Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Proof we are the Last Generation on Earth

This is good stuff. Scary to say the least. I remember hearing these things all the way back to the eighties. Its scary because all those things I remember "hearing" do seem to be coming into place. The "micro-chip", the changing of currencies. Governments with their civil unrest and such; Then a thought comes to mind. "Dam, what if this is ALL True?" This just means I'm a part of the masses that have been manipulated by every thing this video is talking about. The media, social classes, economic structures...
     I'm thinking there is some goodness that would come out of a "One World Government", and that is Unification. The totality of all nations working together for the greatest of goods. The micro-chip idea can't be that bad can it? Think of the benefits of having this device. For one thing criminals would have a hard time being criminals. Maybe the concept of money exchange for goods and services has met its demise. So be it;times change and so do ideas, and that's a fact. This video is good for the simple fact that it allows us to listen and take it in. To become more aware maybe. I'm accepting this video at face value storing it in my memory for later recall. The good thing about information is that we are called to listen then filter out what we think is the truth to what is preposterous. One thing for sure when it comes to world domination, this concept has been going on since the beginning of time. Conquering, and domination is not one of mans greatest attributes but it seems to be ingrained in him. Territorial creatures we are, and that's also a fact we have to live with. The way I look at it there are really only two forces at work here really, and that is The Good and the Bad. If I go clear across the world on the opposite side I might find different cultures and people, but within different societies the common denomination can be deduced down to two things; The Good and The Bad. There is a saying "Good always triumphs over evil", and it reminds me of this wild dream I had once. A long dream; In the middle of this dream, I was standing in the middle of a battle field facing a skinny pregnant woman. For some reason she looks at me and says, "Just remember, most people are basically good". The dream goes on but those words were the only thing said in this dream, but they've stuck in my head for over ten years. I don't know the statistics but I would venture to say that 99 percent of the population all want the same things. We all want to be happy, most people don't delight in seeing death and destruction. The majority of people want to be able to lay their heads down at night without fear of being murdered in their sleep. Most people want peace within themselves.
     Before I finish this up I'd like to make a prediction of what I think might happen in the future. The video states this one guy saying we're going into the middle east with the mission of taking out the terrorists but its actually to secure our share of the oil. This might be true, lets say it is. So now part of the equation is all about energy and fuel sources. Energy, the strength and blood life of all nations. Well guess what ladies and gentleman. There are wild cards not yet perceived, and this is my prediction. I predict that this coming decade there will be breakthroughs in "alternative" sources of fuel and energy that will bring about change. I'm thinking solar energy, certain crops for bio-fuels and/or combined with Superconductivity such as Quantum Levitation. These alternative energy sources will be a totally, complete utter game changer. Watch and learn.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Kevin Cosgrove's LIVE 911 call as he DIES

The first thought that came to my mind was the smoke inhalation problem when he mentions he cant see, and something about hard to breathe. Its a simple fix-it and doesn't require much thought. Oxygen mask/devices kept in every floor office closet. The concept is used in passenger air line cabins, don't see why they couldn't be kept on hand in high rise sky-scrapers.
     This next idea offers a possible solution to the problem of getting down to the ground floor, when no other escape is available except a shattered window. First concept is actually not my idea, but something I remembered seeing at six flags? Maybe it was Knott's Berry Farm. A person steps into a cubicle which is lifted several hundred feet into the air. It is then released, and after succumbing to the physics of gravity, a bright yellow umbrella expands to its maximum capacity. The person gently plummets to the ground. This concept can be modified or tweaked to fit a high-rise setting. In my minds eye I see something more of a "Kite" effect, than an umbrella. Also the side of the building will have to be "outfitted" with poles that extend all the way to ground floor or at least to the second floor. Next I see some type of harness that the individual must wear. Its got the kite already deployed, or maybe just folded, but not enclosed in a pouch where it must be "ejected" later on. So now the person is wearing the Harness complete with the "Kite/chute" attached. His only exit is the broken window, where he must reach out and attach his harness to the "emergency pole", by way of a quick draw.(Google : Quck draw climbing gear) Once he/she has attached his harness to the "emergency pole", he leans out and lets his "kite/chute" harness do the rest.
     Higher floors might do O.K. with just a parachute method of escape. It would probably require some type of training class or completion certificate to function properly, however given the alternative choice it would prove worth while to look into. (Alternative being, jumping from a high-rise without some type of parachute apparatus)
     Finally this next method of escape would be best and most simple for 23 stories and below. It is the repelling method, requiring the rope out the window and a climbers harness. Once again, perhaps would work most efficient with some type of specialized training class, and or certification completion. Also could overcome the subsequent outcome of  inaction. Outcome of inaction in high-rise building fire is death, or something close to it. In other words; Failing to meet or acknowledge adversity with some type of constructive response could prove fatal.
     I've listed three methods of possible escape from high-rise stories. By posting this I'm hoping it could spark some type of en masse critical thinking, and future sky-scraper architect/engineers would consider to implement some other form of alternative high-rise safety emergency protocols/designs.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Stuart N. Taba's Messenger's Quest

