Insight

Distorting time on a dingy of obscurity,

jaded perceptions of the simple purity,

short ripples crash like a tidal wave,

marks a moment as a shallow grave.

Clouds dash as ink blot morse codes,

to where the hidden mind abodes,

adrift and without an anchor to fall,

marks the heavens as a star laced wall.

Once a boats sail was an act of the one,

then came explosive powders and the gun,

finally with reason we iconed evolution,

and the apocoylpse a side effect of pollution.

While in the city-guided by laws and by reason,

science turns stone and measures the season,

out in the sea from horizon to coast line,

a place of dreams, hypothesis-and divine.

A torrential rain of idea a thousand years ago,

today the same would barely cause a wind to blow,

what once was given to some God’s quake,

is now granted truth when continental shelfs collide-and break.

What once was important becomes lost in the new,

many were concerned-but now there are few,

time grants new insight-or relativistic illusion,

that which is important today-may soon be labeled delusion.

Moments are called that only at the end,

a climax to a story and history on the mend,

minor ripples float unable to detect,

till we choose to or are forced to reflect.

I am opposed to the war on drugs for several reasons which I shall list below.

1.)  Cost effectiveness.  People have an innate desire to seek an altered state, whether it is chemically induced, mentally induced or physically induced.  When we take drugs off the street, we make it more lucrative to sell drugs.  It is similar to if the gold supply was suddenly cut in half, the value of current gold would double.  The same is true with drugs, making it even more beneficial to smuggle smaller amounts of drugs which in turn would be more difficult to seize.  if half the amount of heroin in the world was seized, the remaining half would be worth twice as much.  Which means that smuggling half the amount would net the same basic economic benefit.  The more drugs we take, the more they are worth-making it more attractive for small timers. 

2.)  Quality controls.  Under a system of regulation we could ensure quality controls on drugs.  Some drugs would of course fall above the line (based primarily on physical dependency and direct health risks; by direct I mean the drug itself causes the harm not misuse of the drug-such as driving high or playing with guns high).  This type of system would reduce the threat of the value of less drugs increasing as postulated in number 1.  An example would be cocaine, in pure form it would probably test over the line for physical dependency.  Alternatively a legal version could be created that is less potent, similar to what we already do with alcohol and nicotine limits.  It may at first appear that current users would only purchase the illegal stronger version from the street.  However the mere ease of access and most likely lower cost would drive people to purchase the legal version more often.  Sometimes people will choose beer and wine for a party over liquor because in some states it is easier to purchase beer and wine than liquor.  Every time a person chooses the legal alternative to the street version it cuts directly into the profits of illegal dealers without driving up the value of their product.  When we take drugs out of the system, the demand is still there only the price goes up.  This would be consumer choice which would be cutting back demand for the illegal drug.  Even if at first negligible the effect will be cumulative.  Conversely as time goes on the illegal street drugs will be viewed similar to moonshine.  Many people drink alcohol, not many people will purchase homebrewed alcohol from someone they do not know.  This will be especially true with new generations who were not exposed to the illegal alternative.  While it is true ’some’ people with knowledge could isolate the weaker version of the drug to create a higher potency version-the effect would be mostly for personal and localized use.  It would still be difficult to seek these people out, the drugs in potent version are already on the streets now, and if potential to abuse a substance beyond regular use is the determinate factor it could easily be applied to many prescription medications and alcohol.  There are also several methods by which we could counter people over taking the legal version-one of which would be including some agent that when built up to a certain dose level would induce vomiting.  The point is that regulation, even though the product would be weaker-would work within capitalist economic controls to cut back on the illegal drug trade; as well as being safer for the users.

3.)  The future of drugs is coming to a head.  Within a generation we will have a variety of smart drugs that will do everything from increasing memory and recall temporarily to increasing body strength without the side effects of steroids.  We need a system in place to regulate these drugs now, not just say any form of a recreational drug is ‘illegal’  Viagra and similar drugs are clearly recreational considering that the vast majority of people who use them do not have erectile dysfunction.  We cannot simply ignore the fact that drugs are here to stay and with advances in understanding the mind many drugs will have neglible side effects but appeal to the common person.  Drugs that increase memory skills have been useful in studies of mice.  How many students cramming for a test would reject such a drug based merely on illegality?  The government may make an argument about altered states and side effects from illegal drugs-many people don’t always desire to be ‘out of it’.  However when it comes to something that will appeal to a majority of people it would be far better to have regulations in effect than to have it be in the hands of the black market.

