As the campaign continues on its mad course, I hear many of the candidates focusing on the need to go back to the actUAl wording of the Constitution, but for those of us who read the Constitution it seems that perhaps they need glasses.  For example, thley often refer to our Scond Amendment rights to support free and unrestricted access to any type of firearms to anyone over the age of 18.  But what does lhe Second Amendment actually say?  It says "A well reguated militia, being necessary to the security 0f a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".   The amendment relates that right to the need for a well regulated militia.  Of coursee, to my knowledge, there  are few, if any, currently active militias (unless one considers the army reserve or actiive duty personnel), but there is, of course, always the possible need of raising one quickly.  There should be no problem in requiring gun owners to register firearms.  Every one who drives a car is required to register it.  In order to drive the car, one must be licensed, and becoming licenses a background check is required to eliminate persons who are blind, or who have a medical problem such as untreatable seizures, of have previously had their license revoked due to dangerous driving habits such as vehicular manslaughter, or repeated offenses related to reckless driving.  They would not allow you to register a 20 ton earth mover.  How is this different from requiring registration and background checks for purchasing a firearm?   The NRA and others who oppose ny type of gun laws  argue that the purpose of any gun law is to take away our guns, but I'm 72 years old and I have never heard of any intent  to take away the right of citizens to purchase or own firearms by any elected political body.  The only purpose behind these arguments is to generate fear in the American people against what the government COULD do, not the reality of what they WOULD do.  There us no evidence gun legislation being considered in any way impact Our Second Amendment rights.   Unfortunately, certain segments of our government who claim to support a "strict interpretation" of our Constitutiom are willing to admit that gun control regulatory regulations in no way violates the "right to keep and bar arms" that is the core of our Second  Amendment rights.

Another example of the violation of  the "Strict Interpretation"  requirement of the Constitution that in order to hold the office of President, a person must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States specified in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.  The itzenship of a child has always been defind by the citizenship of the parent, but recently a federal judge has ruld that in order to be a natural born citizen, one must be physically born in the United States.  We have thousands of US servicemen and women stationed overseas, many of them with spouses anad children living off-base in the community some of them for many years.  Under this judge's decision, all children that tlhey might have that were born while they were stationed overseas. Under this judge's decision,  none of these children could be considered a "natural born Citizen" of the Unitd States.  The judge's decision to add, or change, or redefine a commonly understood  definition is in direct conflict with the concept of "strict interpretation of the Constitution" espoused by certain politicians.

We have already had accusations by Congress that the President should not even propose a candidate to replace Scalia on the Suppreme Court.  In fact, one of the Senatoors from Texas has stated that by doing that, he is overstepping his Constitutional authority.  In fact, Congress seems to feel that he is overstopping his authority by issuing excutive orders, and that by so doing, he is usurping their authority to enact any attempt to chande the sttus quo.  In fact, the Senaator from Texas states athat the President is abusing his power by these acts,  H clharges that by thes actions lthe President is trying to LEAD this country.  To lead this country?  Isn't that why we elected him?  Wasn't that the "will of the peope"?  Are the rights of those who elected the Pesident to do his job as delinieated in the Constition to be ingored   in favor of those that Congress hopes are elected nearly a year in the future? Resulting in a Congress evenly divided betwen those that have more conservative values and those who espouse a more liberal interpretation?

Former  Justice Scalia supported a "strict interpretation" of the Constitution.  The current Congress claims that they follow that interpretaion, using that as a basis for refusing to act on the Presidenet's proposed replacement for former Justice Scalia.  Apparently they are unaware of Section Article II, Section 2 of the constitution defining the duties of the President which specify that "He (the President) shall have power, by and with the Advise and Consent of the Semate.to ----------- (to) appoint-------- Judges of the Supreme Court".  A strict interpretation of the Constitution thus cleary states the right (and the responsibility) to appoint a new Supreme Court judge, and the right (and responsibility) of Congress to act  on that proposal, and that right (and responsiblity)

 

More madness??