Stuart N. Taba has created his central character that parallels his own. This story takes place in Hawaii, with the Island of O'ahu as its backdrop. A fictional story mixed with curiosities and self introspect. (Click on link below for PDF)
Messenger's Quest

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Alternate Reality:The Third Vision

     This is the third and final event that occurred to me during the middle eighties, in which I believed to be just another every day normal event, however what set these experiences apart was the "information" I was receiving. In the first to events,nothing seemed out of the ordinary and it didn't hit me until at least a year later that something seemed odd.One thing for sure, nobody knew what I was talking about, and or had heard of the stories I was conveying. So I'll set up the main of this story before I get into the peculiarities of it.
     Again this is back in the middle eighties. I'd say eighty seven. Junior in Highschool, and I'm getting ready for another day of school. I couldn't even say what day it was, as over twenty years has elapsed. Strangely enough I do remember I was eating breakfast and watching T.V. I'm seeing a commercial, and this is what I see. First an announcer comes on talking about something to the effect of, "Can you see yourself going to the grocery store..?"As he says this, a picture of the inside of  a grocery store comes onto the screen. It's an angle shot taken from the view of behind a shopping cart, looking towards fruits and produce aisle.  Next he says "...Now imagine stopping by a gas station and filling up your car." As he says this, a picture comes on the screen of a gas station with several cars fueling up. Once again the T.V. announcer chimes in. "...and now before you head home, you decide to rent a movie." The picture cuts to the front of a Video Store-type rental. Finally the announcer says, "Now imagine doing this all with one card..."  At that last spiel, a picture of the planet is seen floating in space, from the bottom of the screen a card emerges, held by someones hand. The card is slowly rising in the forefront, from the bottom of  the television screen. Eventually becoming the focal point of the screen, covering the scene of the blue planet spinning in the darkess of space. Finally, the voice says one more thing, "Soon, you'll be able to".
     Now the last image of this commercial is the picture of this card with the word UNIVERSAL sprawled across the top. It was dark colored in nature, and didn't seem to have any other distinct trademarks. I recall seeing this commercial over twenty years ago. There was nothing unusual or "out of the ordinary" about the experience, in fact the experience was so ordinary that I never bothered to validate its existence with anybody else, and I think back to how that would sound; "Hey man, have you seen that debit card commercial that just came out?".  Here's the thing that makes this mundane event odd. The fact that I only saw that commercial once in my whole entire life. That one time, back in the eighties, also the fact that I had never heard of UNIVERSAL, before or since. Actually, about fifteen years later it dawned on me that the claims the  UNIVERSAL commercial gave,  never came about.(UNIVERSAL card?) So I became curious to see if they even existed. I happened to be reading a newspaper at the time, so I turned to the Business\Financial page  to see how "UNIVERSAL" stocks were doing, and lo and behold. UNIVERSAL credit\debit does exist.
     So thats pretty much the story.I saw this commercial and the event seemed to be a real one. Just as real as any other typical ordinary daily event. After twenty sum odd years have gone by, I'm still waiting to see UNIVERSAL credit\debit come to pass, as the commercial said it would. Here's one more cool part of the story. Back in the eighties I was only able to relay my experiences with only a  handful of classmates, as the inter-net super highway was not fully up and running. But now I'm able to ask literally billions of people, "Have you heard of the UNIVERSAL credit\debit card, have you seen their commercial?"  Well maybe, in due time, you will.
                                              

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=95339083

And now ladies and gentlemen, I have set up a link where it is now possible to download the whole of Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer. I've personally tested the link and everythings running smoothly. Enjoy.

Saturday, September 17, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah: The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 5 (Pgs. 55-57)

     To validate Hobbes' metaphorical passage, I must turn to William James' equation of precursive faith. Our option to believe Hobbes' metaphor within a metaphor for the purpose of enlightenment is

     1.)Live:You can bring yourself to believe it (because, taken figuratively, the likeness of automatons to humans, and humans to civil society is quite precise in structure.

     2.)Forced:Because suspending choice has the same consequences of choosing to reject Hobbes' metaphors (halting the quest for enlightenment).

     3.)Momentous:Because great spiritual awakening is at stake for very many.

The option to believe Hobbes' metaphor within the metaphor for the purpose of enlightening very, very many is-for me- a "genuine option." Accepting his point that a human resembles a automaton leads me to the free will issue, which I choose to pursue because it- in turn- leads to reality of an omnipotent God, a reality I was always meant to teach the world. Thus, my choice to have grasped Hobbes' Leviathan as the philosophical foundation of my quest throughout the decades -- with a certain tenacity-- is validated.
     In my essay, I turned to the text's editorial summation of Hobbes' response to the free will question this being if God is omnipotent, how can humanity have free will?Sifting Hobbes's writing for his basic position, the editors assert,

     Man is a creature of desires and aversions;love is desire, hate is aversion;good anything we desire, evil anything for which we feel aversion; and it is felicity at which we perpetually aim - perpetually "because life itself is but motion, and can never be without desire, nor without fear,no more than without sense."

