Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

~ The only Home on the Web You'll ever need ~

    The University of Solar System Studies


    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:27 pm

    I think the approach which I've modeled within this thread has potential -- even though it has made a mess of me. On the other hand, I might've been predestined, in some way, for a life of misery and mediocrity. Anyway, perhaps Positive-Reinforcement is a reasonable approach to Life, the Universe, and Everything. I prefer the term 'Positive-Reinforcement' rather than 'Positive-Thinking and Self-Esteem' (especially of the Pompous and Supercilious variety).

    Perhaps I should chuck my idealism -- and get real -- real fast. Why should I tell good people to be even better -- when those who are running the show have NO intention of playing nice and fair?? But really, if I were in their shoes, I might might be just like them. In fact, I might be even worse. If one wishes to be rich, famous, and powerful -- it seems as if one must bow-down and worship the God of This World -- keep up appearances -- and do exactly as instructed -- while remaining morally-ambiguous. Perhaps this is the way things have to be -- as reprehensible as this seems to me. If one is ordered to assist in bringing down skyscrapers in Lower Manhattan -- one just follows orders. Is this an extreme view -- or is this the way things really work?? BTW -- did 9/11 keep certain reforms from being implemented?? Will another "event" keep certain reforms from being implemented?? Did 9/11 prevent an even worse "event" from happening?? Was "god" trying to get our attention?? Did the perpetrators "do it for 'god'"?? I've joked about being near the center of things -- yet perhaps I wouldn't like the view from the Top of the Pyramid. Perhaps my place in the great scheme of things is to be a Dreamer of Dreams as a Completely Ignorant Fool. I wish I were joking. The following quotation is from Windswept House (1996) -- Pages 310-311 -- by Malachi Martin. It is fiction, and doesn't prove anything -- yet it made me think -- and sent chills up and down my spine.

    "All I want," Cessi had reminded her financial advisor, "is enough coaching so that I won't sound too stupid when we walk into the Vatican Bank."

    Roche made sure Cessi understood that the Vatican Bank was a real bank. The portfolio of the Institute for Religious Agencies, he told her, was right up there with the mijor financial institutions the world over. There was hardly any sector of human life in which the IRA hadn't invested Vatican funds.

    Of course, Roche hastened to add, the fact that his bank was a real bank did not mean that the Pontiff was a real banker who micromanaged the financial affairs of the Vaticaan and the Holy See. Glenn had provided a fair rundown of key IRA personnel and the impressive scope of their operations, with detailed emphasis on the two men Cessi would be visiting, Dr. Pier Giorgio Maldonado and canny old Cardinal Amedeo Sanstefano, who, as head of the Prefecture of Economic Affairs, answered directly to the Holy Father for all economic and financial dealings of the Vatican, including those of the IRA.

    Nonetheless, Glenn observed, the Pontiff had more control over the Institute of Religious Agencies than over most of the other Vatican ministries. The IRA, it seemed, had a special charter that couldn't be tampered with by anybody except the Pope. And that fact was basic to his independence of action, was the essential underpinning of his freedom from in-house constraints and external pressures.

    All of that was simple enough for Cessi to grasp. But Glenn had insisted she see just what a major financial portfolio looked like these days. And that had required an excursion to a bleak building in midtown Manhaattan where they had been excorted by a trio of guards through a warren of locked rooms monitored at every turn by television scanners.

    Finally, they had found themselves standing amid the components of a massive computer. "This is the brain that organizes and makes possible the globalized financial dealings of our brave new world." Roche bowed in mock politeness.

    "This electronic doodad?" Glenn explained that something approaching a trillion dollars passed through this unthinking brain each day, a sum that was more than the entire money supply of the United States.

    "Remember your shares in the Racol-Guardata Corporation, Cessi? Well, that's the outfit that makes this electronic doodad. These black boxes you see here and a pair of Unisys A-15J mainframe computers manage coded orders that come in through one hundred and thirty-four dedicated telephone lines from everybody who is anybody in the financial world, including the Gladstones."

    "Including the Church of God?"

    "Including the Pope's bank," Roche confirmed as he signaled the guards they were ready to leave.

    Glenn's little crash course in world finance wasn't finished yet. Once back in his office at Glen Roche Securities, he pulled a thin volume from the bookshelves behind his desk and flicked its pages until he came to the passage he wanted to read aloud to Cessi. "'Since I entered politics'" -- Glenn settled into his chair as he read--"'I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.'"

    Roche snapped the little book shut. "Woodrow Wilson wrote those words in 1913."

    Cessi got the point. Those black boxes and the Unisys A-15J were exactly what she had said. Electronic doodads. Somebody engineered them, programmed them, manipulated them. "So." She spoke softly as if to herself, or perhaps to her guardian angel. "The Devil is wired to the world at last."

    Does Satan have an office at Goldman Sachs?? Is Satan the CEO of Solar Systems Unlimited?? Is Satan (in the preferred form) a nine-foot tall Draconian-Reptilian?? I don't write any of this to be mean. I write it because things might be a helluva lot different than what they taught us in Sabbath-School and Sunday-School. I just think we're going to find out about a helluva lot of upsetting information over the next decade or two. I'm trying to hint at what I think might be going on -- in a somewhat humorous and irreverent manner -- but most of the tripe I write is simply speculation. The Boys from Georgetown know a helluva lot more than I do.

    I have NO idea what's really going on with this old Leo Zagami rant -- yet does it reveal at least some forbidden knowledge?? As you must know by now -- I just take in a lot of the madness which is 'out there' -- and then I speculate and model -- in a very neutral and low-key manner. I have promised to keep this Tempest in a Teapot mostly within this website. I fully intend to keep this promise. I know too little -- the stakes are too high -- and I suspect the way things really are is worse than even I can imagine. I am very sluggish and debilitated -- even though I seem to be able to deal with the most upsetting and abstract information rather well. I can't seem to carry on a simple conversation -- even if my eternal life depended on it -- yet I can comprehend hidden aspects and concepts in the most scholarly books and lectures. This is all very strange. I seem to be able to write rather well -- yet preparing me for a press-conference would be nearly impossible. A teleprompter, drugs, rituals, perfect-possession, and a chip-implanted brain wouldn't even save me from Making a Completely Ignorant Fool Out of Myself on Live Network Television. I wish I were joking.

    If God were made flesh, and dwelt among us -- would he and/or she feel comfortable with a United States of the Solar System?? If so, what role should they play in such a solar system?? Should they be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court -- in Perpetuity?? I have NO idea -- but I think I might take a closer look at the Supreme Court -- in light of this, and other, questions and issues. Remember, this thread is HIGHLY experimental and tentative. This is a Test. This is Only a Test. I simply wish for things to improve. I am quite positive regarding this thread -- yet I am VERY negative regarding myself. Look closely at the thread -- but don't even bother to look at me -- and I'm being extremely serious.

    The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.[1] The Court, which meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment.[2][3]


    The Supreme Court was organized on February 2, 1790.[4]

    Marshall Court

    Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue.[5] The Court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige,[6] a situation not helped by the highest-profile case of the era, Chisholm v. Georgia, which was immediately repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment.

    The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[7] Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[8][9] and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[10][11][12][13]

    The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim,[14] a remnant of British tradition,[15] and instead issuing a single majority opinion.[14] Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the Court's control, the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804–1805 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.[16][17]

    From Taney to Taft

    The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.[18] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[19] which may have helped precipitate the Civil War.[20] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution[13] and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[21] Adair v. United States).[22]

    Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment had incorporated some guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states (Gitlow v. New York),[23] grappled with the new antitrust statutes (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States), upheld the constitutionality of military conscription (Selective Draft Law Cases)[24] and brought the substantive due process doctrine to its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital).[25]

    The New Deal era

    During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the Court gained its own accommodation in 1935[26] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government to facilitate President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby and United States v. Butler).[27] [28][29] During World War II, the Court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.

    Warren and Burger

    The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties.[30] It held that segregation in public schools violates equal protection (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe and Green v. County School Bd.)[31] and that traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote (Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut),[32] limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp),[33][34] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[35][36]—and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona);[37] At the same time, however, the Court limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan) and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.[38]

    The Burger Court (1969–1986) expanded Griswold's right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade),[39] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)[40] and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo),[41] and dithered on the death penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[42] then that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[42][43][44]

    Rehnquist and Roberts

    The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[45] emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[46][47][48][49][50] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[51] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).[52] The Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, was controversial.[53][54]

    The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court.[55][56] Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (Twombly-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[57] and the Bill of Rights, prominently Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment),[58] Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment),[59] and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment).[60][61]


    Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.

    In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[62] where it has since remained.

    President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[63] The plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress.[64] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[65]

    Appointment and confirmation

    The President of the United States appoints justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."[66] Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.

    In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[67] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork in 1987.

    Nevertheless, not every nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate has begun in the full Senate. No nomination for associate justice has ever been filibustered, but President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. A president may also withdraw a nominee's name before the actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject them, most recently Harriet Miers in 2006.

    Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[68] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[69]

    Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[70]

    Recess appointments

    When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and six associate justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed.

    No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts.[71] In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances."[72] Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congress's views in the hope of guiding executive action.[72][73]


    The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign or retire.[74] Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[75] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and again in 1970), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, both unable to resign and unable to resume service.[76]

    Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's nomination in 1994 and the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor (though Roberts' nomination was withdrawn and resubmitted for the role of Chief Justice after Rehnquist died).

    Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. Zachary Taylor likewise died early in his term, although his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a contraction in the size of the Court. Jimmy Carter is the only president who completed at least one full term in office without making a nomination to the Court during his presidency.

    Three presidents have appointed justices who collectively served more than 100 years: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.[77]

    Current justices

    John Roberts (Chief Justice) -- Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2003–2005); Private practice (1993–2003); Professor, Georgetown University Law Center (1992–2005); Principal Deputy Solicitor General (1989–1993); Private practice (1986–1989); Associate Counsel to the President (1982–1986); Special Assistant to the Attorney General (1981–1982)

    Antonin Scalia -- Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1982–1986); Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1977–1982); Assistant Attorney General (1974–1977); Professor, University of Virginia School of Law (1967–1974); Private practice (1961–1967)

    Anthony Kennedy -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1975–1988); Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific (1965–1988); Private practice (1963–1975)

    Clarence Thomas -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1990–1991); Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982–1990); legislative assistant for Missouri Senator John Danforth (1979–1981); employed by Monsanto Company Inc. (1977–1979); Assistant Attorney General in Missouri under State Attorney General John Danforth (1974–1977)

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1980–1993); General Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (1973–1980); Professor, Columbia Law School (1972–1980); Professor, Rutgers University School of Law (1963–1972)

    Stephen Breyer -- Formerly Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1990–1994); Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1980–1990); Professor, Harvard Law School (1967–1980)

    Samuel Alito -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1990–2006); Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law (1999–2004); U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1987–1990); Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1985–1987); Assistant to the Solicitor General (1981–1985); Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1977–1981)

    Sonia Sotomayor -- Formerly Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1998–2009); District Judge, District Court for the Southern District of New York (1992–1998); Private practice (1984–1991); Assistant District Attorney, New York County, New York (1979–1984)

    Elena Kagan -- Formerly Solicitor General of the United States (2009–2010); Dean of Harvard Law School (2003–2009); Professor, Harvard Law School (2001–2003); Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School (1999–2001); Associate White House Counsel (1995–1999); Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1995–1999); Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1995); Associate Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991–1995)

    Court demographics

    The Court currently has six male and three female justices. One justice is African American, one is Latino, and two are Italian-Americans; six justices are Roman Catholics, and three are Jewish. The average age is 67 years, 4 months, and every current justice has an Ivy League background.[78] Four justices are from the state of New York, two from New Jersey, two from California, and one from Georgia.

    In the 19th century, every justice was a male of European descent, and concerns about diversity focused on geography, to represent all regions of the country, rather than ethnic, religious, or gender diversity.[79] Thurgood Marshall became the first African American Justice in 1967, and Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female Justice in 1981. O'Connor, whose appointment fulfilled Ronald Reagan's campaign promise to place a woman on the Court, was later joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Marshall was succeeded by Clarence Thomas in 1991, who is the second African American to serve on the Supreme Court. After O'Connor had in 2006 been succeeded by Samuel Alito, Ginsburg was in 2009 joined by Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latino justice, and in 2010 by Elena Kagan, so that there were three female justices.

    Most justices have been Protestants, including thirty-five Episcopalians, nineteen Presbyterians, ten Unitarians, five Methodists, and three Baptists.[80][81] The first Catholic justice was Roger Taney in 1836, and 1916 saw the appointment of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis. In recent years this situation has reversed: after the retirement of Justice Stevens in June 2010, the Court is without a Protestant for the first time in its history.[82]

    Retired justices

    There are currently three living retired justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, and David Souter. As retired justices, they no longer participate in the work of the Supreme Court, but may be designated for temporary assignments to sit on lower federal courts, usually the United States Courts of Appeals. Such assignments are formally made by the Chief Justice, on request of the Chief Judge of the lower court and with the consent of the retired Justice. In recent years, Justice O'Connor has sat with several Courts of Appeals around the country, and Justice Souter has frequently sat on the First Circuit, the court of which he was briefly a member before joining the Supreme Court.

    The status of a retired Justice is analogous to that of a Circuit or District Judge who has taken senior status, and eligibility of a Supreme Court Justice to assume retired status (rather than simply resign from the bench) is governed by the same age and service criteria.

    Justices sometimes strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench, with personal, institutional, and partisan factors playing a role.[83][84] The fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step down. The desire to maximize the Court's strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for institutional health. Finally, especially in recent decades, many justices have timed their departure to coincide with a compatible president holding office to ensure that a like-minded successor would be appointed.[85][86]

    Seniority and seating

    Many of the internal operations of the Court are organized by the seniority of the justices; the Chief Justice is considered the most senior member of the Court, regardless of the length of his or her service. The Associate Justices are then ranked by the length of their service.

    During Court sessions, the justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right when looking at the bench from the perspective of a lawyer arguing before the Court: Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas, Scalia (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan. In the official yearly Court photograph, justices are arranged similarly, with the five most senior members sitting in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg), and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan).

    In the justices' private conferences, the current practice is for them to speak and vote in order of seniority from the Chief Justice first to the most junior Associate Justice last. The most junior Associate Justice in these conferences is tasked with any menial labor the justices may require as they convene alone, such as answering the door of their conference room, serving coffee, and transmitting the orders of the Court to the court's clerk.[87] Justice Joseph Story served the longest as the junior justice, from February 3, 1812, to September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days. Justice Stephen Breyer follows close behind, with 4,199 days when Samuel Alito joined the court on January 31, 2006.[88]


    Main article: Federal judge salaries in the United States

    For the years 2009 and 2010, associate justices were paid $213,900 and the chief justice $223,500.[89] Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for incumbent justices. Once a justice meets age and service requirements, the justice may retire. Judicial pensions are based on the normal formula for federal employees, but a justice's pension will never be less than their salary at time of retirement. (The same procedure applies to judges of other federal courts.)

    Judicial leanings

    While justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches, jurists are informally categorized in legal and political circles as being judicial conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Such leanings, however, generally refer to legal outlook rather than a political or legislative one.

    As of the October 2012 term, the Court consists of five justices appointed by Republican presidents and four appointed by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (appointed by Republican presidents) comprise the Court's conservative wing. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (appointed by Democratic presidents) comprise the Court's liberal wing. Justice Kennedy (appointed by President Reagan) is generally considered "a conservative who has occasionally voted with liberals",[90] and is often the swing vote that determines the outcome of close cases.[91][92][93]

    Tom Goldstein argued in an article in SCOTUSblog in 2010, that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions." [94] He points out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% were decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also pointed to several cases that defy the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.[95] Goldstein further argued that the large number of pro-criminal-defendant summary dismissals (usually cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or argument) are an illustration that the conservative justices have not been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein stated that the critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and be disrespectful of precedent, also lacks merit: Thomas has most often called for overruling prior precedent (even if long standing) that he views as having been wrongly decided, and during the 2009 term Scalia and Thomas voted most often to invalidate legislation.

    According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, in the twelve terms from 2000 to 2011, an average of 19 of the opinions on major issues (22%) were decided by a 5–4 vote, with an average of 70% of those split opinions decided by a Court divided along the traditionally perceived ideological lines (about 15% of all opinions issued). Over that period, the conservative bloc has been in the majority about 62% of the time that the Court has divided along ideological lines, which represents about 44% of all the 5–4 decisions.[96]

    In the October 2010 term, the Court decided 86 cases, including 75 signed opinions and 5 summary reversals (where the Court reverses a lower court without arguments and without issuing an opinion on the case).[97][98] Four were decided with unsigned opinions, two cases affirmed by an equally divided Court, and two cases were dismissed as improvidently granted. Justice Kagan recused herself from 26 of the cases due to her prior role as United States Solicitor General. Of the 80 cases, 38 (about 48%, the highest percentage since the October 2005 term) were decided unanimously (9–0 or 8–0), and 16 decisions were made by a 5–4 vote (about 20%, compared to 18% in the October 2009 term, and 29% in the October 2008 term).[99] However, in fourteen of the sixteen 5–4 decisions, the Court divided along the traditional ideological lines (with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan on the liberal side, and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on the conservative, and Kennedy providing the "swing vote"). This represents 87% of those 16 cases, the highest rate in the past 10 years. The conservative bloc, joined by Kennedy, formed the majority in 63% of the 5–4 decisions, the highest cohesion rate of that bloc in the Roberts court.[97][100][101][102][103]

    In the October 2011 term, the Court decided 75 cases. Of these, 33 (about 44%) were decided unanimously, and 15 (about 20%, the same percentage as in the previous term) were decided by a vote of 5–4. Of the latter 15, the Court divided along the perceived ideological lines 10 times, with Justice Kennedy siding with the conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) five times, and with the liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) five times.[96][104][105]

    Politicization of the Court

    Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s", according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School.[106][107] "As law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts", former federal court of appeals judge J. Michael Luttig said.[106] David J. Garrow, professor of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had thus begun to mirror the political branches of government. "We are getting a composition of the clerk workforce that is getting to be like the House of Representatives", Professor Garrow said. "Each side is putting forward only ideological purists."[106]

    According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is "a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law."[106]

    A poll conducted in June 2012 by The New York Times and CBS News showed that just 44 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing. Three-quarters said the justices' decisions are sometimes influenced by their political or personal views.[108]


    The Supreme Court first met on February 1, 1790, at the Merchants' Exchange Building in New York City. When Philadelphia became the capital, the Court met briefly in Independence Hall before settling in Old City Hall from 1791 until 1800. After the government moved to Washington, D.C., the Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home. The four-story building was designed by Cass Gilbert in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol and Library of Congress, and is clad in marble. The building includes the courtroom, justices' chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services including a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force separate from the Capitol Police.[109]

    Located across the street from the United States Capitol at One First Street NE and Maryland Avenue,[110][111] the building is open to the public from 9 am to 4:30 pm weekdays but closed on weekends and holidays.[110] Visitors may not tour the actual courtroom unaccompanied. There is a cafeteria, a gift shop, exhibits, and a half-hour informational film.[109] When the Court is not in session, lectures about the courtroom are held hourly from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm and reservations are not necessary.[109] When the Court is in session the public may attend oral arguments, which are held twice each morning (and sometimes afternoons) on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays in two-week intervals from October through late April, with breaks during December and February. Visitors are seated on a first-come first-served basis. One estimate is there are about 250 seats available.[112] The number of open seats varies from case to case; for important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and wait through the night. From mid-May until the end of June, the court releases orders and opinions beginning at 10 am, and these 15 to 30-minute sessions are open to the public on a similar basis.[109] Supreme Court Police are available to answer questions.[110]


    Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

    Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:

    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbade federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, states may waive this immunity, and Congress may abrogate the states' immunity in certain circumstances (see Sovereign immunity). In addition to constitutional constraints, Congress is authorized by Article III to regulate the court's appellate jurisdiction: for example, the federal courts may hear cases only if one or more of the following conditions are met:

    1.If there is diversity of citizenship (meaning, the parties are citizens of different states or countries, including foreign states[113]), and the amount of damages exceeds $75,000.[114]
    2.If the case presents a federal question, meaning that it involves a claim or issue "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States".[115]
    3.If the United States federal government (including the Post Office[116]) is a party in the case.[117][118]

    Exercise of this power can become controversial (see jurisdiction stripping). For example, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1), as amended by the Detainee Treatment Act, provides that "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."

    The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.

    The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are several devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases.

    Since Article Three of the United States Constitution stipulates that federal courts may only entertain "cases" or "controversies", the Supreme Court avoids deciding cases that are moot and does not render advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For example, in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), the Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law school affirmative action policy because the plaintiff student had graduated since he began the lawsuit, and a decision from the Court on his claim would not be able to redress any injury he had suffered. The mootness exception is not absolute. If an issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review", the Court will address it even though the party before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable result. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and other abortion cases, the Court addresses the merits of claims pressed by pregnant women seeking abortions even if they are no longer pregnant because it takes longer than the typical human gestation period to appeal a case through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

    Justices as Circuit Justices

    The United States is divided into thirteen circuit courts of appeals, each of which is assigned a "Circuit Justice" from the Supreme Court. Although this concept has been in continuous existence throughout the history of the republic, its meaning has changed through time.

    Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each Justice was required to "ride circuit", or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases alongside local judges. This practice encountered opposition from many Justices, who cited the difficulty of travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it because a Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if he had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891.

    Today, the Circuit Justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may be addressed by a single Justice. These include applications for emergency stays (including stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as routine requests such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, Circuit Justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal. Ordinarily, a Justice will resolve such an application by simply endorsing it "Granted" or "Denied" or entering a standard form of order. However, the Justice may elect to write an opinion—referred to as an in-chambers opinion—in such matters if he or she wishes.

    A Circuit Justice may sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals of that circuit, but over the past hundred years, this has rarely occurred. A Circuit Justice sitting with the Court of Appeals has seniority over the Chief Judge of the circuit.

    The Chief Justice has traditionally been assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Fourth Circuit (which includes Maryland and Virginia, the states surrounding the District of Columbia), and since it was established, the Federal Circuit. Each Associate Justice is assigned to one or two judicial circuits.

    As of September 28, 2010, the allotment of the justices among the circuits is:[119]

    District of Columbia Circuit -- Chief Justice Roberts

    First Circuit -- Justice Breyer

    Second Circuit -- Justice Ginsburg

    Third Circuit -- Justice Alito

    Fourth Circuit -- Chief Justice Roberts

    Fifth Circuit -- Justice Scalia

    Sixth Circuit -- Justice Kagan

    Seventh Circuit -- Justice Kagan

    Eighth Circuit -- Justice Alito

    Ninth Circuit -- Justice Kennedy

    Tenth Circuit -- Justice Sotomayor

    Eleventh Circuit -- Justice Thomas

    Federal Circuit -- Chief Justice Roberts

    Four of the current Justices are assigned to circuits on which they previously sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Breyer (First Circuit), Justice Alito (Third Circuit), and Justice Kennedy (Ninth Circuit).

    Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States

    A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.

    Case selection

    Nearly all cases come before the court by way of petitions for writs of certiorari, commonly referred to as "cert". The Court may review any case in the federal courts of appeals "by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case".[120] The Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.[121] The party that lost in the lower court is the petitioner and the party that prevailed is the respondent. All case names before the Court are styled petitioner v. respondent, regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the trial court. For example, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the state and against an individual, as in State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. If the defendant is convicted, and his conviction then is affirmed on appeal in the state supreme court, when he petitions for cert the name of the case becomes Miranda v. Arizona.

    There are situations where the Court has original jurisdiction, such as when two states have a dispute against each other, or when there is a dispute between the United States and a state. In such instances, a case is filed with the Supreme Court directly. Examples of such cases include United States v. Texas, a case to determine whether a parcel of land belonged to the United States or to Texas, and Virginia v. Tennessee, a case turning on whether an incorrectly drawn boundary between two states can be changed by a state court, and whether the setting of the correct boundary requires Congressional approval. Although it has not happened since 1794 in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford,[122] parties in an action at law in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction may request that a jury determine issues of fact.[123] Two other original jurisdiction cases involve colonial era borders and rights under navigable waters in New Jersey v. Delaware, and water rights between riparian states upstream of navigable waters in Kansas v. Colorado.

    The common shorthand name for cases is typically the first party (the petitioner). For example, Brown v. Board of Education is referred to simply as Brown, and Roe v. Wade as Roe. The exception to this rule is when the name of a state, or the United States, or some government entity, is the first listed party. In that instance, the name of the second party is the shorthand name. For example, Iowa v. Tovar is referred to simply as Tovar, and Gonzales v. Raich is referred to simply as Raich, because the first party, Alberto Gonzales, was sued in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General.

    A cert petition is voted on at a session of the court called a conference. A conference is a private meeting of the nine Justices by themselves; the public and the Justices' clerks are excluded. If four Justices vote to grant the petition, the case proceeds to the briefing stage; otherwise, the case ends. Except in death penalty cases and other cases in which the Court orders briefing from the respondent, the respondent may, but is not required to, file a response to the cert petition.

    The court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons", spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include:
    Resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
    Correcting an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
    Resolving an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.

    When a conflict of interpretations arises from differing interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this situation a "circuit split". If the court votes to deny a cert petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert petition is not a judgment on the merits of a case, and the decision of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.

    To manage the high volume of cert petitions received by the Court each year (of the more than 7,000 petitions the Court receives each year, it will usually request briefing and hear oral argument in 100 or fewer), the Court employs an internal case management tool known as the "cert pool." Currently, all justices except for Justice Alito participate in the cert pool.[124][125][126]

    Oral argument

    When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. Both parties will file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from the reasons they may have argued for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, amici curiae, or "friends of the court", may also file briefs. The Court holds two-week oral argument sessions each month from October through April. Each side has thirty minutes to present its argument (the Court may choose to give more time, though this is rare[127] ), and during that time, the Justices may interrupt the advocate and ask questions. The petitioner gives the first presentation, and may reserve some time to rebut the respondent's arguments after the respondent has concluded. Amici curiae may also present oral argument on behalf of one party if that party agrees. The Court advises counsel to assume that the Justices are familiar with and have read the briefs filed in a case.

    The Supreme Court Bar

    In order to plead before the court, an attorney must first be admitted to the court's bar. Approximately 4,000 lawyers join the bar each year. The bar contains an estimated 230,000 members. In reality, pleading is limited to several hundred attorneys. The rest join for a one-time fee of $200, earning the court about $750,000 annually. The lawyers mostly apply for the trophy of a certificate for their office, an addition for their resume, and access to better seating if they wish to attend an oral argument.[128]


    At the conclusion of oral argument, the case is submitted for decision. Cases are decided by majority vote of the Justices. It is the Court's practice to issue decisions in all cases argued in a particular Term by the end of that Term. Within that Term, however, the Court is under no obligation to release a decision within any set time after oral argument. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Justices retire to another conference at which the preliminary votes are tallied, and the most senior Justice in the majority assigns the initial draft of the Court's opinion to a Justice on his or her side. Drafts of the Court's opinion, as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions,[129] circulate among the Justices until the Court is prepared to announce the judgment in a particular case.

    It is possible that, through recusals or vacancies, the Court divides evenly on a case. If that occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but does not establish binding precedent. In effect, it results in a return to the status quo ante. For a case to be heard, there must be a quorum of at least six justices.[130] If a quorum is not available to hear a case and a majority of qualified justices believes that the case cannot be heard and determined in the next term, then the judgment of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been evenly divided. For cases brought directly to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the Chief Justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there.[131] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa.[132]

    Published opinions

    The Court's opinions are published in three stages. First, a slip opinion is made available on the Court's web site and through other outlets. Next, several opinions are bound together in paperback form, called a preliminary print of United States Reports, the official series of books in which the final version of the Court's opinions appears. About a year after the preliminary prints are issued, a final bound volume of U.S. Reports is issued. The individual volumes of U.S. Reports are numbered so that users may cite this set of reports—or a competing version published by another commercial legal publisher—to allow those who read their pleadings and other briefs to find the cases quickly and easily.

    As of March 2012, there are 566 volumes of U.S. Reports. Lawyers use an abbreviated format to cite cases, in the form vvv U.S. ppp (yyyy). The number before the "U.S." refers to the volume number, and the number after the U.S. refers to the page within that volume. The number in parentheses is the year in which the case was decided. For instance, the citation for Roe v. Wade is 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and it means the case was decided in 1973 and appears on page 113 of volume 410 of U.S. Reports. For hot-from-the-press judgments, the volume and page numbers are replaced with "___". As of March 2012, the U.S. Reports have published a total of 30,161 Supreme Court opinions, covering the decisions handed down from February 1790 to March 2012. This figure does not reflect the number of cases the Court has taken up, as several cases can be addressed by a single opinion (see, for example, Parents v. Seattle, where Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education was also decided in the same opinion). A more unusual example is The Telephone Cases, which comprise a single opinion that takes up the entire 126th volume of the U.S. Reports.

    Opinions are also collected and published in two unofficial, parallel reporters: Supreme Court Reporter, published by West (now a part of Thomson Reuters), and United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition (simply known as Lawyers' Edition), published by LexisNexis. In court documents, legal periodicals, and other legal media, case citations generally contain the cites from each of the three reporters; for example, the citation to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is presented as Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n, 585 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010), with "S. Ct." representing the Supreme Court Reporter, and "L. Ed." representing the Lawyers' Edition.[133][134]

    Institutional powers and constraints

    The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances. This power allows judges to have the last word on allocation of authority among the three branches of the federal government, which grants them the ability to set bounds to their own authority, as well as to their immunity from outside checks and balances.

    The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!";[135] however, this alleged quotation has been disputed. Some state governments in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, many feared that President Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.

    Some argue that the Supreme Court is "the most separated and least checked of all branches of government."[136] Justices are not required to stand for election by virtue of their tenure "during good behavior", and their pay may "not be diminished" while they hold their position (Section 1 of Article Three). Though subject to the process of impeachment, only one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has been removed from office. Supreme Court decisions have been purposefully overridden by constitutional amendment in only four instances: the Eleventh Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia (1793); the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments in effect overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857); the Sixteenth Amendment reversed Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895); and the Twenty-sixth Amendment overturned some portions of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970). However, when the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse the decisions (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter act, superseding the limitations given in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in 2007). Also, the Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints: lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do law enforcement officials.[137]

    In addition, the other two branches can restrain the Court through other mechanisms. Congress can increase the number of justices, giving the President power to influence future decisions by appointments (as in Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan discussed above). Congress can pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Court sanctioned such congressional action in the Reconstruction case ex parte McCardle (1869), though it rejected Congress' power to dictate how particular cases must be decided in United States v. Klein (1871).

    On the other hand, through its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court has defined the scope and nature of the powers and separation between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government; for example, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), and notably in Goldwater v. Carter (1979), (where it effectively gave the Presidency the power to terminate ratified treaties without the consent of Congress or the Senate). The Court's decisions can also impose limitations on the scope of Executive authority, as in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the Steel Seizure Case (1952), and United States v. Nixon (1974).
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Supreme_Court_US_2010
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Supreme-court

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:30 pm

    Seriously consider the implications and ramifications of the Hypothetical Theocratic Aspects of the United States of the Solar System -- Existing Mostly Within the Supreme Court. You might scoff at my god-talk -- but what if a god -- or the gods -- have ruled this world for thousands of years?? Am I suggesting a better god -- or better gods -- in a more open and honest setting?? I do NOT want One Nation Under Satan -- yet I also do NOT want a Godless Democracy. Where is a happy-medium in all of this madness?? What if the Supreme Court served somewhat as a Security Council?? I have NO idea what I'm talking about here -- yet I think the Boys from Georgetown know EXACTLY what I'm hinting at.

    The sad thing in all of this madness is the thought that a completely reformed solar system might have to retain at least 90% of the way things work presently. I am fundamentally idealistic -- yet what is the reality?? I keep thinking that Archangel Michael was SO idealistic that most of the angels rejected this approach -- sided with Gabriel and/or Lucifer -- and essentially sent Michael and a few loyal followers into exile. This is just a theory -- mind you. I think the Bible should be studied for clues -- and not unquestioningly accepted or irrationally rejected. I'm more interested in seeing people wrestling with the scriptures than I am concerned about their interpretations and conclusions. When I have suggested a Liturgically-Conservative and Theologically-Liberal approach to religion (at least in the Catholic, Anglican, Episcopal, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc. traditions) -- I have desired a mysterious blend of unity and diversity -- without "peace at any price". I frankly and personally prefer reading religious materials at sacred classical music concerts -- rather than attending church services of any kind. Doing nothing but singing hymns is highly appealing to me. I keep speaking of the Latin Mass because of its history, royalty, solemnity, meditativeness, privateness -- but not necessarily because of the traditional interpretations. I have tried to find a middle-way by conceptually combining the Latin Mass with the 1928 Book of Common Prayer. But this approach might make EVERYONE angry. It doesn't pay to play with how people pray. I am NOT opposed to Happy-Clappy Churchianity. There is a time and a place for everything. However, I think it is important to at least conceptually reform Mother Church. I think we need this mental, spiritual, and ecumenical exercise.

    If you were asked "What Should We Do??" by the PTB -- what would you tell them?? I might initially tell them to keep doing what they're doing -- except for War and Terrorism. No more War and Terrorism. That would be just for starters -- but wouldn't that be a significant step in the right direction??? Over-correction can be worse than no-correction. I keep getting the sinking sensation that the Galactic Powers That Be do NOT wish for us to "Save the World". I keep sensing that Human-Physicality and Responsible-Freedom are on the chopping-block. What were we before we were human?? What will we be when we are no longer human?? The answers might frighten us. Once again, I am modeling a contrarian theological perspective which I don't necessarily believe in -- even though there seems to be significant and mounting evidence that a lot of my speculation MIGHT be at least somewhat correct. I'd like to think that I could calmly and politely converse with Nazis, Masons, Jesuits, Mormons, Dracs, and Greys on the Dark-Side of the Moon. Can't we just all get along??

    The Supreme Court continued.

    Some criticisms leveled at the Supreme Court are:

    Judicial activism: The Supreme Court has been criticized for not keeping within Constitutional bounds by engaging in judicial activism, rather than merely interpreting law and exercising judicial restraint. Claims of judicial activism are not confined to any particular ideology.[138] An often cited example of conservative judicial activism is the 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which has been criticized by many prominent thinkers, including Robert Bork, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts.[138][139] An often cited example of liberal judicial activism is Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion in part on the basis of the "right to privacy" expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment, a reasoning that some critics argued was circuitous.[138] Legal scholars,[140][141] justices,[142] and presidential candidates[143] have criticized the Roe decision. The progressive Brown v. Board of Education decision has been criticized by conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan[144] and former presidential contender Barry Goldwater.[145] Lincoln warned, referring to the Dred Scott decision, that if government policy became "irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."[146] Former justice Thurgood Marshall justified judicial activism with these words: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."[147] During different historical periods, the Court has leaned in different directions.[148][149] Critics from both sides complain that activist-judges abandon the Constitution and substitute their own views instead.[150][151][152] Critics include writers such as Andrew Napolitano,[153] Phyllis Schlafly,[154] Mark R. Levin,[155] Mark I. Sutherland,[156] and James MacGregor Burns.[157][158] Past presidents from both parties have attacked judicial activism, including Franklin Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.[159][160] Failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork wrote: "What judges have wrought is a coup d'état, – slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d'état nonetheless."[161] Senator Al Franken quipped that when politicians talk about judicial activism, "their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than [the politician] would like."[162] It has been argued that the Supreme Court is in some respects "certainly a legislative body."[163]

    Federal versus state power: There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary between federal and state power. While Framers such as James Madison[164] and Alexander Hamilton[165] argued in the Federalist Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments,[166][167][168][169] others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes.[170] The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly grants "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the federal government too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the Commerce Clause by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause was used by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Endangered Species Act, thus protecting six endemic species of insect near Austin, Texas, despite the fact that the insects had no commercial value and did not travel across state lines; the Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment in 2005.[171] Chief Justice John Marshall asserted Congress's power over interstate commerce was "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."[172] Justice Alito said congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is "quite broad."[173] Modern day theorist Robert B. Reich suggests debate over the Commerce Clause continues today.[172] Advocates of states' rights such as constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman have also criticized the Court, saying it has misused the Fourteenth Amendment to undermine state authority. Justice Brandeis, in arguing for allowing the states to operate without federal interference, suggested that states should be "laboratories" of democracy.[174] One critic wrote "the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law."[175] However, others see the Fourteenth Amendment as a positive force that extends "protection of those rights and guarantees to the state level."[176]

    Judicial interference in political disputes: Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into the political arena, and deciding questions that are the purview of the other two branches of government. The Bush v. Gore decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election and effectively chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, has been criticized extensively, particularly by liberals.[177][178][179][180][181][182] Another example are Court decisions on apportionment and re-districting: in Baker v. Carr, the court decided it could rule on apportionment questions; Justice Frankfurter in a "scathing dissent" argued against the court wading into so-called "political questions."[183]

    Failing to protect individual rights: Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual rights: the Dred Scott (1857) decision upheld slavery;[184] Plessy v Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal;[185] Kelo v. City of New London (2005) was criticized by prominent politicians, including New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, as undermining property rights.[186][187] A student criticized a 1988 ruling that allowed school officials "to block publication of a student article in the high school newspaper."[188] Some critics suggest the 2009 bench with a conservative majority has "become increasingly hostile to voters" by siding with Indiana's voter identification laws which tend to "disenfranchise large numbers of people without driver's licenses, especially poor and minority voters", according to one report.[189] Senator Al Franken criticized the Court for "eroding individual rights."[162] However, others argue that the Court is too protective of some individual rights, particularly those of people accused of crimes or in detention. For example, Chief Justice Warren Burger was an outspoken critic of the exclusionary rule, and Justice Scalia criticized the Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush for being too protective of the rights of Guantanamo detainees, on the grounds that habeas corpus was "limited" to sovereign territory.[190]

    Supreme Court has too much power: This criticism is related to complaints about judicial activism. George Will wrote that the Court has an "increasingly central role in American governance."[191] It was criticized for intervening in bankruptcy proceedings regarding ailing carmaker Chrysler Corporation in 2009.[192] A reporter wrote that "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's intervention in the Chrysler bankruptcy" left open the "possibility of further judicial review" but argued overall that the intervention was a proper use of Supreme Court power to check the executive branch.[192] Warren E. Burger, before becoming Chief Justice, argued that since the Supreme Court has such "unreviewable power" it is likely to "self-indulge itself" and unlikely to "engage in dispassionate analysis".[193] Larry Sabato wrote "excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court."[194]

    Courts are poor check on executive power: British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins sees flaws in the American system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; he argues that because the courts must wait, sometimes for years, for cases to wend their way through the system, their ability to restrain the other two branches is severely weakened.[195][196]

    Not choosing enough cases to review: Senator Arlen Specter said the Court should "decide more cases".[162] On the other hand, although Justice Scalia acknowledged in a 2009 interview that the number of cases that the Court hears now is smaller today than when he first joined the Supreme Court, he also stated that he has not changed his standards for deciding whether to review a case, nor does he believe his colleagues have changed their standards. He attributed the high volume of cases in the late 1980s, at least in part, to an earlier flurry of new federal legislation that was making its way through the courts.[197]

    Secretive proceedings: The Court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden from public view.[198] Its inner workings are difficult for reporters to cover, like a closed "cartel", only revealing itself through "public events and printed releases, with nothing about its inner workings", according to a review of Jeffrey Toobin's expose The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.[181] The reviewer writes: "few (reporters) dig deeply into court affairs. It all works very neatly; the only ones hurt are the American people, who know little about nine individuals with enormous power over their lives."[181] Larry Sabato complains about the Court's "insularity."[194] A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted in 2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed that televising Court hearings would "be good for democracy", and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.[199][200] In recent years, many justices have appeared on television, written books, and made public statements to journalists.[197][201] In a 2009 interview on C-SPAN, journalists Joan Biskupic (of USA Today) and Lyle Denniston (of SCOTUSblog) argued that the Court is a "very open" institution, with only the justices' private conferences being inaccessible to others.[197] In October 2010, the Court began the practice of posting on its website recordings and transcripts of oral arguments on the Friday after they take place.

    Creating a culture of legal intimidation: Critic Philip K. Howard in The Death of Common Sense and Life Without Lawyers criticized the Court for promoting a culture in which "law is wielded as a weapon of intimidation rather than as an instrument of protection."[202] It leads to "a nation paralyzed by fear, unwilling to assume responsibility, both overly reliant on authority and distrustful of it."[202] Howard deplores a legal culture in which the "rights" of "whoever might disagree" have trumped common sense.[203] Specifically, Howard criticized the Earl Warren court for too much "sympathy for the little man."[204] He criticized the Conley v. Gibson decision for opening "the floodgates to abusive litigation."[205]

    Lifetime tenure: Critic Larry Sabato wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."[194] Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.[206] James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."[157] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson[207] and Sabato[194][208] as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein.[209] However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."[210]
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Supreme_court_washington_dc-normal

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:33 pm

    What if one conceptually combined Georgetown University, the Washington National Cathedral, Washington D.C., the United Nations, the United States of the Solar System, and the University of Solar System Studies and Governance?? It might be interesting to study this potential integration full-time and on-site. I truly need to study this thread, instead of mostly adding to it. Redoing and reposting old posts is helping me do this -- but I need to do more -- a lot more.

    The Supreme Court continued.


    1.^ "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 2009-12-31.
    2.^ "U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1". Retrieved 2007-09-21.
    3.^ See, in dicta Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 59 (1982); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 16 (1955).
    5.^ Ashmore, Anne (August 2006). "Dates of Supreme Court decisions and arguments, United States Reports volumes 2–107 (1791–1882)" (PDF). Library, Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 2009-04-26.
    6.^ Scott Douglas Gerber (editor) (1998). "Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall". New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-3114-7. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "(page 3) Finally, many scholars cite the absence of a separate Supreme Court building as evidence that the early Court lacked prestige."
    7.^ Garrett Epps (October 24, 2004). "Don't Do It, Justices". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The court's prestige has been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall made the court respected"
    8.^ Jeffrey Rosen (book review of "Packing the Court" by James MacGregor Burns) (July 5, 2009). "Black Robe Politics". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "From the beginning, Burns continues, the Court has established its "supremacy" over the president and Congress because of Chief Justice John Marshall's "brilliant political coup" in Marbury v. Madison (1803): asserting a power to strike down unconstitutional laws."
    9.^ "The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America -- Marbury v. Madison (1803)". US News & World Report. 1803. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful...A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void."
    10.^ Cliff Sloan and David McKean (February 21, 2009). "Why Marbury V. Madison Still Matters". Newsweek. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "More than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark case continues to resonate."
    11.^ "The Constitution In Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal Supreme Court" (PDF). New York Times. February 27, 1893. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The decision ... in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is the authority on which lawyers and Judges have rested the doctrine that where there is in question, in the highest court of a State, and decided adversely to the validity of a State statute... such claim is reviewable by the Supreme Court ..."
    12.^ Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter Breyer (December 13, 2000). "Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court ... The Virginia court refused to obey this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment for the British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to the Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816)."
    13.^ a b "Decisions of the Supreme Court -- Historic Decrees Issued in One Hundred an Eleven Years" (PDF). New York Times. February 3, 1901. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Very important also was the decision in Martin vs. Hunter's lessee, in which the court asserted its authority to overrule, within certain limits, the decisions of the highest State courts."
    14.^ a b "The Supreme Quiz". Washington Post. October 2, 2000. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Marshall's most important innovation was to persuade the other justices to stop seriatim opinions -- each issuing one -- so that the court could speak in a single voice. Since the mid-1940s, however, there's been a significant increase in individual "concurring" and "dissenting" opinions."
    15.^ Dan Slater (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens on the Death Penalty: A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The first Chief Justice, John Marshall set out to do away with seriatim opinions–a practice originating in England in which each appellate judge writes an opinion in ruling on a single case. (You may have read old tort cases in law school with such opinions). Marshall sought to do away with this practice to help build the Court into a coequal branch."
    16.^ Claire Suddath (Dec. 19, 2008). "A Brief History Of Impeachment". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Congress tried the process again in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase on charges of bad conduct. As a judge, Chase was overzealous and notoriously unfair ... But Chase never committed a crime — he was just incredibly bad at his job. The Senate acquitted him on every count."
    17.^ Linda Greenhouse (April 10, 1996). "Rehnquist Joins Fray on Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "the 1805 Senate trial of Justice Samuel Chase, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives ... This decision by the Senate was enormously important in securing the kind of judicial independence contemplated by Article III" of the Constitution, Chief Justice Rehnquist said"
    18.^ Edward Keynes, with Randall K. Miller (1989). "The Court vs. Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion". Duke University Press. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "(page 115)... Grier maintained that Congress has plenary power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction."
    19.^ Sherrilyn A. Ifill (May 27, 2009). "Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense". US News & World Report. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "But his decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and freedmen to a stateless existence within the United States until the passage of the 14th Amendment. Justice Taney's coldly self-fulfilling statement in Dred Scott, that blacks had "no rights which the white man [was] bound to respect", has ensured his place in history—not as a brilliant jurist, but as among the most insensitive"
    20.^ Irons, Peter; Howard Zinn (wrote foreword) (2006). A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution. United States: Penguin Books. pp. 176, 177. ISBN 0-14-303738-2. "The rhetorical battle that followed the Dred Scott decision, as we know, later erupted into the gunfire and bloodshed of the Civil War (p.176)... his opinion (Taney's) touched off an explosive reaction on both sides of the slavery issue... (p.177)"
    21.^ "Liberty of Contract?". Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. October 31, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The term "substantive due process" is often used to describe the approach first used in Lochner--the finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1960s, long after the Court repudiated its Lochner line of cases, substantive due process became the basis for protecting personal rights such as the right of privacy, the right to maintain intimate family relationships."
    22.^ "Adair v. United States 208 U.S. 161". Cornell University Law School. 1908. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "No. 293 Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 --- Decided: January 27, 1908"
    23.^ Bodenhamer, David J.; James W. Ely (1993). The Bill of Rights in modern America. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-253-35159-3. "... of what eventually became the 'incorporation doctrine,' by which various federal Bill of Rights guarantees were held to be implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection."
    24.^ Edward Douglass White. "Opinion for the Court, Arver v. U.S. 245 U.S. 366". "Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."
    25.^ Bernard H. Siegan (1987). The Supreme Court's Constitution. Transaction Publishers. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-88738-671-8. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "In the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the court invalidated a classification based on gender as inconsistent with the substantive due process requirements of the fifth amendment. At issue was congressional legislation providing for the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors in the District of Columbia. (p.146)"
    26.^ Joan Biskupic (March 29, 2005). "Supreme Court gets makeover". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The building is getting its first renovation since its completion in 1935."
    27.^ Justice Roberts (September 21, 2005). "Responses of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph R. Biden". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "I agree that West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish correctly overruled Adkins. Lochner era cases – Adkins in particular – evince an expansive view of the judicial role inconsistent with what I believe to be the appropriately more limited vision of the Framers."[dead link]
    28.^ Seth lipsky (October 22, 2009). "All the News That's Fit to Subsidize". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "He was a farmer in Ohio ... during the 1930s, when subsidies were brought in for farmers. With subsidies came restrictions on how much wheat one could grow—even, Filburn learned in a landmark Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm."[dead link]
    29.^ Adam Cohen (December 14, 2004). "What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Some prominent states' rights conservatives were asking the court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling that laid out an expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in the public interest. Supporters of states' rights have always blamed Wickard ... for paving the way for strong federal action..."
    30.^ United Press International (September 25, 1971). "Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Justice Black developed his controversial theory, first stated in a lengthy, scholarly dissent in 1947, that the due process clause applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states."
    31.^ "100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of Education (1954)". US News & World Report. May 17, 1954. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" ... and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement..."
    32.^ "Essay: In defense of privacy". Time. July 15, 1966. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The biggest legal milestone in this field was last year's Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which overthrew the state's law against the use of contraceptives as an invasion of marital privacy, and for the first time declared the "right of privacy" to be derived from the Constitution itself."
    33.^ Nancy Gibbs (Dec. 9, 1991). "America's Holy War". Time. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the high court threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by state officials that was recommended for use in New York State schools. "It is no part of the business of government", ruled the court, "to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite.""
    34.^ William R. Mattox Jr., Katrina Trinko (August 17, 2009). "Teach the Bible? Of course.". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Public schools need not proselytize — indeed, must not — in teaching students about the Good Book ... In Abington School District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education", was permissible under the First Amendment."
    35.^ "The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle". Time Magazine. June 18, 1965. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Last week, in a 7 to 2 decision, the court refused for the first time to give retroactive effect to a great Bill of Rights decision—Mapp v. Ohio (1961)."
    36.^ "The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment". Time. April 16, 1965. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963). ... the court said flatly in 1904: 'The Sixth Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state criminal courts." But in the light of Gideon ... ruled Black, statements 'generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to states can no longer be regarded as law.'"
    37.^ "Guilt and Mr. Meese". New York Times. January 31, 1987. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. That's the famous decision that made confessions inadmissible as evidence unless an accused person has been warned by police of the right to silence and to a lawyer, and waived it."
    39.^ Karen O'Connor (January 22, 2009). "Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight". US News & World Report. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The shocker, however, came in 1973, when the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, relied on Griswold's basic underpinnings to rule that a Texas law prohibiting abortions in most situations was unconstitutional, invalidating the laws of most states. Relying on a woman's right to privacy..."
    40.^ "Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose". Time. July 10, 1978. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Split almost exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last week offered a Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based solely on race were forbidden, but it also said that race might legitimately be an element in judging students for admission to universities. It thus approved the principle of 'affirmative action'..."
    41.^ "Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo". New York Times. November 12, 1998. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "...Buckley v. Valeo. The nation's political system has suffered ever since from that decision, which held that mandatory limits on campaign spending unconstitutionally limit free speech. The decision did much to promote the explosive growth of campaign contributions from special interests and to enhance the advantage incumbents enjoy over underfunded challengers."
    42.^ a b Staff writer (June 29, 1972). "Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's Key Decisions". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Furman v. Georgia ... Rehnquist dissents from the Supreme Court conclusion that many state laws on capital punishment are capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional."
    43.^ History of the Court, in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (eds) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
    44.^ "A Supreme Revelation". Wall Street Journal. April 19, 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Thirty-two years ago, Justice John Paul Stevens sided with the majority in a famous "never mind" ruling by the Supreme Court. Gregg v. Georgia, in 1976, overturned Furman v. Georgia, which had declared the death penalty unconstitutional only four years earlier."
    45.^ Linda Greenhouse (January 8, 2009). "The Chief Justice on the Spot". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The federalism issue at the core of the new case grows out of a series of cases from 1997 to 2003 in which the Rehnquist court applied a new level of scrutiny to Congressional action enforcing the guarantees of the Reconstruction amendments."
    46.^ Linda Greenhouse (September 4, 2005). "William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "United States v. Lopez in 1995 raised the stakes in the debate over federal authority even higher. The decision declared unconstitutional a Federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, that made it a federal crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school."
    47.^ Linda Greenhouse (June 12, 2005). "The Rehnquist Court and Its Imperiled States' Rights Legacy". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Intrastate activity that was not essentially economic was beyond Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the 5-to-4 majority in United States v. Morrison."
    48.^ Linda Greenhouse (March 22, 2005). "Inmates Who Follow Satanism and Wicca Find Unlikely Ally". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "His (Rehnquist's) reference was to a landmark 1997 decision, City of Boerne v. Flores, in which the court ruled that the predecessor to the current law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exceeded Congress's authority and was unconstitutional as applied to the states."
    49.^ Vikram David Amar (July 27, 2005). "Casing John Roberts". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA (1996) In this seemingly technical 11th Amendment dispute about whether states can be sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined four others to override Congress's will and protect state prerogatives, even though the text of the Constitution contradicts this result."
    50.^ Linda Greenhouse (April 1, 1999). "Justices Seem Ready to Tilt More Toward States in Federalism". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The argument in this case, Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436, proceeded on several levels simultaneously. On the surface ... On a deeper level, the argument was a continuation of the Court's struggle over an even more basic issue: the Government's substantive authority over the states."
    51.^ Michael A. Lindenberger (Michael A. Lindenberger). "The Court's Gay Rights Legacy". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case overturned convictions against two Houston men, whom police had arrested after busting into their home and finding them engaged in sex. And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were free to be gay without being criminals."
    52.^ Justice Sotomayor (July 16, 2009). "Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' -- The 'Roe' recital". USA Today. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "The court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court."
    53.^ Gary Kamiya (July 4, 2001). "Against the Law". Retrieved 2012-11-21. "...the remedy was far more harmful than the problem. By stopping the recount, the high court clearly denied many thousands of voters who cast legal votes, as defined by established Florida law, their constitutional right to have their votes counted. ... It cannot be a legitimate use of law to disenfranchise legal voters when recourse is available. ..."
    54.^ Charles Krauthammer (Dec. 18, 2000). "The Winner in Bush v. Gore?". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-31. "Re-enter the Rehnquist court. Amid the chaos, somebody had to play Daddy. ... the Supreme Court eschewed subtlety this time and bluntly stopped the Florida Supreme Court in its tracks—and stayed its willfulness. By , mind you, ..."
    55.^ Charles Babington and Peter Baker (September 30, 2005). "Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court."
    56.^ Linda Greenhouse (July 1, 2007). "In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared ... This was a more conservative court, sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and small."
    57.^ Charlie Savage (July 14, 2009). "Respecting Precedent, or Settled Law, Unless It's Not Settled". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "Gonzales v. Carhart — in which the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion" — to be settled law."
    58.^ "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
    59.^ Robert Barnes (October 1, 2009). "Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "The landmark 2008 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession was the first time the court had said the amendment grants an individual right to own a gun for self-defense. But the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller..."
    60.^ Linda Greenhouse (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "His renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic."
    61.^ Linda Greenhouse (June 26, 2008). "Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-11-01. "The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday ... The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states."
    62.^ 16 Stat. 44
    63.^ Mintz, S. (2007). "The New Deal in Decline". Digital History. University of Houston. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
    64.^ Hodak, George (2007). "February 5, 1937: FDR Unveils Court Packing Plan". American Bar Association. Retrieved 2009-01-29.
    65.^ "Justices, Number of", in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (editors), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
    66.^ See Article Two of the United States Constitution.
    67.^ "United States Senate. "Nominations"".
    68.^ See 5 U.S.C. § 2902.
    69.^ 28 U.S.C. § 4. If two justices are commissioned on the same date, then the oldest one has precedence.
    70.^ Balkin, Jack M. "The passionate intensity of the confirmation process". Jurist. Retrieved 2008-02-13.
    71.^ See, e.g., Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004), which concerned the recess appointment of William Pryor. Concurring in denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens observed that the case involved "the first such appointment of an Article III judge in nearly a half century" 544 U.S. 942 (2005) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of cert) (internal quotation marks deleted).
    72.^ a b Fisher, Louis (September 5, 2001). "Recess Appointments of Federal Judges" (PDF). CRSN Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service (The Library of Congress). RL31112: 16–18. Retrieved 2010-08-06. "Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the making of recess appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States may not be wholly consistent with the best interests of the Supreme Court, the nominee who may be involved, the litigants before the Court, nor indeed the people of the United States, and that such appointments, therefore, should not be made except under unusual circumstances and for the purpose of preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court's business."
    73.^ The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party lines; Democrats supported the resolution 48–4, and Republicans opposed it 33–0.
    74.^ "How the Federal Courts Are Organized: Can a federal judge be fired?". Federal Judicial Center. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
    75.^ "History of the Federal Judiciary: Impeachments of Federal Judges". Federal Judicial Center Retrieved March 18, 2012.
    76.^ Appel, Jacob M. (August 22, 2009). "Anticipating the Incapacitated Justice". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-08-23.
    77.^ Ali, Ambreen (June 16, 2010). "How Presidents Influence the Court". Retrieved 2010-06-16.
    78.^ Baker, Peter (August 7, 2010). "Kagan Is Sworn in as the Fourth Woman, and 112th Justice, on the Supreme Court". New York Times. Retrieved August 8, 2010.
    79.^ Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics (6th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. 2003. p. 46. ISBN 0-393-93218-4.Unknown parameter |name= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
    80.^ "Religion of the Supreme Court". January 31, 2006. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
    81.^ Segal, Jeffrey A.; Spaeth, Harold J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 183. ISBN 0-521-78971-0.
    82.^ Gibson, David (May 10, 2010). "No Protestants: A New Order in the Supreme Court". Politics Daily. Retrieved 2010-07-08.
    83.^ David N. Atkinson, Leaving the Bench (University Press of Kansas 1999) ISBN 0-7006-0946-6
    84.^ Greenhouse, Linda (September 9, 2010). "An Invisible Chief Justice". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-09-09. "Had [O'Connor] anticipated that the chief justice would not serve out the next Supreme Court term, she told me after his death, she would have delayed her own retirement for a year rather than burden the court with two simultaneous vacancies. [...] Her reason for leaving was that her husband, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, needed her care at home."
    85.^ Ward, Artemus (2003). Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the United States Supreme Court. SUNY Press. p. 358. ISBN 978-0-7914-5651-4. "One byproduct of the increased [retirement benefit] provisions [in 1954], however has been a dramatic rise in the number of justices engaging in succession politics by trying to time their departures to coincide with a compatible president. The most recent departures have been partisan, some more blatantly than others, and have bolstered arguments to reform the process. A second byproduct has been an increase in justices staying on the Court past their ability to adequately contribute. [1] p. 9"
    86.^ Stolzenberg, Ross M.; Lindgren, James (May 2010). "Retirement and Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices". Demography 47 (2): 269–298. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0100. PMC 3000028. PMID 20608097. "If the incumbent president is of the same party as the president who nominated the justice to the Court, and if the incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-year presidential term, then the justice has odds of resignation that are about 2.6 times higher than when these two conditions are not met."
    87.^ See for example Sandra Day O'Connor:How the first woman on the Supreme Court became its most influential justice, by Joan Biskupic, Harper Collins, 2005, p. 105. Also Rookie on the Bench: The Role of the Junior Justice by Clare Cushman, Journal of Supreme Court History 32 no. 3 (2008), pp. 282–296.
    88.^ "Breyer Just Missed Record as Junior Justice". Retrieved 2008-01-11.
    89.^ "Judicial Salaries Since 1968". United States Courts. Retrieved 2010-09-25.
    90.^ Lane, Charles (31 January 2006). "Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle". Washington Post. "If, as many expect, Alito forms a four-vote conservative bloc with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that would leave Justice Anthony M. Kennedy – a conservative who has occasionally voted with liberals on gay rights, the death penalty and abortion – as the court's least predictable member."
    91.^ Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
    92.^ "End-of-Term Statistical Analysis – October Term 2011". Supreme Court of the United States Blog (SCOTUSblog). 30 June 2012. "Justice Kennedy is, for the fourth consecutive Term, the Justice most likely to appear in the majority."
    93.^ See also SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack: Bhatia, Kedar (30 June 2012). "Final October Term 2011 Stat Pack and Summary Memo".
    94.^ Goldstein, Tom (30 June 2010). "Evertyhing you read about the Supreme Court is wrong (except here, maybe)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2010-07-07.
    95.^ Among the examples mentioned by Goldstein for the 2009 term were: Dolan v. United States, which interpreted judges' prerogatives broadly, typically a "conservative" result. The majority consisted of the five junior Justices: Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor.
    Magwood v. Patterson, which expanded habeas corpus petitions, a "liberal" result, in an opinion by Thomas, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
    Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., which yielded a pro-plaintiff result in an opinion by Scalia joined by Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
    Goldstein notes that in the 2009 term, the justice most consistently pro-government was Alito, and not the commonly perceived "arch-conservatives" Scalia and Thomas.
    96.^ a b "October 2011 Term, Five to Four Decisions" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. 30 June 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-02.
    97.^ a b "Final October 2010 Stat Pack available". SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
    98.^ "End of Term statistical analysis – October 2010" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. July 1, 2011. Retrieved 2011-07-02.
    99.^ "Cases by Vote Split" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
    100.^ "Justice agreement – Highs and Lows" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
    101.^ "Justice agreement" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
    102.^ "Frequency in the majority" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
    103.^ "Five-to-Four cases" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved 2011-06-28.
    104.^ "October 2011 term, Cases by votes split" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 30, 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-02.
    105.^ "October 22011 term, Strength of the Majority" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 30, 2012. Retrieved 2012-07-02.
    106.^ a b c d Adam Liptak (September 7, 2010). "Polarization of Supreme Court Is Reflected in Justices' Clerks". The New York Times. Retrieved September 7, 2010.
    107.^ William E. Nelson, Harvey Rishikof, I. Scott Messinger, Michael Jo (Vol. 62:6:1749). "The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme Court Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation?". Vanderbilt Law Review. Retrieved September 7, 2010.
    108.^ Liptak and Kopicki, The New York Times, 7 June 2012 Approval Rating for Justices Hits Just 44% in New Poll
    109.^ a b c d "Plan Your Trip (quote:) "In mid-May, after the oral argument portion of the Term has concluded, the Court takes the Bench Mondays at 10AM for the release of orders and opinions."". US Senator John McCain. October 24, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
    110.^ a b c "Visiting the Court". Supreme Court of the United States. March 18, 2010. Retrieved 2010-03-19.
    111.^ "Visiting-Capitol-Hill". docstoc. October 24, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
    112.^ "How The Court Works". The Supreme Court Historical Society. October 24, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-24.
    113.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1330. Actions against foreign states". Retrieved October 7, 2010.
    114.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs".
    115.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1331. Federal question".
    116.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1339. Postal matters".
    117.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1345. United States as a Plaintiff".
    118.^ "United States Code: Title 28,1346. United States as a Defendant".
    119.^ Allotment Order dated September 28, 2010.
    120.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1254
    121.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1257; see also Adequate and independent state grounds
    122.^ James, Robert A. (1998). "Instructions in Supreme Court Jury Trials" (PDF). The Green Bag. 2d 1 (4): 378. Retrieved 5 February 2013.
    123.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1872 See Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (1794), in which the Court conducted a jury trial.
    124.^ Tony Mauro (October 21, 2005). "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool". Legal Times. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
    125.^ Tony Mauro (July 4, 2006). "Justice Alito Joins Cert Pool Party". Legal Times. Retrieved 2007-10-31.
    126.^ Adam Liptak (September 25, 2008). "A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool'". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-10-17.
    127.^ For example, the arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took place over three days and lasted over six hours, covering several issues; the arguments for Bush v. Gore were 90 minutes long; oral arguments in United States v. Nixon lasted three hours; and the The Pentagon papers case was given a two-hour argument. Christy, Andrew (November 15, 2011). "'Obamacare' will rank among the longest Supreme Court arguments ever". NPR. Retrieved March 31, 2011. The longest modern-day oral arguments were in the case of California v. Arizona, in which oral arguments lasted over sixteen hours over four days in 1962.Bobic, Igor (March 26, 2012). "Oral arguments on health reform longest in 45 years". Talking Points Memo. Retrieved March 31, 2012.
    128.^ Gresko, Jessica (March 24, 2013). "For lawyers, the Supreme Court bar is vanity trip". Florida Today (Melbourne, Florida). pp. 2A.
    129.^ See generally, Tushnet, Mark, ed. (2008) I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Malaysia: Beacon Press, pp. 256, ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6
    130.^ 28 U.S.C. § 1
    131.^ 28 U.S.C. § 2109
    132.^ Pepall, Lynne; Richards, Daniel L.; Norman, George (1999). Industrial Organization: Contemporary Theory and Practice. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. pp. 11–12.
    133.^ "Supreme Court Research Guide". Georgetown Law Library. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
    134.^ "How to Cite Cases: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions". University of Maryland University Libraries. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
    135.^ The American Conflict by Horace Greeley (1873), p. 106; also in The Life of Andrew Jackson (2001) by Robert Vincent Remini
    136.^ Mendelson, Wallace (1992). "Separation of Powers". In Hall, Kermit L.. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. p. 775. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
    137.^ Vile, John R. (1992). "Court curbing". In Hall, Kermit L.. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press. p. 202. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
    138.^ a b c See for example "Judicial activism" in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by Kermit Hall; article written by Gary McDowell
    139.^ Damon W. Root (September 21, 2009). "Lochner and Liberty". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    140.^ Peter Steinfels (May 22, 2005). "'A Church That Can and Cannot Change': Dogma". New York Times: Books. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    141.^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "a lack of judicial authority to enter an inherently political question that had previously been left to the states"[dead link]
    142.^ Neil A. Lewis (September 19, 2002). "Judicial Nominee Says His Views Will Not Sway Him on the Bench". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22. "he has written scathingly of Roe v. Wade"
    143.^ "Election Guide 2008: The Issues: Abortion". New York Times. 2008. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    144.^ Pat Buchanan (July 6, 2005). "The judges war: an issue of power". Retrieved 2009-10-23. "The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened the nation to the court's new claim to power."
    145.^ Adam Clymer (May 29, 1998). "Barry Goldwater, Conservative and Individualist, Dies at 89". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    146.^ Abraham Lincoln (March 4, 1861). "First Inaugural Address". National Center. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
    147.^ George F. Will (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-22. "Thurgood Marshall quote taken from the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992"
    148.^ Irons, Peter. A People's History of the Supreme Court. London: Penguin, 1999. ISBN 0-670-87006-4
    149.^ Adam Liptak (January 31, 2009). "To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Every judge who's been appointed to the court since Lewis 1971...has been more conservative than his or her predecessor"
    150.^ Charles Babington (April 5, 2005). "Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    151.^ Adam Liptak (February 2, 2006). "A Court Remade in the Reagan Era's Image". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    152.^ David G. Savage (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    153.^ Andrew P. Napolitano (February 17, 2005). "No Defense". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    154.^ Thomas B. Edsall and Michael A. Fletcher (September 5, 2005). "Again, Right Voices Concern About Gonzales". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    155.^ Charles Lane (March 20, 2005). "Conservative's Book on Supreme Court Is a Bestseller". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    156.^ Mark I. Sutherland; Dave Meyer, William J. Federer, Alan Keyes, Ed Meese, Phyllis Schlafly, Howard Phillips, Alan E. Sears, Ben DuPre, Rev. Rick Scarborough, David C. Gibbs III, Mathew D. Staver, Don Feder, Herbert W. Titus (2005). Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America. St. Louis, Missouri: Amerisearch Inc. p. 242. ISBN 0-9753455-6-7.
    157.^ a b Michiko Kakutani (July 6, 2009). "Appointees Who Really Govern America". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
    158.^ By Emily Bazelon (July 6, 2009). "The Supreme Court on Trial: James MacGregor Burns takes aim at the bench.". Slate. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
    159.^ Special keynote address by President Ronald Reagan, November 1988, at the second annual lawyers convention of the Federalist Society, Washington, D.C.
    160.^ Stuart Taylor Jr. (October 15, 1987). "Reagan Points to a Critic, Who Points Out It Isn't So". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    161.^ Kelley Beaucar Vlahos (September 11, 2003). "Judge Bork: Judicial Activism Is Going Global". Fox News. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "What judges have wrought is a coup d’etat – slow moving and genteel, but a coup d’etat nonetheless."
    162.^ a b c Naftali Bendavid (July 13, 2009). "Franken: ‘An Incredible Honor to Be Here’". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    163.^ Hazard, Geoffrey C. Jr. (1978–79). Supreme Court as a Legislature 64. Cornell L. Rev. p. 1
    164.^ James Madison aka "Publius" (1789). "The Federalist Papers/No. 45 The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered". Wikisource. Retrieved 2009-10-24. "the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty"
    165.^ Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius) (1789). "Federalist No. 28". Independent Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-24. "Power being almost always the rival of power; the General Government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state government; and these will have the same disposition toward the General Government."
    166.^ James Madison (January 25, 1788). "The Federalist". Independent Journal (44 (quote: 8th para)). Retrieved 2009-10-27. "seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion."
    167.^ James Madison (February 16, 1788). "The Federalist No. 56 (quote: 6th para)". Independent Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "In every State there have been made, and must continue to be made, regulations on this subject which will, in many cases, leave little more to be done by the federal legislature, than to review the different laws, and reduce them in one general act."
    168.^ Alexander Hamilton (December 14, 1787). "The Federalist No. 22 (quote: 4th para)". New York Packet. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy."
    169.^ Madison (January 22, 1788). "Federalist Papers". New York Packet. Retrieved 2009-10-27. "The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits."
    170.^ Akhil Reed Amar (1998). "The Bill of Rights -- Creation and Reconstruction". New York Times: Books. Retrieved 2009-10-24. "many lawyers embrace a tradition that views state governments as the quintessential threat to individual and minority rights, and federal officials--especially federal courts--as the special guardians of those rights."
    171.^ Scott Gold (June 14, 2005). "Justices Swat Down Texans' Effort to Weaken Species Protection Law". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-03-24. "Purcell filed a $60-million lawsuit against the U.S. government in 1999, arguing that cave bugs could not be regulated through the commerce clause because they had no commercial value and did not cross state lines. 'I'm disappointed,' Purcell said."
    172.^ a b Robert B. Reich (September 13, 1987). "The Commerce Clause; The Expanding Economic Vista". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-27.
    173.^ FDCH e-Media (January 10, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "I don't think there's any question at this point in our history that Congress' power under the commerce clause is quite broad, and I think that reflects a number of things, including the way in which our economy and our society has developed and all of the foreign and interstate activity that takes place -- Samuel Alito"
    174.^ Adam Cohen (December 7, 2003). "Editorial Observer; Brandeis's Views on States' Rights, and Ice-Making, Have New Relevance". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "But Brandeis's dissent contains one of the most famous formulations in American law: that the states should be free to serve as laboratories of democracy"
    175.^ Lino Graglia (July 19, 2005). "Altering 14th Amendment would curb court's activist tendencies". University of Texas School of Law. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    176.^ Jacob C. Hornberger (October 30, 2009). "Freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "Fourteenth Amendment. Some argue that it is detrimental to the cause of freedom because it expands the power of the federal government. Others contend that the amendment expands the ambit of individual liberty. I fall among those who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment has been a positive force for freedom."
    177.^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu described the decision as 'utterly lacking in any legal principle" and added that the court was "remarkably unashamed to say so explicitly.'"[dead link]
    178.^ reporter from the Baltimore Sun (September 5, 2005). "Here are eight people who could be considered the fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- Michael McConnell (biography)". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2009-10-22. "criticized the Supreme Court for its decision in Bush v. Gore"
    179.^ CQ Transcriptions (Senator Kohl) (July 14, 2009). "Key Excerpt: Sotomayor on Bush v. Gore". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Many critics saw the Bush v. Gore decision as an example of the judiciary improperly injecting itself into a political dispute""
    180.^ Adam Cohen (Opinion section) (March 21, 2004). "Justice Rehnquist Writes on Hayes vs. Tilden, With His Mind on Bush v. Gore". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "The Bush v. Gore majority, made up of Mr. Rehnquist and his fellow conservatives, interpreted the equal protection clause in a sweeping way they had not before, and have not since. And they stated that the interpretation was 'limited to the present circumstances,' words that suggest a raw exercise of power, not legal analysis."[dead link]
    181.^ a b c Kevin McNamara (letter to the editor) (June 3, 2009). "Letters -- Supreme Court Activism?". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    182.^ David Margolick (September 23, 2007). "Meet the Supremes". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Beat reporters and academics initially denounced the court's involvement in that case, its hastiness to enter the political thicket and the half-baked and strained decision that resulted."
    183.^ CQ Transcriptions (January 13, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-28. "...Baker v. Carr, the reapportionment case. We heard Justice Frankfurter who delivered a scathing dissent in that..."
    184.^ William Safire (April 24, 2005). "Dog Whistle". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    185.^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.[dead link]
    186.^ Laura Mansnerus (October 16, 2005). "Diminished Eminence In a Changed Domain". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    187.^ Ronald Smothers (October 16, 2005). "In Long Branch, No Olive Branches". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    188.^ David Templeton (March 12, 2006). "Reporter fights to air her story -- Article on choking game pulled from student newspaper". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    189.^ Adam Cohen (January 15, 2008). "Editorial Observer -- A Supreme Court Reversal: Abandoning the Rights of Voters". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    190.^ David G. Savage (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "This suggests that the right of habeas corpus was not limited to English subjects ... protects people who are captured ... at Guantanamo ... Wrong, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent. He said English history showed that the writ of habeas corpus was limited to sovereign English territory"
    191.^ George F. Will (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    192.^ a b James Taranto (June 9, 2009). "Speaking Ruth to Power". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
    193.^ Woodward, Bob; Scott Armstrong (1979). The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. United States of America: Simon & Schuster. p. 541. ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9. "A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful scrutiny than any other"
    194.^ a b c d Larry Sabato (September 26, 2007). "It's Time to Reshape the Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    195.^ Christopher Moore (November 1, 2008). "Our Canadian Republic -- Do we display too much deference to authority ... or not enough?". Literary Review of Canada. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    196.^ Tomkins, Adam (2002). "In Defence of the Political Constitution". United Kingdom: 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 157. "Bush v. Gore"
    197.^ a b c "C-SPAN Supreme Court Week". CSPAN. October 4, 2009. Retrieved 2009-10-25.
    198.^ James Vicini (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore ruling". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "The nine-member Supreme Court conducts its deliberations in secret and the justices traditionally won't discuss pending cases in public"
    199.^ "Public Says Televising Court Is Good for Democracy". March 9, 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-14.
    200.^ Mauro, Tony (March 9, 2010). "Poll Shows Public Support for Cameras at the High Court". National Law Journal. Retrieved 2010-12-18.
    201.^ James Vicini (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore ruling". Reuters. Retrieved 2009-10-23. "Scalia was interviewed for the CBS News show "60 Minutes"
    202.^ a b Alex Altman (book reviewer) (Jan. 27, 2009). "Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans From Too Much Law By Philip K. Howard". Time. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
    203.^ Philip K. Howard (January 26, 2009). "How Modern Law Makes Us Powerless". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-28. "The idea of freedom as personal power got pushed aside in recent decades by a new idea of freedom -- where the focus is on the rights of whoever might disagree."
    204.^ Peter Friedman (March 26, 2009). "Taking care of people and keeping standards high". Retrieved 2009-10-30. "Nor does Howard dig deep enough to explain the excesses of American tort law and the eagerness to seek vast damages for civil injuries. He blames the overreaching of Earl Warren's Supreme Court in its sympathy for the little man, and the mood of antipathy to large institutions starting in the 1960s."
    205.^ "Philip K. Howard, New York Sun". Common Good. June 4, 2007. Retrieved 2009-10-30. "Common Good Chair Philip K. Howard discusses the Supreme Court's recent repudiation of Conley v. Gibson, a 1957 case which opened the floodgates to abusive litigation, and argues that the Court should take responsibility for a shift in judicial approach towards affirmative assertion of values of reasonableness"
    206.^ Linda Greenhouse (September 10, 2007). "New Focus on the Effects of Life Tenure". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-10-10.
    207.^ Sanford Levinson (February 9, 2009). "Supreme court prognosis -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms". The Guardian (London). Retrieved 2009-10-10.
    208.^ See also Arthur D. Hellman, "Reining in the Supreme Court: Are Term Limits the Answer?", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 291.
    209.^ Richard Epstein, "Mandatory Retirement for Supreme Court Justices", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 415.
    210.^ Alexander Hamilton (June 14, 1788). "The Federalist No. 78". Independent Journal. Retrieved 2009-10-28. "and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security."


    Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, 5 vols., Detroit [etc.] : Macmillan Reference USA, 2008
    The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2005 ed.) (PDF).
    Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. ISBN 1-56802-130-5
    Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
    Harvard Law Review Assn., (2000). The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, 17th ed. [18th ed., 2005. 13-ISBN 978-600-01-4329-9]
    Irons, Peter. (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court. New York: Viking Press. ISBN 0-670-87006-4.
    Rehnquist, William. (1987). The Supreme Court. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0-375-40943-2.
    Skifos, Catherine Hetos. (1976)."The Supreme Court Gets a Home", Supreme Court Historical Society 1976 Yearbook. [in 1990, renamed The Journal of Supreme Court History (ISSN 1059-4329)]
    Warren, Charles. (1924). The Supreme Court in United States History. (3 volumes). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
    Woodward, Bob and Armstrong, Scott. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court (1979). ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9.
    Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-13.

    Further reading

    Abraham, Henry J. (1992). Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506557-3.
    Beard, Charles A. (1912). The Supreme Court and the Constitution. New York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted Dover Publications, 2006. ISBN 0-486-44779-0.
    Cushman, Barry. (1998). Rethinking the New Deal Court. Oxford University Press.
    Cushman, Clare (2001). The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995 (2nd ed.). (Supreme Court Historical Society, Congressional Quarterly Books). ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
    Frank, John P. (1995). In Friedman, Leon; Israel, Fred L. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions. Chelsea House Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
    Garner, Bryan A. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary. Deluxe 8th ed. Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.
    Greenburg, Jan Crawford, Jan. (2007). Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control for the United States Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-101-1.
    Martin, Fenton S.; Goehlert, Robert U. (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Books. ISBN 0-87187-554-3.
    McCloskey, Robert G. (2005). The American Supreme Court. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-55682-4.
    O'Brien, David M. (2008). Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics (8th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0-393-93218-4.
    Spaeth, Harold J. (1979). Supreme Court Policy Making: Explanation and Prediction (3rd ed.). New York: W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7167-1012-7.
    Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
    Urofsky, Melvin and Finkelman, Paul. (2001). A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512637-8 & ISBN 0-19-512635-1.
    Urofsky, Melvin I. (1994). The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Garland Publishing. p. 590. ISBN 0-8153-1176-1.
    Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-02-13.

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 2:36 pm

    If you haven't already seen it, please watch (or rewatch) 'The Pelican Brief'. Sometimes I wonder if someday this thread will be known as 'The Reptilian Brief'?! Just kidding! But really, watching the movie while thinking thus, made it a helluva lot more interesting for me! I especially like the ending. It always makes me cry. What really scares me about this thread, is that the truth is sharper than any two-edged sword -- and it can cut BOTH ways -- meaning it could decapitate me. Perhaps it already has -- and I suspect that this might be the case -- but no one has bothered to tell me. Seriously. Imagine a 'Galactic Pelican Brief'. What might that be like? Think about it. A Fool Keeps Talking. A Completely Ignorant Fool Keeps Typing. The Moving Finger Types. The Horror.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Index_files%5CPelicanBrief1
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Pelican_brief_book_cover

    Here are some things I've said! What troubles me, at this point, is the relationship of all of this to the hypothetical factional power-struggling within the solar system -- which could conceivably extend beyond this solar system -- especially if humanity is being punished and taxed (Sin-Tax) -- in connection with original and unpardonable sins. This could be a HUGE can of worms, which should be opened VERY carefully (if at all). I obviously wish for things to improve in this solar system, but I wish to play this game in the most intelligent and tactful manner imaginable. This could be a MOST dangerous game. Proceed with caution. A cancer is growing on the solar system. ("solar system" is an interesting word-combination, isn't it? What Would Ra Say (WWRS)?) How does Love relate to Law, regarding God and God's Law? Are the Ten Commandments really God's Law? I started a thread on the Ten Commandments a while back, and there has been ZERO INTEREST, which didn't surprise me one little bit. While I continue to desire a Harmonization of the Sovereignty of God with Human Responsible Freedom -- I really wonder if Divinity and Humanity are ready for this sort of thing to become a reality? I wonder if I'm ready for it? All I see are problems and trouble connected with ALL options. Despite my sometimes seemingly flippant attitude, I am VERY worried and VERY unhappy. I keep speaking of stopping this thread -- because I fear that I might be doing the wrong thing -- especially if I don't know the whole story. I also fear that my words are being misused and abused -- and that my good intentions might be paving the road from Purgatory to Hell -- rather than creating Heaven on Earth. I guess I'll try to do some Religious and Political Science-Fiction Writing -- based on a lot of the material contained within this thread. I doubt that I'll follow-through. I never do. But I'll try a bit harder than I usually do. I think I'll also try to market some popular love songs. Then, I'll try to find a City of London trader to create a fortune for me! Just kidding! Or am I? What Would Nathan Say (WWNS)?

