The Beginning

Now, the words of someone to me:
“It’s not healthy to keep such thoughts in my head. My intention is a conversation, sharing of ideas, not a debate. Your exposure to the thinking world, I hope, will broaden my understanding of my thoughts, expose me to where others stand, and provide any embellishments that can progress my thoughts.
Topics: Natural State – Outer space: the natural state of temperature in space, relative to our environment, is -270 Celsius. This ‘coldness’ is the natural state. With no effort, things in space cool down until they reach the natural state temperature. This comparison can be applied to other things, as well. Within our earth biosphere, the natural state of pressure is where the water and air meet, i.e., Zero Atmosphere. With this way of thinking, the statement, ‘cold is the absence of heat,’ is correct – cold being the natural state and heat being the altered state.
I would like to have a discussion on how this relationship and explanation of the natural state also relates to other subject matter. Good and Evil; God and Satan; Human behaviors; ego; conscience. This could be a long discussion.”
 –
And, my words to someone:
“Sounds good – absolutely – yes – I will help, I will participate, and do what I can, and not do what I cannot, and hopefully know the difference when I see it. Yes. I accept your invitation. I will take you to the Way that leads to Philosophy: That is all I can do.”
Natural State
Presence & Absence
Good & Evil
God & Satan
Human behaviors
Ego
Conscience

 

Tuesday: July 5, 2016

10:49 pm

Greetings. This is where I will write about The Beginning. I will date and time everything. These two lines, the one and the other, will serve us well. They will give us a place to return when we get lost. No differently, this ZeroFriction post will be here for me, when I return, to write again.

I will, more or less, keep a ‘diary’ of sorts here. That is, I will just write what I write. But, also, what is here is PassWord Protected. So, the kind of writing that happens here is not yet the kind of writing that I put out to the world, the world of Public ZeroFriction, FaceBook, and other places.

The PassWord is (you guessed it) the only way to begin here, to begin here with “The Beginning.”

So, there you go.

Tuesday: July 5, 2016

10:57 pm

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’

Is this two acts of creation? One for the heavens? One for the earth?

Or, is this one act of creation? With two creations? One, the heavens. The other, the earth.

Or, is this one act of creation? With one creation? The heavens and the earth.

Or, is this three acts of creation? One for the heavens. One for the earth. One for whatever it is that divides the heavens from the earth: For, if the heavens and the earth were to mix, and to become one, then the earth and the heavens would no longer be separate, and thus the earth would cease to be earth, and the heavens would cease to be heavens.

These are good questions.


Tuesday: July 5, 2016

11:39 pm

The problem of Evil always seems to be looming about in the future.

If God were good, knowledgeable, and full of resources, and if God is ‘Father,’ one would expect this father to act fatherly – and not destroy entire cities, towns, ecosystems, and so on with things like hurricanes, lies, and oil spills.

Hurricanes: These seem easiest of the three to resolve, at least temporarily.

— Why did you send a hurricane? It was awful. How could you do that to us? If you are as described above?

— What do you mean: “…a hurricane?”  I’ve been sending hurricanes that way since forever, one after the other. So, it’s not a really surprise when it happens again. Is it? Then, one day, you people move into the area, and build yourselves a house, a nice house. I keep sending hurricanes, as usual. Then, more people move into the area, and start building more houses. I keep sending hurricanes, as usual. Then, one day, I send a hurricane, as usual. But on this day you people ask me: “What the fuck, man? Who the fuck do you think you are? You fucking hypocrite! You’re so fucking hypocritical that you don’t even exist. Fuck you.” I keep sending hurricanes, as usual.

Hurricanes. Not really all that difficult of an example.

What really gets murky is something different from Natural Evil: The evil that men do – to each other, and to themselves. This one is more something.

 

Wednesday: July 6, 2016

12:39 am

— We had no where else to go.

— What about back to where you came from?

— I had no choice – I was born here. And my ancestors? They had to flee their homeland. The plague arrived, and as some began to die of this natural process, others began to panic and do harm, leading to yet more death. Consequently, my people came here. This is my home.

— Then why do you stay?

