I am not talking solipsism. Well maybe initially.Your life is all you know, meaning, your consciousness and whatever else we do or do not know comes with that. True, so your life does revolve around you. If some of you is external to that, then where are you really? Possibly more than we currently acknowledge.

We know elements and molecules come and go, but we seem to stay more or less. Time comes and goes, but we seem to remain in some stretched kind of present now. If now is just a point, perception and awareness, are uniquely alive in what seems like a dimension not as bounded by a time line cross point of now, nor one of its companion space never changing.

Do you feel that your perception is somehow more than a photograph? Something more like process experience, which may include an incredible interaction of things like; gravity, multiple dimensionality’s, molecular associations, electrochemical processes, pattern discerning memory bank associations etc., seems more like what I experience as I have what we call my life.

Memory gives me a reference point to expect or trust some things, but it seems to be in a data bank of some sort. I am writing and you are reading, seemingly in reference to our personal encyclopedias and molecular messages and forms filled with potential, filed in a double helix.

What part of me is really me?

Are my proteins and water and minerals, kept in little cell enclaves, pieces of me or some kind of collective hive? Do I seem to be more my thoughts? What about how they can be changed by hormones? How about how easily I get frustrated when I am thirsty? Are even these thoughts at the beck and call of molecular necessities? And what of that young or not quite so young lust and sureties of forever together so earnestly felt and later, what was I thinking?


There was some point, allegedly, in scientific theory, where we shared a singularity, a kind of infinitely small mathematical point where space and time were potentiality but not seemingly present as we now know them. What was to be you and I were there, and so was Pangaea and the Klingon’s or whoever else is out there, or in here? That, and all the energy that seems to be around in every direction. Even the void between the stars seems like a kind of medium that conducts happenings through space-time.

We are trapped in our vantage point on dimensions, but where is the center when we all were children of one? It is the same with the earth as far as orientation. We picked north and south poles for certain reasons, and the equator makes a certain center ring regarding rotation, but on a ball, where is the center?

We orient our memories to our experiential boundaries, local roads, our home life, national boundaries, a world. In the northern hemisphere we put our orientation on what seems to be up, all in some ways arbitrary definitions that go on to have meaning and relevance made up of initially naive biases, relative to ones place as it seems opposed to other places.

Yet oddly, these subjective impressions go on to define much of our lives, lives where incredible things others seem to share, love, joy, loss and suffering, giving and forgiving. These all cross reference to bring distinct value, a unique and potentially original value, right in this middle of everywhere; your life. Your life is its own little miracle connected to the infinite one.


I can travel the world, go in different directions, unavoidably keep moving through some kind of time frame, yet I am bound by the subjective. Like a line through a circle, but it is still, of and in the circle. The farther I go, the further or more near I am to what aspect of being? Are we capable of moving more near or further away from everything?

Being, in all its dimensions, which seems unavoidably to include all that is, and perhaps was or will be, is what we each are. A great big seemingly nearly forever, with us tied onto Its umbilical cord across all space and time to the unavoidable center that is both in us and all around us. I find it hard to find a way out of this trap, that I am, and you are, even though I am here and you are there, each together. We still are at the center of it all. Comprehension of that on human terms has its limitations and prejudice built up by relative ignorance and assumptions of course.


That does not change this one thing about you, that you belong where you are. It is not a small place or some insignificant life, it is life, a Big Life really, right in the middle of everything.



I find many sources of inspiration from my blog tag surfing. I sometimes respond to the ones I agree with, or find a new and useful perspective or experience description in. I mostly write of the ones in which I disagree, since that is where the issues in contention with my viewpoint are. I do not usually link to them if they are a persons opinion, not wishing to turn communication into a bunch of you said and I said but neither listen with an ear or give in an inch. I also feel that trading often quick dismissive commentary hardly helps understanding to move along. If someone is actively curious, I trust them to be looking for ideas on their own.

Political discourse is often filled with the false premise, it often dependent on out of context “truths” or “facts” in the ad-hominem offensive attack. These sorts of false premises, false dichotomies and other mechanisms for hiding bias under alleged reason, is the norm for much political antagonism. It is easy to dismiss ones opponents when their machinations are so evident to you. Ones own? Not so much.

I am right after all. If that is my perspective, I am set up to automatically devalue countervailing ideas. That may be good for that us against them mentality or righteousness, but not so good for discerning actual reality, since I then exclude proper consideration of contradictory evidence. I think it is often in this “fair” consideration, where I can employ diversionary notions to buttress my own view, without honestly opening my heart and mind to another’s perspective.


