Miracles: Seeds, Saints, Sands and Popes

Take any viable plant seed. Take, for instance, a poppy seed: a tiny bit of blackness, smaller than some grains of sand.

Add the proper conditions, generally just some water and ordinary soil. What appears to be a miracle follows. The seed sprouts, and under proper conditions grows into a plant thousands of times its original size. Then it creates beautiful flowers, which in turn each create hundreds of new seeds.

Until the 19th century or so this seed to flower process was a mystery. It was attributed to God (the mental projection on a much smaller Universe, by some humans, of a universal King), or was just a mystery of nature.

The recent accelerated filing of two dead Roman Catholic Church Popes for sainthood, by the current Pope, has re-opened the debate about miracles.

That Church basically admits to having no ability to produce miracles. Its miracles are more mundane than the sprouting of a poppy seed. No living Catholic can show any special power over nature. No Catholic can point at an ordinary grain of sand and make it grow into a poppy plant.

Catholic miracles are miracles of fame. A famous Catholic gets prayed to. If enough sick people pray to these potential saints, someone will get well, probably through the triumph of their innate immune system over some disease. Getting well happens every day, but Roman Catholics want to treat some healings as a miracle caused by their prayers to dead personalities.

Let me be clear: Buddhists are not able to produce genuine miracles. Neither can Islamists. Nor any of the many Hindu sects, nor any of the self-promotion gurus who run about like ants on a hot summer day. Donald Trump does not do miracles, nor do cinema stars, not even Matthew McConaughey.

The closest thing to a miracle the Catholic Church produced in the last century was the Miracle of Fascism. The fascist leaders (Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Philippe Petain, Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, and their allies and underlings) collectively almost managed to kill every Jew and Atheist in Europe. Call it the Holocaust Miracle. But they did not do it by waving magic wands, or converting non-Catholics by sprinkling them with holy water. The holy instruments were extermination camps, tanks, warplanes and just following orders.

I do not call myself an atheist, though others may use that label for me. I believe in Natural Liberation. If I say the poppy seed is a miracle, I mean a miracle within nature, not anything outside of nature. And if I say it was a miracle the Roman Catholic, fascist troops were defeated in World War II, I know it was the Red Army, its soldiers and tanks and all the apparatus of war, that defeated the Pope and his minions.

It is not possible to turn sand into a poppy seed, but it can be turned into silicon, which in turn can be used to do tricks with electronics, including calculating accounts and posting puppy videos to social media. Tricks are not miracles, but they have their uses.

Few humans want to be hopeless. Hopes crushed by Reality (governments and bosses of all sorts), many people want to believe in miracles.

Show them a poppy seed. And teach them some history. Adolf Hitler was Roman Catholic. Don't let that be forgotten. Popes are not good people. Popes are bad people. If you want to argue that some are more or less bad than others, that is your business.

On Nothing

Child: My parents say you are an atheist.

Meyers: I have a positive system of knowledge called Natural Liberation Philosophy. But yes, in your parents' culture that makes me a kind of atheist.

Child: I don't see how you can say there isn't a God. How did everything get here? God created everything.

Meyers: When we humans create something we make it from things that are already here. We use the phrase "create a cake" to mean "bake a cake from ingredients." Except for what people make, things don't need to be created. They just are. We don't create trees: they just grow. Scientists say everything is made of matter and energy, and matter and energy can't be created or destroyed.

Child: But God had to create something in the first place.

Meyers: People say things like: God created the Universe out of nothing. But pretend for a moment the Universe needs a Creator. The theory behind that would be that a Creator is necessary for the Universe to exist. But what created the Creator? The Creator would need to be self-creating. And once we allow for something to be self-creating .. do you think we should allow self-creation?

Child: Yes!

Meyers: Then we might as well allow that the Universe itself is, or at some time was, self-creating. Do you see how much of your problem comes from applying the word "create" in a context where it does not apply?

Child: [Silence]

Meyers: Let me help you here. Do you think there would be nothing, if God or the Universe had not been self-creating!

Child: Maybe God is the Universe, but there would be nothing if something had not been made!