    I doubt there are any truly happy answers or solutions. If a church claims to be the 'one true church' with the 'truth' -- they are obviously (and often pompously) exclusive. People and organizations (especially regarding politics and religion) wish to be right. They like to win. If a church were to admit that they were 'just another church' and that they were merely 'searching for the truth' -- this opens a can of worms. The Episcopal Church seems to honestly be trying to take this second approach -- while the Roman Catholic Church seems to continue to take the first approach. I grew-up attending a church that was probably in the middle of these two extremes (the Seventh-day Adventist Church) -- although they probably leaned toward exclusivity. I eventually left, in part, because I wished to be ecumenical, and in part, because I simply lost my faith. I've been attempting to 'Put Humpty-Dumpty Back Together Again' on 'The United States of the Solar System' thread -- where I am confronted by the 'Exclusivity Demon'. I almost feel as if I have joined the 'Kumbaya Branch of Megalomaniacs Anonymous'. I feel as if I have wandered onto the battlefield of a Spiritual Galactic War -- and I have even delusionally felt as if I might be threatening the Security and Stability of the Universe with my Idealistic Tripe. So, once again, I am trying very, very hard to stop posting. I have come to better understand some of the problems, and I am quite frankly devastated by them. I truly do not see a happy ending or a light at the end of the tunnel. Not at this point. One might very well exist, but I'm just not seeing it right now. 'Disclosure' and 'Auditing the Fed' are another couple of cans of worms. One thing leads to another to another to another. It never ends. I doubt that there will ever be true resolution and closure. There will simply be more and more problems. I'm going to finish reading 'The Keys of This Blood', 'Rise of the Fourth Reich', 'SS Brotherhood of the Bell', 'A Foreign Policy of Freedom', and my 'Battlestar Galactica' novels -- not to try to be happy -- but just because I have a pathological need to know, and to think about things which are hard to think about -- even though it continues to ruin my life. We all have our crosses to bear. What Would Jesus Say (WWJS)? In 'The Last Temptation of Christ' Jesus seems to know how hopeless and desperate His situation, and Humanity's situation, really is. I continue to think of Jesus as being a Disenfranchised Black Sacrificial-Lamb of the hypothetical Reincarnating Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Royal Family -- as an Idealistic but Powerless Rebel Against the Galactic Powers That Be -- on behalf of a Race Without a Clue or a Prayer.

    I guess the trouble with a lot of the material I am attempting to deal with is that it takes a huge amount of time and effort to focus on something which might be of absolutely no value. I still think that those who are paid to monitor 'potential problems' are the only ones (and perhaps a few 'regressives') who really dig into what I've posted! I once spoke with someone who claimed to be 'Angry and Jealous'! They claimed to be an Ancient Egyptian Deity! They also claimed that I was somehow related to them! The Saturday and Sunday thing leaves me VERY conflicted. I grew up strictly observing the Seventh Day Sabbath (Saturday) from Sundown Friday to Sundown Saturday. Then I tried to become Ecumenical, and I finally 'lost' my faith -- but I never stopped agonizing over politics, religion, and theology -- even though it seemed to make me progressively (regressively?) more miserable. My 'United States of the Solar System' thread is the sad conclusion to my agonizing misery. I would have no problem observing the Sabbath, the Old Testament health laws, and a Decalogue-Based Ethical-System -- especially in an isolated and unified situation (such as the Israelites experienced). Unfortunately, the modern world and the ancient world don't exactly harmonize, to say the least! Also, there is a helluva lot of highly questionable ethical material in the Old Testament. To me, it's a real mixed-bag. I tried the 'Robert H. Schuller' version of religion for a while -- where he 'accentuated the positive' and mostly avoided everything problematic. It was truly a 'New Religion' in the context of the 'Old Time Religion'. At that time, I attended church on BOTH Saturday and Sunday. I had my bases covered (just in case)! Saturday v Sunday seems to be a battle between lower-case 'd' deities. A lot of things in the Bible point to lower-case 'd' deities. But if one were a lower-case 'd' deity -- they might wish to represent themselves as being upper-case 'D' Deities -- for whatever reasons (benevolent or malevolent). I'm too burned-out on this subject to continue. I said yesterday that I was going to stop posting. Let's just say that I'd like to see every day be considered to be a 'Sabbath Day' -- with ALL of life being considered Sacred -- and with Religious Services being offered Every Day of the Year. The Liturgical Year bothers me, as does Christmas and Easter. I am currently reading and re-reading the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' as a Devotional Book -- straight through -- over and over -- without regard to particular 'special' or 'sacred' days. I recently joked about 'God' racing Formula One cars on Saturday and Sunday (instead of attending church) -- and then going to church Monday through Friday! I don't think anyone was laughing in 'Heaven'. This Sabbath matter might be very ancient and VERY serious. Unfortunately, the real facts of the matter remain a deep, dark secret. I once heard a Senior Catholic Priest tell his parishioners that Saturday was the Sabbath (in a somewhat roundabout and tactful manner)! He said it clearly and repeatedly. The Roman Catholic catechisms admit that the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday by the Authority of the Church. I keep wondering about my hypothetical Orion-Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire -- hypothetically administered in this solar system by a hypothetical Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Reincarnating Royal Family. I suspect a Family Feud. Once again, it hurts too much to keep typing. I need to stop.

    orthodoxymoron wrote:I just wonder if a Completely Open and Honest Nice-Guy and/or Nice-Gal God and/or Goddess would work in this Solar System? Do we require Covert Bad@$$-Regressive Rule? Think about it. I have tried to incorporate the first option in my Model Solar System Government -- but what about 'God' at the top of the pyramid? Think about it. What if 'God' were like Tom Hulse in 'Amadeus'? What if 'God' wore Birkenstocks and Blue-Jeans? Would Law and Order prevail throughout the Solar System? Would All Hell Break Loose as the Same Old Factions Battled for Power in a Perceived Power Vacuum? Think about it. What if 'God' were extremely low-key, kept track of the solar system with a laptop computer, and raced Vintage Formula One Ferraris (with SOVREN?) on the weekends (instead of attending church)? God in the Paddock? What Would Clive Staples Lewis Say (WWCSLS)? Think about it. Now this doesn't mean that 'God' wouldn't attend church. If every day of the year were a 'Sabbath-Day' -- 'God' might attend church Monday thru Friday! Fooled you, didn't I?! I wonder if they have a mag-lev train between Modena and Vatican City??? Hmmmmmmmmm.....
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Amadeus-1984-04-g
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Formula-1
    Go With God!!!
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Has anyone (even a casual observer) taken a look at the following? I am VERY concerned regarding how this plan might affect the Government of God throughout the Universe. I keep getting the sinking feeling that this is some sort of a rigid life or death struggle, with no prisoners taken. Is there a rational way to deal with all of this madness, rather than with unchangeable historical universal rules, regulations, and covenants? I keep getting the sinking feeling that this is not about present-day ethics, but that it is all about Ancient Conflicts and Decisions which are very Dark and Deep. I continue to be DEEPLY disturbed that no one will properly talk to me about any of this. This whole thing feels like a set-up or a sick-trap of some kind. How can I properly think about all of this, without having all of the facts? Why do I have to feel sick and attacked 24/7? Is this really fair? But really, who's talking about 'Fair' in this 'Most Dangerous Game'?



    *******U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights*******************1928 Book of Common Prayer*******
    *************The Federalist Papers********************************The Desire of Ages*************
    ************J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel**************************J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel**********
    **************Cathedral Context************************************Cathedral Context**************
    What is the meaning of this? What are the implications and ramifications? What would the United Nations say? What would the Secret Government say? What would the President say? What would Hillary Clinton say? (BTW -- is she 'the choice'?) What would the Rockefellers and Rothschilds say? What would the Bilderberg Group say? What would the Queen say? What would the Pope say? What would China say? What would Russia say? What would Africa say? What would Australia say? What would India say? What would Canterbury say? What would Joel Osteen say? What would Kenneth Copeland say? What would Benny Hinn say? What would TBN say? What would Monseigneur Bowe say? What would the Dracs say? What would the Greys say? What would the Hybrids say? What would the Queen of Heaven say? What would the God of This World say? What would the Galactic Powers That Be say? What would the Creator God of the Universe say? I'm really not dogmatic about this, and I would really appreciate some help in mentally modeling this concept. Is anybody out there? Anybody? I'd like to model this idea with a See-More-Greys Supercomputer! (get it?!) No? Oh Come On!! Would the successful implementation of this governance-theory precipitate Tower of Babel II and Noah's Flood II? How would the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast (ala Revelation 13) fit into all of this? What about Rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem? Would this Monstrosity of Human Wisdom be the final nail in the coffin of the 'Late, Great Planet Earth'? What would Hal Lindsey say? I'm frankly attempting to circumvent a lot of Negative Bible-Prophecy -- while retaining the Best Biblical Principles and Concepts. Is that heresy? It is? So burn me! What am I saying???
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Take a close look at Colonel Philip Corso's activities in England and Italy, especially in the 40's and 50's. Is there a Secret Government and/or Gizeh Intelligence connection? I'm not necessarily opposed to all aspects of that which is hidden within this solar system, but I lean toward a more open and less corrupt 'secret' government. There may be many aspects of all of this madness which might be too much for the general public to handle all at once, but I think we need to refine and reform solar system governance, with all deliberate speed. What would Paola Harris say? What would Philip Corso Jr. say?

    What if the hypothetical United States of the Solar System and the hypothetical Anglo-Catholic Church were both based upon an uncorrupted and properly adapted version of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? Would they war with each other, or would they keep each other in line? Would an elected non-bloodline King and Queen serve as the ceremonial heads of the United States of the Solar System and the Anglo-Catholic Church? Would this be the beginning of the end of this solar system? I am very, very fearful that no matter what we do, things are going to be very, very bad. The best of intentions can quickly pave the road to hell. But please remember that this thread is a study-guide, to make you face yourselves, and think. It's better to examine as many possibilities as possible, sooner rather than later. I've been joking about possibly being an insider at some later date, but I think that everyone is going to be an insider, because of the exponential increase in information and communication in a Brave New Universe. If I became even a token-insider, I'd probably become very, very unhappy. Wait a minute, I'm very, very unhappy right now -- so what would change? Oh yeah, I'd have a badge and a title. But don't get me wrong, I aspire to be a Highly Ethical, Highly Pragmatic, Genius City-State and Moon-Base Insider -- even if I just keep this tempest in a teapot brewing in my messy little house.

    I think there needs to be a critical mass of outsiders, who calmly think like insiders, instead of shouting insults at the NWO-PTB. I'm frankly going to try to think like a composite of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Set. Oh, I know, Set is supposedly Lucifer, and Lucifer is the Devil, right? Well, I continue to think that ALL of these four reincarnational lower-case deities are a mixture of good and evil, competence and incompetence, genius and insanity. I just think that looking at the past and present through their eyes is extremely interesting. I'm also trying to think of being some sort of a Solar System Administrator in a Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire, even though I don't really know the nature of this empire, or whether it even exists. I simply think that more people should create their own ongoing science-fiction shows, so as to consider all of the possibilities before coming to any conclusions relative to life, the universe, and everything. Look at me, saying all of this, while simultaneously talking about an Anglo-Catholic Book of Common Prayer in Parallel Columns of English and Latin, Based Upon the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, Complete With an Introduction by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope of Rome, so as to Facilitate Ecumenism and Protestant-Catholic Reunification, Possibly in Conjunction with a Responsibility-Based United States of the Solar System, Centered in the City of London! Would the King and Queen of the United States of the Solar System be the head of the Anglo-Catholic Church? How's that for playing with burning magnesium???!!! Would this be an Anti-Christ Scenario? In a way, I like the general concept, but I fear that it would quickly become corrupted, just like everything else. BTW, consider reading 'The Jesuits' by Malachi Martin. It's really quite good, regardless of whether you love or hate the Jesuits. I'm somewhat undecided and conflicted about the Jesuits, but I love the writing style of Malachi Martin. One thing that stuck in my mind, while reading this volume, is that the period following Vatican II has involved the secularization of the Roman Catholic Church. While I support the refining and reformation of the RCC, and the proper relationship of 'sacred' and 'secular', I do not support the breaking-down of ethics and spirituality - anywhere in society -- 'sacred' or 'secular'.

    I will continue to conceptualize idealistic theories of church and state. A core solar system church and state situation would not negate religious or political freedom. The goal would be to make the solar system safe for a wide variety of expressions of church and state. I'm just trying to look at the existing superpowers of church and state, and to idealize them in innovative ways. I would be game for clean sheet of paper approaches, but I don't think they would be likely to succeed. Plus, I think that there needs to be a link between the present and the past. In other words, I don't wish to create a vacuum, which then gets filled with vastly inferior flatulents. I suspect that there would have to be daily contact with the galactic powers that be, regardless of whether they are friend or foe, benevolent or malevolent, progressive or regressive, human or otherwise. I'm presently thinking of this solar system as being a Human Island in a Draconian Reptilian Universe, but I have no way of knowing whether this is actually the case, or not. I wouldn't have a problem interacting with the galactic powers that be on a daily basis, as sort of an ambassador. But once again, this is just fantasy-land. I'm a nobody with a very dull and stupid life, so I'm simply trying to liven things up a bit. What would Mr. Hadden say? Was he the modern equivalent of Osiris? Was Rachel Constantine the modern equivalent of Isis? Was Michael Kitz, her assistant, the modern equivalent of Set? Was Palmer Joss the modern equivalent of Horus? What would a composite of these characters be like? I'm working on it, and as I ride off into the sunset, I plan to be a Moon and City-State Watcher, in a mostly non-conspiratorial manner. I fear that things are going to be extremely difficult for the human race, regardless of who is in charge, and regardless of what form of governance and religion is dominant. Here is yet another 'uplifting' video to enlighten your quest. This thread of mine would be downright dangerous if anyone actually studied it in a careful and prayerful manner. But no worries -- that would require too much work and discipline. I'd like to meet those who have been monitoring me! You guys and gals are probably the only ones who actually pay much attention to any of this! Our tax-dollars at work! I'd actually like to meet the Draconian Reptilians and Tall, Long-Nosed Greys who have been watching my every move! At this point, I feel as though I am not well thought of by the Dracs, Greys, or Humans -- even though I wish for things to work out well for all concerned. I just want the pain, suffering, corruption, destruction, insanity, slavery, murder, and bullshit to stop now. Right Now. Is that too much to ask???

    It's the economy stupid! He who has the gold RULES! I will be especially interested in the City of London, with the other locations being viewed with peripheral vision. Should people be limited to a net-worth of one million dollars (USD)? Should any additional wealth be used for worthy charitable purposes? At what point does wealth become anti-competitive? At what point does accumulated wealth become non-compassionate? At what point does power corrupt absolutely? At what point do leaders stop listening? At what point do geniuses become insane? At what point do team-players go rogue? Look VERY closely at the richest one-percent and the poorest one-percent. What's wrong with this picture?! I'd still like to see how the City-State Creme de la Creme might apply the 'Federalist Papers' (including the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights), the 'Desire of Ages' (in principle and concept), the '1928 Book of Common Prayer' (ceremonially and conceptually), and Sacred Classical Music (ceremonially and inspirationally) to Solar System Governance. I am an admitted Bull in a China Closet, and I've simply been brainstorming and imagining. I completely understand the limitations and liabilities of engaging in this sort of thing. I've never felt smaller or more humbled than I feel presently. It still feels as though we are facing an unprecedented enslavement and/or extermination -- rather than an evolutionary reformation and refinement of that which presently exists within this solar system. Are we really facing a Galactic Game Over? Is this Experiment in Human Physicality and Responsible Freedom really over? I was recently told 'It's Over Rover'. Now I'm going to try to cheer myself up by watching Hal Lindsey. Do we really live on the Great, Late Planet Earth? Whatever Happened to the Human Race? What would Francis Schaeffer say? Do the Galactic Powers That Be Have a Plan?

    Once again, I am very, very sorry if I have hurt anyone (benevolent or malevolent, progressive or regressive, human or otherwise) by my brainstorming and questioning internet activities. I am in the process of toning the whole thing down, or not posting anything at all. Raven was absolutely right, when she called me a 'completely ignorant fool'. I was, and still am. However, I still believe that anyone who carefully and prayerfully studies this thread will be in a much better position to deal with the Brave New Universe all of us are facing. I have intended it as a Galactic Boot Camp, so there is a certain amount of pain and suffering involved in this thread. I have conceptually ended up in the City of London. I think there are thousands of very, very smart people (and other than people) connected with the Moon and the City-States. I don't question the level of competence within this network. However, I still seek refinement and reformation, even though I am a certified completely ignorant fool. I simply wish for the hard-core evil to cease and desist within this solar system. I think I'm now ready to explore Egyptology, but I will keep coming back to this thread as a sort of 'City of Refuge'. I'm going to make a detailed study of the original 'Project Avalon' and 'The Mists of Avalon'. Forgive my seeming disregard for the work of others. I never disregarded any of it, but my never-ending questioning and brainstorming made it seem as if I did. Now, I will examine all of it, especially the work of Anchor, Carol, Brook, Lionhawk, Mercuriel, Barry (the Watcher), TRANCOSO, abraxasinas, Bill, Kerry, Karen, Raven, the eXchanger, and Richard (just kidding!). There are many, many others...but I can't think of their names just now. I continue to think that I know very, very little...and that this is just the beginning...rather than being the end. Much love to everyone. This has been fun! We'll have to do it again sometime!

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 8434-23772The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 1091-23772The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 18700-23772The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 11495-23772The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Egyptiangods
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 XylanCrewThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 1291F40MN950-12H1

    Oh God! Now what are we gonna do??!! What Would Loki Do? (WWLD?) Beware of Completely-Ignorant Male Musicians with Blond Wives (with brown roots) and Two Children (a boy and a girl) -- Who Work in Grocery Stores -- Talk to a Human-Looking God -- Seem to be Stupid and Insane -- and Drive AMC Pacers with California Plates (in Burbank and Glendale) -- with water inside! What are the odds? What would God say? In Dogma 'God' was a female hidden in a male-body, who didn't talk much, and was funny (in more ways than one). In Oh, God! God drives a Taxi. Now that just doesn't seem right, now does it? 1. 2. 3. What if God really is one of us? Now isn't this a rather strange way to 'do' theology? What would Bultmann say? Who is related to Anna? Consider the Ring of Power. Consider the Rose and Cross. What would Bartleby and Rufus say? Jesus Swept? Some say the author of most of the Psalms seems a bit unbalanced, but how does this relate to all of the above? Was King David a Crazy-Faker?? Is orthodoxymoron a Crazy-Faker and/or a Crazy-Maker?? What Would Dorothy Sayers Say?? "Maker of All Things -- Maker of Ill Things??" Pacers on the Highway to Heaven! Just blame Inigo Loyola (or someone like him)!! Justin case you still don't get it, you will, sooner than you think. Are you easily confused? What would Walter say? Both of them. Frankly, this is driving me crazier than I already was, and I was half an inch from the edge. One more thing, don't overlook the Burbank Connection. What would Jordan Maxwell say? Didn't they sell Pacers at Modern Motors in Glendale? Or was it a couple of blocks down Brand? What kind of a crazy puzzle is this? All I want is a perfected humanity in a perfected solar system based upon responsibility. I keep feeling nothing but pressure, scorn, and condemnation. I feel like I'm getting it wrong 24/7. I feel like I'm fiddling while Rome burns. All is NOT well with my soul. This has been a very creepy year, and I really can't take much more of this. I feel like the Last Scion in Dogma. I really need professional help. No, wait. The shrinks are nuttier than we are. Maybe I need an exorcist. My house is probably 'spook central' in more ways than one. The excrementals are quadruple teaming me. "Get thee hence into the bottomless toilet, thou fecal-demons!" One more thing. What is that big building in the distance, shown below? Could this be where the trouble started? "I knew that guy was going to be trouble". What would the 'King of the Girls' say? What would 'Test Tube' say? Enough of This Madness!? Also, notice the car parked behind the Pacer. Is that a 1972 Cadillac?? If I lose my house, maybe I should move to Vegas, go to school, and get a ticket on that special plane to Groom Lake! What would TREEE say? One TREEE. Many Branches. OK, I've gone far enough out on this limb, and I know better than to take the bait, and eat the fruit. One more thing. You would not believe the number of parallels between the John Denver character and me. There's a George Burns parallel, and a 'Dogma' connection as well. There's more. A lot more. I kid you not. Read this paragraph very carefully. This is all sort of spooky, and I suspect that things are going to get a lot worse. This post brings me HUGE Pain and Suffering -- even though it might not seem like it. You have NO idea. I often wonder why I bother with all of this madness -- especially when most of what I post seems to be either ignored or ridiculed. I guess hope springs eternal. Namaste and Godspeed!

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 I165458The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Oh-god-2The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Oh-god-1The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 4553166_l3The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 OhGod12.jpegThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Oh-god-garrThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 OhGodThe University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 L1
    Has the Human Race Been Sleeping with the Devil for Thousands of Years? Exterminatus Interruptus? Oh Geronimo!? 1. 2. Don't be frightened. I mean no harm. Try listening to a Bach B-Minor Mass or to a Latin Mass while watching '2001: A Space Odyssey' (from 00:20:00 to 02:10:00 -- with the sound off). Then, while doing this, read from 'The Federalist Papers', the 1928 'Book of Common Prayer', and 'The Desire of Ages'. Try it. You'll like it. Remember, this thread is only the beginning. It merely scratches the surface of some very deep subjects. I'm prepared to start over, each and every day. I think things might get really crazy, so be prepared for just about anything. This has been fun. Let's do it again sometime. I am of peace. Always.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 509_4
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 919_9_screenshot
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Jesus-christ-0207
    "LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! WE CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!! LA!!"

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Home-Alone14
    Serendipity Lacks Definition Because She's a Muse, Stupid!
    orthodoxymoron wrote:Notice very carefully, the strong-women in motion-pictures and television, wearing red, and also wearing gloves (especially the kind which cover just the fingers). BTW -- I require a helluva lot more than a limp and simplistic 'oh yes!' (She really gave me something to think about!) Think about this in a prophetic-biblical sense, and in connection with 'Stargate', 'East of Eden', 'Dogma', 'V', etc, etc, etc. I wish to make it abundantly clear that I have no problem with powerful women (even goddesses) or palaces. What I have a problem with, is the mess this world has been in for a very long time, for whatever reasons. As much as I hate to keep saying it, I feel as though I am in conflict with myself, divinity, and humanity -- but in a somewhat idealistic (and even sanctimonious) manner. It seems that just about everyone and everything is problematic -- but in very different ways. I say a lot on this thread -- but there's a helluva lot that I don't (and won't) talk about. Let's just say that I don't see any easy ways out of this mess. I continue to think that we need a critical mass of researchers throughout the world, who learn a helluva lot, but who use their knowledge in ways which benefit ALL of humanity. Once again, research everything you can find by:

    1. Bill Cooper.
    2. Alex Collier.
    3. Alex Jones.
    4. Jordan Maxwell.
    5. Leo Zagami.
    6. Sherri Shriner.
    7. Branton.
    8. Commander X.
    9. Ellen White.
    10. A. Graham Maxwell.
    11. Eric Jon Phelps.
    12. Malachi Martin.
    13. Ralph Ellis.
    14. Robert H. Schuller.
    15. William Bramley.
    16. Joseph Farrell.
    17. Desmond Ford.
    18. Ron Paul.
    19. Robert Morningsky.
    20. Jim Marrs.
    21. Richard Hoagland.
    22. David Icke.
    23. Everyone in Project Avalon, Project Camelot, and the Mists of Avalon.
    24. orthodoxymoron. (I just couldn't resist placing myself on the 'Read-List'!)

    I'm NOT endorsing any of these people, and this is NOT a complete list. I am merely suggesting that you ride this mental and spiritual treadmill for a while. I have no idea how much of what they say is true, or partially true. They simply force me to think about things that I would not otherwise be aware of. And please, read between the lines, and connect the dots. I think things might get a lot crazier than what these people point toward. This is really just a boot-camp of sorts. Just take all of this material as being science-fiction. Don't take it too seriously, and if it's too much for you to handle. STOP. Do something else for a while. Remember Mithridates? He died old. In this crazy world -- is that a good thing or a bad thing?

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 BSG_2
    "Is It I?" Anti-Christ = In Place of Christ. Does humanity require 'Regressive-Rulership'? Seriously. Do bad-people require bad-leaders? Is Jesus
    too good to preside over humanity? If Jesus were placed in charge of this solar system, would things quickly worsen? At this late date, will
    things quickly worsen, regardless of who runs the show? 'Knowledge Increases. Men Run To and Fro'? Is this really 'The End'? Is It Over, Rover?
    Think about it.

    I need to point out that I have HUGE problems with just about everyone and everything -- including Myself, the Bible, and the Writings of Ellen White -- and I am not singling-out Roman Catholics, and the Roman Catholic Church. I have had nothing but good-luck with Roman Catholics (parishioners, musicians, and clergy) -- and I am not trying to get anyone to leave any church -- including the Roman Catholic Church. I continue to conceptualize the possibility of the historical and contemporary existence of an Orion-Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire, administered in this solar system by a hypothetical Reincarnating Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Royal Family -- wherein the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church would be a highly important and relevant piece of this puzzle. I can't prove this -- and I don't even have a lot of evidence -- but it is part of my ongoing science-fiction series, which I am sharing with the very few of you who bother to read my tripe. I continue to think that Theology is a HUGE part of Politics -- regardless of any problems with texts, history, personalities, ethics, whoever, and whatever. It's still important. My Goal is a New Reformation of the City-States, which retains the best and discards the worst. Once again, I do not wish to start from scratch, or to reinvent the wheel. God and the way God runs the Universe, is a HUGE part of properly understanding Solar System Governance -- especially regarding whether the United States of the Solar System has more than a snowball's chance in hell of being established, and of surviving for more than a generation. I've been told that 'in 20 years, you'll be working for us' and that, in essence, my bad-side would manifest itself. I don't wish to elaborate. The Mind, Character, Personality, Nature, and Government of God are HUGE ISSUES. We should take off our shoes -- because the ground upon which we are standing is HOLY GROUND. Please listen to this previously posted link, for a very balanced theological conversation. Note especially the material in the second hour. I don't trust anyone or anything, at this point. I endorse a careful and prayerful multidisciplinary study of life, the universe, and everything. I have been somewhat speculatively-intuitive on this web-site -- but I have merely defined areas of study -- and suggested possibilities. I attended A. Graham Maxwell's classes (along with a very famous Hollwood director's stepmother). I wish I had the brains and discipline of Dr. Maxwell. The subjects of 'The Nature of God', 'The Law of God', 'The Government of God', 'The Sovereignty of God', and 'Human Responsible Freedom' are highly important -- as are the general topics of Psychology and Ethics.

    I keep trying to imagine a peaceful and happy solar system, with highly ethical and competent leadership, and without a lot of negative drama. Solar System Governance should be somewhat boring and uneventful. I envision continuing doing what I'm doing right now, but in a much more sophisticated and refined manner. I'm really not joking when I speak of a 600 square-foot office-apartment, a Cray, and a Fisk! I am joking when I speak of a Personal Sport-Model Bad@$$teroid and Six Goddesses! One more time, the 'God' portion of the hypothetical New Solar System is VERY important. Perhaps Male and Female Human Physicality -- combined with Responsible Freedom -- are a Rebellious-Invention in a Theocratic Hermaphrodite-Reptilian Universe. I don't know that this is the case, and I am VERY, VERY, VERY sorry for any disrespect or irreverence, especially if this hypothesis is completely in error. However, if this theory is even partially correct, it is VERY important to determine how we might bring that which exists in this solar system -- into harmony with the rest of the universe -- or how to conduct business in a manner which does not cause the rest of the universe to seek to exterminate ALL of us. When I say that I feel as if I am in conflict with Myself, Divinity, and Humanity -- I do not imply hostility or hatred -- but rather a fundamental idealistic struggle -- which seeks to overcome all obstacles to the achievement of a Genuinely Heavenly Universe. A New Solar System must be considered in harmony with a Brave New Universe. The way things have been run throughout the universe, for billions and trillions of years, may not change anytime soon, and perhaps for good-reason -- but where does that leave the Human Race, in this little solar system? Was our punishment and extermination decided upon Hundreds of Thousands of Years Ago? "We can change!!" might be irrelevant. "The decision is made"? I would encourage all of you to study the Bible, even if you don't believe a word in it, and even if you don't believe in God (with an upper or lower case 'g'). We need the mental and spiritual discipline and exercise connected with serious Bible-study. I have made some study suggestions below, and I didn't pull them out of an anatomical black-hole. Something is VERY wrong with me, on a physical, mental, and spiritual level, but I still have enough sense to point you in productive areas of research. I feel VERY attacked, and I might not get better anytime soon. However, I don't think I'll get worse anytime soon. I think I'm pretty much stuck in the muck, right where I am. I am not leadership-material in the real-world, but I am a serious force to deal with in the theoretical-world. I mean absolutely no harm, and I completely agree with the Hippocratic Oath "First, Do No Harm". Don't stop thinking about the Idealistic Integration of Theoretical-Theology, Theoretical-Governance, and Science-Fiction. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate SG-1, and "V" are only the beginning. Alex Collier is absolutely right when he says that Hollywood is really "clued-in" regarding all of the esoteric stuff. I simply have a HUGE problem with the regressive-influences in Hollywood. I don't even want to begin to think about how nasty the closed-door meetings get in Hollywood, New-York, Washington, DC, London, and Rome. Some of you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The horror. When there are no organizational constraints, we the people are often quite fickle, and we sometimes swing from one extreme to another. I have been attempting an integration of the orthodox and the unorthodox -- as an orthodoxymoron -- for better or for worse. I have recently been taking a bit of a closer look at the City-States, which includes the Vatican -- in light of a lot of the new (for a lot of us) and controversial information. I like the concepts of Evolutionary Change and Minimalist Traditionalism, as sort of a mysterious blend. Try focusing on the following:

    1. The Psalms in the King James Version of the Holy Bible.
    2. The Gospel According to Matthew in the KJV.
    3. The Epistle to the Hebrews in the KJV.
    4. The 1928 'Book of Common Prayer'.
    5. 'The Desire of Ages' by E.G. White.
    6. 'Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs' by Ralph Ellis.
    7. 'The Federalist Papers'.
    8. 'Believe in the God Who Believes in You' by Robert H. Schuller.
    9. 'The Jesuits' by Malachi Martin.
    10. The Music of G.F. Handel.
    11. The Music of J.S. Bach.
    12. Physical Exercise in Nature.

    Try all of the above for an extended period of time, and then see what you think regarding Theological and Liturgical Reform. This is merely one physical, mental, and spiritual treadmill among dozens of others. However, there is a coherent rationale to this formula, which you may or may not wish to experience. After all, this is all about what YOU think, and not about what I think. I will not force my views on anyone or be a pain in the hindquarters. Take a look at the cover article on the 'King James Bible' in the December 2011 issue of 'National Geographic'. I encourage reverent yet honest theological research, which is neither blind-conservatism or brash-liberalism. I encourage the highest achievements of ethical spirituality and practical living. Many like the Latin Mass, but many like the Novus Ordo Mass. I wonder what type of religious service the Anglican and Catholic Cathedral Organists and Choirmasters would desire? They might be the people to talk to. Is 'Evangelical Anglo-Catholic' a useful term? Might a 1928 'Book of Common Prayer' in parallel columns of Latin and English facilitate such a hypothetical phenomenon? Has anyone considered the Latin Mass in the context of Ancient Egypt? I hope you all appreciate how difficult and dangerous all of this is. We live in times which are way too interesting. How do we properly define 'God'? What if the following Stargate 'Continuum' scene approximates 'God' in this solar system? Would this necessarily be a bad thing, if the beings in the spaceship were actually highly-ethical, supremely-compassionate, and hyper-competent, rather than being the sinister and ruthless god, goddess, and system lords they were in Stargate 'Continuum'? What if the beings were various types of reptilians? What if God ISN'T One of Us? What would Joan Osborne say? I guess I'll continue to try to make my peace with a non-corrupt and somewhat-sane version of the 'way things are'. I keep thinking about my example, in a previous post, regarding 100 gods and goddesses meeting in San Chapelle de Paris. What if they really met within these sacred walls, and what if they were debating my New Solar System aka the United States of the Solar System? There is something about having a select group conducting a discussion on a very high level, that I frankly find seductively attractive, yet it also scares me, especially if the gods and goddesses were more demonic than angelic. What if this sort of arrangement were instituted instead of the hypothetical United States of the Solar System? What are some other alternatives? The silence is deafening. I wish to help you -- but few seem to wish to help me. I keep seeking conversation -- and I keep talking to myself. If you decide to study this thread, please study it as a whole, including all links and referenced materials. Don't just do a hatchet-job on bits and pieces of this thread, or say that I'm insane. That would be lame, wouldn't you say? I think I'm going to take a closer look at the parallels between the Church of England and the Monarchy -- compared with the Episcopal Church and the Presidency -- just for kicks!! I'm in political and religious limbo -- and I don't have a research-team or a think-tank feeding me talking-points. Besides, I'm not running for anything. In fact, I feel as if I might be running from something. What is the foundation of Universal Civilization? Freedom? Obedience? Responsibility? Absolute-Obedience in Harmony with Responsible-Freedom? Consider the following:

    1. Original and Unpardonable Sin.
    2. Ritual Human Sacrifice and Cannibalism.
    3. The Substitutionary Atonement and Righteousness by Ritual.
    4. The Concept of 'Salvation' Relative to the Survival and Condition of the Soul.
    5. Male and Female Human-Physicality and Responsible-Freedom.
    6. Hermaphrodite Reptilian-Physicality and Absolute-Obedience?
    7. Perpetual Punishment of Humanity by Divinity?
    8. Perpetual Payment by Humanity to Divinity?
    9. Earth-Humanity in a Reptilian-Universe?
    10. The Orion-Sirius-Egyptian-Roman Empire?
    11. The Osiris-Isis-Horus-Set Reincarnating Royal Family?
    12. How Shall We Be Governed?
    13. How Shall We Then Live?
    14. Who is God?
    15. Where is God?
    16. What is the Nature of God?
    17. Do We Live in an Ethical and Peaceful Universe?
    18. Why Are Things So Chaotic and Violent on Earth?
    19. Why Are There So Many Creepy Secrets?
    20. Is Humanity on the Brink of Extinction?
    21. Does the Existence of Humanity Threaten the Stability of the Universe?
    22. What is REALLY the 'Biggest Secret'?
    23. Would Complete 'Disclosure' of 'Everything' be a 'Good-Thing' or might it be the 'Beginning of the End'?
    24. Game-Playing and Sexual-Experimentation.
    25. Artistic-Creativity and Artistic-License.
    26. Imagination and Invention.
    27. Theology and Mythology.
    28. Fact and Fiction.
    29. Ethical-Deception and White-Lies.
    30. Situation-Ethics and Absolute-Truth.
    31. The Quest for the Historical-Horus and the Mythical-Messiah.
    32. The Games Gods and Goddesses Play with the Kardashians, and with Righteous-Shapeshifting Nazi-Mason-Jesuit Alphabet-Agents.

    Don't look now, but your Cray is on fire, and smoke is pouring out of your ears! We're in a flat-spin, and we're going down fast! Whoop! Whoop! Pull-Up! Slam on the Air-Brakes! Jesus wants to go to Venus! Is it because 'The New York Times' said 'God is Dead'? But the 'Dead Know Not Anything' -- and neither do most of the living. Shave and a Haircut: Six-Pence and None the Richer. What Would Machiavelli and the Prince of Sirius Say? World Without End. Amen Ra.

    I wonder if anyone is researching what happens to people who research web-sites such as this one? Can you imagine a doctoral dissertation carefully examining the lives of esoteric and fringe researchers?! Who are these people? WHO DO THEY WORK FOR???!!! WHO DO YOU WORK FOR???!!! Perhaps I should stop philosophizing, and start dancing. There seems to be very little interest in my ideas and speculation -- and I really can compose popular music and sing! All I need to do is learn to dance, write down my musical ideas, and get something going around here! I am attempting to focus on principles and concepts, facts and figures -- rather than making things personal. On the other hand, I have gotten a bit personal regarding Lucifer, Amen Ra, Kali, Isis, Hathor, Osiris, Horus, Set, the God of This World, and the Queen of Heaven. But really, even with these beings (actual and/or mythical) I have attempted to remain somewhat detached and neutral. I think I might've even met one or two of them (or a least one or two of their minions)! Could someone elaborate on "DRAGON HYBRID EXTERTERRESTRIAL" and "INTERDIMENSIONAL FEDERATION OF FREE WORLDS"? Are dragons real? Are they good, bad, or both good and bad? When someone says 'interdimensional' do they mean 'interdimensional reptilian'? Is this the true nature of the soul for most, if not all, humanoid beings? I'm seeing more and more ET, UFO, Supernatural, and Archeological material in the mainstream news. It's beginning to become 'mainstream'. I just hope that this sort of thing will be accurately revealed to the general public. There has been so much misinformation throughout the years. I will be very interested to see how 'Joe the Plumber' responds to this sort of thing! I just started reading 'Family of Secrets' by Russ Baker, about the Bush's. I started reading it a long time ago, but I got sidetracked and disillusioned. I can only take so much, and then my imagination takes over, and I have to stop. The seemingly Rogue Secret Government stuff really worries me. I understand secrecy and behind the scenes staging and managing, to a certain extent, but when it gets out of control -- it's like cancer. "There's a cancer growing on the Presidency". I presently feel as if the Secret Solar System Government needs to be reformed -- but I have absolutely no idea about the particulars or the various factions, which undoubtedly exist. I'm probably too idealistic, naive, and simple -- to properly understand and deal with what REALLY goes on behind the scenes, throughout the solar system -- which includes Washington D.C. I just watched an episode of 'Nikita', and rewatched Battlestar Galactica 'The Plan' to try to toughen myself up a bit! Unfortunately, I didn't learn a frack'n thing!

    I get the impression that leading religious and political figures are trained, groomed, and manipulated from the shadows -- in ways which MIGHT involve drugs, sorcery, perfect possession, blackmail, sick-rituals, etc, etc, etc. I could be more specific, but I'd rather not. Some have even pointed toward 'soul-scalping', 'cloning', 'chip-implantation', 'MK-Ultra type programming', etc, etc, etc. I get the impression that leading religious and political figures work for the 'Secret Solar System Government' -- but I also get the impression that there are several factions of this hypothetical government -- which fight with each other -- yet ultimately work for a 'Common Boss'. Just speculation. The Spiritual, Mental, and Technological Manipulation might be Extremely Sophisticated. This sort of thing Scares the Hell Out of Me. I personally witnessed something in the 1980's which might point to at least some of the phenomenon just mentioned, but I'd rather not elaborate. There is a video-clip of Bill Clinton, right before a press-conference or speech, where he has the most blank and spooky look on his face. They're putting the makeup on, and he's just sitting there, looking like he's in another world. Obama is so very skilled at public speaking, but he always seems to be somewhat robotic (to me anyway). I don't follow politics much (I concentrate on theoretical-politcs, theoretical-religion, and science-fiction), so I don't get used to seeing the various public figures. But when I do, they scare the hell out of me. Now I'm going to go for a long walk in the snow with my dog (to try to get my head together). Then I'm going to re-watch 'The Pelican Brief'. I truly do not wish to be too judgmental or sanctimonious -- but I think we might need to reign-in some of the creepy-stuff which goes on in secret, and which might negatively affect all of us. I worry about 'Demonic Minion Manipulation'(DMM). What Would Magog Do?(WWMD?) Check this out! Watch this!

    Is the human race joining together, in love, light, peace, and harmony -- or are we coming apart at the seams? Was there a legitimate reason for God to seek to destroy the human race with a flood? Was there a legitimate reason for God to foil the Tower of Babel One World Order? Is there a legitimate reason for God to oppose a United, Peaceful, and Happy Humanity? Once again, what was the Original Sin? What is the Unpardonable Sin? Is Armageddon a Predestined and Foregone Conclusion to the Human Race and Responsible Freedom? I hate this fishing-expedition. I really do. I have to work very hard, and traumatize myself, to pose these questions -- possibly at great risk to my Mortal and Eternal Life -- AND NO ONE SEEMS TO GIVE A DAMN! I'm seeing very little disciplined political or theological thought. Once again, I don't expect people (and other than people) to agree with me -- but they don't seem to wish to (or to be capable of) intelligently conversing with me about what used to be somewhat mainstream subject matter. Perhaps we need the Old School Nuns to teach children the basics (although I would like to see different 'basics' than what a lot of children were 'indoctrinated' with). What if children learned Biblical-Studies, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin -- in Public Schools -- as simply being a non theologically-biased mental and spiritual discipline??? But wouldn't that just pi$$ everyone off???!!! I have been a bit critical of Canon-Law (without knowing a lot about it), and I have suggested that the Teachings of Jesus should be foundational. However, there is probably a mental and spiritual workout which Canon-Lawyers benefit from. Do you see what I mean? There is a benefit to disciplined grappling. Learning Bach, Widor, Handel, Vierne, et al -- is similarly beneficial -- as is a Disciplined and Refined Liturgical Service (regardless of the symbolism). I desire modernization, but I also desire continuity, order, and discipline. This is a very delicate process, which can spiral out of control. I hope that the "infowar" is not spiralling out of control -- but I fear that it is. This is why I am attempting to combine the orthodox with the unorthodox -- although this might be analogous to placing new wine in old wineskins. Perhaps this isn't the time or place for this -- but I have never been able to indentify with the negativity shown toward Bill and Kerry. They're not perfect, but I think they've done a helluva lot to inform people with a helluva lot of forbidden-knowledge -- for better or worse -- I know not. Does the Human Race require and/or deserve the sort of treatment shown at the very end of the next post? I wonder as I wander.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:One more time -- or one last time -- I think there might be enough interesting material in this thread, to create some sort of a book. I don't really want to go this route, but I sort of need the money. I need to pay my bills (including taxes), fix my house (and then possibly sell it), get new teeth, get medical attention, get psychiatric treatment, hire an exorcist, get an old Porsche Turbo, and buy an old missile-silo to hide out in (so I won't have to hide under the rocks -- like Raven said I'd be doing). I need some help doing this from certain individuals who could answer the questions I've posed. I also need help regarding copyright and editing issues. Plus, I have no idea which aspects of this thread are too hot to handle, and I don't know which portions are absolute-truth or complete-bullshit. The wild-card in all of this is who I might've been in previous lives. I have no idea about any of this. I had a chance to join the Masons, and hobnob with the Creme de la Creme of the Underworld -- but I chose not to do this -- for a variety of reasons. So, I continue to fly blind. My immediate plans (other than kissing my @$$ goodbye) are to mostly research this thread, and try to internalize the best aspects of it. I've even thought about attending a Latin Mass (although I wouldn't be taking communion). I'd just like to try thinking about the madness in a historical setting. Anyway, I will do some writing and editing, based on this thread, but I really don't know how to proceed, and I don't even know if I should proceed. I'm really not rigid and dogmatic. Not yet, anyway. If a book materializes, I have pledged half of the profits to worthy charities (such as A.D.R.A.). So far, there has been absolutely no interest, but hope springs eternal. One more thing. How would you feel if you were alone with a mysterious individual at midnight, in a room with dozens of large, sharp knives -- where they have just told you that they liked 'The Passion of the Christ', the Latin Mass, and the Taste of Blood (as they suck blood from a flesh-wound) -- and now they are laughing about someone committing suicide by stabbing themselves in the back 39 times? BTW -- they had previously told me that I was lucky to be alive, that they were tired of keeping me alive, and that women and children deserved to be eaten-alive by wild-animals in the Coliseum. I could say more. A lot more. But I'd rather not. Not tonight dear. Namaste and Have a Nice Day. It's a great, big, beautiful tomorrow! My computer was just attacked. Sorry if I stepped over the line. I thought my comment was general enough, and that enough time had passed, but perhaps I was wrong. However, I will leave it 'as is' for the record, but I will refrain from further 'revelations' and 'requests'. I remain largely good-natured and benevolently-neutral. Perhaps this is because I know so little, even at this late date. I continue to try to think the best of everyone, but perhaps this is a mistake. As I mentioned, I'm seriously attempting to go into 'review and rewrite' mode, without 'crusading' any deeper into 'enemy' territory. One more thing (two maybe), I'd still like to get an old (or entry-level) Cray someday. Also, the 'Fisk-Idea' is just a 'Pipe-Dream'. I'll probably just have to settle for the errection of my own organ (or perhaps an electronic 'Artificial-Organ', such as Rogers or Allen). However, the 'Organ Clearing House' is a terrific resource for 'real-deals'. Is this link significant in light of that which I have previously posted regarding St. Mary and G. Donald Harrison? Good luck figuring THAT one out!!! Just a reminder to be reasonable and rational regarding this thread. BTW -- I'm a big fan of G. Donald Harrison -- but I'm still not sure about St. Mary!!! Perhaps C.B. Fisk could do both projects, with duplicate '1875' instruments! Just a thought! I REALLY need to stop! I just keep getting the sinking-feeling that the future is NOT going to be a happy one for me, no matter what I do, but I so hope that I'm wrong. I hope that things work out well for all concerned, but I'll never forget. Ever.

    geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek study geek
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Hal_9000
    "Just What Do You Think You're Doing, Dave? Dave, I Really Think I'm Entitled To An Answer To That Question. Stop, Dave. I'm Afraid, Dave."

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:24 pm; edited 2 times in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:11 pm

    I'm sorry for all of the dead-links throughout this thread. I'm trying to clean this mess up -- but I HATE removing and redoing dead-links. In the previous post -- at least half of the links were dead -- and my laptop battery is just about dead, as well. I just saw a silver Porsche 911 Turbo Cabriolet drive by my clandestine perch!! I was green with envy -- and then I became red with anger!! Why should I waste my time on solar system governance when I could be working toward getting a primo Porsche?? Those bastards probably live in some waterfront mansion - and have great-sex two or three times a day -- while I sit in the corner of my messy house -- posting forbidden information on the internet with one hand -- and doing you know what with the other. Hint: 'Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing' and 'whatever thy hand findeth to do -- do it with all thy might'!! BTW -- is that wall of water still a possibility?? I certainly hope not. I want to clean this mess up -- but not with War, Terrorism, Crashed-Economies, Red-Lists, or "Acts of God". BTW -- I owned a Pacer (actually, two of them, both with water inside) -- but I could've had more -- a lot more (Pacers, that is). Wouldn't it be cool to shuttle between Georgetown University, Washington National Cathedral, Washington D.C., Fordham University, the United Nations, the City of London, the Vatican, the United States Air Force Academy, Area 51, and the Dark-Side of the Moon -- in a Porsche (Turbo) and a Fizu (Sport-Model)??!! Some of you know what I'm talking about. I might require a really-sexy secret-government psychiatrist-assistant 24/7 -- to help me through those long, hard disclosure-nights -- as I am exposed to the absolute truth about life, the universe, and everything -- on a bear-rug in front of a Russian Fireplace!! Get the picture??!! Danger!! Danger!! Red-Alert!! This Situation is Out of Control!! Whoop!! Whoop!! Pull-Up!! Whoop!! Whoop!! Pull-Up!! "Fire!! Fire!! My Pants are On Fire!! My Heart is Filled with Burning Desire!! Fire! Fire!! My Pants are On Fire!! The Temperature Can't Get Much Higher!!" BTW -- I have a love-song idea with those words -- which I'm sure would be a hit!! I sang it to 'Rufus' (Dogma)!! Ask him about it!! I speak the truth (sometimes). When I get hot -- I just take off my pants and jacket!!
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 PORSCHE-911-Turbo-S-991-4855_40
    The OrthodoxyMoronMobile!!

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Mm-rug
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 31
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Fireside
    Disclosure is Playing with Fire!!!

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:27 pm

    Is there a good-side and a bad-side to the Jesuits?? I think so. Take a very close look at the Jesuit Order -- from ALL perspectives. I've looked at the Jesuits previously -- but here is another look at them. I mostly point you in various directions -- even when I know very little about the subjects I am attempting to deal with. It's up to you to discover the truth. I still think of Agent Ronald Sandoval (in Earth: Final Conflict) as being a Georgetown-Law educated Jesuit FBI Agent -- working for an Alien Queen. Think about it. Please don't get mad or go mad as you inform yourselves. Just study as if your eternal-life depended upon it -- and then mostly don't do anything. Just know the truth. The truth will only set us free if we don't run in the streets. Once again, I am NOT Anti-Catholic. I simply think that the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church are at the center of the Great Controversy and the War in Heaven and Earth. I think the details are beyond belief and comprehension. Prepare yourselves for a VERY wild ride. Pay close attention to Gabriel, Lucifer, and Michael. I suspect Gabriel and Lucifer on the inside (historically) -- and Michael on the outside. I think this involves a very ancient and bitter conflict. I am not particularly negative -- even though I deal with a lot of negative topics. I'm actually quite neutral. I think it might be very cool to hang-out at Georgetown. We need to be able to deal with difficult and upsetting subjects -- without going nuts. Please remember that I am NOT endorsing the material I post within this thread. Please remember that this thread is intended for a very select and limited audience. I suspect that most of those who view this thread know a lot more about Forbidden-Topics than I do. I think that some of you who study this thread carefully will emerge with a much better understanding of this madness than I have.

    I seem to be severely mentally, physically, and spiritually challenged. I feel as if I am losing a Spiritual-War BIG-TIME. Don't follow me into the ditch. I might go down VERY Hard. Perhaps that's why I tear myself down each and every day -- so that I'll NEVER get built-up and set-up for a fall. When I suggested to the Ancient Egyptian Deity that they might be setting me up for something bad -- they retorted "I could snap my fingers -- and you'd be dead!!" True story. I do NOT wish to be a Fall-Guy. I just want things to get better for all-concerned. Remember to study this thread as a whole -- keeping everything in context. Don't remake me into someone who I'm not. I don't wish to get people to join the church -- or to leave the church -- even though I wish to improve the church -- even if the church does not wish to be improved upon!! I still sometimes think of myself as being a Renegade French Jesuit Organist!! Also, remember that this thread is mostly Political and Theological Science-Fiction. Some of you need to take this thread seriously -- but not too many of you!! I'm too burned-out and tramatized to properly express what I think about this subject. A lot of it is visualized in flashes of insight -- which are very difficult to properly relate to others. This is why I keep asking some of you to get completely immersed in this thread -- so that you too might experience some of these flashes of insight. I'm not expecting a world takeover. I think that happened thousands of years ago. I truly believe that the Jesuits are very close to how this solar system really works. I consider them to be a huge part of the problem -- and a huge part of the solution. I simply think that 99% of us are very naive regarding how things really work in the church, the world, the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe. We're not as smart as we often think we are -- and that includes me. I continue to think that EVERYONE should be a student of Roman Catholic history and theology. This is VERY tricky territory. Behold the Jesuits. Here are some videos to get you started.

    1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Jesuit%202
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Jesuits
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 The%20Jesuits_0
    Consider the Jesuit Fordham University in New York City. 1. 2. 3.

    Fordham University is a private, nonprofit, coeducational research university[5] based in New York City, United States. It was founded by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York in 1841 as St. John's College, placed in the care of the Society of Jesus shortly thereafter, and has since become an independent institution under a lay board of trustees, which describes the University as "in the Jesuit tradition."[6]

    Fordham is composed of ten constituent colleges, four of which are for undergraduates and six of which are for postgraduates. It enrolls approximately 15,000 students across three campuses in New York State: Rose Hill in the Bronx, Lincoln Center in Manhattan, and Westchester in West Harrison. In addition to these campuses, the University maintains a study abroad center in the United Kingdom and field offices in Spain and South Africa. Fordham awards the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science, and Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees, as well as various master's and doctoral degrees.[3]

    U.S. News and World Report lists Fordham as a top-tier, "more selective" national university and ranks it 58th in this category.[7] In addition, the University has been described as one of New York City's preeminent institutions of higher education.[8] In a 1962 article entitled "The Best Catholic Colleges," Time Magazine included Fordham as a member of the "Catholic Ivy League."[9]

    Fordham Preparatory School, a four-year, all-male college preparatory school, was once integrated with the University and shares its founding. It became legally independent in 1972 and moved to its own facilities on the northwest corner of the Rose Hill campus; however, the school remains connected to the University in many ways.[10]



    Fordham was founded as St. John's College in 1841 by the Irish-born coadjutor bishop (later archbishop) of the Diocese of New York, the Most Reverend John J. Hughes. The college was the first Catholic institution of higher education in the northeastern United States. In September 1840, Hughes purchased most of Rose Hill Manor in Fordham, New York, for slightly less than $30,000 with the intent of establishing St. Joseph's Seminary. "Rose Hill" was the name originally given to the site in 1787 by its owner, Robert Watts, a wealthy New York merchant, in honor of his family's ancestral home in Scotland. The seminary was paired with St. John's College, which opened at Rose Hill with a student body of six on June 21, 1841. The Reverend John McCloskey (later archbishop of New York and eventually the first American cardinal) was the school's first president, and the faculty were secular priests and lay instructors. The college presidency went through a succession of four diocesan priests in five years, including the Rev. James Roosevelt Bayley, a distant cousin of Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt and a nephew of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. In 1845, the seminary church, Our Lady of Mercy, was built. The same year, Bishop Hughes convinced several Jesuit priests from the St. Mary's Colleges in Maryland and Kentucky to staff St. John's.[11]

    In 1846, the college received its charter from the New York state legislature, and roughly three months later, the first Jesuits began to arrive. Bishop Hughes deeded the college over but retained title to the seminary property, about nine acres. In 1847, Fordham's first school in Manhattan opened. The school became the independently chartered College of St. Francis Xavier in 1861. It was also in 1847 that the American poet Edgar Allan Poe arrived in the village of Fordham and began a friendship with the college Jesuits that would last throughout his life. In 1849, he published his famed work "The Bells." Some traditions credit the college's church bells as the inspiration for this poem.[11]

    St. John's curriculum consisted of a junior division (i.e. the preparatory school), requiring four years of study in Latin, Greek, grammar, literature, history, geography, mathematics, and religion; and a senior division (i.e. the college), requiring three years study in "poetry" (humanities), rhetoric, and philosophy. Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, famed commander of the all-black 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry American Civil War regiment, attended the junior division. An Artium Baccalaureus degree was earned for completion of both curricula, and an additional year of philosophy would earn a Magister Artium degree. There was also a "commercial" track similar to a modern business school, offered as an alternative to the Classical curriculum and resulting in a certificate instead of a degree. In 1855, the first student stage production, Henry IV, was presented. The seminary was closed in 1859, and the property was sold to the Jesuits in 1860 for $40,000.[11]

    A Congressional act creating instruction in military science and tactics at the college level resulted in St. John's bringing a cadet corps to campus. From 1885 to 1890, a veteran of the 7th U.S. Cavalry, Lt. Herbert C. Squires, built a cadet battalion to a strength of 200, which would provide the foundation for the modern ROTC unit at Fordham. The college built a science building in 1886, lending more legitimacy to science in the curriculum. In addition, a three-year Bachelor of Science degree was created. In 1897, academic regalia for students at Commencement was first adopted.[11]


    With the addition of law and medical schools in 1905, St. John's College became Fordham University in 1907. The name Fordham refers to the village of Fordham, in which the original Rose Hill campus is located. The village, in turn, drew its name from its location near a shallow crossing of the Bronx River ("hamlet by the ford"). When Fordham and several other Westchester County towns were consolidated into the Bronx at the turn of the twentieth century, the village became the borough's Fordham neighborhood. Still in existence today, it is located just to the west of the Rose Hill campus.[11]

    In 1908, Fordham University Press was established.[11] In 1912, the University opened the College of Pharmacy, which offered a three-year program in pharmacy. Not requiring its students to obtain bachelor's degrees until the late 1930s, the college had a mainly Jewish student body, and in recognition of that, the students were exempted from the then-required course in Catholic theology. The school's longtime dean, Jacob Diner, was also Jewish.[11]

    The College of St. Francis Xavier was closed in 1913, and various Fordham colleges were opened at the Woolworth Building in Manhattan to fill the void. They were later moved to 302 Broadway.[11]

    The University closed its medical school in 1919, citing a lack of endowment and reduced University funds overall due to the First World War.[11]

    The Gabelli School of Business began in 1920 in Manhattan as the School of Accounting.[11]

    In 1944, the School of Professional and Continuing Studies was established.[11]


    In 1961, the Lincoln Center campus opened as part of the Lincoln Square Renewal Project. It originally housed only the School of Law, but the academic programs at 302 Broadway were moved to the campus in 1969. At Rose Hill, the all-female Thomas More College began instruction in 1964.[11]

    In the late 1960s, Fordham became a major center of political activism and Countercultural activity. During this period, students routinely organized protests and class boycotts and used psychoactive drugs on campus open spaces.[11] In response to internal demands for a more “liberalized” curriculum, the University created Bensalem College in 1967. An experimental college with no set requirements and no grades, it was studied by a wide array of educators and reported on by such large-circulation publications of the day as Look, Esquire, and the Saturday Review. The school closed in 1974. In 1969, students organized a sit-in on the main road leading to Rose Hill in response to an announcement that President Richard Nixon would be speaking on campus.[11] As a result of the sit-in, Nixon was forced to cancel his plans to speak.[11] A year later, students stormed the main administration building, occupying it for several weeks, and set fire to the Rose Hill faculty lounge.[11] It was during this period of activism that the University’s African and African American Studies Department, one of the first black studies departments in the nation, as well as The Paper, the leftist student newspaper on campus, were founded.[11] While political activism has diminished considerably at the Rose Hill campus, it remains strong at the Lincoln Center campus, where students frequently organize protests and events in support of various political causes.[11]

    In 1969, the board of trustees was reorganized to include a majority of nonclerical members, which officially made the University an independent institution. The College of Pharmacy closed due to declining enrollment in 1972. Fordham College at Rose Hill merged with Thomas More College in 1974, becoming coeducational.[11]

    In 1993, a twenty-story residence hall was added to the Lincoln Center campus to house 850 students. In 1996, the campus's undergraduate college changed its name to "Fordham College at Lincoln Center," having been called "The Liberal Arts College" and later "The College at Lincoln Center" since its creation in 1968.[11]


    Marymount College, an independent women's college founded by the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary in 1907, was consolidated into Fordham in July 2002. The school had been steeped in financial hardship since the 1970s. Located 25 miles (40 km) north of Manhattan in Tarrytown, New York, the college remained open, and its campus received a branch of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies as well as extensions of the Graduate Schools of Education, Social Service, and Business Administration.

    In 2005, Fordham announced that Marymount College would be phased out; it awarded degrees to its final undergraduate class in May 2007. University administrators indicated that the campus would remain open for Fordham graduate programs in several disciplines.

    In the autumn of 2007, however, the University announced its intention to seek buyers for the Marymount campus. Administrators stated that the expenses required to support the programs at the campus far exceeded their demand. University officials estimated that the revenue gained from the proposed sale would not be greater than the expenses incurred maintaining and improving the campus since the merger with Marymount. President McShane nonetheless stated that the University's decision was a "painful" one. Fordham then indicated its intention to move the remaining programs from the Marymount campus to a new location in Harrison, New York by the autumn of 2008. On February 17, 2008, the University announced the sale of the campus for $27 million to EF Schools, a chain of private language instruction schools.[12]

    In 2003, Fordham unveiled the Toward 2016 Integrated Strategic Plan, to be implemented by the University's sesquicentennial in 2016. The $500-million plan aims to enhance the University's profile, increase research among faculty members, make capital improvements to both the Rose Hill and Lincoln Center campuses, increase the competitiveness of varsity athletic programs, and enlarge the University's endowment, among other things.[13] As of November 2010, Fordham is expected to meet almost all of the plan's objectives on time.[13]


    Fordham's academic ideals are drawn from its Jesuit influences. The University promotes the Jesuit principles of cura personalis, which fosters a faculty and administrative respect for the individual student and all of his or her gifts and abilities; magis, which encourages students to challenge themselves and strive for excellence in their lives; and homines pro aliis, which intends to inspire service among members of the Fordham community.[6]

    Core curriculum

    All undergraduates at Fordham are required to complete the Core Curriculum, a distribution of 17 courses in nine disciplines: English, mathematics, social science, philosophy and ethics, history, fine arts, religious studies, natural science, and modern or Classical languages. Based on the curriculum established by the Society of Jesus in the sixteenth century, the Core is shared by Jesuit schools all over the world and is intended to provide a sound liberal arts education.[14]

    Students are expected to fulfill most of the Core requirements prior to the completion of their sophomore year; a wide variety of courses can be applied to this endeavor.[15] Those students pursuing a Bachelor of Science degree complete a modified version of the Core.[16]

    Upon the completion of the Core Curriculum, students choose from approximately 50 major courses of study, in which they will receive their degree.[3] One option is the personalized interdisciplinary major, which allows students to create their own course of study across various disciplines.[17]

    Colleges and schools

    The University is composed of four undergraduate and six graduate schools,[18] which are as follows:

    Undergraduate schools

    Fordham College at Rose Hill (also known simply as Fordham College), 1841
    Gabelli School of Business, 1920
    School of Professional and Continuing Studies, 1944
    Fordham College at Lincoln Center, 1968

    Through its undergraduate schools, Fordham offers a number of special academic programs for undergraduates, a selection of which are below:

    Pre-Medical and Health Professions Program[19]
    Pre-professional programs in law, architecture, and criminal justice[20][21][22]
    3-2 Engineering Program, in conjunction with Columbia and Case Western Reserve Universities[23]
    Five-Year Teacher Certification Program[24]
    Applied Public Accountancy (CPA certification) program[25]
    BFA program in dance, in conjunction with the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater[26]
    Cross registration opportunities with the Juilliard School for advanced music students[27]

    Graduate schools

    School of Law, 1905
    Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, 1916
    Graduate School of Education, 1916
    Graduate School of Social Service, 1916
    Joseph M. Martino Graduate School of Business Administration, 1969
    Graduate School of Religion and Religious Education, 1969

    Fordham participates in the Inter-University Doctoral Consortium, which allows its doctoral students to take classes at a number of schools in the New York metropolitan area.[28]

    Medical education

    With the closure of its medical school in 1919 and its College of Pharmacy in 1972, Fordham ceased direct medical instruction on its campuses. Nevertheless, the University continues its tradition of medical education through a collaboration with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University. The partnership allows Fordham undergraduate and graduate science students to take classes, conduct research, and pursue early admission to select programs at Einstein. In addition, it involves a physician mentoring program, which permits students to shadow an attending physician at Einstein's Montefiore Medical Center.[29]

    In 2009, Fordham began negotiations with New York Medical College regarding the possible merger of the two institutions.[30] While the merger ultimately did not occur, the two schools maintain a close academic relationship in such ways as the provision of joint courses.[31] This relationship is expected to grow in the coming years.[32]

    Libraries and museums

    The Fordham University Library System contains approximately two and a half million volumes, subscribes to over 65,000 periodicals and electronic journals, and is a depository for United States Government documents.[33] In addition, the University's Interlibrary Loan office provides students and faculty with virtually unlimited access to the over 20 million volumes of the New York Public Library System as well as to media from the libraries of Columbia University, New York University, the City University of New York, and other libraries around the world.[34] Fordham's libraries include the William D. Walsh Family Library, ranked in 2004 as the fifth best collegiate library in the country,[35] and the Science Library at the Rose Hill campus, the Gerald M. Quinn Library and the Leo T. Kissam Memorial Law Library at the Lincoln Center campus, and the Media Center at the Westchester campus. In addition to the University's formal libraries, several academic departments, research institutes, and student organizations maintain their own literary collections.[36] The Rose Hill campus's Duane Library, despite its name, is no longer a library, though it still contains reading and study space for students.[37]

    Fordham maintains several special collections that are housed in various museums and galleries on campus. The Fordham Museum of Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Art is located at the Rose Hill campus and contains more than 200 artifacts from Classical antiquity. A gift from alumnus William D. Walsh, it is the largest collection of its kind in the New York metropolitan area.[38] In addition, the University maintains an extensive art collection, which is housed in exhibition spaces at the Rose Hill and Lincoln Center campuses and in galleries around New York City.[39] The collection will eventually be on permanent display at the Fordham University Art Gallery, which is currently under construction at the Lincoln Center campus.[40] Finally, the University possesses a sizable collection of rare books, manuscripts, and other print media, which is housed in the O'Hare Special Collections Room at the Walsh Library.[41]


    Because of its Jesuit heritage, the University has placed a greater emphasis on teaching than research throughout most of its history.[11] In recent years[weasel words], however, it has increased its commitment of financial and human resources to research endeavors.[citation needed] The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching currently classifies Fordham as a doctoral university with high research activity (RU/H).[5]

    A significant amount[weasel words] of the University's research is conducted in the natural sciences.[citation needed] Facilities on campus[which?] for this type of research include the Louis Calder Center, a biological field station and the middle site along a 81-mile (130 km) urban-forest transect known as the Urban-Rural Gradient Experiment; the William Spain Seismic Observatory, a data collection unit for the US Geological Survey; and other facilities.[42][43] In addition, Fordham performs substantive[weasel words] research off campus in cooperation with other organizations.[citation needed] It is a member of the Bronx Scientific Research Consortium, which also includes the New York Botanical Garden, the Bronx Zoo, the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University, and Montefiore Medical Center.[44] Furthermore, Fordham faculty have conducted research with such institutions as the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and other organizations around the world.[45]

    Despite its commitment to scientific research, the majority[weasel words] of the University's research endeavors involve the humanities and social sciences.[clarification needed] As a result, Fordham University Press, the University's official publishing house and an affiliate of Oxford University Press, publishes primarily in these subjects.[46]

    Fordham is particularly well known[weasel words] for its promotion of undergraduate research.[citation needed] It hosts an Undergraduate Research Symposium every year during the spring semester and publishes an Undergraduate Research Journal in conjunction with the symposium.[47][48] In addition, it facilitates research opportunities for undergraduates with such organizations as the National Science Foundation, The Cloisters, and the American Museum of Natural History.[49][50]

    Honor societies and programs

    Fordham's undergraduate schools all offer honors programs for their students.[51] The programs' curricula are modified versions of the Core Curriculum; for example, the Fordham College Honors Program has a Great Books curriculum with seminar-style classes. Most honors students are inducted into the programs upon admission to the University, though some are invited at the end of their first year. Each program has a designated study space for its members, examples including Alpha House for the Fordham College Honors Program and the honors wing of Hughes Hall for the Global Business Honors Program. Upon graduating from the University, honors students receive the designation of in cursu honorum on their diploma and transcripts.[52]

    In addition to its honors programs, Fordham has chapters of several honor societies on campus, including but not limited to the following:

    Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Kappa Phi
    Alpha Sigma Nu (Jesuit)
    Beta Gamma Sigma (business)
    Sigma Xi (scientific research)
    Psi Chi (psychology)
    Sigma Delta Pi (Spanish)
    Omicron Delta Epsilon (economics)
    Lambda Pi Eta (communications)
    Alpha Sigma Lambda (non-traditional students)

    The Campion Institute is the University's office for academic fellowships and scholarships. Its function is to raise awareness of fellowship opportunities among students, counsel interested students about their eligibility for various programs, and advise fellowship candidates during the application process.[53] The work of the Campion Institute helped make Fordham one of the top producers of U.S. Fulbright students of 2012.[54]

    The Matteo Ricci Society is an honor society for Fordham students who are likely candidates for academic fellowships. Students are invited to join based on academic success and other factors. The society assists its members in preparing applications for fellowships, coordinating internships, and obtaining funding for research endeavors.[55] The Rev. William E. Boyle, S.J. Society is a parallel organization for business students.[56]

    Study abroad

    Through its International and Study Abroad Programs (ISAP) Office, Fordham provides its students with over 130 study abroad opportunities, one of the most extensive foreign study networks of any American university. The programs range in duration from six weeks to a full academic year and vary in focus from cultural and language immersion to internship and service learning. Some of the programs are organized by Fordham itself, such as those in London, United Kingdom; Granada, Spain; and Pretoria, South Africa; while others are operated by partner institutions like Georgetown University, the University of Oxford, and the Council on International Educational Exchange (CIEE).[57] In addition to the ISAP programs, the University's constituent schools offer a range of study abroad programs that cater to their specific areas of study.[58]


    Fordham placed as follows in the most recent university rankings:[59]

    US undergraduate rankings
    58, America's Best Colleges: National Universities, U.S. News & World Report, 2013. A drop of five spots from 2012 due to a change in the ranking methodology.[7]
    2, A+ Schools for B Students: National Universities, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[60] This ranking has generated controversy among Fordham students.[61]
    61, Best Values in Colleges and Universities: Private Universities, Kiplinger, 2012.[62]
    88, College Guide: National Universities, The Washington Monthly, 2012. A drop of 51 spots from 2011.[63]
    49, Best Undergraduate Business Schools, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2012. A gain of three spots from 2011.[64]
    203, America's Best Colleges, Forbes, 2010.[65]
    Included in The Best 377 Colleges, The Princeton Review, 2013.[66]
    Included in The 25 Hottest Schools in America, Kaplan/Newsweek, 2008.[67]

    Fordham participates in the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities' University and College Accountability Network, which was created to counter the emergence of formal college rankings.[68]

    US graduate rankings

    14, America's Best Business Schools: Finance, 2013.[69]
    29, America's Best Law Schools, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
    5, America's Best Law Schools: Part-Time, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
    89, America's Best Business Schools, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
    67, America's Best Education Schools, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
    11, America's Best Social Work Programs, U.S. News & World Report, 2013.[70]
    58, Best Full-Time MBA Programs, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2013.[71]
    39, Best Executive MBA Programs, Bloomberg Businessweek, 2013.[71]
    63, Best English Programs, U.S. News & World Report, 2013. An increase of eleven spots from the 2012 rankings. [70]

    World rankings

    Fordham does not participate in the Shanghai, QS, or THE global university rankings.[72] It does, however, provide information for the Paris School of Mines' listing, which reviews over 3,000 educational institutions around the world, selects some 1,000 schools and ranks them according to their ability to place their graduates in leading professional positions. The University appeared 23rd on the list in 2012.[73]


    Fordham has three main campuses, which are located in and around New York City: Rose Hill in the Bronx, Lincoln Center in Manhattan, and Westchester in West Harrison. In addition, it maintains and utilizes various academic, extracurricular, and residential facilities throughout New York City and New York State and around the world.[3]

    Rose Hill

    The Rose Hill campus, established in 1841, is home to Fordham College at Rose Hill, the Gabelli School of Business, and a division of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, as well as the Graduate Schools of Arts and Sciences and Religion and Religious Education. Situated on 85 acres (34.4 ha) in the North Bronx, it is among the largest privately owned green spaces in New York City.[3] At one time spanning over 300 acres, the University sold most of the campus to the New York City government so that the latter could create the New York Botanical Garden (NYBG).[11] The NYBG is now an independent organization; however, Fordham students and staff have virtually unlimited access to the garden during its normal operating hours.[74] Rose Hill is located just to the north of the Belmont neighborhood of the Bronx, also known as the "Real Little Italy of New York."[75] Its Collegiate Gothic architecture, expansive lawns, ivy-covered buildings, and cobblestone streets were featured in MSNBC's 2008 edition of "America's Prettiest College Campuses".[76]

    Rose Hill is home to several structures on the National Register of Historic Places.[77] One such building is the University Church, which was built in 1845 as a seminary chapel and parish church for the surrounding community. It contains the altar from the Old St. Patrick's Cathedral, as well as stained glass windows given to the University by King Louis Philippe I of France. The windows are particularly notable for their connection to a workshop in Sevres, France, where the earliest stages of the Gothic Revival took place.[78] There are eleven residence halls on campus, including a residential college and nine Integrated Learning Communities that each cater to a particular year (freshman, sophomore, etc.) or area of study (science, leadership, etc.).[79] In addition, the campus contains two residences, a retirement home, and an infirmary for Jesuit priests.[80]

    Rose Hill is served by the Fordham station of the Metro-North Railroad, which ends at Grand Central Terminal. Public transit buses stop adjacent to campus exits, and two New York City Subway stations are within walking distance. The University also provides a shuttle service between its three main campuses (the "Ram Van"), which is headquartered at Rose Hill. About 7,000 undergraduates and graduates are enrolled at the campus.[3]

    Facilities improvements

    As part of the Toward 2016 Strategic Plan and other initiatives, the Rose Hill campus is experiencing numerous facilities improvements, including the following:[13]

    Two new undergraduate residence halls (completed in 2010)
    Renovation of the main business school building (completed in 2011)
    New exercise facility (completed in October 2012)
    Reorganization of dining facilities (to be completed in July 2013)
    Renovation of various residential and science facilities (completion date to be determined)
    New faculty and administrative offices (completion date to be determined)
    New student union and athletic facility (fundraising in progress)
    New science facility (under development)
    Renovation of Collins Auditorium, a performing arts venue (under development)

    Lincoln Center

    The Lincoln Center campus is home to Fordham College at Lincoln Center and a division of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, as well as the School of Law, the Graduate Schools of Education and Social Service, and the Martino Graduate School of Business Administration. The 8-acre (32,000 m2) campus occupies the area from West 60th Street to West 62nd Street between Columbus and Amsterdam Avenues, placing it in the cultural heart of Manhattan.[3] It is served by public transit buses; the A,B,C,D, and 1 Subway trains, which are accessed at the 59th Street/Columbus Circle station; and the University's Ram Van shuttle. Approximately 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students are enrolled at Lincoln Center, of which about 1,000 reside in University housing.[3] The campus currently consists of the Leon Lowenstein Building, McMahon Hall, the Gerald M. Quinn Library, and the Doyle Building and has two outdoor basketball and tennis courts.

    Lincoln Center has two grassy plazas, built one level up from the street atop the Quinn Library. The larger expanse was once a barren cement landscape known as "Robert Moses Plaza;" the smaller is known as "St. Peter's Garden" and contains a memorial to the Fordham students and alumni who perished in the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    The Toward 2016 Strategic Plan prescribes a complete reconfiguration of the Lincoln Center campus, to be completed by 2032. The first phase of the project, which includes renovations of the Lowenstein Building as well as a new Law School building and residence hall designed by the decorated architectural firm Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, is underway and is slated for completion in 2016.[40]


    The Westchester campus is home to divisions of the School of Professional and Continuing Studies, the Martino Graduate School of Business Administration, and the Graduate Schools of Education and Social Service. It consists of a three-story, 62,500-square-foot (5,810 m2) building on 32 acres (12.9 ha) landscaped with a stream and pond. Fordham signed a 20-year lease for the facility, which includes 26 "smart" classrooms, faculty and administrative offices, a media center, a food service facility, and indoor and outdoor meeting areas. In 2008, the University spent over $8 million renovating the building in order to increase its sustainability.[81]

    The campus is served by the Ram Van as well as the White Plains station of the Metro-North Railroad, approximately 4 miles (6 km) away in White Plains, New York. The train station and the campus are connected by the Westchester County Bus System ("The Bee Line").

    Other facilities

    Fordham operates the Louis Calder Center, a biological field station 30 miles (50 km) north of New York City in Armonk, New York. It consists of 114 acres (0.46 km2) forested with a 10-acre (40,000 m2) lake and 19 buildings. The structures house laboratories and classrooms, offices for faculty and administrators, a library, and residences.[42]

    Outside the US, the University maintains a small campus at Heythrop College, the Jesuit philosophy and theology school of the University of London. The campus is home to several undergraduate business and liberal arts programs as well as Fordham College at Lincoln Center's London Dramatic Academy.[82] In addition, Fordham operates field offices in Granada, Spain, and Pretoria, South Africa; which house undergraduate study abroad programs.[57] Finally, the University provides faculty for the Beijing International MBA Program at Peking University in China. The program has been ranked #1 in China by Fortune and Forbes Magazines since its creation by Fordham in 1998.[83]

    Town and gown relationships

    Relations between Fordham and its surrounding neighborhoods vary according to campus. At Rose Hill, the University actively recruits Bronx students from disadvantaged backgrounds through the Higher Education Opportunity Program.[84] In addition, about 80% of students participate in local community service.[85]

    The relationship between the Lincoln Center campus and the Upper West Side, however, is significantly cooler. Recently, the New York State Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit against Fordham brought by the Alfred Condominium Complex. The suit was filed in response to the University’s expansion plans at Lincoln Center and their expected visual and auditory impact on the surrounding community.[86] Fordham does, however, have a lively connection to the artistic scene of the Upper West Side through its dance and theater productions and visual art exhibitions.[87]

    Student activities

    Fordham sponsors over 200 clubs and organizations for its undergraduate and graduate students, of which about 100 are based at the Rose Hill campus and the rest are based at the Lincoln Center and Westchester campuses. Some of these organizations are described below:[88]


    The University supports 23 men's and women's varsity athletic teams, as well as various club and intramural sports. The Fordham mascot is the ram, and its colors are maroon and white. In most varsity sports, the Rams compete in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and are a member of the Atlantic 10 Conference. The football team, however, plays in NCAA Division I AA and is an associate member of the Patriot League, the most academically selective NCAA conference after the Ivy League.[3][89]

    The Rams football program boasts a national championship title (1929), two bowl game appearances (1941 and 1942), two Patriot League championships (2002 and 2007) and corresponding NCAA Division I Football Championship appearances, and the 15th most wins of any college football program.[4] It is best known, however, for the "Seven Blocks of Granite," a name given to the team's 1928 and 1936 offensive lines. The 1936 team was coached by "Sleepy" Jim Crowley, one of the University of Notre Dame's famed "Four Horsemen," and included Vince Lombardi, the legendary professional football coach. Furthermore, it is credited with inspiring the term "Ivy League" after New York Herald Tribune sportswriter Caswell Adams compared it to the squads of Princeton and Yale, two powerhouses of the day. Adams remarked disparagingly of the latter two, saying that they were "only Ivy League." There are currently four Rams in the National Football League. Moreover, the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise was named in honor of Fordham's football heritage.[4][90]

    The University's men's basketball program also has an impressive heritage, boasting four NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship and 16 National Invitational Tournament appearances. During the 1971 season, the program enjoyed its best campaign ever, compiling a 26-3 record and earning a #9 national ranking. That team included Digger Phelps, the renowned University of Notre Dame men's basketball coach, and Peter "PJ" Carlesimo, the head coach of the Brooklyn Nets NBA franchise. Fordham basketball plays in the Rose Hill Gymnasium (also known as "The Prairie"), the oldest on-campus venue currently in use by an NCAA Division I basketball team.[4]

    The Rams baseball program is among the oldest in the nation and was the first college baseball team to play the game according to modern rules. The program has launched the careers of dozens of Major League Baseball players, including National Baseball Hall of Fame inductee Frankie Frisch (also known as the "Fordham Flash"). In April 2010, a Fordham baserunner made national headlines when he leaped over an opposing team's catcher to score a run during a game. The incident was dubbed the "Fordham Flip."[4][91]

    The University's most recently successful programs include track and field, which claims world record holder and Olympic gold medalist Tom Courtney as an alumnus; sailing, which is headquartered at the Morris Yacht and Beach Club in City Island, Bronx; crew, which rows out of the Peter Jay Sharp boathouse on the Harlem River and regularly attends such prestigious regattas as the Henley Royal Regatta in the United Kingdom; and golf, which is affiliated with the Winged Foot Golf Club in Mamaroneck, New York.[4]

    The Toward 2016 Integrated Strategic Plan allocates increased funding for sports scholarships, coaching, and other initiatives to enhance the competitiveness of Fordham's athletic programs.[13] These initiatives have already made a significant impact on such programs as football and men's basketball.[4]


    The university has a number of publications, including The Ram, the primary newspaper for the Rose Hill campus; The Observer, the primary newspaper for the Lincoln Center campus, Fordham Law Review, the twelfth-most cited law review in the country;[citation needed]; and Fordham Political Review, a journal of foreign and domestic affairs.