— Until now, I also had a house, a community, an occupation: I am a school teacher. However, now, the school is gone, and so are most of my students.

— That is sad, I agree.

— That’s it? You agree it’s sad?

— Yes. I agree. It is sad.

— Then why do you do things that make you sad?

— First, being sad is not bad. Second, I am not sad about your house.

— What are you sad about?

— I’m sad to hear about the one who panicked, and began to do harm, at the worst possible moment. It seems that these who panicked at the sight of death and who then did harm to others are not unlike me, who sends hurricanes, as usual. For, in the latter example, the harm done from the hurricane is indistinguishable from the harm done by those who panicked at the sight of death. Namely, people were wronged, and property was not respected, and no doubt more than that. [But, also, when the Plague arrived was the best possible moment to do something good, something creative, something not to run from.] Does this sound reasonable? So far, at least?

— It does.

— On the other hand, there is quite a difference in these examples.

— How so?

— Hurricanes do not follow people around. The plague does follow people around. Consequently, you people moved into my territory, where hurricanes were already established as consistent and repetitive. Your case, which you appeal to on your on behalf, after telling me to fuck off, is different: The plague had never been there before. It will likely never be there again. Therefore, the harm done and the harm that remains after the plague has moved on, has nothing to do with the plague. Do this make sense?

— No.

— Why do you not blame me for the plague? As you do for the hurricane?

— I don’t know.


 

 

Wednesday: July 6, 2016

2:04 am

— How could I blame you for the plague? As you said truly, the plague followed the people. Besides, why would send a plague to harm innocent people?

— Two questions: Who are these innocent people you speak of? Of what are these innocent? Finally, why send a plague, when I could send a hurricane instead, to accomplish the matter more efficiently and in larger numbers, at the same time?

— We lived a valley, between a river on one side, and a mountain on the other, not at the edge of the sea.

 

 

Wednesday: July 6, 2016

6:58 am

Were the the heavens and the earth created in the way that things are shared? Was one cut made? Perhaps off-center? In the way a blueberry pie might be shared between two people who differ in size, and who thus differ from each other quantitatively? And, by cutting the pie into unequal parts each pie part is equal – when taken in relation to its appropriate object, be that the larger or smaller person.

To summarize: Were the Heavens and the Earth created by God for us in the same way a father and a boy-son might share a blueberry pie in one sitting? Such that, at the end of the pie, and at the end of the day, each has received what is due each, each has received a kind of justice, each has been done good, and though each is equal to each (father & boy-son) each is also unequal to each (father is quantitatively more than the boy-son), and thus each deserves something unequal to what the other deserves, and because of this the son-boy is given less pie than the father, yet each has received his just desert, despite appearances (despite appearances).

Now, were these two unequal pie pieces given to the boy-son and his twin brother, then things would different. The mathematical proportion between the quantities of the boys and the quantities of the pie pieces would be closer to equal than not. So too, in this case, the pie pieces should be closer to equal than not: And there is nothing that seems unreasonable about all this.

However, the next question is this: Given the father and the boy-son, it is the father who cuts, who chooses where and how to cut into the pie, revealing two halves: One is larger. The other is smaller. This has been discussed above already.

However, given the case of the twin boy-sons, and one blueberry pie, who is to cut the pie into two halves? It cannot be the father, even if the father has an extraordinary ability to uber-accurately cut desert pies into insanely accurately large or small pieces. The father cannot cut the pie for the boys to share because regardless of the equality of the quantitative proportions between the one son and the one pie piece, and the other son and the other pie piece, satisfaction is not guaranteed – not if the father is the one who divides the one into many: Not if the father is the one who breaks the pie in two and gives each piece to each, one at a time, one by one.

Why not? Each boy-son sees each pie piece from a certain and particular vantage point. My point here is this: A pie is circle. This circle pie sits atop a two dimensional plane, the table. And this table sits atop a three dimensional sphere, the earth. Consequently, perceived unit-mass per unit-volume of each of the pie pieces is a result (the perception of ‘more’ or ‘less’ pie) of a mental calculation that begins with a geometric comparison of each pie piece to the other.

