On Karma...

I don't believe in Karma, or a universal force that works to give good to the good and send bad to the bad. I do believe in paying the piper though. Put simply people who repeatedly do evil or bad things to other people, eventually either do it to the wrong person or at the wrong time. And then then- well then it is time for payment. Now the real question is, over time do the rewards of doing wrong exceed the detriments of the occasional payments?

Somewhat unfortunately, material success, is the yardstick by which we usually measure whether something is worth it or not. I think if we look at the typical examples of Exxon CEO's and Martha Stewart we see people who were willing to defraud large numbers of others for millions and even billions and then serve 1-10 years in a minimum security prison, then to return to mega richness - in these examples the answer is simple. The piper's price is a reasonable one.

However, I think that when we look at the high rates of divorce, the high numbers of people in prison, the amount of dissatisfaction, self-loathing, obesity, alcoholism, drug abuse, and any other examples of a weakened or destroyed human spirit we may need to think otherwise.

We all make mistakes, which need to be paid for at times. However a continual effort to get over or by has to take its toll on one's psyche. Corrupting their mind and their experience. Those that deal with them over time sense this corruption, and either distance themselves from it or are attracted to it. Those attracted are either already corrupted or will become corrupt by association. But eventually the extra burden of the wrong they do weighs them down too greatly and they lose.

A little later in the day I came across this passage - From the Education of Henry Adams -

"The boy took to it instinctively. The broad Potomac and the coons in the trees, the bandanas and the box-hedges, the bedrooms upstairs and the porch outside, even Martha Washington herself in memory, were as natural as the tides and the May sunshine; he had only enlarged his horizon a little; but he never thought to ask himself or his father how to deal with the moral problem that deduced George Washington from the sum of all wickedness. In practice, such trifles as contradictions in principle are easily set aside; the faculty of ignoring them makes the practical man; but any attempt to deal with them seriously as education is fatal. Luckily Charles Francis Adams never preached and was singularly free from cant. He may have had views of his own, but he let his son Henry satisfy himself with the simple elementary fact that George Washington stood alone."

How does the human species manage to turn a "blind eye" on blatantly disharmonious thoughts? How could one speak, fight and be willing to die for freedom and be a slave holder? How can one fight, and cry for women's rights and turn a hard, murderous heart on the unborn? How can the Christian love the fellow Christian and American and support the slaughter and maiming of innocents elsewhere? How could Hitler and Stalin, and Ganges Khan kill so many of their own? How was George Bush (re)elected? How can we continue to rape our planet, while at the same time beginning to feel her pain. How do we believe that we can satiate our lust for revenge - and not create the same need within those who were the recipients of our hate?

How are these issues being measured? How are our "conclusions" formed so strongly with regards to them. What measuring stick is being used? It seems that either a lack of absolutes leads to evil, or absolutes themselves lead to evil. And yet that statement itself allows for a large analysis of gray areas.

Am I in here?

"This is my body. And I can do whatever I want to it. I can push it. Study it. Tweak it. Listen to it. Everybody wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?" ~Lance Armstrong.

Wow!!!

I stepped on the scale a few days back and felt a pang of shock, fear and frustration. 201 pounds!!! When , who, why,how? Me, no way I am a workout-aholic. Then I stopped and thought for a minute, beer, oreos, didn't I fall off my bike and nearly kill myself. O and I couldn't run much after the family planning operation. So yeah realistically I should have expected to have gained a little weight. Ok, now I don't feel quite as bad... But wait 201? How the heck did I go from weighing 135 pounds when I was 23 to weighing 201 points at 33? Especially when I was 185 at thirty and trying to loose 10 pounds. Something is perhaps amiss. Or maybe not.