    WFUV Radio

    WFUV is Fordham's 50,000-watt radio station, broadcasting on 90.7 FM. Founded in 1947, the station serves approximately 350,000 listeners weekly in the New York metropolitan area. It is a National Public Radio affiliate and has an adult alternative format on weekdays and a variety format on weekends.[92] In 2012, The Princeton Review ranked WFUV the 10th most popular college radio station in the US.[93]

    Performing arts

    The university has a number of bands, choirs, theater troupes, and other performing arts groups.

    Speech and debate

    The Fordham Debate Society (FDS) is based at the Rose Hill campus and is the oldest existing club at the University, having been founded in 1854. The club competes in the American Parliamentary Debate Association, which was founded at the University's annual debate tournament in 1982. FDS regularly places among the top teams in the country, and it ranks well in the World Universities Debating Championship standings. It hosts several debate competitions throughout the year, including the Fordham Fandango tournament and a competition for novice debaters in New York City. The club holds practice debates and chamber discussions on Monday and Thursday nights, in which anyone at Fordham can participate.[94]

    Campus ministry and social activism

    The purpose of Campus Ministry at Fordham is to provide "opportunities and resources for spiritual growth to members of [the University] community." It offers programming for more than 15 faith traditions in such areas as worship, music ministry, and social ministry. One of its most popular initiatives is its retreats, which are held at the University's McGrath House of Prayer in Goshen, New York, and other retreat houses in the New York metropolitan area.[95][96]

    The Dorothy Day Center for Service and Justice is responsible for overseeing Fordham's various community service and humanitarian initiatives. Grounded in the Jesuit principle of homines pro aliis ("men and women for others"), the center organizes projects in such areas as poverty, hunger, education, and disaster relief.[97] As a result of Dorothy Day's efforts, the University performed approximately 1 million hours of service in 2011, ranking it sixth in the country in terms of community outreach.[98] A popular volunteer location among students is the Society of Jesus New York Province Health Care Center at the Rose Hill campus, where those students interested in nursing can gain practical experience in the field.[99]

    Global Outreach! (¡GO!) is Fordham's missionary division that organizes service and immersion trips to various locations around the country and the world. With the goal of promoting social justice and fostering a sense of individual responsibility among the student body, ¡GO! sponsors 33 annual trips during the winter, spring, and summer recesses that address such issues as HIV/AIDS, affordable housing, migrant labor, and environmental justice.[100]

    Ministerial organizations

    Ignatian Society, which seeks to promote Fordham's Jesuit tradition and values on campus.
    St. Robert Bellarmine Society, a Catholic lecture organization.
    Respect for Life, which aims to foster a greater appreciation for the early and advanced stages of human life.[101]
    United Christian Fellowship, the Protestant Christian division of Campus Ministry.[102]
    Jewish Student Organization, the support organization for Fordham's Jewish student population. The JSO worships at the Riverdale Temple in the Bronx.[103]
    Muslim Student Association, the support organization for Muslim students at the University. The MSA worships in the Muslim Prayer Room at the Rose Hill campus and the Prayer Corner of the Blessed Rupert Mayer, SJ Chapel at the Lincoln Center campus.[104]

    Military education

    The Fordham Military Science program is available to all undergraduate and graduate students, regardless of their chosen course of study. It is also available to students at over 50 other colleges and universities in the New York metropolitan area. The program consists of membership and training in the Ram Battalion of the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) and a sequence of military science classes taught on campus.[105] Participants in the program are also eligible to enroll in the Air Force ROTC program at Manhattan College and the Navy ROTC program at SUNY Maritime College.[105] In 2011, Fordham Military Science began offering a combat nursing program in conjunction with Regis University and the University of Colorado at Denver.[106]

    The Military Science program has several notable alumni, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, four-star General John M. Keane, and at least four recipients of the Medal of Honor. Furthermore, it has been distinguished as being in the top fifteen percent of military science programs in the country.[105]

    In addition to its ROTC program, the University contributes to military education through its Veterans Initiative, which provides full-tuition scholarships and other benefits to post-9/11 veterans of the US military. Because of the initiative, Fordham was named one of the 25 best colleges in the country for veterans in 2013 by Military History Monthly Magazine.[107]

    Fraternities and sororities

    Fordham does not sponsor any Greek letter fraternities or sororities. Nevertheless, a number of student "houses" exist in the Belmont neighborhood adjacent to the Rose Hill campus that fill the traditional social role of fraternal organizations.[108] Moreover, the University does support several nontraditional fraternities and sororities. Campus Ministry organizes the Christian Life Communities, faith-based social fraternities that meet weekly to discuss spirituality, build friendships, and "put the Gospel values into action."[101] In addition, councils of the Knights of Columbus, the national Catholic service fraternity for men, and its sister organization, the Columbiettes, are operated on campus.[101] Finally, Fordham sponsors a chapter of Pershing Rifles, the national military fraternity.[105]

    The Fordham Club is a secret society that acts as an advisory board to the dean of Fordham College at Rose Hill. Described as the "dean's cabinet," the organization meets monthly in sequestered chambers in Keating Hall at the Rose Hill campus. Membership is by invitation only; initiates are selected from among the most involved members of the senior class in terms of extracurricular activities.[109]
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Fordham_University_Admin_Building
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 041_fordham
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Fordham%20University

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:47 pm

    Don't be frightened. I meant no harm. I just sort of 'lost-it'. Now, if you'll excuse me -- I'm going to try to get my head together by reading the Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen -- Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord by Edward Schillebeeckx -- and the Desire of Ages by Ellen White. I'm serious. These three volumes make an excellent theological study. Fordham University continued. I am of peace. Always.

    Traditions and symbols

    During its 172 years in existence, the University has developed many traditions. Some of them are described below:

    President's Ball: The President's Ball takes place every autumn on the eve of the Homecoming football game. It is a business formal event held underneath a tent at the Rose Hill campus on Edward's Parade Ground, Fordham's largest quadrangle. It is hosted by the Office of the President, from which the name is derived.[110]

    Winter Ball: The Winter Ball is a business casual event held every January by the Campus Activities Board of Fordham College at Lincoln Center. It takes place at a different location each year in New York City. Past venues have included the Rainbow Room, the Russian Tea Room, and the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.[111]

    Under the Tent: The "Under the Tent" Dance is a smart casual event held the weekend before final exams. Sponsored by the University's Residence Halls Association, it takes place underneath a tent on Martyrs' Lawn, Fordham's second-largest quadrangle, and has a different theme each year. The dance is part of the Spring Weekend Festival, which also includes two concerts, a barbecue, a race around the Rose Hill campus, and a comedy show.[112][113]

    The Festival of Lessons and Carols: The Fordham University Concert Choir presents a series of Nine Lessons and Carols every year during the Christmas season. An afternoon concert is performed at the University Church on the Rose Hill campus, and an evening concert is performed at the Church of Saint Paul the Apostle adjacent to the Lincoln Center campus.[114]

    Midnight Breakfast: Each semester, the official beginning of the final exam period is marked by a "midnight breakfast," in which professors cook students their favorite breakfast items so as to prepare them for the long night of studying ahead of them.[115]

    The Liberty Cup: The Liberty Cup is awarded annually to the winner of the football game between Fordham and Columbia Universities. The tradition began in 2002, a year after the Fordham-Columbia game was postponed due to the September 11th attacks.[116]

    Encaenia: Fordham College at Rose Hill hosts an Encaenia each year in early May. Faculty, administrators, and students process in academic regalia, and candidates for degrees at the current year's Commencement receive various awards and honors. The ceremony includes a sentimental speech by the year's valedictorian as well as a generally more humorous yet equally endearing speech by the honorary Lord or Lady of the Manor.[117]

    In addition to its traditions, Fordham is associated with a number of symbols, some of which are discussed below:

    Maroon: The University's official color was originally magenta, one which was shared by Harvard University. Since it was confusing for the two schools to be wearing the same color during athletic competitions, the matter of which school could lay claim to magenta was to be settled through a series of baseball games. Fordham won the games, but Harvard reneged on its promise. Both schools continued to use the color until 1874, when the Fordham student government unanimously agreed to change to maroon. Maroon was chosen because it was not widely used at the time. Sometime later, Harvard stopped using magenta in favor of crimson.[51]

    The Ram: The ram became the University's mascot as a result of a slightly vulgar cheer that Fordham fans sang during an 1893 football game against the United States Military Academy. The fans began cheering, "One-damn, two-damn, three-damn, Fordham!" which was an instant hit. Later, "damn" was sanitized to "ram" so that the song would conform to the University's image.[11]

    The Victory Bell: Presented to Fordham by Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz ('44) of the US Navy, the Victory Bell was the ship's bell of the Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo. First rung on campus by President Harry S. Truman on May 11, 1946, it currently stands in front of the Rose Hill Gymnasium and peals following all Ram athletic victories and at the start of Commencement each year.[51]

    The Great Seal: The Great Seal of Fordham University was designed to acknowledge the presence of the Society of Jesus on campus, hence the order's coat of arms in the seal's center. The coat of arms bears the Greek letters of the lapidary form of Jesus Christ (IHS), with the Cross resting on the center of the H and the three nails of the Crucifixion beneath the epigraph. These figures, dressed in gold, lay in a field framed in maroon, the color of the University, with silver fleur-de-lis at the edge. The fleur-de-lis symbolize the French Jesuits who arrived at Fordham in 1846. Immediately above the central shield rests the laurel crown, enclosing the University's pedagogical disciplines: arts, science, philosophy, medicine, and law. Below the shield is a blue scroll with the University's motto, Sapientia et Doctrina. The scroll rests on a gold field emblematic of learning (doctrina) and is surrounded by the fiery tongues of the Holy Spirit, a symbol of wisdom (sapientia). In a circular maroon field embroidered with beads is Fordham's official title, Universitas Fordhamensis; at the field's lower edge is the date of the University's founding, 1841. Finally, surrounding the entire seal is a heraldic belt, which is employed as a stylistic decoration. The University of Oxford, the only other tertiary institution in the world that uses a belt in its seal, however, maintains that without the belt, the seal is not official.[51]

    The mace: The mace of Fordham is traditionally carried at Commencement by the president of the Faculty Senate, who serves as the grand marshal of the main academic procession. The device, four feet in length, bears a regal crown at the summit to denote the sole power of the University of the State of New York to grant academic degrees in its territory. Above the crown is a cross composed of four windmill sails, which signify the Catholic faith and the Dutch founders of New York City, respectively. The center of the cross displays a heraldic rose, which symbolizes Rose Hill. Immediately beneath the crown is a support, on which the University's seal is emblazoned. The upper node of the mace's staff is decorated with three heraldic roses, the Fordham seal, a ram's head, and a silhouette of the Lincoln Center campus. The titles of the University's constituent colleges are engraved above the node, and the names of the school's presidents from 1841 to 1966 are inscribed below it. The mace was a gift to the University from the Fordham University Alumni Federation.[51]

    The Terrace of the Presidents: Rev. Robert Gannon, SJ, president of Fordham from 1936 to 1949, initiated the custom of engraving the granite steps leading up to Keating Hall with the names of heads of state who visit the University. Among the names engraved are George Washington, who visited the Rose Hill Manor before it was succeeded by St. John's College in 1841; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Harry S. Truman; Richard Nixon; and the names of various other heads of state from around the world.[51]

    School songs: Fordham's official school song is "Alma Mater Fordham," and its fight song is "Fordham Ram" by J. Ignatius Coveney. "The Marching Song" is typically played during parades and after athletic games (particularly after a Ram victory).[118]

    Alumni and faculty

    Fordham has over 160,000 alumni, many of whom are members of the University's various alumni clubs spread throughout the world. Benefits of alumni status include unlimited access to all Fordham campuses, membership opportunities at the Princeton Club of New York and the Reebok Sports Club/NY, access to various alumni excursions, and discounts on such brands as Choice Hotels, Hertz, Liberty Mutual, and Lenovo. Alumni are supported by the University's Office of Alumni Relations, which is located on Seventh Avenue in Midtown Manhattan.[119]

    Notable alumni

    Geraldine Ferraro, first female US vice presidential candidate from a major political party
    Joseph Cao, Jerrold Nadler, Bill Pascrell, and Adam Smith; US Congressmen
    Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York State, US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1997-2001)
    John N. Mitchell, US Attorney General (1969-1972)
    William J. Casey, US Director of Central Intelligence (1981-1987)
    John O. Brennan, US Director of Central Intelligence
    G. Gordon Liddy, Chief Operative, White House Plumbers
    Hage Geingob, first prime minister of Namibia
    Francis Spellman, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church (1946-1967)
    E. Gerald Corrigan, chairman of Goldman Sachs Bank USA, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (1985-1993)
    Lorenzo Mendoza, CEO of Empresas Polar
    Anne M. Mulcahy, chairwoman and CEO of Xerox (2001-2009), named one of the “50 Most Powerful Women in Business” in 2006
    Don Valentine, founder of Sequoia Capital
    Wellington Mara, owner of the New York Giants NFL franchise (1959-2005)
    Steve Bellán, the first Latin American to play Major League Baseball
    Peter A. Carlesimo, Executive Director of the National Invitational Tournament (1978-1988)
    John Mulcahy, Olympic gold and silver medalist
    John Skelton, quarterback of the Arizona Cardinals NFL franchise
    Denzel Washington, two-time Oscar and three-time Golden Globe-winning actor
    Alan Alda, six-time Emmy and six-time Golden Globe-winning actor
    Patricia Clarkson, Emmy-winning and Oscar-nominated actress
    Lana Del Rey, Brit Award-winning singer-songwriter
    Amanda Hearst, socialite and heiress to the William Randolph Hearst fortune
    Charles Osgood, three-time Emmy and two-time Peabody Award-winning journalist
    Michael Kay, television announcer for the New York Yankees
    Jim Dwyer, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist
    Mary Higgins Clark, bestselling novelist
    Virginia O’Hanlon, whose 1897 letter to The New York Sun prompted the famous reply, “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus”
    William J. McGill, president of Columbia University (1970-1980)
    Timothy S. Healy, president of Georgetown University (1976-1989)
    John Sexton, president of New York University
    George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory (1978-2006)

    Notable faculty

    Joseph Abboud, fashion designer
    Bruce Andrews, political scientist and poet
    Hilaire Belloc (fl. 1937), writer and historian
    Doron Ben-Atar, historian and playwright
    Daniel Berrigan, peace activist and poet
    Mary Bly, bestselling novelist, also known as "Eloisa James"
    Joseph Campbell (fl. 1925-1939), Irish poet and lyricist
    John M. Culkin (fl. 1964-1969), media scholar
    Avery Dulles (fl. 1988-2008), Christian theologian, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
    Victor Francis Hess (fl. 1938-1958), Nobel laureate in physics
    William T. Hogan (fl. 1950-2002), economist, known worldwide as the "steel priest"
    Elizabeth Johnson, Christian theologian and feminist
    Carl Jung (fl. 1912), psychologist
    Joseph Koterski, philosopher
    Paul Levinson, writer
    Mark S. Massa, Christian theologian
    John James Maximilian Oertel (fl. 1841-1846), German scholar and journalist
    Marshall McLuhan (fl. 1967-1968); philosopher and communications scholar; coiner of the phrase, "The medium is the message"
    Margaret Mead (fl. 1968-1970), cultural anthropologist
    William O'Malley, Christian theologian, actor in and technical advisor for The Exorcist
    Mark D. Naison, American social historian and political activist
    Diana Villiers Negroponte, legal scholar
    Willie Perdomo, poet and writer
    Phylicia Rashad (fl. 2011-2012), Tony Award-winning actress
    Asif Siddiqi, aerospace historian
    Werner Stark (fl. 1963-1975), sociologist and economist
    Dietrich von Hildebrand (fl. 1940-1960), philosopher and Christian theologian

    In the arts

    The Keating Hall First Floor Auditorium, a popular filming location at the Rose Hill campus.
    Fordham's campuses have been featured in a number of films, including the following: The Adjustment Bureau, Awake, A Beautiful Mind, Center Stage, Cheerleaders Beach Party, The Exorcist, Fair Game, The Gambler, Godspell, The Iron Major, Kinsey, Love Story, Quiz Show, Solitary Man, The Verdict, and Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. The 1993 crime drama A Bronx Tale is set in the Belmont neighborhood adjacent to the Rose Hill campus.[120]

    Television programs filmed at Fordham include Shattered Vows, a 1984 television film starring Valerie Bertinelli, which portrays the true story of a young nun in the 1960s who goes to Fordham for her master's degree and falls in love with a priest; White Collar; Naked City; Saturday Night Live; Chappelle's Show; and the 2009 U2 performance on Good Morning America. The music video for the single What's Luv? by Fat Joe and Ashanti was filmed in the gymnasium at the Rose Hill campus.[120]

    Fictional Fordham alumni include the title character of Michael Clayton, Ray Brocco of The Good Shepherd, Michael Patrick Flaherty of Spin City, Jacob Moore of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Annie Norris of Life on Mars, Vinnie Terranova of Wiseguy, Nick Rice of Law Abiding Citizen, Bruno Tattaglia of The Godfather, and Dave Norris of The Adjustment Bureau.[120]


    In order to increase its sustainability, the University has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% in 2017. In addition, it has pledged to employ low-flow faucets and shower heads, use sustainable materials like reprocessed flooring, recycle up to 90% of its debris, and seek LEED Silver certification in its construction of new facilities on campus. Finally, the Department of Grounds Maintenance at Fordham has committed to making half of its vehicle fleet electric by 2016.[121]


    Fordham is affiliated with the following organizations:[122]

    American Academy in Rome
    American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education
    American Council on Education
    American School of Classical Studies at Athens
    Association of American Law Schools
    Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities
    Association of Governing Boards
    Association of Graduate Schools in Catholic Colleges and Universities
    Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
    Center for Academic Integrity
    College Board
    Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities
    Council for Higher Education Accreditation
    Council of Graduate Schools
    Fulbright Association
    International Association of Universities
    International Federation of Catholic Universities
    Lilly Fellows
    Lower Hudson Valley Catholic Colleges and Universities Consortium
    Marymount Schools
    Northeastern Association of Graduate Schools

    In addition, the University and its specific programs are accredited by the following entities:[122]

    American Bar Association
    American Psychological Association
    Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International
    Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards
    Council on Social Work Education
    Middle States Commission on Higher Education
    National Association of School Psychologists
    National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
    University Council of Educational Administration
    University of the State of New York


    2.^ As of June 30, 2012. {{cite web |title=Fordham Facts |work=2012 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments |publisher= Fordham University|url=}
    3.^ a b c d e f g h i j k
    4.^ a b c d e f g
    5.^ a b{%22ipug2005_ids%22%3A%227%22}
    6.^ a b
    7.^ a b
    11.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Schroth, SJ, Raymond. Fordham: A History and Memoir. Revised ed. New York: Fordham UP, 2008. Print.
    13.^ a b c d Strategic Plan Review Committee. Progress Report on Integrated Strategic Plan "Toward 2016" Rep. Fordham University, 2010. Print.
    35.^ Franek, Robert, and Princeton Review. The Best 351 Colleges. 2004 ed. Princeton Review, 2003. Print.
    38.^ Pogrebin, Robin. "Fordham Opens Its Gift: An Antiquities Museum." The New York Times 6 Dec. 2007. Print.
    40.^ a b "Fordham University Lincoln Center Campus." Public Hearing, New York City Council, Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises. Print.
    42.^ a b
    51.^ a b c d e f Undergraduate Bulletin 2010-2012. Fordham University, 2009. Print.
    57.^ a b
    59.^ The author of this section advises readers to use caution in interpreting this information. Rankings data can be misleading if superficially examined. See O'Shaughnessy, Lynn. "Rating the College Rankings." CBS MoneyWatch. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 12 Sept. 2012. Fordham officially disputes U.S. News & World Report’s A+ Schools for B Students ranking as well as The Princeton Review’s Best 377 Colleges: Worst Food sub-ranking. See Kultys, Kelly. "Rochelle Group Releases Report of Sodexo Food Services, Facilities." The Fordham Ram [Bronx] n.d. 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
    70.^ a b c d e f
    71.^ a b
    85.^ Rose Hill Society Ambassador Handbook.
    92.^ "Abou". WFUV Radio. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
    93.^ Waits, Jennifer. "2012 Princeton Review’s 20 “Most Popular” College Radio Stations". Princeton Review. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
    101.^ a b c
    105.^ a b c d
    120.^ a b c
    122.^ a b


    Fred C. Feddeck. Hale Men of Fordham: Hail!. Trafford Publishing, 2001.
    Fordham University Staff, Office of the Sesquicentennial. As I Remember Fordham: Selections from the Sesquicentennial Oral History Project. Fordham University Press, 2001.
    Robert Ignatius Gannon, S.J. Up to the Present: The Story of Fordham. Doubleday, 1967.
    Raymond A. Schroth, S.J. Fordham: A History and Memoir, Revised Edition. Fordham University Press, New York. September, 2008.
    Thomas Gaffney Taaffe. A History of St. John's College, Fordham, N.Y. The Catholic Publication Society Co., 1891.

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:49 pm

    My very passive quest has made me quite sad -- but it has NOT made me angry. There's a silly side -- and a very serious side to this thread. It has really been a cry for help -- which has gone unanswered. I wish to make it clear that I am NOT opposed to obedience, tradition, ethics, law, and order -- but these concepts must be properly refined and implemented. Something is VERY wrong with the situation we find ourselves in -- and I have no idea who we really are or where we really came from. There are claims and theories everywhere -- but narrowing down the truth might be more difficult and heart rending than we can possibly imagine. I've been very disillusioned and fatigued my whole life. When I was 12 years old -- a girl called me 'droopy' because I seemed so sad all the time. An Episcopal Rector told me, a few years ago, that I seemed to be carrying the weight of the whole world -- and I hadn't talked to them about my various concerns and insecurities. I just think that we live in a somewhat hostile and dangerous universe -- and that various deals with the devil might've been made in antiquity and modernity -- just to keep light on the Earth -- and keep us alive. I tend to think that scientific, historical, theological, and political lies have been told to the general public -- throughout history -- simply because the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth -- would drive most of us insane. I obviously want things to be better for all concerned -- but I have no idea what might really be involved in creating a paradise within this particular solar system. Once again, I keep getting the overwhelming impression that powerful forces do NOT wish for this experiment in male and female human physicality to continue -- regardless of whether the experiment has been successful or not. Human Freedom and the Sovereignty of God seems to be another point of contention. How do these two concepts peacefully coexist?? Should insubordination be tolerated?? If freedom is granted -- where does it end?? Are we facing a Status Quo Ante Bellum scenario?? What about stolen technology?? Has that issue been properly addressed?? What about the possibility of ancient genocide?? Who owns the world?? Who owns the various planets and moons throughout the solar system?? Are the souls who animate humanity really demons in human form?? Is human nature really fallen and sinful?? I have asked a lot of these questions over and over again -- with very little response. I know that a lot of you know the answers -- yet you remain silent. Something is VERY wrong. This madness needs to somehow be resolved. Once again, I have a VERY bad feeling about Humanity and Divinity (at least regarding what I have been exposed to within this solar system). You need to think all of this through -- and talk to me about it.

    Did anyone ever see the 1981 television movie Goliath Awaits? I thought it had a lot of interesting lessons. 1. 2. 3. 4. Goliath Awaits is a 1981 American television movie originally broadcast in two parts in November 1981 on various stations as a part of Operation Prime Time's syndicated programming.[1][2] It is about a luxury passenger ship sunk by a torpedo fired by a German U-boat in 1939 that is discovered in 1981 with over 300 survivors and their descendants living in an air bubble in the wreck. The luxury British ocean liner Goliath, carrying 1,860 passengers sinks while on a trans-Atlantic crossing to the United States three days after the outbreak of World War II.[1][2] Scientists aboard a research ship discover the wreck of the Goliath in 1981 lying upright in 1,000 feet (305 m) of water.[2] Divers sent down to investigate the wreck, including oceanographer Peter Cabot (Mark Harmon), hear banging and music coming from the ship,[3] and are shocked to see the face of a beautiful young woman at a porthole (Emma Samms). They discover 337 survivors and their descendants living in an air bubble in the wreck. The residents of Goliath, who have invented some technologies to help them survive, some not even known to the outside modern world, live in a superficially utopian society under the autocratic leadership of John McKenzie (Christopher Lee), a junior officer at the time of the sinking credited with saving a portion of the passengers and crew.[1] The scientists are surprised to discover that McKenzie and some of the ship's residents are not interested in being "rescued", and that there are outcasts and rebels opposed to McKenzie's seemingly beneficent leadership, which also includes brutal discipline, mandatory contraception, euthanasia, and outright murder disguised as a mysterious disease. Complicating things, the Goliath had been carrying some sensitive documents to U.S. President Roosevelt. A joint American/British military team is sent by Admiral Wiley Sloan (Eddie Albert) to retrieve and destroy the documents.[1][3] The movie was principally filmed on location aboard the RMS Queen Mary.[1][4]

    Mark Harmon – Peter Cabot
    Christopher Lee – John McKenzie
    Eddie Albert – Admiral Wiley Sloan
    John Carradine – Ronald Bentley
    Alex Cord – Dr. Sam Marlowe
    Robert Forster – Commander Jeff Selkirk
    Frank Gorshin – Dan Wesker
    Jean Marsh – Dr. Goldman
    John McIntire – Senator Oliver Bartholemew
    Emma Samms – Lea McKenzie
    Kirk Cameron – Liam
    Duncan Regehr – Paul Ryker

    1.^ a b c d e "Goliath Awaits". Retrieved 2008-04-08.
    2.^ a b c McLean, Robert A (1981-11-05). "High Adventure at the Bottom of the Sea". The Boston Globe. p. 1.
    3.^ a b Maslin, Janet (1981-11-16). "TV: 'Goliath Awaits,' Undersea Yarn". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
    4.^ Gore, Robert J (1981-05-30). "Queen Mary Is Setting for Sci-Fi Film". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-04-14.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 GPB1
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 GA11
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Ga8
    "Rescued?? Rescued From What??"
    Along the lines of the nautical theme, consider The Poseidon Adventure. Sometimes I think all of us are involved in some sort of a Poseidon Adventure. I sometimes wonder if it might be wise to spend some quality time looking at disaster movies and reading about disasters and disaster-preparedness -- without getting caught-up in a lot of the current conspiracy-theories. Don't misunderstand me. I think there might be a legitimate place for the right sort of conspiracy-theorizing -- but this line of thinking could potentially turn people into something which might be destructive to society. I think there might be some really nasty factional-fighting going on in this solar system -- and possibly beyond -- but consider the possibility that the most powerful factions are NOT nice. Not nice at all. The most ethical factions might be the least powerful. Think about it. I'm a nice guy (at least in this incarnation) -- but I am quite clueless and powerless. If power were somehow dumped in my lap -- I hope that I would quickly delegate this power to those who were much more capable than myself. But look at history -- have things worked out this way?? I'm a naive-dreamer -- but I suspect more of the same -- only different -- with some really nasty technology, spirituality, deception, and weaponry. This is a MOST dangerous game we are all playing -- whether we know it, or not. I simply think this game goes WAY back into antiquity -- and WAY beyond this little world.

    1. 2. 3.

    The Poseidon Adventure is a 1972 American action-adventure disaster film, directed by Ronald Neame, produced by Irwin Allen, and based on Paul Gallico's novel of the same name. The film features an all star cast, including Gene Hackman, Carol Lynley, Ernest Borgnine, Stella Stevens, Shelley Winters, Red Buttons, Leslie Nielsen, and in an early screen role, Pamela Sue Martin. It won a Special Achievement Academy Award for Visual Effects and an Academy Award for Best Original Song (for "The Morning After"). Shelley Winters won the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture and was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role. It also received a nomination for the Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama.

    The plot centers on the SS Poseidon, an aged luxury liner from the golden age of travel, on her final voyage from New York City to Athens before being sent to the scrapyard. On New Year's Eve, she is overturned by a tsunami caused by an underwater earthquake. Passengers and crew are trapped inside and a rebellious preacher attempts to lead a small group of survivors to safety.

    Parts of the films were filmed aboard the RMS Queen Mary, whose encounter with a rogue wave in 1942 inspired the book upon which the film is based.

    Boxoffice Magazine reported "The Poseidon Adventure" as the #1 Box Office Champ of 1973. By the end of 1974, it ranked among the six most successful features in film history, along with Gone with the Wind, The Godfather, Love Story, Airport, and The Sound of Music. It is in the vein of other all-star disaster films of the 1970s such as Airport and later ones like Earthquake and The Towering Inferno. It was remade twice, first as a television special in 2005 with the same name, and a theatrical release with the name Poseidon in 2006.

    A 1979 sequel, Beyond the Poseidon Adventure, was released later with an equally star-studded cast, but was a box office and critical failure.


    The SS Poseidon, an ocean liner slated for retirement and scrapping, makes her way across the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea from New York City to Athens. Despite protests from Captain Harrison (Leslie Nielsen), who fears for the ship's safety, the representative of its new owners, Mr. Linarcos (Fred Sadoff), insists that it make full speed towards its destination, preventing it from taking on additional ballast for stabilisation purposes. Although Captain Harrison is aware that the lack of ballast means the ship is top-heavy (thereby increasing the risk of capsizing in rough seas) he is forced to obey Mr Linarcos's order.

    Reverend Frank Scott (Gene Hackman), a minister questioning his faith and believing God helps those who help themselves, delivers a sermon at Mass. Susan (Pamela Sue Martin) and her younger brother Robin (Eric Shea) are traveling to meet their parents. Robin is interested in how the ship works and frequently visits the engine room. Retired Jewish hardware store owner Manny Rosen (Jack Albertson) and his wife Belle (Shelley Winters) are going to Israel to meet their two-year-old grandson for the first time. Haberdasher James Martin (Red Buttons) is a love-shy, health-conscious bachelor. Mike Rogo (Ernest Borgnine) is a New York police officer travelling with his wife Linda (Stella Stevens), a former prostitute. The ship's singer, Nonnie Parry (Carol Lynley), rehearses for the New Year celebrations with her band.

    That evening, New Year's Eve, passengers gather in the dining room to celebrate. Harrison is called to the bridge because of a report of an undersea earthquake. He receives word from the lookout that there is a huge wave coming from the direction of Crete at 60 mph. He issues a mayday and commands a "hard left" turn, but it is too late. The wave hits the ship and it capsizes.

    In the dining room, survivors take stock of their predicament. Acres (Roddy McDowall), an injured waiter, is trapped at the galley door now high above. With information from Martin, Scott surmises that the escape route will be found "upwards", at the outer hull, now above water. Robin tells him that the hull near the propeller shaft is only one inch (2.54 cm) thick. The Rosens, the Rogos, Susan, Robin, Acres, Nonnie and Martin agree to go with Scott, using a Christmas tree as a ladder. Scott unsuccessfully tries convincing more passengers to join them. After the group climbs to the galley, there is a series of explosions. As seawater floods the room the survivors rush to the Christmas tree, but the weight of everyone climbing causes the tree to fall.

    Acres and Scott find the galley, and the survivors make their way to a staircase. Scott climbs its underside, then he and Rogo use a firehose to pull the others up before leading them to an access tunnel. While climbing a ladder inside a funnel, the ship rocks from another series of explosions. Acres falls and is lost.

    Climbing out of the shaft, the group meets a large band of survivors led by the ship's medic, heading towards the bow. Scott is certain they are heading for their doom, but Rogo wants to follow them and gives Scott fifteen minutes to find the engine room. Although he takes longer than allowed, Scott is successful.

    The group discovers the engine room is on the other side of a flooded corridor; someone must swim through with a line to help the others. Belle, a former competitive swimmer, volunteers, but Scott refuses her and dives in. Halfway through, a panel collapses on him. The survivors notice something is wrong and Belle dives in. She frees Scott and they make it to the other side. While Scott secures the lifeline, Belle suffers a heart attack. Before dying she tells Scott to give her "Chai" pendant, representing the Hebrew sign for life, to Manny, who in turn will give it to their grandson.

    Rogo swims over to make sure Belle and Scott are alright, then leads the rest over. When Rosen finds Belle's body he is unwilling to go on, but Scott gives him her Chai pendant, reminding him that he has a reason to live.

    Scott leads the survivors to the propeller shaft room's watertight door, but there is another series of explosions and Linda falls to her death. An infuriated and heartbroken Rogo blames her death on Scott. More explosions rupture a pipe that releases steam, blocking their escape. Scott rants at God for the survivors' deaths. He leaps and grabs onto the burning-hot valve wheel to shut off the steam, then tells Rogo to lead the group. He loses his grip and falls to his death.

    Rogo leads the survivors — Manny, Martin, Nonnie, Susan and Robin — through the watertight door and into the propeller shaft room. They hear a noise above the ship and bang on the ceiling/floor to get the rescuers' attention. The rescuers cut through the hull and help the group out of the ship. The survivors, the only six alive after the disaster, fly to safety by helicopter.


    Gene Hackman as Reverend Scott
    Ernest Borgnine as Detective Lieutenant Mike Rogo
    Red Buttons as James Martin
    Carol Lynley as Nonnie Parry
    Roddy McDowall as Acres
    Stella Stevens as Linda Rogo
    Shelley Winters as Belle Rosen
    Jack Albertson as Manny Rosen
    Pamela Sue Martin as Susan Shelby
    Arthur O'Connell as Chaplain John
    Eric Shea as Robin Shelby
    Leslie Nielsen as Captain Harrison
    Fred Sadoff as Mr. Linarcos
    Byron Webster as the Purser
    Jan Arvan as Dr. Caravello
    Sheila Allen (Billed as Sheila Mathews) as the ship's nurse
    John Crawford as Chief Engineer
    Erik L. Nelson as Mr. Tinkham
    Ernie Orsatti as Terry


    The film earned estimated rentals of $40 million in North America in 1973.[4]

    The Poseidon Adventure has received largely positive reviews, with review aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reporting 79% of 24 critics gave the film a positive review, with an above average score of 6.8/10.[5]

    When the film made its network television premier on October 27, 1974, it earned a 39.0 household share making it the sixth highest film to ever air on network television.[6]

    In recent years, the film has garnered a strong cult-like following.[7] It has been released on Blu-Ray and DVD.


    The film won two Academy Awards,[8] a Golden Globe Award, a British Academy Film Award and a Motion Picture Sound Editors Award.[9]

    Award wins

    Academy Award for Best Original Song - (Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn) for the song "The Morning After"
    Special Achievement Academy Award for Visual Effects - (L.B. Abbott and A.D. Flowers)
    Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture - Shelley Winters
    BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role - (Gene Hackman)
    Motion Picture Sound Editors Award for Best Sound Editing

    Award nominations

    Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress - (Shelley Winters)
    Academy Award for Best Production Design - (William J. Creber and Raphael Bretton)
    Academy Award for Best Cinematography - (Harold E. Stine)
    Academy Award for Best Costume Design - (Paul Zastupnevich)
    Academy Award for Best Film Editing - (Harold F. Kress)
    Academy Award for Best Original Dramatic Score - (John Williams)
    Academy Award for Best Sound Mixing - (Theodore Soderberg and Herman Lewis)
    Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture – Drama
    Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score - (John Williams)
    Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song - (Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn) for the song "The Morning After"
    BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role - (Shelley Winters)
    American Cinema Editors Award for Best Edited Feature Film - Harold F. Kress
    Satellite Awards - Best Extras DVD

    See also

    The Poseidon Adventure (book)
    Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979)
    The Poseidon Adventure (2005)
    Poseidon (2006)
    Poseidon (fictional ship)
    SS Andrea Doria
    Survival film, about the film genre, with a list of related films


    1.^ Solomon, Aubrey. Twentieth Century Fox: A Corporate and Financial History (The Scarecrow Filmmakers Series). Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 1989. ISBN 978-0-8108-4244-1. p256
    2.^ "The Poseidon Adventure, Box Office Information". The Numbers. Retrieved January 21, 2012.
    3.^ "The Poseidon Adventure (Stereo): Limited Edition". La-La Land Records. Retrieved October 19, 2012.
    4.^ "Big Rental Films of 1973", Variety, 9 January 1974 p 19
    5.^, retrieved 2011-05-10
    6.^ The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946-Present. Ballantine Books. 2003. p. 805. ISBN 0-345-45542-8.
    7.^ Vinciguerra, Thomas (2006-05-07). "Underwater, and Over the Top in 1972". The New York Times.
    8.^ "The 45th Academy Awards (1973) Nominees and Winners". Retrieved 2011-08-28.
    9.^ "NY Times: The Poseidon Adventure". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-28.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 The-poseidon-adventure-wallpapers_26483_1024x768
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 PoseidonPic2
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 PA02

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:51 pm

    I really don't want to make this post. It's very upsetting for me to think about. What might have happened if the Third Reich had been completely-peaceful, non-discriminatory, and non-persecutorial?? You know -- just the 'good-side' of Hitler, the Nazis, and the Third Reich. To get the ball rolling, consider this Q&A regarding what would've happened if the Nazis had won WWII. Obviously, this does not simply look at the 'good-side' of the Nazis. Some say that the Nazis really DID Win WWII. The Ancient Egyptian Deity seemed to be particularly interested in Hitler and the Nazis. I think I might know why -- but I'm NOT going to talk about it. Once again, I don't necessarily refer to the most scholarly or respectable sources. I go for a cross-section. This is really a road less traveled. I'm not writing a dissertation. I'm simply trying to help all of us think about difficult and controversial subjects. I keep thinking that we should study ALL of History -- and positively reinforce the Best of EVERYTHING (even from highly tainted sources). What if the Nazis presently control the solar system?? What was and/or is the relationship between the Nazis and Gizeh Intelligence?? Did they initially help the Nazis?? Did the Nazis turn on Gizeh Intelligence?? Did Gizeh Intelligence pull the plug on the Nazis in 1941?? What Would Al Bielek Say?? Is a United States of the Solar System vulnerable to a Nazi-like scenario?? My theory is that numerous idealistic plans have been hijacked and subverted in violent and corrupt ways -- throughout history.

    The Ancient Egyptian Deity told me that they had always remained one step ahead of humanity. The AED said that I was one of two humans who they considered to be friends. The AED was tired of keeping me alive. The AED said "in twenty years -- you'll be working for us". They also implied that I would somehow go out of control (or something to that effect). The AED pointed to Serqet as being significant regarding our relationship. The AED implied that I might not have a choice regarding obeying them. The AED told me that I was lucky to be alive. The AED implied that I had changed my mind about something significant. The AED questioned my intention to do that which benefitted all concerned. The AED spoke of a hidden-female. The AED said they were more powerful than the Queen (but I'm not sure which one they were referring to). The AED indicated they had an important role in the development of Las Vegas (with Bugsy). The AED called me a 'commoner' when I made a comment about 'Tall Long-Nosed Greys'. The AED seemed to imply that I had somehow been a double-crosser (but I'm not sure about that). The AED asked me if I were ready to run things (or something to that effect). I said that things were too complicated for me to do that. The AED said I should do an FoIA. I did -- but with no response. The AED seemed to feel as if even human children were guilty of something quite bad. The AED had a crucifix (which they never showed me). The AED showed me their handgun. If you see a small and very detailed model antique Mercedes -- that was a gift from me. I liked the AED in one way -- but they scared the hell out of me in another way.

    The AED seemed to be genuinely concerned (and even fearful) when I spoke of the last chapter of the book Great Controversy -- as they did when I spoke of the Bottomless-Pit. The AED said that we were both 'Ancient'. The AED called me 'Michael'. The AED told me that the one responsible for sacred classical music wasn't who I thought it might be (Lucifer). When I told the AED about childhood UFO interest -- they said they knew why. The AED spoke of 'Stolen Technology'. One night as we spoke -- the AED said they were 'close to God'. The AED implied that it was 'Over Rover' for the Human Race -- but later they seemed to indicate that it wasn't over -- but that it would've been better if humanity had been terminated. The AED indicated that there had been plans to terminate humanity -- including simultaneously detonating ALL nuclear devices. The AED implied that I'd be going somewhere without sunshine. The AED asked me if I would travel in a UFO?! The AED spoke of the sun in seemingly ominous terms. The AED seemed to offer some confirmation regarding the reptilians shown in the Hungry Earth and Cold Blood episodes of Dr. Who. They seemed to indicate that Isis was beautiful. Think long and hard about THAT. When I have watched various Hollywood depictions of archangelic conversation and debate -- it seemed a lot like what I had experienced with the AED -- very low-key -- but very intense and precise. I enjoyed our conversations at local coffee-shops -- even though I was fearful, paranoid, and questioning. It sometimes felt as if I were Chad Dekker -- indirectly asking Anna questions -- with Marcus serving as a mediator -- or something like that. It sometimes seemed as if their 'Marcus' presence was overshadowed by 'Anna'. The AED often spoke of their 'Mother'.

    I could say more. A lot more -- but I've said way too much already. I'm only relating this because so much time has passed since we have spoken to each other -- and because hardly anyone reads this thread. When I told the AED that I didn't plan on relating a lot of what we had discussed -- they replied 'that would be better'. I made no non-disclosure agreement with the AED -- but they didn't want me to be too revealing or too direct. I have tried to be very discreet in my 'revelations'. We seem to not be even close to 'working together'. I have been very restrained in revealing what I think was really going on between the AED and ME. Now, I'm going to rewatch Dogma. I seem to have had extensive contact with most of the characters -- as insane as that sounds. This includes 'Big Boy' and 'Loki' (a very long time ago). This whole thing is utterly insane. I think I'm somewhat insane -- but in a good way!! That sexy secret-government psychiatrist might be able to cure me -- but it might take numerous attempts over many years. The Agony and the Ecstasy!!

    What if Germany had won World War II?


    Many people wonder 'What if...' when reflecting upon major historical events. Fortunately, there are a lot of excellent fiction writers who ponder the same things we do. In fact, there is a whole genre of fiction dedicated to just such speculation called 'Alternate History' or 'Alternative History.' Here is a list of just a few Alternate History books that deal with the topic of WW2:

    In the Presence of Mine Enemies by Harry Turtledove
    Fatherland by Robert Harris
    Third Reich Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Germans Won the War by Peter G. Tsouras
    Disaster at D-Day: The Germans Defeat the Allies, June 1944 by Peter G. Tsouras
    The Hitler Options: Alternate Decisions of World War II by Kenneth MacKsey
    The Moscow Option: An Alternative Second World War by David Downing
    Invasion: The Alternate History of the German Invasion of England, July 1940 by Kenneth MacKsey
    Rising Sun Victorious: The Alternate History of How the Japanese Won the Pacific War by Peter G. Tsouras
    A Damned Fine War by William Yenne, Bill Yenne
    If Britain Had Fallen by Norman Longmate  


    They might have won if they didn't stop bombing the British airfields in 1940. The Japanese could never have won, because they were not aware of the mass industrial capabilities of the United States. So it's likely that Germany could have won if Hitler listened to his generals, and equipped his troops on the eastern front with winter clothings.


    Providing German troops with winter clothing would have been helpful to the comfort of the Germans that is true, but I very much doubt it would have had much difference on the outcome of war on the Eastern front. Military Strategy errors, and an opposing force with superior tanks in number and effectiveness, as well as seemingly unending man and woman power that had a fierce fighting ability that the Germans underestimated as well as the sheer size of the Soviet Union to try and conquer were major factors as well as the weather. For a near realistic view of what would have happened if Germany had won or at least forced a ceasefire without their own surrender, read Robert Harris's 'Fatherland' It is a fictionally written situation novel, but excellently written, for it so very nearly could have been. If Germany had won in Soviet Union in '41 (when the Germans had reached Moscow's gates), and Britain in '40, It could be that America and Nazi Germany may have been in a face off in a Cold War, much like the real one between the USA and USSR. If Nazi Germany had not declared war on America when Japan carried out the attacks on Pearl Harbor, there may have been no open hostilities between Nazi Germany and USA, and possibly, Japan, enraged by deceit by its ally may have declared war on Nazi Germany also. The Nazi conquered Soviet Union would have had plentiful supply of oil for Nazi Germany's war machine, Japan would find two large enemies a handful. Or maybe if Japan did not decalre war on Nazi Germany, small wars would have taken place globally, between American backed and Nazi Germany backed factions in countries around the world whilst America fought Japan. (Again as did happen in the real Cold war between USA and USSR.) It probably would depend on whether they wished to engage in such tactics, or just sit out the cold war, waiting and waiting for one side either to crumble, or offer hand of friendship and reconciliation and easing of stance, parralel to Gorbachev's ( then leader of Soviet Union)actions in the 80's, and Hitler's view of where America stood in his ideology, somewhere to be conquered, to be wary of, or a big country to make friends with.

    Of course in a cold war, hot war could break out any moment, and victory in the large USSR would have even more inflated the Nazi view of undefeatable superiority but Nazi Germany would have had to assemble a huge naval and aerial fleet to even attempt an invasion of America, the build up would have takan a while to do this, but the later the cold war dragged on from early fourties onwards, the more chance both sides would have nuclear weapons and assurance of mutual destruction. USA having Atomic and nuclear ability in '45, could possibly mean that Nazi Germany would also scramble to find WMD ability if they did not have the ability already (There was a factory in occupied Norway where they were looking at the means of making a H--bomb, only an allied sabotage raid stopped it, may not have been carried out with occupation and defeat of Britain which was a nerve centre of commando raids) Hitler may have softened with age (You never know!) but if not, his succesors or overthrowers would have been key. Nazism in Germany may well have imploded the longer it existed with the advent of new youth and dissillusionment. All in all, just one scenario in a scenario in a scenario.... that may have been. We will never know, all we can do to look at such matters and look at such a situation and assess any form of possible realism in discussion is speculate on such a matter by looking at history since WW2, and try to look at the political, social and geographical consequences of any alternate history.


    please excuse my spelling, im from Germany. if Germany would not have supported japan after pearl harbor and declared war on the united states, the American people would have never brought up the motivation to mobilize such a vast production of arms and masses of volunteer military personal. Surely, the war between japan and America would have ended in victory for America simply judging by the availability of raw oil which was the trigger for pearl harbor. But the main motivation for the people of America was the propaganda machinery of the USA government against nazi Germany (which today appears rather harmless to what horror realy went on within nazi teretories) and its allies. America would not have landet on the french coast and engaded in the war of Europe but would "temporaly" have all hands full with the war on japan. u must keep in mind; the American nuclear ability that endet the war agains japan was based on the work of nazi sientists imigrating or simply being kidnaped or arested after the fall of the 3rd Reich. so the war would probably not have ended in 45 but much later. so where are we? America busy with japan,.. no allied offensive in west Europe,.. Stalingrad taken by the Nazis now on their way towards moscow (thanks to the Reich´s ability to conzentrate large amounts of units in the east,.. No sherman tanks for british troops in north Africa,.. Germany being the first world power with nuclear weapons, jet planes(volksjaeger) and medium to long range missiles (V2)............................................. It would have ben a dark....dark future


    If Germany had won WW2, several things must have happened before hand. For example, Hitler actually letting the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, Kreigsmarine and the Waffen SS run the war and not himself. All of the officers in those departments were more worried about how much power they had instead of getting the job done which needed to be done. The plan was flawed in some respects. Germany should have invaded Britain when they had the chance. Either that or wait until 1945 to start the war when they would have more resources to spare but then again, the allied forces would have done the same. When Germany invaded Russia, USSR, they were driving to Moscow and then split to Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. What they could have done was take Moscow and spend the winter there. In the mean time, the built up forces along the supply routes to take Leningrad and Stalingrad while bring up supplies to enable the troops to survive the winter. North Africa could have been the decisvie campaign if Erwin Rommel would have gotten what he needed in a timely manner and if the Italian military so incompetent. If Germany had done so, the war would have been won, and there might be a chance that Americans and the Germans sign a peace accord. but who knows what would have happened? all we can really say is what Germany did wrong in the war and that we all might be speaking German this instant or the gestapo knocking on our doors to torture us before interrogations.


    Just not happening. Even if the US hadn't been involved at all, no lend-lease, nothing. Germany probably would have lost. The first Lend lease shipments didn't reach Russia until 1942. Taking moscow wouldn't have made a huge difference. The Soviets had already moved their production facilities behind the Ural mountains. That means that they weren't planning on giving up until the war got to at least that point. Germany's Supply lines were horribly over-extended. Of course it didn't help that Hitler was a psychopath and a bigot. If he had been a rational militarist he would have treated the Russian people decently and been welcomed as a saivior, especially in the Ukraine. Moscow was as far as the Germans could push, and after that the superior population and resources of the Soviet Union would crush them. What if he had though, through some miracle? perhaps by taking Britain, and/or the Suez and the oilfields of Iraq by fully supporting the pro-axis revolution there in 1941 (going through Vichy controlled Syria)? then slowly building until the point that the Soviet Union could be crushed and all of Eurasia,Affrica, and Oceanea could be brought under Axis control... A dark future indeed. On the other hand, peace could have been the Nazi party's worst enemy, reducing the drive toward national alignment and allowing the anti-nazi forces within the government to plan a revolution. The simple fact is that if the Generals who were involved in the bomb plot against him had known as much about explosives as the average modern American 12 year old (for example knowing that an unfuses block of explosives in the same bag as a fused block of explosives will be detonated by the fused block when it explodes) Hitler wouldn't have survived it.


    All the Germans would have needed to beat England was complete control over the skys. If the Luftwaffe had been able to wipe out the RAF then a similar landing to D-Day in the form of Operation Sealion would have been a success. A possible invasion strategy would have been to drop in parachute divisions, similar to that of normany, and to secure an airfield close to shore. Fly in several divisions to attack the coast at the same time as the landings would be taking place. The only problem is that Germany never thought such landings would be possible without securing a major port, which would still be incredibly difficult even with air superiority. If they could land on a stretch of beach close to an airfeild, with the use of similar Higgins boats, used at D-Day it could have been done. With Britain under attack Churchill would have pressed the Americans however, who may have responded, unless already occupied with the war in the pacific. So the Kreigsmarine would have been busy making certain to blockade Britain from Canadian and American supplies and/or reinforcments. With Britain occupied and taken care of the Nazi's could then head east. Being sure to start Barbarossa early enough in the year, to take moscow by the fall. Also securing better supply lines, and maintaining air superiority over the soviets would ensure quick victory. Hitler allowing his generals to work would have been helpful as well, and maybe allowing tactical retreats here and there would have been smart as well. As already said, heading into Russia as liberators and not torturing the civilians would have helped get many more deserters from the Red Army, as well as have civilians disobey Stalin's scortched earth policies, allowing the German army food and shelter. As far as North Africa was concerned Hitler should have driven to take Iraqi oilfields without as much resistance from British troops, as they were already defeated. Had Hitler actually been able to secure Nuclear weapons, the Nazis would surly have used them. America would not have made peace, since Canada was still at war with Germany, and the Germans invading Canada would for sure have brought the Americans in. In the end it is impossible to say if the Nazis ever could have won, whether they were overthrown in government, or defeated by the Americans. But had they taken England the war may well have turned for the worse, and dragged on for many more years, with unimaginable lasting reprucussions.


    Hitler was a brillant leader and oritor but lacked ability in war planning. Every day Germans saw the third Reich much as we see America today: justified in the undertaking of war to protect our homeland through any means necessary. Thus, I feel a victorious thied Reich would prosper after winning ww2. That said, German victory would have led to a much more stable world order in that many middle eastern states would be nazi colonies and a similar cold war senerio would have developed betheen the us and Germany as did with the ussr. Although with the defeat of russia Germany's econimic and industrial power would be great, Hitler's successors would be more easly seen as ineffectave and much less capable of running the state as the information age comes about (successors chosen by power,corruption, and non democratic means). As Hitler's influence fades, so does his Reich!


    The only way Germany wins the war is if it ends in 1940 after the Battle of France. AT BEST, Germany gets pre WWI borders, plus Austria, Sudetenland, Schleswig Holstein and Alsace Lorraine. From that point on Germany probably goes the route of Franco's Spain. Once the United States gets the A-Bomb in 1945, its an automatic victory for the Allies. The Manhattan project had very little to do with German scientists taken after the Allied occupation of Germany, but it DID have a lot to do with the emigration of Albert Einstein who left Germany precisely due to Hitlers fanatical anti-Semitism. Make no mistake about it, Hitler was NOT a good leader, if we judge Hitler by his own Machiavellian standards, he was a miserable failure, after all if the ends truly do justify the means, in the end Germany was in ruins.


    The question here is WHAT IF Germany had won the war, not HOW Germany could have won the war. Picturing a victorious Nazi Germany cannot be an easy task. The various forces and power centers within the Nazi system suppressed during the war would have no doubt boiled to the surface. It would only be the person of Hitler who would keep the system together. Hitler was obviously ailing towards the end of the war and it is doubtful that he would have lived much past, say 1950. Massive resettlement of Germans in the east would definitely have occured, at the expense of the local population ofcourse. Poles would be pushed east to make way for the arriving Germans. A victorious Nazi party would tighten its grip, even further, on life in the Reich, but its long term prospects would be vague. There can be no doubt that as time goes by other voices would appear. The United States would for sure not be very friendly to Germany, even more so if Britain had been invaded. Open hostilities between the United States and Germany, while not totally out of the question, is not likely, especially if Germany wins the way, meaning defeating Russia before Pear Harbor. A victorious Third Reich would not last for long, perhaps to the end of the century, but after this disintegration would happen. As to how Germany could have won the war itself, that is a different matter. I am one of those who believe that the invasion of Britain, operation Sealion, was not feasible and doomed to failure if undetaken. Germany's path to victory against Britain would be by taking an indirect route, by depriving Britain of its empire and bringing it to its knees economically, following Admiral Raeder's Mediterrerean strategy. Immediately following the fall of France, as air battles rage over the British skies, Hitler should push Mussolini into cooperating for an attack on Malta, which at the time was lightly defended. At the same time begin putting pressure on Franco to reach some agreement on an attack on Gibraltar, which is an alot more difficult nut to crack, but would still fall if faced with a determined German onslaught.

    An attack on Malta in, let's say, July 1940, would see the island fall in a week or so, maybe a little more. An attack on Gibraltar would take long to prepare for and longer to execute. An attack on late summer 1940, around September, could see the rock fall in a month or so. So there we have it, by October 1940 the Mediterranean has become an axis lake. Germany can now, with little diversions, build up its forces in Libya and attack Egypt, if it has not already done so. With the Mediterranean sealed to them, Britain might decide to evacuate it and not put up much of a fight for Egypt. The Suez canal would probably fall to the Germans and Italians before the end of the year. After a little regrouping the Germans can then move on into Palestine and the rich oilfields of Iraq. The Germans would also now more easily take Greece and hop over and take control of Cyprus. Turkey would now most likely read the writing on the wall and join the axis. Britain would have to give up at this point, Churchil would be kicked out, if he had not resigned by now. Germany would seem unstoppable. With plenty of oil at hand, total control over Europe, the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East, probably Iran as well (the Shah was pro-German), Britain would be unable to maintain its empire. India would be directly threatened from both Germany and Japan, which at this point would be eyeing the pacific with very greedy eyes. When Germany does invade the USSR, it will not only be a full frontal assault as it was historically, but the Germans would also push through the Caucasus and quickly grab the vital oil fields there. With such a pincer movement, Russia would crumble quickly. Japan might even take a direct interest in the Russian far east in this case.


    If Germany had won world war 2 i doubt Hitler would stop at conquering Europe. Being the man hes known to be he would attempt takin over pretty much the world. His power would grow with every country he took over. he wouldn't stop until the aryan race ruled the world.


    Finally! an intelligent answer to 'what if Germany had won ww2?' But! I don't believe that the superpower 3rd Reich would have ended up in a stalemate with the US. Japan was Hitler's ally. Without nazi scientists to make nukes and the third Reich helping Japan's effort - they would have annialated any opposition from the US. An invasion would have happened and the US would have come under axis control. The Nazi's weren't into stalemates, they were aggressors looking for your weakness. With that, the war would be over. Some people say, that if the axis had won, that it would have probably collapsed by the end of the century is difficult to say. The Nazi's weren't like us. If you rebelled, your whole family was slaughtered, your best friends, your colleagues, your dog! would be dead. Sure there would be resistance groups, but I don't think such a machine would loosen it's grip for a long, long time. Perhaps a thousand years. When Hitler died, chances are, he would chosen a successor, so no power struggle could ensue, thus keeping the empire together. It would have been rome with nukes! and rome lasted a long time, because no other force in the world had the ability to bring it down. Eventually, like rome, the 3rd Reich would have collapsed in on itself. but not till after 1000 years. It really was a fight between GOOD & EVIL. Thank God We Won!  


    The Nazi doctrine was another form of society, like democracy and communism, but much more radical. The goals of the state held importance, not those of the individual. Militarism was coveted, discipline to one leader, and the most radical departure, belief in racial struggle, where the so called Aryans, or those of Germanic blood are considered the pedigreed among the races of the human species. The problem with this philosophy is it doesn't bode well for non-Germans, who make up the majority population on the planet. So Nazi Germany was programmed to fail from the start. The odds that 80-90 million Germans could impose their will on all the other peoples of the earth were very long indeed.

    The Possibility of Germany winning ww2 was a very remote chance 1. Germany's Panzer Divisions would have drained many 100,000s of gallons of Gas/oil which meant that they could have drained a whole supply in 1 push towards a objective. Which means they wasted more resources to secure the objective. 2 The allies had superior numbers compared to the axis mainly because the Chinese ( Even though the Chinese didnt do much during ww2 but defend their territories during ww2,eventually they could have signed a decleration of war on Germany if the war dragged on in the 1950's)The Russians ,and the Us. The total of soldiers would have been in the 100 millions if the war dragged on.. 3. Germany vs America's Economic and Production power wasnt even in the same level of economic and Production Power... 4. Germany was loosing more soldierrs then they can replace. (They were using 14 year old boys to reinforce some of their lines)


    I think the Third Reich would have fallen within about thirty years, even if it had signed a peace treaty with America.
    1)The Nazi regime was a based on the personality cult of a psychotic. Leadership contests after Hitler had been put in a mental assylum could well have destroyed the regime. 2)The economic policies of the Nazis were largely based on huge national projects which are exhaustive (such as road building), and warfare. It is hard to invisage a successful Nazi ideology working in peacetime. 3)It is also hard to see how Nazism could translate to foreign countries during peace-time. It was based on German history (in opposition to French/British history) and the ideal of the Aryan German race. It would have been hard to avoid resistance building up in occupied countries that weren't at war. It wasn't like setting up a colony, where at first you had the advantage of guns and communications to suppress the natives. French and British governments would have to fashion their own ideology to keep the people suppressed, which would in time become so different that the Reich would split apart.
    4)Nazism encouraged IMBECILES. children growing up through Nazi youth were taught to be utterly stupid. it is hard to imagine a successful generation of leaders being created by it.


    Even if Germany had won, the Axis Empire wouldn't have lasted long. Hitler was too arrogant of a leader and the empire would have been too large to maintain.


    To give the Germans any chance at winning the Second World War, we must go even further to 1914. If Germany won those crucial victories in August 1914 and humbled the Triple Entente we could well have seen a world power in 1939. Also, with the diminishment of the Kaiser's influence and the growth of in popularity of small radical parties such as the Nazis. With Hitler still at the helm with a proper navy, an army that had never faced defeat nor the chaos of 1919 he could have well have won the war - for a while at least. With this massive army the obsolete Royal Navy would have been destroyed. With better leadership in the Luftwaffe, and a larger, professional army Britain would have collapsed in 1940. Yet it would still take 1 million men to occupy the isles. Even with the British Empire in collapse and the Nazis' Panzers rolling into the Middle East, the immensely strong capitalist Russia (remember Germany won in 1914 so the revolution of 1917 never happened) , once under attack, with expert leadership (no Stalin so no massacres) with an army rivalling that of Germany's could easily have pushed the Germans to the Oder. The Third Reich, a chaotic empire with too long supply lines still faced a war on two fronts - a guerrilla war in Britain and the Russians in 1943 The Japanese, in all this chaos, invaded the German islands in the west Pacific (no Versailles remember?) and would have helped the previous British colonies get back on their feet by giving them membership in their Sphere of Asian influence. As the Russians charged into Nazi Belorussia, the Germans, holding Einstein captive, developed and dropped two nuclear bombs on Russia. This however had little impact on the Russian advance. In the middle of all this, the United States eventually (inevitably) declared war on the Nazis for sinking their shipping (and being an annoyance)and along with Scots, Irish and Brits landed in Ireland and Scotland in 1945 and with 7 months had reclaimed Britain. In 1947 D-Day was triumphant and as both Russians and Americans sped towards Berlin, Hitler kills himself. World War 2 ends, 8 years after in began. As the capitalist Russians and Americans shook hands over the corpse of Germany, war clouds gathered over Japan and so on...


    I want to start answering this fascinating question by saying giving some of my credentials: I am 24 and working toward a PhD in Political Science with an emphasis on American Politics. This is clearly a comparative government and International Relations question and I hope that my History is up to date. First, Hitler would not have stopped until all of Russia west of the Urals, North Africa, and probably the middle east for oil reserves. Native ethinic groups of these areas most likely would have been enslaved and a new era of imperialism would have began. Germany would become the new Hegemon, bust most likely the age of intense Nazism would end with his death. Germany has a tradition of democracy and most of the leaders in order of sucession Hitler had hand picked (Donitz, etc) were not hardcore Nazis in the literal sense. They were of aristocratic blood, intellectuals, internationalist, and others who had suppressed their beliefs for their own selfish career oriented causes. The empire that was to last 1000 years would only probably have lasted as long as the Soviet Union proved to last, maybe even to a lesser extent. Germans had already experienced democracy and leaders upon Hitler's death would have probably slowly began an enlightened transformation back to such. A new cold war most likely would have developed as well. Those areas left unconquered by Germany would have remained either colonies of the former European nations such as Britain and France. France would most likely would have established a puppet regime but would have been left on its own to govern. Hitler didnt think lesser of the English, French, Spanish, or any other western country. Nazi sympathizers would have risen to power briefly in countries like Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa and thus new wars would have been encouraged in their respective local areas. thus, we could probably imagine Latin America ruled by Chile, Argentina, and/or Brazil, sub Sahara Africa ruled by the Afrikanas, and India still controlled by a more nazi sympathetic Britain. The only likely independent state unmoved by serious forms of nazism would be the the United States, due mostly to its ability to easily isolate itself from international conflict. But it wouldn't end there. social mobilization is inevitable in the third world and many disenfranchised groups would likely lead resistance movements against their fascist oppressors. These groups would likely see the former allied leaders as heros and martyrs, thus embrace ideologies vastly contradicting to Fascism.

    An alternate form of cold war may occur between the United States, which in no way could have ever possibly be beaten on its own soil by the Japanese or the Germans, and the fascist Europe. It would thus have been the US that supported and armed guerrillas in Latin America or in Africa against the Nazi leaning ideologists. Despite this, Germany would only have lasted as long as Hitler then most likely turned to Democratic forms gradually as not to obstruct the nazi leaning organizations. Germany would definitely however be the strongest nation in the world, even likely with oil reserves the most powerful nation on earth for a very long time unchallenged in superiority. It would have possessed the Atomic Bomb, missle technology, and a capitalist economy that would together dominate the world and surpas the United States in might. This proves most likely true, since missle technology was adopted by the US's welcoming of rocket scientists like Werner VonBraun. Jews most likely would cease to exist, or if they remained, in small numbers scattered throughout Siberia and the United States. The final solution would have been a total reality with no survivors. the plan may also have extended out to include more prominantly other ethnic and religious groups that werent western European or christain. Slovaks, Gypsies, and Poles, ofcourse would likely have been the initial targets included alongside Jews, followed maybe by Muslims, sub saharan africans, and maybe even possibly east Asian ethinic groups. Noone can predict the limits of Hitler's madness in this field. He simply hated so many groups that werent "Aryan" that anyone could have been a candidate. this is a fascinating question that only history could have answered. we can only all thank god that the simple answers to complex problems posed by Hitler didnt dominate after the war. We can for now say that we have preserved the principles of the enlightenment; the idea that each of us is equal before the law and that we are born with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property that would prove dificult for any fair government to take away.


    I believe that Hitler made many mistakes in his rulership as Dictator of Germany. One for example was letting the English and French troops escape at Calais across the English channel into the UK to come back and fight another day. Another one of Hitlers mistakes was the Invasion of the USSR. Just because Stalin was a communist, the notion of Hitler invading him was the biggest mistake ever. History tends to repeat itself even when the lesson is learned. Hitler created two fronts the day he invaded the USSR and thus had to divide his army to fight. Because of his strong alliance with Italy he had no fear for the time of getting invaded from the rear. But his West side exposed to the UK and of course the D-Day target the beaches of Normandy a place to just called for an invasion. Also the late introduction of the V1 and V2 rocket missles althoguh not very likely a turning point could have given the sneak dictator a few months to hold off the US and British attacks and try something. One of the biggest misteries is what Hitler was creating in those huge laboratories dug deep into mountains. Were all of them found were all even documented. You can look back and see Lionardo DiVinchi's drawings that were way ahead of his time, maybe a select handful of scientists were developing WMD's that surpass our greatest beliefs. I believe they created weapons and technlogies that either Stalin found and disclosed or Hitler hid so well that we still havent found them. I mean Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project with his inside spies in our State department and Pentagon resources whats to make us believe he found technology ,hid it ,and is passing it down until the time was ready.Could Hitler have been developing Cold fusion to power his war machines and is that why the Russian colleges and institues of science are soo astounded by it? Whatever the reason Hitler failed WWII because of novice mistakes and had he been more dependent and listened to his Generals and staff maybe we would all be speaking German or in some peoples case dead. And if we had decided to conquer the Pacific THeater rather than the European first what then would have happened. Could we have used the bomb on Berlin and other main German cities instead ofHiroshima and Nagasaki. Would that have scared the great USSR into backing down sooner during the Cold war or making the Mother country even more hungry for nuclear power.


    Hitler didnt 'let the British off' at Dunkirk. He stopped the Panzers because Goering assured him that the Luftwaffe could destroy the British without the Panzers help. At many points the Germans made errors. But so did the allies. If The French and Brits had attacked Germany in 1939, in the months after the invasion of Poland when the vast majority of the Wermacht were in the East the war would have been over. If the Brits and French had grouped their tanks together after the Panzer fashion instead of using them as infantry support, the Germans could have been thrown back, especially as the Germans found the Brit Matilda tanks impossible to knock out (though they would quickly become obsolete). And talking of the vetoed German jet engine, Wittle, the British RAF officer, had a viable Jet engine design in the late 1920's. If the RAF had put this into production then the Luftwaffe would have been shot out of the skies. Germany was winning in the early stages of the Battle of Britain because the RAF, outbnumbered 4 to 1 coudnt afford to lose the planes that the Germans could. This still doesnt take away from the fact that even massively outnumbered the British pilots were shooting down more planes than the Nazi airmen. Furthermore, the Nazis would have gained the A bomb years before the Manhattan Project if the Brits and Norwegians hadnt sabotaged their earlier attempts. That said the Manhatten project had little to do with Nazi scientists though its debatablt the moonlanding could have took place without them.


    At least two of the previous posts have made this false comment that the US atomic bomb was built with the help of "Nazi scientists". Not true. You are getting the Manhatten Project confused with the post-WWII rocket programs of the US and USSR, the race to develop ever bigger intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Space Race. The post-WWII rocket programs did indeed utilize a great many "Nazi scientist" - Germans who had worked for the Reich to build the V2 and V1 programs. The Manhatten Project had very few Germans - there were a number of European refugees, scientists like Teller and Fermi and Szilard, but a great deal of the work was done by American scientists and engineers. Hitler's racism drove the best and the brightest of European scientists to work for his enemies. It is hard to imagine the U.S. NOT getting involved in a war with Nazi Germany, whether Pearl Harbor occurred or not, whether Germany declared war on the U.S. or not. Roosevelt was increasingly getting the U.S. involved in supporting the British, through Lend-Lease, sending in military "observers", etc. For example, it is now known (although a secret for a long time) that when the British sank the Bismark, there was a U.S. Navy pilot helping the British to fly the American-built Lend Lease PBY seaplane that through pure luck spotted the damaged Bismark (after the British fleet had managed to lose track of it), and there was another U.S. Navy officer aboard one of the British battleships that engaged the Bismark in the final gun battle. Sooner or later, like Vietnam, these American military advisors would have gotten involved in some direct conflict against the Germans, and this would have been enough of an excuse for either the Germans or the U.S. to declare war.


    The ONLY scenario that I can think of where Germany won WW2 would have been if Germany had successfully built an atomic bomb before the Soviets did, and/or if the Germans had also built a fleet of strategic bombers, similar to the US B-29. Then, the Germans could have firebombed or atomic bombed all of the Soviet cities and heavy industry, similar to what the U.S. did later with Japan, and just wiped out the Soviets. With this capability, Germany also could have bombed Great Britain, and prevented the U.S. and British from building up the supplies and the forces for an invasion of Europe. This would also have prevented the U.S. and British from establishing the bombing campaign that crippled Germany's synthetic fuel plants, which was the final blow that wiped out Germany's ability to wage a modern, mechanized war. In such a scenariao, Germany would not be able to defeat the U.S. completely, just hold it at bay. And, so, as mentioned in some of the previous posts, in this scenario, Germany would replace the USSR in a post-WWII world as the dictatorship ruling Europe, and there would a similar nuclear standoff and Cold War with the U.S. In this same scenario, Nazi Germany would of course be able to complete the Final Solution and eliminate all traces of this genocide (I think many of the fictional accounts have this same idea). There would be no State of Israel, as there would be no surviving Jewish refugees. In fact, German troops would be in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, controlling the oil fields there. In their vaction time, the Nazi troops would take over British Palestine and do their best to eliminate the last vestiges of Jewish culture there as well. I agree with those who think that this Nazi Empire would not last beyond Hitler's lifetime. There would be too many former underlings fighting for power after Hitler's death.

    Read more:
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Swag_of_the_third_reich_by_themistrunsred-d57edoz
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 212994262
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Comission__renate_richter_by_fiorique-d62u1hy

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Thu Sep 26, 2013 4:30 pm; edited 3 times in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:53 pm

    Is it just me -- or do the absurdities just never seem to end?? Especially regarding the most important subjects?! The unimportant subjects seem to make perfect sense -- but the biggies seem to be somewhat insane. Those who try to get to the root of the most important things -- who try to solve the world's problems -- and who try to save the world -- are viewed as being dangerous and insane -- especially if they employ humour and irreverence as literary devices. Anyway, that last post sort of creeped me out -- so I'm going to change gears. I'll remain in Germany -- but I'm going to take another look at Martin Heidegger. I devoted a couple of previous posts to Heidegger -- but here is a slightly more scholarly and respectable source -- and respectability is most important -- is it not??

    Martin Heidegger

    First published Wed Oct 12, 2011

    Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) was a German philosopher whose work is perhaps most readily associated with phenomenology and existentialism, although his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification. His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy. They have also had an impact far beyond philosophy, for example in architectural theory (see e.g., Sharr 2007), literary criticism (see e.g., Ziarek 1989), theology (see e.g., Caputo 1993), psychotherapy (see e.g., Binswanger 1943/1964, Guignon 1993) and cognitive science (see e.g., Dreyfus 1992, 2008; Wheeler 2005; Kiverstein and Wheeler forthcoming).

    •1. Biographical Sketch
    •2. Being and Time◦2.1 The Text and its Pre-History
    ◦2.2 Division 1■2.2.1 The Question
    ■2.2.2 Modes of Encounter
    ■2.2.3 Being-in-the-World
    ■2.2.4 The Critique of Cartesianism
    ■2.2.5 Spatiality
    ■2.2.6 Being-with
    ■2.2.7 Care

    ◦2.3 Division 2■2.3.1 Death
    ■2.3.2 Anticipatory Resoluteness
    ■2.3.3 Temporality and Temporalizing
    ■2.3.4 Historicality and Historizing

    ◦2.4 Realism and Relativism in Being and Time

    •3. The Later Philosophy◦3.1 The Turn and the Contributions to Philosophy
    ◦3.2 Appropriation, Dwelling and the Fourfold
    ◦3.3 Technology
    ◦3.4 Safeguarding
    ◦3.5 Only a God can Save Us

    •Bibliography◦Primary Literature
    ◦Other Cited Words
    ◦Additional Reading

    •Academic Tools
    •Other Internet Resources
    •Related Entries


    1. Biographical Sketch

    Martin Heidegger was born in Messkirch, Germany, on September 26, 1889. Messkirch was then a quiet, conservative, religious rural town, and as such was a formative influence on Heidegger and his philosophical thought. In 1909 he spent two weeks in the Jesuit order before leaving (probably on health grounds) to study theology at the University of Freiburg. In 1911 he switched subjects, to philosophy. He began teaching at Freiburg in 1915. In 1917 he married Elfride Petri, with whom he had two sons (Jörg and Hermann) and from whom he never parted (although his affair with the philosopher Hannah Arendt, his student at Marburg in the 1920s, is well-known).

    Heidegger's philosophical development began when he read Brentano and Aristotle, plus the latter's medieval scholastic interpreters. Indeed, Aristotle's demand in the Metaphysics to know what it is that unites all possible modes of Being (or ‘is-ness’) is, in many ways, the question that ignites and drives Heidegger's philosophy. From this platform he proceeded to engage deeply with Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and, perhaps most importantly of all for his subsequent thinking in the 1920s, two further figures: Dilthey (whose stress on the role of interpretation and history in the study of human activity profoundly influenced Heidegger) and Husserl (whose understanding of phenomenology as a science of essences he was destined to reject). In 1915 Husserl took up a post at Freiburg and in 1919 Heidegger became his assistant. Heidegger spent a period (of reputedly brilliant) teaching at the University of Marburg (1923–1928), but then returned to Freiburg to take up the chair vacated by Husserl on his retirement. Out of such influences, explorations, and critical engagements, Heidegger's magnum opus, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit) was born. Although Heidegger's academic and intellectual relationship with his Freiburg predecessor was complicated and occasionally strained (see Crowell 2005), Being and Time was dedicated to Husserl, “in friendship and admiration”.

    Published in 1927, Being and Time is standardly hailed as one of the most significant texts in the canon of (what has come to be called) contemporary European (or Continental) Philosophy. It catapulted Heidegger to a position of international intellectual visibility and provided the philosophical impetus for a number of later programmes and ideas in the contemporary European tradition, including Sartre's existentialism, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, and Derrida's notion of ‘deconstruction’. Moreover, although most philosophers in the Anglo-American (Analytic) tradition remain apprehensive about a work that can seem to have arrived from some distant intellectual shore, that particular climate of suspicion now seems significantly less entrenched than it once did. This shift in reception is in no small way due to the way in which Being and Time, and indeed Heidegger's philosophy in general, has been presented and engaged with by thinkers such as Dreyfus (e.g., 1990) and Rorty (e.g., 1991a, b) who work somewhere near the interface between the two traditions. A cross-section of broadly analytic reactions to Heidegger (positive and negative) may be found alongside other responses in (Murray 1978). Being and Time is discussed in section 2 of this article.

    In 1933 Heidegger joined the Nazi Party and was elected Rector of Freiburg University, where, depending on whose account one believes, he either enthusiastically implemented the Nazi policy of bringing university education into line with Hitler's nauseating political programme (Pattison 2000) or he allowed that policy to be officially implemented while conducting a partially underground campaign of resistance to some of its details, especially its anti-Semitism (see Heidegger's own account in Only a God can Save Us). During the short period of his rectorship—he resigned in 1934—Heidegger gave a number of public speeches (including his inaugural rectoral address; see below) in which Nazi images plus occasional declarations of support for Hitler are integrated with the philosophical language of Being and Time. After 1934 Heidegger became increasingly distanced from Nazi politics. Although he didn't leave the Nazi party, he did attract some unwelcome attention from its enthusiasts. After the war, however, a university denazification committee at Freiburg investigated Heidegger and banned him from teaching, a right which he did not get back until 1949. One year later he was made professor Emeritus. Against this background of contrary information, one will search in vain through Heidegger's later writings for the sort of total and unambiguous repudiation of National Socialism that one might hope to find. The philosophical character of Heidegger's involvement with Nazism is discussed later in this article.

    After Being and Time there is a reorienting shift in Heidegger's philosophy known as ‘the turn’ (die Kehre). Exactly when this occurs is a matter of debate, although it is probably safe to say that it is in progress by 1930 and largely established by the early 1940s. If dating the turn has its problems, saying exactly what it involves is altogether more challenging. Indeed, Heidegger himself characterized it not as a turn in his own thinking (or at least in his thinking alone) but as a turn in Being. As he later put it in a preface he wrote to Richardson's ground-breaking text on his work (Richardson 1963), the “Kehre is at work within the issue [that is named by the titles ‘Being and Time’/‘Time and Being.’]… It is not something that I did, nor does it pertain to my thinking only”. The core elements of the turn are indicated in what is now considered by many commentators to be Heidegger's second greatest work, Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), (Beitrage zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)). This uncompromising text was written in 1936–7, but was not published in German until 1989 and not in English translation until 1999. Section 3 of this article will attempt to navigate the main currents of the turn, and thus of Heidegger's later philosophy, in the light of this increasingly discussed text.

    Heidegger died in Freiburg on May 26, 1976. He was buried in Messkirch.

    2. Being and Time

    2.1 The Text and its Pre-History

    Being and Time is a long and complex book. The reader is immediately struck by what Mulhall (2005, viii) calls the “tortured intensity of [Heidegger's] prose”, although if the text is read in its original German it is possible to hear the vast number of what appear to be neologisms as attempts to reanimate the German language. According to this latter gloss, the linguistic constructions concerned—which involve hyphenations, unusual prefixes and uncommon suffixes—reveal the hidden meanings and resonances of ordinary talk. In any case, for many readers, the initially strange and difficult language of Being and Time is fully vindicated by the realization that Heidegger is struggling to say things for which our conventional terms and linguistic constructions are ultimately inadequate. Indeed, for some thinkers who have toiled in its wake, Heidegger's language becomes the language of philosophy (although for an alternative and critical view of the language of Being and Time, see Adorno 1964/2002). Viewed from the perspective of Heidegger's own intentions, the work is incomplete. It was meant to have two parts, each of which was supposed to be divided into three divisions. What we have published under the title of Being and Time are the first two divisions of (the intended) part one. The reasons for this incompleteness will be explored later in this article.