     In Get a Grip on Philosophy, author Neil Turnbull asserts that such Hobbesian calculation- such "cynical weighing up of the pros and cons" became the pyschological foundations of the modern social sciences. Since economics was one of my undergraduate majors, I was accustomed to the cost/benefit analysis of social issues when I first read Leviathan in the spring of 1984.
     In my essay, I pointed out that since nobody desires what they feel aversion for, nor feel aversion for that which they desire, humanity has free will in effect-but only in effect. I find nothing objectionable with this scientific stance, and believe that such objective analysis of human motivation is far mor pragmatic than the usual religous attempts to express the mechanics of free will.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah: The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 5 (Pgs. 53-55)

I was overwhelmed by the precise mechanics of Hobbes Leviathan,which reaches inescapable conclusions arrived at demonstratively by human reason.

     Leviathan begins with a bold metaphorical stance that reads

          NATURE (the Art whereby God hath made and governes the world) is by
     the Art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can
     make an Artificial Animal.

Thus, Hobbes asserts that as God uses the art of nature to create man (an artificial
animal), just so does man use artifice to create the artificial animal that is civil
society (the Leviathan).

     Elaborating on his claim that humans are artificial animals,

Hobbes rhetorically asks,

          For what is the Heart, but a Spring; and the Nerves ,but so many springs;
     and the Joynts, but so many wheels; giving motion to the whole Body, such was
     intended by the Artificer?

Hobbes extends the range of his metaphor to encompass all of civil society:

          For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE, in latine CIVITAS) which is but an Artificiall Mann; though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul,as giving life and motion to the whole body; The Magistrates,and other Officers of Judicature and Execution, artificiall Joynts; Reward and   Punishment(by which fastned to the seate of Soveraignty, every joynt and member is moved to perform his duty) are the Nerves,that do the same in the Body Naturall;  The Wealth and Riches of all the particular members, are the  Strength; Salus Populi (the peoples safety) its Businesse:Counsellors, by whom all things needful for it to know, are suggested unto it, are the Memory;Equity and Lawes, an artificiall Reason and Will;Concord, Health;Sedition,Sicknesse; and Civill war, Death.

Moreover, the

    Pacts and covenents, by which  the parts of this Body Politique were at first
made, set together, and united resemble that Fiat, or the Let us make man,
pronounced by God in the Creation.

     I likened Hobbes's  Fiat to our own nation's Declaration of Indepence, which first
made, set together and united American society.  I tried using the Principle of Belief
Conservation to test this passage, but found that that standard is unsuited for the analysis
of metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a word denoting one subject or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness between them. Metaphors are paradoxes- statements that seem contrary to common sense yet are perhaps true. Of course metaphors are not litterally true, but are meant to be figuratively taken.
     Thus, in this metaphorical passage, the human heart, nerves,and joints are likened to an  automaton's spring, strings, and wheels, then the human faculties are likened to the parts of civil government. The metaphor is paradoxical because-taken literally, a set of human organs are not the same as the counterpart set of an automaton's components nor are the workings of a civil society the same as the faculties of an individual human- yet, taken figuratively, an insightful likeness is revealed.






Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 5 (Pgs. 51-52)

                                                                      Chapter Five

     May you have a brilliant idea, which you know is right,
               And be unable to convince others.
                                               Romanian Curse 

     Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588, 372 (31 cycles of 12 years) before me; depending of his birth's month and day, the philosopher is probably a Rat in Chinese astrology (like me). (In my fourth manuscript, Transformation of the Rogue Messiah, I devote an entire chapter to my Chinese zodiac.)
             In The Great Philosophers,by Jeremy Stangroom and James Garvey, it is noted from the start that it "is difficult to have anything but a great deal of admiration for someone who managed to annoy as diverse a group of people as did Thomas Hobbes (1588-1672). " Writes the author, Hobbes annoyed Parliementarians (for claiming that the King's right to rule is absolute, Monarchists (for suggesting "that the root of this power is not divine but granted by the people"), mathematicians ("by insisting in the face of overwhelming criticism that he had squared the circle"), Descartes ("by offering profound objections to his views shortly before the publication of the Meditations"), at least one bishop (who he "conducted a life-long public and sometimes acrimonious debate with "on the free-will topic"), the church ("by arguing, among other things, that the king is in charge of the interpretation of Scripture"), atheists ("by taking the sacrament when he mistakenly thought he was about to die"), and perhaps even God, Parliament considered (wondering "whether Hobbes' writings had provoked God's retribution" following the Great Fire and Great Plague).

