I have Aspergers and my gift is that I write religion....

Post Reply New Topic

Don't get me wrong I'm quite comfortable for someone who can barely organize their life enough to make it through the day without my family and my wife organizing every aspect of my Existence. I'm not complaining. If I wasn't married to a highly organized woman I, no doubt, would still be living off the credit cards provided by my family. All my bills would still be being sent to my families business address so I never even have to look at them and I would still be listening to music and pacing around my old home, that was covered from ceiling to floor, on every wall, with passages of my writing.

I would probably be going to a lot more interesting parties than I am going to right now as well, if I didn't find a wonderful woman and get married. And I would most likely be getting into a lot more trouble than I am now as well.

But, hey that is a small sacrifice for a stable and peaceful home.

I hope at least my writing helps at least one person on this forum, feel better about their life. This work is a constant source of inspiration to me and is what keeps me alive, week to week.

I'm a complete science fiction addict and I know exactly why I love it. I love science fiction because I can see all the probabilities consequently inherent in the entire Universe and therefore, consequently, the entire of Existence. I can see all the probabilties inherent in Existence, more precisely, all that is known and is unknown about Existence. Science fiction is like plucking one strand of probabilites out of the infinite number of possibilites inherent in Existence and creating a story about it. It maybe only one strand from an infinite number of possibilities but that one strand is enough to transport me to a world in which I can have my Aspergers Syndrome, healed and corrected through science. I can read about brains augmented far beyond the capability of what human beings are presently capable of. I can read about bodies that are cybernetically augmented, far beyond anything capable in the current point in spacetime, human beings find themselves in. Science fiction places my imagination somewhere where the crushing disability of my cognitive/neurological disorder doesn't cripple me to the point of agony, every single day. I love science fiction. Seriously, I thank whatever powers that govern Existence, every single day for the joy a simple work of good science fiction brings to my Life, every now and then. Funnily enough though, I'm a writer and I could never bloody actually write science fiction. I simply couldn't do fiction, my imagination is completely bound to non-fiction.

Here's a sample of my work. If you all play nice with me I have a lot more of my work that might interest you. I can barely handle day to day life and can't see myself getting published, which is why I'm giving it to you all for free, but my doctor and my wife are trying to get me to that point.

Consider the fact that I have been totally fixated on this 42 pages of work that I am writing and have been editing it a few times a week for over a year now. Consider that I have been thinking about religion and everything about religion for as long as I can remember, that being well over 15 years now. I have always thought about religion even when I was a child. But it is only now as an adult that I am actually gaining some proficiency in the subject.

My writing doesn't really make total sense, unless one examines it in it's entirety, and examines it as a whole, but I'll give you a sample for your enjoyment anyways.

This is passage number five. I might throw in a couple of random other passages, if anything in particular catches my eye. If your unfamilier with the writing style, it is in a Nietchian style of writing, as a numbered passage, without paragraphs. That's not to say I wouldn't change the whole thing based on the opinion of anyone reading it. I'm strangely flexible depending on whoever reads my work and communicates constructively to me about it.


5

Universalistic Perspectivism, is thus: One has to understand that the Earth revolves around the sun, which is a star, and that the sun, as a star, is one star, of tens of, or possibly even hundreds of billions of stars, that forms something, called on Earth, a galaxy, and that a galaxy is part of a cluster of tens, maybe even hundreds, of billions of galaxies that stretch as far as human technology allows us to see, and that all the galaxies in their entirety form something human beings, call the Universe. One also has to understand that the Universe is very old, it's exact age is a mystery, but the approximate age is most likely over five billion years old. The Universe could in fact, be anything from around five billion, to around fifteen billion years old, however, there are also streams of thought that could place the Universe's age in terms of hundreds of billions of years old, and beyond, really, there is no known limit for how old the Universe could be.