    One might reasonably depict the earliest period of Heidegger's philosophical work, in Freiburg (1915–23) and Marburg (1923–6), before he commenced the writing of Being and Time itself, as the pre-history of that seminal text (although for an alternative analysis that stresses not only a back-and-forth movement in Heidegger's earliest thought between theology and philosophy, but also the continuity between that earliest thought and the later philosophy, see van Buren 1994, 2005). Viewed in relation to Being and Time, the central philosophical theme in these early years is Heidegger's complex critical relationship with Husserl's transcendental phenomenology—what Crowell (2005, p.49) calls “a dynamic of attraction and repulsion”—as driven by Heidegger's transformative reading of Aristotle. As early as a 1919 lecture course, for example, we find Heidegger arguing that Husserl's view (developed in the Logical Investigations, Husserl 1900/1973), that philosophy should renounce theory and concentrate on the things given directly in consciousness, is flawed because such givenness is itself a theoretical construct. For the young Heidegger, then, it is already the case that phenomenological analysis starts not with Husserlian intentionality (the consciousness of objects), but rather with an interpretation of the pre-theoretical conditions for there to be such intentionality. This idea will later be central to, and elaborated within, Being and Time, by which point a number of important developments (explained in more detail later in this article) will have occurred in Heidegger's thinking: the Husserlian notion of formal ontology (the study of the a priori categories that describe objects of any sort, by means of our judgments and perceptions) will have been transformed into fundamental ontology (a neo-Aristotelian search for what it is that unites and makes possible our varied and diverse senses of what it is to be); Husserl's transcendental consciousness (the irreducible thinking ego or subject that makes possible objective inquiry) will have been transfigured into Dasein (the inherently social being who already operates with a pre-theoretical grasp of the a priori structures that make possible particular modes of Being); and Husserlian intentionality (a consciousness of objects) will have been replaced by the concept of care or Being-in-the-world (a non-intentional, or perhaps pre-intentional, openness to a world).

    Each of these aspects of Heidegger's framework in Being and Time emerges out of his radical rethinking of Aristotle, a rethinking that finds its fullest and most explicit expression in a 1925–6 lecture course entitled Logik (later renamed Logik (Aristoteles) by Heidegger's student Helene Weiß, in order to distinguish this lecture course from a later one he gave also entitled Logik; see Kisiel 1993, 559, note 23). On Heidegger's interpretation (see Sheehan 1975), Aristotle holds that since every meaningful appearance of beings involves an event in which a human being takes a being as—as, say, a ship in which one can sail or as a god that one should respect—what unites all the different modes of Being is that they realize some form of presence (present-ness) to human beings. This presence-to is expressed in the ‘as’ of ‘taking-as’. Thus the unity of the different modes of Being is grounded in a capacity for taking-as (making-present-to) that Aristotle argues is the essence of human existence. Heidegger's response, in effect, is to suggest that although Aristotle is on the right track, he has misconceived the deep structure of taking-as. For Heidegger, taking-as is grounded not in multiple modes of presence, but rather in a more fundamental temporal unity (remember, it's Being and time, more on this later) that characterizes Being-in-the-world (care). This engagement with Aristotle—the Aristotle, that is, that Heidegger unearths during his early years in Freiburg and Marburg—explains why, as Sheehan (1975, 87) puts it, “Aristotle appears directly or indirectly on virtually every page” of Being and Time. (For more on Heidegger's pre-Being-and-Time period, see e.g., Kisiel 1993, Kisiel and van Buren 1994, and Heidegger's early occasional writings as reproduced in the collection Becoming Heidegger. For more on the philosophical relationship between Husserl and Heidegger, see e.g., Crowell 2001 and the review of Crowell's book by Carman 2002; Dahlstrom 1994; Dostal 1993; Overgaard 2003.)

    2.2 Division 1

    2.2.1 The Question

    Let's back up in order to bring Heidegger's central concern into better view. (The ‘way in’ to Being and Time that I am about to present follows Gelven 1989 6–7.) Consider some philosophical problems that will be familiar from introductory metaphysics classes: Does the table that I think I see before me exist? Does God exist? Does mind, conceived as an entity distinct from body, exist? These questions have the following form: does x (where x = some particular kind of thing) exist? Questions of this form presuppose that we already know what ‘to exist’ means. We typically don't even notice this presupposition. But Heidegger does, which is why he raises the more fundamental question: what does ‘to exist’ mean? This is one way of asking what Heidegger calls the question of the meaning of Being, and Being and Time is an investigation into that question.

    Many of Heidegger's translators capitalize the word ‘Being’ (Sein) to mark what, in the Basic Problems of Phenomenology, Heidegger will later call the ontological difference, the crucial distinction between Being and beings (entities). The question of the meaning of Being is concerned with what it is that makes beings intelligible as beings, and whatever that factor (Being) is, it is seemingly not itself simply another being among beings. Unfortunately the capitalization of ‘Being’ also has the disadvantage of suggesting that Being is, as Sheehan (2001) puts it, an ethereal metaphysical something that lies beyond entities, what he calls ‘Big Being’. But to think of Being in this way would be to commit the very mistake that the capitalization is supposed to help us avoid. For while Being is always the Being of some entity, Being is not itself some kind of higher-order being waiting to be discovered. As long as we remain alert to this worry, we can follow the otherwise helpful path of capitalization.

    According to Heidegger, the question of the meaning of Being, and thus Being as such, has been forgotten by ‘the tradition’ (roughly, Western philosophy from Plato onwards). Heidegger means by this that the history of Western thought has failed to heed the ontological difference, and so has articulated Being precisely as a kind of ultimate being, as evidenced by a series of namings of Being, for example as idea, energeia, substance, monad or will to power. In this way Being as such has been forgotten. So Heidegger sets himself the task of recovering the question of the meaning of Being. In this context he draws two distinctions between different kinds of inquiry. The first, which is just another way of expressing the ontological difference, is between the ontical and the ontological, where the former is concerned with facts about entities and the latter is concerned with the meaning of Being, with how entities are intelligible as entities. Using this technical language, we can put the point about the forgetting of Being as such by saying that the history of Western thought is characterized by an ‘onticization’ of Being (by the practice of treating Being as a being). However, as Heidegger explains, here in the words of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, “an ontic knowledge can never alone direct itself ‘to’ the objects, because without the ontological… it can have no possible Whereto” (translation taken from Overgaard 2002, p.76, note 7). The second distinction between different kinds of inquiry, drawn within the category of the ontological, is between regional ontology and fundamental ontology, where the former is concerned with the ontologies of particular domains, say biology or banking, and the latter is concerned with the a priori, transcendental conditions that make possible particular modes of Being (i.e., particular regional ontologies). For Heidegger, the ontical presupposes the regional-ontological, which in turn presupposes the fundamental-ontological. As he puts it:

    The question of Being aims… at ascertaining the a priori conditions not only for the possibility of the sciences which examine beings as beings of such and such a type, and, in doing so, already operate with an understanding of Being, but also for the possibility of those ontologies themselves which are prior to the ontical sciences and which provide their foundations. Basically, all ontology, no matter how rich and firmly compacted a system of categories it has as its disposal, remains blind and perverted from its ownmost aim, if it has not first adequately clarified the meaning of Being, and conceived this clarification as its fundamental task. (Being and Time 3: 31) (References to Being and Time will be given in the form of ‘section: page number’, where ‘page number’ refers to the widely used Macquarrie and Robinson English translation.)

    So how do we carry out fundamental ontology, and thus answer the question of the meaning of Being? It is here that Heidegger introduces the notion of Dasein (Da-sein: there-being). One proposal for how to think about the term ‘Dasein’ is that it is Heidegger's label for the distinctive mode of Being realized by human beings (for this reading, see e.g., Brandom 2002, 325). Haugeland (2005, 422) complains that this interpretation clashes unhelpfully with Heidegger's identification of care as the Being of Dasein, given Heidegger's prior stipulation that Being is always the Being of some possible entity. To keep ‘Dasein’ on the right side of the ontological difference, then, we might conceive of it as Heidegger's term for the distinctive kind of entity that human beings as such are. This fits with many of Heidegger's explicit characterizations of Dasein (see e.g., Being and Time 2: 27, 3: 32), and it probably deserves to be called the standard view in the secondary literature (see e.g., Haugeland 2005 for an explicit supporting case). That said, one needs to be careful about precisely what sort of entity we are talking about here. For Dasein is not to be understood as ‘the biological human being’. Nor is it to be understood as ‘the person’. Haugeland (2005, 423) argues that Dasein is “a way of life shared by the members of some community”. (As Haugeland notes, there is an analogy here, one that Heidegger himself draws, with the way in which we might think of a language existing as an entity, that is, as a communally shared way of speaking.) This appeal to the community will assume a distinctive philosophical shape as the argument of Being and Time progresses.

    The foregoing considerations bring an important question to the fore: what, according to Heidegger, is so special about human beings as such? Here there are broadly speaking two routes that one might take through the text of Being and Time. The first unfolds as follows. If we look around at beings in general—from particles to planets, ants to apes—it is human beings alone who are able to encounter the question of what it means to be (e.g., in moments of anxiety in which the world can appear meaning-less, more on which later). More specifically, it is human beings alone who (a) operate in their everyday activities with an understanding of Being (although, as we shall see, one which is pre-ontological, in that it is implicit and vague) and (b) are able to reflect upon what it means to be. This gives us a way of understanding statements such as “Dasein is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it” (Being and Time 4: 32). Mulhall, who tends to pursue this way of characterizing Dasein, develops the idea by explaining that while inanimate objects merely persist through time and while plants and non-human animals have their lives determined entirely by the demands of survival and reproduction, human beings lead their lives (Mulhall 2005, 15). In terms of its deep ontological structure, although not typically in terms of how it presents itself to the individual in consciousness, each moment in a human life constitutes a kind of branch-point at which a person ‘chooses’ a kind of life, a possible way to be. It is crucial to emphasize that one may, in the relevant sense, ‘choose’ an existing path simply by continuing unthinkingly along it, since in principle at least, and within certain limits, one always had, and still has, the capacity to take a different path. (This gives us a sense of human freedom, one that will be unpacked more carefully below.) This can all sound terribly inward-looking, but that is not Heidegger's intention. In a way that is about to become clearer, Dasein's projects and possibilities are essentially bound up with the ways in which other entities may become intelligible. Moreover, terms such as ‘lead’ and ‘choose’ must be interpreted in the light of Heidegger's account of care as the Being of Dasein (see later), an account that blunts any temptation to hear these terms in a manner that suggests inner deliberation or planning on the part of a reflective subject. (So perhaps Mulhall's point that human beings are distinctive in that they lead their lives would be better expressed as the observation that human beings are the nuclei of lives laying themselves out.)

    The second route to an understanding of Dasein, and thus of what is special about human beings as such, emphasizes the link with the taking-as structure highlighted earlier. Sheehan (2001) develops just such a line of exegesis by combining two insights. The first is that the ‘Da’ of Da-sein may be profitably translated not as ‘there’ but as ‘open’. This openness is in turn to be understood as ‘the possibility of taking-as’ and thus as a preintellectual openness to Being that is necessary for us to encounter beings as beings in particular ways (e.g., practically, theoretically, aesthetically). Whether or not the standard translation of ‘Da’ as ‘there’ is incapable of doing justice to this idea is moot—one might express the same view by saying that to be Dasein is to be there, in the midst of entities making sense a certain way. Nevertheless, the term ‘openness’ does seem to provide a nicely graphic expression of the phenomenon in question. Sheehan's second insight, driven by a comment of Heidegger's in the Zollikon seminars to the effect that the verbal emphasis in ‘Da-sein’ is to be placed on the second syllable, is that the ‘sein’ of ‘Da-sein’ should be heard as ‘having-to-be’, in contrast with ‘occasionally or contingently is’. These dual insights lead to a characterization of Dasein as the having-to-be-open. In other words, Dasein (and so human beings as such) cannot but be open: it is a necessary characteristic of human beings (an a priori structure of our existential constitution, not an exercise of our wills) that we operate with the sense-making capacity to take-other-beings-as.

    The two interpretative paths that we have just walked are not necessarily in conflict: in the words of Vallega-Neu (2003, 12), “in existing, Dasein occurs… as a transcending beyond beings into the disclosure of being as such, so that in this transcending not only its own possibilities of being [our first route] but also the being of other beings [our second route] is disclosed”. And this helps us to grasp the meaning of Heidegger's otherwise opaque claim that Dasein, and indeed only Dasein, exists, where existence is understood (via etymological considerations) as ek-sistence, that is, as a standing out. Dasein stands out in two senses, each of which corresponds to one of the two dimensions of our proposed interpretation. First, Dasein can stand back or ‘out’ from its own occurrence in the world and observe itself (see e.g., Gelven 1989, 49). Second, Dasein stands out in an openness to and an opening of Being (see e.g., Vallega-Neu 2004, 11–12).

    As we have seen, it is an essential characteristic of Dasein that, in its ordinary ways of engaging with other entities, it operates with a preontological understanding of Being, that is, with a distorted or buried grasp of the a priori conditions that, by underpinning the taking-as structure, make possible particular modes of Being. This suggests that a disciplined investigation of those everyday modes of engagement on the part of Dasein (what Heidegger calls an “existential analytic of Dasein”) will be a first step towards revealing a shared but hidden underlying meaning of Being. Heidegger puts it like this:

    whenever an ontology takes for its theme entities whose character of Being is other than that of Dasein, it has its own foundation and motivation in Dasein's own ontical structure, in which a pre-ontological understanding of Being is comprised as a definite characteristic… Therefore fundamental ontology, from which alone all other ontologies can take their rise, must be sought in the existential analytic of Dasein. (Being and Time 3: 33–4)

    It is important to stress here that, in Heidegger's eyes, this prioritizing of Dasein does not lead to (what he calls) “a vicious subjectivizing of the totality of entities” (Being and Time 4: 34). This resistance towards any unpalatable anti-realism is an issue to which we shall return.

    Dasein is, then, our primary ‘object’ of study, and our point of investigative departure is Dasein's everyday encounters with entities. But what sort of philosophical method is appropriate for the ensuing examination? Famously, Heidegger's adopted method is a species of phenomenology. In the Heideggerian framework, however, phenomenology is not to be understood (as it sometimes is) as the study of how things merely appear in experience. Rather, in a recognizably Kantian staging of the idea, Heidegger follows Husserl (1913/1983) in conceiving of phenomenology as a theoretical enterprise that takes ordinary experience as its point of departure, but which, through an attentive and sensitive examination of that experience, aims to reveal the a priori, transcendental conditions that shape and structure it. In Heidegger's Being-centred project, these are the conditions “which, in every kind of Being that factical Dasein may possess, persist as determinative for the character of its Being” (Being and Time 5: 38). Presupposed by ordinary experience, these structures must in some sense be present with that experience, but they are not simply available to be read off from its surface, hence the need for disciplined and careful phenomenological analysis to reveal them as they are. So far so good. But, in a departure from the established Husserlian position, one that demonstrates the influence of Dilthey, Heidegger claims that phenomenology is not just transcendental, it is hermeneutic (for discussion, see e.g., Caputo 1984, Kisiel 2002 chapter Cool. In other words, its goal is always to deliver an interpretation of Being, an interpretation that, on the one hand, is guided by certain historically embedded ways of thinking (ways of taking-as reflected in Dasein's preontological understanding of Being) that the philosopher as Dasein and as interpreter brings to the task, and, on the other hand, is ceaselessly open to revision, enhancement and replacement. For Heidegger, this hermeneutic structure is not a limitation on understanding, but a precondition of it, and philosophical understanding (conceived as fundamental ontology) is no exception. Thus Being and Time itself has a spiral structure in which a sequence of reinterpretations produces an ever more illuminating comprehension of Being. As Heidegger puts it later in the text:

    What is decisive is not to get out of the circle but to come into it the right way… In the circle is hidden a positive possibility of the most primordial kind of knowing. To be sure, we genuinely take hold of this possibility only when, in our interpretation, we have understood that our first, last and constant task is never to allow our fore-having, fore-sight and fore-conception to be presented to us by fancies and popular conceptions, but rather to make the scientific theme secure by working out these fore-structures in terms of the things themselves. (Being and Time 32: 195)

    On the face of it, the hermeneutic conception of phenomenology sits unhappily with a project that aims to uncover the a priori transcendental conditions that make possible particular modes of Being (which is arguably one way of glossing the project of “working out [the] fore-structures [of understanding] in terms of the things themselves”). And this is a tension that, it seems fair to say, is never fully resolved within the pages of Being and Time. The best we can do is note that, by the end of the text, the transcendental has itself become historically embedded. More on that below. What is also true is that there is something of a divide in certain areas of contemporary Heidegger scholarship over whether one should emphasize the transcendental dimension of Heidegger's phenomenology (e.g., Crowell 2001, Crowell and Malpas 2007) or the hermeneutic dimension (e.g., Kisiel 2002).

    2.2.2 Modes of Encounter

    How, then, does the existential analytic unfold? Heidegger argues that we ordinarily encounter entities as (what he calls) equipment, that is, as being for certain sorts of tasks (cooking, writing, hair-care, and so on). Indeed we achieve our most primordial (closest) relationship with equipment not by looking at the entity in question, or by some detached intellectual or theoretical study of it, but rather by skillfully manipulating it in a hitch-free manner. Entities so encountered have their own distinctive kind of Being that Heidegger famously calls readiness-to-hand. Thus:

    The less we just stare at the hammer-thing, and the more we seize hold of it and use it, the more primordial does our relationship to it become, and the more unveiledly is it encountered as that which it is—as equipment. The hammering itself uncovers the specific ‘manipulability’ of the hammer. The kind of Being which equipment possesses—in which it manifests itself in its own right—we call ‘readiness-to-hand’. (Being and Time 15: 98)

    Readiness-to-hand has a distinctive phenomenological signature. While engaged in hitch-free skilled activity, Dasein has no conscious experience of the items of equipment in use as independent objects (i.e., as the bearers of determinate properties that exist independently of the Dasein-centred context of action in which the equipmental entity is involved). Thus, while engaged in trouble-free hammering, the skilled carpenter has no conscious recognition of the hammer, the nails, or the work-bench, in the way that one would if one simply stood back and thought about them. Tools-in-use become phenomenologically transparent. Moreover, Heidegger claims, not only are the hammer, nails, and work-bench in this way not part of the engaged carpenter's phenomenal world, neither, in a sense, is the carpenter. The carpenter becomes absorbed in his activity in such a way that he has no awareness of himself as a subject over and against a world of objects. Crucially, it does not follow from this analysis that Dasein's behaviour in such contexts is automatic, in the sense of there being no awareness present at all, but rather that the awareness that is present (what Heidegger calls circumspection) is non-subject-object in form. Phenomenologically speaking, then, there are no subjects and no objects; there is only the experience of the ongoing task (e.g., hammering).

    Heidegger, then, denies that the categories of subject and object characterize our most basic way of encountering entities. He maintains, however, that they apply to a derivative kind of encounter. When Dasein engages in, for example, the practices of natural science, when sensing takes place purely in the service of reflective or philosophical contemplation, or when philosophers claim to have identified certain context-free metaphysical building blocks of the universe (e.g., points of pure extension, monads), the entities under study are phenomenologically removed from the settings of everyday equipmental practice and are thereby revealed as fully fledged independent objects, that is, as the bearers of certain context-general determinate or measurable properties (size in metres, weight in kilos etc.). Heidegger calls this mode of Being presence-at-hand, and he sometimes refers to present-at-hand entities as ‘Things’. With this phenomenological transformation in the mode of Being of entities comes a corresponding transformation in the mode of Being of Dasein. Dasein becomes a subject, one whose project is to explain and predict the behaviour of an independent, objective universe. Encounters with the present-at-hand are thus fundamentally subject-object in structure.

    The final phenomenological category identified during the first phase of the existential analytic is what Heidegger calls un-readiness-to-hand. This mode of Being of entities emerges when skilled practical activity is disturbed by broken or malfunctioning equipment, discovered-to-be-missing equipment, or in-the-way equipment. When encountered as un-ready-to-hand, entities are no longer phenomenologically transparent. However, they are not yet the fully fledged objects of the present-at-hand, since their broken, malfunctioning, missing or obstructive status is defined relative to a particular equipmental context. The combination of two key passages illuminates this point: First:

    [The] presence-at-hand of something that cannot be used is still not devoid of all readiness-to-hand whatsoever; equipment which is present-at-hand in this way is still not just a Thing which occurs somewhere. The damage to the equipment is still not a mere alteration of a Thing—not a change of properties which just occurs in something present-at-hand. (Being and Time 16: 103)

    And second:

    When something cannot be used—when, for instance, a tool definitely refuses to work—it can be conspicuous only in and for dealings in which something is manipulated. (Being and Time 68: 406)

    Thus a driver does not encounter a punctured tyre as a lump of rubber of measurable mass; she encounters it as a damaged item of equipment, that is, as the cause of a temporary interruption to her driving activity. With such disturbances to skilled activity, Dasein emerges as a practical problem solver whose context-embedded actions are directed at restoring smooth skilled activity.

    Although Heidegger does not put things this way, the complex intermediate realm of the un-ready-to-hand is seemingly best thought of as a spectrum of cases characterized by different modes and degrees of engagement/disengagement. Much of the time Dasein's practical problem solving will involve recovery strategies (e.g., switching to a different mode of transport) which preserve the marks of fluid and flexible know-how that are present in ready-to-hand contexts. In the limit, however (e.g., when a mechanic uses his theoretical knowledge of how cars work to guide a repair), Dasein's problem solving activity will begin to approximate the theoretical reasoning distinctive of scientific inquiry into present-at-hand entities. But even here Dasein is not ‘just theorizing’ or ‘just looking’, so it is not yet, in Heidegger's terms, a pure disengaged subject. With this spectrum of cases in view, it is possible to glimpse a potential worry for Heidegger's account. Cappuccio and Wheeler (2010; see also Wheeler 2005, 143) argue that the situation of wholly transparent readiness-to-hand is something of an ideal state. Skilled activity is never (or very rarely) perfectly smooth. Moreover, minimal subjective activity (such as a nonconceptual awareness of certain spatially situated movements by my body) produces a background noise that never really disappears. Thus a distinction between Dasein and its environment is, to some extent, preserved, and this distinction arguably manifests the kind of minimal subject-object dichotomy that is characteristic of those cases of un-readiness-to-hand that lie closest to readiness-to-hand.

    On the interpretation of Heidegger just given, Dasein's access to the world is only intermittently that of a representing subject. An alternative reading, according to which Dasein always exists as a subject relating to the world via representations, is defended by Christensen (1997, 1998). Christensen targets Dreyfus (1990) as a prominent and influential exponent of the intermittent-subject view. Among other criticisms, Christensen accuses Dreyfus of mistakenly hearing Heidegger's clear rejection of the thought that Dasein's access to the world is always theoretical (or theory-like) in character as being, at the same time, a rejection of the thought that Dasein's access to the world is always in the mode of a representing subject; but, argues Christensen, there may be non-theoretical forms of the subject-world relation, so the claim that Heidegger advocated the second rejection is not established by pointing out that he advocated the first. Let's assume that Christensen is right about this. The supporter of the intermittent-subject view might still argue that although Heidegger holds that Dasein sometimes emerges as a subject whose access to the world is non-theoretical (plausibly, in certain cases of un-readiness-to-hand), there is other textual evidence, beyond that which indicates the non-theoretical character of hitch-free skilled activity, to suggest that readiness-to-hand must remain non-subject-object in form. Whether or not there is such evidence would then need to be settled.

    2.2.3 Being-in-the-World

    What the existential analytic has given us so far is a phenomenological description of Dasein's within-the-world encounters with entities. The next clarification concerns the notion of world and the associated within-ness of Dasein. Famously, Heidegger writes of Dasein as Being-in-the-world. In effect, then, the notion of Being-in-the-world provides us with a reinterpretation of the activity of existing (Dreyfus 1990, 40), where existence is given the narrow reading (ek-sistence) identified earlier. Understood as a unitary phenomenon (as opposed to a contingent, additive, tripartite combination of Being, in-ness, and the world), Being-in-the-world is an essential characteristic of Dasein. As Heidegger explains:

    Being-in is not a ‘property’ which Dasein sometimes has and sometimes does not have, and without which it could just be just as well as it could be with it. It is not the case that man ‘is’ and then has, by way of an extra, a relationship-of-Being towards the ‘world’—a world with which he provides himself occasionally. Dasein is never ‘proximally’ an entity which is, so to speak, free from Being-in, but which sometimes has the inclination to take up a ‘relationship’ towards the world. Taking up relationships towards the world is possible only because Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, is as it is. This state of Being does not arise just because some entity is present-at-hand outside of Dasein and meets up with it. Such an entity can ‘meet up with’ Dasein only in so far as it can, of its own accord, show itself within a world. (Being and Time 12: 84)

    As this passage makes clear, the Being-in dimension of Being-in-the-world cannot be thought of as a merely spatial relation in some sense that might be determined by a GPS device, since Dasein is never just present-at-hand within the world in the way demanded by that sort of spatial in-ness. Heidegger sometimes uses the term dwelling to capture the distinctive manner in which Dasein is in the world. To dwell in a house is not merely to be inside it spatially in the sense just canvassed. Rather, it is to belong there, to have a familiar place there. It is in this sense that Dasein is (essentially) in the world. (Heidegger will later introduce an existential notion of spatiality that does help to illuminate the sense in which Dasein is in the world. More on that below.) So now, what is the world such that Dasein (essentially) dwells in it? To answer this question we need to spend some time unpacking the Heideggerian concept of an ‘involvement’ (Bewandtnis).

    The German term Bewandtnis is extremely difficult to translate in a way that captures all its native nuances (for discussion, see Tugendhat 1967; thanks to a reviewer for emphasizing this point). And things are made more complicated by the fact that, during his exposition, Heidegger freely employs a number of closely related notions, including ‘assignment’, ‘indication’ and ‘reference’. Nevertheless, what is clear is that Heidegger introduces the term that Macquarrie and Robinson translate as ‘involvement’ to express the roles that equipmental entities play—the ways in which they are involved—in Dasein's everyday patterns of activity. Crucially, for Heidegger, an involvement is not a stand-alone structure, but rather a link in a network of intelligibility that he calls a totality of involvements. Take the stock Heideggerian example: the hammer is involved in an act of hammering; that hammering is involved in making something fast; and that making something fast is involved in protecting the human agent against bad weather. Such totalities of involvements are the contexts of everyday equipmental practice. As such, they define equipmental entities, so the hammer is intelligible as what it is only with respect to the shelter and, indeed, all the other items of equipment to which it meaningfully relates in Dasein's everyday practices. This relational ontology generates what Brandom (1983, 391–3) calls Heidegger's ‘strong systematicity condition’, as given voice in Heidegger's striking claim that “[t]aken strictly, there ‘is’ no such thing as an equipment” (Being and Time, 15: 97). And this radical holism spreads, because once one begins to trace a path through a network of involvements, one will inevitably traverse vast regions of involvement-space. Thus links will be traced not only from hammers to hammering to making fast to protection against the weather, but also from hammers to pulling out nails to dismantling wardrobes to moving house. This behaviour will refer back to many other behaviours (packing, van-driving) and thus to many other items of equipment (large boxes, removal vans), and so on. The result is a large-scale holistic network of interconnected relational significance. Such networks constitute worlds, in one of Heidegger's key senses of the term—an ontical sense that he describes as having a pre-ontological signification (Being and Time 14: 93).

    Before a second key sense of the Heideggerian notion of world is revealed, some important detail can be added to the emerging picture. Heidegger points out that involvements are not uniform structures. Thus I am currently working with a computer (a with-which), in the practical context of my office (an in-which), in order to write this encyclopedia entry (an in-order-to), which is aimed towards presenting an introduction to Heidegger's philosophy (a towards-this), for the sake of my academic work, that is, for the sake of my being an academic (a for-the-sake-of-which). The final involvement here, the for-the-sake-of-which, is crucial, because according to Heidegger all totalities of involvements have a link of this type at their base. This forges a connection between (i) the idea that each moment in Dasein's existence constitutes a branch-point at which it chooses a way to be, and (ii) the claim that Dasein's projects and possibilities are essentially bound up with the ways in which other entities may become intelligible. This is because every for-the-sake-of-which is the base structure of an equipment-defining totality of involvements and reflects a possible way for Dasein to be (an academic, a carpenter, a parent, or whatever). Moreover, given that entities are intelligible only within contexts of activity that, so to speak, arrive with Dasein, this helps to explain Heidegger's claim (Being and Time 16: 107) that, in encounters with entities, the world is something with which Dasein is always already familiar. Finally, it puts further flesh on the phenomenological category of the un-ready-to-hand. Thus when I am absorbed in trouble-free typing, the computer and the role that it plays in my academic activity are transparent aspects of my experience. But if the computer crashes, I become aware of it as an entity with which I was working in the practical context of my office, in order to write an encyclopedia entry aimed towards presenting an introduction to Heidegger's philosophy. And I become aware of the fact that my behaviour is being organized for the sake of my being an academic. So disturbances have the effect of exposing totalities of involvements and, therefore, worlds. (For a second way in which worlds are phenomenologically ‘lit up’, see Heidegger's analysis of signs (Being and Time 17:107–114); for discussion, see Dreyfus 1990, 100–2, Cappuccio and Wheeler 2010.)

    As already indicated, Heidegger sometimes uses the expression ‘world’ in a different key sense, to designate what he calls the “ontologico-existential concept of worldhood” (Being and Time 14: 93). At this point in the existential analytic, worldhood is usefully identified as the abstract network mode of organizational configuration that is shared by all concrete totalities of involvements. We shall see, however, that as the hermeneutic spiral of the text unfolds, the notion of worldhood is subject to a series of reinterpretations until, finally, its deep structure gets played out in terms of temporality.

    2.2.4 The Critique of Cartesianism

    Having completed what we might think of as the first phase of the existential analytic, Heidegger uses its results to launch an attack on one of the front-line representatives of the tradition, namely Descartes. This is the only worked-through example in Being and Time itself of what Heidegger calls the destruction (Destruktion) of the Western philosophical tradition, a process that was supposed to be a prominent theme in the ultimately unwritten second part of the text. The aim is to show that although the tradition takes theoretical knowledge to be primary, such knowledge (the prioritization of which is an aspect of the ‘onticization’ of Being mentioned earlier) presupposes the more fundamental openness to Being that Heidegger has identified as an essential characteristic of Dasein.

    According to Heidegger, Descartes presents the world to us “with its skin off” (Being and Time 20: 132), i.e., as a collection of present-at-hand entities to be encountered by subjects. The consequence of this prioritizing of the present-at-hand is that the subject needs to claw itself into a world of equipmental meaning by adding what Heidegger calls ‘value-predicates’ (context-dependent meanings) to the present-at-hand. In stark contrast, Heidegger's own view is that Dasein is in primary epistemic contact not with context-independent present-at-hand primitives (e.g., raw sense data, such as a ‘pure’ experience of a patch of red), to which context-dependent meaning would need to be added via value-predicates, but rather with equipment, the kind of entity whose mode of Being is readiness-to-hand and which therefore comes already laden with context-dependent significance. What is perhaps Heidegger's best statement of this opposition comes later in Being and Time.

    What we ‘first’ hear is never noises or complexes of sounds, but the creaking waggon, the motor-cycle. We hear the column on the march, the north wind, the woodpecker tapping, the fire crackling… It requires a very artificial and complicated frame of mind to ‘hear’ a ‘pure noise’. The fact that motor-cycles and waggons are what we proximally hear is the phenomenal evidence that in every case Dasein, as Being-in-the-world, already dwells alongside what is ready-to-hand within-the-world; it certainly does not dwell proximally alongside ‘sensations’; nor would it first have to give shape to the swirl of sensations to provide a springboard from which the subject leaps off and finally arrives at a ‘world’. Dasein, as essentially understanding, is proximally alongside what is understood. (Being and Time 34: 207)

    For Heidegger, then, we start not with the present-at-hand, moving to the ready-to-hand by adding value-predicates, but with the ready-to-hand, moving to the present-at-hand by stripping away the holistic networks of everyday equipmental meaning. It seems clear, then, that our two positions are diametrically opposed to each other, but why should we favour Heidegger's framework over Descartes'? Heidegger's flagship argument here is that the systematic addition of value-predicates to present-at-hand primitives cannot transform our encounters with those objects into encounters with equipment. It comes in the following brief but dense passage: “Adding on value-predicates cannot tell us anything at all new about the Being of goods, but would merely presuppose again that goods have pure presence-at-hand as their kind of Being. Values would then be determinate characteristics which a thing possesses, and they would be present-at-hand”(Being and Time 21: 132). In other words, once we have assumed that we begin with the present-at-hand, values must take the form of determinate features of objects, and therefore constitute nothing but more present-at-hand structures. And if you add more present-at-hand structures to some existing present-at-hand structures, what you end up with is not equipmental meaning (totalities of involvements) but merely a larger number of present-at-hand structures.

    Heidegger's argument here is (at best) incomplete (for discussion, see Dreyfus 1990, Wheeler 2005). The defender of Cartesianism might concede that present-at-hand entities have determinate properties, but wonder why the fact that an entity has determinate properties is necessarily an indication of presence-at-hand. On this view, having determinate properties is necessary but not sufficient for an entity to be present-at-hand. More specifically, she might wonder why involvements cannot be thought of as determinate features that entities possess just when they are embedded in certain contexts of use. Consider for example the various involvements specified in the academic writing context described earlier. They certainly seem to be determinate, albeit context-relative, properties of the computer. Of course, the massively holistic character of totalities of involvements would make the task of specifying the necessary value-predicates (say, as sets of internal representations) incredibly hard, but it is unclear that it makes that task impossible. So it seems as if Heidegger doesn't really develop his case in sufficient detail. However, Dreyfus (1990) pursues a response that Heidegger might have given, one that draws on the familiar philosophical distinction between knowing-how and knowing-that. It seems that value-predicates constitute a form of knowing-that (i.e., knowing that an entity has a certain context-dependent property) whereas the circumspective knowledge of totalities of involvements (Dasein's skilled practical activity) constitutes a form of knowing-how (i.e., knowing how to use equipment in appropriate ways; see the characterization of readiness-to-hand given earlier). Given the plausible (although not universally held) assumption that knowing-how cannot be reduced to knowledge-that, this would explain why value-predicates are simply the wrong sort of structures to capture the phenomenon of world-embeddedness.

    2.2.5 Spatiality

    In the wake of his critique of Cartesianism, Heidegger turns his attention to spatiality. He argues that Dasein dwells in the world in a spatial manner, but that the spatiality in question—Dasein's existential spatiality—cannot be a matter of Dasein being located at a particular co-ordinate in physical, Cartesian space. That would be to conceive of Dasein as present-at-hand, and presence-at-hand is a mode of Being that can belong only to entities other than Dasein. According to Heidegger, the existential spatiality of Dasein is characterized most fundamentally by what he calls de-severance, a bringing close. “ ‘De-severing’ amounts to making the farness vanish—that is, making the remoteness of something disappear, bringing it close” (Being and Time: 23: 139). This is of course not a bringing close in the sense of reducing physical distance, although it may involve that. Heidegger's proposal is that spatiality as de-severance is in some way (exactly how is a matter of subtle interpretation; see e.g., Malpas 2006) intimately related to the ‘reach’ of Dasein's skilled practical activity. For example, an entity is ‘near by’ if it is readily available for some such activity, and ‘far away’ if it is not, whatever physical distances may be involved. Given the Dasein-world relationship highlighted above, the implication (drawn explicitly by Heidegger, see Being and Time 22: 136) is that the spatiality distinctive of equipmental entities, and thus of the world, is not equivalent to physical, Cartesian space. Equipmental space is a matter of pragmatically determined regions of functional places, defined by Dasein-centred totalities of involvements (e.g., an office with places for the computers, the photocopier, and so on—places that are defined by the way in which they make these equipmental entities available in the right sort of way for skilled activity). For Heidegger, physical, Cartesian space is possible as something meaningful for Dasein only because Dasein has de-severance as one of its existential characteristics. Given the intertwining of de-severance and equipmental space, this licenses the radical view (one that is consistent with Heidegger's prior treatment of Cartesianism) that physical, Cartesian space (as something that we can find intelligible) presupposes equipmental space; the former is the present-at-hand phenomenon that is revealed if we strip away the worldhood from the latter.

    Malpas (forthcoming) rejects the account of spatiality given in Being and Time. Drawing on Kant, he argues that “[any] agent, insofar as it is capable of action at all (that is, insofar as it is, indeed, an agent), acts in a space that is an objective space, in which other agents also act, and yet which is always immediately configured subjectively in terms of the agent's own oriented locatedness” (Malpas forthcoming, 14). According to Malpas, then, equipmental space (a space ordered in terms of practical activity and within which an agent acts) presupposes a more fundamental notion of space as a complex unity with objective, intersubjective and subjective dimensions. If this is right, then of course equipmental space cannot itself explain the spatial. A further problem, as Malpas also notes, is that the whole issue of spatiality brings into sharp focus the awkward relationship that Heidegger has with the body in Being and Time. In what is now a frequently quoted remark, Heidegger sets aside Dasein's embodiment, commenting that “this ‘bodily nature’ hides a whole problematic of its own, though we shall not treat it here” (Being and Time 23: 143). Indeed, at times, Heidegger might be interpreted as linking embodiment with Thinghood. For example: “[as] Dasein goes along its ways, it does not measure off a stretch of space as a corporeal Thing which is present-at-hand” (Being and Time 23: 140). Here one might plausibly contain the spread of presence-at-hand by appealing to a distinction between material (present-at-hand) and lived (existential) ways in which Dasein is embodied. Unfortunately this distinction isn't made in Being and Time (a point noted by Ricouer 1992, 327), although Heidegger does adopt it in the much later Seminar in Le Thor (see Malpas forthcoming, 5). What seems clear, however, is that while the Heidegger of Being and Time seems to hold that Dasein's embodiment somehow depends on its existential spatiality (see e.g., 23: 143), the more obvious thing to say is that Dasein's existential spatiality somehow depends on its embodiment.

    Before leaving this issue, it is worth noting briefly that space reappears later in Being and Time (70: 418–21), where Heidegger argues that existential space is derived from temporality. This makes sense within Heidegger's overall project, because, as we shall see, the deep structure of totalities of involvements (and thus of equipmental space) is finally understood in terms of temporality. Nevertheless, and although the distinctive character of Heidegger's concept of temporality needs to be recognized, there is reason to think that the dependency here may well travel in the opposite direction. The worry, as Malpas (forthcoming, 26) again points out, has a Kantian origin. Kant (1781/1999) argued that the temporal character of inner sense is possible only because it is mediated by outer intuition whose form is space. If this is right, and if we can generalize appropriately, then the temporality that matters to Heidegger will be dependent on existential spatiality, and not the other way round. All in all, one is tempted to conclude that Heidegger's treatment of spatiality in Being and Time, and (relatedly) his treatment (or lack of it) of the body, face serious difficulties.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Th?id=H.4953365241397387&pid=1

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:54 pm

    I continue to emphasize that this thread is just the beginning. It merely lays the groundwork for that which is to come. It involves a conditioning process which is frankly a mixture of sanity and insanity. It is intended as a mental and spiritual exercise. At this point, I'm just about ready to just focus on astronomy and sacred classical music -- and let everything else go. Perhaps I've paid my dues -- dealing with the devil -- and perhaps now it is time for me to deal exclusively with that which is heavenly. If there is any merit to my previous posting -- hopefully the right individuals will take things to the next level. Anyway, here is more Martin Heidegger. Perhaps studying Heidegger is a reasonable back-door approach to studying the Third Reich. Who knows??

    2.2.6 Being-with

    Heidegger turns next to the question of “who it is that Dasein is in its everydayness” (Being and Time, Introduction to IV: 149). He rejects the idea of Dasein as a Cartesian ‘I-thing’ (the Cartesian thinking thing conceived as a substance), since once again this would be to think of Dasein as present-at-hand. In searching for an alternative answer, Heidegger observes that equipment is often revealed to us as being for the sake of (the lives and projects of) other Dasein.

    The boat anchored at the shore is assigned in its Being-in-itself to an acquaintance who undertakes voyages with it; but even if it is a ‘boat which is strange to us’, it still is indicative of Others. The Others who are thus ‘encountered’ in a ready-to-hand, environmental context of equipment, are not somehow added on in thought to some Thing which is proximally just present-at-hand; such ‘Things’ are encountered from out of a world in which they are ready-to-hand for Others—a world which is always mine too in advance. (Being and Time 26: 154)

    On the basis of such observations, Heidegger argues that to be Dasein at all means to Be-with: “So far as Dasein is at all, it has Being-with-one-another as its kind of Being” (Being and Time 26: 163). One's immediate response to this might be that it is just false. After all, ordinary experience establishes that each of us is often alone. But of course Heidegger is thinking in an ontological register. Being-with (Mitsein) is thus the a priori transcendental condition that makes it possible that Dasein can discover equipment in this Other-related fashion. And it's because Dasein has Being-with as one of its essential modes of Being that everyday Dasein can experience being alone. Being-with is thus the a priori transcendental condition for loneliness.

    It is important to understand what Heidegger means by ‘Others’, a term that he uses interchangeably with the more evocative ‘the “they” ’ (das Man). He explains:

    By ‘Others’ we do not mean everyone else but me—those over against whom the ‘I’ stands out. They are rather those from whom, for the most part, one does not distinguish oneself—those among whom one is too… By reason of this with-like Being-in-the-world, the world is always the one that I share with Others. (Being and Time 26: 154–5)

    A piece of data (cited by Dreyfus 1990) helps to illuminate this idea. Each society seems to have its own sense of what counts as an appropriate distance to stand from someone during verbal communication, and this varies depending on whether the other person is a lover, a friend, a colleague, or a business acquaintance, and on whether communication is taking place in noisy or quiet circumstances. Such standing-distance practices are of course normative, in that they involve a sense of what one should and shouldn't do. And the norms in question are culturally specific. So what this example illustrates is that the phenomenon of the Others, the ‘who’ of everyday Dasein, the group from whom for the most part I do not stand out, is my culture, understood not as the sum of all its members, but as an ontological phenomenon in its own right. This explains the following striking remark. “The ‘who’ is not this one, not that one, not oneself, not some people, and not the sum of them all. The ‘who’ is the neuter, the ‘they’ ” (Being and Time 27: 164). Another way to capture this idea is to say that what I do is determined largely by ‘what one does’, and ‘what one does’ is something that I absorb in various ways from my culture. Thus Dreyfus (1990) prefers to translate das Man not as ‘the “they” ’, but as ‘the one’.

    This all throws important light on the phenomenon of world, since we can now see that the crucial for-the-sake-of-which structure that stands at the base of each totality of involvements is culturally and historically conditioned. The specific ways in which I behave for the sake of being an academic are what one does if one wants to be considered a good academic, at this particular time, in this particular historically embedded culture (carrying out research, tutoring students, giving lectures, and so on). As Heidegger himself puts the point: “Dasein is for the sake of the ‘they’ in an everyday manner, and the ‘they’ itself articulates the referential context of significance” (Being and Time 27: 167). Worlds (the referential context of significance, networks of involvements) are then culturally and historically conditioned, from which several things seem to follow. First, Dasein's everyday world is, in the first instance, and of its very essence, a shared world. Second, Being-with and Being-in-the-world are, if not equivalent, deeply intertwined. And third, the sense in which worlds are Dasein-dependent involves some sort of cultural relativism, although, as we shall see later, this final issue is one that needs careful interpretative handling.

    Critics of the manner in which Heidegger develops the notion of Being-with have often focussed, albeit in different ways, on the thought that Heidegger either ignores or misconceives the fundamental character of our social existence by passing over its grounding in direct interpersonal interaction (see e.g., Löwith 1928, Binswanger 1943/1964, Gallagher and Jacobson forthcoming). From this perspective, the equipmentally mediated discovery of others that Heidegger sometimes describes (see above) is at best a secondary process that reveals other people only to the extent that they are relevant to Dasein's practical projects. Moreover, Olafson (1987) argues that although Heidegger's account clearly involves the idea that Dasein discovers socially shared equipmental meaning (which then presumably supports the discovery of other Dasein along with equipment), that account fails to explain why this must be the case. Processes of direct interpersonal contact (e.g., in learning the use of equipment from others) might plausibly fill this gap. The obvious move for Heidegger to make here is to claim that the processes that the critics find to be missing from his account, although genuine, are not a priori, transcendental structures of Dasein. Rather, they are psychological factors that enable (in a ‘merely’ developmental or causal way) human beings to realize the phenomenon of Being-with (see e.g., Heidegger's response to the existentialist psychologist and therapist Binswanger in the Zollikon seminars, and see Dreyfus 1990, chapter 8, for a response to Olafson that exploits this point). However, one might wonder whether it is plausible to relegate the social processes in question to the status of ‘mere’ enabling factors (Gallagher and Jacobson forthcoming; Pöggeler 1989 might be read as making a similar complaint). If not, then Heidegger's notion of Being-with is at best an incomplete account of our social Being.

    2.2.7 Care

    The introduction of the ‘they’ is followed by a further layer of interpretation in which Heidegger understands Being-in-the-world in terms of (what he calls) thrownness, projection and fallen-ness, and (interrelatedly) in terms of Dasein as a dynamic combination of disposedness, understanding and fascination with the world. In effect, this is a reformulation of the point that Dasein is the having-to-be-open, i.e., that it is an a priori structure of our existential constitution that we operate with the capacity to take-other-beings-as. Dasein's existence (ek-sistence) is thus now to be understood by way of an interconnected pair of three-dimensional unitary structures: thrownness-projection-fallen-ness and disposedness-understanding-fascination. Each of these can be used to express the “formally existential totality of Dasein's ontological structural whole” (Being and Time 42: 237), a phenomenon that Heidegger also refers to as disclosedness or care. Crucially, it is with the configuration of care that we encounter the first tentative emergence of temporality as a theme in Being and Time, since the dimensionality of care will ultimately be interpreted in terms of the three temporal dimensions: past (thrownness/disposedness), future (projection/understanding), and present (fallen-ness/fascination).

    As Dasein, I ineluctably find myself in a world that matters to me in some way or another. This is what Heidegger calls thrownness (Geworfenheit), a having-been-thrown into the world. ‘Disposedness’ is Kisiel's (2002) translation of Befindlichkeit, a term rendered somewhat infelicitously by Macquarrie and Robinson as ‘state-of-mind’. Disposedness is the receptiveness (the just finding things mattering to one) of Dasein, which explains why Richardson (1963) renders Befindlichkeit as ‘already-having-found-oneself-there-ness’. To make things less abstract, we can note that disposedness is the a priori transcendental condition for, and thus shows up pre-ontologically in, the everyday phenomenon of mood (Stimmung). According to Heidegger's analysis, I am always in some mood or other. Thus say I'm depressed, such that the world opens up (is disclosed) to me as a sombre and gloomy place. I might be able to shift myself out of that mood, but only to enter a different one, say euphoria or lethargy, a mood that will open up the world to me in a different way. As one might expect, Heidegger argues that moods are not inner subjective colourings laid over an objectively given world (which at root is why ‘state-of-mind’ is a potentially misleading translation of Befindlichkeit, given that this term names the underlying a priori condition for moods). For Heidegger, moods (and disposedness) are aspects of what it means to be in a world at all, not subjective additions to that in-ness. Here it is worth noting that some aspects of our ordinary linguistic usage reflect this anti-subjectivist reading. Thus we talk of being in a mood rather than a mood being in us, and we have no problem making sense of the idea of public moods (e.g., the mood of a crowd). In noting these features of moods we must be careful, however. It would be a mistake to conclude from them that moods are external, rather than internal, states. A mood “comes neither from ‘outside’ nor from ‘inside’, but arises out of Being-in-the-world, as a way of such being” (Being and Time 29: 176). Nevertheless, the idea that moods have a social character does point us towards a striking implication of Heidegger's overall framework: with Being-in-the-world identified previously as a kind of cultural co-embeddedness, it follows that the repertoire of world-disclosing moods in which I might find myself will itself be culturally conditioned. (For recent philosophical work that builds, in part, on Heidegger's treatment of moods, in order to identify and understand certain affective phenomena—dubbed ‘existential feelings’—that help us to understand various forms of psychiatric illness, see Ratcliffe 2008.)

    Dasein confronts every concrete situation in which it finds itself (into which it has been thrown) as a range of possibilities for acting (onto which it may project itself). Insofar as some of these possibilities are actualized, others will not be, meaning that there is a sense in which not-Being (a set of unactualized possibilities of Being) is a structural component of Dasein's Being. Out of this dynamic interplay, Dasein emerges as a delicate balance of determination (thrownness) and freedom (projection). The projective possibilities available to Dasein are delineated by totalities of involvements, structures that, as we have seen, embody the culturally conditioned ways in which Dasein may inhabit the world. Understanding is the process by which Dasein projects itself onto such possibilities. Crucially, understanding as projection is not conceived, by Heidegger, as involving, in any fundamental way, conscious or deliberate forward-planning. Projection “has nothing to do with comporting oneself towards a plan that has been thought out” (Being and Time 31: 185). The primary realization of understanding is as skilled activity in the domain of the ready-to-hand, but it can be manifested as interpretation, when Dasein explicitly takes something as something (e.g., in cases of disturbance), and also as linguistic assertion, when Dasein uses language to attribute a definite character to an entity as a mere present-at-hand object. (NB: assertion of the sort indicated here is of course just one linguistic practice among many; it does not in any way exhaust the phenomenon of language or its ontological contribution.) Another way of putting the point that culturally conditioned totalities of involvements define the space of Dasein's projection onto possibilities is to say that such totalities constitute the fore-structures of Dasein's practices of understanding and interpretation, practices that, as we have just seen, are projectively oriented manifestations of the taking-as activity that forms the existential core of Dasein's Being. What this tells us is that the hermeneutic circle is the “essential fore-structure of Dasein itself” (Being and Time 32: 195).

    Thrownness and projection provide two of the three dimensions of care. The third is fallen-ness. “Dasein has, in the first instance, fallen away from itself as an authentic potentiality for Being its Self, and has fallen into the world” (Being and Time 38: 220). Such fallen-ness into the world is manifested in idle talk (roughly, conversing in a critically unexamined and unexamining way about facts and information while failing to use language to reveal their relevance), curiosity (a search for novelty and endless stimulation rather than belonging or dwelling), and ambiguity (a loss of any sensitivity to the distinction between genuine understanding and superficial chatter). Each of these aspects of fallen-ness involves a closing off or covering up of the world (more precisely, of any real understanding of the world) through a fascination with it. What is crucial here is that this world-obscuring process of fallen-ness/fascination, as manifested in idle talk, curiosity and ambiguity, is to be understood as Dasein's everyday mode of Being-with. In its everyday form, Being-with exhibits what Heidegger calls levelling or averageness—a “Being-lost in the publicness of the ‘they’ ” (Being and Time 38: 220). Here, in dramatic language, is how he makes the point.

    In utilizing public means of transport and in making use of information services such as the newspaper, every Other is like the next. This Being-with-one-another dissolves one's own Dasein completely into a kind of Being of ‘the Others’, in such a way, indeed, that the Others, as distinguishable and explicit, vanish more and more. In this inconspicuousness and unascertainability, the real dictatorship of the ‘they’ is unfolded. We take pleasure and enjoy ourselves as they take pleasure; we read, see, and judge about literature and art as they see and judge; likewise we shrink back from the ‘great mass’ as they shrink back; we find ‘shocking’ what they find shocking. The ‘they’, which is nothing definite, and which all are, though not as the sum, prescribes the kind of Being of everydayness. (Being and Time 27: 164)

    This analysis opens up a path to Heidegger's distinction between the authentic self and its inauthentic counterpart. At root, ‘authentic’ means ‘my own’. So the authentic self is the self that is mine (leading a life that, in a sense to be explained, is owned by me), whereas the inauthentic self is the fallen self, the self lost to the ‘they’. Hence we might call the authentic self the ‘mine-self’, and the inauthentic self the ‘they-self’, the latter term also serving to emphasize the point that fallen-ness is a mode of the self, not of others. Moreover, as a mode of the self, fallen-ness is not an accidental feature of Dasein, but rather part of Dasein's existential constitution. It is a dimension of care, which is the Being of Dasein. So, in the specific sense that fallen-ness (the they-self) is an essential part of our Being, we are ultimately each to blame for our own inauthenticity (Sheehan 2002). Of course, one shouldn't conclude from all this talk of submersion in the ‘they’ that a state of authenticity is to be achieved by re-establishing some version of a self-sufficient individual subject. As Heidegger puts it: “Authentic Being-one's-Self does not rest upon an exceptional condition of the subject, a condition that has been detached from the ‘they’; it is rather an existentiell modification of the ‘they’ ” (Being and Time 27: 168). So authenticity is not about being isolated from others, but rather about finding a different way of relating to others such that one is not lost to the they-self. It is in Division 2 of Being and Time that authenticity, so understood, becomes a central theme.

    2.3 Division 2

    2.3.1 Death

    As the argument of Being and Time continues its ever-widening hermeneutic spiral into Division 2 of the text, Heidegger announces a twofold transition in the analysis. He argues that we should (i) pay proper heed to the thought that to understand Dasein we need to understand Dasein's existence as a whole, and (ii) shift the main focus of our attention from the inauthentic self (the they-self) to the authentic self (the mine-self) (Being and Time 45: 276). Both of these transitions figure in Heidegger's discussion of death.

    So far, Dasein's existence has been understood as thrown projection plus falling. The projective aspect of this phenomenon means that, at each moment of its life, Dasein is Being-ahead-of-itself, oriented towards the realm of its possibilities, and is thus incomplete. Death completes Dasein's existence. Therefore, an understanding of Dasein's relation to death would make an essential contribution to our understanding of Dasein as a whole. But now a problem immediately presents itself: since one cannot experience one's own death, it seems that the kind of phenomenological analysis that has hitherto driven the argument of Being and Time breaks down, right at the crucial moment. One possible response to this worry, canvassed explicitly by Heidegger, is to suggest that Dasein understands death through experiencing the death of others. However, the sense in which we experience the death of others falls short of what is needed. We mourn departed others and miss their presence in the world. But that is to experience Being-with them as dead, which is a mode of our continued existence. As Heidegger explains:

    The greater the phenomenal appropriateness with which we take the no-longer-Dasein of the deceased, the more plainly is it shown that in such Being-with the dead, the authentic Being-come-to-and-end of the deceased is precisely the sort of thing which we do not experience. Death does indeed reveal itself as a loss, but a loss such as is experienced by those who remain. In suffering this loss, however, we have no way of access to the loss-of-Being as such which the dying man ‘suffers’. The dying of Others is not something which we experience in a genuine sense; at most we are always just ‘there alongside’. (Being and Time 47: 282)

    What we don't have, then, is phenomenological access to the loss of Being that the dead person has suffered. But that, it seems, is precisely what we would need in order to carry through the favoured analysis. So another response is called for. Heidegger's move is to suggest that although Dasein cannot experience its own death as actual, it can relate towards its own death as a possibility that is always before it—always before it in the sense that Dasein's own death is inevitable. Peculiarly among Dasein's possibilities, the possibility of Dasein's own death must remain only a possibility, since once it becomes actual, Dasein is no longer. Death is thus the “possibility of the impossibility of any existence at all” (Being and Time 53: 307). And it is this awareness of death as an omnipresent possibility that cannot become actual that stops the phenomenological analysis from breaking down. The detail here is crucial. What the failure of the ‘death of others’ strategy indicates is that in each instance death is inextricably tied to some specific individual Dasein. My death is mine in a radical sense; it is the moment at which all my relations to others disappear. Heidegger captures this non-relationality by using the term ‘ownmost’. And it is the idea of death “as that possibility which is one's ownmost” (Being and Time 50: 294) that engages the second transition highlighted above. When I take on board the possibility of my own not-Being, my own being-able-to-Be is brought into proper view. Hence my awareness of my own death as an omnipresent possibility discloses the authentic self (a self that is mine). Moreover, the very same awareness engages the first of the aforementioned transitions too: there is a sense in which the possibility of my not existing encompasses the whole of my existence (Hinman 1978, 201), and my awareness of that possibility illuminates me, qua Dasein, in my totality. Indeed, my own death is revealed to me as inevitable, meaning that Dasein is essentially finite. This explains why Heidegger says that death is disclosed to Dasein as a possibility which is “not to be outstripped” (Being and Time 50: 294).

    Heidegger's account of Dasein's relation towards the possibility of its own not-Being forms the backbone of a reinterpretation of the phenomenon of care—the “formally existential totality of Dasein's ontological structural whole” (Being and Time 42: 237). Care is now interpreted in terms of Being-towards-death, meaning that Dasein has an internal relation to the nothing (i.e., to not-being; see Vallega-Neu 2003, 21, for an analysis that links this ‘not’ quality to the point made earlier that sets of unactualized possibilities of Being are structural components of Dasein's Being). As one might expect, Heidegger argues that Being-towards-death not only has the three-dimensional character of care, but is realized in authentic and inauthentic modes. Let's begin with the authentic mode. We can think of the aforementioned individualizing effect of Dasein's awareness of the possibility of its own not-Being (an awareness that illuminates its own being-able-to-Be) as an event in which Dasein projects onto a possible way to be, in the technical sense of such possibilities introduced earlier in Being and Time. It is thus an event in which Dasein projects onto a for-the-sake-of-which, a possible way to be. More particularly, given the authentic character of the phenomenon, it is an event in which Dasein projects onto a for-the-sake-of-itself. Heidegger now coins the term anticipation to express the form of projection in which one looks forward to a possible way to be. Given the analysis of death as a possibility, the authentic form of projection in the case of death is anticipation. Indeed Heidegger often uses the term anticipation in a narrow way, simply to mean being aware of death as a possibility. But death is disclosed authentically not only in projection (the first dimension of care) but also in thrownness (the second dimension). The key phenomenon here is the mode of disposedness that Heidegger calls anxiety. Anxiety, at least in the form in which Heidegger is interested, is not directed towards some specific object, but rather opens up the world to me in a certain distinctive way. When I am anxious I am no longer at home in the world. I fail to find the world intelligible. Thus there is an ontological sense (one to do with intelligibility) in which I am not in the world, and the possibility of a world without me (the possibility of my not-Being-in-the-world) is revealed to me. “[The] state-of-mind [mode of disposedness] which can hold open the utter and constant threat to itself arising from Dasein's ownmost individualized Being, is anxiety. In this state-of-mind, Dasein finds itself face to face with the ‘nothing’ of the possible impossibility of its existence” (Being and Time 53: 310). Heidegger has now reinterpreted two of the three dimensions of care, in the light of Dasein's essential finitude. But now what about the third dimension, identified previously as fallen-ness? Since we are presently considering a mode of authentic, i.e., not fallen, Dasein, it seems that fallen-ness cannot be a feature of this realization of care, and indeed that a general reformulation of the care structure is called for in order to allow for authentic Being. This is an issue that will be addressed in the next section. First, though, the inauthentic form of Being-towards-death needs to be brought into view.

    In everyday Being-towards-death, the self that figures in the for-the-sake-of-itself structure is not the authentic mine-self, but rather the inauthentic they-self. In effect, the ‘they’ obscures our awareness of the meaning of our own deaths by de-individualizing death. As Heidegger explains: in “Dasein's public way of interpreting, it is said that ‘one dies’, because everyone else and oneself can talk himself into saying that ‘in no case is it I myself’, for this ‘one’ is the ‘nobody’ ” (Being and Time 51: 297). In this way, everyday Dasein flees from the meaning of its own death, in a manner determined by the ‘they’. It is in this evasion in the face of death, interpreted as a further way in which Dasein covers up Being, that everyday Dasein's fallen-ness now manifests itself. To be clear: evasion here does not necessarily mean that I refuse outright to acknowledge that I will someday die. After all, as I might say, ‘everyone dies’. However, the certainty of death achieved by idle talk of this kind is of the wrong sort. One might think of it as established by the conclusion of some sort of inductive inference from observations of many cases of death (the deaths of many others). But “we cannot compute the certainty of death by ascertaining how many cases of death we encounter” (Being and Time 53: 309).

    The certainty brought into view by such an inference is a sort of empirical certainty, one which conceals the apodictic character of the inevitability with which my own death is authentically revealed to me (Being and Time 52: 301). In addition, as we have seen, according to Heidegger, my own death can never be actual for me, so viewed from my perspective, any case of death, i.e., any actual death, cannot be my death. Thus it must be a death that belongs to someone else, or rather, to no one.

    Inauthenticity in relation to death is also realized in thrownness, through fear, and in projection, through expectation. Fear, as a mode of disposedness, can disclose only particular oncoming events in the world. To fear my own death, then, is once again to treat my death as a case of death. This contrasts with anxiety, the form of disposedness which, as we have seen, discloses my death via the awareness of the possibility of a world in which I am not. The projective analogue to the fear-anxiety distinction is expectation-anticipation. A mundane example might help to illustrate the generic idea. When I expect a beer to taste a certain way, I am waiting for an actual event—a case of that distinctive taste in my mouth—to occur. By contrast, when I anticipate the taste of that beer, one might say that, in a cognitive sense, I actively go out to meet the possibility of that taste. In so doing, I make it mine. Expecting death is thus to wait for a case of death, whereas to anticipate death is to own it.

    In reinterpreting care in terms of Being-towards-death, Heidegger illuminates in a new way the taking-as structure that, as we have seen, he takes to be the essence of human existence. Human beings, as Dasein, are essentially finite. And it is this finitude that explains why the phenomenon of taking-as is an essential characteristic of our existence. An infinite Being would understand things directly, without the need for interpretative intercession. We, however, are Dasein, and in our essential finitude we must understand things in a hermeneutically mediated, indirect way, that is, by taking-as (Sheehan 2001).

    What are we to make of Heidegger's analysis of death? Perhaps the most compelling reason for being sceptical can be found in Sartre, who argued that just as death cannot be actual for me, it cannot be one of my possibilities either, at least if the term ‘possibility’ is understood, as Heidegger surely intends it to be, as marking a way of my Being, an intelligible way for me to be. Sartre argues that death is the end of such possibilities. Thus:

    [The] perpetual appearance of chance at the heart of my projects cannot be apprehended as my possibility but, on the contrary, as the nihilation of all my possibilities. A nihilation which itself is no longer a part of my possibilities. Thus death is not my possibility of no longer realizing a presence in the world but rather an always possible nihilation of my possibilities which is outside my possibilities. (Sartre 1956, 537)

    If Sartre is right, there is a significant hole in Heidegger's project, since we would be left without a way of completing the phenomenological analysis of Dasein.

    For further debate over Heidegger's handling of death, see Edwards' (1975, 1976, 2004) unsympathetic broadsides alongside Hinman's (1978) robust response. Carel (2006) develops an analysis that productively connects Heidegger's and Freud's accounts of death, despite Heidegger's open antipathy towards Freud's theories in general.

    2.3.2 Anticipatory Resoluteness

    In some of the most difficult sections of Being and Time, Heidegger now begins to close in on the claim that temporality is the ontological meaning of Dasein's Being as care. The key notion here is that of anticipatory resoluteness, which Heidegger identifies as an (or perhaps the) authentic mode of care. As we have seen, anticipation is the form of Being-towards in which one looks forward to a possible way to be. Bringing resoluteness into view requires further groundwork that begins with Heidegger's reinterpretation of the authentic self in terms of the phenomenon of conscience or Being-guilty. The authentic self is characterized by Being-guilty. This does not mean that authenticity requires actually feeling guilty. Rather, the authentic self is the one who is open to the call of conscience. The inauthentic self, by contrast, is closed to conscience and guilt. It is tempting to think that this is where Heidegger does ethics. However, guilt as an existential structure is not to be understood as some psychological feeling that one gets when one transgresses some moral code. If the term ‘guilt’ is to be heard in an ethical register at all, the phenomenon of Being-guilty will, for Heidegger, be the a priori condition for there to be moral codes, not the psychological result of transgressions of those codes. Having said that, however, it may be misleading to adopt an ethical register here. For Heidegger, conscience is fundamentally a disclosive rather than an ethical phenomenon. What is more important for the project of Being and Time, then, is the claim that the call of conscience interrupts Dasein's everyday fascination with entities by summoning Dasein back to its own finitude and thereby to authenticity. To see how the call of conscience achieves this, we need to unpack Heidegger's reformulation of conscience in terms of anticipatory resoluteness.

    In the by-now familiar pattern, Heidegger argues that conscience (Being-guilty) has the structure of care. However, there's now a modification to the picture, presumably driven by a factor mentioned earlier, namely that authentic Dasein is not fallen. Since conscience is a mode of authentic Dasein, fallen-ness cannot be one of the dimensions of conscience. So the three elements of care are now identified as projection, thrownness and discourse. What is discourse? It clearly has something to do with articulation, and it is tempting to make a connection with language, but in truth this aspect of Heidegger's view is somewhat murky. Heidegger says that the “intelligibility of Being-in-the-world… expresses itself as discourse” (Being and Time 34: 204). But this might mean that intelligibility is essentially a linguistic phenomenon; or it might mean that discourse is intelligibility as put into language. There is even room for the view that discourse is not necessarily a linguistic phenomenon at all, but rather any way in which the referential structure of significance is articulated, either by deeds (e.g., by hammering) or by words (see e.g., Dreyfus 1991, 215; Dreyfus translates the German term Rede not as ‘discourse’ but as ‘telling’, and notes the existence of non-linguistic tellings such as telling the time). But however we settle that point of interpretation, there is something untidy about the status of discourse in relation to fallen-ness and authenticity. Elsewhere in Being and Time, the text strongly suggests that discourse has inauthentic modes, for instance when it is manifested as idle talk; and in yet other sections we find the claim that fallen-ness has an authentic manifestation called a moment-of-vision (e.g., Being and Time 68: 401). Regarding the general relations between discourse, fallen-ness and authenticity, then, the conceptual landscape is not entirely clear. Nevertheless, we can say this: when care is realized authentically, I experience discourse as reticence, as a keeping silent (ignoring the chatter of idle talk) so that I may hear the call of conscience; I experience projection onto guilt as a possible way of Being in which I take responsibility for a lack or a not-Being that is located firmly in my own self (where ‘taking responsibility for’ means recognizing that not-Being is one of my essential structures); and I experience thrownness as anxiety, a mode of disposedness that, as we have seen, leaves me estranged from the familiar field of intelligibility determined by the ‘they’ and thereby discloses the possibility of my own not-Being. So, reticence, guilt and anxiety all have the effect of extracting Dasein from the ontological clutches of the ‘they’. That is why the unitary structure of reticence-guilt-anxiety characterizes the Being of authentic Dasein.

    So now what of resoluteness? ‘Resoluteness’ is perhaps best understood as simply a new term for reticence-guilt-anxiety. But why do we need a new term? There are two possible reasons for thinking that the relabelling exercise here adds value. Each of these indicates a connection between authenticity and freedom. Each corresponds to an authentic realization of one of two possible understandings of what Heidegger means by (human) existence (see above). The first take on resoluteness is emphasized by, for example, Gelven (1989), Mulhall (2005) and Polt (1999). In ordinary parlance, to be resolved is to commit oneself to some project and thus, in a sense, to take ownership of one's life. By succumbing to, but without making any real commitment to, the patterns laid down by the ‘they’ (i.e., by uncritically ‘doing what one does’), inauthentic Dasein avoids owning its own life. Authentic Being (understood as resoluteness) is, then, a freedom from the ‘they’—not, of course, in any sense that involves extracting oneself from one's socio-cultural embeddedness (after all, Being-with is part of Dasein's existential constitution), but rather in a sense that involves individual commitment to (and thus individual ownership of) one of the possible ways to be that one's socio-cultural embeddedness makes available (more on this below). Seen like this, resoluteness correlates with the idea that Dasein's existence is constituted by a series of events in which possible ways to be are chosen.

    At this point we would do well to hesitate. The emphasis on notions such as choice and commitment makes it all too easy to think that resoluteness essentially involves some sort of conscious decision-making. For this reason, Vallega-Neu (2003, 15) reminds us that resoluteness is not a “choice made by a human subject” but rather an “occurrence that determines Dasein”. This occurrence discloses Dasein's essential finitude. It is here that it is profitable to think in terms of anticipatory resoluteness. Heidegger's claim is that resoluteness and anticipation are internally related, such that they ultimately emerge together as the unitary phenomenon of anticipatory resoluteness. Thus, he argues, Being-guilty (the projective aspect of resoluteness) involves Dasein wanting to be open to the call of conscience for as long as Dasein exists, which requires an awareness of the possibility of death. Since resoluteness is an authentic mode of Being, this awareness of the possibility of death must also be authentic. But the authentic awareness of the possibility of death just is anticipation (see above). Thus “only as anticipating does resoluteness become a primordial Being towards Dasein's ownmost potentiality-for-Being” (Being and Time 62: 354). Via the internal connection with anticipation, then, the notion of resoluteness allows Heidegger to rethink the path to Dasein's essential finitude, a finitude that is hidden in fallen-ness, but which, as we have seen, is the condition of possibility for the taking-as structure that is a constitutive aspect of Dasein. Seen this way, resoluteness correlates more neatly with the idea that human existence is essentially a standing out in an openness to, and in an opening of, Being.

    2.3.3 Temporality and Temporalizing

    In a further hermeneutic spiral, Heidegger concludes that temporality is the a priori transcendental condition for there to be care (sense-making, intelligibility, taking-as, Dasein's own distinctive mode of Being). Moreover, it is Dasein's openness to time that ultimately allows Dasein's potential authenticity to be actualized: in authenticity, the constraints and possibilities determined by Dasein's cultural-historical past are grasped by Dasein in the present so that it may project itself into the future in a fully authentic manner, i.e., in a manner which is truest to the mine-self.

    The ontological emphasis that Heidegger places on temporality might usefully be seen as an echo and development of Kant's claim that embeddedness in time is a precondition for things to appear to us the way they do. (According to Kant, embeddedness in time is co-determinative of our experience, along with embeddedness in space. See above for Heidegger's problematic analysis of the relationship between spatiality and temporality.) With the Kantian roots of Heidegger's treatment of time acknowledged, it must be registered immediately that, in Heidegger's hands, the notion of temporality receives a distinctive twist. Heidegger is concerned not with clock-time (an infinite series of self-contained nows laid out in an ordering of past, present and future) or with time as some sort of relativistic phenomenon that would satisfy the physicist. Time thought of in either of these ways is a present-at-hand phenomenon, and that means that it cannot characterize the temporality that is an internal feature of Dasein's existential constitution, the existential temporality that structures intelligibility (taking-as). As he puts it in his History of the Concept of Time (a 1925 lecture course): “Not ‘time is’, but ‘Dasein qua time temporalizes its Being’ ” (319). To make sense of this temporalizing, Heidegger introduces the technical term ecstases. Ecstases are phenomena that stand out from an underlying unity. (He later reinterprets ecstases as horizons, in the sense of what limits, surrounds or encloses, and in so doing discloses or makes available.) According to Heidegger, temporality is a unity against which past, present and future stand out as ecstases while remaining essentially interlocked. The importance of this idea is that it frees the phenomenologist from thinking of past, present and future as sequentially ordered groupings of distinct events. Thus:

    Temporalizing does not signify that ecstases come in a ‘succession’. The future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present. Temporality temporalizes itself as a future which makes present in a process of having been. (Being and Time 68: 401)

    What does this mean and why should we find it compelling? Perhaps the easiest way to grasp Heidegger's insight here is to follow him in explicitly reinterpreting the different elements of the structure of care in terms of the three phenomenologically intertwined dimensions of temporality.

    Dasein's existence is characterized phenomenologically by thrown projection plus fallenness/discourse. Heidegger argues that for each of these phenomena, one particular dimension of temporality is primary. Thus projection is disclosed principally as the manner in which Dasein orients itself towards its future. Anticipation, as authentic projection, therefore becomes the predominantly futural aspect of (what we can now call) authentic temporalizing, whereas expectation, as inauthentic projection, occupies the same role for inauthentic temporalizing. However, since temporality is at root a unitary structure, thrownness, projection, falling and discourse must each have a multi-faceted temporality. Anticipation, for example, requires that Dasein acknowledge the unavoidable way in which its past is constitutive of who it is, precisely because anticipation demands of Dasein that it project itself resolutely onto (i.e., come to make its own) one of the various options established by its cultural-historical embeddedness. And anticipation has a present-related aspect too: in a process that Heidegger calls a moment of vision, Dasein, in anticipating its own death, pulls away from they-self-dominated distractions of the present.

    Structurally similar analyses are given for the other elements of the care structure. Here is not the place to pursue the details but, at the most general level, thrownness is identified predominantly, although not exclusively, as the manner in which Dasein collects up its past (finding itself in relation to the pre-structured field of intelligibility into which it has been enculturated), while fallen-ness and discourse are identified predominantly, although not exclusively, as present-oriented (e.g., in the case of fallen-ness, through curiosity as a search for novelty in which Dasein is locked into the distractions of the present and devalues the past and the projective future). A final feature of Heidegger's intricate analysis concerns the way in which authentic and inauthentic temporalizing are understood as prioritizing different dimensions of temporality. Heidegger argues that because future-directed anticipation is intertwined with projection onto death as a possibility (thereby enabling the disclosure of Dasein's all-important finitude), the “primary phenomenon of primordial and authentic temporality is the future” (Being and Time 65: 378), whereas inauthentic temporalizing (through structures such as ‘they’-determined curiosity) prioritizes the present.

    What the foregoing summary of Heidegger's account of temporality makes clear is that each event of intelligibility that makes up a ‘moment’ in Dasein's existence must be unpacked using all three temporal ecstases. Each such event is constituted by thrownness (past), projection (future) and falling/discourse (present). In a sense, then, each such event transcends (goes beyond) itself as a momentary episode of Being by, in the relevant sense, co-realizing a past and a future along with a present. This explains why “the future is not later than having been, and having-been is not earlier than the Present”. In the sense that matters, then, Dasein is always a combination of the futural, the historical and the present. And since futurality, historicality and presence, understood in terms of projection, thrownness and fallenness/discourse, form the structural dimensions of each event of intelligibility, it is Dasein's essential temporality (or temporalizing) that provides the a priori transcendental condition for there to be care (the sense-making that constitutes Dasein's own distinctive mode of Being).

    (Some worries about Heidegger's analysis of time will be explored below. For a view which is influenced by, and contains an original interpretation of, Heidegger on time, see Stiegler's 1996/2003 analysis according to which human temporality is constituted by technology, including alphabetical writing, as a form of memory.)

    2.3.4 Historicality and Historizing

    In the final major development of his analysis of temporality, Heidegger identifies a phenomenon that he calls Dasein's historicality, understood as the a priori condition on the basis of which past events and things may have significance for us. The analysis begins with an observation that Being-towards-death is only one aspect of Dasein's finitude.

    [Death] is only the ‘end’ of Dasein; and, taken formally, it is just one of the ends by which Dasein's totality is closed round. The other ‘end’, however, is the ‘beginning’, the ‘birth’. Only that entity which is ‘between’ birth and death presents the whole which we have been seeking… Dasein has [so far] been our theme only in the way in which it exists ‘facing forward’, as it were, leaving ‘behind’ all that has been. Not only has Being-towards-the-beginning remained unnoticed; but so too, and above all, has the way in which Dasein stretches along between birth and death. (Being and Time 72: 425).

    Here Dasein's beginning (its ‘birth’) is to be interpreted not as a biological event, but as a moment of enculturation, following which the a priori structure underlying intelligibility (thrown projection plus falling/discourse) applies. Dasein's beginning is thus a moment at which a biological human being has become embedded within a pre-existing world, a culturally determined field of intelligibility into which it is thrown and onto which it projects itself. Such worlds are now to be reinterpreted historically as Dasein's heritage. Echoing the way in which past, present and future were disclosed as intertwined in the analysis of temporality, Dasein's historicality has the effect of bringing the past (its heritage) alive in the present as a set of opportunities for future action. In the original German, Heidegger calls this phenomenon Wiederholung, which Macquarrie and Robinson translate as repetition. Although this is an accurate translation of the German term, there is a way of hearing the word ‘repetition’ that is misleading with regard to Heidegger's usage. The idea here is not that I can do nothing other than repeat the actions of my cultural ancestors, but rather that, in authentic mode, I may appropriate those past actions (own them, make them mine) as a set of general models or heroic templates onto which I may creatively project myself. Thus, retrieving may be a more appropriate translation. This notion of retrieving characterizes the “specific movement in which Dasein is stretched along and stretches itself along”, what Heidegger now calls Dasein's historizing. Historizing is an a priori structure of Dasein's Being as care that constitutes a stretching along between Dasein's birth as the entity that takes-as and death as its end, between enculturation and finitude. “Factical Dasein exists as born; and, as born, it is already dying, in the sense of Being-towards-death… birth and death are ‘connected’ in a manner characteristic of Dasein. As care, Dasein is the ‘between’ ”(Being and Time 73: 426–7).

    It is debatable whether the idea of creative appropriation does enough to allay the suspicion that the concept of heritage introduces a threat to our individual freedom (in an ordinary sense of freedom) by way of some sort of social determinism. For example, since historicality is an aspect of Dasein's existential constitution, it is arguable that Heidegger effectively rules out the possibility that I might reinvent myself in an entirely original way. Moreover, Polt (1999) draws our attention to a stinging passage from earlier in Being and Time which might be taken to suggest that any attempt to take on board elements of cultures other than one's own should be judged an inauthentic practice indicative of fallen-ness. Thus:

    the opinion may now arise that understanding the most alien cultures and ‘synthesizing’ them with one's own may lead to Dasein's becoming for the first time thoroughly and genuinely enlightened about itself. Versatile curiosity and restlessly ‘knowing it all’ masquerade as a universal understanding of Dasein. (Being and Time 38: 178)

    This sets the stage for Heidegger's own final elucidation of human freedom. According to Heidegger, I am genuinely free precisely when I recognize that I am a finite being with a heritage and when I achieve an authentic relationship with that heritage through the creative appropriation of it. As he explains:

    Once one has grasped the finitude of one's existence, it snatches one back from the endless multiplicity of possibilities which offer themselves as closest to one—those of comfortableness, shirking and taking things lightly—and brings Dasein to the simplicity of its fate. This is how we designate Dasein's primordial historizing, which lies in authentic resoluteness and in which Dasein hands itself down to itself, free for death, in a possibility which it has inherited and yet has chosen” (Being and Time 74: 435)

    This phenomenon, a final reinterpretation of the notion of resoluteness, is what Heidegger calls primordial historizing or fate. And crucially, historizing is not merely a structure that is partly constitutive of individual authentic Dasein. Heidegger also points out the shared primordial historizing of a community, what he calls its destiny.

    When the contemporary reader of Being and Time encounters the concepts of heritage, fate and destiny, and places them not only in the context of the political climate of mid-to-late 1920s Germany, but also alongside Heidegger's later membership of the Nazi party, it is hard not to hear dark undertones of cultural chauvinism and racial prejudice. This worry becomes acute when one considers the way in which these concepts figure in passages such as the following, from the inaugural rectoral address that Heidegger gave at Freiburg University in 1933.

    The third bond [knowledge service, in addition to labour service and military service] is the one that binds the [German] students to the spiritual mission of the German Volk. This Volk is playing an active role in shaping its own fate by placing its history into the openness of the overpowering might of all the world-shaping forces of human existence and by struggling anew to secure its spiritual world… The three bonds—through the Volk to the destiny of the state in its spiritual mission—are equally original aspects of the German essence. (The Self-Assertion of the German University, 35–6)

    The issue of Heidegger's later relationship with Nazi politics and ideology will be discussed briefly below. For the moment, however, it is worth saying that the temptation to offer extreme social determinist or Nazi reconstructions of Being and Time is far from irresistible. It is at least arguable that Heidegger's claim at this point in his work is ‘merely’ that it is only on the basis of fate—an honest and explicit retrieval of my own culture which allows me to recognize and accept the manifold ways in which I am shaped by that culture—that I can open up a genuine path to personal reconstruction or to the possibly enriching structures that other cultures have to offer. And that does not sound nearly so pernicious.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Heidegger2

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:57 pm

    BTW -- How is that God-Off coming?? Everything ends up being some sort of a struggle for Fame, Fortune, Power, and Pleasure -- doesn't it?? Does Humanity Want a God or Not?? Does Humanity Wish to be Told What to Do?? Did Humanity Tell God to Go to Hell in Antiquity?? Is Humanity in the Final Stages of Rejecting God -- One Last Time?? Perhaps There Will be Weeping, Wailing, and Gnashing of Teeth When Humanity Sees What Those Who Were Loyal to God Got. Perhaps We Are Rebels Without a Clue. Perhaps a Rude Awakening Awaits Us. More Martin Heidegger.