            Hobbes had his share of influential friends, however, and

                           he was concerned with more than just annoying people. He has been called, with some justice, the father of modern analytic philosophy, and he certainly ushered in modern political philosophy and social theory as we know it, breaking with traditional or mystical views of the origin of political power and turning instead to reason for its justification. (Pg. 36)
           
             At the center of Hobbesian thinking was Geometry and Galilean views on
             motion, and he argued that

                           great strides could be made... by adopting a method owed to the proofs of geometry, that is, beginning with small things and simple truths. Furhter, facts about human desire and sensation as well as large-scale human activities could be understood in terms of the motion of smaller parts. Laws not just of nature, but of human nature might be formulated. (Pg. 37)
            
           

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah: The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 4 (Pgs. 46-50)

     I'd now like to take an aside of sorts that should prove instructive in understanding my quest's motivation. The first time I saw the music video for Walk On was after the night of "The Rescue," on VH1 or MTV. It is filled with actors blending their drama with the emotion of the lyrics. As the song starts, a young man leaves his apartment putting on his jacket, then as he descends the staircase around one corner, his place is taken by a young woman putting on her jacket. Then at the street level entrance, the young woman's place is taken by another young woman in a fully buttoned, double breasted overcoat, who folds her arms as she braves facing life.
     The band is featured performing the song a garage. The theme of the oneness of humanity permeates the video, as one person is replaced with another around corners, and such. Many of the people seem to be running away from something they fear, as they look over their shoulders for the unknown threat chasing them.
     In one scene, a young teenage girl locks herself in her room to get away from her abusive mother, mounts a pedestal to the window, then becomes a vigorous-looking man who jumps out of the window. A young woman lands on the ground a few feet down, then becomes a man running away from the threat. In the music video's final scene, the original young man who left his apartment is pictured from above, and as the view of the camera widens, it becomes apparent that he surrounded by many other people.
     As the shot ascends, the faces merge into the the pupil of another person's eye, that person is in a crowd of people, the shot again ascends, and the faces again emerge in the pupil of another person's eye. This cycle closes the Walk On video; clearly, the theme is of the  general oneness of the human story : Hang in there,  people.
     When I bought the Walk On video on-line (actually I'm not on-line, but my brother is), I was initially a bit disappointed that it was not the same cut that had been on VH-1. However, as I watched it for a while and learned more about it I appreciated the focus the documentary style music video had. The song was written for, and dedicated to, the Nobel Prize recipient Aung San Suu Kyi (who donated the Nobel Prize award to the welfare of the  impoverished children of her land), who is a social activist battling Myanmar's despotic military junta.
     In the video, the band arrives in Indonesia and is filmed signing autographs, then performing Walk On in,  I believe, a parking structure. The specific moral issue of the oppressed lower class in Myanmar gains full attention as destitute young ones are filmed during daily life. Home...hard to know what it is if you've never had one. The music video's final cut features Suu Kyi under house-arrest for many, many years, speaking on camera with crisp British inflection:

     This is not yet the end. There is still a long way to go. And the way might be very, very hard, so please...stand by. 

     I appreciate the band's focus on the plight of the Myanmar refugees specifically, and also like the version of the video with the more general theme; on different levels, they both work. I think it instructive to glance at the cause of hope led by Aung San Suu Kyi, the diminutive democratic icon nicknamed "The Lady."
     The classy Suu Kyi leads her oppressed nation by employing precursive faith. Her belief in the democratic liberation of Myanmar is live (not beyond possibility), forced (not taking a position is, for her, the same as choosing against democracy), and momentous (the lives of very many suffering people rest upon her slight shoulder- herself backed against the wall after twelve plus years of pretty-much solitary confinement at home, where she is denied use of the telephone or Internet). The Lady, whose supporters hold candlelight vigils for on her birthday, does not want a personality cult to develop. Instead the visionary longs for a civil society "where we can sort out our problems by talking with one another."
     I now wonder, can my invisible hand- as Undercover Rogue Messiah--play a role in The Lady's noble quest? I think that perhaps, by an unseen casual sequence, I just may be such a hidden player. *L* Let us turn next to reexamine the essay on Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan that I wrote in April 1984, using the tools and insight we have encountered.

  To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward
     events.It is to perceive the essential nature of things.

                                             Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    

Friday, September 9, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer (Pgs. 44-45)

                                                                       DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Mr. Galactic One, Maximus Helios-Avante or MrGalactic1's websites. Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of Mr. Galactic One and the Websites mentioned therof.



     I was-and still am- very receptive to the songs I hear on the radio and, in such manner acted, then-then reacted-to rock group U2's Walk On:

                                                                            
                                                        And love is not the easy thing
                                                           The only baggage you can bring
                                                             And love is not the easy thing
                                                           The only baggage you can bring
                                                           Is all that you can't leave behind

                                                       And if the darkness is to keep us apart
                                                  And if the daylight feels like it's a long way off
                                                        And if your glass heart should crack
                                                              And for a second you turn back
                                                                           oh no, be strong

                                                                          Walk on, walk on
                                                              What you got they can't steal
                                                                  No they can't even feel it
                                                                        Walk on, walk on
                                                                         Stay safe tonight

                                             You're packing a suitcase for a place none of us has
                                                                               been
                                                         A place that has to be believed to be seen
                                                                      You coulld have flown away
                                                                  A singing bird in an open cage
                                                              Who will only fly, only fly for freedom

