21. June 2009 by Da Fu.

It is a perfect world. Our parents and children are unique and imperfect. They will never be the “ideal” figment of our imagination person we want them to be. But, they are the persons we do have and we need to deal with them.

Our hopes, wishes, aspirations, wants, etc., etc., etc. and so forth are intermingled with our father, mother or child. This is who we are. Yet, it is NOT who they are and that is the issue.

We must internalized our ideal (archetypical) relation and then deal in the real world with the person who is our parent or child. Accepting them for who they are is the basis of charity love … love that does not have expectations in return and is selfless and quiet.

Nothing hurts more than “I-would-love-you-more-if-you-would…” change message. The message heard is “you don’t love me now and there is no guarantee you will love me even if I change.” Since the other person can never be ideal in our mind, the latter heard message is the correct one and change is inhibited rather than encouraged.

Unconditional acceptance without putting our personal burdens on others is how we show our charity love for others, especially to fathers, mothers and children. And this should be done daily….not just on special days each year. Living charity love is living in the world in good faith to One’s Self and Others.

So, maybe we should be the ideal parent or child we want to our parents and children. We can than have our ideal by living it and thus being a example of who we are. Such a gift of the love is priceless.

Posted in Health, Semantics | Print | No Comments »

12. June 2008 by Da Fu.

For most things in this world intent is key to deciphering meaning. A killing is either murder, accidental or something in between based on intent. Yet, intent can only been known to the doer and then only relatively. Others can only guess at someone else’s intent. How intent colors understandings and changes it is an never-ending struggle. Here are some examples and considerations.

First, the word ‘jihad’ has taken a political meaning although it is seen as a moral issue by most Muslims. Jihad translates as “struggle” and is typically used to denote the struggle each individual has with his or her own internal demons to do the will of God. Christians also have this struggle but don’t have a specific word like Islam. The intent of terrorist is to make the personal “struggle”, i.e., jihad, into a political rather than religious issue. The vast majority (>90%) of Muslims do NOT buy in to this politicization of their personal religious struggle. Thus, the word ‘jihad’ has whole different ramifications if one’s intent is religious versus political. Unfortunately, Western misunderstandings only see ‘jihad’ as a political movement ignoring and usually alienating the vast majority of pious Muslims.

Second, ‘War on….(fill in the blank)’ such as terrorism, drugs, cancer are frequently heard but what are their intents. The War on Terrorism is considered by many as a euphemism for Imperialism and imposition of outside values and this is wrong. Instead, the ‘Wars on …’ are just capitalists’ intents to make boatloads of money. It needs to be understood that more people live off wars than from wars, e.g., more people live off cancer than from cancer. Wars are capitalist enterprises in which some (usually the corrupt) become wealthy or usually, wealthier at the expense of the many. Therefore, it needs to understood that the intents of ‘Wars on …’ are capitalist in nature. Follow-the-money and you will find the ardent supporters of the ‘War on ….’ efforts.

Next is the intent behind suicide. The action in suicide is to take one’s life. In Asian societies, suicide is seen the ultimate protest against a government and that why it is prevented by these governments. Political protests were intended by the Buddhist Monks in Asia who burned themselves publicly in the 70’s.

In the West, suicide is a personal protest against or surrender to ones current perceived intolerable conditions. People commit suicide when accused of wrong-doing even before a trial and all the facts are known. Death is preferred to the ordeal of the forthcoming proceedings. Thus the intent is to spare oneselves suffering.

Those who surrender to their perceived intolerable circumstances by committing suicide also intent to spare themselves continued suffering. It may be seen as selfish but one really rarely knows the full extent of some else’s suffering; therefore, it would be righteous to determine their actions as wrong.

Finally, a simple answer to the frequently stated conundrum “Is the glass half full or half empty?”. The answer is “It depends. Are you trying (intending) to fill it or empty it?” Intent determines meaning.

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics, Political Ethics | Print | No Comments »

5. June 2008 by Da Fu.

Claiming participation in the creation of a life or invention or other things is something to be proud of and brag. Yet, when Gore claimed he “invented” the Internet he was ridiculed and maligned because it was politically expedient to do so. Nevertheless, without Gore there would be no Internet and here’s why.