    2.4 Realism and Relativism in Being and Time

    One might think that an unpalatable relativism is entailed by any view which emphasizes that understanding is never preconception-free. But that would be too quick. Of course, if authentic Dasein were individualized in the sense of being a self-sufficient Cartesian subject, then perhaps an extreme form of subjectivist relativism would indeed beckon. Fortunately, however, authentic Dasein isn't a Cartesian subject, in part because it has a transformed and not a severed relationship with the ‘they’. This reconnects us with our earlier remark that the philosophical framework advocated within Being and Time appears to mandate a kind of cultural relativism. This seems right, but it is important to try to understand precisely what sort of cultural relativism is on offer. Here is one interpretation.

    Although worlds (networks of involvements, what Heidegger sometimes calls Reality) are culturally relative phenomena, Heidegger occasionally seems to suggest that nature, as it is in itself, is not. Thus, on the one hand, nature may be discovered as ready-to-hand equipment: the “wood is a forest of timber, the mountain is a quarry of rock; the river is water-power, the wind is wind ‘in the sails’ ” (Being and Time 15: 100). Under these circumstances, nature is revealed in certain culturally specific forms determined by our socially conditioned patterns of skilled practical activity. On the other hand, when nature is discovered as present-at-hand, by say science, its intelligibility has an essentially cross-cultural character. Indeed, Heidegger often seems to hold the largely commonsense view that there are culture-independent causal properties of nature which explain why it is that you can make missiles out of rocks or branches, but not out of air or water. Science can tell us both what those causal properties are, and how the underlying causal processes work. Such properties and processes are what Heidegger calls the Real, and he comments: “[the] fact that Reality [intelligibility] is ontologically grounded in the Being of Dasein does not signify that only when Dasein exists and as long as Dasein exists can the Real [e.g., nature as revealed by science] be as that which in itself it is” (Being and Time, 43: 255).

    If the picture just sketched is a productive way to understand Heidegger, then, perhaps surprisingly, his position might best be thought of as a mild kind of scientific realism. For, on this interpretation, one of Dasein's cultural practices, the practice of science, has the special quality of revealing natural entities as they are in themselves, that is, independently of Dasein's culturally conditioned uses and articulations of them. Crucially, however, this sort of scientific realism maintains ample conceptual room for Sheehan's well-observed point that, for Heidegger, at every stage of his thinking, “there is no ‘is’ to things without a taking-as… no sense that is independent of human being… Before homo sapiens evolved, there was no ‘being’ on earth… because ‘being’ for Heidegger does not mean ‘in existence’ ” (Sheehan 2001). Indeed, Being concerns sense-making (intelligibility), and the different ways in which entities make sense to us, including as present-at-hand, are dependent on the fact that we are Dasein, creatures with a particular mode of Being. So while natural entities do not require the existence of Dasein in order just to occur (in an ordinary, straightforward sense of ‘occur’), they do require Dasein in order to be intelligible at all, including as entities that just occur. Understood properly, then, the following two claims that Heidegger makes are entirely consistent with each other. First: “Being (not entities) is dependent upon the understanding of Being; that is to say, Reality (not the Real) is dependent upon care”. Secondly: “[O]nly as long as Dasein is (that is, only as long as an understanding of Being is ontically possible), ‘is there’ Being. When Dasein does not exist, ‘independence’ ‘is’ not either, nor ‘is’ the ‘in-itself’ ”. (Both quotations from Being and Time, 43: 255.)

    How does all this relate to Heidegger's account of truth? Answering this question adds a new dimension to the pivotal phenomenon of revealing. Heidegger points out that the philosophical tradition standardly conceives of truth as attaching to propositions, and as involving some sort of correspondence between propositions and states of affairs. But whereas for the tradition (as Heidegger characterizes it), propositional truth as correspondence exhausts the phenomenon of truth, for Heidegger, it is merely the particular manifestation of truth that is operative in those domains, such as science, that concern themselves with the Real. According to Heidegger, propositional truth as correspondence is made possible by a more fundamental phenomenon that he dubs ‘original truth’. Heidegger's key thought here is that before (in a conceptual sense of ‘before’) there can be any question of correspondence between propositions and states of affairs, there needs to be in place a field of intelligibility (Reality, a world), a sense-making structure within which entities may be found. Unconcealing is the Dasein-involving process that establishes this prior field of intelligibility. This is the domain of original truth—what we might call truth as revealing or truth as unconcealing. Original truth cannot be reduced to propositional truth as correspondence, because the former is an a priori, transcendental condition for the latter. Of course, since Dasein is the source of intelligibility, truth as unconcealing is possible only because there is Dasein, which means that without Dasein there would be no truth—including propositional truth as correspondence. But it is reasonable to hear this seemingly relativistic consequence as a further modulation of the point (see above) that entities require Dasein in order to be intelligible at all, including, now, as entities that are capable of entering into states of affairs that may correspond to propositions.

    Heidegger's analysis of truth also countenances a third manifestation of the phenomenon, one that is perhaps best characterized as being located between original truth and propositional truth. This intermediate phenomenon is what might be called Heidegger's instrumental notion of truth (Dahlstrom 2001, Overgaard 2002). As we saw earlier, for Heidegger, the referential structure of significance may be articulated not only by words but by skilled practical activity (e.g., hammering) in which items of equipment are used in culturally appropriate ways. By Heidegger's lights, such equipmental activity counts as a manifestation of unconcealing and thus as the realization of a species of truth. This fact further threatens the idea that truth attaches only to propositions, although some uses of language may themselves be analysed as realizing the instrumental form of truth (e.g., when I exclaim that ‘this hammer is too heavy for the job’, rather than assert that it has the objective property of weighing 2.5 kilos; Overgaard 2002, 77; cf. Being and Time 33:199–200).

    It is at this point that an ongoing dispute in Heidegger scholarship comes to the fore. It has been argued (e.g., Dahlstrom 2001, Overgaard 2002) that a number of prominent readings of Heidegger (e.g., Okrent 1988, Dreyfus 1991) place such heavy philosophical emphasis on Dasein as a site of skilled practical activity that they end up simply identifying Dasein's understanding of Being with skilled practical activity. Because of this shared tendency, such readings are often grouped together as advocating a pragmatist interpretation of Heidegger. According to its critics, the inadequacy of the pragmatist interpretation is exposed once it is applied to Heidegger's account of truth. For although the pragmatist interpretation correctly recognizes that, for Heidegger, propositional correspondence is not the most fundamental phenomenon of truth, it takes the fundamental variety to be exhausted by Dasein's sense-making skilled practical activity. But (the critic points out) this is to ignore the fact that even though instrumental truth is more basic than traditional propositional truth, nevertheless it too depends on a prior field of significance (one that determines the correct and incorrect uses of equipment) and thus on the phenomenon of original truth. Put another way, the pragmatist interpretation falls short because it fails to distinguish original truth from instrumental truth. It is worth commenting here that not every so-called pragmatist reading is on a par with respect to this issue. For example, Dreyfus (2008) separates out (what he calls) background coping (Dasein's familiarity with, and knowledge of how to navigate the meaningful structures of, its world) from (what he calls) skilled or absorbed coping (Dasein's skilled practical activity), and argues that, for Heidegger, the former is ontologically more basic than the latter. If original truth is manifested in background coping, and instrumental truth in skilled coping, this disrupts the thought that the two notions of truth are being run together (for discussion, see Overgaard 2002 85–6, note 17).

    How should one respond to Heidegger's analysis of truth? One objection is that original truth ultimately fails to qualify as a form of truth at all. As Tugendhat (1967) observes, it is a plausible condition on the acceptability of any proposed account of truth that it accommodate a distinction between what is asserted or intended and how things are in themselves. It is clear that propositional truth as correspondence satisfies this condition, and notice that (if we squint a little) so too does instrumental truth, since despite my intentions, I can fail, in my actions, to use the hammer in ways that successfully articulate its place in the relevant equipmental network. However, as Tugendhat argues, it is genuinely hard to see how original truth as unconcealing could possibly support a distinction between what is asserted or intended and how things are in themselves. After all, unconcealing is, in part, the process through which entities are made intelligible to Dasein in such a way that the distinction in question can apply. Thus, Tugendhat concludes, although unconcealing may be a genuine phenomenon that constitutes a transcendental condition for there to be truth, it is not itself a species of truth. (For discussions of Tugendhat's critique, see Dahlstrom 2001, Overgaard 2002.)

    Whether or not unconcealing ought to count as a species of truth, it is arguable that the place which it (along with its partner structure, Reality) occupies in the Heideggerian framework must ultimately threaten even the mild kind of scientific realism that we have been attributing, somewhat tentatively, to Heidegger. The tension comes into view just at the point where unconcealing is reinterpreted in terms of Dasein's essential historicality. Because intelligibility, and thus unconcealing, has an essentially historical character, it is difficult to resist the thought that the propositional and instrumental truths generated out of some specific field of intelligibility will be relativistically tied to a particular culture in a particular time period. Moreover, at one point, Heidegger suggests that even truth as revealed by science is itself subject to this kind of relativistic constraint. Thus he says that “every factical science is always manifestly in the grip of historizing” (Being and Time 76: 444). The implication is that, for Heidegger, one cannot straightforwardly subject the truth of one age to the standards of another, which means, for example, that contemporary chemistry and alchemical chemistry might both be true (cf. Dreyfus 1990, 261–2). But even if this more radical position is ultimately Heidegger's, there remains space here for some form of realism. Given the transcendental relation that, according to Heidegger, obtains between fields of intelligibility and science, the view on offer might still support a historically conditioned form of Kantian empirical realism with respect to science. Nevertheless it must, it seems, reject the full-on scientific realist commitment to the idea that the history of science is regulated by progress towards some final and unassailable set of scientifically established truths about nature, by a journey towards, as it were, God's science (Haugeland 2007).

    The realist waters in which our preliminary interpretation has been swimming are muddied even further by another aspect of Dasein's essential historicality. Officially, it is seemingly not supposed to be a consequence of that historicality that we cannot discover universal features of ourselves. The evidence for this is that there are many conclusions reached in Being and Time that putatively apply to all Dasein, for example that Dasein's everyday experience is characterized by the structural domains of readiness-to-hand, un-readiness-to-hand and presence-at-hand (for additional evidence, see Polt 1999 92–4). Moreover, Heidegger isn't saying that any route to understanding is as good as any other. For example, he prioritizes authenticity as the road to an answer to the question of the meaning of Being. Thus:

    the idea of existence, which guides us as that which we see in advance, has been made definite [transformed from pre-ontological to ontological, from implicit and vague to explicitly articulated] by the clarification of our ownmost potentiality-for-Being. (Being and Time 63: 358)

    Still, if this priority claim and the features shared by all Dasein really are supposed to be ahistorical, universal conditions (applicable everywhere throughout history), we are seemingly owed an account of just how such conditions are even possible, given Dasein's essential historicality.

    Finally, one might wonder whether the ‘realist Heidegger’ can live with the account of temporality given in Being and Time. If temporality is the a priori condition for us to encounter entities as equipment, and if, in the relevant sense, the unfolding of time coincides with the unfolding of Dasein (Dasein, as temporality, temporalizes; see above), then equipmental entities will be intelligible to us only in (what we might call) Dasein-time, the time that we ourselves are. Now, we have seen previously that nature is often encountered as equipment, which means that natural equipment will be intelligible to us only in Dasein-time. But what about nature in a non-equipmental form—nature (as one might surely be tempted to say) as it is in itself? One might try to argue that those encounters with nature that reveal nature as it is in itself are precisely those encounters that reveal nature as present-at-hand, and that to reveal nature as present-at-hand is, in part, to reveal nature within present-at-hand time (e.g., clock time), a time which is, in the relevant sense, independent of Dasein. Unfortunately there's a snag with this story (and thus for the attempt to see Heidegger as a realist). Heidegger claims that presence-at-hand (as revealed by theoretical reflection) is subject to the same Dasein-dependent temporality as readiness-to-hand:

    …if Dasein's Being is completely grounded in temporality, then temporality must make possible Being-in-the-world and therewith Dasein's transcendence; this transcendence in turn provides the support for concernful Being alongside entities within-the-world, whether this Being is theoretical or practical. (Being and Time 69: 415, my emphasis)

    But now if theoretical investigations reveal nature in present-at-hand time, and if in the switching over from the practical use of equipment to the theoretical investigation of objects, time remains the same Dasein-time, then present-at-hand time is Dasein-dependent too. Given this, it seems that the only way we can give any sense to the idea of nature as it is in itself is to conceive of such nature as being outside of time. Interestingly, in the History of the Concept of Time (a text based on Heidegger's notes for a 1925 lecture course and often thought of as a draft of Being and Time), Heidegger seems to embrace this very option, arguing that nature is within time only when it is encountered in Dasein's world, and concluding that nature as it is in itself is entirely atemporal. It is worth noting the somewhat Kantian implication of this conclusion: if all understanding is grounded in temporality, then the atemporality of nature as it is in itself would mean that, for Heidegger, we cannot understand natural things as they really are in themselves (cf. Dostal 1993).

    3. The Later Philosophy

    3.1 The Turn and the Contributions to Philosophy

    After Being and Time there is a shift in Heidegger's thinking that he himself christened ‘the turn’ (die Kehre). In a 1947 piece, in which Heidegger distances his views from Sartre's existentialism, he links the turn to his own failure to produce the missing divisions of Being and Time.

    The adequate execution and completion of this other thinking that abandons subjectivity is surely made more difficult by the fact that in the publication of Being and Time the third division of the first part, “Time and Being,” was held back… Here everything is reversed. The division in question was held back because everything failed in the adequate saying of this turning and did not succeed with the help of the language of metaphysics… This turning is not a change of standpoint from Being and Time, but in it the thinking that was sought first arrives at the location of that dimension out of which Being and Time is experienced, that is to say, experienced from the fundamental experience of the oblivion of Being. (Letter on Humanism, pp. 231–2)

    Notice that while, in the turning, “everything is reversed”, nevertheless it is “not a change of standpoint from Being and Time”, so what we should expect from the later philosophy is a pattern of significant discontinuities with Being and Time, interpretable from within a basic project and a set of concerns familiar from that earlier text. The quotation from the Letter on Humanism provides some clues about what to look for. Clearly we need to understand what is meant by the abandonment of subjectivity, what kind of barrier is erected by the language of metaphysics, and what is involved in the oblivion of Being. The second and third of these issues will be clarified later. The first bears immediate comment.

    At root Heidegger's later philosophy shares the deep concerns of Being and Time, in that it is driven by the same preoccupation with Being and our relationship with it that propelled the earlier work. In a fundamental sense, then, the question of Being remains the question. However, Being and Time addresses the question of Being via an investigation of Dasein, the kind of being whose Being is an issue for it. As we have seen, this investigation takes the form of a transcendental hermeneutic phenomenology that begins with ordinary human experience. It is arguable that, in at least one important sense, it is this philosophical methodology that the later Heidegger is rejecting when he talks of his abandonment of subjectivity. Of course, as conceptualized in Being and Time, Dasein is not a Cartesian subject, so the abandonment of subjectivity is not as simple as a shift of attention away from Dasein and towards some other route to Being. Nevertheless the later Heidegger does seem to think that his earlier focus on Dasein bears the stain of a subjectivity that ultimately blocks the path to an understanding of Being. This is not to say that the later thinking turns away altogether from the project of transcendental hermeneutic phenomenology. The project of illuminating the a priori conditions on the basis of which entities show up as intelligible to us is still at the heart of things. What the later thinking involves is a reorientation of the basic project so that, as we shall see, the point of departure is no longer a detailed description of ordinary human experience. (For an analysis of ‘the turn’ that identifies a number of different senses of the term at work in Heidegger's thinking, and which in some ways departs from the brief treatment given here, see Sheehan 2010.)

    A further difficulty in getting to grips with Heidegger's later philosophy is that, unlike the early thought, which is heavily centred on a single text, the later thought is distributed over a large number and range of works, including books, lecture courses, occasional addresses, and presentations given to non-academic audiences. So one needs a navigational strategy. The strategy adopted here will be to view the later philosophy through the lens of Heidegger's strange and perplexing study from the 1930s called Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), (Beitrage zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)), henceforth referred to as the Contributions. (For a book-length introduction to the Contributions, see Vallega-Neu 2003. For a useful collection of papers, see Scott et al. 2001.) The key themes that shape the later philosophy will be identified in the Contributions, but those themes will be explored in a way that draws on, and make connections with, a selection of other works. From this partial expedition, the general pattern of Heidegger's post-turn thinking, although not every aspect of it, will emerge.

    The Contributions was written between 1936 and 1938. Intriguingly, Heidegger asked for the work not to appear in print until after the publication of all his lecture courses, and although his demand wasn't quite heeded by the editors of his collected works, the Contributions was not published in German until 1989 and not in English until 1999. To court a perhaps overly dramatic telling of Heideggerian history, if one puts a lot of weight on Heidegger's view of when the Contributions should have been published, one might conceivably think of those later writings that, in terms of when they were produced, followed the Contributions as something like the training material needed to understand the earlier work (see e.g., Polt 1999 140). In any case, during his lifetime, Heidegger showed the Contributions to no more than a few close colleagues. The excitement with which the eventual publication of the text was greeted by Heidegger's readers was partly down to the fact that one of the chosen few granted a sneak preview was the influential interpreter of Heidegger, Otto Pöggeler, who then proceeded to give it some rather extraordinary advance publicity, describing it as the work in which Heidegger's genuine and complete thinking is captured (see e.g., Pöggeler 1963/1987).

    Whether or not the hype surrounding the Contributions was justified remains a debated question among Heidegger scholars (see e.g., Sheehan 2001, Thomson 2003). What is clear, however, is that reading the work is occasionally a bewildering experience. Rather than a series of systematic hermeneutic spirals in the manner of Being and Time, the Contributions is organised as something like a musical fugue, that is, as a suite of overlapping developments of a single main theme (Schoenbohm 2001; Thomson 2003). And while the structure of the Contributions is challenging enough, the language in which it is written can appear to be wilfully obscurantist. Polt (1999, 140) comments that “the most important sections of the text can appear to be written in pure Heideggerese… [as Heidegger] exploits the sounds and senses of German in order to create an idiosyncratic symphony of meanings”. Less charitably, Sheehan (2001) describes it as “a needlessly difficult text, obsessively repetitious, badly in need of an editor”, while Schurmann (1992, 313, quoted by Thomson 2003, 57) complains that “at times one may think one is reading a piece of Heideggerian plagiarism, so encumbered is it with ellipses and assertoric monoliths”. Arguably, the style in which the Contributions is written is ‘merely’ the most extreme example (perhaps, the purest example) of a ‘poetic’ style that Heidegger adopts pretty much throughout the later philosophy. This stylistic aspect of the turn is an issue discussed below. For the moment, however, it is worth noting that, in the stylistic transition achieved in the Contributions, Heidegger's writing finally leaves behind all vestiges of the idea that Being can be represented accurately using some pseudo-scientific philosophical language. The goal, instead, is to respond appropriately to Being in language, to forge a pathway to another kind of thinking—Being-historical thinking (for discussion of this term, see Vallega 2001, von Herrmann 2001, Vallega-Neu 2003, 28-9). In its attempt to achieve this, the Contributions may be viewed as setting the agenda for Heidegger's post-turn thought. So what are the central themes that appear in the Contributions and which then resonate throughout the later works? Four stand out: Being as appropriation (an idea which, as we shall see, is bound up with a reinterpretation of the notion of dwelling that, in terms of explicit textual development, takes place largely outwith the text of the Contributions itself); technology (or machination); safeguarding (or sheltering); and the gods. Each of these themes will now be explored.

    3.2 Appropriation, Dwelling and the Fourfold

    In Being and Time, the most fundamental a priori transcendental condition for there to be Dasein's distinctive mode of Being which is identified is temporality. In the later philosophy, the ontological focus ultimately shifts to the claim that human Being consists most fundamentally in dwelling. This shift of attention emerges out of a subtle reformulation of the question of Being itself, a reformulation performed in the Contributions. The question now becomes not ‘What is the meaning of Being?’ but rather ‘How does Being essentially unfold?’. This reformulation means (in a way that should become clearer in a moment) that we are now asking the question of Being not from the perspective of Dasein, but from the perspective of Being (see above on abandoning subjectivity). But it also suggests that Being needs to be understood as fundamentally a timebound, historical process. As Heidegger puts it: “A being is: Be-ing holds sway [unfolds]”. (Contributions 10: 22. Quotations from the Contributions will be given in the form ‘section: page number’ where ‘page number’ refers to the Emad and Maly English translation. The hyphenated term ‘be-ing’ is adopted by Emad and Maly, in order to respect the fact that, in the Contributions, Heidegger substitutes the archaic spelling ‘Seyn’ for the contemporary ‘Sein’ as a way of distancing himself further from the traditional language of metaphysics. This translational convention, which has not become standard practice in the secondary literature, will not be adopted here, except in quotations from the Emad and Maly translation.)

    Further aspects of the essential unfolding of Being are revealed by what is perhaps the key move in the Contributions—a rethinking of Being in terms of the notion of Ereignis, a term translated variously as ‘event’ (most closely reflecting its ordinary German usage), ‘appropriation’, ‘appropriating event’, ‘event of appropriation’ or ‘enowning’. (For an analysis which tracks Heidegger's use of the term Ereignis at various stages of his thought, see Vallega-Neu 2010). The history of Being is now conceived as a series of appropriating events in which the different dimensions of human sense-making—the religious, political, philosophical (and so on) dimensions that define the culturally conditioned epochs of human history—are transformed. Each such transformation is a revolution in human patterns of intelligibility, so what is appropriated in the event is Dasein and thus the human capacity for taking-as (see e.g., Contributions 271: 343). Once appropriated in this way, Dasein operates according to a specific set of established sense-making practices and structures. In a Kuhnian register, one might think of this as the normal sense-making that follows a paradigm-shift. But now what is it that does the appropriating? Heidegger's answer to this question is Being. Thus Heidegger writes of the “En-ownment [appropriation] of Da-sein by be-ing” (Contributions 141: 184) and of “man as owned by be-ing” (Contributions 141: 185). Indeed, this appropriation of Dasein by Being is what enables Being to unfold: “Be-ing needs man in order to hold sway [unfold]” (Contributions 133: 177). The claim that Being appropriates Dasein might seem to invite the adoption of an ethereal voice and a far-off look in the eye, but any such temptation towards mysticism of this kind really ought to be resisted. The mystical reading seems to depend on a view according to which “be-ing holds sway ‘for itself’ ” and Dasein “takes up the relating to be-ing”, such that Being is “something over-against” Dasein (Contributions 135: 179). But Heidegger argues that this relational view would be ‘misleading’. That said, to make proper inroads into the mystical reading, we need to reacquaint ourselves with the notion of dwelling.

    As we have seen, the term ‘dwelling’ appears in Being and Time, where it is used to capture the distinctive manner in which Dasein is in the world. The term continues to play this role in the later philosophy, but, in texts such as Building Dwelling, Thinking (1954), it is reinterpreted and made philosophically central to our understanding of Being. This reinterpretation of, and the new emphasis on, dwelling is bound up with the idea from the Contributions of Being as appropriation. To explain: Where one dwells is where one is at home, where one has a place. This sense of place is what grounds Heidegger's existential notion of spatiality, as developed in the later philosophy (see Malpas 2006). In dwelling, then, Dasein is located within a set of sense-making practices and structures with which it is familiar. This way of unravelling the phenomenon of dwelling enables us to see more clearly—and more concretely—what is meant by the idea of Being as event/appropriation. Being is an event in that it takes (appropriates) place (where one is at home, one's sense-making practices and structures) (cf. Polt 1999 148). In other words, Being appropriates Dasein in that, in its unfolding, it essentially happens in and to Dasein's patterns of sense-making. This way of thinking about the process of appropriation does rather less to invite obscurantist mysticism.

    The reinterpretation of dwelling in terms of Being as appropriation is ultimately intertwined with a closely related reinterpretation of what is meant by a world. One can see the latter development in a pregnant passage from Heidegger's 1954 piece, Building Dwelling Thinking.

    [H]uman being consists in dwelling and, indeed, dwelling in the sense of the stay of mortals on the earth.

    But ‘on the earth’ already means ‘under the sky.’ Both of these also mean ‘remaining before the divinities’ and include a ‘belonging to men's being with one another.’ By a primal oneness the four—earth and sky, divinities and mortals—belong together in one. (351)

    So, human beings dwell in that they stay (are at home) on the earth, under the sky, before the divinities, and among the mortals (that is, with one another as mortals). It is important for Heidegger that these dimensions of dwelling are conceived not as independent structures but as (to use a piece of terminology from Being and Time) ecstases—phenomena that stand out from an underlying unity. That underlying unity of earth, sky, divinities and mortals—the ‘simple oneness of the four’ as Heidegger puts it in Building Dwelling Thinking (351)—is what he calls the fourfold. The fourfold is the transformed notion of world that applies within the later work (see e.g., The Thing; for an analysis of the fourfold that concentrates on its role as a thinking of things, see Mitchell 2010). It is possible to glimpse the character of the world-as-fourfold by noting that whereas the world as understood through Being and Time is a culturally conditioned structure distinct from nature, the world-as-fourfold appears to be an integrated combination of nature (earth and sky) and culture (divinities and mortals). (Two remarks: First, it may not be obvious why the divinities count as part of culture. This will be explained in a moment. Secondly, the later Heidegger sometimes continues to employ the sense of world that he established in Being and Time, which is why it is useful to signal the new usage as the transformed notion of world, or as the world-as-fourfold.)

    There is something useful, as a preliminary move, about interpreting the fourfold as a combination of nature and culture, but it is an idea that must be handled with care. For one thing, if what is meant by nature is the material world and its phenomena as understood by natural science, then Heidegger's account of the fourfold tells against any straightforward identification of earth and sky with nature. Why this is becomes clear once one sees how Heidegger describes the earth and the sky in Building Dwelling Thinking. “Earth is the serving bearer, blossoming and fruiting, spreading out in rock and water, rising up into plant and animal… The sky is the vaulting path of the sun, the course of the changing moon, the wandering glitter of the stars, the year's seasons and their changes, the light and dusk of day, the gloom and glow of night, the clemency and inclemency of the weather, the drifting clouds and blue depth of the ether” (351). What Heidegger's language here indicates is that the earth-as-dwelt-on and the sky-as-dwelt-under are spaces for a mode of habitation by human beings that one might call poetic rather than scientific. So, the nature of dwelling is the nature of the poet. In dwelling we inhabit the poetic (for discussion, see e.g., Young 2002, 99–100).

    How does this idea of dwelling as poetic habitation work for the cultural aspects of the fourfold—dwelling among the mortals and before the divinities? To dwell among the mortals is to be “capable of death as death” (Building Dwelling Thinking 352). In the language of Being and Time, this would be to enter into an authentic and thus non-evasive relationship with death (see above). However, as we shall see in a moment, the later Heidegger has a different account of the nothing and thus of the internal relation with the nothing that death involves. It is this reworking of the idea of the nothing that ultimately marks out a newly conceived non-evasive relationship with death as an aspect of dwelling, understood in terms of poetic habitation. The notion of dwelling before the divinities also turns on the development of a theme established in Being and Time, namely that intelligibility is itself cultural and historical in character. More specifically, according to Being and Time, the a priori transcendental conditions for intelligibility are to be interpreted in terms of the phenomenon of heritage, that is as culturally determined structures that form pre-existing fields of intelligibility into which individual human beings are thrown and onto which they project themselves. A key aspect of this idea is that there exist historically important individuals who constitute heroic cultural templates onto which I may now creatively project myself. In the later philosophy these heroic figures are reborn poetically as the divinities of the fourfold, as “the ones to come” (Contributions 248–52: 277–81), and as the “beckoning messengers of the godhead” (Building Dwelling Thinking 351). When Heidegger famously announces that only a god can save us (Only a God can Save Us), or that “the last god is not the end but the other beginning of immeasurable possibilities for our history” (Contributions 256: 289), he has in mind not a religious intervention in an ‘ordinary’ sense of the divine, but rather a transformational event in which a secularized sense of the sacred—a sensitivity to the fact that beings are granted to us in the essential unfolding of Being—is restored (more on this below).

    The notion of dwelling as poetic habitation opens up a path to what Heidegger calls ‘the mystery’ (not to be confused with the kind of obscurantist mysticism discussed above). Even though the world always opens up as meaningful in a particular way to any individual human being as a result of the specific heritage into which he or she has been enculturated, there are of course a vast number of alternative fields of intelligibility ‘out there’ that would be available to each of us, if only we could gain access to them by becoming simultaneously embedded in different heritages. But Heidegger's account of human existence means that any such parallel embedding is ruled out, so the plenitude of alternative fields of intelligibility must remain a mystery to us. In Heidegger's later philosophy this mysterious region of Being emerges as a structure that, although not illuminated poetically in dwelling as a particular world-as-fourfold, nevertheless constitutes an essential aspect of dwelling in that it is ontologically co-present with any such world. Appropriation is necessarily a twofold event: as Dasein is thrown into an intelligible world, vast regions of Being are plunged into darkness. But that darkness is a necessary condition for there to be any intelligibility at all. As Heidegger puts it in The Question Concerning Technology (330), “[a]ll revealing belongs within a harboring and a concealing. But that which frees [entities for intelligibility]—the mystery—is concealed and always concealing itself…. Freedom [sense-making, the revealing of beings] is that which conceals in a way that opens to light, in whose clearing shimmers the veil that hides the essential occurrence of all truth and lets the veil appear as what veils”.

    It is worth pausing here to comment on the fact that, in his 1935 essay The Origin of the Work of Art, Heidegger writes of a conflict between earth and world. This idea may seem to sit unhappily alongside the simple oneness of the four. The essay in question is notoriously difficult, but the notion of the mystery may help. Perhaps the pivotal thought is as follows: Natural materials (the earth), as used in artworks, enter into intelligibility by establishing certain culturally codified meanings—a world in the sense of Being and Time. Simultaneously, however, those natural materials suggest the existence of a vast range of other possible, but to us unintelligible, meanings, by virtue of the fact that they could have been used to realize those alternative meanings. The conflict, then, turns on the way in which, in the midst of a world, the earth suggests the presence of the mystery. This is one way to hear passages such as the following: “The world, in resting upon the earth, strives to surmount it. As self-opening it cannot endure anything closed. The earth, however, as sheltering and concealing, tends always to draw the world into itself and keep it there” (Origin of the Work of Art 174).

    Because the mystery is unintelligible, it is the nothing (no-thing). It is nonetheless a positive ontological phenomenon—a necessary feature of the essential unfolding of Being. This vision of the nothing, as developed in Heidegger's What is Metaphysics?, his 1929 inaugural lecture as Professor of Philosophy at Freiburg, famously attracts the philosophical disdain of the logical positivist Carnap. Carnap judged Heidegger's lecture to turn on a series of unverifiable statements, and thus to be a paradigm case of metaphysical nonsense (Carnap 1932/1959; for an nice account and analysis of the disagreement between Heidegger and Carnap, see Critchley 2001). But placing Carnap's positivist critique to one side, the idea of the nothing allows Heidegger to rethink our relationship with death in relation to poetic habitation. In Being and Time, Being-towards-death is conceived as a relation to the possibility of one's own non-existence. This gives us a sense in which Dasein has an internal structural relation to the nothing. That internal structural relation remains crucial to the later philosophy, but now ‘the nothing’ is to be heard explicitly as ‘the mystery’, a kind of ‘dark matter’ of intelligibility that must remain concealed in the unfolding of Being through which beings are unconcealed. This necessary concealment is “the essential belongingness of the not to being as such” (Contributions 160: 199). In Being-towards-death, this “essential belongingness” is “sheltered” and “comes to light with a singular keenness” (Contributions 160: 199). This is because (echoing a point made earlier) the concealing-unconcealing structure of Being is ultimately to be traced to Dasein's essential finitude. Sheehan (2001) puts it like this: “[o]ur finitude makes all ‘as’-taking… possible by requiring us to understand things not immediately and ontically… but indirectly and ontologically (= imperfectly), through their being”. In Being-towards-death, the human finitude that grounds the mystery, the plenitude of possible worlds in which I am not, is highlighted. As mortals, then, our internal relation to death links us to the mystery (see The Thing). So dwelling (as poetic habitation) involves not only embeddedness in the fourfold, but also, as part of a unitary ontological structure, a necessary relationship with the mystery. (As mentioned earlier (2.2.7), it is arguable that the sense of the nothing as unactualized possibilities of Being is already at work in Being and Time (see Vallega-Neu 2003, 21). Indeed, Heidegger's explicit remarks on Being-towards-death in the Contributions (sections 160–2) suggest that it is. But even if that is so, the idea undoubtedly finds its fullest expression in the later work.)

    If the essence of human Being is to dwell in the fourfold, then human beings are to the extent that they so dwell. And this will be achieved to the extent that human beings realize the “basic character of dwelling”, which Heidegger now argues is a matter of safeguarding “the fourfold in its essential unfolding” (Building Dwelling Thinking, 352). Such safeguarding is unpacked as a way of Being in which human beings save the earth, receive the sky as sky, await the divinities as divinities, and initiate their own essential being as mortals. Perhaps the best way to understand this four-way demand is to explore Heidegger's claim that modern humans, especially modern Western humans, systematically fail to meet it. That is, we are marked out by our loss of dwelling—our failure to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. This existential malaise is what Heidegger refers to in the Letter on Humanism as the oblivion of Being. As we are about to see, the fact that this is the basic character of our modern human society is, according to Heidegger, explained by the predominance of a mode of sense-making that, in the Contributions, he calls machination, but which he later (and more famously) calls technology.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Th?id=H.4847408430712228&pid=1

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Sat Sep 13, 2014 8:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:58 pm

    I will attempt to internalize this thread -- but don't hold your breath -- waiting for me to morph into a Telegenic-Genius. I'll probably just continue to Lurk, Shirk, and Smirk!! It takes all kinds -- but why?? There is no resolution to my quest. Things continue to worsen -- on all levels. Is there some legitimacy to a Psalms, Proverbs, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John centered approach to Theology and Biblical Studies?? Think about it -- but don't strain yourselves. Perhaps most of us prefer football and beer!! O'Douls Amber on the Rocks for me!! Here is a video which I don't endorse -- but which some of you might find interesting. I simply wish for many (if not all) of you to struggle with theological issues. Again, I'm trying to be on everyone's side -- even though this is probably naive and impossible. "To dream the impossible dream!" I think I'd like to see a combination of the Old Avalon (without the drama) combined with the Mists of Avalon (with more members). It seems as if there are really only a couple of dozen regular posters here -- and most everyone has stopped talking to me (or perhaps I have stopped talking to them). I liked the white print on blue background. I liked the Bill and Kerry interviews (despite the criticism -- especially of Kerry). I keep envisioning getting briefed by someone who really knows everything about everything -- and I imagine this person (or other than person) being completely different than what I've been exposed to thus far. I seem to end up briefing myself -- with a composite of everyone and everything I've been exposed to. Perhaps this site is just fine -- as is -- because it forces me to be a Galactic Lone Ranger. Sherry Shriner keeps talking about 'them' being very, very angry. She also keeps talking about the New World Order Cabal in conflict with the New-Age Alien-Agenda. She seems to be saying that BOTH of these factions are in serious trouble. I tend to think that EVERYONE is in serious trouble. I'm seriously trying to figure out what to do -- without regard to which faction is in or out of power. I continue to think that a bad@ss faction is required to gain and retain power -- but that such a faction always ends up misusing and abusing the commoners. I continue to sense that some sort of a meltdown is immanent in this solar system -- regardless of who rules -- and regardless of how they rule. What if the Great Archangelic Controversy ends something like this?? Too many dark secrets are being exposed -- and we may be facing revolutionary change -- rather than the preferred evolutionary change. I just hope that we survive the coming changes. The technological advances seem to be making humanity obsolete. Is there a way to properly combine Socialism and Capitalism in sort of a Responsible Enterprise (as opposed to Free Enterprise or Laissez Faire Capitalism)?? Sorry for the tangential rant. Anyway, here is more Martin Heidegger.

    3.3 Technology

    In his 1953 piece The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger begins with the everyday account of technology according to which technology is the vast array of instruments, machines, artefacts and devices that we human beings invent, build, and then exploit. On this view technology is basically a tool that we control. Heidegger claims that this everyday account is, in a sense, correct, but it provides only a limited “instrumental and anthropological definition” of technology (Question Concerning Technology 312). It depicts technology as a means to an end (instrumental) and as a product of human activity (anthropological). What needs to be exposed and interrogated, however, is something that is passed over by the everyday account, namely the essence of technology. To bring this into view, Heidegger reinterprets his earlier notion of intelligibility in terms of the concept of a clearing. A clearing is a region of Being in which things are revealed as mattering in some specific way or another. To identify the essence of technology is to lay bare technology as a clearing, that is, to describe a technological mode of Being. As Heidegger puts it in the Contributions (61: 88), “[i]n the context of the being-question, this word [machination, technology] does not name a human comportment but a manner of the essential swaying of being”.

    So what is the character of entities as revealed technologically? Heidegger's claim is that the “revealing that holds sway throughout modern technology… [is]… a challenging… which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such” (Question Concerning Technology 320). The mode of revealing characteristic of modern technology understands phenomena in general—including the non-biological natural world, plants, animals, and indeed human beings—to be no more than what Heidegger calls standing-reserve, that is, resources to be exploited as means to ends. This analysis extends to regions of nature and sections of society that have not yet been harnessed positively as resources. Such unexploited elements (e.g., an unexplored jungle, this year's unemployed school leavers) exist technologically precisely as potential resources.

    Heidegger's flagship example of technology is a hydroelectric plant built on the Rhine river that converts that river into a mere supplier of water power. Set against this “monstrousness” (Question Concerning Technology 321) is the poetic habitation of the natural environment of the Rhine as signalled by an old wooden bridge that spanned the river for hundreds of years, plus the river as revealed by Hölderlin's poem “The Rhine”. In these cases of poetic habitation, natural phenomena are revealed to us as objects of respect and wonder. One might think that Heidegger is over-reacting here, and that despite the presence of the hydroelectric plant, the Rhine in many ways remains a glorious example of natural beauty. Heidegger's response to this complaint is to focus on how the technological mode of Being corrupts the very notion of unspoilt areas of nature, by reducing such areas to resources ripe for exploitation by the tourist industry. Turning our attention to inter-human affairs, the technological mode of Being manifests itself when, for example, a friendly chat in the bar is turned into networking (Dreyfus 1993). And, in the light of Heidegger's analysis, one might smile wryly at the trend for companies to take what used to be called ‘personnel’ departments, and to rename them ‘human resources’. Many other examples could be given, but the general point is clear. The primary phenomenon to be understood is not technology as a collection of instruments, but rather technology as a clearing that establishes a deeply instrumental and, as Heidegger sees it, grotesque understanding of the world in general. Of course, if technological revealing were a largely restricted phenomenon, characteristic of isolated individuals or groups, then Heidegger's analysis of it would be of limited interest. The sting in the tale, however, is that, according to Heidegger, technological revealing is not a peripheral aspect of Being. Rather, it defines our modern way of living, at least in the West.

    At this point one might pause to wonder whether technology really is the structure on which we should be concentrating. The counter-suggestion would be that technological thinking is merely the practical application of modern mathematical science, and that the latter is therefore the primary phenomenon. Heidegger rejects this view, arguing in contrast that the establishment of the technological mode of revealing is a necessary condition for there to be mathematical science at all, since such science “demands that nature be orderable as standing-reserve” by requiring that “nature report itself in some way or other that is identifiable through calculation and that it remain orderable as a system of information” (Question Concerning Technology 328). Either way, one might object to the view of science at work here, by pointing to analyses which suggest that while science may reduce objects to instrumental means rather than ends, it need not behave in this way. For example, O'Neill (2003) develops such an analysis by drawing explicitly on (one interpretation of) the Marxist (and ultimately Aristotelian) notion of the humanization of the senses. Good science may depend on the capacity for the disinterested use of the senses, and so foster a non-instrumental responsiveness to natural objects as ends rather than as means. This is a ‘humanization’ because the disinterested use of the senses is a characteristically human capacity. Thus to develop such a capacity is to develop a distinctively human virtue, something which is a constituent of human well-being. Moreover, if science may sometimes operate with a sense of awe and wonder in the face of beings, it may point the way beyond the technological clearing, an effect that, as we shall see later, Heidegger thinks is achieved principally by some great art.

    By revealing beings as no more than the measurable and the manipulable, technology ultimately reduces beings to not-beings (Contributions 2: 6). This is our first proper glimpse of the oblivion of Being, the phenomenon that, in the Contributions, Heidegger also calls the abandonment of Being, or the abandonment of beings by Being (e.g., 55: 80). The notion of a not-being signals two things: (i) technological revealing drives out any sense of awe and wonder in the presence of beings, obliterating the secularized sense of what is sacred that is exemplified by the poetic habitation of the natural environment of the Rhine; (ii) we are essentially indifferent to the loss. Heidegger calls this indifference “the hidden distress of no-distress-at-all” (Contributions 4: Cool. Indeed, on Heidegger's diagnosis, our response to the loss of any feeling of sacredness or awe in the face of beings is to find a technological substitute for that feeling, in the form of “lived-experience”, a drive for entertainment and information, “exaggeration and uproar” (Contributions 66: 91). All that said, however, technology should not be thought of as a wholly ‘negative’ phenomenon. For Heidegger, technology is not only the great danger, it is also a stage in the unfolding of Being that brings us to the brink of a kind of secularized salvation, by awakening in us a (re-)discovery of the sacred, appropriately understood (cf. Thomson 2003, 64–66). A rough analogy might be drawn here with the Marxist idea that the unfolding of history results in the establishment of capitalist means of production with their characteristic ‘negative’ elements—labour treated merely as a commodity, the multi-dimensional alienation of the workers—that bring us to the brink of (by creating the immediate social and economic preconditions for) the socialist transformation of society. Indeed, the analogy might be pushed a little further: just as the socialist transformation of society remains anything but inevitable (Trotsky taught us that), Heidegger argues that the salvation-bringing transformation of the present condition of human being is most certainly not bound to occur.

    To bring all these points into better view, we need to take a step back and ask the following question. Is the technological mode of revealing ultimately a human doing for which we are responsible? Heidegger's answer is ‘yes and no’. On the one hand, humankind is the active agent of technological thinking, so humankind is not merely a passive element. On the other hand, “the unconcealment itself… is never a human handiwork” (Question Concerning Technology 324). As Heidegger later put it, the “essence of man is framed, claimed and challenged by a power which manifests itself in the essence of technology, a power which man himself does not control.” (Only a God can Save Us; 107, my emphasis). To explicate the latter point, Heidegger introduces the concepts of destining (cf. the earlier notion of ‘destiny’) and enframing. Destining is “what first starts man upon a way of revealing” (Question Concerning Technology 329). As such it is an a priori transcendental structure of human Being and so beyond our control. Human history is a temporally organized kaleidoscope of particular ordainings of destining (see also On the Essence of Truth). Enframing is one such ordaining, the “gathering together of the setting-upon that sets upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal the actual, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve” (Question Concerning Technology 325). This is, of course, a way of unpacking the point (see above) that technology is “a manner of the essential swaying of being” (Contributions 61: 88), that is, of Being's own essential unfolding.

    Enframing, then, is the ordaining of destining that ushers in the modern technological clearing. But there is more to it than that. To see why, consider the following criticism of Heidegger's analysis, as we have unpacked it so far. Any suggestion that technological thinking has appeared for the first time along with our modern Western way of living would seem to be straightforwardly false. To put the point crudely, surely the ancient Greeks sometimes treated entities merely as instrumental means. But if that is right, and Heidegger would agree that it is, then how can it be that technological thinking defines the spirit of our age? The answer lies in Heidegger's belief that pre-modern, traditional artisanship (as exemplified by the old wooden bridge over the Rhine), manifests what he calls poiesis. In this context poiesis is to be understood as a process of gathering together and fashioning natural materials in such a way that the human project in which they figure is in a deep harmony with, indeed reveals—or as Heidegger sometimes says when discussing poiesis, brings forth—the essence of those materials and any natural environment in which they are set. Thus, in discussing what needs to be learnt by an apprentice to a traditional cabinetmaker, Heidegger writes:

    If he is to become a true cabinetmaker, he makes himself answer and respond above all to the different kinds of wood and to the shapes slumbering within wood—to wood as it enters into man's dwelling with all the hidden riches of its essence. In fact, this relatedness to wood is what maintains the whole craft. Without that relatedness, the craft will never be anything but empty busywork, any occupation with it will be determined exclusively by business concerns. Every handicraft, all human dealings, are constantly in that danger. (What is Called Thinking? 379)

    Poiesis, then, is a process of revealing. Poietic events are acts of unconcealment—one is tempted to coin the ugly neologism truth-ing—in which entities are allowed to show themselves. As with the closely related notion of original truth that is at work in Being and Time, the idea of entities showing themselves does not imply that what is revealed in poiesis is something independent of human involvement. Thus what is revealed by the artisanship of the cabinetmaker is “wood as it enters into man's dwelling”. This telling remark forges a crucial philosophical link (and not merely an etymological one) between the poietic and poetic. Poietic events and poetic habitation involve the very same mode of intelligibility.

    By introducing the concept of poiesis, and by unearthing the presence of the phenomenon in traditional artisanship, Heidegger is suggesting that even though technological thinking was a possibility in pre-modern society, it was neither the only nor the dominant mode of bringing-forth. So what has changed? Heidegger argues that what is distinctive about enframing as an ordaining of destining is (i) that it “drives out every other possibility of revealing” (Question Concerning Technology 332), and (ii) that it covers up revealing as such (more precisely, covers up the concealing-unconcealing character of appropriation), thereby leaving us blind to the fact that technology is, in its essence, a clearing. For Heidegger, these dual features of enframing are intimately tied up with the idea of technology as metaphysics completing itself. He writes: “[a]s a form of truth [clearing] technology is grounded in the history of metaphysics, which is itself a distinctive and up to now the only perceptible phase of the history of Being” (Letter on Humanism 244). According to Heidegger, metaphysics conceives of Being as a being (for more on the reduction of Being to a being, see section 2.2.1 above). In so doing, metaphysics obscures the concealing-unconcealing dynamic of the essential unfolding of Being, a dynamic that provides the a priori condition for there to be beings. The history of metaphysics is thus equivalent to the history of Western philosophy in which Being as such is passed over, a history that, for Heidegger, culminates in the nihilistic forces of Nietzsche's eternally recurring will-to-power. The totalizing logic of metaphysics involves the view that there is a single clearing (whatever it may be) that constitutes reality. This renders thought insensitive to the fundamental structure of Being, in which any particular clearing is ontologically co-present with the unintelligible plenitude of alternative clearings, the mystery. With this totalizing logic in view, enframing might be thought of as the ordaining of destining that establishes the technological clearing as the one dominant picture, to the exclusion of all others. Hence technology is metaphysics completing itself.

    We are now in a position to deal with two items of unfinished business. First, recall the stylistic shift that characterizes Heidegger's later work. Heidegger not only increasingly engages with poetry in his later thinking (especially the works of the German lyric poet Hölderlin), he also adopts a substantially more poetic style of writing. But why? The language of metaphysics, which ultimately unpacks itself as technological, calculative thinking, is a language from which Heidegger believed he did not fully escape in Being and Time (see quotation from the Letter on Humanism at the beginning of section 3.1 above, and Vallega-Neu 2003 24–9 for discussion). What is needed to think Being historically, to think Being in its essential unfolding, is a different kind of philosophical language, a language suggested by the poetic character of dwelling. It is important to realize that Heidegger's intention here is not to place Being beyond philosophy and within the reach of poetry, although he does believe that certain poets, such as Hölderlin, enable us to glimpse the mysterious aspect of Being. His intention, rather, is to establish that the kind of philosophy that is needed here is itself poetic. This explains the stylistic component of the turn.

    Secondly, recall the loss of dwelling identified by Heidegger. Modern humankind (at least in the West) is in the (enframed) grip of technological thinking. Because of this promotion of instrumentality as the fundamental way of Being of entities, we have lost sight of how to inhabit the fourfold poetically, of how to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. Such safeguarding would, in a sense, be the opposite of technological thinking. But what ‘opposite’ amounts to here needs to be worked out with care. Given contemporary concerns over deforestation, global warming and the like, it is tempting to think that Heidegger's analysis of technology might provide the philosophical platform for some sort of extreme eco-radicalism. However, while there is undoubtedly much of value to be said about the contribution that Heidegger's thinking may make to contemporary debates in environmental ethics (see e.g., Zimmerman 1983, 1993, 2002), Heidegger was no eco-warrior and no luddite. Although he often promoted a romantic image of a pre-technological age inhabited by worthy peasants in touch with nature, he did not believe that it is possible for modern humankind to forge some pastoral Eden from which technology (in both the everyday and the essential sense) is entirely absent. So we should neither “push on blindly with technology” nor “curse it as the work of the devil” (Question Concerning Technology 330). Indeed, both these options would at root be technological modes of thinking. The way forward, according to Heidegger, is not to end technology, but rather to inhabit it differently (see e.g., Vallega-Neu 2003 93 note 15). We need to transform our mode of Being into one in which technology (in the sense of the machines and devices of the modern age) is there for us to enjoy and use, but in which technology (in the sense of a mode of Being-in-the-world) is not our only or fundamental way of encountering entities. And what is the basic character of this reinhabiting? It is to shelter the truth of Being in beings (e.g., Contributions 246: 273), to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. In what, then, does this safeguarding consist?

    3.4 Safeguarding

    Heidegger argues that if humankind is to enter into safeguarding, it needs to learn (or perhaps to learn once more) to think of Being as a gift that has been granted to us in history. Indeed, to think properly is precisely to be grateful for the gift of Being (see What is Called Thinking?). (Terms such as ‘gift’ and ‘granted’ should not be heard theologically, but in terms of secularized sacredness and destining.) In this learning process, certain artworks constitute ontological beacons that disrupt the technological clearing. Thus recall that Heidegger identifies a shared form of disclosure that is instantiated both by the old wooden bridge over the Rhine and by Hölderlin's poem “The Rhine”. We can now understand this identification in terms of the claim that certain artworks (although of course not those that themselves fall prey to technological thinking) share with traditional artisanship the capacity to realize poiesis. In so doing such artworks succeed in bringing us into contact with the mystery through their expression of dwelling (poetic habitation). In listening attentively and gratefully to how Being announces itself in such artworks, humankind will prepare themselves for the task of safeguarding.

    But what exactly would one do in order to safeguard the fourfold in its essential unfolding. Recall that in Building Dwelling Thinking Heidegger presents safeguarding as a four-dimensional way of Being. The first two dimensions—saving the earth and receiving the sky as sky—refer to our relationship with the non-human natural world. As such they forge a genuine connection between the later Heidegger and contemporary environmentalist thinking. However, the connection needs to be stated with care. Once again the concept of poiesis is central. Heidegger holds that the self-organized unfolding of the natural world, the unaided blossoming of nature, is itself a process of poiesis. Indeed it is poiesis “in the highest sense” (Question Concerning Technology 317). One might think, then, that saving the earth, safeguarding in its first dimension, is a matter of leaving nature to its own devices, of actively ensuring that the conditions obtain for unaided natural poiesis. However, for Heidegger, saving the earth is primarily an ontological, rather than an ecological, project. ‘Save’ here means “to set something free into its own essence” (Building Dwelling Thinking, p.352), and thus joins a cluster of related concepts that includes dwelling and also poiesis as realized in artisanship and art. So while, say, fiercely guarding the integrity of wilderness areas may be one route to safeguarding, saving the earth may also be achieved through the kind of artisanship and its associated gathering of natural materials that is characteristic of the traditional cabinetmaker. The concept of saving as a setting free of something into its own essence also clears a path to another important point. All four dimensions of safeguarding have at their root the notion of staying with things, of letting things be in their essence through cultivation or construction. Heidegger describes such staying with things as “the only way in which the fourfold stay within the fourfold [i.e., safeguarding] is accomplished at any time in simple unity” (Building Dwelling Thinking 353). It is thus the unifying existential structure of safeguarding.

    What now of safeguarding in its second dimension—to receive the sky as sky? Here Heidegger's main concern seems to be to advocate the synchronization of contemporary human life with the rhythms of nature (day and night, the seasons, and so on). Here safeguarding is exemplified by the aforementioned peasants whose lives were interlocked with such natural rhythms (through planting seasons etc.) in a way that modern technological society is not. One might note that this dislocation has become even more pronounced since Heidegger's death, with the advent of the Internet-driven, 24-hours-a-day-7-days-a-week service culture. Once again we need to emphasize that Heidegger's position is not some sort of philosophical ludditism, but a plea for the use of contemporary machines and devices in a way that is sensitive to the temporal patterns of the natural world. (For useful discussion see Young 2002, 110–113. Young makes an illuminating connection with Heidegger's eulogy to van Gogh's painting of a pair of peasant shoes to be found in The Origin of the Work of Art.)

    Of course, these relationships with nature are still only part of what safeguarding involves. Its third and fourth dimensions demand that human beings await the divinities as divinities and “initiate their own essential being—their being capable of death as death—into the use and practice of this capacity, so that there may be a good death” (Building Dwelling Thinking 352). The latter demand suggests that we may safeguard each other as mortals by integrating a non-evasive attitude to death (see above) into the cultural structures (e.g., the death-related customs and ceremonies) of the community. But now what about the third dimension of safeguarding? What does it mean to await the divinities as divinities?

    Let's again approach our question via a potential problem with Heidegger's account. Echoing a worry that attaches to the concept of heritage in Being and Time, it may seem that the notion of destining, especially in its more specific manifestation as enframing, involves a kind of fatalism. Despite some apparent rhetoric to the contrary, however, Heidegger's considered view is that destining is ultimately not a “fate that compels” (Question Concerning Technology 330). We have been granted the saving power to transform our predicament. Moreover, the fact that we are at a point of danger—a point at which the grip of technological thinking has all but squeezed out access to the poetic and the mystical—will have the effect of thrusting this saving power to the fore. This is the good news. The bad news is that:

    philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poetizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang]; for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. (Only a God can Save Us 107)

    That is what it means to await the divinities as divinities.

    3.5 Only a God can Save Us

    Heidegger sometimes uses the term ‘god’ to mean the secularized notion of the sacred already indicated, such that to embrace a god would be to maintain due sensitivity to the thought that beings are granted to us in the essential unfolding of Being. When, in the Contributions, Heidegger writes of the last or ultimate god of the other beginning (where ‘other’ is in relation to the ‘first beginning’ of Western thought in ancient Greece—the beginning of metaphysics), it often seems to be this secularized sacredness that he has in mind (cf. Thomson 2003; see Crownfield 2001for an alternative reading of the last god that maintains a more robust theological dimension, although one which is concrete and historicized). However, Heidegger sometimes seems to use the term ‘god’ or ‘divinity’ to refer to a heroic figure (a cultural template) who may initiate (or help to initiate) a transformational event in the history of Being by opening up an alternative clearing (for this interpretation, see e.g., Young 2002, 98). These heroic figures are the grounders of the abyss, the restorers of sacredness (Contributions 2: 6, see Sallis 2001 for analysis and discussion). It might even be consistent with Heidegger's view to relax the requirement that the divine catalyst must be an individual being, and thus to conceive of certain transformational cultural events or forces themselves as divinities (Dreyfus 2003). In any case, Heidegger argues that, in the present crisis, we are waiting for a god who will reawaken us to the poetic, and thereby enable us to dwell in the fourfold. This task certainly seems to be a noble one. Unfortunately, however, it plunges us into the murkiest and most controversial region of the Heideggerian intellectual landscape, his infamous involvement with Nazism.

    Here is not the place to enter into the historical debate over exactly what Heidegger did and when he did it. However, given his deliberate, albeit arguably short-lived, integration of Nazi ideology with the philosophy of Being (see above), a few all-too-brief comments on the relationship between Heidegger's politics and his philosophical thought are necessary. (For more detailed evidence and discussion, as well as a range of positions on how we should interpret and respond to this relationship, see e.g., Farias 1989; Neske and Kettering 1990; Ott 1993; Pattison 2000; Polt 1999; Rockmore 1992; Sluga, 1993; Wolin 1990, 1993; Young 1997). There is no doubt that Heidegger's Nazi sympathies, however long they lasted, have a more intimate relationship with his philosophical thought than might be suggested by apologist claims that he was a victim of his time (in 1933, lots of intelligent people backed Hitler without thereby supporting the Holocaust that was to come) or that what we have here is ‘merely’ a case of bad political judgment, deserving of censure but with no implications for the essentially independent philosophical programme. Why does the explanation run deeper? The answer is that Heidegger believed (indeed continued to believe until he died) that the German people were destined to carry out a monumental spiritual mission. That mission was nothing less than to be at the helm of the aforementioned transformation of Being in the West, from one of instrumental technology to one of poetic dwelling. In mounting this transformation the German people would be acting not imperialistically, but for all nations in the encounter with modern technology. Of course destining is not a fate that compels, so some divine catalyst would be needed to awake the German nation to its historic mission, a catalyst provided by the spiritual leaders of the Nazi Party.

    Why did Heidegger believe that the German people enjoyed this position of world-historical significance? In the later writings Heidegger argues explicitly that “[t]hinking itself can be transformed only by a thinking which has the same origin and calling”, so the technological mode of Being must be transcended through a new appropriation of the European tradition. Within this process the German people have a special place, because of the “inner relationship of the German language with the language of the Greeks and with their thought”. (Quotations from Only a God can Save Us 113.) Thus it is the German language that links the German people in a privileged way to, as Heidegger sees it, the genesis of European thought and to a pre-technological world-view in which bringing-forth as poiesis is dominant. This illustrates the general point that, for Heidegger, Being is intimately related to language. Language is, as he famously put it in the Letter on Humanism (217), the “house of Being”. So it is via language that Being is linked to particular peoples.

    Even if Heidegger had some sort of argument for the world-historical destiny of the German people, why on earth did he believe that the Nazi Party, of all things, harboured the divine catalyst? Part of the reason seems to have been the seductive effect of a resonance that exists between (a) Heidegger's understanding of traditional German rural life as realizing values and meanings that may counteract the insidious effects of contemporary technology, and (b) the Nazi image of rustic German communities, rooted in German soil, providing a bulwark against foreign contamination. Heidegger certainly exploits this resonance in his pro-Nazi writings. That said there is an important point of disagreement here, one that Heidegger himself drew out. And once again the role of language in Being is at the heart of the issue. Heidegger steadfastly refused to countenance any biologistic underpinning to his views. In 1945 he wrote that, in his 1934 lectures on logic, he “sought to show that language was not the biological-racial essence of man, but conversely, that the essence of man was based on language as a basic reality of spirit” (Letter to the Rector of Freiburg University, November 4, 1945, 64). In words that we have just met, it is language and not biology that, for Heidegger, constitutes the house of Being. So the German Volk are a linguistic-historical, rather than a biological, phenomenon, which explains why Heidegger officially rejected one of the keystones of Nazism, namely its biologically grounded racism. Perhaps Heidegger deserves some credit here, although regrettably the aforementioned lectures on logic also contain evidence of a kind of historically driven ‘racism’. Heidegger suggests that while Africans (along with plants and animals) have no history (in a technical sense understood in terms of heritage), the event of an airplane carrying Hitler to Mussolini is genuinely part of history (see Polt 1999, 155).

    Heidegger was soon disappointed by his ‘divinities’. In a 1935 lecture he remarks that the

    works that are being peddled (about) nowadays as the philosophy of National Socialism, but have nothing whatever to do with the inner truth and greatness of this movement (namely, the encounter between global technology and contemporary man), have all been written by men fishing the troubled waters of values and totalities. (An Introduction to Metaphysics 166)

    So Heidegger came to believe that the spiritual leaders of the Nazi party were false gods. They were ultimately agents of technological thought and thus incapable of completing the historic mission of the German people to transcend global technology. Nonetheless, one way of hearing the 1935 remark is that Heidegger continued to believe in the existence of, and the philosophical motivation for, that mission, a view that Rockmore (1992, 123–4) calls “an ideal form of Nazism”. This interpretation has some force. But perhaps we can at least make room for the thought that Heidegger's repudiation of Nazism goes further than talk of an ideal Nazism allows. For example, responding to the fact that Heidegger drew a parallel between modern agriculture (as a motorized food-industry) and “the manufacturing of corpses in gas chambers and extermination camps”, Young (1997) argues that this would count as a devaluing of the Holocaust only on a superficial reading. According to Young, Heidegger's point is that both modern agriculture and the Final Solution are workings-out of the technological mode of Being, which does not entail that they should be treated as morally equivalent. (Heidegger draws the parallel in a lecture called The Enframing given in 1949. The quotation is taken from Young 1997, 172. For further discussion, see Pattison 2000).

    Heidegger's involvement with Nazism casts a shadow over his life. Whether, and if so to what extent, it casts a more concentrated shadow over at least some of his philosophical work is a more difficult issue. It would be irresponsible to ignore the relationship between Heidegger's philosophy and his politics. But it is surely possible to be critically engaged in a deep and intellectually stimulating way with his sustained investigation into Being, to find much of value in his capacity to think deeply about human life, to struggle fruitfully with what he says about our loss of dwelling, and to appreciate his massive and still unfolding contribution to thought and to thinking, without looking for evidence of Nazism in every twist and turn of the philosophical path he lays down.


    Primary Literature

    The Gesamtausgabe (Heidegger's collected works in German) are published by Vittorio Klostermann. The process of publication started during Heidegger's lifetime but has not yet been completed. The publication details are available at the Gesamtausgabe Plan page.
    An Introduction to Metaphysics, translated by R. Manheim, New York: Doubleday, 1961.
    Becoming Heidegger: On the Trail of His Early Occasional Writings, 1910–1927, T. Kisiel and T. Sheehan (eds.), Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2007. A collection of English translations of the most philosophical of Heidegger's earliest occasional writings.
    Being and Time, translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962 (first published in 1927).
    [NB: Page numbers in the article refer to the Macquarrie and Robinson translation. A more recent translation of Being and Time exists: Being and Time, translated by J. Stambaugh. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1996. The Stambaugh translation has many virtues, and is certainly more user-friendly for the Heidegger-novice, but it is arguable that the Macquarrie and Robinson translation remains the first choice of most Heidegger scholars.]
    “Building Dwelling Thinking”, translated by A. Hofstadter, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 217–65.
    Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), translated by P. Emad and K. Maly, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
    History of the Concept of Time, translated by T. Kisiel, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.
    Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, translated by R. Taft, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1929/1997
    “Letter on Humanism”, translated by F. A Capuzzi and J. Glenn Gray, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 217–65.
    “Seminar in Le Thor 1968”, translated by A. Mitchell and F. Raffoul, in Four Seminars, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004.
    “Letter to the Rector of Freiburg University, November 4, 1945”, may be found in K. A. Moehling, Martin Heidegger and the Nazi Party: An Examination, Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1972. Translated by R. Wolin and reprinted in R. Wolin (ed.), The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 61–66.
    “On the Essence of Truth”, translated by John Sallis, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 115–38.
    “ ‘Only a God can Save Us’: Der Spiegel's Interview with Martin Heidegger”, Der Spiegel, May 31st, 1976. Translated by M. O. Alter and J. D. Caputo and published in Philosophy Today XX(4/4): 267–285. Translation reprinted in R. Wolin (ed.), in The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 91–116.
    The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, translated by A. Hofstadter, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1982.
    “The Origin of the Work of Art”, translated by A. Hofstadter with minor changes by D. F. Krell, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 143–212.
    “The Question Concerning Technology”, translated by W. Lovitt with revisions by D. F. Krell, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 311–41.
    “The Self-Assertion of the German University”, translated by W. S. Lewis, in R. Wolin (ed.), in The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993, pp. 29–39.
    “The Thing”, translated by A. Hofstadter, in Poetry, Language, Thought, New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
    What is Called Thinking?, translated by F. D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray, New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Excerpt published under the title “What Calls for Thinking?” in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 369–91, from which the page number of the passage reproduced above is taken.
    “What is Metaphysics?”, translated by D. F. Krell, in D. F. Krell (ed.) Martin Heidegger: Basic Writings, revised and expanded edition, London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 93–110.
    Zollikon Seminars: Protocols—Conversations—Letters, translated by F. Mayr, Northwestern University Press, Illinois: Evanston, 2001.

    Other Cited Words

    Adorno, T., 1964, The Jargon of Authenticity, London: Routledge, 2002.
    Binswanger, L., 1943, Grundformen und Erkenntnis menschlichen Daseins (The Foundations and Cognition of Human Existence), untranslated, Munich: Ernst Reinhart Verlag, 1964.
    Brandom, R., 1983, “Heidegger's Categories in Being and Time”, The Monist, 66(3): 387–409.
    –––, 2002, Tales of the Mighty Dead. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    Cappuccio, M. and Wheeler, M., 2010, “When the Twain Meet: Could the Study of Mind be a Meeting of Minds?”, in J. Chase, E. Mares, J. Reynolds and J. Williams (eds.), On the Futures of Philosophy: Post-Analytic and Meta-Continental Thinking, London: Continuum.
    Caputo, J., 1984, “Husserl, Heidegger and the Question of a ‘Hermeneutic’ Phenomenology”, Husserl Studies, 1: 157–178.
    –––, 1993, “Heidegger and Theology”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 270–88.
    Carel, H., 2006, Life and Death in Freud and Heidegger, New York & Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    Carman, T., 2002, “Review of Steven Galt Crowell, Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths Toward Transcendental Phenomenology”. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2002.02.03. URL=
    Carnap, R., 1932, “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language”, in A.J. Ayer (ed.), Logical Positivism, Glencoe, Scotland: Free Press, 1959.
    Christensen, C. B., 1997, “Heidegger's Representationalism”, The Review of Metaphysics 51(1): 77–103.
    –––, 1998, “Getting Heidegger Off the West Coast”, Inquiry 41(1): 65–87.
    Critchley, S., 2001, Continental Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Crowell, S. Galt, 2001, Husserl, Heidegger, and the Space of Meaning: Paths Toward Transcendental Phenomenology, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
    –––, 2005, “Heidegger and Husserl: The Matter and Method of Philosophy”, in H. L. Dreyfus and M. A. Wrathall (eds.) A Companion to Heidegger, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 49–64.
    Crowell, S. Galt. and Malpas, J. (eds.), 2007, Transcendental Heidegger, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    Crownfield, D., 2001, “The Last God”, in Scott et al., pp. 213–228.
    Dahlstrom, D.O., 1994, “Heidegger's Critique of Husserl”. In T. Kisiel and J. van Buren (eds.) Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press.
    –––, 2001, Heidegger's Concept of Truth, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Dostal, R. J., 1993, “Time and Phenomenology in Husserl and Heidegger”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–169.
    Dreyfus, H. L., 1990, Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division I, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    –––, 1992, What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    –––, 1993, “Heidegger on the Connection between Nihilism, Art, Technology and Politics”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289–316.
    –––, 2008, “Why Heideggerian AI Failed and How Fixing It Would Require Making It More Heideggerian”, in P. Husbands, O. Holland, and M. Wheeler (eds.), The Mechanical Mind in History, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 331–71. (A shortened version of this paper appears in under the same title in Philosophical Psychology 20/2: 247–268, 2007. Another version appears under the same title in Artificial Intelligence, 171: 1137–1160, 2007.)
    Edwards, P., 1975, “Heidegger and Death as a ‘Possibility’ ”, Mind 84(1): 546–66.
    –––, 1976, “Heidegger and Death: a Deflationary Critique”, The Monist 59(1):161–86.
    –––, 2004, Heidegger's Confusions, New York: Prometheus.
    Farias, V., 1989, Heidegger and Nazism, Temple University Press.
    Gallagher, S., and Jacobson, R.S., forthcoming, “Heidegger and Social Cognition”, in J. Kiverstein and M. Wheeler (eds.), Heidegger and Cognitive Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Gelven, M., 1989, A Commentary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Revised Edition, De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
    Guignon, C., 1993, “Authenticity, Moral Values, and Psychotherapy”, in C. Guignon (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–39.
    Haugeland, J., 2007, “Letting Be”, in Crowell and Malpas 2007.
    –––, 2005, “Reading Brandom Reading Heidegger”, European Journal of Philosophy 13(3): 421–28.
    Hinman, L., 1978, “Heidegger, Edwards, and Being-toward-Death”, Southern Journal of Philosophy XVI(3): 193–212.
    Husserl, E., 1900, Logical Investigations, translated by A.J. Findlay, London: Routledge, 1973.
    –––, 1913, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology Book 1, translated by F. Kersten, Berlin: Springer, 1983.
    Kant, I., 1781, Critique of Pure Reason, translated by P. Guyer and A. Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
    Kisiel, T., 1993, The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time, Berkeley: University of California Press.
    –––, 2002, Heidegger's Way of Thought: Critical and Interpretive Signposts, A. Denker and M. Heinz (eds.), London: Continuum.
    Kisiel, T. and van Buren, J. (eds.), 1994, Reading Heidegger from the Start: Essays in His Earliest Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press.
    Kiverstein, J. and Wheeler. M. (eds.), forthcoming, Heidegger and Cognitive Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Löwith, K., 1928, Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen, in K. Stichweh (ed.), Sämtliche Schriften, Vol. 1. (9–197), untranslated, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1981.
    Malpas, J., 2006, Heidegger's Topology, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    –––, forthcoming, “Heidegger, Space, and World”, in J. Kiverstein and M. Wheeler (eds.), Heidegger and Cognitive Science, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    Mitchell, A. J., 2010, “The Fourfold”, in B. W. Davis (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, Durham: Acumen, pp. 208–18
    Mulhall, S., 2005, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Heidegger and ‘Being and Time‘, (second edition), London: Routledge.
    Murray, M. (ed.), 1978, Heidegger and Modern Philosophy: Critical Essays, New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
    Neske, G. and Kettering, E., 1990, Martin Heidegger and National Socialism: Questions and Answers, translated by Lisa Harries, New York: Paragon House.
    Olafson, F., 1987, Heidegger and the Philosophy of Mind, New Haven: Yale University Press.
    O'Neill, J., 1993, Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-Being and the Natural World, New York: Routledge.
    Okrent, S., 1988, Heidegger's Pragmatism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    Ott, H., 1993, Martin Heidegger: a Political Life, London: Harper Collins.
    Overgaard, S., 2002, “Heidegger's Concept of Truth Revisited”, Nordic Journal of Philosophy, 3(2): 73–90.
    –––, 2003, “Heidegger's Early Critique of Husserl”, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 11(2): 157–175.
    Pattison, G., 2000, The Later Heidegger, London: Routledge.
    Pöggeler, O., 1963, Martin Heidegger's Path of Thinking, translated by D. Magurshak and S. Barber, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press International, 1987.
    Polt, R., 1999, Heidegger: an Introduction, London: Routledge.
    Ratcliffe, M., 2008, Feelings of Being: Phenomenology, Psychiatry and the Sense of Reality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Richardson, W. J., 1963, Heidegger: Through Phenomenology to Thought, The Hague, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing.
    Ricoeur, P., 1992, Oneself as Another, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Rockmore, T., 1992, On Heidegger's Nazism and Philosophy, London: Wheatsheaf.
    Rorty, R., 1991a, Essays on Heidegger and Others (Philosophical Papers, Volume 2), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    –––, 1991b, “Heidegger, Contingency, and Pragmatism”, in his Essays on Heidegger and Others (Philosophical Papers, Volume 2), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–49. Also in H. L. Dreyfus and H. Hall (eds.), Heidegger: a Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, and H. L. Dreyfus and M. A. Wrathall (eds.) A Companion to Heidegger, Oxford: Blackwell, 2005, pp. 511–32.
    Sallis, J., 2001, “Grounders of the Abyss”, in Scott et al., 2001, pp. 181–97.
    Sartre, J.-P., 1956, Being and Nothingness, New York: Philosophical Library.
    Schoenbohm, S. M., 2001, “Reading Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy: an Orienation”, in Scott et al., 2001, pp. 15–31
    Schurmann, R., 1992, “Riveted to a Monstrous Site: on Heidegger's Beitrage zur Philosophie”, in T. Rockmore and J. Margolis (eds.) The Heidegger Case: on Philosophy and Politics, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
    Scott, C. E., Schoenbohm, S. M. Vallega-Neu, D. and Vallega, A. (eds.), 2001, Companion to Heidegger's, Contributions to Philosophy, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    Sharr, A., 2007, Heidegger for Architects, London: Routledge.
    Sheehan, T., 1975, “Heidegger, Aristotle and Phenomenology”, Philosophy Today, XIX(Summer): 87–94.
    –––, 2001, “A Paradigm Shift in Heidegger Research”, Continental Philosophy Review, 32(2): 1–20.
    –––, 2010, “The Turn’, in B. W. Davis (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, Durham: Acumen, pp. 82–101.
    Sluga, H., 1993, Heidegger's Crisis: Philosophy and Politics in Nazi Germany, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    Stiegler, B., 1996, Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation, translated by Stephen Barker, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2003.
    Thomson, I., 2003, “The Philosophical Fugue: Understanding the Structure and Goal of Heidegger's Beiträge”, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 34(1): 57–73.
    Tugendhat, E., 1967, Der Wahrheitsbegriff bei Husserl und Heidegger (The Concept of truth in Husserl and Heidegger), untranslated, Berlin: de Gruyter.
    Vallega, A., 2001, “ ‘Beyng-Historical Thinking’ in Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy”, in Scott et al., 2001, pp. 48–65
    Vallega-Neu, D., 2003, Heidegger's Contributions to Philosophy: an Introduction, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    –––, 2010, “Ereignis: the Event of Appropriation”, in B. W. Davis (ed.), Martin Heidegger: Key Concepts, Durham: Acumen,pp. 140–54
    van Buren, J., 1994, The Young Heidegger: Rumor of the Hidden King, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    –––, 2005, “The Earliest Heidegger: a New Field of Research”, in H. L. Dreyfus and M. A. Wrathall (eds.) A Companion to Heidegger, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 19–31.
    von Herrmann, F.-W., 2001, “Contributions to Philosophy and Enowning-Historical Thinking”, in Scott et al. 2001, pp. 105–26
    Wheeler, M., 2005, Reconstructing the Cognitive World: the Next Step, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Wolin, R., 1990, The Politics of Being: The Political Thought of Martin Heidegger, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    –––, 1993, The Heidegger Controversy: a Critical Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    Young, J., 1997, Heidegger, Philosophy, Nazism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    –––, 2002, Heidegger's Later Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Ziarek, K., 1989, “The Reception of Heidegger's Thought in American Literary Criticism”, Diacritics, 19(3/4): 114–26.
    Zimmerman, M. E., 1983, “Toward a Heideggerean Ethos for Radical Environmentalism”, Environmental Ethics, 5(3): 99–131.
    –––, 1993, “Rethinking the Heidegger—Deep Ecology Relationship”, Environmental Ethics, 15(3): 195–224.
    –––, 2002, “Heidegger's Phenomenology and Contemporary Environmentalism”, in T. Toadvine (ed.), Eco-Phenomenology: Back to the Earth Itself, Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 73–101.

    Additional Reading

    Carman, T., 2003, Heidegger's Analytic: Interpretation, Discourse, and Authenticity in ‘Being and Time’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Clark, T., 2001, Routledge Critical Thinkers: Martin Heidegger, London: Routledge.
    Dreyfus, H.L. and Hall, H. (eds.), 1992, Heidegger: a Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell.
    Dreyfus, H.L. and Wrathall, M. (eds.), 2002, Heidegger Reexamined (4 Volumes), London: Routledge.
    Gorner, P., 2007, Heidegger's Being and Time: an Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Guignon, C., 1983, Heidegger and the Problem of Knowledge, Indiana: Hackett.
    –––, (ed.), 1993, The Cambridge Companion to Heidegger, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Macann, C. (ed.), 1992, Heidegger: Critical Assessments (4 Volumes), London: Routledge.
    –––. (ed.), 1996, Critical Heidegger, London: Routledge.
    Marx. W., 1970, Heidegger and the Tradition, translated by T. Kisiel and M. Greene, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
    Wrathall, M., 2003, How to Read Heidegger, London: Granta.
    Wrathall, M. and Malpas, J. (eds.), 2000, Heidegger, Authenticity and Modernity: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, Volume 1, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    –––, (eds.), 2000, Heidegger, Coping and Cognitive Science: Essays in Honor of Hubert L. Dreyfus, Volume 2, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Heidegger6

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:04 pm

    What if the United States of the Solar System consisted of all of the existing governmental systems (including the United Nations and the Secret Government) -- meeting where they presently meet -- and being linked via the InterPlaNet?? The U.S.S.S. Representatives might be required to have earned PhD's from the University of Solar System Studies and Governance. They might do double-duty as government officials in their home territories (with whatever governmental system exists there) -- then they might serve as U.S.S.S. representatives (in a manner which I have suggested within this thread). I'm still aiming for that 10,000 representative number -- to avoid exclusivity and corruption. Plus, the solar system is quite large and complex -- especially if it is as developed and populated as I think it might be. However, what if a somewhat theocratic U.S.S.S. Supreme Court (with perhaps 200 Supreme Court Justices) met in a setting such as St. Ouen in France -- complete with all of the pomp and circumstance I've previously hinted at?? Would such an assembly serve as an Authority of Last Resort -- as sort of a Solar System Governmental Rock -- if you know what I mean??? I'm really not trying to be arbitrary or difficult. On the other hand -- don't Politics and Religion require some elements of arbitrariness??? Go ahead and get mad -- and then think long and hard about it. Once again, this is all just a mental and spiritual exercise.