                                                                               * * *

                                                                           And I know it aches
                                                                         And your heart it breaks
                                                                      And you can only take so much

                                                                            Walk on, walk on

                                             Home...hard to know what it is if you've never had one
                                                      Home...I can't say where it is but I know I'm
                                                                             going home
                                                                       That's where the hurt is
                                                                               Leave it behind
                                                                     You've got to leave it behind
                                                                             All that you fashion
                                                                                All that you make
                                                                               All that you build
                                                                                All that you break
                                                                             All that you measure
                                                                                  All that you steal
                                                                       All that you can leave behind
                                                                                 All that you reason
                                                                                    All that you sense
                                                                                 All that you speak
                                                                               All that you dress up
                                                                                 All that you scheme

     I listened to the song at Aloha Tower Marketplace at about 6 P.M., I believe, and interpreted it as being the admirer's request that I return home: stay safe tonight. I figured I had proven myself worthy of respect as I very reluctantly drove home, thinking my day was done.:-\ However, as I reclined in the driver's seat upon parking in my house's garage, Walk On played again. I must return! The anonymous admirer's life is in danger, I believed, from the fragments of information I gathered and processed from many other songs and commercials I heard on the radio.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer (Pgs.41-43)

Precursive faith is not always appropiate; the option to believe must be a "genuine option" that cannot be decided on the basis of evidence alone.
     A "genuine option" is defined as an option that is live, forced, and momentous. An option is live when it is in the realm of possibility. Believing I can bring spiritual enlightenment to many people is certainly live, whereas believing that I can fly like Superman is not.
     An option is forced when not choosing to believe it--that is, not even considering the question--is equivalent in consequences to a negative choice. Not choosing to believe I am the Savior has the same consequence as choosing that I am not the Savior.
     An option to believe is momentous when the stakes are high, and much is to be lost if you do not grant a measure of truth to the proposition. My option to believe that I am the Messiah is, of course, very momentous because the lives and well-being of six billion people plus are at stake. :-\
     I believe William James to be correct in his precursive faith theory here, because my choice to believe I am Messiah fits well the precursive faith ticket to belief. My choice to believe this is within the bounds of believability (live), such that my not choosing is the same as my choosing that I am not (forced), and of worldwide import (momentous). This means that I rationally choose to believe I am the Messiah even without sufficient evidence (no evidence derived of sense experience, memory, or testimony). My choice made with precursive faith, (based on trinkets of affirmation recieved from often unexpected sources) shall reach the attention of many unexpected ears, and the world shall be better for this. *L*
     Come to think about it, "The Rescue" was fueled by my precursive faith in my destiny. Since I described the event in detail in My Endless Quest, I shall not repeat myself here, but will analyze the presence of precursive faith in my subconscious psyche that long night of Saturday May 5, 2001. As I wrote in this manuscript's introduction, I just knew I had to quickly drive to Aloha Tower Marketplace to somehow rescue an anonymous female admirer. Choosing to believe the cry for help was a "genuine option" because the choice was live (I knew "The Rescue" would be physically possible), forced (not choosing-suspending judgement of the choice-would have the same consequence as choosing not to rescue the distressed woman), and momentous ("The Rescue"  meant life or death).
     Since I lacked sufficient evidence for my belief, I was unable to convince the Aloha Tower Marketplace security guards or the Honolulu Police Department patrol officers along Ala Moana boulevard of the dire consequences my unknown admirer face. :-\ They chased me away from the waterfront shopping and dining plaza and the adjacent street, so I decided-very reluctantly- to return home.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 4 (Pgs. 38-40)

     Teacher Morris then modifies classic evidentialism with the introduction of another defined category of belief:

          Evidence receptive belief=(by definition)A belief for which evidence is possible.

     Applied to classic evidentialism, the addition yeilds

          Modified Evidentialism: It is irrational for anyone, anywhere, at any time, to hold any evidence receptive belief without sufficient evidence.

    This is more credible in that non-evidence-receptive beliefs (such as The Principle of Belief Conservation)are exempt from the universal demand for evidence. Yet Modified Evidentialism will not work if there are any evidence-receptive beliefs which can be reasonably held without sufficient evidence.

     William James, 19th century Harvard philosopher/psychologist, believed

                 That there is one kind of receptive evidence belief that it is rational to have in the absence of sufficient evidence. He thought that it can be held on the basis of a certain sort of rational faith. Is believing without proof or sufficient evidence the same thing as faith? (p.77)
                
       In his famous essay The Will to Believe, James points out that there are two different approaches to life and belief: negative and positive. The negative approach is based on the fear of making a mistake, and it enjoins caution. The negative approach advises not taking risks (like when I took the backseat, handing my mother and my aunt the burden of driving). :-[ The negative approach is miserly regarding beliefs.
     The positive approach, on the other hand, is generous regarding belief. It is a more positive approach to life and a belief that "advises venturing forth, trying new things, having new experiences, and positioning yourself for great discoveries." James believed that, in order to apprehend some truths, we have to meet reality halfway, with an open mind receptive to new truths.