The Internet arose out of the military’s restricted network called Arpanet that matured during the 1980’s. At the same time technology and connections (’bitways’) improved that made it possible to develop a similar network, i.e., the Internet, for the rest of Americans. The only problem was legislation and money that could make it happen.

This is were Gore comes in. As a Senator, he developed the bill that led to the creation of the Internet. Since the Internet did not exist before the passing of his bill, he could legitimately say that he “invented” the Internet since it resulted from his bill. Many misunderstood his statement to mean he invented the technology for the Internet. He did not claim that but for politically expediency his critics did not take the time to correctly understand Gore’s statement.

So, at a minimum, Gore did “Father” the Internet just like his critics fathered their children. And since it was created with the passing of his legislation, it could be said that he invented the Internet since it would not have existed otherwise. Giving Gore credit when credit is due is being truthful.

Posted in Semantics, Political Ethics | Print | No Comments »

4. June 2008 by Da Fu.

Due to their religious beliefs many humans believe they have a special place in the grand schema of Nature They also believe that this special place gives them a privilege that exempts them from the laws of Nature and their participation in Nature. Nothing is further from the truth.

Since matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed everything that exists was present from the beginning whether it be the Big Bang or Creation. Our atoms has been recycled endlessly in inorganic and organic forms. Even though the way our atoms are arranged leads to our individual uniqueness, they nevertheless follow all the laws of Nature.

The consequences of considering oneself apart from Nature is that one ignores Nature. Nature becomes a ways to a means and these ways usually harm or destroy the elements of Nature involved. Yet, Nature doesn’t care because its laws keep it on an even keel. Too much carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning just increase the global temperature which will lead to more and longer growth of plants that will uptake the carbon dioxide. The Canadian northern forests and tundra that are frozen most of the year will be thawed out and consume huge quantities of carbon dioxide. That fact that the polar ice melting will submerge most low lying coastlines and their cities is no concern to Nature.

It is ironic how humans whose total beings follow all the laws are Nature is so dismissive of it. Space-Time is at this moment that will live in eternity and not “tomorrow at the office.” The laws of physics and biology are for the most part understood. Yet, humans still believe that they will survive their death (i.e., Nature) defying behaviors and addictions.

Thus, it is key to realize that when we are speaking of Nature we are speaking about ourselves. And, anything we do to Nature we are doing to ourselves. Thus company profits that line our pockets and destroying some part of Nature may actually be hurting us.

Isn’t it time to realize we are one with Nature?

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics | Print | No Comments »

14. May 2008 by Da Fu.

No one can make me happy unless I let them and I can make myself happy. Therefore, my happiness is my responsibility.

It is unreasonable to make someone else responsible for our individual happiness since it is an impossible task for anyone else. Happiness is a feeling and all feelings are internal. Stimuli that generate happiness one time do not necessarily generate the same feeling the next or any other time. How can anyone else except oneself know that? Waiting for someone who we have burdened with our happiness will lead to long periods between happiness and even periods of unhappiness. There are many unhappy spouses waiting for their spouse to make them happy. Taking the initiative to making oneself happy is a much easier way to be happy.

Yet, we should not be responsible for other’s unhappiness in pursuit of our own happiness. This may not always be possible. Ex-Gov. Spitzer of NY pursued his own happiness with a prostitute probably believing he was sparing his wife his happiness burden and not causing some “other woman” unhappiness. Ironically, he would have been better off having an affair since that apparently is the norm among his colleagues. Thus, their needs to be a ranking of things that result in our happiness and also cause others unhappiness. What is then done depends on ones moral values. There are no right or wrong answers.

We are responsible for our own individual happiness. So, stop burdening others and start being happy!

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics | Print | No Comments »

28. April 2008 by Da Fu.

It is rare that I hear the appropriate “You’re Welcome” as a response to a “Thank You.” Usually, the response is a return “Thank You”. Why is it we can’t accept such a simple acknowledgement?