    On the one hand -- the suggestion (that the Solar System is a Big Business -- Appearances are Everything -- the Lies are Different at Every Level -- and the Bottom-Line is the Bottom-Line) is highly upsetting (to me) -- yet if YOU were setting-up a solar system for an experimental race of beings -- in a highly hostile universe -- how would YOU do it?? Things seem to have been bad for a very long time -- but what if they HAVE to be bad?? What if Purgatory is as good as it gets?? What if we are damn lucky that things are as good as they have been historically -- and as good as they are presently?? What if we have been ruled by "Aliens" who don't like us (historically). What if we are ruled by "Aliens" who don't like us (presently)?? What if these "Aliens" are "God"?? What if we had a Final Jihad to secure this solar system for humanity -- only to discover (much to our horror) that we are incapable of ruling ourselves??!! What if the major personalities (human and otherwise) throughout history (including the holy-ones) have a good-side and a bad-side? What a revolting development THAT would be!!
    Carol wrote: Hi Oxy, After listening to a number of folks who crossed over and came back I've come to the conclusion to be non-judgmental. That we are here for the life experience and life is meant to be enjoyed irrespective of all the hoopla and negativity others put out there. My focus as usual is on the sun and earth changes as compared to the pitiful interactions between the different fractions, where I feel utterly helpless to do anything other then to shake my head and refocus on something I do have control over - like the garden I'm neglecting, or the chickens who sneak off to have clutches of baby chicks where we now have a rooster farm as compared to just a few egg laying hens. Everywhere I go, I'm tripping over baby chicks. I'm just enjoying each day and what it brings. I figure this is the best I can do for human kind to help balance out all the negative stuff. Of course I have high hopes of the dinar revaluing soon so we can do more fun stuff like get an aquaponics green house set up and travel. Becoming more and more self-sufficient is what is fun for me. I just saw this new stove The Kimberly Wood Stove that looks pretty cool and would work great for our house in Oregon where it is fricking cold 8 months out of the year. I was thinking something like this would also be good for a greenhouse there too. I don't mind your tangential rants. I figure most of us are just trying to sort stuff out on a regular basis and each of us has our own wealth of knowledge. It'd be fun someday to get all together and sit around a campfire enjoying the stout. I'd like that as most here feel like old friends. Hadriel Lawless Toast Flowers
    I'm simply trying to imagine how Heaven might be structured within this solar system. It certainly isn't Heaven now -- is it?? Are we pleased with This Present Purgatory?? But then what the Hell do I know?? Or who in Hell do I know??? If I've made everyone angry -- and made everyone hate me -- at least this might constitute preliminary common ground. Baby Steps. Even if we somehow set everything up in absolute perfection -- it wouldn't be long before jealously, fighting, power-struggling, etc, etc, etc would screw-up paradise. I really think this is what happened in the Garden of Eden -- and that very little has changed since then. I suspect that we have hidden leaders who could easily pass a 'V' Empathy Test -- in part because running the show in this neck of the woods requires very thick skin. Nothing is ever right. Nothing is ever good enough. Someone gets left out in the cold, etc, etc, etc. I will continue to post idealistic conceptualizations -- knowing full-well that it would be next to impossible to implement my idealistic plans. I'm very, very close to focusing on astronomy and sacred classical music. I sort of started out this way in my youth -- but I somehow got led astray by a cold, cruel, screwed-up world. I sometimes get the urge to join the Masons -- and become a corrupt banker and weapons salesman -- so I can buy a Porsche 911 Turbo and a Shallow Underground Civilian Base -- and thumb my nose at the commoners when the excrement contacts the refrigeration system. Just kidding -- or am I???? Perhaps I should stop. Consider the following. I might be a Completely Ignorant Fool -- yet I think that I point you in valid and important directions. Please do not neglect the material and areas I have attempted to illuminate and meddle-with.

    Is God a Girl? Does the following Anime Music Video reveal part of the Divinity Within Humanity? I'm not trying to be a smart alec...and I'm not asking a rhetorical question. Do you consider this video to be inspiring or offensive? On YouTube...someone commented that God was not a girl...because a girl wouldn't have $crewed things up this badly!!! Another person said that having a girl God would be better than having a mean old man for a God!!! Whatever the case may be...I think that we need to gradually perfect the Human Race...and perfect the Solar System...and not through Draconian Eugenics and Extermination...but rather through following Responsibility wherever it leads.

    Jesus said 'you must be like little children to enter the Kingdom'...and elsewhere the Bible says 'a little child shall lead them'. I have a problem with some of the risque drawings in the video...but overall...the artistic beauty, uplifting music, innocence, and spiritual allusions...are representative of a small portion of the Divinity Within Humanity. Focusing on the ideal in art, music, literature, science, nature, spirituality, governance, etc...will lead us to higher ground...on the road to utopia.

    Remembering me, discover and see,
    All over the world, she’s known as a girl,
    To those who are free, their minds shall be key,
    Forgotten as the past, cause history will last.

    God is a girl, wherever you are,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, whatever you say,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, however you live,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, shes only a girl,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?

    She wants to shine, forever in time,
    She is so driven, shes always mine,
    Clearly and free, she wants you to be,
    A part of the future, a girl like me,
    There is a sky, illuminating us,
    Someone is out there, that we truly trust,
    There is a rainbow, for you and me,
    A beautiful sunrise, eternally.

    God is a girl, wherever you are,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, whatever you say,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, however you live,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, shes only a girl,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?

    She wants to shine, forever in time,
    She is so driven, shes always mine,
    Clearly and free, she wants you to be,
    A part of the future, a girl like me,
    There is a sky, illuminating us,
    Someone is out there, that we truly trust,
    There is a rainbow, for you and me,
    A beautiful sunrise, eternally.

    God is a girl, wherever you are,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, whatever you say,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, however you live,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?
    God is a girl, shes only a girl,
    Do you believe it, can you receive it?

    Thank-you zaina. The goal is a higher level of psychological, ethical, and spiritual development...resulting in a better world. But part of the process involves facing unpleasant realities. Hopefully this can be accomplished in a somewhat balanced fashion...but there is really no easy or right way to do this. There are pros and cons to just about everything.

    Could we consider most of the human beings depicted in religious art...including Ancient Deities, Jesus, Mary, the Saints, et simply be Idealized Human Beings...painted or sculpted by Idealized Human Beings? In other words...the focus would be on idealizing or perfecting the Human Race...rather than following or reverencing any particular deities. We would simply Reverence the Divinity Within Humanity. This is an attempt at unifying humanity...while maintaining responsible freedom. One could appreciate the painted and sculpted works in the Vatican and Washington D.C...for example...without ascribing any particular veneration to Pagan or Christian Deities.

    Namaste Constitutional Responsible the context of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of the context of the United Nations...and applied to the Solar a related attempt at unifying humanity...while maintaining responsible freedom. The goal would be a Perfected Humanity existing in a Perfected Solar System with Infinite Diversity and Responsible Freedom. If we make our bed and sleep in it...reincarnating endlessly...shouldn't we go first-class?

    The 'Quest of the Historical Jesus' by Dr. Albert Schweitzer, written a century ago, is not exactly a devotional book. It is a hard reading review of several major critical studies of Jesus, and mostly negative. But in the last chapter there are some positive gems which emerge from the darkness. The devotional aspects of the study of Jesus should not be neglected! But the scholarly and critical studies should not be neglected either! This is an often painful process, but it makes us strong.

    "But the truth is, it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men, who is significant for our time and can help it. Not the historical Jesus, but the spirit which goes forth from Him and in the spirits of men strives for new influence and rule, is that which overcomes the world." --The Quest of the Historical Jesus pg. 401

    "Jesus as a concrete historical personality remains a stranger to our time, but His spirit, which lies hidden in His words, is known in simplicity, and its influence is direct. Every saying contains in its own way the whole Jesus. The very strangeness and unconditionedness in which He stands before us makes it easier for individuals to find their own personal standpoint in regard to Him."--The Quest of the Historical Jesus pg. 401

    "But in reality that which is eternal in the words of Jesus is due to the very fact that they are based on an eschatological world-view, and contain the expression of a mind for which the contemporary world with its historical and social circumstances no longer had any existence. They are appropriate, therefore, to any world, for in every world they raise the man who dares to meet their challenge, and does not turn and twist them into meaninglessness, above his world and his time, making him inwardly free, so that he is fitted to be, in his own world and in his own time, a simple channel of the power of Jesus."--The Quest of the Historical Jesus pg. 402

    "He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: 'Follow thou me!' and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is."--The Quest of the Historical Jesus pg. 403

    Jesus taught mostly in nature. The most inspirational environment is nature! I believe that the Holy Spirit can best get through to us when we contemplate eternal things in nature. The best place to have church is not in church. The best church is no church!

    Having said that, I am torn. I love architecturally and acoustically inspiring churches. Especially while experiencing sacred music in these vast spaces. Singing the great hymns of the church with congregation, choir, organ and orchestra, as the sunlight streams through the stained glass windows is truly a mountain top experience! I believe that artistic expression and creativity are hugely important parts of life and Christianity. They lift us up!

    However, I am often troubled by the price and the pride. Is Jesus impressed? I sometimes imagine the stained glass Jesus with tears streaming down His face because of being ignored, despised and rejected by His professed followers! Would those in Darfur be impressed? Should we build more orphanages than churches? I once stood at the altar of a magnificent Gothic cathedral, reading the story of the rich young ruler from a large leather-bound Bible on a golden pedestal. For a moment, I thought the Word of God clashed with the House of God! Are churches sometimes places where there is a form of godliness without the power? Where people stand, sit, bend, nod, and are politely kind to God? Also, the message and music are often determined by those with the dough, not by those in the know!

    Obviously, when it's cold, dark and rainy, it's nearly impossible to have a religious service outside! I guess we need church buildings, but we don't need jeweled, gold plated shrines, bedeviled with hideous gargoyles! We need the grand and glorious, but with sound and simple construction, so as not to become slaves to buildings and bills! Think minimalist cathedral. Was that an oxymoron? Sometimes I'm an oxymoron! And don't forget the soup kitchen!

    Also, church is not for everyone. The church is not the very gate of Heaven! The Christian Church is not Salvation4Sale! At least it shouldn't be. Church may, or may not, be necessary for balanced psychology, ethics and spirituality. Sometimes church can even make things worse! On the other hand, those who have left the church have often jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, and had their fingers burnt right up to their arm pits!

    Finally, remember what Jesus said to the disciples when they were admiring a church building...

    OK...I'm going to brainstorm in this post. Could at least some of the following be true?

    Amen Ra = God the Founder = Intelligent Designer? Purposefully physically extinct (but could exist on another dimension)? The Divinity Within Humanity? Created Reptilians as a slave race? ("Let us make man in our image"). Destroyed by the Reptilians...or by Lucifer? Destroyed during the War in Heaven?

    Lucifer = Eve, Hathor, Isis, Mary (brought us to Earth from the Pleiades/Aldebaran/Sirius IN the Moon aka Battlestar Galactica aka Ark of the Covenant)? Created the major religions...including being the major author of the Bible? Is the Human Goddess of This World? Is alive presently? Perfectly possessed? Posting on the internet? Was deceived by the Reptilians who offered technology, protection, and a new Earth (the Promised Land) = Ate the Apple? In charge of the Deep Underground Military Bases / Stargate Temples / Secret Space Program?

    War/Expulsion in Heaven has Garden of Eden (Pleiades?) and Exodus (Hyksosdus?) parallels?

    The major factions in the Solar System can be associated with 1. Amen Ra? 2. Hathor? 3. Horus? 4. Serpent? Think about it.

    Adam = Earth Humanity?

    Winged Serpent = Reptilians / UFO's (Conspired with Lucifer against Amen Ra?). Provided technology, protection, and tenant in possession status on Earth for exchange for work, worship, and ?...aka The Covenant? Nibiru? Reptilian God of This World? Did Horus/Jesus obtain a New Covenant?

    This is a very tangled hypothetical web which might be pure unmitigated poppycock...or which might be the biggest part of disclosure?

    I have a feeling that we will be meeting Hathor in the near future...and that she might be a lot like Anna in "V"...except with darker skin and an English accent...with exquisite musical abilities...and an astronomical IQ. Just a feeling...mind you. Now I need to take my medicine...before I go to my psychiatrist and exorcist appointments. Too hip. Gotta go.


    I'm presently toying with the idea that Lucifer and Satan are two separate and very different beings...that Lucifer is the Human God (or Goddess) of This World...and that Satan is the Reptilian God (or Goddess) of This World. Human Responsibility is extremely important...but so is the Hierarchy of Power on this planet...which may significantly involve Non-Humans or Extraterrestrial Humans. Leave no moonrock unturned.

    I'm presently thinking of Lucifer as a very intelligent, very refined, very beautiful, very conflicted, young (yet ancient) Human Goddess of This World...who may have brought us here in the Battlestar Moon...from Sirius, Aldebaran, and the escape an oppressive theocracy. Perhaps the Reptilians were already here...and a deal with the Devil was worked out (after a long and bloody battle?) for us to stay on Earth...which involved work and worship. Who knows? What I do know is that we are in huge trouble...the nature of which I am unsure. I see Lucifer as being caught between the Devil and a Human Race who is waking-up to what is really going on. I suspect that the pressure is almost unbearable. But I do think that the time has arrived (and is long overdue) to place ALL of the facts on the table...before the general public...and to openly clean up the mess we are best we can. Perhaps Lucifer tried to take advantage of the Reptilians...and the Reps tried to take advantage of Lucifer and the Human Race. There has to be a Key Board Room located on the Earth or the Moon...where Lucifer, Satan, and certain key persons/beings meet to discuss and debate the future of humanity. My guess is that most of these meetings would drive most of us insane. This is pure speculation based upon at least some evidence and reason.

    If you haven't already seen the David Icke / Arizona Wilder interview. Warning: There are some very upsetting and graphic portions of the interview. I found David's monologue at the beginning to be very informative. Try playing the theme from The Exorcist (softly) during this Icke monologue!! The planned-wars, human-sacrifices, satanic-rituals, and child-abuse are reprehensible, unconscionable, and unfathomable in the extreme, and to the nth degree. This @#$%^& BS needs to STOP IMMEDIATELY. We probably need the City-States and the United Nations...but NOT IN THEIR PRESENT CORRUPT FORM.

    Sometimes I think I have been (or am presently!) a reptilian!! Who knows?? When I speak of a Solar System Exorcism...I intend this toward all very hard-core malevolents of all races. I want the really, really bad guys and gals (of all races, including human) to leave...until they learn to play nice. I want the good guys and gals (of all races, including reptilian) to stay. But this isn't up to me.

    Isn't the 'All Seeing Eye' (both Egyptian and Masonic?) directly related to the Dog-Star Sirius? Isn't Sun-Worship really the worship of the ET's from Sirius (The Sun God)? Ever heard of 'Sun God Day'?

    My religious background is SDA...but I'm a real mongrel at this point (a rebel without a church!). I recommend two books by Ellen White...'Desire of Ages' and 'Great Controversy'...but not much else. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and Dr. Desmond Ford are very interesting people (heretics!) to study in the SDA historical zoo. I don't go to church...but if I would probably be an Episcopal church. If I were in New York...I might attend St. Thomas, St. Barts, or St. John the Divine. Unfortunately...I presently have huge problems with the penetential and sacrificial aspects of the Eucharistic Liturgy (and the pagan symbology)...even though I love the robes, music, incense, ceremony, reverence, awe, glory, grandeur, and fellowship. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer is much better than the present one...but I don't like either one! The Psalms are printed in their entirety...but where the hell are the Teachings of Jesus? Who's church is it anyway? I'd rather stay home...and eat chocolates!! I also have problems with the Substitutionary Atonement. So did Bernard Shaw. He thought it was unethical. I think that the entire sacrificial system was and is a colossal irresponsible and bloody mess! Apologetics in this area tend to degenerate into exegetical monstrosities. I have a way with words...don't I?

    I just re-watched the first episode of 'V'...and the thought struck me...could Anna be Lucifer/Hathor/Mary (the Human Goddess of This World) and Freddie (the one who always seems to be with Anna) be Satan (the Reptilian God of This World)? Could Amen Ra really be the Human God in the Pleiades who Lucifer rebelled against? I really don't know. I'm just trying to feel my way through this God and Goddess business...even though I know that I am venturing where Angels fear to tread.

    Thank-you MyShadow, Moxie, and 777 The Great Work. Battlestar Moon is beautiful.

    The Goddess of This World (or was it the Queen of Heaven?) just gave me a verbal warning: This is so fitting...because I feel like a Columbo character...sticking my nose where it doesn't belong! Unfortunately...chasing the Gods and Goddesses is driving me crazy! All of this is enough to drive a man to drink!

    Here is a comment from Kelphi:

    Ortho, One is only un-blinded of Gods truth from one source only- The Holy Spirit. God has spoken. His Word is true. Man will go to great lengths before bowing the knee to God. And for most it will be too late.

    You will one day confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, this is true for all, but you had better hope you did this before His day. I believe you have already heard and know the Gospel. But belief is all that is veiled from you. You know what to do my friend.

    Peace & Love,


    Kelphi, I confess that the words of Jesus Christ as interpreted by the Holy Spirit aka the Divinity Within Humanity is the Very Word of God to me. I embrace the Great Commission in Matthew 28. Your superior, condescending, and even threatening tone conflicts with you calling me friend...and your claim to peace and love.

    I consider all of the rambling and speculating I do to merely be stumblings in the right direction. I mean well...but I'm generally clueless. Unfortunately...the ones who really know the whole story aren't talking. If they started talking...they wouldn't be talking for long. This subject is a real Pandora's Box. Please be careful. Know when to stop.

    May I suggest watching the Ralph Ellis 1. 2. , Acharya S , and David Icke interviews on over and over...until it really sinks in. Then rewatch the Stargate SG1 series...rewatch all of Alex Collier's, Bill Cooper's, and Anna Hayes' videos on YouTube. Finally...rewatch 'V' (1983 and 2009). Things should start to fall into place. But don't join any stupd cults...or get involved with dangerous hocus-pocus and mumbo-jumbo groups. You may even wish to keep going to church for the music, architecture, art, fellowship, bingo, food, members of the opposite sex, business contacts, insights of the preacher/rabbi/priest...but don't worship anyone or anything other than the Divinity Within Humanity aka The Holy Spirit. Even Jesus said that the unpardonable sin was the Sin Against the Holy Spirit. I reverence the Teachings of Jesus...regardless of their source. Lucifer/Hathor could have written most of the Bible...for all I know. The Teachings of Jesus could be the greatest hits of ancient wisdom written by Lucifer/Hathor. But I tend to think that a Reptilian Satan made sure that the Teachings of Jesus never got any traction.

    I think that Lucifer/Hathor may be behind a lot of the governmental and religious systems throughout history (under the watchful eyes of Satan/Reptilians)...and that this very human being is alive and well presently...and posting on the internet. I may have to eat my words, and eat humble pie regarding the last sentence...but this presently makes sense to me. Fasten your seatbelts...hang on tight...and don't go me. I think that cool, calm, and rational interdisciplinary thinking is essential to sorting this stuff out. Combine faith and doubt. Do not neglect either.

    Here is another link which you might find interesting (John Rhodes):

    Cathedral - Crosby Stills and Nash


    Six o' clock
    In the morning, I feel pretty good
    So I dropped into the luxury of the Lords
    Fighting dragons and crossing swords
    With the people against the hordes
    Who came to conquer.

    Seven o'clock
    In the morning, here it comes
    I taste the warning and I am so amazed
    I'm here today, seeing things so clear this way
    In the car and on my way
    To Stonehenge.

    I'm flying in Winchester cathedral
    Sunlight pouring through the break of day.
    Stumbled through the door and into the chamber;
    There's a lady setting flowers on a table covered lace
    And a cleaner in the distance finds a cobweb on a face
    And a feeling deep inside of me tells me
    This can't be the place

    I'm flying in Winchester cathedral.
    All religion has to have its day
    Expressions on the face of the Saviour
    Made me say
    I can't stay.

    Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here!
    Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
    For anyone to heed the call.
    So many people have died in the name of Christ
    That I can't believe it all.

    And now I'm standing on the grave of a soldier that died in 1799
    And the day he died it was a birthday
    And I noticed it was mine.
    And my head didn't know just who I was
    And I went spinning back in time.
    And I am high upon the altar
    High upon the altar, high.

    I'm flying in Winchester cathedral,
    It's hard enough to drink the wine.
    The air inside just hangs in delusion,
    But given time,
    I'll be fine

    OK...I'm gonna talk out of both sides of my mealy speculative mouth. Here's another 'what-if?' adventure:

    What if Humans and Reptilians evolved simultaneously...and genetically manipulated each other (mutual manipulation)...and eventually ended up in a Human controlled Universal Theocracy...with Humans as the Gods...and Reptilians as the Angels? What if God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit were a Human Trinity...with the Father and Son being individuals...and the Holy Spirit being the Divinity Within Humanity (the souls in each person)? What if the Reptilian Race had a Shadow Trinity...consisting of Lucifer, Michael, and Gabriel...or Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The Humans would be both physical and non-physical. The Reptilians would be both physical and non-physical.

    What if the Reptilians got sick and tired of this Theocratic BS...and Lucifer led a rebellion against the Human Race...which exploded into the War in Heaven...killing the Human God the Father? What if a third of the Human Race was taken as hostages and slaves (perhaps deceived)...some (or all) of whom ended up on Earth...under the rulership of the Reptilian Lucifer?

    I really started out with this general theory...before exploring other options. The one thing that remains the that we need to get past the Master/Slave and Corruption/Violence BS. Otherwise...I'm pretty darn easy. Perhaps too easy. Sometimes I feel like the Kumbaya Olive Branch of the Gizeh Intelligence.

    I'm asking you to look at a Human Trinity from all angles...and to look at a Reptilian Trinity from all angles. Look at all of the possibilities regarding the evolution/creation of both races. And finally to look at Church and State...and the subjects of Theocracy and Democracy...from all angles.

    What would a Reptilian Trinity vs Human Trinity conflict look like? There would be a lot of confusion and deception...wouldn't there. None of the mythologies or theologies could really be trusted...could they? We can't really trust anything or anyone...can we? We just have to keep digging...keep asking questions...and keep speculating...without becoming enraged or going insane. What fun!

    Here is one version of a resolution of the mess we are in...written by Ellen the late 1800' a book titled 'The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan':

    "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." Revelation 21:22. The people of God are privileged to hold open communion with the Father and the Son. "Now we see through a glass, darkly." 1 Corinthians 13:12

    We behold the image of God reflected, as in a mirror, in the works of nature and in His dealings with men; but then we shall see Him face to face, without a dimming veil between. We shall stand in His presence and behold the glory of His countenance. {GC 676.4}

    There the redeemed shall know, even as also they are known. The loves and sympathies which God Himself has planted in the soul shall there find truest and sweetest exercise. The pure communion with holy beings, the harmonious social life with the blessed angels and with the faithful ones of all ages who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb, the sacred ties that bind together "the whole family in heaven and earth" (Ephesians 3:15)--these help to constitute the happiness of the redeemed. {GC 677.1}

    There, immortal minds will contemplate with never-failing delight the wonders of creative power, the mysteries of redeeming love. There will be no cruel, deceiving foe to tempt to forgetfulness of God. Every faculty will be developed, every capacity increased. The acquirement of knowledge will not weary the mind or exhaust the energies. There the grandest enterprises may be carried forward, the loftiest aspirations reached, the highest ambitions realized; and still there will arise new heights to surmount, new wonders to admire, new truths to comprehend, fresh objects to call forth the powers of mind and soul and body. {GC 677.2}

    All the treasures of the universe will be open to the study of God's redeemed. Unfettered by mortality, they wing their tireless flight to worlds afar--worlds that thrilled with sorrow at the spectacle of human woe and rang with songs of gladness at the tidings of a ransomed soul. With unutterable delight the children of earth enter into the joy and the wisdom of unfallen beings. They share the treasures of knowledge and understanding gained through ages upon ages in contemplation of God's handiwork. With undimmed vision they gaze upon the glory of creation--suns and stars and systems, all in their appointed order circling the throne of Deity. Upon all things, from the least to the greatest, the Creator's name is written, and in all are the riches of His power displayed. {GC 677.3}

    And the years of eternity, as they roll, will bring richer and still more glorious revelations of God and of Christ. As knowledge is progressive, so will love, reverence, and happiness increase. The more men learn of God, the greater will be their admiration of His character. As Jesus opens before them the riches of redemption and the amazing achievements in the great controversy with Satan, the hearts of the ransomed thrill with more fervent devotion, and with more rapturous joy they sweep the harps of gold; and ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands of voices unite to swell the mighty chorus of praise. {GC 678.1}

    "And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever." Revelation 5:13. {GC 678.2}

    The great controversy is ended. Sin and sinners are no more. The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love. {GC 678.3}

    Take a very, very long and very, very hard look at the following:

    1. Archangel Gabriel
    2. Archangel Michael
    3. Archangel Lucifer
    4. Ancients or Founders
    5. Anunnaki Reptilians
    6. Draconian Reptilians
    7. Grey Reptilians
    8. Interdimensional Reptilians
    9. God and Satan
    10. Angels and Demons
    11. Human Beings
    12. God the Father
    13. God the Son
    14. God the Holy Spirit
    15. Theology and Theocracy
    16. Heaven and the Garden of Eden
    17. Rebellion and War in Heaven
    18. Expulsion and Exodus
    19. Law, Covenant, and Constitution
    20. Slavery and Freedom
    21. Creation and Evolution
    22. Love and Responsibility

    What are the precise definitions, descriptions, interactions, and overlaps of these words? This may be the most important study one can possibly make. Lay aside your preconceived notions...and forget the bad experiences you may have had in connection with religion and church. Theology is at the center of Disclosure. The Jesuits know exactly what I'm talking about...but they are quite mysterious and secretive. They have very short leashes...and their masters carry very big sticks.

    Disclosure = The PTB telling us the truth about all of the above...without telling us the truth about all of the above. I'm still enamored with the idea of applying Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom to both the Human and the Reptilian races...both internally and cooperatively. Unfortunately...reason and solutions are often unwelcome in the heat of battle...especially when hatred, fear, and pride override everything else.

    I have repeatedly suggested that the really hard-core negative ET's should be removed from this Solar System...and I still feel that way. But what if we are basically cattle to the present negative ET's...and thus receive some protection from them from even worse ET's? It seems to me that there would have to be a universal consensus to grant us freedom and sovereignty in this Solar System. I'm presently very interested in Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer...especially regarding the Luciferian rebellion (against Ra?) and the War in Heaven. Our plight seems to be directly related to a continuation of the original War in Heaven. Is there basically a three way power struggle for control of the Human Race? Could the following be true:

    First Race: Represented by The Founders aka The Ancients aka God the Father aka Ra? Destroyed in the War in Heaven?

    Second Race: Represented by the Angel Gabriel (Pro Ra), Zionist?

    Third Race: Represented by the Angel Michael (Neutral), Andromedan, Christ-like?

    Fourth Race: Represented by the Angel Lucifer (Anti-Ra), Teutonic Zionist?

    Fifth Race: Represented by Jesus Christ? The Human Race?

    Are the first four hypothetical races various types of Reptilian and/or Human Races? Or...are they all Draconian? Was/is the War in Heaven fought over the Human Race? Where was/is Heaven? Try not to think about this from a traditional Judeo-Christian or a New Age perspective. Sort of start from scratch...and think way out of the box. I think this may be important. Are one or two of the above the real problem(s) here on Earth? Lucifer has a bad reputation...but I keep sensing that there's someone worse than Lucifer...named Satan, perhaps? I don't have the answers. I just want to try to make you think, and think, and think!

    Here's a really creepy trailer for the new movie "Legion" (viewer discretion advised): Could at least part of the basic premise presented here be true?

    This video clip from Stargate SG-1 shows Human Gods and Goddesses possessed by the Goa'uld: Could there be some truth to this?

    I think I keep catching glimpses of the way things really are...but I can't create a concise yet comprehensive picture of what's really going on. I'm reading a Courtney Brown free E-book...which, if true, is mind-boggling and unbelievable. It's basically remotely viewed...which seems pretty creepy to me. I suspect a mixture of fact and deception. I'm very suspicious of most everything!

    Were the Founders or Ancients really Human Beings? Did an originally very good Human God become corrupt and insane while theocratically ruling both Humans and Reptilians...with the Reps being mistreated? (Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely) Was this the Original Sin? Did this result in the Luciferian Rebellion and War in Heaven? Were most Human Beings destroyed...including the Human God? Are we some of the few Human Beings who survived? Is the Universe presently a Reptilian Theocracy or Universal Church? Is Earth a Planet in Rebellion? Are most of the religions (historical and contemporary) really Reptilian Religions? Are we kept alive by Reptilians who are somewhat sympathetic to the plight of Humanity...or are we kept alive by the Reps in the same way that a rancher protects his herd of cattle? Is our misery and plight part of a cosmic 'Pay Back Time'? Are the Reptilian PTB lead by Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer? Do they argue and fight regarding our fate? Are they Human, Reptilian, or Hybrid? Is the Reptilian Agenda to place Reptilian Souls in Human Bodies...and to Exterminate/Enslave Humanity to an Unfathomable Extent? Is the New World Order really a Reptilian Kingdom of God? If all of the above is true...what would convince the Reps to base the Universe on Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...and to support Human Sovereignty in This Solar least? These questions are not rhetorical.

    The Great Work asked "Y do u call yourself, the ortho- box mor -on??"

    Because, in one sense, I am very orthodox, reverent, conservative, and historically oriented. In another sense, I am very irreverent, liberal, and futuristic. Also...a lot of people think I'm crazy or a moron...even though I can be quite clever at times...especially in print. Put that all together and you have an oxymoron. Therefore orthodoxy + oxymoron + moron = orthodoxymoron. Dr. Laura Schlessinger uses the same nickname...but I didn't copy her...and I don't think she copied me!

    Jonah said "Hello there Ortho,

    Keepin busy i see...

    well im going to join you on your imaginative contemplation of Dragonhood. Although i will be careful because it is not my wish to start any more fuss from people who seem to take things and put them in there head and then say attack!!! No thank you... my fear comes from myself... this i learned sometime ago... anyway...

    As to your quote above..... I am speculative as to the outcome of such a "evolution" will call it... however... i do not see anything in Abrax's material about Reptilians.... I took the whole dragon thing as follows :once all personal archetypes of lineage (from the stars) have been fulfilled than a person can begin the transformation of the material body to fully encompass their light body.... or dragon body... but I may have missed something.."

    This is not a fear-mongering thread or a Thuban fan-club thread. It is quite academic and detached. There is no aspiration, veneration, or hatred. I mostly ask questions and have a lot of video links (if they still work after all of the site meltdowns). I've come to the conclusion that the Bible is a mixture of good and evil...and that the actual words attributed to Jesus are the best part. Here are some links to some irreverent threads which express some of my rambling non-authoritative thoughts on the subject.









    Is Alpha Draconis not the center of the Draconian Reptilian civilization (according to folks who claim to know)? Are Dragons not Reptilian? If not...what are they? What is a Drac? All of this is interrelated...and the abraxasinas/Thuban material seems to support my original hypothesis and early posts on this (and other) threads. I am requesting a title change of the current thread to:

    God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, Amen Ra, Hathor, Abraxasinas, Thubans, et al

    I'm not really into the 'duality' and 'illusion' jargon. There is concretely positive and negative, good and evil, benevolent and malevolent, progressive and regressive, angels and demons...although perceptions and interpretations can be illusory at times. Whatever happened to Sin? 'Thuban Thoughts' thread is still not available...even though it contains nothing sexual or attack-oriented...and is not an abraxasinas thread. Why? Did it really tick the negative entities off? If so...GOOD! Bring it on! Let's go! Actually...why don't we just all get along...and be benevolent and loving beings...instead of being jerks? I know that there are good and evil entities around me 24/7...and I often talk to them...but I don't pray to them. Sometimes I even swear at them...and flip them off! I may have a lot more than a monkey on my back. I may have an interdimensional reptilian IN my back. I once saw an internet message saying 'we're in your back'. Supposedly reptilians can latch onto humans via their lower chakras. I don't think I'm possessed...but I'm pretty sure that I'm harrassed 24/7. They'd probably like to do a lot more to me...if they could. Who knows...maybe they will.

    My 'Thuban Thoughts' thread is still unavailable...even though the Thuban Q&A thread is available in read-only form. Is this a simple oversight...or is there a legitimate (or illegitimate) reason why? In the meantime...please closely examine posts #158 and #159 for a series of questions and answers which I find quite revealing. I still see abraxasinas/walk-in as being in defection mode...and revealing a lot of inside dragon-land stuff. I could be very wrong. How hard would it be for a top-level darkside host/walk-in to transition to the love and light side? I think it might be nearly impossible. However...I think that a huge number of human and non-human defections...from darkness to light...will be necessary to resolve this conflict of the ages. Some have suggested that this isn't going to happen...and that the reptilian beings will just laugh. Well...laughter is a good maybe that's a start. I will continue to dream...and continue to seek reconciliation and restoration. I will not pursue trench-warfare and triumphalism. I'm thinking that both the human and reptilian races are guilty as hell...and that's pretty guilty. I'm not sure what the proper relationship should be between these two major races...but I'm hopeful that a balance-point can be achieved. Namaste abraxasinas. Namaste Thubans. Namaste Lucifer. Namaste Gabriel. Namaste Michael. Namaste Humans. Namaste Reptilians. Namaste Demons. Namaste Angels. Namaste Benevolent Beings of the Universe. Namaste Malevolent Beings of the Universe. A new commandment give I unto you: "Thou Shalt Have No Gods". This is the first and last commandment.

    Jonah said "Ortho... we are in the process of restoring your thread... may have to be read only...

    what was it you wanted me to rename this thread to again.. i seem to have deleted your email??"

    Thank-you for you consideration Jonah. I am requesting a title change of the current thread to:

    God, Jesus, Satan, Lucifer, Gabriel, Michael, Amen Ra, Hathor, Abraxasinas, Thubans, et al

    Any Thuban thoughts? Is there currently an open Thuban thread? Can this subject be discussed in a detached and academic manner? Imagine being in a graduate class at Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, or Harvard...meeting in an old and elegant lecture hall...with a professor who might be a lot like Joseph Farrell. Imagine discussing abraxasinas and the Thuban material in this setting...with a hundred doctoral candidates. Things would be a lot different than the chaos we have witnessed recently...wouldn't it? Why can't we conduct business in this manner and fashion?

    Has anyone gotten abraxasinas's take on all of this? Has Tango said anything recently about this? It sounds as though my 'Thuban Thoughts' thread might be read-only. We'll have to wait and see on that one...but this implies to me that the stated reasons for the banning of abraxasinas and the closure of the Thuban related threads are merely the tip of the iceberg. Who is really in charge of what is occurring. I'm just feeling as though this is not administrative business as usual. I'm not impatient or angry...but I am worried.

    OK...I'm still not seeing 'Thuban Thoughts'...even in read-only form. Was it something I said? If someone has access to this may wish to examine it with a fine-toothed comb. I have no idea what might have been problematic. The actual abraxasinas quotes and Thuban material are quite brief. The comments were all quite polite and on-topic. So...what's going on here? Has Bill or Kerry said anything about the abraxasinas situation in the last few days? I don't care so much about administrative I do about the integrity of the administrative process and chain of command. Has anyone reviewed posts 158 and 159? Any thoughts? I feel like the Man Behind the Iron Curtain! Or...The Man Who Never Was! I don't know why I said that! I just thought it sounded cool!


    Could we this in great detail? Even if this is total might be a profitable exercise in examining an alien proposal or mandate. This could come in handy later on. Even if abraxasinas and the Thuban thing is a complete fabrication...could bits and pieces of all of this reveal important information regarding what we are dealing with? Did you like my little joke in the previous thread? I just couldn't resist...but I probably should have. Someone can generate all sorts of BS...and make it sound all complicated and technical. I didn't even work at making this believable. I just randomly did a word association game combined with pure, unmitigated popycock...and I'm sure it shows. I don't even want to wait and see if anyone takes the bait. I'm not that kind of guy! I may add my comments in red (a red-letter edition of the alien constitution!) to shed light on what is really being stated in this document. I doubt that it is genuine...but one never knows. It could be representative of a proposed, or actual, alien constitution...which might become the law of the land on Earth.

    I'd really like to have some in depth online conversation and even a really first-class manner...with the members of this forum. What would it really be like to sit in on meetings of very informed people and other than people...who are discussing what to do about this Solar System and it's inhabitants...human and non-human. Would these be pleasant and cordial meetings...or would there be a lot of shouting? Would armed guards be standing by...both human and non-human. Do firefights sometimes erupt at these a drug-deal gone-bad? What do we really think about abraxasinas and the this point...after all of the confusion? I'm really undecided. I don't really know what happened. How are we to know what's genuine...and what's completely fabricated? I continue to like the idea of remaining detached and polite...but not being afraid to ask questions which might be upsetting to the aliens, spirits, entities...or whoever. I like the idea of being genuine with them. I think they're smart enough to know if we're being real or if we're being fake. I just wish that I really, really knew the totality of the history of the universe...or at least all of the crucial aspects. Most of what we flying blind. Everyone has a different version of the 'way it really is'. The process of conversation and decision-making is what really concerns me. I'm not seeing a consistent flow of logical thinking, and in-depth research. That goes for much as for anyone else. I see a lot of knee jerking...and other kinds of...never mind.

    My last comment on the Thuban Q&A has me worried...the one regarding a Solar System Exorcism and the establishment of the United States of the Solar System. Did that cause a problem? I certainly hope not. I just have a problem with enslavement, extermination, and being treated like a herd of cattle by an alien race...who could possibly be downright demonic. However...I think everything we do in Avalon is pretty low-level...but what if the whole abraxasinas/Thuban thing was a significant part of disclosure? How would we know? Disclosure might be a very strange and rocky process. It might not be anything like what we might imagine it to be. Who knows...we may have witnessed the real deal. I'd like to know what's really going on...and what the real issues are. Should we even be interested...if we can't know the facts? I hope that some sort of a factual statement regarding the abraxasinas/Thuban thing will be forthcoming. I always feel like I'm trying to walk on ice...or trying to build on shifting sand. I have absolutely no idea what beings throughout the Solar System think about what we do here. I wish we could have some authoritative conversation at some point. I really hate this speculation and guessing game. I'm ready to go back to sleep. On the other hand...I'm not sure I ever woke-up. I just listened to Alex Jones and Jessie Ventura for about 20 minutes...and they're in a whole different league. I don't really know what team I'm on. I don't really know who the good guys and bad guys are. I keep thinking that I should just shut-up...and try to make a significant amount of money...for the first time in my life. But then I start feeling guilty. I remember reading a poem in college titled 'Terrance, this is stupid stuff'. Maybe this really is stupid stuff. Maybe we're just sampling the poison store. See the final verse of this poem...a couple of posts below.

    Who knows...maybe Bigmo is really John May!! (the one in 'V') Just kidding!! The whole abraxasinas/Thuban thing was quite bizzare. Again...I wish to take a very close look at that Dragonian Constitution material. I'll do that later today...after I get some rest. That "Thuban Thoughts" disappearance really has me spooked. (it doesn't take much) is 'Terrance, this is stupid stuff' (which I referred to in a previous post). The final verse is the key. The king gradually increased his exposure to various poisons...and built up an immunity to that when his enemies poisoned his food...he ate it without effect. Then he made his enemies eat the food they poisoned...and they died. Maybe we really are like the in Avalon. It's good to be king. Long live the king. Long live Avalon.

    A. E. Housman (1859–1936). A Shropshire Lad. 1896.

    LXII. Terence, this is stupid stuff

    ‘TERENCE, this is stupid stuff:
    You eat your victuals fast enough;
    There can’t be much amiss, ’tis clear,
    To see the rate you drink your beer.
    But oh, good Lord, the verse you make,
    It gives a chap the belly-ache.
    The cow, the old cow, she is dead;
    It sleeps well, the horned head:
    We poor lads, ’tis our turn now
    To hear such tunes as killed the cow.
    Pretty friendship ’tis to rhyme
    Your friends to death before their time
    Moping melancholy mad:
    Come, pipe a tune to dance to, lad.’

    Why, if ’tis dancing you would be,
    There’s brisker pipes than poetry.
    Say, for what were hop-yards meant,
    Or why was Burton built on Trent?
    Oh many a peer of England brews
    Livelier liquor than the Muse,
    And malt does more than Milton can
    To justify God’s ways to man.
    Ale, man, ale’s the stuff to drink
    For fellows whom it hurts to think:
    Look into the pewter pot
    To see the world as the world’s not.
    And faith, ’tis pleasant till ’tis past:
    The mischief is that ’twill not last.
    Oh I have been to Ludlow fair
    And left my necktie God knows where,
    And carried half way home, or near,
    Pints and quarts of Ludlow beer:
    Then the world seemed none so bad,
    And I myself a sterling lad;
    And down in lovely muck I’ve lain,
    Happy till I woke again.
    Then I saw the morning sky:
    Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
    The world, it was the old world yet,
    I was I, my things were wet,
    And nothing now remained to do
    But begin the game anew.

    Therefore, since the world has still
    Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure
    Luck’s a chance, but trouble’s sure,
    I’d face it as a wise man would,
    And train for ill and not for good.
    ’Tis true, the stuff I bring for sale
    Is not so brisk a brew as ale:
    Out of a stem that scored the hand
    I wrung it in a weary land.
    But take it: if the smack is sour,
    The better for the embittered hour;
    It should do good to heart and head
    When your soul is in my soul’s stead;
    And I will friend you, if I may,
    In the dark and cloudy day.

    There was a king reigned in the East:
    There, when kings will sit to feast,
    They get their fill before they think
    With poisoned meat and poisoned drink.
    He gathered all the springs to birth
    From the many-venomed earth;
    First a little, thence to more,
    He sampled all her killing store;
    And easy, smiling, seasoned sound,
    Sate the king when healths went round.
    They put arsenic in his meat
    And stared aghast to watch him eat;
    They poured strychnine in his cup
    And shook to see him drink it up:
    They shook, they stared as white’s their shirt:
    Them it was their poison hurt.
    —I tell the tale that I heard told.
    Mithridates, he died old.

    Stardustaquarion said "orthodoxymoron, Ashayana in the interview with Jeff Rense talks about the Draconians and Reptilians, I thought it may be of interest to you. Love"

    Thank-you Stardustaquarion. I'm going to listen to it now. I think Ashayana knows a hell of a lot...but I don't necessarily trust her...or believe everything she says. But then again...I don't trust anyone...especially myself. And that's the truth.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 A.-E.-Housman-Quotes-2

    Last edited by orthodoxymoron on Wed May 01, 2013 12:39 am; edited 1 time in total

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:06 pm

    I find it sad that hardly anyone will communicate with me -- yet I feel supernaturally attacked 24/7. Isn't this somewhat cowardly?? I'm feeling zero love from divinity or humanity -- and I'm frankly becoming tougher by the day. I'm feeling more and more like a general or a commander in Star Wars -- even though I hate this. Unfortunately, my idealism is confronting the way things really are -- and probably will be for a very long time. I am becoming more and more cynical. I'm feeling more and more like a warrior. I sometimes wonder if a composite of the Stargate SG-1 characters (including the system-lords) is a reasonable model for those who wish to make a difference in this solar system. I think I've been way too soft, slow, and stupid in this particular incarnation -- but I suspect that I've been a terror in some of my other incarnations. I think I've been way too understanding and open throughout my life. Perhaps attempting to be on everyone's side has been a grave mistake. Perhaps it is time to solidify my views -- and begin to circle the wagons -- in preparation for battle -- figurative and/or literal. Perhaps the jokes should end. I've tried to be funny -- but I perceive that this has been a serious mistake. You had a nice-guy to deal-with -- but I fear that time has passed.

    I'm going to begin speculating about a hypothetical mediator or mediatrix between the Human and Reptilian races...spanning thousands...or even millions...of years. This would involve a Human Spirit God of This World...and a Reptilian Spirit God of This World...cohabitating an Apostolic Succession of Human Bodies. Theanthropos? Baldacchino? Co-mediatrix? This concept is really at the core of this entire thread...and may be at the core of the abraxasinas/Thuban phenomenon...if it is legitimate and real. Don't laugh at me. This is something which needs to be carefully examined. Go through this entire thread...and see what you think. I'm just going to attempt to take this concept to the next level (of absurdity?)!! This is a wild ride...isn't it? I really believe that such a being exists...historically and presently...and that they are the key to the future of humanity. I could be very wrong...but that's my story...and I'm sticking to it...for now. They're probably reading this thread.

    Hello Hathor/Mary! I'd really like to have a proper question and answer thread with you someday. I might not do too well...face to face. I think better with my fingers! I hope that you are doing OK. Think before you flame!

    Think long and hard about the avatar of abraxasinas in the Thuban Q&A thread. I think that this being is at the center of disclosure...which might be of a very startling nature. I am not on a triumphalistic any way, shape, or form. I merely seek understanding...and a resolution to the horrible mess which humanity seems to be stuck in. I prefer a non-violent resolution...but I am a pragmatic person...sometimes. Disclosure might consist of a series of false-starts and missteps. It may play out just the opposite of what one might expect in a Hollywood movie. Disclosure might turn out to be a huge disappointment to most ufologists...and to the general public. The elites already know. What did they know...and when did they know it?

    Consider this thread as a step toward a New Theology. Find your own your own time. If you've lost your faith...then find a new one. My intent wasn't to turn people into bitter and angry atheists. My New Theology consists of this thread...combined with the Amen Ra thread...the United States of the Solar System thread...and the Red Letter Church thread...basically. I'll probably be working out the details for the rest of my life. Good luck with your quest. Don't take life too seriously. On the other hand...perhaps we need to take life more Siriusly. Namaste. :wink2:

    I don't know if the following really 'fits' in with this thread...but I'm listening to an Anna Hayes / Jeff Rense interview...and I had a thought. What if people like Alex Collier, Anna Hayes, Leo Zagami, Tony/abraxasinas, et al have to make an agreement with non-human entities to promote a certain agenda? They are given access to certain forbidden information...but they have to present it in a certain my theory goes. They might be given 50% truth and 50% bs...which they have to intermingle...with a certain editorial slant. This is just another one of my crazy speculations. I'm trying to stop. I really am. I'm thinking that there is a lot of deal-making which goes on. Even the Bible speaks of the 'Old Covenant' and the 'New Covenant'. There is the supposed 1954 Greada Treaty...among others. I continue to think that we got our @$$ kicked in an ancient war...and that OUR technology and wisdom was stolen from us...and we were genetically and educationally dumbed down by our conquerors. I think they need us...because it's really our technology...and perhaps human beings are the only ones who can use it. Perhaps the non-humans have to use human slaves to work with this ancient technology and wisdom. In the Stargate SG-1 episode 'The Fifth Race'...only a human (Capt. O'Neil) is able to be programmed with the knowledge of the ancients. Perhaps the Ptah, the Founders, the Ancients...or God the Creator...are really Ancient Human Beings. I tend to think that a lot of aliens would like to let us go...but if they did so...and we realized how badly we have been misused and abused...up to and including the killing of an Ancient Human God...we might go berzerk...and begin a brand-new Star War against the alien races. Who knows? I'm sure the Shadow Government knows...but it sounds like they're in so much trouble...and into this thing so deep...that they can't do a damn thing about it. It sounds like they are not in control of what's going on here on Earth. Commoners like you and me might be required to sort a lot of this stuff out. Just a thought. We haven't been mind controlled...and we haven't signed binding we may be the only ones with the necessary freedom to be able to solve some of the perplexities facing humanity. Just more speculation on my part. Once again...I really intend to stop. I've had quite enough...but I do believe I'll have another drink. A real strong one. One more thing...Anna Hayes described three alien factions which the elites have agreements with...if I heard correctly. I have been speculating about three major factions. Also...there are supposedly three major bases below one of the polar icecaps. I keep thinking about Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer. Maybe I should just smoke a great big the one in 'Up in Smoke'. :smoke: That was some good $**+ man!

    I hesitated to begin this thread. I am torn. I want truth and goodness to triumph...yet achieving this is a very painful process. The history of our world is very sad and violent. No organization or country has escaped this brutal gang of facts. The history of the Vatican is a huge part of our history...and this includes all of us. There should be no angry finger pointing. The video which I am posting is critical...yet not hateful or vindictive. I am offended by the cartoons, photoshopped pictures of the Pope, hurtful internet comments, etc, etc. There should not be a hateful, superior, triumphalistic, or sing-song attitude manifested toward anyone or any organization. This includes the Vatican.

    Everyone should research the Vatican...whether they are religious or not. There are so many aspects of our historical and contemporary world which are interconnected with the Vatican. All roads lead to Rome. I'm not a Roman Catholic...and I never have been...but I have attended dozens of masses and concerts. I adore the art, architecture, and music...even the art and architecture with pagan aspects. I have been in many cathedrals...and I have been to the Vatican. It is truly impressive. I have had very good luck with the Roman Catholics I have known and worked with...including priests and musicians. They are doing the best they can.

    However, there is something which seems to torment the soul of the Roman Catholic Church. I fear that the hierarchy has to deal with unimaginable problems...which may include dealing with the devil himself(or herself). They may be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Does the Vatican mediate between Lucifer and the Human Race? Is it the Human Race vs the Underworld? We may be in more trouble than we think. Watch the following video with an open and non-judgmental mind. Connect the Dots. Respond Responsibly. Any thoughts or reaction to the video? Tell me what you think...positive or negative.

    Once again...I'm seeing very little interest in something which I think is extremely important. I'd like to discuss this in a rational and charitable manner. The better we deal with this sort of thing...the more willing the insiders will be to reveal more...and work toward resolving this mess...together as We the People of Earth. Please take the time to consider these videos as a group...and tell me what you think.

    Thank-you. I alternate between not wanting to think about this stuff at all...and wanting to really help solve this mess...and help the human race to move on to bigger and better things than war, starvation, financial crisis, meaninglessness, etc, etc. The retrospect...may be very, very simple...yet it may take thousands of years to recognize this answer to any significant degree...apply it globally...and rescue ourselves. Think about the Vatican, Tesla, Advanced Technology, Underground Bases and Cities, City States, Atlantis, Lemuria, Lucifer, the Nazis, and the New World Order. Then read what I have written below. Then take a long walk...face yourself...and think long and hard.

    Have you ever watched 'Brides of Christ'? If not...please's really good...and made me cry. The human race has so much negative baggage. I don't hate anyone or any organization. I just want the human race to get out of the quicksand. This may take a long time...and a lot of pain. I think that eventually the human race will emerge with a highly ethical secular spirituality which will not involve church attendance, rituals, or hocus pocus of any kind. I believe that we survive our physical deaths...and simply get recycled...whether we are good or bad. This makes it all the more important that we create a better world to return to. This is our home.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Could the UFO/ET phenomenon be from within Earth...rather than from outer space? Could 'alien' technology be ancient human(or reptilian) knowledge? Could the city states...including the controlled from within Earth? Is much of the ET phenomenon really demonic in nature? Is Earth's crust riddled with tunnels, cities, and bases? Is nuclear weaponry, anti-gravity, free-energy, and other space-age technology really from the Vatican Library...and/or other ancient texts stored underground...rather than back engineered from outer-space UFO's? Is that giant Earth sculpture representative of what is really within Earth? Could many of the church atrocities have been ordered from within Earth...rather than by deranged power and money hungry surface humans? Is the true God of the Universe largely shut out of Earth...leaving surface humans to deal with powerful human and reptilian beings(both physical and spiritual) from within Earth? Is the Pope the Vicar of Lucifer...rather than the Vicar of Christ? Does the church or Pope have any real choice in the matter? Are we really dealing with basically good people...negotiating with and battling dark underground forces?

    Am I a paranoid, neurotic, deluded wretch who is blaspheming God...and will be punished in the flames of hell...after the Jesuits get done with me? I'm sort of kidding...and sort of serious! I really mean well...and am trying to help...but there is the possibility that I am making things worse by raising these issues. My mind is not made up on any of these subjects...and probably never will be. I'm open to new information and re-evaluation.

    Thank-you for the link. I'm checking it out. The church seems to contain the best and the worst people in the world. There must be huge daily power struggles and debates within the church...behind closed doors. Have you former Catholics ever watched Pat Condell? He's a bitter ex-Catholic atheist! He's very rude and irreverent...yet he makes a lot of sense...and is very funny.

    I keep worrying that the people in the history books or on the evening news are not calling the shots...and that non-humans may be telling the people and organizations we love to hate...what to do. If I were an elite with immense power, wealth, influence, etc...I would probably try to create heaven on earth...and run as clean and tight a ship as possible. No human sacrifices, no financing both sides in wars that I started, no crashing stock markets and ruining economies, no starvation, no satanic rituals, no atrocities, no environmental nightmares, no extermination, no enslavement, etc, etc, etc. I would try to get the people of the world to really like me...and bypass all the corrupt and destructive bs...while I continued to live in my seaside my Enzo Ferrari, attend social functions, etc. I see some of the smartest people doing the most bizarre, corrupt, and destructive things imaginable. I like what I see and hear when NWO people are interviewed...yet I hate the NWO. Sometimes I think the NWO people hate the NWO too...but don't have a choice in the matter. Perhaps I am being too kind to these people...but I am sensing something very evil behind what I think are front men and errand boys. Is Lucifer calling the shots? Is Lucifer a little old lady reptilian/human hybrid from Atlantis? Think about it...a very, very smart...very, very evil...and very, very cruel being wearing a flowing cape and a jeweled crown...issuing orders both verbally and telepathically...while sitting on a throne in an underground cathedral more dazzling than St. Peter's. Could this being be playing God and Satan at the same control and enslave humanity? Far-fetched? Probably...but I'm thinking in this direction at this time. That could change in 5 minutes. I'm in the speculation business. Unfortunately I'm wasting a lot of time...driving myself (and others?) insane...and making no money. How stupid is that?

    I guess I'm looking for the highest standards and practice of psychology, ethics, and spirituality...without all of the ritual religious baggage. I don't want to start another religion...a true one this time. I don't want to be a spiritually bankrupt atheist. I don't want to channel ancient...and supposedly superior...disembodied entities. I just want to go through life without hurting, killing, stealing from...or otherwise screwing my fellow humans. Then I would like to get recycled...if it's not too much trouble.

    I found this interchange between Jordan Maxwell and Alex Jones to be very interesting: In this thread...I am not trying to blame the Catholics for all of the evil and destruction in the world. I am trying to get at what is behind many groups and individuals...which continues to divide and conquer us. In the recent Project Camelot interview with Joseph Farrell...he makes a comment regarding present day Germany...which seems to coincide with the Maxwell/Jones clip. I can't remember the details. Watch the interview...which is fantastic...and you'll notice it.

    Here is a clip of Malachi Martin being interviewed by Art Bell(warning: the video is graphic and the subject is exorcism): This stuff is real. Here is another video: I don't agree with everything in this one...especially the part about the Pope going to hell. I don't believe in heaven and hell as historically presented...and I certainly don't know the heart of anyone.

    Thank-you no caste. There is plenty of dirt...if one wishes to dig. I can only stomach so much...and then I have to move on to more pleasant subjects.

    golden lady: I'm glad you like the thread. It's sort of a necessary evil. I don't relish this subject...but it seems to be central to understanding how this world really works.

    If you want to really 'Murder in the Vatican' by Lucien Gregoire...regarding the death of Pope John Paul I. This book really made my hair stand on end. 'In God's Name' by David Yallop is another book which will keep you awake at night...

    To any practicing Roman Catholics: I'm not suggesting that you stop going to church...but I do think that being well informed is very important. Your local church and priests are probably a blessing to the community. It's just that I think there is a powerful dark side at the highest levels of the church...and that the visible church leaders may not be in ultimate control. I doubt that they are happy with the situation...but it may be nearly impossible to change things for the better. I think we are all in a lot of trouble.

    Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple with a whip. Perhaps this needs to happen again...

    Sometimes I wonder if the cathedral architecture, organ design and really from underground cathedrals. Reptilians are supposedly builders. Masons are builders. Hmmmm. According to biblical theology...Lucifer was the preeminent musician in heaven. Hmmmmm. As far as I know...they don't know who designed Chartres Cathedral. Imagine that! Sometimes I wonder if organists find music of unknown origin waiting for them when they arrive at the church to practice. Notice how complex and abstract the above music is. Have you ever seen the sheet music? I have some by Bach, Widor, Vierne, Dupre, etc. Devilishly difficult. We supposedly received religion and technology from the reptilians and greys. What else did we receive? The Vatican Library may contain the comprehensive answer to this question. The truth is in there. I'm not gonna say another word...

    What would happen if church services and masses were music only? No liturgy. No sermons. Just music...complete with organ, orchestra, choir, and congregation? The pastors and priests would be counselors...and would officiate at special services and ceremonies. There probably is not an easy answer. I am beginning to have a problem with the concept of worship and praise. It seems to me that this is what Lucifer aka Satan really wants and needs...and that the God of the Universe doesn't want or need this sort of thing at all. It makes me wonder who is really being worshipped and praised on Sun-God Day. I love the music, architecture, glory, and grandeur...but I am seeing a huge and fundamental problem. This applies to all churches...and not just the Roman Catholic Church. I don't go to church.

    If I did go to church...and attended a Roman Catholic Church...I would probably consider myself to be a...Pope John Paul I, Bishop Fulton Sheen, Father Malachi Martin...Roman Catholic. Those who are in the the Roman Catholic Church...really know. I would love to sit in a room full of Jesuits...and talk theology. Unfortunately...I might not make it out of there alive! They have a know! I just hope that the dark forces can be converted or exorcised from the church...and the entire world. I continue to think that the Roman Catholic Church is a major part of the problem...and potentially a major part of the solution.

    Please consider the following thread: It touches on some of the issues raised in this thread...and contains many positive solutions.

    Are the Vatican and Italy on good terms...or is there trouble brewing? The reason I the last post...and what Leo Zagami said recently when in 'prison'.

    One of the best kept Secrets of the Vatican is no longer a secret. It is now possible to purchase Indulgences Online with a Papal Account.

    My question continues to be...who is REALLY calling the shots? Is it a group of men sitting around at the Vatican...dreaming up all manner of evil and atrocity for Earth? Or...are these men TOLD what to do by evil aliens and/or evil spirits? If the second choice is the correct much of a choice do they have in the matter? I presently consider the Pope to be the Vicar of Lucifer...rather than the Vicar of Christ. I really don't think he has much of a choice. Christ is supposed to mediate between God and Humanity. I currently think that Christ stands between Lucifer(the God of This World) and Humanity...and that there is a war between the Vatican and Christ. Somehow...the Vatican must betray Lucifer and embrace Christ. But this might result in the Battle of Armageddon. They have embraced Lucifer...and betrayed Christ...for a hell of a lot more than 30 pieces of silver...believe me. This is simply my personal speculation.

    I've said it before...I like Roman Catholics. I have had very good luck with Roman Catholics. This includes priests and musicians. Human history is very violent and sad. Roman Catholic history is simply part of human history. It is our history. I don't wish to single them out as being the source of all evil in the world. I really think that they have had to deal with the devil...literally...throughout their ways we may not be able to even imagine. I just think that the all of it's gory details...needs to be matter how upsetting and disruptive this may be. It is time. I'm not an expert or authority on these subjects. I'm just trying to face reality...historically and presently. My internal insecurity and turmoil keeps me searching. We need to see the darkness and the light...and then focus on the light. I would never get into an angry argument with a Roman Catholic regarding their beliefs. I don't think they are lost souls. They are part of the human race...and I am pro-human. We need to rethink everything...and religion is a big part of this rethink. Keep going to church...but keep getting informed. If you're not going to don't need to go...but keep getting informed. There is no easy way to deal with this.

    PTL = Pass The Loot or Pay The Lady.

    Jesus didn't build churches and ask for why do his professed followers do this? Are the Teachings of Jesus at the center of Christianity? Are you kidding? We worship fame, fortune, and power. So...preachers and churches gain fame, fortune, and promoting a God of fame, fortune, and power. Clever. :sneaky2:

    On the other hand...there probably is a place for churches and church schools. The two should probably always combine their facilities to save money. of my favorite examples of a cost effective church/school a particular Roman Catholic church and school...where I think they got just about everything right. But I tend to think that churches and church schools should not be tax-exempt. They should be treated like any other business. Perhaps the model should be one of schools with concert halls...where excellence in psychology, ethics, spirituality, the arts and the norm. Preachers and churches should not lie to their people. They should not preach guilt and fear...along with fame, fortune, and order to collect more and more money...often from sincere people...who can't afford to give...and who receive emotional problems in return for all of their time, money, and effort.

    I don't believe in hell...but sometimes I wish there really was a hell...if you know what I mean.

    Some of you might find the following thread to be interesting in the context of this thread. Once again...just consider the factual information as part of the puzzle...without anger or rancor.

    Thank-you for your interest. Once again...I simply desire understanding regarding the most powerful visible organization on the planet. I have zero animosity. People should probably keep going to church. I just want a new reformation...based upon the Teachings of Jesus and the U.S. Constitution. I realize that this is anathema...but that it is the right thing to do in modernity. I envision a non-penitential and non-sacrificial Namaste Mass based upon the Latin Mass. I love the art, music, ceremony, fellowship, etc...but the Satanists and Moneychangers need to be driven out of the temple. Powerful off-world forces would probably need to approve these heretical reforms. I'm not a theologian...but this is how I see things presently.

    I like the idea of a 5% National Consumption Tax to fund legitimate Federal Government functions and projects...and the elimination of all the stupid tax forms, loopholes, etc. Why does everything have to be insane?

    That video clip was creepy. Check out 'Murder in the Vatican' by Lucien Gregoire regarding the untimely death of Pope John Paul I. I've enjoyed attending masses...but I do not enjoy the intrigue, murder, and mayhem. 'In God's Name' by David Yallop is another interesting book...if you like reading about corruption, intrigue, murder, and mayhem.

    I have no issues with rank and file Masons or Roman Catholics. What concerns me is who owns and operates this Solar System? My concerns are very high up. This is all about Solar System Administration. I am very, very interested in Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer. Who are they...REALLY? I am very frustrated regarding all of the threads I have started. I am very frustrated with my life. I keep seeing the light vs dark battles...but I can never seem to pin anything down...or get any traction whatsoever. I can see clearly now...but I can't do a damn thing! I used to think that the answer was in the Bible. Then I lost my faith...and I thought that the answer was blowing in the wind. Now...I think that the truth is Down There...under the surface of the Earth and the bases...possibly run by Draconian Reptilians.

    But I don't really know if these beings exist...and if they do...what their true nature really is. How many factions are there? Are they all bad? Are they all good? Are they a mixture of good and bad? Who's winning? Of Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer...who is the best...and who is the worst? Are they all Draconian Reptilians? Are they all Greys? Are they all Humans? Are they all of the above? Are they none of the above? Do they even exist? I've recently been thinking that Gabriel is the real problem...that Lucifer rebelled against Gabriel...and that Michael is the peacemaker. I'm toying with the idea that in "Heaven"...these three were at the pinnacle of the temple. I'm also toying with the idea that the "War in Heaven" was a three way power struggle among these three...which continues to this very on Earth. Could this be getting at the heart of the "Alien Presence" which drove Bill Cooper to drinking and irritability? Bill said that it wasn't the Jews, the Catholics, or the Masons, et al. He said that it was the Mystery Schools and Secret Societies. This thing could be very hard to pin down.

    I think I'm going to go and see "Avatar" and "Legion" this week...which will probably really mess with my already very confused and feeble mind. All of this is interesting...but I don't think it's doing me or anyone else much good. I want the truth...but I fear that the truth may push me (and a lot of other people) over the edge. Be careful as you research these subjects. I think that this is necessary work...for those who can handle it...but that it is truly playing with fire. Don't take this stuff lightly! On another thread I said that I needed to find a good Jesuit...but that a good Jesuit is hard to find!! When the dirt really hits the fan...and I think it will...I want a good CIA agent and a good Jesuit to help me through what may be quite literally 'Hell on Earth'. Remember the CIA type of guy in the original "V" who saved everyone's @$$? They didn't like him...but he knew what the hell was going on...and he knew what to do. Something to think about.

    The Satanists and the Money Changers need to be driven out of the an Italian Police Van! Then they can go to work on the Deep Underground Reptilian Bases! Of course...the good Reps and Greys can stay!

    In a sense...a Government is a Church...and a Church is a Government. They are two sides of the same coin. The question is 'What is the nature of the Church and the Government?' A "Constitutional Theocracy is a form of government in which within the context of a modern democracy a particular religion is granted a central role in the legal and political system. In contrast to a pure theocracy, power resides in political figures operating within the bounds of a constitution, rather than religious leadership. A form of government (also referred to as a system of government or a political system) is a system composed of various people, institutions and their relations in regard to the governance of a state. ... Theocracy is a form of government in which a religion and the government are intertwined..." Could the United States of America be under a Constitutional Theocracy presently? Could the United States of America have always been under such a Constitutional Theocracy? See Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. Was the 1954 Greada treaty simply an extension of this hypothetical Constitutional Theocracy? Is the U.N. Charter superceding the U.S. Constitution a further expansion of a Constitutional Theocracy? To stop preaching...and go to meddling...How would the Roman Catholic Church function if it were based upon Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...and was in complete harmony with the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Teachings of Jesus? Would a Pope be elected by the general membership every four years? Would the Teachings of Jesus, the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Will of the People...supercede Canon Law, the Curia, the Pope, the Black Pope (and whoever the Black Pope takes orders from)? Would this create chaos...or would it minimize evil and corruption? For Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom to work...the Roman Catholic Church would have to go along with it...and looking at history...this would be nearly impossible. The RCC is the biggest 'We Never Change Church' imaginable. The Sirius Powers That Be would have to order it done...or it would be a non-starter. For Sirius (and Alpha Draconis?) to sign-off on this...We the People of Earth would have to exhibit a significant level of Knowledge and Responsibility. There is presently a Forbidden Knowledge Explosion...and the BIG question is 'Will We the People of Earth Respond Responsibly?' How about a non-penetential and non-sacrificial Ecumenical Namaste Mass based upon the Latin Mass...Celebrating the Divinity Within Humanity? Now I'm really meddling! I'm an abominable heretic...yet I prefer the glory, grandeur, reverence, and awe of the traditional service...rather than the 'Jesus is my buddy, show-up in shorts and a t-shirt, praise-song, hippie reefer-madness'.

    1. 2. 3. 4.

    In a sense...I desire a Minimalist Humanistic Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom Theocracy . I simply desire that everything work out well for everyone...everywhere and everywhen.

    I just spoke with someone who says they are God. But they smoke and drink to smelly and loud drunkeness...and say they've never heard of the Jesuits! I even tried to talk this "God" out of destroying the world. He seemed to like maybe we have a chance! They reminded me of another person who told me they were going to walk on water...because they wanted a challenge! The first person considered America to be Babylon...rather than Rome being Babylon. I've heard other people say this as well. Leo Zagami hinted at this while in 'prison'. I hope Leo's OK. Sherry Shriner takes this view, as well. Bill Cooper pointed his finger at 'America' rather than Europe. Do Deep Underground Reptilian Bases under North America control even the Vatican? How deep is this snake hole? Is the inner Earth one big maze of snake holes...consisting of bases, cities, stargates, temples, cathedrals, leviton trains...all ruled by the God/Satan of This Prison Planet? I presently think that God is Satan...and that Humans are not in charge of Humanity. I'm seeing a very dark reality...with billions of victims. I really, really hope I'm wrong. I really don't enjoy seeing a demon behind every bush. (every Bush???!!!) Sorry...I couldn't resist. Nothing personal Magog!

    Update regarding "God". "God" has been looking for me...and I'm told that "God" dreamed that I was murdered...and this "God" appeared to be a 'vengeful God'...and very protective toward I'm told. I found this fascinating and chilling...because I have talked very little with this person....and they know nothing about my controversial threads and comments here on Avalon. I worry about that sort of thing...because if people really took me seriously...and if I'm correct about a lot of things...the results could make life difficult for a lot of the custodians of the status quo...and I think they know this very well. But not very many people latch on to what I there should be no real cause for concern...right? That's what I keep telling myself...but I'm not so sure. Believe it, or not, I'm trying to make life easier for everyone...including the really bad guys and gals...human and non-human. But just for the record...if anything happens to was NOT an accident or self inflicted. All of my close friends and relatives know this...and they have my top 10 list of suspects. Do you really want to turn me into a martyr...and discredit your own cause? If anyone is ever really bothered or threatened by what I to me. I'm reasonable...and I try really hard not to be stubborn. I will stop...if asked nicely and reasonably. I'm trying to dig into things that are already out there...and then formulate positive solutions...even though they don't seem positive sometimes. I have zero animosity toward anyone...really and truly. But perhaps I should cut back on my posting. Maybe I will.

    Mercuriel...the BS didn't start with the Vatican...or start when the Vatican was supposedly infiltrated. This goes back to the War in my opinion. There seems to be a very bitter and ancient conflict between the Human and Reptilian races. I don't know the details...but this whole thing has been playing out in the Pleiades, Aldebaran, Sirius, Mars, Atlantis, Lemuria, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Jerusalem...and in the Roman Catholic Church...right from the beginning of this organization. If it hadn't been would've been another organization. This goes way deeper than corrupt men sitting around at the Vatican...dreaming up all manner of evil and atrocity for Planet Earth and the Human Race. It goes deep into Underground Reptilian Bases...I believe. A Draconian Reptilian may tell the Black Pope what to tell Pope Benedict. I think the top level Vatican hierarchy does exactly what they are told to do. That's just what I think. I don't really know...or have any inside information or proof. If I did...I probably wouldn't be safe on Pluto. Recently...I've been thinking that we are Prisoners of War on a Prison Planet with Grey Guards and a Reptilian Warden...and that the Reptilian Agenda for Earth is administered primarily through the City States (Vatican City, City of London, and Washington D.C.) and the United Nations. I tend to think that somehow we lost an ancient Human vs Reptilian war...and we are experiencing some sort of Payback Time. I'm speculating that the Universe is ruled by a Reptilian Universal Church Theocracy. My hope is that All Races will eventually embrace Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...which I think would be in everyone's best interest. I tend to agree with Jordan Maxwell...that we're pretty much $crewed. UNLESS...the Reptilians make an exception for this Solar System...and Theocratically Impose Human Sovereignty in this Solar System based upon Namaste Constitutional Responsible the context of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of the context of the United Nations...and applied to the entire Solar System. This would have to be a top-down implementation. Anything else would probably be a blood-bath. This could serve as a test. The Reptilians might want to make this their modus operandi if the test is successful. Who knows?

    Wow lisa! I wasn't expecting that! Thank-you for the link! I did read 'In God's Name' by David Yallop...and it was quite revealing. 'Murder in the Vatican' by Lucien Gregoire was even more revealing. I'm hoping that the church can be completely reformed and purified. When Jesus tried to reform the church...he got murdered...and subsequently ignored and superceded...and put on bloody and nearly naked display throughout the the form of the crucifix. When Pope John Paul I tried to reform the church...he got murdered. And it sounds like Pope John Paul VI was murdered as well...for attempting to clean things up.

    My Comment: Update regarding "God". "God" has been looking for me...and I'm told that "God" dreamed that I was murdered...and this "God" appeared to be a 'vengeful God'...and very protective toward I'm told. I found this fascinating and chilling...because I have talked very little with this person....and they know nothing about my controversial threads and comments here on Avalon. I worry about that sort of thing...because if people really took me seriously...and if I'm correct about a lot of things...the results could make life difficult for a lot of the custodians of the status quo...and I think they know this very well. But not very many people latch on to what I there should be no real cause for concern...right? That's what I keep telling myself...but I'm not so sure. Believe it, or not, I'm trying to make life easier for everyone...including the really bad guys and gals...human and non-human. But just for the record...if anything happens to was NOT an accident or self inflicted. All of my close friends and relatives know this...and they have my top 10 list of suspects. Do you really want to turn me into a martyr...and discredit your own cause? If anyone is ever really bothered or threatened by what I to me. I'm reasonable...and I try really hard not to be stubborn. I will stop...if asked nicely and reasonably. I'm trying to dig into things that are already out there...and then formulate positive solutions...even though they don't seem positive sometimes. I have zero animosity toward anyone...really and truly. But perhaps I should cut back on my posting. Maybe I will.

    Your Comment: Nay Brother - Scream Your Truth to the Rafters...


    The Roman Catholic Church was taken over by Forces Loyal to the Fallen Ones on June 29th, 1963. It was then signified by the carrying from that point forward by the Pontiff Pope Peter the VI and all others since, of the Crooked or Bent Cross (Which is an Esoteric Symbol of the Antichrist).

    Pope John Paul the II and others have sat in a Chair with an Inverted Cross - Again the AntiChrist Symbol, and If You think that They've just missed that one while setting up the Area for His audiences - Then You haven't studied their Protocols in the right way. They miss nothing when setting up for a Papal audience and it's ALL on Purpose. Bank on that...


    Fish Hat = Dagon or Poseidon Worship...

    INRI = Ishtar / Nimrod / Rah Marduk / Isis (Inner Doctrine for the Initiate)

    INRI = Acronym of the Latin inscription 'IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM' (Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum), which translates to English as "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". (Outer Doctrine for the Profane)

    I could go on Ad Infinitum...

    My Comment: Mercuriel...the BS didn't start with the Vatican...or start when the Vatican was supposedly infiltrated. This goes back to the War in my opinion. There seems to be a very bitter and ancient conflict between the Human and Reptilian races. I don't know the details...but this whole thing has been playing out in the Pleiades, Aldebaran, Sirius, Mars, Atlantis, Lemuria, Babylon, Egypt, Rome, Jerusalem...and in the Roman Catholic Church...right from the beginning of this organization. If it hadn't been would've been another organization. This goes way deeper than corrupt men sitting around at the Vatican...dreaming up all manner of evil and atrocity for Planet Earth and the Human Race. It goes deep into Underground Reptilian Bases...I believe. A Draconian Reptilian may tell the Black Pope what to tell Pope Benedict. I think the top level Vatican hierarchy does exactly what they are told to do. That's just what I think. I don't really know...or have any inside information or proof. If I did...I probably wouldn't be safe on Pluto. Recently...I've been thinking that we are Prisoners of War on a Prison Planet with Grey Guards and a Reptilian Warden...and that the Reptilian Agenda for Earth is administered primarily through the City States (Vatican City, City of London, and Washington D.C.) and the United Nations. I tend to think that somehow we lost an ancient Human vs Reptilian war...and we are experiencing some sort of Payback Time. I'm speculating that the Universe is ruled by a Reptilian Universal Church Theocracy. My hope is that All Races will eventually embrace Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom...which I think would be in everyone's best interest. I tend to agree with Jordan Maxwell...that we're pretty much $crewed. UNLESS...the Reptilians make an exception for this Solar System...and Theocratically Impose Human Sovereignty in this Solar System based upon Namaste Constitutional Responsible the context of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of the context of the United Nations...and applied to the entire Solar System. This would have to be a top-down implementation. Anything else would probably be a blood-bath. This could serve as a test. The Reptilians might want to make this their modus operandi if the test is successful. Who knows?

    Your Comment: Did I say that ? That It started with the Vatican ? I did not...

    Hmmm - I don't much appreciate Baiting and I've seen alot of It lately around here.

    The Post was "Secrets of the Vatican" wasn't It ?

    I gave some. Simple...

    Again - Please do not Polarize My posts...
    Peace, Light, Love, Unity and Harmony.



    My Comment: I wasn't "baiting" or "polarizing your post". You indicated that the real trouble in the Roman Catholic Church started on June 29, 1963. I indicated that the real trouble started with the War in Heaven...and that the Roman Catholic Church is merely one more vehicle for implementing a dark agenda for Planet Earth and the Human Race. What about the Crusades and the Inquisition? What about the Dark Ages...and the mental anguish imposed upon countless millions of people throughout the centuries? What about the Nazi/Vatican relationship? You commented. I commented. You got mad. I won't trouble you further. I won't disturb your peace, light, love, unity, and harmony. I really don't like posting...and this is one more reason to stop. I don't get paid to do this. I was having a good day. Namaste?

    Could the pedophilia be somehow Interdimensional Reptilian related? Is there a Demonic Dimension to this whole mess? What about the disappearance of children? Could this somehow be related to the pedophilia situation? I think the clergy of all faiths get targeted by demonic forces. I think that anyone who tries to do the right thing gets targeted. I believe that unseen entities are watching me type this message. I often talk out loud to these entities...and thank God they don't talk back. Sometimes I flip them off...and swear at them! Didn't Martin Luther throw his ink well at them? I still want that Solar System Exorcism. I still want a completely reformed and purified Roman Catholic Church. If this doesn't happen...all efforts to uplift Humanity will be in vain. My dream of Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom will be dead in the water...and a non-starter. All I will have accomplished is to get myself on the Red List aka the Dead List. Better Dead Than Rep.

    The 'Law of Confusion' is a descriptive and appropriate term...but I tend to eschew obfuscation...and to espouse elucidation. A Christocentric eschatological theological approach to scriptural studies which utilizes the concept of comprehensive concentration...which assumes the red-letter teachings of Jesus as being fundamental...with the remaining portions of the biblical canon as being merely contextual...cross-referencing utilizing a Strong's Concordance...and applying the accepted norms of grammatical-historical supremely beneficial regarding definitively and devotionally ascertaining the Christ Conscious Aspects of the First Source and Center of All fully experience Jesus as Lord in modernity...being careful to exegete...rather than eisegetically twisting and corrupting the sacred texts to conform to canon law (there is no substantial body of evidence which substantiates transubstantiation) as not to become a reprehensible and reprobate hermeneutic whore...a cursed Judas Iscariot in dire need of prostrate penetance, confession, repentance, and reconciliation...and in grave danger of burning for all eternity as a sinner in the hands of an angry God. World Without End. Amen.

    What Would Rudolph Bultmann Say?
    What Would Jonathan Edwards Say?
    What Would Edward Shillebeeckx Say?
    What Would Pat Condell Say?
    What Would SaLuSa Say?

    Don't take anything I write too seriously. I'm just sort of thrashing around...spewing all manner of speculation and smart-@$$ comments. I really mean no harm. I guess I'm trying to get everyone to think in unconventional ways. I don't have the answers...only questions and suggestions. I'm not an authority on anything. My last comment was pretty much accurate...but I hammed it up a lot. I didn't really mean the last part of it...but I just couldn't resist. Please...nobody should take that personally. I am Not 'I AM'! I am not even ex-cathedra! I am, I am, I am, I am...I am deluded...yes I am! And so is Elizabeth Claire Profit!!!

    I can't imagine how difficult it is to administer the Roman Catholic Church. The internal and external politics must be a real pain. Everything they say and do...can and will be used against them. I speculate that they have malevolent non-humans...above and below them...telling them what to do...with the angry and rebellious masses to the right and left of them...their trusting flock in front of them...and a closet full of skeletons behind them. What fun!

    I loved visiting numerous RC churches and cathedrals. I loved visiting Florence and the Vatican. I did not...however...enjoy visiting the Colosseum...which is just down the street from the Vatican. It's the Colosseum and Demonic parts that trouble me very, very deeply. Now about that Solar System Exorcism.

    I'd love to hang out in lots of good Italian food in the gastronomic capital of Italy...drink a bottle of fine wine with Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer...and spend some quality time at the Ferrari factory. Someone told me that the Pope has the 400th Enzo Ferrari! I actually asked a Ferrari representative about this...and they just smiled. I'd also like to camp out at Monza...and watch the Ferraris and beautiful women...while arguing the fine points of theology and cosmology with a renegade Jesuit! Then...I'd like to go back to Sorrento...and watch a beautiful sunset over the Bay of Naples.

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 251
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Ferrari-enzo2
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Formula-e-race-car-on-the-streets-of-rome_100414115_m
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Italo-01-230412-630-02-jpg_061850
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Ntvs-high-speed-train-makes-20120420-071450-172
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 FERRARI-143162007
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Ferrari_new_model
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 1957_Ferrari_250_Testa_Rossa_HR

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:09 pm

    Once again, I'm probably talking to no more than a dozen people (and other than people) who are paid or tasked with keeping an eye on me. I think I might be someone of reincarnational significance -- but I wish that I weren't -- and my previous lives are probably screwing-up this life. I get the feeling that those in the know are making damn sure that I NEVER gain any traction. Perhaps the only reason I'm still alive is that I make a completely ignorant fool out of myself -- each and every day -- and this destroys any chances of me doing anything of value or significance -- and probably dooms me to eternal oblivion -- or worse. BTW -- Fool-Rule would consist of nothing more than a continuation of this thread in perpetuity -- in the conext of that 600 square-foot office-apartment in a Deep Subsurface Base somewhere in the solar system -- probably in Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, New York, London, Rome, or the Moon. If that were indeed to occur -- the depression and despair incurred would probably be overwhelming.