          Writes Morris,
                    Sometimes something like the positive state of belief, however tentative, helps to create a situation in which evidence is more likely to be forthcoming. In such circumstances, it is not more rational to wait on the evidence before granting a measure of belief, but it is rational to launch out with what James called precursive belief, faith that, etymologically, "Runs ahead of the evidence." (p.78)
         
     Therefore, advises William James, "Believe that life is worth living and your belief will create the fact."

     This applies well to the pivotal year in my life: 1984 (a Year of the Rat). At the start of the year, I was nursing my physical and mental injuries  following my August 1983 suicide attempt at Georgetown. I began swimming at Manoa Pool for exercise and lost twenty pounds, picking up a pretty awesome tan. By cutting way back on caffeinated coffee, I ceased excessive perspiration, and this did wonders for my self-perception.
     In the seventeenth-century English literature class I was taking to get back into the academic groove, English 454, I was overwhelmed by the enlightened writing I encountered, and was first exposed to Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan. As I wrote my essay on it, I felt like a reborn man opening up to a new world- a new world that I would enlighten by explicating Hobbes' words. :-\I focused on this period of time in My Quest: A Retrospective Journal (my first manuscript, published for a fee :-\) and I would later like to analyze my essay with the tools we collect.
         
          Returning now to precursive faith,

                    James discovered that championship level endeavor in any sport was typically based on precursive faith. Champions are regularly challenged to do something they've never done before- climb a new mountain, wrestle a new opponent, break a new world's record. If they just look at the evidence they have concerning their past performances, it will never be sufficient to prove that they are up to the new challenge and will prevail. But James came to realize that what sets champions apart is their ability to engage in precursive faith and launch out with belief that runs ahead of the available evidence, believing in themselves up front. (p. 78)

Monday, September 5, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah: The Philosophical Wanderer (Pgs. 34-37)

     Man's most valuable trait is a judicial sense of what not to believe.                                                
                                                       Euripides


     Applying radical skepticism to Belief Conservation in the next section , Morris reemploys Bertrand Russel's Five Minute Hypothesis. The Five Minute Hypothesis counts as proposition P. Would it be rational to take the cognitive stance of believing this outrageous proposition? To do so would require the denial of a great number of our previous beliefs, there is no independent positive reason to deny those previous beliefs, and we have no compelling reason to affirm as belief, this absurd hypothesis. By application of The Principle of Belief Conservation to the Five Minute Hypothesis, it is most rational to not believe the Five Minute Hypothesis. *L*
             Nor is it rational to take the cognitive stance of suspension of belief  because to do so "would require doubting, or remaining undecided about, a great number of our previous beliefs, all those beliefs that require it being false." Moreover, we have no independent positive reason to become doubtful of all those previous beliefs, and there is no compelling reason to suspend judgement over the Five Minute Hypothesis. Thus it is most rational not to take the cognitive stance.
           Because it is most rational not to believe or withhold judgement on the Five Minute Hypothesis, it is therefore most reasonable to disbelieve it. Application of this reasoning to all other wild propositions yields the same outcome of disbelief. The author then turns to source skepticism applied to The Principle of Belief Conservation.
          The source skeptic's question of how we are sure of our sense experience, memory, or testimony ever being reliable cannot be well answered. There isn't a "single piece of untainted evidence" for the certainty "we have that any of our basic sources of belief are ever reliable connections to reality."(p.74)Given the proposition that:

              Our basic belief-forming mechanisms are some times reliable,

The Principle of Belief Conservation shows that the most rational stance is one of belief.

              Thus, radical and source skepticism
                
                        Can't bully us away from our most basic beliefs. But it can show us that we hold them rationally without proof or evidence, which in itself is a startling revelation, for which we should be grateful. It should make us think. And it will. (p.75)

Morris then reveals The basic status of belief conservation. It captures "a fundamental way in which all rational people think." It is how we respond to the skeptic.  We know The Principle of Belief Conservation to be true in itself because, unlike evidentialism, it passes its own test. 

                       We accept it without proof. We accept it without independent evidence that it is true. Aned we are rational in so doing. There is no independent standard of rationality that can condem or call into question this principle. Nonetheless, we accept it without any further independent support. It is just true. We just believe it. It is not bad on any deeper beliefs. It itself is basic. (p. 75)
                
               The Principle of Belief Conservation is "a basic belief," which can be used to justify other beliefs but has itself no further independent justification. One finds that one believes it, and that it would be impossible not to believe. That is not in itself proof of its truth, but it is true.

               Morris then lists four propositions that the Principle indicates are rational to believe, even without direct evidence of proof:

              1. Sense experience is sometimes reliable.
              2. Memory is sometimes reliable.
              3. Testimony is sometimes reliable.
              4. Our basic belief-forming mechanisms are sometimes reliable.