Meyers: Some would argue that nothing can beget only nothing. But consider how we use the word "nothing." It makes sense in everyday use. What did you bring home from the store? Nothing. What are your plans for the day? Nothing. What did you accomplish on your hike? Nothing. Nothing is a lot like zero.

Child: So?

Meyers: Nothing is a sort of counter. It is the absence of things to count. But I can count billions of people, 10 or so planets in the solar system, millions of stars in the sky, million of galaxies in the Universe. Reality is something. The Universe is something. They are not nothing.

Child: But they were nothing before the world was created.

Meyers: You are applying a human word where it should not be applied. You are using it out of context. Nothing is a contrast to the existence of particular things. You are trying to make it contrast with Everything, or the Universe.It only makes sense within a system of things. You can try other language constructions. Here is one: outside our system of reality. Outside reality, in short. You can make what sounds like a sensible sentence: outside of reality is nothing.

Child: Exactly. Outside of reality there is nothing. And before reality there was nothing. So you still need God to create everything.

Meyers: For there to be before, there has to be time. Time would be something. Not nothing. The nothing of time would be No Time. That makes sense in everyday life: no time to do my homework! But no time at all, or a time before the Universe began, those are just misapplying the English language.

We might say, take away the entire universe, and there would be nothing. But the universe can't be taken away. Parts of it can be wrecked, but it can't be destroyed. The absence of the entire universe is an impossible construct. Nothingness, in the absolutely nothing sense, is a misconception.

Child: So what is the point of all this bull about God and philosophy?

Meyers: Exactly. You are in a very real world. Learn all you can about it. Do what you think is right within it. And beware that many humans have become very confused over the course of civilization by using the same word to mean two or more things, or by extending an analogy way beyond its reasonable context.

Child: Maybe. But what happens to people when they die, if there isn't a God?

Meyers: I think you can figure that out for yourself. Run along now. I need to check my text messages.

Green Party Food Fight

A subcommittee of the Green Party I am on recently considered a platform plank called "Ethical Treatment of Animals". The discussion brought up a number of interesting points about ethics as applied to humans and animals. At the core of controversy was the unstated assumption that any human use of animals is unethical, as is any killing of animals by humans. The entire proposed plank is reproduced below, as well as the plank it would replace.

The key parts I want to discuss here include the definition of animal and the assumption that all animals are sentient beings; banning the use of animals in science and medicine; banning animal foods; closing zoos and aquaria, and not allowing animals in classrooms; and encouraging a vegan lifestyle.

Vegan lifestyle is not defined, but my understanding is that vegans neither eat nor wear anything that is an animal product (See also veganism at Wikipedia).

I think we can apply human ethics to the treatment of animals by humans, but the first thing to remember is that they are human ethics, not the ethics of animals. Carnivores do not eat vegan diets, and carnivores are crucial components of ecological systems. Recall that carnivores do not just include large mammals like wolves and tigers; carnivores come in all sizes, right down to the microscopic level.

Just as animals can be classified as herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores, there are many classifications of animals. I have no problem with arguing about how sentient specific species of animals are, but I find calling a tick or nematode sentient to border on ludicrous. The most basic problem with this plank, and vegan philosophy (which is derived from a branch of the Hindu religion), is that it allows thinking only in terms of broad moral absolutes. Fact-based knowledge of the world is excluded. Vegans want all animals, including wild animals (and pests that exist in large numbers because they have accommodated well to humans) treated as if they were pets. No argument is allowed. By the vegan gospel humans should not be allowed to treat (kill) animal parasites like worms and malaria.

Which is a major difference between my Natural Liberation Philosophy and many of the doctrines that are current among environmentalists. We need to be able to apply our ethics and philosophy to specifics. Deep Ecology also appreciates the importance of carnivores.

The proposed plank sees a future in which all human food is plant material. How much more unecological could you get? This proposal eliminates not just carnivores, but also all herbivores from the equation. No cows, sheep, goats, or pigs. Just wall to wall soy and carrots.