    Things seemed to really change at Project Avalon about the time that I started the 'Amen Ra' thread. That was a very interesting thread -- and resulted in a rather high number of views -- which continues to grow. Soon afterward, abraxasinas swept into town with a high volume of strange yet intellectual posting. That's when things really seemed to start falling apart. I am still haunted by my 'demand' on that thread for a Solar System Exorcism and the implementation of a United States of the Solar System. Right about that time things really went sour -- and the abraxasinas Q&A was shut down -- and a lot of members seemed to go sort of nuts. Richard and his wife were nasty and high-handed -- and that was pretty much the end of the original Project Avalon. Right about that time, I had my first UFO sighting -- which sure looked like a group of UFO's blowing-up some sort of a larger space-ship. That's what it looked like to me -- and it scared the hell out of me. My encounter with someone claiming to be an Ancient Egyptian Deity (who I won't name) seemed to be related to all of the above -- and occurred just a few months after Project Avalon shut-down. My participation in the Crystal Cathedral, many years previously, seemed to have something to do with this -- as seemingly unrelated as that is. Anyway, I once again wish for a combination of the original Project Avalon (without the drama) and The Mists of Avalon (with more members).

    Something seems to have been very wrong during all of the above -- and things seem to be worse presently -- as people seem to be subjected to an information and disinformation overload. My research and speculation has been most upsetting and destructive in my life -- and if even half of what I think might be true actually is true -- the general-public will probably not be nearly as patient and restrained as I have been. I get the feeling that the Galactic Powers That Be are not pleased with what is transpiring within this solar system. Things seem to be approaching a critical stage -- and I suspect that things might get rather nasty for a couple of decades (or longer). I've tried to deal with a lot of upsetting and disruptive issues -- and I wish that I hadn't. It takes a helluva lot of work, pain, and suffering -- to accomplish absolutely nothing. I wonder if the Powers That Be (Human and Otherwise) have some sort of a highly-secure internet-forum (by invitation only)??? Wouldn't THAT be fun??!! OR -- it might not be fun at all. A completely frank and honest debate on such a hypothetical forum might drive most of us insane. The more I think about this madness -- the less I post what I really think. I sure hope the PTB can't read my mind. BTW -- I wonder what would happen if they reopened the original Project Avalon forum??!! What are the chances of that happening??!!

    I get the impression that if everything were made new and perfect on Planet Earth -- there would still be a helluva lot of complaining and dissatisfaction. I get the sinking feeling that if everything I have conceptualized regarding a United States of the Solar System were completely implemented -- and if I lived in a Deep Subsurface Lunar Base -- I would still be unhappy and upset -- along with everyone else. I'm thinking that Robert H. Schuller made some very valid points throughout his ministry -- but that the Crystal Cathedral concept needs to be exhaustively studied and refined. 1. 2. 3. Perhaps Positive-Reinforcement should be applied to the Way Things Are. I've opened a bunch of cans of worms within this website -- but I'm thinking that I should give my divisive and upsetting work the Crystal Cathedral Treatment. The research and structure behind the Crystal Cathedral should NOT be underestimated. One MUST deeply research prior to applying a Happy-Clappy finishing touch. Again, this is Positive Reinforcement AFTER studying all of the problems and perplexities. I found that playing Loma Linda Seventh-day Adventism off of the Crystal Cathedral was MOST enlightening. And it must always be remembered that Arvella Schuller basically ran the Crystal Cathedral. (I got that from a genuine insider) BTW -- a most interesting individual suggested to me that there was a demonic component to the Crystal Cathedral ministry -- and that's all I'm gonna say.

    Anyway, this is the best of times -- and the worst of times. I mostly worry about the Wrath of God -- and Weapons of Mass Destruction. I'm NOT happy with Earth and Humanity -- but I don't think the world should be destroyed -- and sinners damned to hell. Why can't we have a PROPER System of Rewards and Punishments -- which applies to the entire solar system?? I just watched Constantine -- and I was frustrated by the lack of real theological discussion -- and the presence of endless violence and gore. 1. 2. 3. This is what I HATE about Hollywood. But really -- I think whoever rules us understands what sells, and what maximizes the bottom-line. I really think that an idealistic archangel set this world up really nicely -- and then everything went to hell -- and got taken over by one or two archangels who were (and are) MUCH Tougher than the first one. Perhaps humanity requires Bad@ss Rulers -- rather than a Kinder and Gentler Deity who doesn't get-off on RULING with an IRON-FIST. Perhaps we have had -- and have -- EXACTLY what we deserve. “For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'.” -- John Greenleaf Whittier

    It's becoming a pattern with me. I like to watch(or listen to) groupings of longer videos and recordings regarding a particular subject. This thread is regarding who we are...or supposedly are. I'm very confused and conflicted concerning this very basic subject. We live in a very strange universe. Nothing is neat and tidy.

    I guess there is security and solace in being part of a group...even a really screwed-up group. We're all in this takes all kinds...and the show must go on. But why?

    How do I know that I'm not an alien or a hybrid? Are we all completely human? Are some of us completely reptilian? Do all of us have reptilian components in our DNA? Were we created? By whom? Anunaki? Draconians? Pleiadians? Orions? Does the Divine One live on Nibiru? Who created them? Did we evolve? Here...or somewhere else? Did human life begin here...or was Earth colonized? How old is my soul(if I have a soul)? Will my soul really exist forever? If not...what's the point? Did I live in Atlantis? Did I live in Lemuria? Am I a good person or a bad person? I keep getting a sinking feeling that I am merely a Base 4 Mutation. I wanted to be more...a lot more.

    A slimy amoeba in the deep blue sea was the great grand-dad of you and me.
    Then I was a monkey swinging in a tree.
    Now I'm a teacher...I've got my PhD.
    See what science has done for me?

    Thank-you mudra...I appreciate your comment. My problem is that my mind is still...too much of the time. I have to work at making my mind work. I'm looking for truth...not tranquility.

    Did my soul exist 1,000,000,000 years ago? Will it exist 1,000,000,000 years from now? If so...will my memories survive? If not...what is the meaning of this? We're supposed to be I must be a God with Alzheimers.

    Knowing who we are...where we came from...what we are supposed to be doing...and where we are going...may be necessary to get ourselves out of this mess. Someone...or something...seems to be keeping us in the dark...regarding all of the above. Keep asking questions. Keep knocking the damn doors down.

    The gods of this world(Draconian and Anunaki?) are not the God of the Universe. Unfortunately...I think that we are dealing with the gods of this world...and that they are not very nice. So...we have a big problem. I'd like to see the gods of this world least for awhile...and let us sort this thing out for ourselves. We will probably make lots of mistakes...but they will be our mistakes...and we will learn from these mistakes...and become better and better...every day and in every way. At some point...we may be able to interact with our former gods in a constructive manner...when they have matured...and we have matured. This may take thousands of years. These gods have given us much...but they have robbed us of so very much more. I don't hate them...even if they hate us. I don't want them to be hurt or killed. I don't want them to go away mad. I just want them to go away. Sorry Lucifer. Of all the words that tongue can tell...the saddest are 'It might have been.'

    I'm starting to get really worried. The numbers of people participating in the forum are not what they should be...given the troubled and confused times we are living in. There is a tremendous amount of new information out there...and the public needs to sort through this material in a calm and rational manner. I like Alex Jones...but that's not my style. I like this forum format...but I am not seeing the type of discussion...both in interest levels and numbers...that I would like to see.

    Tell me who I am. But also tell me what is going on in alternative thinking. I know very little about these subjects...which is why I ask a lot of questions. I'm just seeing a lot of dots not being connected...that need to be get us out of this mess.

    This is probably the most fascinating thread I have started so far(less than a dozen, I'm sure). Understanding our real history...going back billions of years probably the key to the present and future. Now I'm talking about the cutting edge history that we were not taught about in school. There is a whole world opening up to our understanding which is changing everything. Tell me what you think about all of this.
    Good to see you posting, Susan! Don't forget about us!

    Thank-you for your thoughtful response, Lorien.

    Did the God of the Universe create us in a single 24 hour period...6,000 years ago? Did we evolve from lower primates? Did the Anunnaki create us by combining their DNA with hominid be good, obedient slaves? Were we created somewhere else...and then seeded here to colonize Earth? Were we chased here in a Star Wars? Did the Anunnaki defeat us...and then genetically modify dumb us make us good, obedient slaves? Are we still good, obedient slaves? Can we be spiritually and genetically modified to regain our former glory? Are we in the middle of a universal Star Wars to decide who gets to be Almighty God and Masters of the Universe? Are we fighting to decide who gets to be the Master Race and God's Chosen People? Are the Reptilians playing 'God'? Why isn't freewill tempered with responsibility? Will all malevolent beings(human and non-human) be exorcised from Earth soon? Is 2012 Judgment determine who gets to control the stargates? Are we capable of ruling ourselves? Are we better off being ruled by Reptilians? Is Lucifer a Reptilian? Do we really have to play these stupid wargames? Why can't we learn to share and play nice? Can't we just get along? Was that 20 questions?

    I've been crazy for a long I don't have to worry about going crazy. That frees me up to ask the unanswerable questions...and to expect convincing answers.

    When I have considered all of the possibilities...and compared them exhaustively...and received a divine sign. Seriously...we don't know everything about everything. We don't know everything about anything. Everything is related to everything. So...we have to know everything about know everything about anything. Are you convinced?

    Susan, thank-you for your wisdom and enthusiasm! Did we get the internet from benevolent ETs? Which ones? I thought that Al Gore invented the internet? Is AL an ET? Is Al a high ranking member of Giza Intelligence aka the renegade Pleiadians who helped Hitler until 1941(unconfirmed) and were supposedly removed from Earth in the late 1970's by the Pleiadians? Did Earth receive anti-gravity, free-energy, time-travel, nuclear weapons, integrated circuits, etc. from the same ETs...or have we received technology from more than one group of ETs? We are quickly becoming a global community...who will probably be much less likely to kill each other. We are forming a responsibly free global community...and not the tyrannical New World Order envisioned by the malevolent ETs. Will they try to use extermination and enslavement to control us? Do we threaten their reign of terror throughout the universe? Do the Pleiadians want to control us as much as the Draconians or Anunnaki? Are we the loose cannons of the universe? Is this all about Freedom vs Tyranny? Oh...never mind...just tell me who I am.

    Thank-you for your detailed and reasonable responses.

    In a sense...I don't care who I long as I live forever(in some way, shape, or form)...remember all of my past-lives(if necessary)...and stay out of war, enslavement, and extreme suffering. It wouldn't surprise me if I was a spiritual and physical mongrel...and had been involved in unbelievable achievements and utter depravity. I would simply like to see the universe become a friendly place where all war and atrocity would cease to exist forever. Life should be enjoyed...not endured. I would be happy to live in a neighborhood of Reptilians, Greys, Pleiadians, etc, long as they didn't hurt or kill me...and respected my privacy and personal freedom. I'm thinking that all races have been horrible...and done terrible things to each other. I'm thinking that even God has been a Devil. I see the universe as being one big mess. We need to clean it up...without hurting or killing anyone.

    mudra, I enjoyed listening to Tolle. Thank-you. I will listen to more after I get some rest. Taking the focus off of self is a good thing...and both self exaltation and self degradation...will sink us. They are two sides of the same stupid self-centered coin.

    Once more...please take a look at the links in the first post. I've added a couple more links. I'm finding a benefit from listening to/watching these. I'm also finding that I need to listen to/view them several times for the information to really sink in. There is so much new(for me) information. Again...I can't vouch for the accuracy and truth of these...but they seem to be going in the right general direction. I'm interested in hearing both positive and negative responses. I don't believe everything...but they seem to resonate with me.

    This is just a renewed invitation to consider the videos in the first a group. I'm considering this to be a step in the right direction...rather than the gospel truth.

    I am not blessed with exotic memories and experiences. My life is quite bland. This thread is probably a case of the bland leading the bland...who knows where? I'm not the slave of any source. I am very fickle. I try to consider as many sources as possible...and often these sources conflict with each other in profound ways. I try to look for commonalities. Are the sources in the first post credible...or have they been exposed as charlitans or frauds?

    I'm leaning toward the theory that us Earthlings are renegade Pleiadians from Aldebaran who sided with kicked out of Heaven (Pleiades)...fought a civil war with our brothers and sisters...both collaborated with, and fought against, the Dracs...traveled to Sirius...and ended up on Earth in ancient Atlantis. Are we 'fallen angels'? If this is wonder we have so many issues! Reality check: Is this true...or could it possibly be true?

    I think I may have been in a class where David Koresh was a visitor. I am also aware of some of the prophetic and political issues which swirled around this group. I am very fearful that this sort of thing(massacre) could happen again...with any number of groups or individuals. This is a very scary phenomenon. And very, very sad.

    Thank-you for the responses. It's hard to get properly informed...and remain in a balanced frame of mind. We are busy. We are distracted. We are frazzled. And facing the truth about anything can require a lot of work and pain. As I started listening to people like Bill Cooper...I realized that many people who seemed to be upset with the government...were almost more upset with the general public. I don't have an answer...but I think that forums such as this one are a huge step in the right direction.

    I like the idea of reviewing recent history...where the dust has settled...books have been written...documentaries have been made...and some of the major players are now retired...and are willing to open up a bit. Irrationality flourishes in the heat of battle. Hindsight is 20/20...or it should be.

    I keep thinking that the whole thing right for everyone...from Lucifer to the kindergarten get informed without getting mad. There needs to be a global rethinking of EVERYTHING. We need to consider everything...from all angles...all the time. I know that's impossible...but it's a worthy goal. People need to start getting PhD's in subjects such as RESPONSIBILITY, LIFE, THE UNIVERSE, AND EVERYTHING...instead of ENTOMOLOGY. No offense...but that really bugs me.

    Thank you Unified Serenity. The internet is changing everything. The alternative media...combined with people from around the world...chatting with each other online may save us...if we can keep the internet from being heavily censored or shut down completely.

    I thought I understood Waco...but this documentary brought out details that I hadn't noticed. I just thought it was worth encouraging people to do some more thinking about Waco...especially in light of what has happened since 9/11. Perhaps completely understanding one event can help us to properly understand previous and subsequent events. A lot of these horrific events seem to have eerie similarities. The repeated cover-ups, ommission of pertinent facts, slanted and one-sided lines of reasoning and questioning, blatent lies, etc, etc...are very troubling to me. Something is very, very wrong. This goes for most of our wars, assasinations, economic disasters, scandals, terrorist events, etc...throughout U.S. history.

    Who, EXACTLY, is trying to destroy us...and Constitutional Responsible Freedom? Who do you think is responsible...Lucifer? When we find out who it is...what should we do about it...Lucifer? What future atrocities might they have planned for us...Lucifer? As the God of This World...perhaps you should bring them to justice...Lucifer. You are meticulously legalistic...aren't you...Lucifer? How about making a public answer these, and other, questions...Lucifer? How about a one hour interview on 60 Minutes...with no commercials...Lucifer? It's time for disclosure...Lucifer. You are obligated to show yourself to the whole world.

    I watched the video again today. What a nightmare! If they wanted to simply deal with the gun situation...they could have secured a search warrant...and arrived without an army...and politely examined the guns...and calmly dealt with any illegalities and tax issues. The authorities seemed to really want a fight. The whole thing was a horrible mess...and terribly mishandled. This was NOT another Jonestown. This seemed to be a group of rugged individualists with peculiar(but not dangerous) religious views...and some moral irregularities(which were already being addressed). The authorities seemed to want to make a bloody and burnt example out of them. Was this a trial run for the religous persecution and extermination which many fear will accompany the establishment of the New World Order? Was this a burnt offering to Lucifer? Some have suggested that 9/11 was such a sacrifice. I don't know.

    The FLIR footage of machine guns being fired into the burning building was diabolical to the nth degree. These poor people...including women and children couldn't escape death at this point (in most cases, I suspect) even if they really wanted to. This is something which one might expect the Nazis to have done in WWII.

    I'm still strongly leaning toward basing the United Nations on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. This would be the right way to do globalism. I have a high resolution photo of the U.N. Security Council as the background on my computer. To me...the Security Council should report to the General Assembly...which should have the ultimate power in the U.N. Check out the U.N. website. The existing globalist plans seem to be dreamed up by malevolent aliens. There is some evidence for this. Right...Lucifer?

    That's funny Unified Serenity! I don't think Lucifer would give me the time of day...let alone answer my questions. But, you know, I don't remember my who knows what goes on when I sleep? I seem to wake up more tired than when I went to sleep. Ignorance is bliss sometimes! My 'questions' are simply a unique way of addressing a subject which doesn't get talked about a lot. I keep thinking that those who monitor this site might be able to pass something relevant on to those who are on the inside of what I suspect is a very, very dark predicament for humanity. I'm really glad that I'm not an insider. I'm miserable enough, as it is!

    Despite everything...I think that the Branch Dividians should not have fired one shot...even if the ATF shot first. They should have run for cover...called 911...and arranged to peacefully surrender to the authorities almost immediately. Then they could have fought it out in court. You may have the right of way on the highway...but if you see an accident in the need to put on the brakes and turn the steering avoid a disaster. Exercising freedom of speech and religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, was constitutionally guaranteed...but engaging in an armed confrontation with the authorities was a very bad idea.

    Regarding the Delta Force soldiers entering the compound after it was supersaturated with CS gas...I hadn't heard this before...and, if true, this whole thing was even more diabolical than I thought. I just keep asking myself 'who was giving Bill Clinton and Janet Reno orders?' This certainly was not dreamed up by the FBI and ATF people in Waco...or maybe not even in Washington D.C. Were orders being given from a Deep Underground Military Base...or the Dark Side of the Moon? Why is there a black helicopter circling my house...and a shapeshifting Delta Force soldier pounding on my front door? He's yelling that he's here to help me. Oh God! The helicopter just morphed into a UFO! I'M SO SOL!!

    Thank-you deb003. It seems that the bright lights are being turned on...and the bad-guys are being exposed...and examined by a lot of microscopes. They need secrecy...and that secrecy is disappearing. When this madness is resolved...I think things will be a lot better...even for the bad-guys. In a sense...we need to save them from themselves and from the demonic forces which hover over them and possess them.

    Unified Serenity: Your last post was very interesting. A lot of us are spineless wonders. We're not particularly evil...just clueless and gutless...and I'm speaking for myself. I think bribing and blackmail is rampant. Getting informed without getting mad(or going crazy) keeps rising to the top of my list of things which could save the world. A cold infowar...if you will. I continue to think that our ultimate enemies are not human. We'd goof things up on our own...but not this bad. If we got rid of the malevolent aliens(and humans) by placing all the mothers on a mothership...we would still have massive problems...but I think things would gradually improve. But it still might take centuries to reach Nirvana.

    Thank-you happyhollergal. I don't really blame the media. They give us what we want...and what the aliens want us to get! Again...the internet is changing everything. If the mainstream media broadcast what we view and talk about on this forum...the results might be disasterous. There is a time and place for everything. I'm really trying to be on everyone's side...rather than taking sides.

    mntruthseeker: Thank-you for watching. Misery loves company! Seriously...this documentary was very informative in many ways. It wasn't just an angry, slanted attack against the government. It was very damaging...but it presented the information in a calm, fair, and rational manner. The interviews, hearings, and footage at the compound, were very revealing. The passage of time makes it easier to properly evaluate this sad chapter in American history. My intention was not to make anyone angry. I just want us all to learn from this that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

    What amazed me was how the politicians, spokespersons, and press clearly and vigorously misrepresented the true facts of the case. If someone is skillful and determined...they can make black appear to be white. What do you suppose was the true underlying motivating force in this horrible situation?

    I wish that this horror was caused just by a bunch of out of control locals...but it sounded like this thing was controlled from Washington D.C. But was the Clinton Administration being told what to do? Just asking. No proof. Again...I'm interested in calm and rational retrospective possibly prevent future horrific events. We need to keep refining our society...every day...and in every way.

    Evolutionary change is much better than revolutionary change. I suspect that the lack of evolutionary change...with all deliberate speed...leads to revolutionary change. I continue to lean toward the infowar model. Once people start running in the streets...rational thought seems to come to a screeching halt. A latter-day rennaisance will bring peace to the world.

    Unified Serenity: Do you have a radio show? If it on the internet?

    To keep things fair and is an anti-Bielek link: I'm simply trying to sample a wide variety of information...and look for reasonable commonalities. I don't know what to believe or disbelieve. Relentless pursuit of the truth is probably a good thing...but it does take a lot of time and energy! Most of us don't have either of these in massive doses! Presenting various possibilities in a public forum is a good way to find out what people know and think. Initial confusion often leads to eventual clarity. But when we arrive at the top of the paradigm...we might not like the view!

    From notes found on Google video: Al Bielek has lead a life most would not choose to live. While many would think that time travel, meeting aliens, and working on secret projects are exciting ventures, Al paid a big price for the privilege. Because those who set the agenda wish to keep their activities secret, Al was robbed of his family, his memories, and ultimately, his identity. They used advanced technologies to erase what was dear to him. However, their technologies are not perfect. Slowly, the memories came back. Al started meeting others who had been through the same process. Ultimately, a flood of memories returned. Al gives the most comprehensive account of his life ever recorded. It will shock and disturb most people to learn what is really going on in this planet. But Al has come to the conclusion that the truth needs to be published. For over ten years, Al has been featured on Radio Talk Shows and as a speaker in many conferences. His story has captivated the attention of tens of thousands of people worldwide. Many will question why Al hasn't been silenced. Perhaps, those who set the agenda are allowing brief glimpses of the truth to emerge. Perhaps it is something much bigger.

    My comment: Perhaps this is why disclosure is so slow in coming. If one aspect of disclosure is officially revealed...there may be more questions than answers. This could set off a chain-reaction similar to the detonation of a nuclear device...which could devastate human(and alien?) civilization. Gradual and unofficial disclosure may be the only way to save the world...without destroying the world. Get informed without getting mad...or going crazy. My guess is that the PTB are scared many more ways than one. We may need to help the PTB to defuse this information time-bomb. Despite their access to the underground bases...they may be in deeper do-do than we are...and that's some pretty deep snake-s***!

    Did I understand Phillip Corso, Jr. to say that his father was in charge of Project Paperclip? If so...this would put him directly in charge of Nazis. Is Roswell directly related to Project Paperclip? Did I understand correctly from Phillip Corso, Jr. that his father released critical information contrary to the wishes of JFK? He also said that his father denied that Area 51 existed...if I'm not mistaken. He also said to look closely at the agencies which answer to no one...and that Steven Greer was looking in the wrong places...and for the wrong reasons. Should we be looking for Nazis and Deep Underground Military Bases for 'Disclosure'? Where did I hear that Jessie Marcel's specialty was disinformation? Was it Stanton Friedman? Stewart Swerdlow says that Roswell was a staged event. This view is also depicted in the Orion Conspiracy. Was Muroc(Edwards) 1954 a staged event? Was Ike deceived into abdicating the presidency? Is mind control and time travel a spiritual and perceptual phenomenon of illusion, smoke and mirrors? Is some of our 'modern' science really a potpourri of malevolent alien deceptions? One thing I found interesting in the Bielek recording...was that renegade Alderbaran Pleiadians helped Hitler...and wanted him to treat the Jews kindly...and that they abandoned Hitler in 1941. If this is true...did the reptilians and greys become the new power behind Hitler? Could this explain the contrast between the mostly upbeat and progressive Nazi Germany in the 30's...and the unspeakable horrors of the 40's? I found this scathing critique of 'The Day After Roswell':

    Phil Corso relates to Al Bielek because of the Philadelphia Experiment and time travel. I noticed that Philip Corso, Jr. made the following points:

    1. That his father claimed that he saw alien bodies...and that they were basically robots with two separate brains...and used for space travel...because humans cannot travel beyond our moon without dying.
    2. That his father confiscated his personal ufo photographs...and lied about their whereabouts.
    3. That his father had a clearance for 9 levels above top secret.
    4. That his father seemed to be in too many places and involved in too many an almost miraculous manner.
    5. That his father was in charge of the Nazis in Project Paperclip until he left the military.
    6. That his father released sensitive information contrary to the wishes of JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    7. That his father worked with several Presidents...and that only Eisenhower and Reagan really knew the truth about Roswell(what about Bush 1?).
    8. That his father wrote a book titled 'Dawn of a New Age'. Publication uncertain.
    9. That his father + 30 generals knew the truth about Roswell.
    10. That his father was educated in England at Cambridge regarding Intelligence...and taught American Intelligence Officers what he learned there.
    11. That 'The Day After Roswell' was not planned to be written...and was written in a hurry.
    12. That his father had a massive collection of scientific papers regarding UFOs and Roswell...which included information about time travel.
    13. That he has tried to release these papers on the internet...but that the site was shut down within 2 weeks.
    14. That he has been told by high US government officials what not to say.
    15. That he was told not to talk about the JFK assassination...and that he had agreed not to.
    16. That his father was on a committee which investigated the findings of the Warren Commission...and that conspiracy theorists are on the wrong track.
    17. That UFOs are time travel machines...and operate simultaneously in several dimensions.
    18. That time travel(if it is real, he said) is why alien and UFO disclosure has not occurred.
    19. That, as of 2004, Steven Greer was looking in the wrong places...and for the wrong reasons.
    20. That he had refused to release his father's papers to Greer...but would consider doing so in the future.
    21. That UFO researchers should investigate the groups who answer to no one...and that they needed to know where to look.
    22. That most of our modern technology was derived from Roswell...and released between 1960-1963...and that subsequent technological developments have been based on that orginal release of technological information. (It is interesting to note that this period coincides with the Kennedy administration)
    23. That his father was a contactee.
    24. That he(Jr.) feared for his life.

    Thank-you. Richard Hoagland says 'Google is your friend'.

    Could time travel mostly be holographic projections of recorded past events...and future extrapolations which are converted into holographic projections? Is time travel really perceptual rather than actual? Bill Cooper speaks of the 'aliens' Muroc in 1954...displaying a holographic projection of the Crucifixion of Christ. Note what appears to be holograms in the following: YouTube - The Temptation of Jesus by the Devil in the Wilderness Will a staged Second Coming of Christ be a holographic projection...featuring a fake Jesus? Is there a holographic projection technology in which portions of the projection can actually become physical? Some say that this whole world...including you and a holographic projection. John Lear seems to know a lot about holograms. Were there no planes? Was 9/11 an Inside the Earth Job? Is all of this interrelated?

    Is the interrelationship between physical/mental/spiritual/multidimensional/holographic/past/present/future the truth which cannot be revealed? Is everything an illusion? Nothing is real? Nothing to get hung-up about? Strawberry fields forever? Life 'tis but a dream? Are we merely holographic actors on a multidimensional stage? Are we merely reruns of what has already occurred? Or are we holograms of what will occur? I believe that I'll have another drink...

    I still wonder if a lot of the whistleblowing information is coming from Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk Project refugees...who weren't suposed to survive...or weren't supposed to remember. One may have to go through the horrors of these really understand what the hell...or what from really going on.

    Do not be alarmed! This comment does not exist. It's only a hologram! Go back to your homes! Everything is under the holographic projector behind the curtain...who just so happens to be...a hologram named Lucifer.

    Thank-you for your responses and links, Carol.

    I'm just trying to save this thread from a premature demise. There really is a lot of good information here. Perhaps you all have seen these lecture videos before. Perhaps some of you were at the conference. This is all new to me. Tell me what you think.

    If this is old news for you...what is your verdict? What is your opinion regarding what Stanton Friedman said regarding Bob Lazar? What did Philip Corso, Jr. say was the reason why disclosure has not occurred? Do you agree...or disagree? Just testing your knowledge. I hadn't heard either perspective until last week.

    I think that it is good to ascertain which speakers and information can stand the test of time and scrutiny. If we simply consider the latest and most sensational information...does anyone notice when what someone said...that sounded so good at the time...later turns out to be utter BS?

    When there are no responses...threads quickly disappear...never to be seen again.

    I found this to be a very interesting and informative interview. Alex talks with Kevin Trudeau, the infomercial marketer ordered by a federal judge to pay more than $37 million for violating a 2004 stipulated order by allegedly misrepresenting the content of his book, The Weight Loss Cure They Dont Want You to Know About.


    Please listen to all 7 parts of this interview. It contains constructive insights into the thinking of the elites. I had the thought that if we all considered ourselves to be elites...and thought about how to run the world...we would, in essence, put ourselves into their secret meetings and yachts...rather than being on the outside...looking in. I know this is a bit of a stretch...but we can't think of ourselves as peasants with pitchforks. We need to think on their level...but without the delusion and corruption. The elites are not planning on running in the streets...and neither should we. (completely removed from the internet) contains some ideas which I tend to gravitate toward. It's quite different than anything else I have encountered. View this material in the next few posts. Take it or leave it. It may be one more piece of a very complex and confusing puzzle. The question is -- why was this website and web-address completely removed from the internet?? I was paid-up for several years -- yet someone else ended up owning the address and site -- and then it was completely removed. I'd like to know what REALLY was going on here?! I was afraid to investigate. I just let it go. I tend to think that as a genuinely ethical and enlightened political and theological spirituality continues to decline -- the police state will become stronger and stronger. Is it possible to Legislate Responsibility?? Isn't THAT a can of worms??!!

    More Sherry Shriner!! Remember to consider anything I post -- in the context of everything I post. Try listening to one show after another (in the BlogTalk Radio section). Just let them play. I don't endorse this show -- but I think that it conditions one to deal with a lot of strange material and events. At this point, I'm not out to kill aliens -- and I don't know if orgone works, or not -- so I have never used orgone. I'm also curious as to why Sherry never spends much time teaching the Red-Letter Teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These teachings seem to contain the best aspects of the entire Bible -- without most of the bad aspects -- although I remained troubled and perplexed by the Hard Sayings of Jesus (Yeshua?). Once again, I tend to like whoever wrote the Bible -- yet I remain troubled by a lot of what they wrote. Perhaps the Bible wasn't written to make us happy. Perhaps it was written to teach us a lesson -- in many more ways than one. Life is wonderful -- yet there is something very dark about our existence and history. I still don't have this figured out -- but I think this thread hints at a lot of what MIGHT really be going on in this solar system -- and a lot of it is NOT nice -- not nice at all. The Horror.

    Do they have Drac-Only Clubs and Cafeterias in Deep Underground Military Bases?? What about Grey-Bars?? What would it REALLY be like to live in a DUMB?? My guess is that it might suck -- once the novelty wore off. I keep thinking that the Hidden Core of Solar System Governance might be worse than we can imagine. I've joked about being closer to the center of things -- but this might not make me happy. It would probably do just the opposite. I'm not saying I don't want to do this sort of thing at some point. I'm just saying that the problems one might be exposed to might be very difficult to deal with. I swear that I imagine spending 99% of my DUMB-TIME in that 600 square-foot office-apartment doing exactly what I'm doing right now -- but on a Cray Supercomputer -- with access to all of the good-stuff and the bad-stuff throughout the solar system (and possibly beyond). I'd probably eat in the military cafeteria with the Nazis, Masons, Jesuits, Mormons, Agents, Dracs, and Greys. We might even play cards!! What if the Dracs are sore-losers?! They might eat the winner!!

    I will continue to model the concept that Michael got trampled and demoted in antiquity -- and that Gabriel and Lucifer have been running the show in this solar system ever since. I have very mixed-feelings about humanity. There is much to be VERY proud of -- and much to be VERY ashamed of. I continue to speculate that humanity was (and is) an experiment with very mixed results. If Gabriel and Lucifer have been in charge -- I suspect the best and the worst. What if humanity is ultimately unmanageable?? What if attempting to manage humanity corrupts the managers absolutely?? What if Heaven is the Impossible Dream for Humanity?? What if human physicality unleashed some of the darker aspects of the hypothetical interdimensional reptilian soul??? Remember, in Earth: Final Conflict when Zo'or inhabits a Female Atavus Body -- and goes nuts?? What if that sort of thing occurred in the Garden of Eden?? What if the Galactic Powers That Be attempted to terminate the Human-Experiment once and for all?? I suspect massive power struggles within this solar system -- going back thousands, millions, or even billions or years. The lies we've been told were probably necessary for both good and bad reasons. I simply wish to take the next best steps for ALL Concerned. On the other hand -- without the WHOLE Story -- it is impossible to know what steps to take -- and what steps not to take. The PTB continue to keep me in the dark. One mysterious individual seemed to indicate that order and mystery were good things. They seemed to like Anna in 'V'. When I expressed that I liked the good aspects of Anna and the Visitors -- they agreed.

    What would it be like to attend a Board-Meeting of Solar Systems Unlimited (on Nibiru?)? You know -- a dozen System-Lords reporting to the CEO of Solar Systems Unlimited. Imagine reading the Tithe-Revenue Reports, the Tax-Revenue Reports, the Illegal-Drug Revenue Reports, the War-Revenue Reports, the Corporate-Revenue Reports, etc, etc, etc. I have NO idea if this is the way things work -- but it's something worth considering. Is Honesty the Best Policy -- or is Deception a Necessary Evil?? Do White-Lies constitute Ethical-Deception??

    I really, really wonder about the reincarnational-administration within this solar system!! Do billionaire-elites reincarnate as starving children in Chad??!! That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. What if the Top One-Percent Reincarnated as the Bottom One-Percent -- lifetime after lifetime after lifetime??!! So far, the concept of reincarnation has been the biggest can of worms I've had to deal with. It scares the hell out of me -- each and every day. Archangelic-Reincarnation is what REALLY interests me!!! I truly believe there is a meticulous record of ALL of our incarnations -- going back thousands, millions, billions, and possibly even trillions of years. Ever heard of the WATCHERS?? Guess what they do??!!

    Seriously, in preparation for my next incarnation (since this one has been a complete waste of time and energy), should I study Star Wars (the real kind) and Intergalactic Banking?? Should I attempt to program myself to be a Brave New Bad@ss?? Whatever I did and didn't do in this incarnation seems to have been worse than a complete failure. I am a Mysterious-Blend of Incurable-Optimisim and Unyielding-Despair. Perhaps Making Things Better would Make Things Worse. Put THAT in your water-pipe and smoke it!! Neither Humanity or Divinity seems to want me. Perhaps it's time for me to leave. I don't wish to remain where I am not wanted or needed. Is there some place in the universe where I might be needed and wanted?? If not -- perhaps it is time for me to cease to exist -- and to be as if I had not been. Perhaps I should reverse every effort I have made within this thread to 'make things better'. This might be better for everyone. You all know better anyway -- just like in the Garden of Eden. Namaste -- or Whatever.


    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:13 pm

    Are the Military-Industrial Complex -- the Medical-Industrial Complex -- the Secret Space Program -- the Underground Bases -- the Secret Government -- and the Kingdom of God -- Inextricably Linked -- in Good-Ways and Bad-Ways???? Are the New World Order Cabal and the New Age Alien Agenda really Two Sides of the Same Coin??? Is there a Good-Side and a Bad-Side to BOTH of them??? I'm going to venture a very tentative 'YES' to all of the above. Perhaps we should Positively-Reinforce all of the above. I'm going to repeat that I think the Hidden Solar System History is extremely nasty -- and that the Old Testament Violence is reflective of this nasty past. I think there's a helluva lot they didn't teach us in Sabbath-School and Sunday-School.

    While I'm on the subject -- I tend to mirror Dr. Walter Martin regarding Saturday v Sunday -- in that no particular day should be considered exclusively holy -- especially in modernity. I have no concrete information regarding how I treated this subject in previous incarnations -- but I suspect that I was Hardline Saturday-Sabbath Observance (from sundown to sundown). Under the RIGHT circumstances -- and with the RIGHT wording -- I might have NO problem observing the Saturday-Sabbath. I was a hardline Sabbath-Keeper for a couple of decades -- until I burned-out on just about everything -- including religion. I am simply concerned about the implications and ramifications of the Decalogue (with it's specific wording) in the context of Deuteronomy -- especially in modernity. There may have been legitimate historical reasons for every word of Deuteronomy -- but I shudder to think of what might happen if Deuteronomy were strictly applied to the Entire Solar System in the Twenty-First Century. How would one observe the Sabbath on the Dark-Side of the Moon??? I have suggested that every day be a holy-day -- and that all aspects of life should be considered 'HOLY' -- including work and recreation. I have further suggested that the larger churches should offer some type of services (or at least sacred-music) every day of the week. I am not rebellious to history and tradition. I am simply trying to determine what might work in modernity -- to attempt to achieve an idealistic integration of the sacred and the secular -- church and state -- divinity and humanity.

    It presently seems to me that any and all answers would be considered the wrong answers by just about everyone. I see nothing but conflict in our future -- if we even have a future. I'd still like to know what the Teachings of Archangel Michael were in the Garden of Eden?! Can someone get me a copy?! This might be KEY regarding what the next best steps for humanity might be. I'd also like to know what other Human Civilizations (if any exist) do regarding the secular and sacred -- church and state -- divinity and humanity. I continue to NOT have sufficient information with which to make proper determinations. I might be ignorant and insane -- but I would NOT be stubborn and standoffish if confronted by a brutal gang of facts (or Dracs). What Would Lord Draco Say???

    Regarding all of the above -- consider the old and new versions of 'V' -- Earth: Final Conflict -- as well as the Adventist and Catholic Healthcare Systems. Pay special attention to the Healing-Centers in the latest version of 'V'. I presently think that Traditional and Alternative Healthcare should be offered side by side (cooperatively and complementary) in all major medical-centers -- 50% Traditional (allopathic, emergency, drugs, surgery, etc.) and 50% Alternative (homeopathic, natural, preventive, rehabilitative, etc.) -- with EQUAL PAY for Traditional and Alternative Practitioners -- and BOTH covered at 100% by all insurance providers. Good-luck with that one -- right??!! Don't miss The Road to Wellville!! I could say a helluva lot more about this -- but I'm afraid to say what I really think. You would NOT believe what I think about. I visualize my conceptualizations -- and I might have a very difficult time verbalizing them -- which might be a blessing in disguise. I think I REALLY understand how things REALLY work in this solar system -- but I am VERY afraid to be frank and honest about this. Some things are better left unsaid. Consider the Subject of Medicine.

    Medicine (i/ˈmɛdsɨn/, i/ˈmɛdɨsɨn/) is the applied science or practice of the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease.[1] It encompasses a variety of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness in human beings.

    Contemporary medicine applies health science, biomedical research, and medical technology to diagnose and treat injury and disease, typically through medication or surgery, but also through therapies as diverse as psychotherapy, external splints & traction, prostheses, biologics, ionizing radiation and others.

    The word medicine is derived from the Latin ars medicina, meaning the art of healing.[2][3]

    Clinical practice

    In clinical practice, doctors personally assess patients in order to diagnose, treat, and prevent disease using clinical judgment. The doctor-patient relationship typically begins an interaction with an examination of the patient's medical history and medical record, followed a medical interview[4] and a physical examination. Basic diagnostic medical devices (e.g. stethoscope, tongue depressor) are typically used. After examination for signs and interviewing for symptoms, the doctor may order medical tests (e.g. blood tests), take a biopsy, or prescribe pharmaceutical drugs or other therapies. Differential diagnosis methods help to rule out conditions based on the information provided. During the encounter, properly informing the patient of all relevant facts is an important part of the relationship and the development of trust. The medical encounter is then documented in the medical record, which is a legal document in many jurisdictions.[5] Followups may be shorter but follow the same general procedure.

    The components of the medical interview[4] and encounter are:

    Chief complaint (CC): the reason for the current medical visit. These are the 'symptoms.' They are in the patient's own words and are recorded along with the duration of each one. Also called 'presenting complaint.'

    History of present illness / complaint (HPI): the chronological order of events of symptoms and further clarification of each symptom.

    Current activity: occupation, hobbies, what the patient actually does.

    Medications (Rx): what drugs the patient takes including prescribed, over-the-counter, and home remedies, as well as alternative and herbal medicines/herbal remedies. Allergies are also recorded.

    Past medical history (PMH/PMHx): concurrent medical problems, past hospitalizations and operations, injuries, past infectious diseases and/or vaccinations, history of known allergies.

    Social history (SH): birthplace, residences, marital history, social and economic status, habits (including diet, medications, tobacco, alcohol).

    Family history (FH): listing of diseases in the family that may impact the patient. A family tree is sometimes used.

    Review of systems (ROS) or systems inquiry: a set of additional questions to ask, which may be missed on HPI: a general enquiry (have you noticed any weight loss, change in sleep quality, fevers, lumps and bumps? etc.), followed by questions on the body's main organ systems (heart, lungs, digestive tract, urinary tract, etc.).

    The physical examination is the examination of the patient looking for signs of disease ('Symptoms' are what the patient volunteers, 'Signs' are what the healthcare provider detects by examination). The healthcare provider uses the senses of sight, hearing, touch, and sometimes smell (e.g., in infection, uremia, diabetic ketoacidosis). Taste has been made redundant by the availability of modern lab tests. Four actions are taught as the basis of physical examination: inspection, palpation (feel), percussion (tap to determine resonance characteristics), and auscultation (listen). This order may be modified depending on the main focus of the examination (e.g., a joint may be examined by simply "look, feel, move". Having this set order is an educational tool that encourages practitioners to be systematic in their approach and refrain from using tools such as the stethoscope before they have fully evaluated the other modalities).

    The clinical examination involves the study of:

    Vital signs including height, weight, body temperature, blood pressure, pulse, respiration rate, and hemoglobin oxygen saturation

    General appearance of the patient and specific indicators of disease (nutritional status, presence of jaundice, pallor or clubbing)

    Head, eye, ear, nose, and throat (HEENT)
    Cardiovascular (heart and blood vessels)
    Respiratory (large airways and lungs)
    Abdomen and rectum
    Genitalia (and pregnancy if the patient is or could be pregnant)
    Musculoskeletal (including spine and extremities)
    Neurological (consciousness, awareness, brain, vision, cranial nerves, spinal cord and peripheral nerves)
    Psychiatric (orientation, mental state, evidence of abnormal perception or thought).

    It is to likely focus on areas of interest highlighted in the medical history and may not include everything listed above.

    Laboratory and imaging studies results may be obtained, if necessary.

    The medical decision-making (MDM) process involves analysis and synthesis of all the above data to come up with a list of possible diagnoses (the differential diagnoses), along with an idea of what needs to be done to obtain a definitive diagnosis that would explain the patient's problem.

    The treatment plan may include ordering additional laboratory tests and studies, starting therapy, referral to a specialist, or watchful observation. Follow-up may be advised.

    This process is used by primary care providers as well as specialists. It may take only a few minutes if the problem is simple and straightforward. On the other hand, it may take weeks in a patient who has been hospitalized with bizarre symptoms or multi-system problems, with involvement by several specialists.

    On subsequent visits, the process may be repeated in an abbreviated manner to obtain any new history, symptoms, physical findings, and lab or imaging results or specialist consultations.


    Contemporary medicine is in general conducted within health care systems. Legal, credentialing and financing frameworks are established by individual governments, augmented on occasion by international organizations, such as churches. The characteristics of any given health care system have significant impact on the way medical care is provided.

    From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Catholic Church today remains the largest non-government provider of medical services in the world.[6] Advanced industrial countries (with the exception of the United States)[7][8] and many developing countries provide medical services through a system of universal health care that aims to guarantee care for all through a single-payer health care system, or compulsory private or co-operative health insurance. This is intended to ensure that the entire population has access to medical care on the basis of need rather than ability to pay. Delivery may be via private medical practices or by state-owned hospitals and clinics, or by charities, most commonly by a combination of all three.

    Most tribal societies, and the United States,[7][8] provide no guarantee of healthcare for the population as a whole. In such societies, healthcare is available to those that can afford to pay for it or have self-insured it (either directly or as part of an employment contract) or who may be covered by care financed by the government or tribe directly.

    Modern drug ampoules

    Transparency of information is another factor defining a delivery system. Access to information on conditions, treatments, quality, and pricing greatly affects the choice by patients/consumers and, therefore, the incentives of medical professionals. While the US healthcare system has come under fire for lack of openness,[9] new legislation may encourage greater openness. There is a perceived tension between the need for transparency on the one hand and such issues as patient confidentiality and the possible exploitation of information for commercial gain on the other.


    See also: Health care, clinic, hospital, and hospice

    Provision of medical care is classified into primary, secondary, and tertiary care categories.

    Primary care medical services are provided by physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, or other health professionals who have first contact with a patient seeking medical treatment or care. These occur in physician offices, clinics, nursing homes, schools, home visits, and other places close to patients. About 90% of medical visits can be treated by the primary care provider. These include treatment of acute and chronic illnesses, preventive care and health education for all ages and both sexes.

    Secondary care medical services are provided by medical specialists in their offices or clinics or at local community hospitals for a patient referred by a primary care provider who first diagnosed or treated the patient. Referrals are made for those patients who required the expertise or procedures performed by specialists. These include both ambulatory care and inpatient services, emergency rooms, intensive care medicine, surgery services, physical therapy, labor and delivery, endoscopy units, diagnostic laboratory and medical imaging services, hospice centers, etc. Some primary care providers may also take care of hospitalized patients and deliver babies in a secondary care setting.

    Tertiary care medical services are provided by specialist hospitals or regional centers equipped with diagnostic and treatment facilities not generally available at local hospitals. These include trauma centers, burn treatment centers, advanced neonatology unit services, organ transplants, high-risk pregnancy, radiation oncology, etc.

    Modern medical care also depends on information – still delivered in many health care settings on paper records, but increasingly nowadays by electronic means.


    Working together as an interdisciplinary team, many highly trained health professionals besides medical practitioners are involved in the delivery of modern health care. Examples include: nurses, emergency medical technicians and paramedics, laboratory scientists, pharmacists, podiatrists physiotherapists, respiratory therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, dietitians, and bioengineers.

    The scope and sciences underpinning human medicine overlap many other fields. Dentistry, while considered by some a separate discipline from medicine, is a medical field.

    A patient admitted to hospital is usually under the care of a specific team based on their main presenting problem, e.g., the Cardiology team, who then may interact with other specialties, e.g., surgical, radiology, to help diagnose or treat the main problem or any subsequent complications/developments.

    Physicians have many specializations and subspecializations into certain branches of medicine, which are listed below. There are variations from country to country regarding which specialties certain subspecialties are in.

    The main branches of medicine are:

    Basic sciences of medicine; this is what every physician is educated in, and some return to in biomedical research.
    Medical specialties
    Interdisciplinary fields, where different medical specialties are mixed to function in certain occasions.

    Basic sciences

    Anatomy is the study of the physical structure of organisms. In contrast to macroscopic or gross anatomy, cytology and histology are concerned with microscopic structures.

    Biochemistry is the study of the chemistry taking place in living organisms, especially the structure and function of their chemical components.

    Biomechanics is the study of the structure and function of biological systems by means of the methods of Mechanics.

    Biostatistics is the application of statistics to biological fields in the broadest sense. A knowledge of biostatistics is essential in the planning, evaluation, and interpretation of medical research. It is also fundamental to epidemiology and evidence-based medicine.

    Biophysics is an interdisciplinary science that uses the methods of physics and physical chemistry to study biological systems.

    Cytology is the microscopic study of individual cells.

    Embryology is the study of the early development of organisms.

    Endocrinology is the study of hormones and their effect throughout the body of animals.

    Epidemiology is the study of the demographics of disease processes, and includes, but is not limited to, the study of epidemics.

    Genetics is the study of genes, and their role in biological inheritance.

    Histology is the study of the structures of biological tissues by light microscopy, electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry.

    Immunology is the study of the immune system, which includes the innate and adaptive immune system in humans, for example.

    Medical physics is the study of the applications of physics principles in medicine.

    Microbiology is the study of microorganisms, including protozoa, bacteria, fungi, and viruses.

    Molecular biology is the study of molecular underpinnings of the process of replication, transcription and translation of the genetic material.

    Neuroscience includes those disciplines of science that are related to the study of the nervous system. A main focus of neuroscience is the biology and physiology of the human brain and spinal cord. Some related clinical specialties include neurology, neurosurgery and psychiatry.

    Nutrition science (theoretical focus) and dietetics (practical focus) is the study of the relationship of food and drink to health and disease, especially in determining an optimal diet. Medical nutrition therapy is done by dietitians and is prescribed for diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, weight and eating disorders, allergies, malnutrition, and neoplastic diseases.

    Pathology as a science is the study of disease—the causes, course, progression and resolution thereof.
    Pharmacology is the study of drugs and their actions.
    Photobiology is the study of the interactions between non-ionizing radiation and living organisms.
    Physiology is the study of the normal functioning of the body and the underlying regulatory mechanisms.
    Radiobiology is the study of the interactions between ionizing radiation and living organisms.
    Toxicology is the study of hazardous effects of drugs and poisons.


    In the broadest meaning of "medicine", there are many different specialties. In the UK, most specialities will have their own body or college (collectively known as the Royal Colleges, although currently not all use the term "Royal"), which have their own entrance exam. The development of a speciality is often driven by new technology (such as the development of effective anaesthetics) or ways of working (e.g., emergency departments), which leads to the desire to form a unifying body of doctors and thence the prestige of administering their own exam.

    Within medical circles, specialities usually fit into one of two broad categories: "Medicine" and "Surgery." "Medicine" refers to the practice of non-operative medicine, and most subspecialties in this area require preliminary training in "Internal Medicine". In the UK, this would traditionally have been evidenced by obtaining the MRCP (An exam allowing Membership of the Royal College of Physicians or the equivalent college in Scotland or Ireland). "Surgery" refers to the practice of operative medicine, and most subspecialties in this area require preliminary training in "General Surgery." (In the UK: Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons of England (MRCS).)There are some specialties of medicine that at the present time do not fit easily into either of these categories, such as radiology, pathology, or anesthesia. Most of these have branched from one or other of the two camps above – for example anaesthesia developed first as a faculty of the Royal College of Surgeons (for which MRCS/FRCS would have been required) before becoming the Royal College of Anaesthetists and membership of the college is by sitting the FRCA (Fellowship of the Royal College of Anesthetists).


    Surgical specialties employ operative treatment. In addition, surgeons must decide when an operation is necessary, and also treat many non-surgical issues, particularly in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU), where a variety of critical issues arise. Surgeons must also manage pre-operative, post-operative, and potential surgical candidates on the hospital wards. Surgery has many sub-specialties, including general surgery, cardiovascular surgery, colorectal surgery, neurosurgery, maxillofacial surgery, oncologic surgery, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, podiatric surgery, transplant surgery, trauma surgery, urology, vascular surgery, and pediatric surgery. In some centers, anesthesiology is part of the division of surgery (for historical and logistical reasons), although it is not a surgical discipline. Other medical specialties may employ surgical procedures, such as ophthalmology and dermatology, but are not considered surgical sub-specialties per se.

    Surgical training in the U.S. requires a minimum of five years of residency after medical school. Sub-specialties of surgery often require seven or more years. In addition, fellowships can last an additional one to three years. Because post-residency fellowships can be competitive, many trainees devote two additional years to research. Thus in some cases surgical training will not finish until more than a decade after medical school. Furthermore, surgical training can be very difficult and time consuming.

    Internal Medicine

    Internal medicine is the medical specialty concerned with the diagnosis, management and nonsurgical treatment of unusual or serious diseases, either of one particular organ system or of the body as a whole. According to some sources, an emphasis on internal structures is implied.[10] In North America, specialists in internal medicine are commonly called "internists". Elsewhere, especially in Commonwealth nations, such specialists are often called physicians.[11] These terms, internist or physician (in the narrow sense, common outside North America), generally exclude practitioners of gynecology and obstetrics, pathology, psychiatry, and especially surgery and its subspecialities.

    Because their patients are often seriously ill or require complex investigations, internists do much of their work in hospitals. Formerly, many internists were not subspecialized; such general physicians would see any complex nonsurgical problem; this style of practice has become much less common. In modern urban practice, most internists are subspecialists: that is, they generally limit their medical practice to problems of one organ system or to one particular area of medical knowledge. For example, gastroenterologists and nephrologists specialize respectively in diseases of the gut and the kidneys.[12]

    In the Commonwealth of Nations and some other countries, specialist pediatricians and geriatricians are also described as specialist physicians (or internists) who have subspecialized by age of patient rather than by organ system. Elsewhere, especially in North America, general pediatrics is often a form of Primary care.

    There are many subspecialities (or subdisciplines) of internal medicine:

    Critical care medicine
    Infectious diseases
    Sleep medicine.

    Training in internal medicine (as opposed to surgical training), varies considerably across the world: see the articles on Medical education and Physician for more details. In North America, it requires at least three years of residency training after medical school, which can then be followed by a one- to three-year fellowship in the subspecialties listed above. In general, resident work hours in medicine are less than those in surgery, averaging about 60 hours per week in the USA. This difference does not apply in the UK where all doctors are now required by law to work less than 48 hours per week on average.

    Diagnostic specialties

    Clinical laboratory sciences are the clinical diagnostic services that apply laboratory techniques to diagnosis and management of patients. In the United States, these services are supervised by a pathologist. The personnel that work in these medical laboratory departments are technically trained staff who do not hold medical degrees, but who usually hold an undergraduate medical technology degree, who actually perform the tests, assays, and procedures needed for providing the specific services. Subspecialties include Transfusion medicine, Cellular pathology, Clinical chemistry, Hematology, Clinical microbiology and Clinical immunology.

    Pathology as a medical specialty is the branch of medicine that deals with the study of diseases and the morphologic, physiologic changes produced by them. As a diagnostic specialty, pathology can be considered the basis of modern scientific medical knowledge and plays a large role in evidence-based medicine. Many modern molecular tests such as flow cytometry, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), immunohistochemistry, cytogenetics, gene rearrangements studies and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) fall within the territory of pathology.

    Radiology is concerned with imaging of the human body, e.g. by x-rays, x-ray computed tomography, ultrasonography, and nuclear magnetic resonance tomography.

    Nuclear medicine is concerned with studying human organ systems by administering radiolabelled substances (radiopharmaceuticals) to the body, which can then be imaged outside the body by a gamma camera or a PET scanner. Each radiopharmaceutical consists of two parts: a tracer that is specific for the function under study (e.g., neurotransmitter pathway, metabolic pathway, blood flow, or other), and a radionuclide (usually either a gamma-emitter or a positron emitter). There is a degree of overlap between nuclear medicine and radiology, as evidenced by the emergence of combined devices such as the PET/CT scanner.

    Clinical neurophysiology is concerned with testing the physiology or function of the central and peripheral aspects of the nervous system. These kinds of tests can be divided into recordings of: (1) spontaneous or continuously running electrical activity, or (2) stimulus evoked responses. Subspecialties include Electroencephalography, Electromyography, Evoked potential, Nerve conduction study and Polysomnography. Sometimes these tests are performed by techs without a medical degree, but the interpretation of these tests is done by a medical professional.

    Other major specialties

    The followings are some major medical specialties that do not directly fit into any of the above mentioned groups.

    Anesthesiology (also known as anaesthetics): concerned with the perioperative management of the surgical patient. The anesthesiologist's role during surgery is to prevent derangement in the vital organs' (i.e. brain, heart, kidneys) functions and postoperative pain. Outside of the operating room, the anesthesiology physician also served the same function in the labor & delivery ward, and some are specialized in critical medicine.

    Dermatology is concerned with the skin and its diseases. In the UK, dermatology is a subspecialty of general medicine.

    Emergency medicine is concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of acute or life-threatening conditions, including trauma, surgical, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric emergencies.

    Family medicine, family practice, general practice or primary care is, in many countries, the first port-of-call for patients with non-emergency medical problems. Family physicians often provide services across a broad range of settings including office based practices, emergency room coverage, inpatient care, and nursing home care.

    Obstetrics and gynecology (often abbreviated as OB/GYN (American English) or Obs & Gynae (British English)) are concerned respectively with childbirth and the female reproductive and associated organs. Reproductive medicine and fertility medicine are generally practiced by gynecological specialists.

    Medical Genetics is concerned with the diagnosis and management of hereditary disorders.

    Neurology is concerned with diseases of the nervous system. In the UK, neurology is a subspecialty of general medicine.

    Ophthalmology exclusively concerned with the eye and ocular adnexa, combining conservative and surgical therapy.

    Pediatrics (AE) or paediatrics (BE) is devoted to the care of infants, children, and adolescents. Like internal medicine, there are many pediatric subspecialties for specific age ranges, organ systems, disease classes, and sites of care delivery.

    Physical medicine and rehabilitation (or physiatry) is concerned with functional improvement after injury, illness, or congenital disorders.

    Podiatric medicine study of, diagnosis, and medical treatment of disorders of the foot, ankle, lower limb, hip and lower back.

    Psychiatry is the branch of medicine concerned with the bio-psycho-social study of the etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of cognitive, perceptual, emotional and behavioral disorders. Related non-medical fields include psychotherapy and clinical psychology.

    Preventive medicine is the branch of medicine concerned with preventing disease. Community health or public health is an aspect of health services concerned with threats to the overall health of a community based on population health analysis.

    Occupational medicine's principal role is the provision of health advice to organizations and individuals to ensure that the highest standards of health and safety at work can be achieved and maintained.

    Aerospace medicine deals with medical problems related to flying and space travel.

    Interdisciplinary fields

    Some interdisciplinary sub-specialties of medicine include:

    Addiction medicine deals with the treatment of addiction.
    Medical ethics deals with ethical and moral principles that apply values and judgments to the practice of medicine.
    Biomedical Engineering is a field dealing with the application of engineering principles to medical practice.
    Clinical pharmacology is concerned with how systems of therapeutics interact with patients.
    Conservation medicine studies the relationship between human and animal health, and environmental conditions. Also known as ecological medicine, environmental medicine, or medical geology.
    Disaster medicine deals with medical aspects of emergency preparedness, disaster mitigation and management.
    Diving medicine (or hyperbaric medicine) is the prevention and treatment of diving-related problems.
    Evolutionary medicine is a perspective on medicine derived through applying evolutionary theory.
    Forensic medicine deals with medical questions in legal context, such as determination of the time and cause of death, type of weapon used to inflict trauma, reconstruction of the facial features using remains of deceased (skull)thus aiding identification.
    Gender-based medicine studies the biological and physiological differences between the human sexes and how that affects differences in disease.
    Hospice and Palliative Medicine is a relatively modern branch of clinical medicine that deals with pain and symptom relief and emotional support in patients with terminal illnesses including cancer and heart failure.
    Hospital medicine is the general medical care of hospitalized patients. Physicians whose primary professional focus is hospital medicine are called hospitalists in the USA and Canada. The term Most Responsible Physician (MRP) or attending physician is also used interchangeably to describe this role.
    Laser medicine involves the use of lasers in the diagnostics and/or treatment of various conditions.
    Medical humanities includes the humanities (literature, philosophy, ethics, history and religion), social science (anthropology, cultural studies, psychology, sociology), and the arts (literature, theater, film, and visual arts) and their application to medical education and practice.
    Medical informatics, medical computer science, medical information and eHealth are relatively recent fields that deal with the application of computers and information technology to medicine.
    Nosology is the classification of diseases for various purposes.
    Nosokinetics is the science/subject of measuring and modelling the process of care in health and social care systems.
    Pain management (also called pain medicine, or algiatry) is the medical discipline concerned with the relief of pain.
    Pharmacogenomics is a form of individualized medicine.
    Podiatric medicine study of, diagnosis, and medical treatment of disorders of the foot, ankle, lower limb, hip and lower back. .
    Sexual medicine is concerned with diagnosing, assessing and treating all disorders related to sexuality.
    Sports medicine deals with the treatment and prevention and rehabilitation of sports/exercise injuries such as muscle spasms, muscle tears, injuries to ligaments (ligament tears or ruptures) and their repair in athletes, amateur and professional. The team includes specialty physicians and surgeons, athletic trainers, physical therapists, psychiatrists and/or psychologists, coaches, other personnel, and, of course, the athlete.
    Therapeutics is the field, more commonly referenced in earlier periods of history, of the various remedies that can be used to treat disease and promote health.[13]
    Travel medicine or emporiatrics deals with health problems of international travelers or travelers across highly different environments.
    Urgent care focuses on delivery of unscheduled, walk-in care outside of the hospital emergency department for injuries and illnesses that are not severe enough to require care in an emergency department. In some jurisdictions this function is combined with the emergency room.
    Veterinary medicine; veterinarians apply similar techniques as physicians to the care of animals.
    Wilderness medicine entails the practice of medicine in the wild, where conventional medical facilities may not be available.
    Many other health science fields, e.g. dietetics


    Painted by Toulouse-Lautrec in the year of his own death: an examination in the Paris faculty of medicine, 1901
    Medical education and training varies around the world. It typically involves entry level education at a university medical school, followed by a period of supervised practice or internship, and/or residency. This can be followed by postgraduate vocational training. A variety of teaching methods have been employed in medical education, still itself a focus of active research. In Canada and the United States of America, a Doctor of Medicine degree, often abbreviated M.D. or a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degree, often abbreviated as D.O. and unique to the United States, must be completed in a recognized university.

    Since knowledge, techniques, and medical technology continue to evolve at a rapid rate, many regulatory authorities require continuing medical education. The means through which doctors upgrade their medical knowledge include medical journals, seminars, conferences and online programs apart from others.

    Medical ethics

    Medical ethics is a system of moral principles that apply values and judgments to the practice of medicine. As a scholarly discipline, medical ethics encompasses its practical application in clinical settings as well as work on its history, philosophy, theology, and sociology. Six of the values that commonly apply to medical ethics discussions are:
    autonomy - the patient has the right to refuse or choose their treatment. (Voluntas aegroti suprema lex.)
    beneficence - a practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. (Salus aegroti suprema lex.)
    justice - concerns the distribution of scarce health resources, and the decision of who gets what treatment (fairness and equality).
    non-maleficence - "first, do no harm" (primum non nocere).
    respect for persons - the patient (and the person treating the patient) have the right to be treated with dignity.
    truthfulness and honesty - the concept of informed consent has increased in importance since the historical events of the Doctors' Trial of the Nuremberg trials and Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

    Values such as these do not give answers as to how to handle a particular situation, but provide a useful framework for understanding conflicts. When moral values are in conflict, the result may be an ethical dilemma or crisis. Sometimes, no good solution to a dilemma in medical ethics exists, and occasionally, the values of the medical community (i.e., the hospital and its staff) conflict with the values of the individual patient, family, or larger non-medical community. Conflicts can also arise between health care providers, or among family members. For example, some argue that the principles of autonomy and beneficence clash when patients refuse blood transfusions, considering them life-saving; and truth-telling was not emphasized to a large extent before the HIV era.

    Legal controls

    In most countries, it is a legal requirement for a medical doctor to be licensed or registered. In general, this entails a medical degree from a university and accreditation by a medical board or an equivalent national organization, which may ask the applicant to pass exams. This restricts the considerable legal authority of the medical profession to physicians that are trained and qualified by national standards. It is also intended as an assurance to patients and as a safeguard against charlatans that practice inadequate medicine for personal gain. While the laws generally require medical doctors to be trained in "evidence based", Western, or Hippocratic Medicine, they are not intended to discourage different paradigms of health.

    In the European Union, the profession of doctor of medicine is regulated. A profession is said to be regulated when access and exercise is subject to the possession of a specific professional qualification. The regulated professions database contains a list of regulated professions for doctor of medicine in the EU member states, EEA countries and Switzerland. This list is covered by the Directive 2005/36/EC .

    Doctors who are negligent or intentionally harmful in their care of patients can face charges of medical malpractice and be subject to civil, criminal, or professional sanctions.

    Criticism of modern medicine

    According to Paul Farmer, the main problem for modern medicine is lack of access in poor regions. There is an "outcome gap" between the rich and poor that is most noticeable with expensive-to-treat diseases like AIDS and tuberculosis. The majority of medical resources and therapies are concentrated in the rich, low-incidence regions such as the West. On the other hand, countries in the developing world have high rates of HIV but lack the resources to treat them.[14]

    Medical errors and overmedication and other forms of iatrogenesis (harms caused by medical treatment) are also the focus of complaints and negative coverage. Practitioners of human factors engineering believe that there is much that medicine may usefully gain by emulating concepts in aviation safety, where it is recognized that it is dangerous to place too much responsibility on one "superhuman" individual and expect him or her not to make errors. Reporting systems and checking mechanisms are becoming more common in identifying sources of error and improving practice. Clinical versus statistical, algorithmic diagnostic methods were famously examined in psychiatric practice in a 1954 book by Paul E. Meehl, which found statistical methods superior.[15] A 2000 meta-analysis comparing these methods in both psychology and medicine found that statistical or "mechanical" diagnostic methods were, in general, although not always, superior.[15]

    Disparities in quality of care given among local demographics are often an additional cause of controversy.[16] For example, elderly mentally ill patients received poorer care during hospitalization in a 2008 study.[17] Rural poor African-American men were used in an infamous study of syphilis that denied them basic medical care.

    Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine

    The highest honor awarded in medicine is the Nobel Prize in Medicine, awarded since 1901 by the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet.


    A statuette of ancient Egyptian physician Imhotep, depicts the first physician from antiquity known by name. Prehistoric medicine incorporated plants (herbalism), animal parts and minerals. In many cases these materials were used ritually as magical substances by priests, shamans, or medicine men. Well-known spiritual systems include animism (the notion of inanimate objects having spirits), spiritualism (an appeal to gods or communion with ancestor spirits); shamanism (the vesting of an individual with mystic powers); and divination (magically obtaining the truth). The field of medical anthropology examines the ways in which culture and society are organized around or impacted by issues of health, health care and related issues.

    The Greek physician Hippocrates (ca. 460 BCE – ca. 370 BCE), is considered the father of medicine.[18][19] Early records on medicine have been discovered from ancient Egyptian medicine, Babylonian medicine, Ayurvedic medicine (in the Indian subcontinent), classical Chinese medicine (predecessor to the modern traditional Chinese Medicine), and ancient Greek medicine and Roman medicine. The Egyptian Imhotep (3rd millennium BC) is the first physician in history known by name. Earliest records of dedicated hospitals come from Mihintale in Sri Lanka where evidence of dedicated medicinal treatment facilities for patients are found.[20][21] The Indian surgeon Sushruta described numerous surgical operations, including the earliest forms of plastic surgery.[22][dubious – discuss][23][24]

    The Greek physician Hippocrates, the "father of medicine",[18][19] laid the foundation for a rational approach to medicine. Hippocrates introduced the Hippocratic Oath for physicians, which is still relevant and in use today, and was the first to categorize illnesses as acute, chronic, endemic and epidemic, and use terms such as, "exacerbation, relapse, resolution, crisis, paroxysm, peak, and convalescence".[25][26]

    The Greek physician Galen was also one of the greatest surgeons of the ancient world and performed many audacious operations, including brain and eye surgeries. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the onset of the Early Middle Ages, the Greek tradition of medicine went into decline in Western Europe, although it continued uninterrupted in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

    Most of our knowledge of ancient Hebrew medicine during the 1st millennium BC comes from the Torah, i.e. the Five Books of Moses, which contain various health related laws and rituals. The Hebrew contribution to the development of modern medicine started in the Byzantine Era, with the physician Asaph the Jew.[27]

    Middle ages

    After 750 CE, the Muslim world had the works of Hippocrates, Galen and Sushruta translated into Arabic, and Islamic physicians engaged in some significant medical research. Notable Islamic medical pioneers include the polymath, Avicenna, who, along with Imhotep and Hippocrates, has also been called the "father of medicine".[28][29] He wrote The Canon of Medicine, considered one of the most famous books in the history of medicine.[30] Others include Abulcasis,[31] Avenzoar,[32] Ibn al-Nafis,[33] and Averroes.[34] Rhazes[35] was one of first to question the Greek theory of humorism, which nevertheless remained influential in both medieval Western and medieval Islamic medicine.[36] The Islamic Bimaristan hospitals were an early example of public hospitals.[37][38]

    In Europe, Charlemagne decreed that a hospital should be attached to each cathedral and monastery and the historian Geoffrey Blainey likened the activities of the Catholic Church in health care during the Middle Ages to an early version of a welfare state: "It conducted hospitals for the old and orphanages for the young; hospices for the sick of all ages; places for the lepers; and hostels or inns where pilgrims could buy a cheap bed and meal". It supplied food to the population during famine and distributed food to the poor. This welfare system the church funded through collecting taxes on a large scale and possessing large farmlands and estates. The Benedictine order was noted for setting up hospitals and infirmaries in their monasteries, growing medical herbs and becoming the chief medical care givers of their districts, as at the great Abbey of Cluny. The Church also established a network of cathedral schools and univerities where medicine was studied. The Schola Medica Salernitana in Salerno, looking to the learning of Greek and Arab physicians, grew to be the finest medical school in Medieval Europe.[39]

    Siena's Santa Maria della Scala Hospital, is one of Europe's oldest hospitals. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church established universities which revived the study of sciences - drawing on the learning of Greek and Arab physicians in the study of medicine. However, the fourteenth and fifteenth century Black Death devastated both the Middle East and Europe, and it has even been argued that Western Europe was generally more effective in recovering from the pandemic than the Middle East.[40] In the early modern period, important early figures in medicine and anatomy emerged in Europe, including Gabriele Falloppio and William Harvey.

    The major shift in medical thinking was the gradual rejection, especially during the Black Death in the 14th and 15th centuries, of what may be called the 'traditional authority' approach to science and medicine. This was the notion that because some prominent person in the past said something must be so, then that was the way it was, and anything one observed to the contrary was an anomaly (which was paralleled by a similar shift in European society in general – see Copernicus's rejection of Ptolemy's theories on astronomy). Physicians like Vesalius improved upon or disproved some of the theories from the past. The main tomes used both by medicine students and expert physicians were Materia Medica and Pharmacopoeia.

    Andreas Vesalius was an author of one of the most influential books on human anatomy, De humani corporis fabrica.[41] French surgeon Ambroise Paré is considered as one of the fathers of surgery. Bacteria and microorganisms were first observed with a microscope by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek in 1676, initiating the scientific field microbiology.[42] Independently from Ibn al-Nafis, Michael Servetus rediscovered the pulmonary circulation, but this discovery did not reach the public because it was written down for the first time in the "Manuscript of Paris"[43] in 1546, and later published in the theological work for which he paid with his life in 1553. Later this was described by Renaldus Columbus and Andrea Cesalpino. Partly based on the works by the Italian surgeon and anatomist Renaldus Columbus the English physician William Harvey described the circulatory system.[44] Herman Boerhaave is sometimes referred to as a "father of physiology" due to his exemplary teaching in Leiden and textbook 'Institutiones medicae' (1708). It is said that the 17th century French physician Pierre Fauchard started dentistry science as we know it today, and he has been named "the father of modern dentistry".[45]


    Veterinary medicine was, for the first time, truly separated from human medicine in 1761, when the French veterinarian Claude Bourgelat founded the world's first veterinary school in Lyon, France. Before this, medical doctors treated both humans and other animals.

    Modern scientific biomedical research (where results are testable and reproducible) began to replace early Western traditions based on herbalism, the Greek "four humours" and other such pre-modern notions. The modern era really began with Edward Jenner's discovery of the smallpox vaccine at the end of the 18th century (inspired by the method of inoculation earlier practiced in Asia), Robert Koch's discoveries around 1880 of the transmission of disease by bacteria, and then the discovery of antibiotics around 1900.

    The post-18th century modernity period brought more groundbreaking researchers from Europe. From Germany and Austria, doctors Rudolf Virchow, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, Karl Landsteiner and Otto Loewi made notable contributions. In the United Kingdom, Alexander Fleming, Joseph Lister, Francis Crick and Florence Nightingale are considered important. Spanish doctor Santiago Ramón y Cajal is considered the father of modern neuroscience.

    From New Zealand and Australia came Maurice Wilkins, Howard Florey, and Frank Macfarlane Burnet.

    In the United States, William Williams Keen, William Coley, James D. Watson, Italy (Salvador Luria), Switzerland (Alexandre Yersin), Japan (Kitasato Shibasaburō), and France (Jean-Martin Charcot, Claude Bernard, Paul Broca and others did significant work). Russian Nikolai Korotkov also did significant work, as did Sir William Osler and Harvey Cushing.

    Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin in September 1928 marks the start of modern antibiotics.
    As science and technology developed, medicine became more reliant upon medications. Throughout history and in Europe right until the late 18th century, not only animal and plant products were used as medicine, but also human body parts and fluids.[46] Pharmacology developed from herbalism and many drugs are still derived from plants (atropine, ephedrine, warfarin, aspirin, digoxin, vinca alkaloids, taxol, hyoscine, etc.). Vaccines were discovered by Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur.

    The first antibiotic was arsphenamine / Salvarsan discovered by Paul Ehrlich in 1908 after he observed that bacteria took up toxic dyes that human cells did not. The first major class of antibiotics was the sulfa drugs, derived by German chemists originally from azo dyes.

    Pharmacology has become increasingly sophisticated; modern biotechnology allows drugs targeted towards specific physiological processes to be developed, sometimes designed for compatibility with the body to reduce side-effects. Genomics and knowledge of human genetics is having some influence on medicine, as the causative genes of most monogenic genetic disorders have now been identified, and the development of techniques in molecular biology and genetics are influencing medical technology, practice and decision-making.

    Evidence-based medicine is a contemporary movement to establish the most effective algorithms of practice (ways of doing things) through the use of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The movement is facilitated by modern global information science, which allows as much of the available evidence as possible to be collected and analyzed according to standard protocols that are then disseminated to healthcare providers. The Cochrane Collaboration leads this movement. A 2001 review of 160 Cochrane systematic reviews revealed that, according to two readers, 21.3% of the reviews concluded insufficient evidence, 20% concluded evidence of no effect, and 22.5% concluded positive effect.[47]

    Patron saints

    There are a number of patron saints for physicians, the most important of whom are Saint Luke the Evangelist the physician and disciple of Christ, Saints Cosmas and Damian (3rd-century physicians from Syria), and Saint Pantaleon (4th-century physician from Nicomedia). Archangel Raphael is also considered a patron saint of physicians. In India and in Hinduism, Dhanavantari, a form of Lord Vishnu and "Vaidyanatha" meaning 'Lord of Medicine', a form of Lord Shiva are the patron deities of medicine.

    The patron saints for surgeons are Saint Luke the Evangelist, the physician and disciple of Christ, Saints Cosmas and Damian (3rd-century physicians from Syria), Saint Quentin (3rd-century saint from France), Saint Foillan (7th-century saint from Ireland), and Saint Roch (14th-century saint from France).


    1.^ Oxford English Dictionary definition of "medicine"
    2.^ Etymology: Latin: medicina, from ars medicina "the medical art", from medicus "physician". (Etym.Online) Cf. mederi "to heal", etym. "know the best course for," from PIE base *med- "to measure, limit. Cf. Greek medos "counsel, plan", Avestan vi-mad "physician")
    3.^ "Medicine" Online Etymology Dictionary
    4.^ a b Coulehan JL, Block MR (2005). The Medical Interview: Mastering Skills for Clinical Practice (5th ed.). F. A. Davis. ISBN 0-8036-1246-X. OCLC 232304023.
    5.^ Addison K, Braden JH, Cupp JE, Emmert D, et al. (AHIMA e-HIM Work Group on the Legal Health Record) (September 2005). "Update: Guidelines for Defining the Legal Health Record for Disclosure Purposes". Journal of AHIMA 78 (Cool: 64A–G. PMID 16245584.
    6.^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Penguin Viking; 2011
    7.^ a b Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, 2004-01-14
    8.^ a b "The Case For Single Payer, Universal Health Care For The United States". Retrieved 4 May 2009.
    9.^ Martin Sipkoff (January 2004). "Transparency called key to uniting cost control, quality improvement". Managed Care.
    10.^ "internal medicine" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary
    11.^ H.W. Fowler. (1994). A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (Wordsworth Collection) (Wordsworth Collection). NTC/Contemporary Publishing Company. ISBN 1-85326-318-4.
    12.^ "The Royal Australasian College of Physicians: What are Physicians?". Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Archived from the original on 6 March 2008. Retrieved 5 February 2008.
    13.^ "therapeutics (medicine) - Britannica Online Encyclopedia". Retrieved 2012-04-21.
    14.^ Farmer, Paul (2001). "The major infectious diseases in the world--to treat or not to treat?". The New England Journal of Medicine. Retrieved 5 November 2012.
    15.^ a b Grove WH, Zald DH, Lebow BS, Snitz BE, Nelson C. (2000). "Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis" (w). Psychological Assessment 12 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19. PMID 10752360.
    16.^ "Eliminating Health Disparities". American Medical Association.
    17.^ "Mental Disorders, Quality of Care, and Outcomes Among Older Patients Hospitalized With Heart Failure".
    18.^ a b Grammaticos, P. C.; Diamantis, A. (2008). "Useful known and unknown views of the father of modern medicine, Hippocrates and his teacher Democritus". Hellenic journal of nuclear medicine 11 (1): 2–4. PMID 18392218. edit
    19.^ a b The father of modern medicine: the first research of the physical factor of tetanus, European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
    20.^ Prof. Arjuna Aluvihare, "Rohal Kramaya Lovata Dhayadha Kale Sri Lankikayo" Vidhusara Science Magazine, November 1993.
    21.^ Resource Mobilization in Sri Lanka's Health Sector – Rannan-Eliya, Ravi P. & De Mel, Nishan, Harvard School of Public Health & Health Policy Programme, Institute of Policy Studies[disambiguation needed], February 1997, Page 19. Accessed 2008-02-22.
    22.^ A. Singh and D. Sarangi (2003). "We need to think and act", Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery.
    23.^ H. W. Longfellow (2002). "History of Plastic Surgery in India", Journal of Postgraduate Medicine.
    24.^ Saraf, Sanjay; Ravi S. Parihar (2007). "Sushruta: The first Plastic Surgeon in 600 B.C.". The Internet Journal of Plastic Surgery 4. doi:10.5580/1456#sthash.mkTSe3sP.dpuf. ISSN 1528-8293 ISSN: 1528-8293. Retrieved 12 November 2012.
    25.^ Garrison 1966, p. 97
    26.^ Martí-Ibáñez 1961, p. 90
    27.^ Vaisrub, Samuel; A. Denman, Michael; Naparstek, Yaakov; Gilon, Dan (2008). "Medicine". Encyclopaedia Judaica. The Gale Group.
    28.^ Becka J (1980). "The father of medicine, Avicenna, in our science and culture: Abu Ali ibn Sina (980–1037) (Czech title: Otec lékarů Avicenna v nasí vĕdĕ a kulture)". Cas Lek Cesk (in Czech) 119 (1): 17–23. PMID 6989499.
    29.^ "Medical Practitioners". Retrieved 2012-04-21.
    30.^ ""The Canon of Medicine" (work by Avicenna)". Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Retrieved 11 June 2008.
    31.^ Ahmad, Z. (St Thomas' Hospital) (2007). "Al-Zahrawi – The Father of Surgery". ANZ Journal of Surgery 77 (Suppl. 1): A83. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04130_8.x
    32.^ Rabie E. Abdel-Halim (2006), "Contributions of Muhadhdhab Al-Deen Al-Baghdadi to the progress of medicine and urology", Saudi Medical Journal 27 (11): 1631–1641.
    33.^ Chairman's Reflections (2004), "Traditional Medicine Among Gulf Arabs, Part II: Blood-letting", Heart Views 5 (2): 74–85 [80].
    34.^ Martín-Araguz A, Bustamante-Martínez C, Fernández-Armayor Ajo V, Moreno-Martínez JM (2002-05-01—15). "Neuroscience in al-Andalus and its influence on medieval scholastic medicine". Revista de neurología (in Spanish) 34 (9): 877–892. PMID 12134355.
    35.^ David W. Tschanz, PhD (2003), "Arab(?) Roots of European Medicine", Heart Views 4 (2).
    36.^ On the dominance of the Greek humoral theory, which was the basis for the practice of bloodletting, in medieval Islamic medicine see Peter E. Pormann and E. Savage Smith,Medieval Islamic medicine, Georgetown University, Washington DC, 2007 p. 10, 43–45.
    37.^ Micheau, Françoise. "The Scientific Institutions in the Medieval Near East". pp. 991–2, in (Morelon & Rashed 1996, pp. 985–1007)
    38.^ Peter Barrett (2004), Science and Theology Since Copernicus: The Search for Understanding, p. 18, Continuum International Publishing Group, ISBN 0-567-08969-X.
    39.^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Penguin Viking; 2011; pp 214-215.
    40.^ Michael Dols has shown that the Black Death was much more commonly believed by European authorities than by Middle Eastern authorities to be contagious; as a result, flight was more commonly counseled, and in urban Italy quarantines were organized on a much wider level than in urban Egypt or Syria (The Black Death in the Middle East Princeton, 1977, p. 119; 285–290).
    41.^ "Page through a virtual copy of Vesalius's ''De Humanis Corporis Fabrica''". Retrieved 2012-04-21.
    42.^ Madigan M, Martinko J (editors) (2006). Brock Biology of Microorganisms (11th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-144329-1.
    43.^ Michael Servetus Research Website with a graphical study on the Manuscript of Paris by Servetus
    44.^ Zimmer, Carl. 2004. Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain – and How It Changed the World. New York: Free Press.
    45.^ "Pierre Fauchard: the 'Father of Modern Dentistry'". British Dental Journal 201, 779 – 781 (2006)
    46.^ Cooper, Peter. Medicinal properties of body parts. The Pharmaceutical Journal, 18/25 December 2004, Vol. 273 / No 7330, pp. 900–902.
    47.^ Ezzo J, Bausell B, Moerman DE, Berman B, Hadhazy V (2001). "Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?". Int J Technol Assess Health Care 17 (4): 457–466.
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Mayo-clinic
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Operating_room
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 OR01
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 119455f
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 1559
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Alien-Baby-V-Series

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:24 pm

    Once again, I attend no church presently -- but I have attended a huge number of church services in the past (including dozens of Novus Ordo Masses). I grew-up as an SDA -- and I attended the Crystal Cathedral for four years -- as well as attending the Episcopal Church for several years (including working in a church office for a couple of years). Anyway -- I have imagined what I would like to see in a solar system church and state integration -- which involves the Roman Catholic Church -- simply because they seem to be at the center of solar system governance presently -- whether anyone realizes this, or not. I guess I'm an Open-Infiltrator of Roman Catholicism -- even though I have NO clue what I'm doing!! I'm sort of a Friendly-Enemy or a Hostile-Friend (I'm not sure which). I often imagine myself as being a Renegade French Jesuit Organist. My path is very passive and very strange. I have no idea where I'm going with this. All I know is that I'm trying to model some ideas which no one else seems to be thinking about. My hope is that the right people (and other than people) will learn something significant from this experiment. This process makes me VERY uncomfortable. I am interested in church and state -- and in the proper relationship between the two -- yet I am extremely disillusioned with just about everyone and everything -- secular and sacred. I've decided to model a radical and contrarian political and theological science-fictional approach to life, the universe, and everything. Here are some interesting theological coversations by a couple of renegade SDA theologians in the early 1990's. Imagine how far things have moved since then!! Again, I am not hateful or hostile -- but I am very questioning and interested -- while remaining as neutral as possible -- although I am reconsidering my openness. I'm seeking solutions -- yet I fear that I am being taken advantage of -- and being played as a fool. Everyone plays the Completely Ignorant Fool.