4.)  Who produces the drugs.  Under regulation drug companies can seek to provide recreational drugs to ensure their safeness as much as possible.  Clear labels can be used because the process is controlled.  If there is a way to get the same effect with less side effects;and this is clearly posted on the packaging-the drug company that reduces physical dependency will be ahead of the game.  There will actually be real incentive to making safer drugs and with advances in technology this will be the outcome.  Imagine going into a grocery store to buy cough syrup for a child.  If they were clearly labeled as to addictiveness, with 1 being very low and 10 being very high-would you an equivalent cough syrup with a 2 or a 3 on it?  How about soda pop?  Under regulation drug companies would be allowed to legally develop new recreational drugs or manipulate the ones we have now and free market consumerism would motivate these drugs to be as harmless as possible by demand.

5.  Free market capitalism.  The only reasons to regulate a free market is when it deprives people of choice.  If a person is dead they clearly have no choice, so health reasons can be taken into account if it’s directly linked to the product.  Misuse of cars and guns can kill people, as can misuse of a number of legal and illegal substances.  Monopolies deprive people of choice as much as physical dependency does.  If McDonalds placed crack in their special sauce, they would have as much of an unfair advantage as if they had bought out all the local fast food markets or otherwise prevented people from access to other fast food.  So for both those reasons the free market can be regulated because both harm the free market more than regulation does.  However any recreational drug does not fit these two conditions.  We are regulating the free market purely based on opinions.  It doesn’t matter how physically dependent a person becomes on a drug or the health risk.  We measure drugs by what medical benefit they give purely-it has nothing to do with recreational use.  Other substances such as tobacco or alcohol we get around by classifying them as foods-even though their active ingredients clearly qualify as drugs.  There is no capitalist excuse for not allowing adults to purchase what they choose too.  The whole point of capitalism is to leave the system to itself, that we are not intelligent enough to control every aspect of society.  Otherwise we’d be communists.  And history has shown that the least government control the better.  Society needs to be left to grow and develop on its own, we cannot direct every facet of social growth.

6.)  No law should be created with the intent to cause an action.  There are exceptions to this rule but most laws that follow this are clearly social engineering.  Are we creating laws to prevent people from using drugs, or to create a certain class of people in our society.  I would argue the latter.  We want a drug free society and are innacting laws to put this into effect.  Our definition of drug is loose at best, and what happens to people under this system harms the individual in the supposed benefit of the many.  Individuals should be held as the equal to groups.  When the individual harms the group the groups rights take precedent, when the group harms the individual the reverse should be true as well.  The purpose of law is to prevent an action-not to cause one.  In my opinion the law is already there, the only purpose of the state in this is to recognize the laws that already exist.  I have used this example before but will do so again.  When you slap a childs hand away from the hot stove-the law is don’t touch the hot stove.  The slap is the punishment.  If left without law the punishment would still be there, but in a more harmful fashion-as in getting severely burned.  The same is true of law in general.  Letting a murderer run free in society is more harmful than putting him in prison.  Letting a rapist run free is more harmful than putting them in prison.  These conditions are not met with most drug crimes.

7.)  I could go on but I will finish by stating that we have more people in prison than any other nation in this world does or has in the past.  The cost is skyrocketing.  We let rapists out of prison to make room for drug offenders.  And the harm done by putting people in prison and the mark on their record is most often much more harmful to the person than the drugs themselves were in the first place.  No crime should be punished more than it’s actual real harm is.  We shouldn’t murder someone for stealing.  An eye for an eye, is clearly appropriate when discussion drug offenses.  In biblical times, an eye for an eye was a liberal view point.  Previously offenders of minor infractions were punished much more than the infraction itself.  Yet by sentencing people to prison or giving them a record for drug use we are doing the same thing as cutting someones eyes out for stealing a loaf of bread.

More to come.

I’ve been reading a little bit on how higgs fields might give particles their mass.  That space is actually flooded with higgs boson that we cannot yet detect but particles push against them which in turn give them their mass.  In turn I’ve been trying to connect it to my own thoughts about space time.

The key I think is going back to when the universe started, where the same physical laws must have existed as they do today.  In a super compressed universe or any mass the tendency for any two particles to attempt to occupy the same space at the same time would expand exponentially.  There must be some natural reason this cannot occur.  In super dense spaces below that in which quantum tunneling would occur mass alone cannot explain this, unless the particles had some foresight into not only where another particle is now-but where a particle will be.

If anything I am assuming that the higgs field or something similar is generated by each particle, rather than totally flooding space.  With limited force and energy however how would a particle ‘tag’ a future point in space time and what would occur when two particles attempted to mark the space point?  Keep in mind I am imagining space as near totally compressed with the same amount of mass that currently exists. 