Another day of exploring my relationship with the infinite.  We all have separate physical bodies, but each and every one of them exists within the infinite and is therefore is a part of it.  In that sense, we are all gods and goddesses.  In fact everything that lives and everything that does not live is part of the infinite, and that includes right here and right now. When I meditate on the infinite, I clasp my hands together of my heart because the infinite is right here and right now.  It is immanent - within me.  Many people, when they pray hold their hands together pointing to the sky to a god who lives in the sky - in heaven - who is eminent, meaning who is something other than themselves.   (Whew!!  What a sentence to have to wade through!).  I focus on the four elements, air, fire, water, earth, that make up my physical self, and the fifth element, spirit, which links me to the non-physical world.  These five elements together are my existence within the infinite.  This meditation connects me to the totality of all that is (as well as all that isn't).  It reminds me that I do not have a separate self that exists outside the paradigm of the infinite.  Every action that I take and everything that is (or is not) affected by that action exists within the infinite.  I do not know the circumstances of other beings (human or other parts of nature such as the Tsunami in Japan, or the eruption of Mt. Ranier) that lead them to perform certain actions or the situations that result from those actions.  My left toe is a part of my physical self, but it does not "know" how its every action affects me, and affects the actions I take within the infinite.  Likewise, I don't "know" how my every action becomes part of the infinite, affecting other entities that exist within the infinite.  I only know that my every action results from what I need to occur, or what I would like to have occur, and those choices cone from the spirit within me that makes ME a part of the infinite.  (You can send the padded wagon for me anytime.  I'm sure the infinite includes a nice padded cell for me somewhere.)  As always, all comments are welcome.

A Little off the Deep End

When we understand that the infinite includes all, we begin to realize that each of us and all of us are part of the infinite.  Everything that exists is part of the infinite, and thus has a spark of deity within us.  And if we have that spark within us, so does everything else that exists within the physical world. Each of us has love within us as part of the infinite, as well as hate, fear, and every other emotion, both positive and negative.  We have all felt these negative emotions, some, with very deep reason, but we can all aspire to focus on the love.  Christian teachings support this, as well as many, if not all other religions or ways of life.  Think about the Golden Rule   Think about  "turning the other cheek".  Think about Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1st Corinthians 13:13)  "Then abideth these three things: faith, hope, and charity [love], but the greatest of these is charity [love[". The church's teaching that we should love the sinner but hate the sin, and the "love thy enemy". I'm sure that most, if not all, other religions and ways of life have similar references.  But what I'm trying to explain here is not love as it is currently defined rather the understanding that we are all a part of the infinite and thus are completely interconnected.     It's quite easy to feel this connectedness (love) with our family, our friends, our neighbor who joins us every morning for coffee, or is on our softball team.  It's a little harder with the old grouch who lives down the street,  or the racist who harangues persons of other races.  It's harder to with those who live in another part of the world whom we will never meet.  And it's harder yet with the person who has committed a serious crime, especially if we have been the victim of the crime, or have suffered great personal harm or injury,  It's hard to focus on the fact that all of these people are as much a part of the infinity as we are and have the same spark on deity as we do within them.          However the fact is that all things and feelings are part of infinity, and thus reside in each of us,  This includes the concept of free choice.  We can be faced with two options - to become friendly with our new neighbor or to stick to our old tried and true friends. We may love our new neighbor, but still decide to stick with our old friends.  I may have a red shirt or a blue shirt, and love both of them, but I can choose one shirt, while still loving the other. We can choose to focus on that connectedness and to extend it to all, or to focus on the fear and hate that these people caused, especially if it is a personal attack.                                                                                                                                 But even beyond this, we need to extend our connectedness to all that is and to all that is not. It needs to extend to all of creation - all forms of life, and all forms that we do not perceive as life including rock and water, fire and air, and know that every action or thought that we have becomes part of the infinite that we define as deity. 

         

 

All things re One, yet

When I let go and let my mind run free I become intensely aware of the interconnectedness of the All.  We generally do not see it, involved as we are in the activities of mundania but it's true.  Our existence is a combination of the four elements of earth, air, fire and water which  make up the totality of all that exists and doesn't exist in the infinite collection of universes and multiverses.  The blueprint for all of living existence is in our DNA and that DNA itself is a representation of all of nature which defines that existence.  In the mundania or our everyday life, we may not see this or understand it.  We probably consider ourselves as unique individuals, and yet the "uniqueness" of each of us is made up of the same four elements.  Most of us are not aware that we are part of this All, but let's look at ourselves as an example.  Our entire genetic makeup - every cell in our body -  is defined by our DNA, which represents all of the elements of nature which define our being, but that single cell is not aware of our entire body.  That DNA is the material from which our stomachs are made, yet it has no idea that it is part of something larger - our bodies.  It only knows that when something appears, its juices start to dissolve it, and let it go.  It has no idea what will happen if it no longer performs that function, but we know that that larger being will die. In order for the stomach, to understand its function, it needs to have an awareness of the fact that it is interrelated with something greater - infinity.  Likewise, in order for us to see the effect of the actions of our own lives, we need to develop our awareness that we are a part of something, as well.  We are a part of the infinite.

Omnipotent is one very good description of the infinite.  If you ask most people if God is omnipotent, they will day yes, not realizing that omnipotent includes all positive energy and all negative energy  (all good and all evil, if that's the way you choose to view it).  We can become more aware that every action we choose has an impact on the infinite and we can attune our actions to the positive or the negative aspects of infinity.  Our advantage as members of the human race is that we are able to develop our awareness to direct our actions toward what we feel are the positive aspects of infinity.  That is the basis of all these motivational speakers who present the possibility of thinking or feeling the changes that we wish to occur,or even the pagan understanding that each of us can change reality at will.  How well we can achieve this is limited only by the degree of our awareness of the infinite.