A “Thank You” is usually stated when a person wants to acknowledge a kindness, service or something else that the person deems of value. It is a polite and usually sincere response for receiving this value.

Not responding “you’re welcome” is not to acknowledge this person’s politeness and sincerity and actually off-putting a best and insulting at worse. To respond with a “Thank You” is to insinuate that the value received is bigger or more important than the value given. It’s one-upmanship. Although it may be true, this response nevertheless fails to acknowledge the other’s feelings. A “you’re welcome” followed with a “and thank you for …..” would be more appropriate.

So, practice responding “you’re welcome” to a “thank you” and accept the other person’s acknowledgement. It is not only appropriate but also the right think to do.

Posted in Semantics, Political Ethics | Print | No Comments »

17. April 2008 by Da Fu.

Many believe that Social Security (SS) is a pension fund when in reality it is both a Pension and Welfare fund.

The reason Social Security is a pension fund is because workers contribute to the fund in return for getting returns after retirement. The expectations are payments with interest.

Unfortunately, the cost of living and SS Payments have long ago depleted many individual’s contributions plus interests. Therefore, continued SS payments are unfunded by the recipients and instead funded by current worker’s contributions making these payments charity or welfare.

Few would argue that workers should be paid their SS Pension payments (SSP). Yet, once these personal pension funds run out, continued payments should have some sort of means test for receiving continue payment as SS welfare (SSW). Welfare should not be provided those who do not merit it.

Finally, while a person is alive they should be allowed to contribute their SSP to the reduction of the national debt or back to SS program for SSW payments. These contributions would be allowed to be deducted as charity.

Posted in Semantics, Political Ethics | Print | No Comments »

11. April 2008 by Da Fu.

Terms like African-American, Black, Latino, HIspanic, American and the like are commonly used and almost universally misunderstood. The issues actually boil down to several elements that include geographic, country, racial, language and cultural origins. Delineating these separately leads to a greater understanding of personal identifiers. Importantly, personal identifiers that segregate are frequently less nebulous and more accurate than societal designations that tend to aggregate. Using personal identifiers correctly is less likely to insult others and to make one look insensitive or ignorant.

First, geographic origins is used predominately by African-Americans and Asians. African-Americans use this term since they are decedents of freed American slaves and do no know their African countries of origin. Europeans, Asians, etc. are from a country from that continents and are only occasionally used as personal identifiers. Of note, the North American continent contains Canada, the United States and Mexico. Therefore, Canadians and Mexicans are North Americans or “Americans” also.

Next, is the country of origin. When the country of origin is known then it is used such as Kenyan-American, Italian-American, Mexican-American, Cuban-American, Jamaican, etc.

Third, is race. Traditionally, there have been several human races although these designations have come into dispute. These are usually noted as “Black”, “Asian”, “Native”, “White” or Caucasian or mixed.

Finally, there is culture and language of origin. These usually are Latino for someone from the Western Hemisphere whose language is Latin based (Spanish, Portuguese or French) and Hispanics are people from this Hemisphere whose language is Spanish.

Personal identifiers are usually combinations of these items and some have common usage. For example, technically “African-American” would include white South Africans who have recently settled in North American. Instead the are South African-American since their country of origin is known. If it were not other for personal and political gain, Obama would probably identify himself as Kenyan-American. As noted, African-American is reserved for decedents of freed American slaves.

Latinos are from North (i.e., Mexico), Central and South Americas and many Caribbean Islands where the languages spoken are Latin based. As noted, these languages include Spanish, Portuguese and French.

Hispanics are from all Spanish speaking countries in North American (Mexico), Central and South America and Caribbean Islands. It excludes Brazil where Portuguese is spoken and the French speaking Caribbean Islands.

Next is cultural origins. There are to many cultures to note. These include indigenous and identifiable peoples in most countries.

Lets examine some examples. The Chinese-Cuban minority are decedent from Chinese who immigrated to Cuba in the mid-nineteenth century. They are Caribbean, Latino, Hispanic and Asian. Those who immigrated to the US after Fidel Castro’s takeover are Chinese-Cuban-Americans.