For the first, I think there is some pocket of the particles energy and/or mass dependent upon the particles motion that dictates how quickly the fields are formed and dispersed.  I am thinking that the way the energy is dispersed occupies more space than should be possible.  Since the fields would be of short duration and ideally would only interact with other higgs fields rather than the particles themselves the force necessary could be smaller.  If the strength of the field varies with distance but the rate of field generation varies with time then more massive particles would generate weaker fields at greater distances while particles with less mass would generate the equivalence of stronger fields since in the same time frame the particle would continuously be generating the fields ahead of it’s trajectory.  This would depend mostly on the velocity of a particle generating more fields in a given time that may not totally dissipate versus a slower moving particle.

To the second idea, I have thought along similar lines for a while that the two interacting fields would curve space time such that each would be displaced along a central axis.  The same thing I believe occurs when any two masses collide in a pure vaccum, they will rotate along an axis before impact regardless of the velocity of either mass.  Though one mass may rotate more.

I should think more on this of course.  Yet I do think that most of the difficulties encountered with physics and specfically quantum mechanics have to do with time and dimension.  In my mind I do think there is a force that prevents a mass from tunneling into itself or other masses.  Whether this is the higgs fields or some unique aspect to gravity I’m uncertain.  Both could give objects their ‘mass’.  Unlike electro-magnetism-mass and gravity are cumulative.  It may not require that different forces exist to give one particle more mass than another, if more higgs fields are generated in one space at one time-by interacting with one another curving space more in one direction than another.  It’s not necessary that one large mass acts as a single body, if there is some byproduct of particle interaction that behave as if one large mass. 

I ordered YourselfFitness last week after hearing about it on a video game review site.  It’s a virtual personal trainer software that I can’t recommend enough.  Very professional, when you start a new account you go through an approximately 30 minute fitness evaulation to ‘build’ the workout that is right for you.  It includes over 500 exercises and a 4500 meal planner based on the calorie intake you want.  The meal planner includes a printable shopping list and directions to prepare them.  If you have work out equipment (hand weights, step platform, stability ball, heart rate monitor) the workouts will design itself around that.  There is also a meditation garden for doing yoga work outs.  The program can be paused at any time and a 3-d model can be rotated around to ensure you are doing the exercises correctly.  Yourself fitness keeps track of your progress, adjusts the work out routine based on your responses to questions, and gives you a hard time if you miss a day. 

I’ve only had a chance to use the software three times so far (not counting the evaluation) and it is quite a work out for me.  I have it set up for alternating days-and I plan on doing weight lifting and yoga on odd days.  The game is for PC, PS2, and XBOX.  Ebgames has the ps2 version for order from their website.  I went with the PC version because I can take the program with me easily when my computer is upgraded, and I can use it via my laptop.  My laptop has S-video out so I can readily plug it into a larger T.V.  The software cost about $29.99, and is highly rated by both gaming sites and by health magazines (such as prevention). 

I’m a beginner-well that’s even giving myself too much credit, for most of these exercises.  It’s a lot more comfortable to do them in a closed room than look silly trying to do them in public-especially with the yoga.

What makes human beings unique amongst most other life on earth is our ability to better our fellow man.  Language and invention are clear signs that this is our most specific trait.  When chased by a lion, invention gives the advantage in a single lifetime-what would take genes many generations to evolve.  If we look at humanity in this way, what makes man most fit-is his ability to make others more fit.  Conversely, the least fit man is he who is either unable or unwilling to help others.

Racism and other forms of prejudices stand as a cruel mockery of this truth.  To see one as inferior, is to see one that you cannot help rise up.  The egoist may find themselves a more fit person, but they do not condemn another as less fit.  The racist defaces himself as impotent when it comes to his fellow man for he must say to himself-’I am unable to better this human being’.  Perhaps there are many reasons for his belief, but this is the end result.  There is no one less fit to serve humanity than one who chooses not to.   

[The All,7]

quick poem just wrote about how I see myself trying to make sense of all the nuances of humankind.  Where they came from, where they’re going.  At the end I’m trying to give the sense that rather than actually learning anything or making anything new-it feels more like I’m unlearning and trying to forget all that I’ve been conditioned to accept.  Devolving is an appropriate term.  A blank slate is just that blank.  Imagine trying to rewrite a language from scratch, could you come close to having one near the size of an every day dictionary before your time expires?

Revise
——

Step into my dungeon mind,
where eyes are fluff dotted
and whispers underlined.
Into horrorshows of green and black,
my soul stretches,
yet gives little slack.