Even the allegation that the plank stops cruelty to animals (and that those of us who voted against the plank are cruel, by implication) does not stand up to scrutiny. The plank wants children to go to schools where there is not an animal, dead or alive, to be seen or studied. What kind of children would that produce? And since it would ban all dissections, there would be no way for veterinary students to learn to do surgery. Nor could scientists find new cures for animal diseases.

In fact, the plank really advocates a total separation of the human world from the animal world.

I do believe that some scientists, both private-sector and academic, have abused their power over animals. I have no problem with setting up animal ethics committees to deal with these questions. But I also don't believe that simply raising an animal in a laboratory is inherently cruel, and I do believe we have a right to weigh the value of what is learned.

I was surprised that many people on the subcommittee could not handle gray areas. They wanted absolutes. In that way they resembled the anti-abortion, anti-contraception movement. I can see that an egg and sperm are not a human being, and that a one-year old child is. People can have all the facts about fetal development and still disagree on the ethics of the timing of when a fetus or baby gains a right to life. But when they say "The Bible says ..." they are no longer arguing about either the facts of development or the fine points of ethics. And vegan absolutists do not argue about ethics or cruelty, as I learned in this discussion. They try to use environmental concerns ("cows cause greenhouse gas") to support what is essentially a religious, moral position. They refused to make reasonable compromises, and mainly because of failed to get their plank out of our committee.

I think healthy farms include animals that produce eggs and milk, and even meat. A truly valuable animal byproduct is manure, which is indispensable to keeping the vegetable part of a farm thriving. I would rather legislate that farms must start be more diverse in what they create than that they can't raise animals.

People are mortal. Accepting the mortality of people and of all life forms is crucial to developing a sound philosophy and a sound society. To a large extent a vegan lifestyle is an attempt to deny death. It is a lifestyle based on fear and denial.

A little honey won't hurt anyone. Bees seem to like to make it. And bees will sting their enemies. I hope Green Party members will become more like bees, and less like walking ghosts, too busy being afraid of breaking imaginary rules of karma to actually get anything productive done.

Proposed new Green Party U.S. Ethical Treatment of Animals plank

Cruelty to animals is repugnant and unacceptable. The mark of a humane society lies in how we treat the least protected among us. Our species does not have the right to exploit and inflict violence on other animals simply because we have the desire and/or power to do so.

We call for an intelligent, non-hierarchical and non-exploitive relationship with other animal species and the natural world. We reject the belief that nonhuman species exist only to serve the needs of the human species.

There is a moral equality between humans and nonhuman animals in that we are all sentient beings. Such an ethic not only upholds the value of biological diversity and the integrity and continuity of species, but also the value of the lives and interests of individual animals.

The Green Party advocates the following policies:

1. Redirect nationally-funded research away from animal experiments and towards health care, preventive medicine, and biomedical research using non-animal procedures determined to be scientifically valid. Halt wasteful public funding of unnecessary or duplicative animal experiments. Establish procedures to develop greater public scrutiny of all animal research.

2. Phase out the use of animals for consumer product testing, tobacco, alcohol, drug and psychological testing, classroom demonstrations and dissections, weapons development and other military programs. Ban pound seizure of animals for research.

3. Mandate clear labeling of products disclosing whether or not they have been tested on animals and if they contain any animal ingredients.

4. While we recognize our current laws are not sufficient to end the abuse of animals, in the meantime, we support amending the Humane Slaughter Act and the Animal Welfare Act to cover those animals currently excluded in agriculture and research.

5. Phase out as a matter of urgency the most egregious examples of animal cruelty practices in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) at the federal and state level. We ultimately envision a time when U.S. public policy recognizes CAFOs to be inimical to the interests of a healthy human population and to the promotion of environmental and animal protection.

6. Ban the transport of live horses to other countries for foreign consumption.

7. End international and national trade in wildlife. Ban the use of goods produced from exotic or endangered animals, and promote the use of non-animal, sustainable materials in all manufacturing.