Way of acting

I don't know if this is strictly philosophy or not but I find that many things both here and throughout the world are causing great concern. Of course, I have this tendency to see all of these to be my personal responsibility, and I allow myself to become overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of it all.  Then, I have to fall back on the Stoic philosophy.  It includes three basic steps - first to trim the issue back to the basics, known as the "real" truth without the thoughts and opinions of others.  Thus the issue of the rise of ISIS would boil down to something like this: several leaders of many tribes are fighting about gaining control of more land and more tribes.  How, then, does this "real" truth fit in to my worldview and what if anything can or should I ethically do that would have any effect on that "real" truth?

So the first step is to define the '''real" truth of the situation.  It is necessary to be able to be able to separate that truth from all of the outside clamor.  Remove oneself from the opinions and arguments and pressure of those influences, who may be trying to tell you what you should feel or do about the situation.  It seems that recently, these influences seem to pushing for violent responses to any and all real or imagined threats to our status quo both in our own country and abroad.  The next step. once one has redefined these situations in terms of their "real" truth, is to determine whether any action on our part will help to truly resolve the situation, or, in least. have any impact on the issue.  Having accomplished this, it becomes necessary to examine what action can be taken, based on our own internal moral compass.  It is natural that each person chooses that action or non-action that is supported by their own moral judgement of the what they hope will result from that action.  These results, unfortunately, may be other than what one intended, but they will have been done in a manner that fits in with our personal inner moral code.

Thus, situations will ever remain fluid.  Each person determines their own inner moral code based on what they desire in their life to bring them to a state of inner satisfaction.  The fluidity of life results from the combined results of these inner moral codes.   The problem may be that these practices are not commonly practiced.  It is far more common for people to pursue courses of action based on where they are led by others.

I think that it is this last part that leads me to some concern.  It seems that at at his point in history there are many whose inner moral code is focused on showing their own right to acquire as much as possible or to be in a position to require others to provide everything that they desire.  Any threats to their purposes is to met with whatever is needed.  This may be reflected in the increasing violence we see worldwide both militarily and in everyday affairs.  In all of this, all I can do is follow my own moral code in mu life, and hope that others may choose to follow my lead.

Perception

I'm not sure if this is philosophy or not.  I think it probably is.  I am finding that my perception of people is changing.  I used to observe them as just "there".  But If I knew them, or wanted to speak to them or even remember I saw them, I would perceive them as a person.  I can now perceive them and everything else as "real"(whatever that means).  I can choose to look at someone and think They live somewhere and they think of that place as home or they're busy working or doing everyday things. They have their likes and dislikes.  They may belong to clubs, play sports, go on vacations. They may think deeply, or just enjoy life as it is.  I drive by, looking at houses with a light in them, and think that there are people there watching TV or doing homework or fighting or arguing.  They're living their own lives, unaware of me as a person with my own ideas and going about my everyday life.  We all are different people, each living within our own perceptions of the world around us.    Our thoughts and actions are all based on our own perceptions.   My point is that everyone acts within their own world view until and unless that view is changed by an outside force, they will continue to to think and act the same way.  I guess that my point in all this is that none of us has the right to try to impose their world view on others.  This imposition has been the tinder to light the fire of conflict and war throughout the history of humanity.It appears in many faces - fascism, pogroms, jihadism, dictators, or even the amassing of wealth or political power.  It is behind any "This is my belief, and you must follow its teachings as well".  or " I have the right to amass all this "property, goods, political power and the right to do anything necessary to make it happen".  It is part of my world view we each have the right to our own world view except to the point where it leads us to the point that we act in a way that denies that same right to others.

A wide vlew of ways of living

It seems that most people follow a set of rules defined  by the culture in which they live, often defined by their the dogma of their their religion and it's concept of god (by any name).  Thus, their view is limited by that dogma.  The Christian Lord's Prayer begins with "Our Father who art in Heaven" which indicates that their God is separate from us, living in some undefined place called heaven.  There is, however, a much broader view.  Infinity is a barely understood concept that can be considered to be Deity in the broadest sense.  Infinity and Deity are one and the same.  They are defined as  all that is and all that is not, all that was or was not, and all that will be here and not here.  Time, past, present and future is included,   Most people perceive  their god to be omnipotent without really understanding the meaning of that word.  But, truly, the term means all powerful - all that is good, or positive, and all that is evil, or negative.  People choose the framework of their life based on on a positive god who is good and forgiving  .