There are many Caribbean, Latino, Hispanic Blacks from the Caribbean and South America. Many Jamaicans, Dominican Republican and Brazilians have these identifiers.

Immigrants from Brazil will be South American, Latino (NOT Hispanic), Brazilian-American and then Black, Asian, Native, White or mixed.

An immigrant from Mexico is North American, Latino, Hispanic, Mexican-American and most likely White, Native or mixed. Then there are first, second, and so on generation.

Assimilation of immigrants in the US is the rule but rarely complete. There are always cultural vestiges albeit language is usually not one of them after the first generation. Those who identify themselves usually use accurate terms are noted above.

White Americans frequently misuse terms by calling all Blacks “African-Americans” even if recent immigrants, all immigrants from South of the US border Latino or Hispanic although not totally accurate. Many of them use Hispanic to be synonymous with Mexican-American which mis-identifies those from Central and South American countries. Rather than being “politically correct” they are showing cultural, geographic and racial insensitivity or just plain ignorance.

The best practice is to ask someone what their origins are. They will almost always respond with the terms they like to use for themselves.

Posted in Semantics, Political Ethics | Print | No Comments »

23. March 2008 by Da Fu.

Christianity, like most religions, consists of a code of moral behavior (ethics) and mysticism. Religions usually have a Prophet or God that reveals moral values by which followers should behave. Religions evolved into teaching this moral behavior and also to the mystical worship of its Prophet/God.

In Christianity, Jesus Christ is this Prophet/God who preached desired moral behaviors and eventually died (and resurrected). The New Testament of the Bible and other writings document Jesus’ ethics teachings. Jesus’ teachings are an ethic that he and subsequent Christian leaders expect believers to follow.

Yet, Christianity as currently practiced by many has come to mean only the worship of Jesus as God (i.e, mysticism). They routinely ignore Jesus’ moral teachings as not essential to being a Christian. Thus, they are in a way ‘half-baked’ Christians.

Through the practice of mysticism only, these Christians practice their Christianity in worship services only. The rest of the time they frequently behave in any way they want including many unChristian ways since adherence to Jesus’ teachings is not necessary to their beliefs.

Christians that practice only mysticism and the Christian Leaders that condone and even encourage this practice are (according to Aldous Huxley’s The Perennial Philosphy) “turning to God without turing from themselves.” They use the “name of God to justify what they do in pursuit of place, power and wealth.”

Christianity is more than just calling oneself a Christian. It involves the worship of Jesus Christ (mysticism) and adhering to his moral behavior teachings (ethics). If Jesus were to decide on just one of the two–mysticism or ethics, I suspect he would select his believers follow his ethics and forgo the mysticism. In fact, Thomas Jefferson in The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth deletes the mystical aspects of Jesus’ life from the New Testament and focuses on Jesus’ ethics that he believed everyone should live by.

Posted in Semantics | Print | No Comments »

22. March 2008 by Da Fu.

The 5th Century book The Divine Names,; and the Mystical Theology written by someone using Dionysius of Areopagite’s name (translated by C. E. Rolt ISBN 0-922802-97-1) explores Evil in the world and how God allows it.

Basically, it writes that God made every living being Good. So, how is there Evil? It claims Evil exists because people are ignorant of Good or they are too lazy or weak to do Good. This rationale explains Evil in the world (i.e., Evil Doers) and stills allows for Evil Doers to change their ways and do Good. And, it puts the responsibility of doing Good and doing Evil on each person.

Those who are too lazy or weak to do Good may be more responsible for Evil Doings because they do know what is Good. Those who are are ignorant of Good have their leaders to blame since they have, at a minimum, allowed such a system of ignorance to exist and continue.

It is the responsibility of everyone to do Good and not be too lazy or weak to do it. It is the responsibility of everyone to be enlightened (see below) and not ignorant of Good that allows Evil Doing. In the end, each person is responsible for the Good that is their being. And, if everyone does Good which is their making, the Evil Doing will be no more.

[Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! [dare to know] “Have courage to use your own understanding!”–that is the motto of enlightenment. –Immanuel Kant]

Posted in Moral Values, Semantics | Print | No Comments »