lived in The Grid, with their own DNA.  Clue saw them as imperfections, and slaughtered them.  “It was genocide.”  The Iso, she is the last remaining Iso, that Flynn saved.  Imagine, being saved individually by your Creator.  In any case, The Iso’s DNA could revolutionize technology back on Earth, and was the true purpose of The Grid to Flynn.  His creation, of living beings, He truly is a God if one thinks about it.

Clue was programmed to make the perfect system.  He did it well.  Flynn had a long time to think, and told this to Clue.  “The thing about perfection, is that it is unknowable.  It’s impossible but it is also right in front of you all the time.  You wouldn’t know that because I didn’t when I created you.  I’m sorry, Clue.  I’m sorry.”  When his son went to the portal, there were images of his son when he was younger.  To show what he was thinking.  “See ya kiddo.”  Flynn then combined Himself with Clue, resetting The Grid.

I don’t know why, but that quote is making me think of a concept.  Could the world be more perfect that we originally thought?  I think it is a perfect super-organism.  Meaning it has processes that ultimately balance everyone out, and is cyclic to bring motion to the planet.  There’s a carbon cycle, a water cycle, an oxygen cycle, a carbon dioxide cycle, and the list goes on.  It’s a perfect system, that was created through the laws of this universe.  But could it be more perfect?  Perfection to us is pure symmetry, uniform color, evenly divided angles.  Sterile.  But could the structure and all of the planet be perfect?  Sure the structure is different than our preconceived notion of perfection, but what if Flynn is right?  What if perfection is unknowable?  Then our views of perfection are not valid because perfection is unknowable.

Could it be possible that perfection is our universe itself?  Could the very variable leaves of a tree actually all be perfect?  Sure there is variance in nature, but it is truly random, and that could mean true perfection.  Maybe a part of perfection is variability, or randomness?  Maybe our preconceived notions of perfection blinds us from the perfection right in front of us.  Excuse my french, but it’s the fact that we fucking exist in the first place.  I believe there were systemic steps, and I think considering all the Earth like planets we are finding, we are bound to find life.  If we are truly alone in this universe, then those are planets for our taking.

Singularities.  There is no reality.  There is no time.  There is nothingness, but a infinitely small and dense particle.  Do you think that particle could of exploded in an infinite amount of ways?  After all, there is no reality.  The singularity exploded with just enough energy to produce the exact mass of 14 decimal places to create a universe that is flat and eventually harbors life.  That to me is perfection.  Iso’s are us.  As a result of the flow of energy becoming more efficient, life was systematically created.  We are the result of energy.

This movie has really changed me.  I think the climax of the film, where Flynn explains perfection, has actually changed my perception of the world.  I think we are living on a perfect planet, in not only processes, symbiotic relationships, but also in structure itself.

I’m going for a walk I think tonight.  Thanks for reading.

« Older entries