One of the probabilities in relation to the evolution of the Universe, is that the Universe is like a tube. It is possible that the Universe actually has no theoretical end, energy and matter may enter the Universe at one end of a great tube, evolve into what we know as our galaxy, and may exist for billions of years; that matter may exist and evolve, until it reaches the end of the tube evolving into quasars and God only knows what, and then through some process human beings don't really understand, that matter and energy may be reinserted at the beginning of the tube again. And the whole process begins anew. The process of how the Universe comes into being may be essentially eternal. Human beings are simply at a point in spacetime that such a theory is unprovable, given our level of technology and science. Alternatively, the Universe may originate at a single point in spacetime, as the theory of the Big Band suggests and then evolves into the Universe we know it now, and expands until all the matter and energy in the Universe reaches a point at which it again begins to implode back onto itself, until it reaches the original point at which the Big Bang originated. Any age given, in relation to how old the Universe is, is nothing but theory and is hypothetical. However, five billion years to around fifteen billion years old is a decent lower limit for how old the Universe might be.

Now, armed with these two simple concepts of space and time, in relation to the size and age of the Universe; to understand Universalistic Perspectivism, one must be able to see oneself, in relation to the whole known Universe that human beings know of, and in relation to the billions of years the Universe has been in Existence for. The principle of Universalistic Perspectivism, is that over the entire course of a human life, if one subconsciously, or even quite consciously meditates upon this concept of Universalistic Perspectivism, the idea, is that this leads to a true degree of enlightenment about the entire nature of reality. The idea, is that Universalistic Perspectivism allows the human mind to better reflect upon and understand the reality of the Existence we live in. While the level of enlightenment that Universalistic Perspectivism gives a human being doesn't solve any of the truly great mysteries of Existence; or allow one to astrally project one's mind; or allow one to see the future; or teleport oneself around at will; or magically heal the sick; or any other insane claim human beings make about what enlightenment is; Universalistic Perspectivism certainly gives one an edge over a human being who doesn't understand Universalistic Perspectivism. Just for example, Universalistic Perspectivism, over time, changes you, it allows you to take everything one currently knows about one's current point in spacetime and it allows one to make, admittedly, inaccurate projections about all the possibilities inherent in Existence. As a more clear example, Universalistic Perpectivism allows one to take everything one knows about science and see what science will be capable of over the next million years or so. Universalistic Perspectivism doesn't allow one to see in any true detail what human science will be like in a million, or a billion years. But it does allow a person to see, however vaguely, how much control over matter, space and time and their own biological evolution human beings will gain over the reality in which they exist.

That particular rollercoaster ride of the mind alone, is worth the price of admission by learning what Universalistic Perspectivism is, within the context of the religion of Universalism. Universalistic Perspectivism in turn allows one to better understand the entirety of Existence as it relates to human beings, at whatever point of spacetime they exist in, therefore making one truly enlightened, at least to a very tiny, if significant, fraction of a degree. One has to understand Universalistic Perspectivism to understand anything I write, one has to understand Universalistic Perspectivism to be a Universalist. The very name of the religion, Universalism, that I have created, was originally derived from the principle of Universalistic Perspectivism.

Universalism as a religion began with Universalistic Perspectivism. It was the first thing I wrote about in the first page of my notebooks back when I actually used a pen, truly crazy times that they were. I don't know why I thought of Universalistic Perspectivism in the first place, it's just a particular quirk of the day to day religious experience I'm having that will most likely continue till I take my last breath on Earth, or preferably till I take my last freaken breath out amongst the stars where I truly want to be. I must admit though, Earth has a certain quant charm to it, but I'd prefer my last breath to be as absolutely far away from Earth as it's humanly possible to reach in my lifetime, but I'm guessing that's unlikely.

It took quite a number of years for Universalistic Perspectivism to sink into my mind and truly convert me into a Universalist. It took many years for Universalistic Perspectivism to enlighten my mind. However that’s the absolute power Universalism has to convert you. Universalism converts you by sheer force of fact and through sheer force of truth. One isn't converted into a Universalist by my charisma, or personal magnetism, that much is certain because I have little to no charisma or personal magnetism, most of the time. Universalism converts you through the sheer weight of it's almost, absolute, true reflection of the reality in which humans live. I know that is what has partially converted my wife to Universalism. She wasn't converted by my charisma, she was converted into a Universalist because the philosophy is so right, the philosophy is such a true reflection of the reality of human existence that it was impossible for her not to be, currently, at least partially, converted to it's most infinitely sublime ways. It's what converted me as well. My conversion to Universalism is, of course, absolute. I cannot be anything else in the Universe knowing what I know. I can only be a Universalist. Universalism has completely converted me to it's influence. I am absolutely powerless to resist the influence it has over me. And I am thankful that God, or whatever forces that be, have empowered my mind with Universalism.