              It is reasonable to think the Principle of Belief Conservation to be true, but then classical evidentialism is false because The Principle justifies the rationalism of believing things "that are neither self-evident, nor evident to the senses, nor evidentially supported or inferable from propositions that fall into those categories." (p.76)


Sunday, September 4, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 4 (Pgs. 32-33)

     Author Tom Morris turns next to evidentialism, which holds the principle It is irrational for anyone, anywhere, to believe without sufficient evidence. One can see how self-evidence and sense-evidence are included among. "the allowable possible supports for a rational belief" when the evidentialist principle is broadly interpreted. But immediately one runs into the circular reasoning problem we have already encountered:

                If everything has to have proof or evidence, then what is the evidentialist's
               proof for the truth of the evidentialist principle itself- the principle that makes
               this demand? (p. 71)

Evidentialists may claim their principle to be self-evident, but "many philosopher have denied that it's true at all and they clearly understood it." So it's not true by understanding, or by sense-evidence. And if we nevertheless accept it to be true, we must reject it because it is without sufficient evidence. Thus, the principle is self-defeating. :-[ Yet evidence is important to rational life, so a line must be drawn.
    
     Enter The Principle of Belief Conservation, which is a rational response to skepticism, which allows certain basic beliefs to be rationally held without evidence or proof:

               For any proposition, P: If

                           1. Taking a certain cognitive stance toward P (for example, believing it,
               rejecting it, or withholding judgement) would require rejecting or doubting a
               vast number of your current beliefs,

                           2. You have no independent positive reason to reject or doubt all those
               other beliefs, and

                           3. You have no compelling reason to take up that cognitive stance toward P.

     Morris concludes his introduction to the Principle of Belief Conservation with a fitting metaphor and quotation.

                        Your current beliefs are like a raft or boat on which you are floating, sailing across the seas of life. You need to make repairs and additions during your voyage. But it can never be rational to destroy the boat totally while out on the open sea, hoping somehow to be able to rebuild it from scratch, or else to swim without it.  
             
              
           

Friday, September 2, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 4 (Pgs. 29-31)

                                                                     Chapter Four

            From a small seed a mighty trunk may grow.
                                                     Aeschylus

     In Chapter Six, author/teacher Morris shows how- without proof of evidence- it can still be rational to believe our most basic beliefs of life. In doing so, he adds to our thought processing tool-kit. But first, Morris outlines the foundations of knowledge held by the camps of empiricism , on the one hand, and rationalism on the other.
     In empiricism , "sense experience is the ultimate starting point for all of our knowledge." Without the "raw material" provided by the senses, "there would be no knowledge at all" The author notes the difficulty in identifying a single belief that was not first encountered by one of our senses: sight, hearing, touch, smell or taste. Therefore, it's "natural...to come to believe that the senses are the sole source and ultimate grounding of belief." (p. 68)
     I turn now to Get a Grip on Philosophy, by Neil Turnbull for a look at John Locke (1632-1704), the first empiricist philosopher of note. An "influential anti-Catholic involved in protestant politics,"  Locke gained attention in both epistemology and political philosophy. He believed that individuals were born without a priori- innate- knowledge; instead, he "viewed the mind of a newborn baby as being rather like a blank slate (tabula rasa) on which experience was to write its knowledgeable story." (p. 110)  Locke believed a thing's property was of primary (size, shape, material composition) or secondary (color, smell, beauty) quality. Primary Qualities are "objective properties inherent in a thing, and hence the true source of  scientific knowledge out that thing," while secondary qualities are "mere subjective appearances and hence...of no concern to an objectively oriented science." (p. 111)
     At any rate, the opposing view to Locke and the empiricists is that of rationalism, which holds that "the ultimate starting point for all knowledge is not the sense but reason." Rationalists believe that "without prior categories and principles supplied by reason, we couldn't organize and interpret our sense experience in any way. We would be faced with just one huge, undifferentiated, kaleidoscopic whirl of sensation, signifying nothing." (p.69)
     Rationalists claim we are born with "innate knowledge," that is, "fundamental concepts or categories in our minds ready for use." (p. 69)  Examples are "categories of space, of time, and of cause and effect." The principle of causation is not impressed upon our psyches by experience, contend rationalists, but a "prior mental disposition"that connects the process of cause and effect.
     The rationalist camp asserts "that at the foundations of our knowledge are propositions that are self-evident, or self-evidently." An example would be the following deductive syllogism:
                   1. All men are mortal.