Ok, so here is the deal as I get older, I know that my metabolism will slow. Hence I can either accept a continual gain of bodyfat over time, or I can redouble my efforts to counter that effect. I have chosen the later and found this excellent article to detail the process.

http://forums.johnstonefitness.com/showthread.php?t=1222

So these are my stats as I've calculated them:

2190 (bmr)
I need to consume 2895 - 2400 calories to loose 1-2 pounds a week.
Of those calories 800 calories should be from protein a 27% protein intake.
About 580 calories would be from fat 20%
And the remaining 1534 calories from carbs 53%
I should drink about 1 gallon of water a day. 8 glasses. Man that is a lot.

I weighted myself this morning and was 197... I seem to be moving in the right direction.

A Journey resumed...

I remember fancying myself a neo-renaissance man as a young teen. I wanted to be well versed at a variety of things. And everything that I did I wanted to do well. At some point between my teen years and this present state of adulthood, I put down that quest, and descended into resignation, acceptance, and mind numbing passage of time. I simply existed without much point or purpose. I now find that I am a husband, a father, and a good one at that. But I am not an example... I would not put myself out there as someone that I would want my children to become. I have accepted the life of the spectator, content to watch and not be seen... in a state of mindfully waiting for my own passage.

That is not me, not my destiny, not my purpose and not my journey. I need to live. I am picking up many of the things that I have put down. I imagine that they will feel like somewhat of a burden to me initially, their weight unfamiliar upon my frame now weakened from disuse. And yet I believe there to be strength... I believe that there is something that was once sought that remains to be found and cherished.

I begin my walk with a set of goals:

1. I will read the 200 works referenced on this site. I imagine that there may be quite a bit of overlap, so in truth the least number of books to read will be 100. I am looking for the nuggets of gold hidden in books. I'm unsure what I will do with them, but I will begin with finding them and see if I or another can appreciate their value going forward: http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnonfiction.html

2. I will get down to a lean stomach. I could phrase this differently, but in essence - I believe that my health is key to my enjoyment of life, and my ability to think clearly. If I am concerned or spending an inordinate amount of time trying to repair the vessel, I don't expect that I will be making great strides towards my journey.

3. I have integrated a devotional into my desktop. Since I start most days logging on to my PC. What better way to start it than with another man's interpretation of the supposed word of the Lord. (At the beginning of this journey, my faith is weakened - there are many questions unanswered, many hypocrisies overlooked, many inconsistencies unresolved. This is a journey for truth, and wisdom, and in all honesty for the Lord. Not the Lord given, but the one received....

How do I determine my philosophy?

It finally dawned on me a week or so ago that I wasn't really clear on the distinction between religion and philosophy, or whether one even existed. So often when presented with religious beliefs, I'm faced with questions that I now understand to be philosophical in nature.

Brother John Raymond summarizes it thusly:

"Philosophy, means to love wisdom. People conduct their lives under the assumption of their own philosophical insights. Even a little child often philosophizes when asking questions concerning aspects of the world they are experiencing. So, what is philosophy? To answer this question, we will need to consider the basic definition of it, the four general categories of it, and its relationship to the individual sciences and religion.

Basically, philosophy can be reduced down to the simple art of wondering. It encompasses all we experience. The only way it is possible is because of our ability as humans for reflection. Animals do not wonder what will happen after death. They can not raise their minds above their daily sustenance. On the other hand, some people lead their entire lives with very little wondering. Why is this? One possible explanation is that certain people have to struggle on a daily basis just to survive. Thus, philosophy becomes more applicable to an individual’s life when he has some time for reflection. We are not moved to wondering until we are posed with a problem. Can we wonder or doubt about everything? Fortunately, Saint Augustine was around to give us a starting point. He claimed that we can not doubt our existence. To doubt is to exist. This would seem to leave a very broad area to wonder about. Not only that, but we need some method to draw conclusions to our questions. To philosophize we must engage in two basic tasks. We must analyze our ideas to discover if we truly know them. Also, we must synthesize all our knowledge to find out if we can attain a larger and better view. Thus, the simple act of doubting or wondering is not enough to come to conclusions.