Politics is all about representing the attachments to ones identity as it applies to personal and civic life. I am identified with my side for some reason. These reasons can be solid and upfront, but are somewhat more likely mushy and attached to parents or ones place in life and with whom one associates or admires in the culture. These can be dubious since they introduce emotional notions that can have even more power than fact or proved theory, yet stand as an apparent ground on which my identity is firmly rooted. Many political moves are meant to shift this sand of emotional foundation, pouring water at its footings to sink it or slide your position more towards one area. This is then propaganda or other misdirection administered as if for ones own good.

Most political adds are made of this material, false premises creating whole scenarios that have little merit in true reason but are meant to turn those insecurities of ours into solid products, be they merchandise or votes. If these greatly influence your choices, you are probably quite uniformed.


My point of view on a rationalization scenario caught in my tag surfing:

First was one I read on my post, a scenario of an Obama presidency. It was predicated on his “Christ” (my addition) like promise to talk with our enemies. The quite long and involved with foreign relations gone bad scenario that ensued, was all based on the false assumption that since you (Obama) said you were going to meet with your enemies, you thus were going to ignore your friends. (On what grounds this conclusion?) Then it went on with the bad consequences of the Obama presidency. Ending with a quick quip about crushing the military’s moral by pulling out just in time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Well, there was another false premise; that might guarantees right. It has in the Iraq case, as many military and intelligence assessments have suggested, led to an empowering of our adversaries in the region mentioned in the post, especially since after the use of might, much wrong assumption and expectations were relied on as if they were facts. On a war begun with much falseness, what exactly is victory now?

I could equally posit a scenario, that since the manipulated elections of 2000 and 2004, the USA has been violated from within, and so invited the ensuing disasters, by betraying its inherent trust in truthfulness of its institutions. That the military itself, was betrayed by ideology and its host of false assumptions, tucked under highly questionable “facts” rendered out of bounds for democracies fourth estate. So called patriotic unquestionable mandates were employed and submitted to, fomenting authoritarian march in line cult-think. Of course. Exactly what we have always fought for?

I could say that yes, the first Clinton administration was inept enough on defense, especially on small groups that could cause major harm, but that the administration that replaced it, finished the pulling down of the American public trust around our ankles. Doing the opposite of whatever liberals say to do philosophy, seemed to help to open the doors to 9-11 further than before. In all likelihood, what we experienced was what leadership is like that has been propped up and bailed out by power interest all their lives, and what that kind of arrogant yet naive dubious character traits trickle down from their model into government. That, then, leading to the countless scandals and deceptions the American public, including the military, has had to endure.

Personally, I would put more trust in naive good intentions, in a trust for hope and change, than the kind of power corruption classes that have come to dominate and perpetuate a dominator/subservient psychology that thrives off of conflict at home and in the world. We are now seemingly wed to imperialist ambitions of world domination. These now codified by rationalizations into lifestyle, our way of life, our freedoms, or even vital national interest. Exactly whose interest are they in?

How seductive it is to think you can force others to think some other way, as a quick fix to deep systemic world inequalities, and resource depletion with possibly catastrophic environmental pollution? While our leaders come to double talk morals and behavior to the world as if omniscient and beyond rational questioning, the greatest issues are being ignored for these ego challenged identity games.

Enough said on how might guarantees true results as promised.


This morning there was an interview on Democracy Now, where two representatives, one of Obama and one of Clinton, discussed their view of the realities of last nights primary. Two narratives seem to be in place; one where Obama’s string of victories is broken, indicating some kind of sea change. The other that he essentially has the delegates rapped up, and did very well since just two or so weeks ago Clinton was supposed to trounce him in Texas. (I am now running my impressions on how the conversation seemed to be and not exact statements.)

One false premise is about the “momentum” illusion that at times takes hold as a fact, even though it may be a condition of many variables, variables that would not always hold steady down the line, like historical state tendencies. But this notion becomes good emotional political fodder once unstoppable presumed momentum is broken. We can declare everything has changed, when something has changed, but what that is may be simply the states traditional tendencies held somewhat. Media interest certainly want the attention a fight brings to their advertisers, so pundits will declare someones sky is possibly falling. There can be this silent bias to a see-saw session being as long as possible.

The premise that two people from the same party, one who wins and the other loses the state, translates directly to the other party standing in as the winner or loser is how sound? What kind of futuristic wishy washy math is that? “I’d vote for the woman, but not the guy in my party?” Or the other way around? Is that the reasoning we are now appealing to?