Green is the season,
beginnings my friend.
yet black turns the winter,
always to the end.

Watching wilting flowers
with dream stained visions,
another climbs up the towers
the multitudes submissions.

Different is a trait
lost to early adulthood
when differents become psychotics
just misunderstood.

Battled so long against comformity,
that now much conflict is meaningless.
conventional handshakes are a mystery-
as are ‘bless you’ replies to a sneeze,
or ‘thanks’ and ‘would you please’.
forgone, would they notice something amiss?

Isolated and unlearning
de-volution my mind is churning
language reborn in one-zero grunts
minor are the challenges
the revisionist confronts.

One cannot kill an idea or a dream.  It can be stifled, the vessel can be done away with-but the idea and dream will resurface so long as it is meant to do so.  The truth does not turn away for any person or group of people.  As such, an immortality is granted to all thought-all feeling. 

The oppressed man may strive for freedom today, and not find it-but someone like him one day will.  An inventor can spend years on a machine that never bares fruit-but his brother or sister of the soul one day will.  Look not to life as an entirety, but as a collection of moments.  Just as one act of goodness does not a good person make, so should one failure not make ones life a travesty.  See each thought, each wish, and each attempt as unique.  These aspects of you when brought down to their individual self-contained states are shared throughout many, if not over today-then over time.  Take comfort that these will live on.

Each moment of each day is a scene that we divest ourselves in entirety too.  It guides our actions and thoughts.  Is it not also so with our dreams?  Shaped by a stage of unknown design.  Take comfort that the stage will live on.

Does it matter if the age, the sex, or the face of the person who reaches the finish line differs from your own-if the drive and the thought are the same?  Say that you share this piece of your soul with the world, and rejoice that this truth shall come to pass-and is immortal and right.

[Eternity,5]

Sin does not come from within, it comes from without.  Out of ignorance we can act as a conduit for sin.  No one person is responsible for the world around him or her.  We are born into the world from which sin persists like a virus.  Some of us are born more immune to the ravages of this disease than others.  Societies beliefs serve as an imperfect inoculation, constantly perfected as we evolve.  This does not disavow a sinner from their actions, it simple reminds us of our own role in the sin.  During punishment, we are not judging the sinner alone-we are also judging that part of humanity that we share-that part that allowed the sin to occur.  We should never forget that the sin is born from this world of ours-and as such we all share in the responsibility.

[The All,6]

There is no single apocalypse or creation.  Eternity is timeless as the Lord is timeless.  The end and the beginning are happening all the time thoughout our mode of comprehension.  The events leading towards the end are occuring simulataneously with the events leading us towards the beginning.  Time is only an attempt at understanding the world around us.

Sin, evil, crime, war, hate-pervade the world around us.  They wax and wan throughout the months and seasons, occasionally bubbling up into a greater movement upon the social consciousness.  So too however do we find love and peace.  We cannot point to a single moment in time and say clearly, here begun man-or here ends man.  Without relating one incidence of evil versus one incidence of good together, by treating them as seperate and unqiue incidences-it becomes possible to say that the world ends and begins a million times a day.

When we set off a firework, when does the fire work go off?  When we purchase and position the fire work?  When we lay down the fuse?  When we light the fuse?  When the firework lifts into the sky?  When the firework explodes?  Remove any single action in the chain and the firework would not go off, so why should one event be viewed as more important than the other?  In a murder trial to we seperate the death of the women from the gun that fire the bullet from the loading of the bullet and pulling the trigger?  Why then should the end of days be considered differently.  In an infinite universe there is no one single point for the end, for the end is always occuring around us.  The same is true with creation, with death comes birth and all the events that lead up to the birth.

The world of man is always being created and is always dying.  The end is occuring as much today as it will tomorrow-creation is occuring as much today as it did as far back in time as we can recall.

[Eternity,4]   

The knowing of a thing and understanding serve unique purposes.  Knowing a thing is how you relate its existence to the universe around you.  Understanding a thing is how you relate its existence to the universe within your self.  You can know a pitcher quite readily from past experience.  Understanding the pitcher, even as simple as it may seem is built from more complex experiences-though the knowledge does not change.  The pitcher could be art, a decoration for the homestead.  The pitcher may be used to hold flowers within.  The pitcher may be used to pour tea.  Knowing the pitcher is an absolute, understanding the pitcher is infinite.  Therefore we should not seperate ourselves based on understanding.  What one man understands life to be compared to another mans is irrelevant.  What matters is that we know life is.

[The All,5]