8. Prohibit the use of inhumane and indiscriminate wildlife control methods to address human-wildlife conflicts.

9. Prohibit large scale commercial breeding facilities, such as “puppy mills,” mandate spay and neuter laws, subsidize spay and neuter clinics, and discourage further breeding of companion animals by incurring breeder fees such that they fund no-cost spay and neuter clinics.

10. Ban the exploitation of animals in entertainment, gambling and sports, including, but not limited to, dog fighting and cock fighting, rodeos, horse and dog racing, American bullfighting, circuses, zoos, aquariums and theme and roadside parks. We advocate converting zoos, wildlife parks, aquariums, and similar facilities into sanctuaries for rescued animals.

11. Ban canned hunts and the corresponding trade in animals from zoos and other commercial “entertainment” industries. Ban other hunting and fishing for sport.

12. Eliminate free-trade laws that weaken or revoke efforts to end animal cruelty in commerce.

13. Ultimately, we acknowledge that it is not possible to treat farm animals in an ethical manner given that the end result, in most cases, is to send animals to slaughter. In the interests of ecological sustainability, health and non-violence, we support transitioning from an animal-based agriculture system to a plant-based system, and encourage more individuals to adopt a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle.

14. As a world view that respects animals as fellow sentient beings expands within our society, it will lead to a future kinship with them that we currently do not have. In such a society, the "use" and killing of animals as resources for humans will naturally be phased out and a more cooperative ethic between species will take its place.

Currently written 2004 Ethical Treatment of Animals plank (that the above plank would replace)

Cruelty to animals is repugnant and criminal. The mark of a humane and civilized society lies in how we treat the least protected among us. To extend rights to other sentient, living beings is our responsibility and a mark of our place among all of creation. We call for an intelligent, compassionate approach to the treatment of animals.

We reject the belief that our species is the center of creation, and that other life forms exist only for our use and enjoyment. Our species does not have the right to exploit and inflict violence on other creatures simply because we have the desire and power to do so. Our ethic upholds not only the value of biological diversity and the integrity and continuity of species, but also the value of individual lives and the interest of individual animals.

The Green Party advocates humane treatment of animals with the following policies:

1. Redirect the funds that are disbursed annually by the National Institutes of Health away from animal experiments and more towards direct health care, preventive medicine, and biomedical research using non-animal procedures such as clinical, epidemiological, and cell culture research.

2. Phase-out the use of animals for consumer product testing, tobacco and alcohol testing, psychological testing, classroom demonstrations and dissections, weapons development and other military programs.

3. Mandate clear labeling of products to tell whether or not they have been tested on animals and if they contain any animal products or by-products.

4. Establish procedures to develop greater public scrutiny of all animal research. These should include the welfare of laboratory animals, and a halt to wasteful public funding of unnecessary research such as duplicative experiments.

5. End the abuse of animals, including farm animals, and strengthen our enforcement of existing laws.

6. Ban the use of goods produced from exotic or endangered animals.

7. Prohibit large scale commercial breeding facilities, such as “puppy mills,” because of the massive suffering, overpopulation, and ill health such facilities produce.

8. Subsidize spay and neuter clinics to combat the ever-worsening pet overpopulation problem that results in the killing of millions of animals every year. Where unwanted companion animals are being killed in shelters, we advocate mandatory spay and neuter laws.

9. Ban the exploitation of animals in violent entertainment and sports.

The Five Admissions of Natural Liberation Philosophy

The five admissions of Natural Liberation Philosophy are:

Individual humans are mortal.
Nature is everything.
Past and future are as real as the present.
People depend on society, and society depends on nature.
Continuity beyond an individual life is found in society and nature.

Why do we call these admissions? Philosophers traditionally have become confused by trying to work from axioms or postulates, in the manner of Euclid. While this approach has its merit at times, it often leads to errors. Nature, or reality, is not built on axioms or postulates.

We believe that individuals making these admissions have a basic, correct orientation towards nature, society, and themselves. Distinguishing what is true from what is false is a complex process, made more difficult for most people by the various illusionists philosophies and religions.

We believe that admitting that you are mortal, and that nature is a greater power than any human individual or group of people, is a fundamental indicator of one's philosophical standing.