We will have to look at the well known philosophers to see how they put wondering into practice. They begin with a dialogue. Within the dialogue, they ask each other to clarify their reasons behind statements, give definitions, and pursue the implications of the statements. They reject authority or personal beliefs as reasons for accepting a statement. The method for reasoning which was chosen by philosophers is formal logic and informal logic. Thus, in a dialogue one has to learn how to ask questions and perceive meaningful answers.

Philosophy can be broken down into four general classifications. These are synoptics, activists, antinomians, and analytics. Synoptic philosophers try to understand every event in the largest possible way. Thus, they need a wide range of knowledge to obtain the overview they desire. Knowledge is seen to have a certain unity. All the parts must be understood in relationship to each other. The activists become involved in the world through their philosophy. They can be further classified into prophetic activists, pragmatists, and existentialists. Prophetic activists use philosophy to bring about major reforms in social conditions. The pragmatists contend that ideas only have meaning in relation to the practical results which they effect. The existentialist states that the only reality that is worthwhile is self-experience. Further, one must always concentrate on the present since past or future do not exist. The antinomians are those who deliberately choose to exist outside the accepted norms of society. They contend that anyone concerned about the quality of his existence must withdraw from the world. Finally, the analytics are mainly concerned with the analysis of ideas. They are preoccupied with the problems of clear thinking. Thus, these classifications give us an idea of what known philosophers dialogue about. Now that we have some knowledge of what philosophy is, we can compare it to the individual sciences and religion.

How does philosophy compare with religion? Again, we find different schools of thought on this issue. The first states that religion and philosophy have nothing to do with each other. They say that religious statements can not be falsified or verified. One can not use reason like in philosophy. Apparently, these people have not looked at Catholic Theology. The next school states that religion is a contradiction of philosophy. The next school gets even worse by claiming that philosophy tries to unmask religion. Another school states that there is a unity between religion and philosophy. "I believe in order to understand." The next school claims that religion is a higher philosophy. Only faith leads to true philosophy. Finally, the last proposal is that religion and philosophy are complementary. This position supported by Saint Thomas Aquinas seems to be the best to hold. Against the first three schools of thought, Saint Thomas argues that since our intellect and revelation come from the Same source, they can not contradict each other. The next two schools fall short due to the difference between faith and reason. Since faith transcends reason, it would seem to fall beyond philosophy. Philosophy is a rational science which bases conclusions on experience. Thus, the relationship between philosophy and religion seems to be a complementary one.

In conclusion, philosophy can be better understood in light of its basic definition along with the examples of philosophers. It also becomes clearer when compared to the individual sciences and religion. Thus, philosophy becomes the basic art of wondering. Examples of philosophers come under the four general categories of synoptics, activists, antinomians, and analytics. Philosophy differs from the individual sciences by trying to look at the whole picture, presupposing no method or object, and trying to get at the root of experience through reflection. Philosophy is complementary to religion since both the intellect and revelation come from the same source. They differ due to the fact that faith transcends reason. One can see all the different views of what philosophy is trying to do and its relationship to other disciplines. It has an impact on our individual lives depending on how much we apply ourselves to it. It also has had a major impact on whole cultures both now and in the past. Therefore, we see the need for proper understanding of this rational science which so effects our lives."

So I now feel pressed to find out what it is that I truly believe. In my many years I have been a Baptist, an agnostic, a Democrat, a Republican, a believer and a backslider. Being honest with myself, I really haven't believed in any idea that stayed with me for any considerable amount of time. I know that I try to differentiate right from wrong, that my family ranks towards the top of what is most precious for me. But aside from that my beliefs are all a jumble - no to abortion, no to capitol punishment, yes to uthenasia, yes to God, no to God. No to religion, yes to philosophy, no to intolerance, intolerance of the intolerant. Wow I've got a lot of sorting to do. I need to flesh this out a bit. I begin to read.