Both sides argued their viewpoints in talking point purity, until Amy Goodman asked a simple question at the finish about what mistakes the candidates had made along the way. The Obama rep, seemed to give an honest inward looking probe of a possible misstep and ended it on that. The Clinton rep., who has a book out on how women take over the reign’s of power or something like that. (I’m trying to leave the exactness (quotes and such) out of my point as to not smudge my subjective impression of a skewed answer.) This Clinton rep. took advantage of her place in the situation, opportunistically.


The Clinton woman, and author, went on to say the public was not seeing Clinton’s human side (the public or medias fault?), more or less, then went on, being the last speaker, to finish on Clinton’s strong points and “betterness”.

Well I thought; “This response did not truly answer the question about the candidates mistake, but instead, went on to finish on all her presumed strengths. This is an opportunistic political taking advantage of the situation of being a last presenter and the opponent getting no fair time to rebut what was intended as an introspective point on humility and campaign experience “learned.” A small issue of personalities and opportunistic placement perhaps, but quite telling of logic and audience attention to detail nevertheless.


Politics? Yes. But the other guy did no such thing as I recall. It was a rare chance for unscripted introspection, and was initiated as such. Not the same old thing. This troubles me some about the Clinton and McCain campaigns morphing into we rule by the same old thing so successful in propaganda campaigns these last several years. It is how business is done, experience with the same old thing. Fear based “toughness” more important than pursuing whole understanding? As a citizen of the USA, I am really tired of being treated like an idiot.

Well, from my own biased point of view a generalization from above; if this is how woman are to gain authority and responsibilities in governing more, that example was not one I would endorse. Out doing what has been the game of men at their own sophistry tricks, seems not the kind of power I want more of. I would hope that from my side of the political spectrum, we would not mimic the misleading premises so apparently effective on the other side’s followers. Otherwise, as I started in this piece, we will not need open our hearts or minds, cause we will be always certain of the others deceptive characteristics, and blinded to our own.

SAY WHAT? UH. I ALREADY KNOW THAT. SO? I wasn’t talking to you anyway.



“And we could not say it on TV if it wasn’t true.”

Now that might be a question. To be or?

I am surprised to see so many political blogs merely state what was just reported on TV.

The blogosphere can be a conveyor belt for many things, but personally, being a substitute TV set is a little below my naive expectations.

Oh. I imagine it is exciting. You hear or see something that is really interesting to you and you pass it right along, I can get that, but for politics, I’m a getting tired of hearing what I already know. Maybe I am asking too much of my fellows. Expecting too much originality. But telling me who just won whatever state? If I was a politico, which I am of sorts, I would likely already know that, or soon find out. You could have told me of your near accident today. Or a new bird seen outside your window this morning. Now that would say something of who you are, aside from the TV.

I just read a post on my tags that was literally a repeat of what the talking heads were saying, and I wonder who the passer along-er is? A recorder? Each primary day seems to be filled with regurgitated TV news, which after about 5 minutes is no longer late breaking, especially on political nights.


I know I am being rude and picky in a sense, and you could be rude to me about my stuff, but at least my stuff is my stuff mostly. I am not in love with my TV set, and am a bit sorry for those who are. There are shows I like and try to see somewhat regularly, but guess what? I am not going to be typing to you all the time about what just happened on them. Nope. Not gonna do it.

I would like to hear of your life, just not so much your TV life and TV latest breaking TV stories. I would not mind if you put them on in a manner that shows a tag, like, tag; just saw the news show want to hear?, that could be a tag. Put a category like tag; Science Fictions Channel show talk, and hey, I might go there. Tag; discussing Ghost Hunters, cool, I might check that out too. I’m for that straight forward TV show review. Even a political repeat with a question for thought on the end would be of some merit. But repeating reports? “How cool is that?” (Direct TV add woman).

(The elitist opinion above does not necessarily reflect the views of this post, nor of the authors sponsor, who happens to be himself, nor of our advertisers, who happen to be nobody.)

As for my day, it was back and neck breaking, more news to my body than of world events. I am looking forward to going to bed and letting that tension subside. Quit taking it out on unsuspecting bloggers just being excited. But I must ask. Why do spell checkers not have blogging and many computer lingo in their data bases yet? Seems a bit absurd. End of days complaints.

You have a good day right now though. Whomever you are. That is an order from your monitor. Yes. You are looking at me!  Have I ever told you, Hi?