We could call these points conclusions, for they are often conclusions reached after much study and consideration. But admissions implies that once there was doubt, and now things are clear.

We could have picked other points for our 5 admissions, or used less or more points. These cover the basic admissions an individual makes that allow for: ethical development; a correct view of one's relationship to nature; rejection of illusionist ideas.

Some related essays:

Natural Truth. A summary by William P. Meyers

Philosophy in Tune with Nature [February 8, 2007]

Groping Towards Reality 1 [May 23, 2009]

If Wishes Were Horses [December 10, 2008]

Charles Darwin Was God's Prophet [June 17, 2008]

Questions to the Illusionists [March 22, 2008]

The Powerlessness of Positive Thinking [March 28, 2007]

Natural Liberation Perspective

No matter where my mind wanders to, I come back to this basic thought: natural liberation philosophy is the essential forward path for the human race and our earth-species cohorts.

Natural Liberation of necessity uses abstractions, but it is by no means an abstract philosophy. It is a philosophy of concrete knowledge and a basis for intelligent and ethical action.

Call it by other names if you will. My philosophy has certainly been influenced by the works and thoughts of millions of people. Even philosophies and religions I mainly disagree with in their present forms, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Fascism, Islam, Deconstructionism, Leninism, etc., have provided, particularly in their historical application, much food for thought. More positive influences include Deep Ecology, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Charles Darwin and biologists generally, class and national liberation movements, Albert Einstein, anarchism, secular humanism, the Ten Key Values of the Green Party, etc.

Change in human behavior on a massive scale is needed if we do not want to perish, more or less, in a tidal wave of ecological destruction. Change tends to come in one of two forms. Some times practices change, and mental changes follow. This happens with the introduction of new technologies and imposed social organizations. Thus capitalists in the United States and communists in Russia both industrialized their nations, making them predominantly urban rather than agricultural. Minds adapted per force. Change also can come when minds change first and then try to apply the new way of thinking to actions. The spread of a religion, philosophy, or knowledge of an economic or political paradigm change are all good examples (the results can be good or bad, depending on the change).

Natural Liberation philosophy has been bubbling about in human culture since at least the great era of biological discovery that started in the 1600's. I can only hope to clarify it, to help it spread faster before it is too late for people to act. That said, it is actually too late to take the best actions. We have missed many opportunities, mainly because of greed and cultural inertia. But there are still choices to be made, and some very bad ones are still being made by individuals, corporations, and governments around the world today.

I hope to do a series of Plutarch (Lives of Great Men) style essays comparing Charles Darwin with figures like Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed, the Buddha, Karl Marx, etc. The idea is not to glorify Darwin, who, even if he was a prophet of sorts, was just a human being, but to delineate just what we should expect of cultural leaders, knowing what we now know.

I also hope to move to the organizational stage soon. This would first involve working closely with a small group of people who want to make developing and spreading natural liberation theology a center of their lives. Organizations are tricky. I have come to believe that a nucleus of high-functioning individuals is critical to launching an organization that is mentally and culturally healthy, yet dynamic enough to grow. Contact me if you are interested.

Such an organization cannot long remain primarily educational in nature. Real world projects need to be undertaken. Feedback from the world is crucial to human knowledge. Since real world projects are needed, and feedback is needed, taking action will be critical to making the project work.

Science, Nature, and Human Error

This Natural Liberation blog is all too often about political events of the day. Needing a topic to write on, I can look at the day's news. I can also illuminate the topic with some examples from history. The importance of politics is clear: not only are people living or dying because of political decisions, but species are surviving or not, and the entire vast web of life built up on earth these past billions of years is also in peril. Yet I did not want this blog mainly to be about politics.

I want to return to the theme of natural liberation. By going back and forth between how we participate in events and our ethics, we can refine both our knowledge of the world and of our ethics. By looking at mistakes in human reasoning in philosophy, we might liberate ourselves and find a Natural Liberation philosophy that is both good and based on a clear view of the material world.