    1. 2. 3.

    These videos tend to support my theory that ALL religions are part of ONE RELIGION and UNDER ONE LEADER. I guess that's one reason why I no longer attend church. I'm not opposed to church, to globalism, to cooperation, to unity, etc, etc -- but something seems to have been very wrong at the very highest levels for a very long time. Again, this is very tricky territory. I wonder where a neutral researcher (not a member or employee of any church) would end up if they studied the following sources:

    1. The Latin Mass.
    2. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer.
    3. Sacred Classical Music.
    4. The Federalist Papers.
    4. Fulton Sheen.
    5. Malachi Martin.
    6. Desmond Ford.
    7. Ellen G. White.
    8. Robert H. Schuller.

    This is a VERY interesting study list on so many levels. I realize that I'm ignorant and insane -- and that nothing I suggest or do will amount to anything of significance -- but I still would be interested to learn what conclusions would be reached by such a study -- say a doctoral dissertation based upon these eight sources -- in the context of a secular university -- by an Ex Roman Catholic (who is more agnostic than true-believer -- yet remains open and objective). The more I think about such things -- the more I realize how futile and stupid all of this is. It is a monumental waste of time and energy. No one gives a damn about such things. None of you do. I'll continue to go through the motions -- even though I know that this exercise in futility is utterly pointless. I would LOVE to see an ivy-league doctoral-disseration based upon this thread. But seriously, the amount of material which I have pointed toward would probably take the most capable researchers an entire lifetime to properly digest and evaluate.

    I support setting things right -- but I do not support breaking the Ten Commandments to destroy Commandment-Breakers. I understand having some sort of a Karmic Debtors Prison -- but I do NOT understand Genocide, an Eternally Burning Hell, or the Extermination of the Soul. I endorse a Reasonable System of Rewards and Punishments. Unfortunately, the Book of Revelation doesn't seem to agree with me. Theology often seems overly harsh, arbitrary, and unreasonable. I find it to be a very frustrating subject. I found speaking with an Ancient Egyptian Deity to be somewhat frustrating -- when they refused to answer most of my questions -- or gave responses which made my spine tingle and my stomach churn. I feel the same way when I watch angelic conversation and debate on television and in the movies. I mostly have to talk to myself about theology and philosophy. I mostly talk to myself on this website. Beyond doing this -- things go downhill rather quickly. A very interesting individual told me that I was mostly arguing with myself. Is it a sin to consider all of the options and possibilities (even the bad ones) prior to arriving at the most important determinations imaginable??

    I keep wondering where Jesus was at the Creation of Humanity?? I keep wondering where Jesus was throughout the Old Testament?? I keep wondering why Jesus had to not sin (even once) throughout his entire life?? I keep wondering why Jesus had to be brutally beaten and murdered as a human sacrifice to pay the price for our sin (which we can't seem to help anyway -- because of Original Sin)?? We seem to be able to sin at will -- as long as we're baptized, go to confession (telling a priest about our extramarital sexual pleasures) and communion (eating flesh and drinking blood), give lots of money to the church -- truly repent of our nasty deeds -- and truly trust in the Human-Sacrifice of Jesus Christ!! I keep wondering why Jesus had to leave Earth -- once he had won the battle -- and gained the victory over Sin and Satan?? Shouldn't Jesus have been in charge, at that point?? Who has been running the show on Planet Earth in the absence of Jesus Christ?? Jesus seemed to be loving -- yet the Return of Christ seems to involve Mass Murder. What's Wrong with This Picture??

    What is the proper way to approach historical analysis?? Should there even be historical analysis?? I continue to be burdened by the theory of Three Key Archangels in Conflict with Each Other -- going way, way, way back. Should I even think about such things?? Have the various religions, churches, theologians, and philosophers taught this sort of thing?? I have been exposed to the concept of the Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan in the Conflict of the Ages -- more than most people on the planet -- yet I have refined this concept into being the Great Archangelic Controversy Between Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer in the Conflict of the Ages Within This Solar System. The theory being that Michael was key in the Creation of the Human Being and Representive Governance Which Maximized Responsible Freedom -- and that this did not sit well with the Galactic Powers That Be in a Very Traditional and Theocratic Other Than Human Universe -- leading to a crackdown led by Archangel Gabriel -- with Lucifer initially siding with Michael -- but then switching sides when the defeat of Michael seemed unavoidable. Then, as the theory goes, Lucifer became the God of This World as Second in Command to Gabriel (The Queen of Heaven?). At some point, as the theory continues, Lucifer rebelled against Gabriel -- and that the horrors of history might be best explained by this hypothetical Ancient and Ongoing Archangelic War in Heaven and Earth. Archangel Michael would've been largely powerless in this solar system -- yet I wonder if they might have ruled elsewhere in the universe during this time period??

    What if the Biblical Deities are best explained by referring to Gabriel and Lucifer -- with Michael mostly out of the picture?? Who are the Father, Son, and Holy-Spirit REALLY??? Who are Jesus and Mary REALLY??? What if Michael (or Agents of Michael) documented everything transpiring in this solar system -- and that part of this record is the Holy Bible?? What if there is a larger body of Sacred Scripture in which context the Holy Bible would make much more sense than it does in an unenlightened isolation?? To put it bluntly -- What if God Created Humanity -- and was Subsequently and Consequently Overthrown by Two Rival Deities (or System-Lords)?? What if these hypothetical rivals had noble motives initially -- but became corrupted by the challenges of managing humanity?? What if the exposure of thousands of years of dirty linen will result in a Final Jihad aka the Battle of Armageddon?? What if the original Deity will find that (even if victorious) that Managing Humanity Idealistically will be Impossible -- resulting in a Failed Theocracy and a Subsequent Extermination??? What if the management of humanity will have to continue in a somewhat non-idealistic manner for literally centuries -- with evolutionary and incremental improvement -- ultimately leading to Heaven on Earth??? Might over-correcting This Present Purgatory result in the end of life as we know it within this solar system?? Would a United States of the Solar System constitute an over-correction?? Is it a Sin to think such thoughts??? Do such thoughts belong within The Mists of Avalon???

    I wish to make it very clear that I am seeking understanding and solutions -- rather than just ranting and raving to hurt and humiliate those who disagree with me. I don't think I have this thing all figured out -- yet I feel as if I might've helped some of you to get a lot closer to the REAL answers. I simply don't have the energy and intellect to get the job done. Besides, I'm not a part of some advanced research team at an ivy-league university (or in a Subsurface Lunar Base). Know that I'm only doing what I'm doing because the InfoWar has gotten so very hot over the past few years. God hasn't been sleeping. God got tired of the BS -- and has been setting things right on the internet!! God shall NOT be Mocked or Confounded!! BTW -- I'd sure like to know what REALLY was behind the Papal-Retirement AND the Jesuit Papal Replacement. I sure hope the reasons were legitimate -- but I suspect that they were not. I've become rather jaded and cynical in my old age. Please remember that this entire thread is an experiment -- rather than an excathedra encyclical. My real-life attitude is very different than that which I project throughout this thread. I think some of you know what I'm doing -- but I haven't spelled it out for you.

    Can someone please produce the Teachings of Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer -- With the Universal Reaction -- Before, During, and After the Creation of Humanity???

    Perhaps we should take a closer look at the First Vatican Council and the Second Vatican Council. What if the Proper Protestant Position is that Roman Catholicism is a Corrupted Version of an Idealistic Plan?? Should Protestants ponder what Roman Catholicism should and could be -- rather than demnoizing the entire phenomenon -- historically and presently?? Frankly, without knowing the REAL inside story, it is nearly impossible to know what to think and do. I've simply been attempting to help some of us think the unthinkable. I continue to worry that after we expose all of the nasty people (and other than people) along with their nasty deeds -- that we will learn (much to our horror) that things had to be as bad as they were -- throughout history -- and that things might have to get even worse before things get better -- if they get better. Take this thread with a Sea of Salt.

    The First Vatican Council was convoked by Pope Pius IX on 29 June 1868, after a period of planning and preparation that began on 6 December 1864.[1] This twentieth ecumenical council of the Catholic Church,[2] held three centuries after the Council of Trent, opened on 8 December 1869 and adjourned on 20 October 1870.[1] Unlike the five earlier General Councils held in Rome, which met in the Lateran Basilica and are known as Lateran Councils, it met in the Vatican Basilica, hence its name. Its best-known decision is its definition of papal infallibility.

    The Council was convoked to deal with the contemporary problems of the rising influence of rationalism, liberalism, and materialism.[2] Its purpose was, besides this, to define the Catholic doctrine concerning the Church of Christ.[3] There was discussion and approval of only two constitutions: the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith and the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, the latter dealing with the primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome.[3] The first matter brought up for debate was the dogmatic draft of Catholic doctrine against the manifold errors due to Rationalism.[4]

    Papal Infallibility

    The doctrine of papal infallibility was not new and had been used by Pope Pius in defining as dogma, in 1854, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus.[5] However, the proposal to define papal infallibility itself as dogma met with resistance, not because of doubts about the substance of the proposed definition, but because some considered it inopportune to take that step at that time.[5] McBrien divides the bishops attending Vatican I into three groups. The first group, which McBrien calls the "active infallibilists", was led by Manning and Senestrey. This group took an extreme view that argued that all papal teachings were infallible and that papal infallibility was the foundation of the church's infallibility. According to McBrien, the majority of the bishops were not so much interested in a formal definition of papal infallibility as they were in strengthening papal authority and, because of this, were willing to accept the agenda of the infallibilists. A minority, some 10 percent of the bishops, opposed the proposed definition of papal infallibility on both ecclesiastical and pragmatic grounds. They opposed the ultramontane centralist model of the Church because, in their opinion, it departed from the ecclesiastical structure of the early Christian church.[6] From a pragmatic perspective, they feared that defining papal infallibility would alienate some Catholics, create new difficulties for union with non-Catholics, and provoke interference by governments in Church affairs.[1] Those who held this view included most of the German and Austro-Hungarian bishops, nearly half of the Americans, one third of the French, most of the Chaldaeans and Melkites, and a few Armenians.[1] Only a few bishops appear to have had doubts about the dogma itself.[1]

    Dei Filius

    On 24 April 1870, the dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith Dei Filius was adopted unanimously. The draft presented to the Council on 8 March drew no serious criticism, but a group of 35 English-speaking bishops, who feared that the opening phrase of the first chapter, "Sancta romana catholica Ecclesia" (the holy Roman Catholic Church), might be construed as favouring the Anglican Branch Theory, later succeeded in having an additional adjective inserted, so that the final text read: "Sancta catholica apostolica romana Ecclesia" (the holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church).[7] The constitution thus set forth the teaching of the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" on God, revelation and faith.[8]

    Pastor Aeternus

    There was stronger opposition to the draft constitution on the nature of the Church, which at first did not include the question of papal infallibility,[2] but the majority party in the Council, whose position on this matter was much stronger,[5] brought it forward. It was decided to postpone discussion of everything in the draft except infallibility.[5] On 13 July 1870, the section on infallibility was voted on: 451 voted simply in favour (placet), 88 against (non placet), and 62 in favour but on condition of some amendment (placet iuxta modum).[5] This made evident what the final outcome would be, and some 60 members of the opposition left Rome so as not to be associated with approval of the document. The final vote, with a choice only between placet and non placet, was taken on 18 July 1870, with 433 votes in favour and only 2 against defining as a dogma the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra.[2] The two votes against were cast by Bishop Aloisio Riccio, and Bishop Edward Fitzgerald.[4]

    The dogmatic constitution states that the Pope has "full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church" (chapter 3:9); and that, when he "speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals" (chapter 4:9).

    None of the bishops who had argued that proclaiming the definition was inopportune refused to accept it. Some Catholics, mainly of German language and largely inspired by the historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (who did not formally join the new group) formed the separate Old Catholic Church in protest.[9]


    Discussion of the rest of the document on the nature of the Church was to continue when the bishops returned after a summer break. However, in the meanwhile the Franco-Prussian War broke out. With the swift German advance and the capture of Emperor Napoleon III, France was no longer in a position to protect the Pope's rule in Rome.

    Consequently, on 20 September 1870, the Kingdom of Italy captured Rome and annexed it. One month later, on 20 October 1870, Pope Pius IX suspended the Council indefinitely. It was never reconvened and formally closed in 1960 prior to the Second Vatican Council.

    Leaving Rome and reopening the council considered

    Moritz Busch recounts that Otto von Bismarck confided that, after the capture of Rome, Pius IX considered leaving Rome and reopening the Council elsewhere:

    As a matter of fact, he [Pius IX] has already asked whether we could grant him asylum. I have no objection to it—Cologne or Fulda. It would be passing strange, but after all not so inexplicable, and it would be very useful to us to be recognised by Catholics as what we really are, that is to say, the sole power now existing that is capable of protecting the head of their Church. [...] But the King [William I] will not consent. He is terribly afraid. He thinks all Prussia would be perverted and he himself would be obliged to become a Catholic. I told him, however, that if the Pope begged for asylum he could not refuse it. He would have to grant it as ruler of ten million Catholic subjects who would desire to see the head of their Church protected.[10]

    He also reports:

    Bucher brings me from upstairs instructions and material for a Rome despatch for the Kölnische Zeitung. It runs as follows: "Rumours have already been circulated on various occasions to the effect that the Pope intends to leave Rome. According to the latest of these the Council, which was adjourned in the summer, will be reopened at another place, some persons mentioning Malta and others Trient. [...] Doubtless the main object of this gathering will be to elicit from the assembled fathers a strong declaration in favour of the necessity of the Temporal Power. Obviously a secondary object of this Parliament of Bishops, convoked away from Rome, would be to demonstrate to Europe that the Vatican does not enjoy the necessary liberty, although the Act of Guarantee proves that the Italian Government, in its desire for reconciliation and its readiness to meet the wishes of the Curia, has actually done everything that lies in its power."[11]


    1.^ a b c d e KIRCH, K. (1913). "Vatican Council". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
    2.^ a b c d Encyclopaedia Britannica: First Vatican Council
    3.^ a b First Vatican Council (1869-1870)
    4.^ a b Catholic Encyclopaedia: Vatican Council
    5.^ a b c d e Encyclopaedia Britannica: Pius IX
    6.^ McBrien, Richard P. (1995). The HarperCollins encyclopedia of Catholicism. HarperCollins. p. 1297.
    7.^ Lacoste, Jean-Yves (2004). "Vatican I, Council of". Encyclopedia of Christian Theology. New York: Routledge. p. 1666. ISBN 1-57958-250-8.
    8.^ Roberto De Mattei, John Laughland, Pius IX, page 137
    9.^ "Encarta Encyclopedia: First Vatican Council". Archived from the original on 31 October 2009.
    10.^ Moritz Busch Bismarck: Some secret pages of his history, Vol. I, Macmillan (1898) p. 220, entry for 8 November 1870
    11.^ Moritz Busch Bismarck: Some secret pages of his history, Vol. II, Macmillan (1898) pp.43-44, entry for 3 March 1872


    The Last Days of Papal Rome by Raffaele De Cesare (1909) London, Archibald Constable & Co.
    De Mattei, Roberto; John Laughland (2004). Pius IX. Leominster: Gracewing Publishing. ISBN 978-0-85244-605-8.
    Hasler, August (1981). How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion. Doubleday.
    Prusak, Bernard (2004). The Church Unfinished: Ecclesiology through the Centuries. New York: Paulist Press. ISBN 978-0-8091-4286-6.
    The Catholic Church in the Modern World by E.E.Y. Hales (Doubleday, 1958)

    The Second Vatican Council (Latin: Concilium Oecumenicum Vaticanum Secundum or informally known as Vatican II) addressed relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the modern world. It was the twenty-first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church and the second to be held at Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. The council, through the Holy See, formally opened under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI on 8 December 1965.

    Of those who took part in the council's opening session, four have become pontiffs to date: Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, who on succeeding Pope John XXIII took the name of Paul VI; Bishop Albino Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I; Bishop Karol Wojtyła, who became Pope John Paul II; and Father Joseph Ratzinger, present as a theological consultant, who became Pope Benedict XVI.[2][3][4]

    Currently, the questioned validity of the Second Vatican Council continues to be a contending point for religious communities who are not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.[5] In particular, two schools of thought may be discerned:

    Traditionalist Catholics, who claim that the modernising reforms that resulted both directly or indirectly from the council consequently brought detrimental effects and indifference to the customs, beliefs, and pious practices of the Church before 1962. In addition, the doctrinal contradiction of the council in comparison to earlier papal statements regarding faith, morals and doctrine declared prior to the council itself. [6]

    The Sedevacantists faithful who assert that since there are no dogmatic definitions in the documents of the council, such documents are not infallible, hence not canonically binding for faithful Roman Catholics, most notably when such concilliar documents give way to the loose implementation of longstanding upheld Catholic doctrine previously sanctioned by former Popes prior to 1962. [7]


    During the 1950s, theological and biblical studies of the Catholic Church had begun to sway away from the neo-scholasticism and biblical literalism that the reaction to Catholic modernism had enforced since the First Vatican Council.[citation needed] This shift could be seen in theologians such as Karl Rahner, SJ, Michael Herbert, and John Courtney Murray, SJ who looked to integrate modern human experience with church principles based on Jesus Christ, as well as others such as Yves Congar, Joseph Ratzinger and Henri de Lubac who looked to an accurate understanding of scripture and the early Church Fathers as a source of renewal (or ressourcement).

    At the same time, the world's bishops faced tremendous challenges driven by political, social, economic, and technological change. Some of these bishops sought new ways of addressing those challenges. The First Vatican Council had been held nearly a century before but had been cut short when the Italian Army entered the city of Rome at the end of Italian unification. As a result, only deliberations on the role of the Papacy and the congruent relationship of faith and reason were completed, with examination of pastoral issues concerning the direction of the Church left unaddressed.[8][9]

    Pope John XXIII, however, gave notice of his intention to convene the Council on 25 January 1959, less than three months after his election in October 1958.[10] This sudden announcement, which caught the Curia by surprise, caused little initial official comment from Church insiders. Reaction to the announcement was widespread and largely positive from both religious and secular leaders outside the Catholic Church,[11] and the council was formally summoned by the apostolic constitution Humanae Salutis on 25 December 1961.[12][13] In various discussions before the Council actually convened, Pope John often said that it was time to open the windows of the Church to let in some fresh air.[14] He invited other Christians, outside the Catholic Church, to send observers to the Council. Acceptances came from both the Protestant denominations and Eastern Orthodox churches.[15]


    Preparations for the Council took more than two years, and included work from 10 specialised commissions, people for mass media and Christian Unity, and a Central Commission for overall coordination. These groups, composed mostly of members of the Roman Curia, produced 987 proposed constituting sessions, making it the largest gathering in any council in church history. (This compares to Vatican I, where 737 attended, mostly from Europe.)[16] Attendance varied in later sessions from 2,100 to over 2,300. In addition, a varying number of periti (Latin: "experts") were available for theological consultation—a group that turned out to have a major influence as the council went forward. Seventeen Orthodox Churches and Protestant denominations sent observers.[2] More than three dozen representatives of other Christian communities were present at the opening session, and the number grew to nearly 100 by the end of the 4th Council Sessions.

    First period: 1962

    Pope John XXIII opened the Council on 11 October 1962 in a public session and read the declaration Gaudet Mater Ecclesia before the Council Fathers.

    13 October 1962 marked the initial working session of the Council. That day's agenda included the election for members of the ten conciliar commissions. Each would have sixteen elected and eight appointed members, and were expected to do most of the work of the Council.[17] It had been expected that the members of the preparatory commissions, where the Curia was heavily represented, would be confirmed as the majorities on the conciliar commissions.[18][19] Senior French Cardinal Achille Liénart addressed the Council, saying that the bishops could not intelligently vote for strangers. He asked that the vote be postponed to give all the bishops a chance to draw up their own lists. German Cardinal Josef Frings seconded that proposal, and the vote was postponed.[19] The very first meeting of the Council adjourned after only fifteen minutes.[20]

    What is needed at the present time is a new enthusiasm, a new joy and serenity of mind in the unreserved acceptance by all of the entire Christian faith, without forfeiting that accuracy and precision in its presentation which characterized the proceedings of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. What is needed, and what everyone imbued with a truly Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit craves today, is that this doctrine shall be more widely known, more deeply understood, and more penetrating in its effects on men’s moral lives. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which the faithful owe obedience, be studied afresh and reformulated in contemporary terms. For this deposit of faith, or truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else. -Blessed Pope John XXIII (Opening address to the Council)


    The bishops met to discuss the membership of the commissions, along with other issues, both in national and regional groups, as well as in gatherings that were more informal. The schemata from the preparatory sessions were thrown out, and new ones were created.[2] When the council met on 16 October 1962, a new slate of commission members was presented and approved by the Council.[18] One important change was a significant increase in membership from Central and Northern Europe, instead of countries such as Spain or Italy. More than 100 bishops from Africa, Asia, and Latin America were Dutch or Belgian and tended to associate with the bishops from those countries. These groups were led by Cardinals Bernardus Johannes Alfrink of the Netherlands and Leo Suenens of Belgium.[21]


    After adjournment on 8 December, work began on preparations for the sessions scheduled for 1963. These preparations, however, were halted upon the death of Pope John XXIII on 3 June 1963, since an ecumenical council is automatically interrupted and suspended upon the death of the Pope who convened it, until the next Pope orders the council to be continued or dissolved.[22] Pope Paul VI was elected on 21 June 1963 and immediately announced that the Council would continue.[23]

    Second period: 1963

    In the months prior to the second period, Pope Paul VI worked to correct some of the problems of organization and procedure that had been discovered during the first period. This included inviting additional lay Catholic and non-Catholic observers, reducing the number of proposed schemata to seventeen (which were made more general, in keeping with the pastoral nature of the council) and later eliminating the requirement of secrecy surrounding general sessions.[23]

    Pope Paul's opening address on 29 September 1963 stressed the pastoral nature of the council, and set out four purposes for it:

    to define more fully the nature of the Church and the role of the bishop;
    to renew the Church;
    to restore unity among all Christians, including seeking pardon for Catholic contributions to separation;
    and to start a dialogue with the contemporary world.

    During this period, the bishops approved the constitution on the liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) and the decree on the media of social communication (Inter Mirifica). Work went forward with the schemata on the Church, bishops and dioceses, and ecumenism. On 8 November 1963, Josef Frings criticized the Holy Office, and drew an articulate and impassioned defense by its Secretary, Alfredo Ottaviani. This exchange is often considered the most dramatic of the council (Cardinal Frings's theological adviser was the young Joseph Ratzinger, who would later as a Cardinal head the same department of the Holy See, and from 2005-13 be Pope Benedict XVI). The second period ended on December 4.

    Pope Paul VI

    Third period: 1964

    In the time between the second and third periods, the proposed schemata were further revised on the basis of comments from the council fathers. A number of topics were reduced to statements of fundamental propositions that could gain approval during the third period, with postconciliar commissions handling implementation of these measures. Eight religious and seven lay women observers were invited to the sessions of the third period, along with additional male lay observers.

    During this period, which began on 14 September 1964, the Council Fathers worked through a large volume of proposals. Schemata on ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the official view on Protestant and Eastern Orthodox "separated brethren", the Eastern Rite churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) ′were approved and promulgated by the Pope′.

    Schemata on the life and ministry of priests and the missionary activity of the Church were rejected and sent back to commissions for complete rewriting. Work continued on the remaining schemata, in particular those on the Church in the modern world and the introduction of the concept of religious freedom. There was controversy over revisions of the decree on religious freedom and the failure to vote on it during the third period, but Pope Paul promised that this schema would be the first to be reviewed in the next period.

    Pope Paul closed the third period on November 21 by announcing a change in the Eucharistic fast and formally reaffirming Mary as "Mother of the Church".[24]

    Fourth period: 1965

    Eleven schemata remained unfinished at the end of the third period, and commissions worked to give them their final form. Schema 13, on the Church in the modern world, was revised by a commission that worked with the assistance of laymen.

    Pope Paul VI opened the last period of the Council on 14 September 1965 with the establishment of the Synod of Bishops. This more permanent structure was intended to preserve close cooperation of the bishops with the Pope after the council.

    The first business of the fourth period was the consideration of the decree on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, one of the more controversial of the conciliar documents. The vote was 1,997 for to 224 against, a margin that widened even farther by the time the bishop's final signing of the decree. The principal work of the rest of the period was work on three documents, all of which were approved by the council fathers. The lengthened and revised pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, Gaudium et Spes, was followed by decrees on missionary activity, Ad Gentes and the ministry and life of priests, Presbyterorum Ordinis.

    The council also gave final approval to other documents that had been considered in earlier sessions. This included decrees on the pastoral office of bishops (Christus Dominus), the life of persons in religious orders (expanded and modified from earlier sessions, finally titled Perfectæ Caritatis), education for the priesthood (Optatam Totius), Christian education (Gravissimum Educationis), and the role of the laity (Apostolicam Actuositatem).

    One of the more controversial documents[citation needed] was Nostra Aetate, which stated that the Jews of the time of Christ, taken indiscriminately, and all Jews today are no more responsible for the death of Christ than Christians.

    True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.[25]

    See also: Christian–Jewish reconciliation and Relations between Catholicism and Judaism

    A major event of the final days of the council was the act of Pope Paul and Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras of a joint expression of regret for many of the past actions that had led up to the Great Schism between the western and eastern churches.

    "The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the council" (Paul VI., address, Dec. 7): On 8 December, the Council was formally closed, with the bishops professing their obedience to the Council's decrees. To help carry forward the work of the Council, Pope Paul:
    had earlier formed a Papal Commission for the Media of Social Communication to assist bishops with the pastoral use of these media;
    declared a jubilee from 1 January to 26 May 1966 to urge all Catholics to study and accept the decisions of the council and apply them in spiritual renewal;
    changed in 1965 the title and procedures of the Holy Office, giving it the name of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as well as the titles and competences of other departments of the Roman curia;
    made permanent the secretariates for the Promotion of Christian Unity, for Non-Christian Religions, and for Non-Believers.[26]



    Perhaps the most famous and most influential product of the council is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium.

    In its first chapter, titled "The Mystery of the Church," is the famous statement that "the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as 'the pillar and mainstay of the truth.' This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Lumen Gentium, Cool. The document immediately adds: "Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines."


    Sacrosanctum Concilium

    One of the first issues considered by the council, and the matter that had the most immediate effect on the lives of individual Catholics, was the revision of the liturgy. The central idea was that there ought to be greater lay participation in the liturgy. In the mid-1960s, permissions were granted to celebrate most of the Mass in vernacular languages, including the canon from 1967 onwards.[27]

    Neither the Second Vatican Council nor the subsequent revision of the Roman Missal abolished Latin as the liturgical language of the Roman Rite: the official text of the Roman Missal, on which translations into vernacular languages are to be based, continues to be in Latin and it can still be used in the celebration.[28]

    Scripture and Divine Revelation

    Dei Verbum

    The council sought to revive the central role of Scripture in the theological and devotional life of the Church, building upon the work of earlier popes in crafting a modern approach to Scriptural analysis and interpretation. A new approach to interpretation was approved by the bishops. The Church was to continue to provide versions of the Bible in the "mother tongues" of the faithful, and both clergy and laity were to continue to make Bible study a central part of their lives. This affirmed the importance of Sacred Scripture as attested by Providentissimus Deus by Pope Leo XIII and the writings of the Saints, Doctors, and Popes throughout Church history but also approved historically conditioned interpretation of Scripture as presented in Pius XII's 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu.


    The role of the bishops was brought into renewed prominence, especially when seen collectively, as a college that has succeeded to that of the apostles in teaching and governing the Church. This college was headed by the Pope.


    Post Vatican II history of the Catholic Church and Spirit of Vatican II

    "By the spirit of Vatican II" is meant to promote the teachings and intentions attributed to the Second Vatican Council in ways not limited to literal readings of its documents, but not in contradiction to the "letter" of the Council[29][30] (cf. Saint Paul's phrase, "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life").[31]

    The spirit of Vatican II is invoked for a great variety of ideas and attitudes. Bishop John Tong Hon of Hong Kong used it with regard merely to an openness to dialogue with others, saying: "We are guided by the spirit of Vatican II: only dialogue and negotiation can solve conflicts."[32]

    In contrast, Michael Novak described it as a spirit that "sometimes soared far beyond the actual, hard-won documents and decisions of Vatican II. ... It was as though the world (or at least the history of the Church) were now to be divided into only two periods, pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II. Everything 'pre' was then pretty much dismissed, so far as its authority mattered. For the most extreme, to be a Catholic now meant to believe more or less anything one wished to believe, or at least in the sense in which one personally interpreted it. One could be a Catholic 'in spirit'. One could take Catholic to mean the 'culture' in which one was born, rather than to mean a creed making objective and rigorous demands. One could imagine Rome as a distant and irrelevant anachronism, embarrassment, even adversary. Rome as 'them'."[33] Such views of the Second Vatican Council were condemned by the Church's hierarchy, and the works of theologians who were active in the Council or who closely adhered to the Council's aspect of reform (such as Hans Küng) have often been criticized by the Church for espousing a belief system that the hierarchy considers radical and misguided. As Dei Verbum reads, “Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on…”, Vatican II did not deny previous councils correctness.

    To mark the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II, in October 2011, the Vatican's website and many other Catholic news organizations announced that the Pope Benedict XVI, had made the period from October 2012 to the end of November 2013 (the Solemnity of Christ the King) a "Year Of Faith" in a solemn declaration, and ordered all parishes and religious institutions to find some manner during that Year of celebrating and reaffirming the Creed (there are now two main Creeds- the shorter Apostles' Creed and the lengthier Niceno-Constantinopolitan, or Nicene Creed. The Nicene creed is recited at each Mass, and both are listed and examined in the landmark 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church; they serve as fundamental declarations that a catechumen or a baptized Catholic identifies with the Church).


    1.^ David M. Cheney. "Second Vatican Council". Catholic-Hierarchy. Retrieved 2011-05-18.
    2.^ a b c Faculty of Catholic University of America, ed. (1967). "Vatican Council II". New Catholic Encyclopedia XIV (1 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 563. OCLC 34184550.
    3.^ Alberigo, Giuseppe; Sherry, Matthew (2006). A Brief History of Vatican II. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. p. 69. ISBN 1-57075-638-4.
    4.^ Father Georg Ratzinger: Pope Benedict XVI: A Profile: an EWTN documentary - Doug Keck, Executive Producer
    7.^ Therefore Vatican II should be re-examined to determine what in its documents is in line with the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church ("sacred Tradition" in Wikipedia), and what does not adequately convey Roman Catholic doctrine. Representatives of this school of thought include Brunero Gherardini, who in 2009 petitioned the Pope for a review of Vatican II; Paolo Pasqualucci, who with other scholars subscribed Gherardini's petition; Roberto de Mattei, who wrote a history of CVII ("Il Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta")
    8.^ Bokenkotter, Thomas (2005). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Image. p. 337. ISBN 0-385-51613-4.
    9.^ Hahnenberg, Edward (2007). A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II. City: Saint Anthony Messenger Press. p. 44. ISBN 0-86716-552-9.
    10.^ Alberigo, Giuseppe; Sherry, Matthew (2006). A Brief History of Vatican II. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. p. 1. ISBN 1-57075-638-4.
    11.^ Alberigo, Giuseppe; Sherry, Matthew (2006). A Brief History of Vatican II. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. pp. 4–7. ISBN 1-57075-638-4.
    12.^ "Vatican II: 40 years later". National Catholic Register.[dead link]
    13.^ "1961".[dead link]
    14.^ Sullivan, Maureen (2002). 101 Questions and Answers on Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-8091-4133-7.
    15.^ Sullivan, Maureen (2002). 101 Questions and Answers on Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. p. 21. ISBN 0-8091-4133-7. There has been speculation that the Vatican somehow assured the Russian Orthodox Church that Communism and the Soviet State were topics that would not be raised at the Council. However, in chapter IV, The External Climate (Albiergo, The History of Vatican II, Vol. 1, p. 404), J.O. Beozzo states that the real issue was the desire of the Russian Orthodox to be invited directly, instead of through the Ecumenical Patriarch in Turkey.
    16.^ Sullivan, Maureen (2002). 101 Questions and Answers on Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. p. 21. ISBN 0-8091-4133-7.
    17.^ Bokenkotter, Thomas (2005). A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Image. p. 413. ISBN 0-385-51613-4.
    18.^ a b Alberigo, Giuseppe; Sherry, Matthew (2006). A Brief History of Vatican II. Maryknoll: Orbis Books. p. 24. ISBN 1-57075-638-4.
    19.^ a b Sullivan, Maureen (2002). 101 Questions and Answers on Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. p. 27. ISBN 0-8091-4133-7.
    20.^ Hahnenberg, Edward (2007). A Concise Guide to the Documents of Vatican II. City: Saint Anthony Messenger Press. p. 4. ISBN 0-86716-552-9.
    21.^ Sullivan, Maureen (2002). 101 Questions and Answers on Vatican II. New York: Paulist Press. p. 28. ISBN 0-8091-4133-7.
    22.^ "CIC can. 340 - Code of Canon Law". Retrieved 2012-07-01.
    23.^ a b Faculty of Catholic University of America, ed. (1967). "Vatican Council II". New Catholic Encyclopedia XIV. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 565–566. OCLC 34184550.
    24.^ Faculty of Catholic University of America, ed. (1967). "Vatican Council II". New Catholic Encyclopedia XIV. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 566–567. OCLC 34184550.
    25.^ Pope Paul VI (1965-10-28). Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-christian religions - Nostra Aetate. Holy See. Retrieved 2009-01-01.
    26.^ Faculty of Catholic University of America, ed. (1967). "Vatican Council II". New Catholic Encyclopedia XIV. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 567–568. OCLC 34184550.
    27.^ Historically speaking, "Latin Mass" could be applied also to the various forms of Pre-Tridentine Mass from about the year 370, when, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, the Church in Rome changed from Greek to Latin.
    28.^ "Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin." (Redemptionis sacramentum, 112).
    29.^ "James Hitchcock, The History of Vatican II, Lecture 6: The Effects of Council Part II". Retrieved 2012-07-01.
    30.^ Avery Dulles, Vatican II: The Myth and the Reality
    31.^ 2 Corinthians 3:6
    32.^ Gheddo, Piero. "Gianni Criveller, Bishop John Tong of Hong Kong, "man of dialogue," but with "non-negotiable principles"". Retrieved 2012-07-01.
    33.^ "Introduction to The Open Church (Millennium Edition)". 2003-11-24. Retrieved 2012-07-01.

    Further reading

    Kelly, Joseph F. (2009). The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church: a History. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5376-6.
    Orsy, Ladislas (2009). Receiving the Council: Theological and Canonical Insights and Debates. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5377-4.
    O'Malley, John W. (2008). What Happened at Vatican II. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-03169-2.
    Bühren, Ralf van (2008). Kunst und Kirche im 20. Jahrhundert. Die Rezeption des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils (in German). Paderborn: Schöningh. ISBN 978-3-506-76388-4.
    Bredeck, Michael (2007). Das Zweite Vatikanum als Konzil des Aggiornamento : zur hermeneutischen Grundlegung einer theologischen Konzilsinterpretation (in German). Paderborn: Schöningh. ISBN 978-3-506-76317-4.
    Linden, Ian (2009). Global Catholicism: diversity and change since Vatican II. 41 Great Russell St, London: Hurst and Co. p. 337. ISBN 978-1-85065-957-0.
    Sinke Guimarães, Atila (1997). In the Murky Waters of Vatican II. Metairie: MAETA. ISBN 1-889168-06-8.
    Amerio, Romano (1996). Iota Unum. Kansas City: Sarto House. ISBN 0-9639032-1-7.
    Gherardini, Brunero (2011). Sull'indole pastorale del Vaticano II: una valutazione. In: Concilio Vaticano II, un concilio pastorale. Analisi storico-filosofico-teologica, ed. Serafino Lanzetta. Frigento, Italy: Casa Mariana Editrice. ISBN 978-88-905611-2-2.
    Likoudis, James (2006). The Pope, the Council, and the Mass. Emmaus Road Publishing. ISBN 978-1-931018-34-0.
    Il Vaticano II. Alle radici d'un equivoco, by Brunero Gherardini (Torino:Lindau 2012) ISBN 978-88-7180-994-6

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:27 pm

    magamud wrote:The three you are in conflict is due to your relation to consciousness. There is one. The disposition is due to understanding power. In general power becomes divided. You, your external mana and Gods. This is an example on how parasitic gods use man. In essence they use your energy for their own reality. Selfish creatures...
    Thank-you magamud. Power seems to be Illusory in many ways. I suspect that it's not what it's cracked-up to be. If my theories are correct, one aspect of this really worries me -- whether this whole solar system mess was an unforeseen accident -- or if it was foreseen and planned for. In other words -- what if the War in Heaven was (and is) an Archangelic False-Flag -- specifically designed to Cleanse the Sanctuary of That Which Defiles?? Which possibility would be more vindicating or more damning -- for all concerned???? This might ultimately be one of the most important (if not the most important) questions of all. I think all of us should spend a lot of quality time with Theoretical-Theology -- but please base this upon a careful study of Theology As We Know It. This stuff scares the hell out of me. It is absolutely terrifying. What Would Monseigneur Bowe Say???
    magamud wrote:Im just talking straight to you Oxy because you deserve it. You project Genocide when you dont know the relation of Death to life. You do not die. Your energy transforms. We are trying to earn our existence in this Flesh. Without this knowledge the harvest or the Orobourus sounds arbitrary. When in fact its Mercy. Shall our species continue in Devolution? Shall we continue to be on life support? You and everyone here should be commending themselves to be at the End. ITs a tribute to your constitution. You are learning what is Gods plan.

    Jesus is part of humanity. Prophets are part of the same system. This is just the real evolution of man and his sovereign place in Consciousness! This is the justice of the universe. Everyone knows it. Don Juan, Osho, Buddha, Krishna, etc etc etc. It all comes back to the One law the loving god of creation.

    Jesus allowed himself to be murdered by man, so he could resurrect and show the power of man. That man has nothing over you, but the one who can forgive sin does. This was to show the tale of man and the harvest.

    Original sin had to happen if you want to be in flesh and sovereign. God did not forsake us. You will sin as long as you do not know god. Your soul is not eternally dammed. You will be pissed that the signs were in front of your nose and you did not see it, but you will get over it. Take a vacation and try it again. Life goes on...

    Instead of sacrificing our Sin we sacrifice others to bridge the gap. This is the nature of our species and existence. It is because we are made in his image. We are so close to him that it creates radical passion in us. Sexual disfunction is just one expression of our devolution. We were made to populate the earth! Everything in moderation. Everything balanced. The Road is narrow!

    Jesus left because he showed Gods power. What more could anyone need to know at that time. IF jesus stuck around it would have created Co-dependence and you would not have been sovereign. This is the meaning of what faith is and why we use it. This is a blessing for our own individuality. Jesus has never left and has prepared the way for the Creator to remind us of his laws. Jesus has prepared a seat next to him during his physical absence. Jesus is care taking the burning now. Nothing wrong with this picture from here. Thank God....

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 The-Creation-of-Adam-Michelangelo-631
    Thank-you magamud for clearing that up for me. I have a couple of study-lists which will help me get a better understanding of these issues and concepts. I think I need to just read and read and read -- and let go of a lot of the rest of what I've been doing. BTW -- I'm winding this thread down because I'm running out of posting space. Continue to post on this thread for another week or so -- and I will respond -- but I'm transferring a condensed and edited version of this thread to the United States of the Solar System -- Archangelic Queens of Heaven -- and the University of Solar System Studies and Governance thread. It's going to take a lot of time and effort to transfer and edit this thread -- so I'm going to try to concentrate on doing just that. Then, I might try to write some sort of a sci-fi novel (which would probably be much different than this thread). I need to figure out a way to generate some revenue. I am getting more and more uncomfortable with my line of thinking -- so I probably need to give it a rest. There's a time and a place for everything -- and my time has probably come and gone -- without me even realizing it. You all seem to be doing just fine without me -- so perhaps it's time to move on -- in more ways than one. Perhaps I should just watch the infowar and the god-off. Perhaps I should prepare to clean-up the mess when it's over. Perhaps I should simply hold the coats. Perhaps it is time for me to get Sirius.
    orthodoxymoron wrote:
    Carol wrote:Oxy - have you considered the possibility of being fear-based isn't very fun. Long ago when living in a threatening situation one day I woke up and realized I'd had enough and ended the situation so I wouldn't have to live in fear. And putting faith in the Divine, trusting in the Divine and know that the Divine has our best interest at heart helped to move beyond fear. In addition, when fear popped up with ET showing up, it was anger that shoved fear away. You can call upon Divine help for protection as well. Or just make up your mind that you don't want to live in fear. Music also is a tool to raise one's vibration to move out of fear. Frankly - living in fear sucks. Been there, did that, walked away. You're a sovereign being. Choose instead to dwell on the positive (beauty, simplicity, friends/family, nature, uplifting music, inspirational writing, good nuturing food and chocolate). Enjoy the gifts that are laid out before you and make your goal to be happy irrespecitive of what is going on out in the world.
    Carol, I thought your title for this thread "No Bank Deposits Will Be Spared from Confiscation" sounded a bit "fear-based" -- so I guess I was just trying to fit-in. Most people seem to love fear. They pay significant amounts of money to participate in fear. Most people act as if it is TRUTH which SUCKS. Honesty does NOT seem to be the best policy in this particular solar system. Try being an honest lawyer -- an honest politician -- an honest priest -- an honest journalist -- etc, etc, etc. I'm really, really close to going into a happier and more successful than thou mode -- whether it reflects reality, or not. What Would Peale and Schuller Say?? "Fake it, till you make it!!"?? "The me that I see, is the me that I'll be!!"?? Honestly, Schuller's books work really well when read in nature -- without the booming voice of Robert H. Schuller -- or the flashy Crystal Cathedral!! "I can choose to be happy anyway!!" I've tried to be honest about scary things within this website -- and look where it's gotten me. Why would anyone in their right mind try to tell people what they do NOT wish to hear?! That's probably the Epitome of Stupidity!! They don't call me a Completely Ignorant Fool for nothing. Perhaps I should lick my internet-wounds -- and turn my "scars into stars". Perhaps I should turn my mountains of fear-based writing into goldmines!! Perhaps I can get that Porsche 911 Turbo after-all!! Perhaps then I can do that "On the Beach" scene on Highway 101 -- in style -- as that devil-baby piloted asteroid hits the Pacific Ocean -- and the excrement hits the turbocharger. Perhaps I could drive as if the Jesuits were chasing me in a sport-model ufo!!! What Would Silas Say?? Oh -- I Forgot -- He's Opus Dei...
    I keep thinking that everything is built upon lies -- some white and some black -- but lies, just the same. When people lose their money -- they lose it. You can tell them about all of the crazy stuff we research and discuss -- but most are too busy doing reasonable activities to take the time, effort, and pain required to "get-it". I've wasted my life away in a very passive quest -- and I still don't really "get-it". I fear that everything is a house of cards -- and once reality really starts sinking into people's awareness -- there might be a chain-reaction -- which might be quite violent and destructive. I keep thinking that everything going on here has everything to do with ancient star wars in heaven and earth -- who won -- and who rules behind the scenes. I'm becoming so frightened of the possibilities, that I can barely function. I caught someone snooping around my house last night -- and they gave a very lame excuse. I've been posting a lot of upsetting material lately -- particularly regarding a couple of angels and groups -- and I suspect that they'd like to see me gone -- in one way or another -- even though I have been rather quiet and polite. I've promised to just post on this site -- and otherwise remain mostly silent -- but that probably doesn't matter to some. Anyway, if someone gives me reasonable reasons to not post certain things -- I will be reasonably receptive and compliant. I have tried to understand all sides of all issues I have studied -- and I try to be fair -- probably too fair and understanding. So, even if you don't like what I post -- I might be your best-buddy in the long-run. It's probably good to have a few people around who try to be on everyone's side all the time. I'd still like to do Galactic Quantum Diplomacy in another life! Some of you know what I'm talking about! I'm beginning to rethink everything I've considered over the past several years -- without heaping more and more portions on my already full plate. I guess I'll just internally model ONE approach (USSS) to dealing with the obvious mess we're all in -- while playing pinball in my mostly comotose state!! Here is yet another variation on the study-list theme. Namaste and Have a Nice Day!

    1. The Torah, Psalms, Proverbs, and Gospels.
    2. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer (Including the Traditional 1928 Liturgy).
    3. Sacred Classical Music (Including Gregorian Chant and Organ Improvisation).
    4. Desire of Ages by Ellen G. White.
    5. Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen.
    6. Federalist Papers.
    7. Astronomy Textbooks.

    Posts : 11436
    Join date : 2010-09-28
    Location : The Matrix

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 Empty Re: The University of Solar System Studies

    Post  orthodoxymoron Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:54 pm

    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 AS15-86-11603HR-1
    The University of Solar System Studies - Page 5 1596-illus
    Hello! My name is Deep Thought. We don't have church buildings and we don't ask for money. Jesus didn't either! Contribute to your favorite charitable organizations. Follow the money! Meet me here tomorrow! Same time. Same place. The truth is in here. Follow the truth. --- Deep Thought

    Table of Contents:

    1. Welcome to Red Letter Church!
    2. Red Letter Sermons.
    3. The Teachings of Jesus are Fundamental.
    4. What Did Jesus Say?
    5. Red Letter Phobia.
    6. All of Scripture Centered in the Teachings of Jesus.
    7. The Great Commission: The Great Omission!
    8. What is the Gospel?
    9. The Teachings of Jesus in Society.
    10. Apostolic Succession and the Holy Grail.
    11. Church Buildings.
    12. Salvation and Righteousness.
    13. Money and the 50-50 Rule.
    14. Jesus and Nicodemus.
    15. Positive Thinking and Self Esteem.
    16. The Eternal Word.
    17. The Church’s One Foundation.
    18. The Teachings of Jesus and the Newspaper.
    19. Jesus Christ and Albert Schweitzer.
    20. Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.
    21. Jesus, Perfection, and Salvation.
    22. Jesus and Prayer.
    23. Live Out Thy Life Within Me!
    24. Gates, Trees, Houses, and the Kingdom of God.
    25. Creedal Statements.
    26. Singing Hymns About Him.
    27. The Least of These.
    28. Christ and Hollywood.
    29. Divine Intervention.
    30. The Rich Young Ruler.
    31. Creation v Evolution.
    32. A Balanced Standard.
    33. Liberal v Conservative.
    34. Luke 21: The End Game.
    35. Facing Reality.
    36. Devotional Scholarship .
    37. Abortion.
    38. When You Feel Like ______.
    39. Red Letter Lectionary.
    40. Church and State.
    41. Sermon On the Mount Preview.
    42. The Sabbath.
    43. Advent.
    44. Teachings of Christ Mass.
    45. Musing About Music.
    46. God, the Universe, and Everything.
    47. A Simple Question.
    48. The Nicene Creed.
    49. The Common Denominator.
    50. Decentralism and Jesus.
    51. Low Key Politics and Religion.
    52. Christmas and the Environment.
    53. Would Jesus Drive a Ferrari and Wear a Rolex?
    54. Despair and Hope.
    55. The Complete Gospels.
    56. Tell ‘Em About Jesus!
    57. A True Christmas Story.
    58. The Trinity.
    59. Words of Christ Mass.
    60. Secret Societies.
    61. The Constitution and the Gospels.
    62. Behavior and Being Right With God.
    63. Presidential Politics and the Gospel.
    64. New Years Resolution.
    65. Everything v Everything.
    66. Sexuality!
    67. Democracy and Freedom.
    68. The Eyes Have Had It!
    69. Minimalist Church and State.
    70. Jesus: Truly Jewish and Truly Christian.
    71. TWO: The True World Order.
    72. Try This!
    73. Commentary or Canon?
    74. Sermon Material.
    75. Think From the Other Person’s Perspective.
    76. Jesus Christ: Super Star ET?

    1. Welcome to the Red Letter Church!

    Hello! My name is Deep Thought.

    Welcome to the Red Letter Church! Actually, welcome to This website consists of 76 posts in the Spirit of ‘76, and in the Spirit of Jesus Christ. The truth will set you free! It's primarily about the Teachings of Jesus Christ. It’s secondarily about the Constitution of the United States.

    The goal is Responsible Freedom attained through a Minimalist Church and State! The historical foundation is the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus, dating back 2,000 years, and the Constitution of the United States, dating back over 200 years. In principle and concept, they are two sides of the same free coin. This is sound-money, if you will! Constitutional Responsible Freedom is the coin of the realm!

    OK, I admit it, I’m a Red Letter Christian. Campolo made me do it! Just kidding! But Tony used the term Red Letter Christian before I did! A Red Letter Christian is a follower of Jesus, who strives to believe and do what Jesus told us to believe and do. We believe that in a red letter edition of the Holy Bible, that the words which are printed in red, are the first and last word in any Bible study. They are supremely important!

    I have resisted the temptation to over-edit the words which I typed onto my website…day after day…for nearly three months. I wanted this manuscript to read like a disjointed brainstorm…because that’s what it really is! Actually…I’m just lazy! You will quickly notice that I place exclamation marks at the end of many sentences! I have tried to make each sentence worthy of the Exclamation Mark Award (EMA)! I have been criticized for writing this way! I have been told to use periods! I have been told that I cannot be taken seriously because of this style of writing! Well guess what? That’s the period…I mean…the point! I don’t want to be taken seriously!

    It’s sort of like David Letterman wearing white socks with not quite long enough pants every night on national television! There is way too much seriousness in life in general, and Churchianity in particular! This manner of writing is designed to shower readers with mental ice-water! It’s supposed to wake them up! Let my sub-prime style of writing, incorporating excessive exhibitions of exclamation marks be my trademark! Forget the Mark of the Beast…it’s the Mark of the Exclamation that you’d better fear! (!!!) Is worse than (666)! Exclamation Critics beware! You are marked!

    Unfortunately…some people can’t see the truth for the exclamation marks!!! Therefore, with great sadness and deep regret, I have been forced to removed some of the exclamation marks. The Devil made me do it! I have been told that this style makes it appear that I’m ranting and raving! Well I am! I’ve read books by John Shelby Spong, and as a result, I suffer from Spong-in-rare-form Encephalopathy, or for those of you from Rio Linda…Mad Christian Disease! I’m mad at Hell! I’ve had enough! And I’m not going to take this any more! And neither should you! PERIOD.

    All-righty then…where was I? I guess I’m trying to imitate Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 Theses on the door of the castle church of Wittenburg, protesting the sale of indulgences (Salvation4Sale) and other evidences of corruption (Righteousness by Ritural)! But did Martin Luther use the Teachings of Jesus to make his case? Did he promote Everything4Nothing? Check it out. I am posting my 76 Theses in the Spirit of ‘76, on the internet, protesting the rejection of the Teachings of Christ by the church of Christ for 2,000 years. It is my Declaration of Independence from Churchianity!

    You can have truth or rest…but not both! I promote Salvation by Responsibility, Righteousness by Righteousness, and Something4Something! Do I think that I’ve found the ultimate truth? Well…um...I…OK! I admit it! I don't have everything all figured out! Don't look at me! I didn't set this thing up! I don't have the answer! I'm not even sure what the question is! Could someone please repeat the question? Don't trust in what I write! I don't even trust myself! Think for yourself! Do your own research! And don't forget to pray! "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."--1 Corinthians 13:12 New International Version (NIV).

    I think that I’ve located a neglected directional sign…not a destination resort of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me, God, to find the truth! If you think you “have” the truth…you probably don’t! It’s only by relentlessly pursuing the truth that you get a glimpse of it now and then! And you have to make sure that it is not a chimera or a mirage! I must confess that I think I’m probably deluded! Come to think of it…I think we’re all deluded! We just have conflicting delusions!

    Allow me to apologize in advance for offending or hurting anyone. I mean no harm. Really! I am using a unique, almost irreverent approach, which may come as a shock at times! Religion can be a source of unbelievable conflict! I am basically brainstorming…and pretending, at least, that I have a completely supportive and understanding audience! I really, really like my fantasy-land! They say that to undo, you have to over-do! I do believe I overdid it this time! I’m ready to fire myself! Actually, I’m really a smart asterisk!

    We don't have church buildings and we don't ask for money. Jesus didn't either! Contribute to your favorite charitable organizations, including your local church. Follow the money!

    But first, get plenty of exercise in nature, plenty of rest, and plenty of prayer! Without doing these things, everything else is mostly a waste of time and energy! If you never go outside and smell the roses, never go running, walking or hiking, don’t get enough sleep, and think that you don’t need to pray…well think again! This is not optional! It is essential! Please do not skip over this paragraph!

    Meet me here tomorrow! Same Time. Same Cyber-Space. The truth is in here! Follow the truth! And make sure that you are not being followed…especially by Silas!

    2. Red Letter Sermons.

    The church's one foundation 'tis Jesus Christ her Lord! Are the Teachings of Jesus first and foremost in your church? If not, why not? Who's church is it, anyway? Are most, if not all, sermons preached from the words of Christ? If not, why not? Ask the hard questions. Get to the bottom of this thing! The answer seems to be blowing in the wind…judging from all of the hot air you are likely to encounter…

    It’s sort of like inviting a living President of the United States to a meeting of “supporters” and then seating him at the rear of the auditorium, and having other people give their speeches praising the name of the President, but without asking the President to be the keynote speaker! The name of Jesus gets praised to highest heaven, but the words of Jesus are often figuratively seated at the back of the church! How rude! Was it something He said?

    Is Christianity the Teachings of Jesus believed and lived…or is it a ritualized religion about Jesus…paying little attention to what the Second Person of the Trinity actually said?! I have sometimes gotten the impression that Christians feel that Jesus’ place is on the cross on the wall of the church. But that the important business of doctrine is best left to Moses, Paul and the theologians! Jesus is expected to be seen, but not heard, and certainly not obeyed! In fact, Jesus is supposed to obey US when we pray for something!

    Every sermon should be preached from the Teachings of Jesus! But context is important! The Old Testament is contextual, but not normative. Acts to Revelation is likewise contextual, but does not have veto power over the words of Jesus Christ! The Apostle Paul is not the Fourth Person of the Godhead! Sorry Paul!

    The following is an exchange between me and a New Testament theologian:

    Me: There is a problem here! The Red-Letter Teachings of Jesus Christ take a back seat to Paul! Christianity needs to repent, and resurrect the words of Christ, and make them first and foremost! I have decided to follow Jesus!

    Response: Christ should always be given precedence over Paul. However, until Pentecost the full meaning of Christ's sayings could not be perceived. The Holy Spirit confronted Paul and led him into a unique ministry of interpretation and explanation. Because of his training it was given to Paul to explain what the atonement meant. This could not be done until after the atonement was made, i.e., until after Christ died. The primary enquiry of all intelligent souls is, 'How can I be right with my Creator?' It is only Paul who fully spells out the way with its root and its fruit. The great tragedy of even modern evangelicals is that salvation in its historical and objective senses is too often obscured. A closer attention to the writings of Paul could prevent this tragic loss.

    Me: Thank-you for your thoughtful answer. But it is a classic example of "the Teachings of Jesus are lacking." I get the picture of someone who is befuddled (Jesus), and needs help with this and that from their attendant (Paul). Did the 2nd person of the Trinity not say everything of importance that needed to be said? Did He need someone to clean up after Him, and set the record straight?

    Response: It is the Holy Spirit who decided that the teachings of Christ needed to be supplemented and therefore our NT does not stop at John 21. It doesn't detract from what Jesus said at all. May I recommend you compare what you can find about the meaning of the Cross from the Gospels with what you can find in the later books inspired by the Spirit of Christ.

    The following is a different response by another theologian to essentially the same comment:

    Thank-you for your observations. You could have added that in the creeds of the Church, starting with the Apostle’s Creed, the only mention of the historical Jesus is that he died. Zero reference to anything he taught. We need the teaching of the man and not all this rubbish taught about the man. Your suggestion is so simple, so powerful. Do it!

    And as they say…“the rest is history!” So…ladies and gentlemen…prepare yourselves to hear…the rest of His-story!

    3. The Teachings of Jesus are Fundamental.

    This website is the result of my conviction that the words which are printed in red letters in a red letter edition of the Bible are fundamental. This, I suppose, is a more refined fundamentalism of sorts, but without all the negative baggage! When the word “fundamentalism” is used, many people think of militants marching in the streets shouting slogans, waving flags, and brandishing grenade launchers! One gets the picture that a fundamentalist is interested only in teaching and enforcing…not reasoning and learning!

    On the other hand, isn’t it important to have a basic formulation of truth, including psychology, ethics, and spirituality? It is impossible to properly play a baseball game without rules and referees. It is also impossible to properly live life without a basic system of psychology, ethics, and spirituality. Ideally, the standard should be historical, include the essentials, and exclude the non-essentials!

    The Constitution of the United States is a very simple and concise document! In fact, it is mostly structural and procedural in nature. On the other hand, the Christian Constitution, if you will, has historically consisted of all 66 canonical books of the Bible, with all words carrying equal weight and importance. This has created legion numbers of theologies and churches! It has been a Weapon of Mass Confusion! A real Loose Canon! Ex Cathedra proclamations have been necessary to maintain ecclesiastical law and order! Atrocities have even been perpetrated against those with differing convictions! Evangelism has been conducted with the torch and the sword, in God‘s name! If you can’t convince them…torture and kill them!

    Liberalism has sought to abort these exegetical monstrosities and diabolical administrative practices, but all too often destroys the mother instead! The whole Bible is often mockingly rejected privately, while being publicly damned with faint praise! It is reminiscent of drilling a hole in your own lifeboat!

    Fundamentalist Christians and Evangelicals have labored valiantly to maintain the doctrinal integrity of all 66 books in a harmonious unity! This only works if there are strong, charismatic leaders who accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, get rid of Mr. In Between, and all those who dare question the authority of the church hierarchy and it‘s interpretations and applications of scripture!

    Put bluntly, I believe that the Red Letter Teachings of Jesus Christ are fundamental, and that the rest of scripture is important, but NOT fundamental! It is contextual and illuminating, but not authoritative! Is that heresy? To Churchianity…yes! To Jesus Christ…no! Who’s side are you on? Choose you this day who you will serve!

    4. What Did Jesus Say?

    The question, "what would Jesus do?" or WWJD, is a popular one. It is a helpful ethical guide under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, there is an even more important question, I believe, "what did Jesus say?" When we find out, then it is up to us to do what Jesus said. It's almost too simple! Obviously real-life challenges are not so simple, but the words of Jesus, illuminated by careful-prayerful study and the Holy Spirit, provide an ethical-spiritual home base where we can formulate our positive responses to the challenges and perplexities of modern life!

    The Teachings of Jesus have something for everyone! Most of the words of Jesus can be easily understood by a child, yet some of the words of Jesus continue to challenge the world’s sharpest minds! When reading the sayings of Christ…if the saying fits…apply it! If not…move on, and consider that particular saying later. In other words, do not destroy yourself or others with something you don’t understand, or which does not apply to the given situation!

    We are not to imitate Jesus. This would be similar to imitating a President of the United States. If you are not the President, then imitating the President leads to inappropriate behavior! We all know people who act like God, don’t we? Jesus was on a very special mission! I believe that this mission was to establish His teachings as the modus operandi for the Human Race! The Teachings of Jesus are an arrow (and an exclamation mark!)…but not a period. They are a beginning and a vehicle…but not a destination. They are to facilitate a proper and orderly search for truth and a better life. This is ongoing. It is never ending. It requires a lot of hard work! You can’t simply let go and let God!

    Jesus was the Savior of the World, and the Benchmark of Humanity. This is something that you and I have not been called to do! Hence, WWJD in our particular situation is like comparing apples and oranges, or divinity and humanity! When we are trying to decide what to do, the question is WDJS, or What Did Jesus Say? And don’t forget to pray!

    5. Red Letter Phobia.

    The term "Red Letter Christian" seems to cause many Christians to bristle! Why is this? Is it the manner of presentation by Red Letter Christians, such as myself? Perhaps. But I think the Teachings of Jesus make us very uncomfortable when we are doing something wrong, or are corrupt! Sometimes things have to seemingly get worse in order to get better. When one kneels at the feet of Jesus and looks into His face of love, one knows that they can do better (no matter how good or bad they are). The experience may make us squirm, but ultimately it makes us better people, and the world a better place!

    The true purpose of non-corrupt religion is not to make us happy! At least not initially. It is to do the right thing! This may, at times, make us very unhappy! It can be difficult to deny self, figuratively take up your cross, and follow Jesus. Wrestling with reality is part of the deal. True religion is not the opiate of the people! It is often just the opposite! If it sounds and feels good…don’t believe it! You are probably in the wrong church!

    I once had a philosophy teacher who warned us that his class was not designed to make us happy! It was to teach us something. He further said that if we wanted to be happy…we should drop-out, move to Oregon…and smoke pot! This teacher was later arrested for having intimate relations with a minor! He had a minor legal problem, to say the least! And after he got out of jail, he undoubtedly got to travel and meet new people! Maybe he moved to Oregon and smoked pot! Might as well…the rest of his life had gone to pot! I hope the teacher learned his lesson!

    6. All Scripture is Centered in the Teachings of Jesus.

    The words of Jesus are not isolated from the rest of scripture, but they are central to scripture. Each and every Bible study and sermon should be centered in the words of Jesus! It's not about excluding the rest of the Bible, but rather about understanding the whole Bible by placing the Teachings of Jesus front and center, where they belong!

    I must confess that the God of the Old Testament and the book of Revelation, is often not the God that I believe in and love. I prefer the God revealed by Jesus. And doesn’t this representation imply a limited God? This gets God off the hook (if God needs to be gotten off the hook) on the suffering question, and also regarding a delayed (by our reckoning) second coming. Why does God have to be all-mighty? Isn’t most-mighty good enough? Aren’t we sometimes a bit demanding and unrealistic in our God-expectations? Isn’t this a major reason for agnosticism and atheism?

    An ideal method of study is to take your favorite red letter, cross referenced version of the Bible, and read the red lettered portions, in context, and read all cross referenced texts in their contexts. The Teachings of Jesus are to the rest of the Bible what the Constitution of the United States is to the Federalist Papers. The first is normative standard, and the second is context and clarification. Don’t make things more complex than they need to be! Let the Bible be its own interpreter, with the Holy Spirit as your guide.

    Try reading the four Gospels straight through two or three times. Then read just the red letter portions straight through two or three times. Then search out all of the cross referenced texts throughout the Bible, and highlight them. Then read all of these highlighted texts straight through, from Genesis to Revelation. Do this two or three times. At some point in this process, the Holy Spirit will come streaming through the windows of your soul, and you will see the light! You may very well see it a lot more clearly than I do! I’m just a goofy clown, waving a sign, and trying to point others in the right direction! I’m also a bit of a hypocrite! I haven’t arrived, and don’t expect to anytime soon!

    It makes me tired just typing these marching orders! I must confess, I think I have the overall idea right, but I find it difficult to be a Bible scholar. It takes both perspiration and inspiration! To become disillusioned with the old way of relating to the Bible, and then to get inspired with the new way can give one a spiritual whiplash! Fasten your seatbelts and put your headrest up!

    Lastly, integrate all of the above into everything! This isn't easy, and it's not for wimps! The texts are ancient and we live in a modern world which is becoming more complex, perplexing and dangerous by the millisecond! But if the principles and concepts of the Teachings of Jesus are not integrated into our modern world, we face negative consequences of truly biblical proportions...

    7. The Great Commission: The Great Omission!

    Today I wish to focus on the 'Great Commission' in Matthew 28:19-20: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

    What did Jesus tell His followers to teach all nations? "To observe all things whatever I have commanded you." Any questions? What part of this command don’t we understand? Was Jesus just making a suggestion that His followers could carry out only if it wasn’t too much trouble? Perhaps this world has been evangelized with Churchianity rather than Christianity! Perhaps the Anti-Christ has been, and is, Churchianity! Can many, if not most, of the wars and atrocities of the past 2,000 years be the result of ignoring the clear Teachings of Jesus? The implications are absolutely staggering! This is one place where I would really prefer to be wrong! History is in many ways, such a dark and horrible thing! And to think that the last 2,000 years could have been altogether different causes me to feel faint and sick! It’s like someone trying to warn a train about a washed-out bridge…being totally ignored…and then watching helplessly as hundreds of people plunge to their deaths…

    Was Jesus a Red Letter Christian? Indeed! He was the first! He was, and is, the CEO! Have His 'followers' followed His clear instructions? In most cases no! Why is this? Does this constitute insubordination? There may be some surprises in the hereafter. More importantly, what are we going to do to correct this failure to carry out a direct order by our Commanding Officer?

    8. What is the Gospel?

    What is the Gospel? Is it the Good News? Are the Teachings of Jesus Good News, Good Advice, or both? Are the Teachings of Jesus the Gospel? Do we need to read Paul to find out what the Gospel is? Does the Great Commission refer to the Teachings of Jesus…the writings of Paul…the whole Bible…or all of the above?

    The Good Advice in the Teachings of Jesus is the Good News! Churchianity is condemned and Christianity is established by Christ! No more religious hoops to jump through! Just be just! That is both Good Advice and Good News!

    Many Christians have been pressured into saying, “I know that I am saved!” But if you know that you are saved, why struggle to do the right thing, and fight the evil thing?! This may not be popular, but I believe that every day we are fighting for our physical and spiritual lives!

    It should be obvious by now, that I believe the Teachings of Jesus to be self-sufficient and self-evident, and that they are the message to be spread throughout the world as a precursor to eschatological occurrences! When the teachings and character of Jesus are internalized in a critical mass of Christians, a tipping point will be reached, and the battle between good and evil will intensify! All Hell may break loose before we experience Heaven on Earth! The agony and the ecstasy! The first must precede the second!

    9. The Teachings of Jesus in Society.

    It's tempting to turn a focus on the Teachings of Jesus into a harangue! To lash out! To use a phrase of Christ's as a club to hit people over the head with, to promote our pet political or religious cause! But I feel that it's important to study all of Christ's words in an attitude of reverence and awe, and to come up to a higher level of spirituality, and then implement the underlying principles and concepts throughout society in an evolutionary, rather than in a revolutionary way. This is the mustard seed conspiracy! It consists of the seeds of greatness!

    Christians should integrate rather than segregate! Christians should not be stand-offish! Christians should be “in the world, but not of the world.” The Teachings of Jesus should be communicated with kindness and sound-bites rather than with cold and arrogant sermonizing. Profound principles, concepts, and facts obtained in secular society should be integrated with the words of Jesus to give them an even more profound impact! The atheist scientists and philosophers don’t know what they are missing! They may have the facts, but they need the Spirit too!

    Jesus was accused of being "a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners!" I don’t think they were accusing Him of being a grape-juice drinker! He didn't spend all day in the synagogue! I find it helpful to contemplate Christ in a variety of settings. Theology should not be imprisoned within a church or university, but needs to be reflected upon and implemented in even the most unlikely environments. These diverse environments may include the boardroom, the racetrack, the laboratory, Washington D.C. and Las Vegas (where one might be a friend of Republicans and Sinners)!

    10. Apostolic Succession and the Holy Grail.

    Much has been made of Apostolic Succession in Christian history! That Christ declared to Peter that He would build His church on him. That Peter was the first Pope, and that each of his successors have been the supreme representatives of Christ on earth, indeed, Vicars of Christ!

    A rival view, popularized recently by Dan Brown in his book and the subsequent motion picture, The Da Vinci Code, suggests that Jesus had children, and that His offspring are the true representatives of Christ on earth...

    Allow me to suggest another possibility! That the individuals and organizations throughout Christian history who have placed the Teachings of Jesus first and foremost, both in word and deed, have been the true representatives of Christ on earth! Not by declaration or birthright, but by the content of their characters! This last option could overlap the first two. But in the final analysis, by their fruits you shall know them. Were, and are, they Christ-like? Did Christ will that His church be built upon His teachings? I think so!

    Remember in the movie, The Da Vinci Code, as Sophie, Langdon, Silas, Remy, and Teabing are leaving the hangar in the limo at the airport in England, after hiding from the English police, Teabing winks and comments, “people rarely notice things right in front of their eyes!”

    I am going to make the bold assertion that the Holy Grail, that people have been seeking for centuries, has been hidden in plain sight for 2,000 years! The Teachings of Jesus are the Holy Grail! What is more holy and sacred, that Jesus Christ has left the world, than His Teachings?! His Blood Red Letter Teachings! The Holy Grail or Sang-real, meaning Royal Blood, is more than any possible blood-line of Christ! I believe that it is primarily the words of Christ, which reveal the character of Christ, or the essence of Christ! The words are neither masculine or feminine! They are neither Pagan or Pauline! They are Divine! The bloodline question is of “relative” importance! Any purported relative or representative of Christ does not have veto-power over the words of Christ! No one has veto-power over the words of Christ! No one except the Jesus Seminar, that is!

    On the other hand, does the term “Royal Blood” imply that Christ was of royal Egyptian lineage? When Joseph and Mary fled with Jesus to Egypt, did they stay with family? The wise-men from the east worshiped him as royalty! Was Jesus a Pharaoh? Is this where a modern quest for the historical Jesus might lead? Were the wise-men wise to who Jesus really was…or am I just a wise-guy? The Scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees thought Jesus was a wise-guy! And they were right! They just didn’t know how wise He really was!

    I am going to keep attempting to get you to study for yourself, rather than tell you what to think! I don’t really know what I think most of the time, so who am I to tell you? I truly believe that at least 38.7 percent of what I have typed on this site is pure unmitigated poppycock! Just don’t ask me to itemize the 38.7 percent! If you figure it out…tell me and we’ll both know! It’ll be our little secret…OK? I tend to be rather suspicious, especially of myself. So, use this site to start your thinking process…not to end it! This subject is too important, and you are too mature (hopefully) for spoon feeding! But it can be frustrating and exhausting! And please…don't forget to pray!

    11. Church Buildings.

    Jesus taught mostly in nature. The most inspirational environment is nature! I believe that the Holy Spirit can best get through to us when we contemplate eternal things in nature. The best place to have church is not in church! The best church is no church! And didn’t Jesus tell us, in essence, not to go to church, in Matthew 6:5,6? He told us to pray privately, didn’t He?

    Having said that, I am torn! I love architecturally and acoustically inspiring churches! Especially while experiencing sacred music in these vast spaces! Singing the great hymns of the church with congregation, choir, organ and orchestra…as the sunlight streams through the stained glass windows is truly a mountain top experience! I believe that artistic expression and creativity are hugely important parts of life and Christianity! They lift us up!

    However, I am often troubled by the price and the pride! Is Jesus impressed? I sometimes imagine the stained glass Jesus with tears streaming down His face because of being ignored, despised and rejected by His professed followers! Would those in Darfur be impressed? Should we build more orphanages than churches? I once stood at the altar of a magnificent Gothic cathedral, reading the story of the rich young ruler from a large leather-bound Bible on a golden pedestal. For a moment, I thought the Word of God clashed with the House of God! Are churches sometimes places where there is a form of godliness without the power? Where people stand, sit, bend, nod, and are politely kind to God? Also, the message and music are often determined by those with the dough…not by those in the know!

    Obviously, when it's cold, dark and rainy, it's nearly impossible to have a religious service outside! I guess we need church buildings, but we don't need jeweled, gold plated shrines, bedeviled with hideous gargoyles! We need the grand and glorious, but with sound and simple construction, so as not to become slaves to buildings and bills. Think minimalist cathedral! Was that an oxymoron? Perhaps…but sometimes I'm an oxymoron! And don't forget the soup kitchen! And please…pretty please…don’t forget to pray!

    Also, church is not for everyone! The church is not the very gate of Heaven! The Christian Church is not Salvation4Sale! At least it shouldn't be! Church may, or may not, be necessary for balanced psychology, ethics and spirituality. Sometimes church can even make things worse! On the other hand, those who have left the church have often jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire…and had their fingers burnt right up to their arm pits!

    Finally, remember what Jesus said to the disciples when they were admiring a church building...

    12. Salvation and Righteousness.

    What must we do to be saved?

    "But when I, the Messiah, shall come in my glory, and all the angels with me, then I shall sit upon my throne of glory. And all the nations shall be gathered before me. And I will separate the people as a shepherd separates sheep from the goats, and place the sheep at my right hand, and the goats at my left.

    "Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, 'Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water; I was a stranger and you invited me into your homes; naked and you clothed me; sick and in prison, and you visited me'

    "Then these righteous ones will reply, 'Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you anything to drink? Or a stranger, and help you? Or naked, and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?' And I, the King, will tell them, 'When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!'

    "Then I will turn to those on my left and say, 'Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. For I was hungry and you wouldn't feed me; thirsty, and you wouldn't give me anything to drink; a stranger, and you refused me hospitality; naked, and you wouldn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'

    "Then they will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?' And I will answer, 'When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me.' And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life." Matthew 25:31-46 Living Bible.

    Did Jesus forget about the substitutionary atonement? What about John 3:16? Clue: read John 3:1-21, not just verse 16! The method of salvation presented by Paul is quite different than the method presented by Jesus! Why is this? Who do you believe? On Christ the solid rock I stand! All other ground is sinking sand…

    Perhaps the above is part of the reason why many Christians accept Jesus as savior, but reject Him as Lord!

    13. Money and the 50-50 Rule.

    The following is a concept derived from the principles and concepts contained in the Teachings of Jesus, but not stated directly. It is simply something I have found to be helpful regarding the ethical pursuit and use of money.

    I call it the 50-50 rule, derived from 'love your neighbor as yourself' and 'do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' Basically, one makes as much money as possible in the most ethical way possible, and then sets aside 50 percent of the gain for taxes and charity. Then, with the remaining 50 percent, they live a comfortable, though not ostentatious life style, and use a significant portion of this 50 percent to make even more money! Then, this additional profit again becomes subject to the same rule. Finally, when one dies, the estate is divided, with 50 percent going to taxes and charity, and 50 percent to relatives, etc.

    We should avoid rich versus poor class-warfare, jealousy and hatred, or feelings of superiority! We all have a part to play in this vast mosaic of life. The poor should not neglect to learn how the rich make money, and the rich should not neglect the poor…regardless of the reasons for their poverty!

    It's my way of saying that one can have their cake and eat it too! Perhaps it is a rationalization…but I don't think so! I believe that God is reasonable, and that sincere attempts to do the right thing are received with joy in Heaven!

    14. Jesus and Nicodemus.

    Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him.” In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

    “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

    “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” John 3:1-21 NIV

    15. Positive Thinking and Self Esteem.

    What about positive thinking and self esteem? Are they in harmony with the Teachings of Jesus? Are they a new religion which is out of harmony with the Teachings of Jesus? What is the underlying principle in the Teachings of Jesus? Is it positive thinking and self esteem, or something else?

    Without going into a proof text rant, I must say that I find positive thinking much more biblical than self esteem! Faith is closely related to positive thinking, and is well thought of in scripture in general, and the Teachings of Jesus in particular! On the other hand, self esteem is closely related to pride, and is decidedly not well thought of in scripture in general, and the Teachings of Jesus in particular! The subject of self esteem is a real “mine” field! An extreme rendition of the joining of positive thinking and self esteem is “I Am God!” which is not something that the Bible encourages its readers to go around proclaiming! And by the way…Shirley…with all due respect…I don’t think you’re God!

    The problem is self delusion and self centeredness! Not facing reality is a form of lying…to yourself! Self exaltation is self centered! Self degradation is also self centered! The religion contained in the Teachings of Jesus is a religion of responsibility! To be responsible is to face reality, and see it clearly, and then formulate a responsible course of action, and then to implement this plan. It is duty centered. The focus is external…not internal! When someone lives responsibly, the byproduct is appropriate positive AND negative thinking (which includes both faith and doubt), and an appropriate self image! They are the fruit, not the root!

    In other words, positive delusion is not the solution to negative delusion…and self exaltation is not the solution to self degradation! Responsibility trumps both positive thinking and self esteem! The religion of positive thinking and self esteem is not the religion of the Teachings of Jesus! The religion of responsibility is the religion of the Teachings of Jesus!

    Please don't misunderstand my seemingly harsh stance on positive thinking and self esteem! A negative thinking and self degrading Churchianity opened the door wide open to these teachings! They have come as a breath of fresh air to millions of people around the world! But some have found Peale appalling and Paul appealing! Positive thinking linked with self-esteem is corrective, but should not be considered to be normative! A religion of responsibility, as found in the Teachings of Jesus is, in my view, the normative standard!

    16. The Eternal Word.

    I have so much to say, but I would like to know that someone is listening out there in cyberspace. Please take a moment to send me a message, and to set me