The problem with this is that the pie piece further away from the boy will appear smaller, or even flatter, than the pie piece which is closer. So, in view of this, we must restate our original statement: “Consequently, the perceived unit-mass per unit-volume of each of the pie pieces is a result of a mental calculation that begins with a visual comparison of: (1) Each pie piece to the other; (2) Each boy-son to the other; (3) Each boy-son to the father. In the end, there will be 6 of these such comparisons: Three comparisons will be made by each boy. [The father, on the other hand, makes no comparison between the twin boy-sons, and does not take this into account, when cutting the pie into halves: The father looks only at each boy in relation to the pie – and then, the pie is cut.]

If the father cuts the pie in two for the twin boy-sons, he is likely to be indicted for Unfairness, to start things off. After that, things usually only grow more grave. Yet, on the other hand, if the father is perspicacious, astute, clever, and beyond – Then, the father will let one boy-son cut the pie in two, and will allow the other boy-son to choose which pie piece he wishes to possess.

In this circumstance, the boy who is chosen to cut the pie in two may well find himself in a bind: For, the boy who cuts the pie may be significantly larger than his twin (but younger) sibling. Were the first boy, the physically larger boy, to strive to imitate his father, by sizing the pie pieces and selecting the cut-line based not upon some principle of ‘more for me and less for you while also not being caught, shamed, or hassled,’ then this one, this older twin boy, the first born, were it me, is likely to respectfully decline the privilege and duty of being the one to cut the pie in two.

This boy-son, the older twin, he finds himself in a difficult place to balance a handful of water, so to speak. It gets even worse: Take the blueberry pie away and replace it with just about anything else, anything at all: Available space under a large shade tree; fishing spots along the bank of the river; the cute girl in tent number five; and so on.


 

Thursday: July 7, 2016

3:36 am

King James translation

Screen Shot 2016-07-07 at 3.35.56 AM.png

 

Unnamed translation from above.

William McWhirter's photo.

Thursday: July 7, 2016

4:52 am

In the beginning were the One, and the Other.

The One was without limit, both inside and out.

The terms of the argument –

Beginning, God, heaven, earth, form, void, darkness, face of the deep, Spirit of God (which moved or hovered), face of the waters.

This is a logical puzzle. In the end, although ‘God’ is present as the active agent of creation in the beginning, this is what I suggest: The term ‘God,’ at first, at it appears in the first verse of Genesis, is an ’empty’ term. This term, ‘God,’ as first, has no meaning, no content, not limit to define it and distinguish it from anything else. It is the ‘whatever it is that.’ The idea is this: As we, or I, move through the argument in Genesis, the term ‘God’ begins to acquire meaning. For, in the beginning, the very first beginning, all we have is the term, ‘God,’ which, at this point, means nothing.

Why introduce the term, ‘God’ straightaway? For, the argument could proceed as follows: In the beginning, there was nothing. Then, there came to be the heaven and the earth. Before heaven and earth came to be, they were not, and there was nothing else.

This is a puzzle. It (Genesis) is also an attempt to solve, or to provide a satisfactory answer,   to the question: How did this all come about? How did this all come to be? The gr0und and the sky, the days and the nights, words, and anything at all.

 

Thursday: July 7, 2016

11:09 pm

 

— Did God invent the heavens and the earth, the high and the low, the quick and the slow?

— Of course. God invented everything.

— At the same time?

— Of course. For as it is said: “In the beginning, God created.”

— What did God create first?

— God created nothing first – God created only in the beginning.

— What did God create in the beginning? For, it was said God in the beginning created.

— Yes. In God the beginning created.

— I see.

— What do you see?

— I see this: God created in the beginning.

— Right. After that, it gets a bit confusing.

— I agree.

— I believe you.

 

 

Friday: July 8, 2016

11:49 pm

Speaking to a friend today I learned that John the Baptist was crazy and hated. He was not allowed to do something or another, I remember not. Regardless, he was denied on account of some or another defect of the mind, a defect that was truly a defect, and not something adorable, such as musical prodigy.

 

Saturday: July 9, 2016

1:28 am

The gears are always turning. Left and right.

Today a friend and I took a look at The Beginning, the beginning of this here very post. ..

 

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s