Science is supposed to be about truth, but it is a troublesome issue for me and many of my friends. I turned away from science when I learned about its misuse by militarists. At the time the Vietnam War was waging and I was worried I would be drafted. That war ended, but the misuse of science has not changed in my lifetime. But all too many people throw out the baby (accurate understanding of nature) with the bath water (bad things done by science and technology).

Science is all about understanding nature. In itself, it is an honest pursuit. When religion, pseudo-science, or new-age claptrap is substituted for science, that is for understanding nature, the problems created by human beings can be as catastrophic as using scientific knowledge for unethical ends.

The history of science is often more instructive than just learning about the current state of scientific knowledge. Usually science histories seem to illuminate a clear path from the Dark Ages to the Nuclear Age. The real history of science includes mistaken ideas in a proportion of over 10 to 1 compared to the ones that eventually stood up to testing. Reading about scientists, including great scientists, making mistakes is a humbling and illuminating experience.

Inward Bound by Abraham Pais shows the many mistakes it sometimes takes to get an accurate view when fallible humans are seeking to understand nature. His story of the discovery of what we call x-rays by Wilhelm Roentgen. He was working with a cathode ray tube, a device that had been around for decades and was still just a decade ago commonly used for TV and computer monitor screens. He wanted to repeat and elaborate on Philipp Lenard's experiment, which was designed to study the rays when outside the actual cathode tube. His experimental device was almost the same as Lenard's, but he saved himself some time and money. Instead of encasing the tube in metal to prevent the rays from escaping randomly, he found that black cardboard would do the job adequately.

Then he noticed something everyone had missed until then: a phosphorescent screen glowed a good distance from the tube, where there was a hole in the cardboard. We now call this phenomena x-rays. The rays inside the tube we call electrons. When an electron of sufficiently high energy hits the glass lining the tube, it may cause an x-ray to be emitted. Lenard missed seeing x-rays because his metal enclosure stopped them.

People loved x-rays. We still use them the same way, to make the invisible visible. For instance taking pictures of bones inside the human body.

Roentgen became pretty good at manipulating x-rays, but strangely his theory about them was quite wrong. He thought they were the long-suspected but never found longitudinal vibrations of electro-magnetism. In fact they were later proven to be just like light and other electro-magnetic waves, only at a very high energy and very short wavelength.

Roentgen was not alone. Many scientists agreed with him about the likely nature of x-rays. Even stranger, despite cathode ray tubes having been in existence for decades by the time of Roentgen's 1895 discovery, no one had "discovered" the electron.

And despite the fact that the periodic table of elements had been worked out in the mid-1800's, no one had put together an even moderately accurate theory of atoms that would explain those chemical facts.

Even more astonishing, when Albert Einstein published his Theory of Special Relativity in 1905, generally still considered to be the most mind-blowing science paper ever, there was still no accurate understanding of atomic particles. The proton would not be "discovered" until 1918. Einstein did not need one: his theory was about time, space, and light (electromagnetism), not about atomic particles.

So it should not be surprising when ordinary people, and even people with scientific training, fall for pseudo-science. The only way to avoid that in general is to maintain a healthy level of skepticism, a balanced personality, and a grounding in the natural world.

If Wishes Were Horses

This blog was meant to be mainly about philosophy, but I have been writing a great deal about politics lately. That is okay, history and politics are about reality, and philosophy is (or should be) about reality. Reality is everything, but looking only at subsets of reality can send you astray.

Now let's look at some folk wisdom:

"If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

As far as anyone can tell, this is genuine folk wisdom, not to be quoted from the Bible, the Tao Te Ching, Benjamin Franklin, The Beatles or even Ludwig Wittgenstein. According to my Familiar Quotations, it first was printed in 1670 in John Ray's English Proverbs as "If wishes were horses, beggars might ride."

Nothing quite sums up the case against prayer, subjectivist philosophies, wishful thinking, and the power of positive thought quite like this proverb.

Few people worry about not having a horse these days. Horses being the object of desire gives the phrase a vintage that could pass for wisdom even if it were unwise.