                   2. Socrates is a man.

                   3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion Socrates is mortal follows naturally from the application of the second proposition Socrates is a man to the first All men are mortal. Once the first two premises are recognized, it takes no further sense experience to deduce the conclusion.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah:The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 3 (Pgs. 26-28)

     Asking "where is our anchor to reality? What ties our beliefs-forming mechanisms to the way things really are?" Morris moves onward for answers in his next question, The questions of radical skepticism.
  Radical skepticism of the past, present, and future presents itself in Bertrand Russell's Five Minute Philosophy, which asserts, "The entire universe sprang into existence from nothing five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, apparent fossils in the ground, wrinkles on people's faces, and other signs of age all instantly formed and thoroughly deceptive." If this hypothesis is true, writes Dr. Morris, all his past-oriented beliefs would be false because, "nothing existed before that cosmic appearance act five minutes past." The point of radical skepticism's Five Minute Hypothesis is not to convince the student of its assertion, but to challenge her/him to prove the hypothesis to be false.
      Turning now to our beliefs of the present, Morris turns to the "Father of Modern of Philosophy," Rene Descartes, who in the 17th century asked, "How do you know that it's not all a dream?" Or, Descarte asked, "How can we be certain our beliefs are not created by an evil demon who has us hypnotized?" Writes Tom Morris,
             We cannot refute The Dream Hypothesis, or the Demon Hypothesis, or any such  
              wild,comprehensive scenario. We can't even come up with a single shred of positive,
             independent evidence that either of these radical alternatives is false. (p. 64)

      The author then glances at radical skepticism about the future by employing Futuristic Nihilism. In this philosophic vehicle, " the future is now just one huge void."

             The futuristic nihilist points out that the future does not exist. In order for a
             belief to be true, the object about which it is true must be among the furniture
             of reality, and that object must have the property attributed to it in that belief.

             At any second, we could wake up from Descartes Dream and find things in
             the immediate future to be very different from what we might have inductively
             inferred. [derived a conclusion using part to whole reasoning]

             Or Descartes' Demon could snap his fingers and wake us up to a radically divergent
             future from anything we had in time. (p. 64)
     There is no good answer to the suppositions, as radical skepticism " shows us that there is very little room in human life for cocky, arrogant dogmatism." Morris thus concludes Chapter Five, and goes on in Chapter Six: The Amazing Reality Of Basic Beliefs to further test the cajones of our beliefs by evaluating the foundations of knowledge held in Empiricism (experience) and Rationalism (reason) , the tests of knowledge provided by Evidentialism, the Principle of Belief Conservation, and the rational choice to believe the possibility of achieving the impossible through the application of Precursive Faith.

                                                             By doubting we come at the truth.
                                                        Cicero

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Stu Taba's Rogue Messiah: The Philosophical Wanderer Chapter 3 (Pg. 23-25)

                                                                         Chapter Three
                                       Testing purifies the gold by boiling the scum away
                                                                                                      Jalal Udo-Din Rumi
     The "sufficient evidence" requirement of justified belief leads to the truthseeker's application of scrutiny, which shall be our next focal point. In Chapter Five: The Challenge of Skeptisism, author Tom Morris shows "how the most basic form of skeptical inquiry can give us a fresh perspective on the foundations of all human knowledge." (p. 53)
     Skeptism puts all one "knows" in a new light and "can inspire us with a new and needed humility concerning all our claims to knowledge." Morris first points out that, etymologically, skeptism derives from a Greek word meaning "to inquire." Thus, "skeptisism at its best is not a matter of denial, but of inquiring, seeking, questioning doubt."
     The author next divides all our beliefs into three categories:Past Oriented, Present Oriented, and Future Oriented. Then, the skeptic asks two types of questions: those of source skepticism and radical skepticism. Regarding questions of source skepticism, testimony of others is our main source of  our past beliefs, along with our own first person memory. The skeptic asks how one is to know how reliable onc's memory is.
     There is a logical problem in the answer of past recollection of reliable memory because this reasoning is circular: relying on memory to justify memory is assuming the truth of the thing one is trying to prove. :-[ Regarding testimony as a reliable source for justifying past beliefs, one runs into the same circular reasoning problem when one justifies the reliability of testimony on the testimony of trusted sources (Mom, Dad, etc.). Further, if one reasons that many times in the past, other peoples testimony has proved reliable, "a bigger circle of reasoning is drawn because one is relying on memory  to justify testimony.*L*
     And as regards present beliefs, we base most of them on testimony (of family, friends, and news authorities), which leads to the same circular reasoning problem. :-[  How about sense experience? That is the medium through which we filter our memory and testimony of others. "Perhaps sense experience can give us the direct, provable tie to reality that the skeptic seems to be seeking." But no, the proof of sense experience reliability runs into the very same circular reasoning pitfall!
     One may recall (memory)having seen (sense experience)a penny on the street and upon closer inspection, it had-- in fact--turned out to be a penny. So is your sense experience proved reliable? Well,no, because you first invoked your memory- which cannot be proven reliable- then your memory was of seeing- a sense experience- an object, so once again the logical proof fails. :-[
     Just as our proofs of past and present beliefs fail "that just transfers over to any equal lack of justification for trusting our justification of beliefs about the future." Concludes Morris:
                Notice that the skeptic's questions don't just show that we can't prove the reliability 
                of our sources for belief. The point is much deeper. We can't provide one single,
                pure piece of evidence for this assumption that we all share and on which the
                credibility of our beliefs depends. The sources of our beliefs are sometimes
                reliable. And this fact is certainly perplexing, if not deeply troubling. (p. 61)