Am I saying it is best to dwell in negative thoughts, or to be in a constant state of pessimism? No, though occasional thorough examination of the negative is as instructive about reality as is occasional thorough examination of best case scenarios.

I want a philosophy that corresponds to, that accurately describes, reality. On that tiny bit of reality we call Earth, in the tiny sliver of time I will live, I don't want to waste all my time on illusions. Illusions are a part of reality we humans construct in our minds. We can learn a lot about our mental parameters by looking at illusions. In our lives the illusion/reality foreground/background sometimes inverts; we become disillusioned. Illusions are sold to people for a variety of reasons. When we are children we have little choice other than to believe the stories we are told of the world, whether they are true or not. I thought Heaven and Hell (and Purgatory and Limbo) were real when I was a young child. More complex illusions, more believable ones anyway, may fool me yet. The important thing to remember is that people may be lying to you, or they may be telling the truth, and it is up to you to decide when it is important enough to investigate a matter for yourself.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

If you want to ride a horse, you need to do more than wish for it. Wishing for it does not prevent you from riding it; it might be a first step. You still need a plan and you need to execute on plan.

Are people's interpretations, and even perceptions, of reality subjective? Sure. Leaping from that to the idea that people create reality is a leap to nowhere. Reality was around before people. Even horses were around before people. People are a creation of reality, not the other way around.

Read all about the various philosophies and religions; it won't take that much time, it should not hurt you. But when it comes time to chose a philosophy, and make a life plan, and execute that plan, you should start with a firm foundation. If you turn out to be wrong, admit you are wrong and right yourself. If the popular consensus is wrong, be aware that people will think you are wrong for not agreeing with them, but keep in mind that reality is on your side. Reality is heavy; it is your best friend and ultimate refuge.

Reality is very complex, to be sure. One day the wind blows from the north, another day from the south. One day we do everything we can to keep cool; another day we can survive only by setting the world on fire. Weathermen are fine, but if you want to know the way the wind is blowing where you are, the best thing to do is just step outside and feel it.

Natural liberation might be defined as being liberated by knowing you are part of nature, and knowing what you can about nature, and acting on what you know.

See also my Philosophy page

You Are Getting Warmer

Have you begun to suspect that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party is going to take steps significant enough to halt global warming?

You are getting warmer.

Have you begun to suspect that trading one war crimes organization, the Republican Party, for another, the Democratic Party, is not going to prevent war?

You are getting warmer.

Has the economic crisis got you wondering just how much stupidity and cupidity human beings are capable of?

You are getting warmer.

Do you live in one of the many areas of the United States that has suffered through a drought since the year 2000?

You are getting warmer.

Has the increased cost of food and gas, combined with your boss telling you not to expect a raise this year, made you suspect that the system is rigged against people like you?

You are getting warmer.

Have you heard that La Jolla California, one of the most beautiful places on earth, is having all of its vegetation eaten by a "stick insect" that originated in India? Have you noticed similar changes in your area on those rare occasions when you closely observed the local flora and fauna?

You are getting warmer.

Do you suspect that there is no humanoid God, just the Natural Universe?

You are getting warmer.

Are you beginning to suspect that in order to save yourself, your friends, and your family, drastic action, maybe even rebellion, has become a necessity?

You are getting warmer.

Maybe it is time to start thinking about Natural Liberation.

Not Quite Random Thoughts

I've been busy for several weeks creating an index for a 1300 page book on a very tight schedule. During this time there have been a lot of things I have wanted to write about. The sad state of politics in the U.S., of course. The Pope's visit to the U.S. The rebellion of the monks in Tibet. Developments in the economic and business world. Essays inspired by some books that I managed to read parts of during this trying period. And my philosophy of natural liberation, in particular the idea of natural revelation.

Here's a list of books I have finished reading, sitting in a stack, waiting for reviews and commentary:

The Cosmic Code by Heinze R. Pagels
The Outline of History by H. G. Wells
The Fifties by David Halberstam
Chiang Kai-Shek by Hollington K. Tong
Memoirs by Harry Truman
Vietnam by Stanley Karnow

And I'm part way through reading:

On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins
A History of Egypt by James Henry Breasted
The Great Wave by Christopher Benfey

But it is easier to find energy to read than to write. I have barely kept up with my gardening, which I want to write about both in and of itself and because it inspires thoughts on natural revelation. I am behind in my regular paid work (the book index was extra work). I am writing this on my old, backup computer because the new one needs repairs.

Oh, yes, the global famine is gathering steam, something I have been warning people about with my population articles at www.iiipublishing.com

Still, in the next few weeks I hope to produce some interesting writing for the readers of this blog, my Dissecting the Bull blog, and my assorted Web sites. Yikes! What has Congressman Mike Thompson been doing? Not even I know, because I have not had time to post to Mike Thompson Watch, and it takes some research to find out.

William P. Meyers

Natural Liberation and Harry Potter

I saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix last night, and it was entertaining. Evil, of course, is out in the world. The foolish government refuses to admit it. Harry Potter has to train a bunch of teenage wizards in secret to be ready to combat evil, because the school he attends, Hogswarts or something like that, is teaching from books rather than allowing the kids to actually practice black arts.

So you could read it as a metaphor encouraging teen rebellion. But against what? School, to be sure. The government, a least in this particular episode. Evil, but then Hitler, Stalin, and General Franco also imagined they were rebelling against evil. Evil is whoever is opposed to you.

If the book upon which this film was based had been written by an American author, I would say it was about rebelling against the public school system, a thought endearing to both the far right and the far left. The government take over of the wizard school sounds like how the teachers unions view No Child Left Behind. Many charter schools believe in project-based learning, and the elitism of Hogswarts matches how charter school parents think about their little wizards.

That is all very well and good, but I doubt it is the intended message of the movie. I also don't think the intention is to get kids meeting in secret pointing at each other with wooden sticks and practicing Latin.

Evil must be fought, and fighting is exciting. Wow, maybe the movie is about the War on Terror. Maybe the idiots in the government are Bill and Hillary Clinton. Maybe English and American kids should be secretly training with automatic weapons and Latin prayers to fight Islam.

Well, teen angst can be turned in many directions. To me the evil of the world is the destruction of Nature, including global warming, species destruction, and the general collapse of ecosystems we are seeing all around us right now (those of us who care to look). It isn't just George Bush and pals that are ignoring or minimalizing what is happening. It is most of the human race, and most of the leadership of the Democratic Party.

Wars, including civil wars, are a toss of the dice. The U.S. invaded Vietnam and murdered two million people to save the world for capitalism in the 1960s. Instead Communism triumphed and Americans became unwilling to use force, for a decade or so. Then, unpredictably, without the capitalists firing a shot, Communism collapsed.

Rebellion in America could take many forms. It could gain a Christian racist edge. It could be directed at the Republicans and for the Democrats. It could be against both parties, or it could take an anarchist turn against all parties and government itself. The rebellion could be confined to the ballot box, or it could take to the streets, or it could arm itself and start a civil war.

But most likely nothing will happen. Order of the Phoenix is, after all, just a movie. Playing at being wizards is a big ego trip for children, but the real idea is to get them to read, go to college, and fit right into the corporate system. The message of any one movie, even if clear, is quickly submerged in the next movie or TV show or hot band idol.

Meanwhile, ecosystems are collapsing. A sane government would put in place an immediate ban on all cutting of trees; stop the production of SUVs and encourage people to walk, bike, or ride a motorcycle; prohibit couples from having more than two children; and re-orient the industry of people into ecological restoration.

Do not expect sane government. Do expect slowly rolling eco-collapse. Don't expect the economy to collapse, until we are much closer to the end, but expect escalating food prices. Expect the unexpected. We are going non-linear, we are going chaotic. It may not be supernatural, but it is nature as humans have not had to face it since the paleolithic. Nobody knows what is worth packing for this trip: but a little revolution might make us feel like we are humans, not just pawns in corporate growth games.

For more on natural liberation philosophy see www.iiipublishing.com