I beg and plead with whatever powers that be, that whatever happens in my Existence throughout all of eternity, please if I can only ask for, and pray for, one thing in the entire of Existence, please do not take Universalism away from my mind. Take everything you need from me, throughout all of eternity, but please, God, the only thing I truly beg of you, please, never take Universalism away from my mind. It is the most beautiful and sublime thing I have ever seen through my mind.

6

Here is the essential and simplified equation, one of the true keys to enlightenment. This following passage is one of the most basic and fundamental philosophies of Universalism. This passage is the very foundation upon which Universalism is built. If it's an almost certain, inevitability, that human beings will continue to create religions, no matter how good or bad, and if every aspect of religion can be rendered in anyway possibly conceivable, by the human imagination onto the surface of the Universe, then the ultimate question remains. How should religion be done? A simple enough premise, yes? Yet this premise is infinitely complex in practice. The resulting philosophy from the proper practice of this premise as religion, is rocket science. The proper practice of this premise as religion is one of the most difficult things in the Universe to do. I could go so far as to say that the human brain isn't even fully capable yet of the proper practice of this premise as religion. The human brain however, is capable of "beginning" to properly practice this premise as true religion, worthy of Existence. Human beings, such as myself, can begin to lay down the first true "SOLID" foundations of the philosophy of a religion worthy of the gift of Existence... The human brain is capable of achieving that much at least, at this point in history. In Universalist philosophy there was a point in time, a specific point in time, that the human brain became ready to create religion. It was around the 1920's, when humanity first discovered galaxies and the full extent of their place in the universe. It was only as far back in human history as 1920, during "The Great Debate" that humans fully realized how large the Universe is, and how the whole Universe fit together, from our planet, to the sun, to the stars surrounding us, and how those stars fit together to form a galaxy and how, human beings are surrounded by hundreds of billions of galaxies that make up the entirety of the known Universe. It was only truly then that all the possibilities inherent in the Universe became apparent to the human mind and imagination. That was when the human brain became ready to create religion, in Universalism. That's part of the philosophy of Universalism, as it is written by me. I guess the first celebrational holiday of Universalism needs to be celebrated on the day of the year "The Great Debate" happened. That was the day it became possible for any human mind to create religion of the likes of Universalism, should they so choose to. Writing religion takes a certain amount of precision in how one structures the philosophy, one creates. To write religion of any quality, one needs to know a great deal of information about the Universe. However, it is not the amount of information alone, that one needs to write religion of quality. One needs to understand the information about the Universe one has collected in the right kind of a way. The right kind of information, one needs, to write religion didn't exist before the 20th century. And without the right kind of information, it only follows that it was impossible to understand the information one needs, to create quality religion. Basically all religion before the 20th century is pretty much almost completely worthless, aside from some basic salvage value. It has only truly become possible within the last few decades to truly begin to write religion of any value. That is quite a revelation in itself, if one understands enough of the philosophy of the religion of Universalism to comprehend what I am trying to get across in this particular passage. Writing religion comes down to two basic things. The religion one writes is how the author makes it, with their free will and the religion one writes is what the Universe, or in a sense what God makes of it. Now one of these things, the free will of a human being, is quantifiable however the influence that the Universe, or God, has on the religion one writes is not quantifiable. This is a very simple premise in principle but infinitely more complex in practice.

7

To understand enlightenment, one must first start with a reference point of some kind. A concept is a very strange thing, it is fluid, and two people can have a radically different understanding of the same concept; without a reference point, a concept is meaningless between two people; unless one creates a mutual understanding between those two people. So let us start with the highest form of enlightenment; to have total enlightenment, one must know every single thing about Existence. One must know how Existence came into being. One must know the entire history of Existence, and every single thing about Existence. Such may be the extent and age of Existence, that it may be impossible to know everything about it. One must start with the highest level of enlightenment and work our way down to the level attainable by human beings, to understand enlightenment. To be fully enlightened, one must know everything, about everything. One must completely understand every facet of Existence; how Existence came into being and every single thing that relates to everything in Existence. I know I'm repeating myself, but something as completely mind blowing, as defining what total, complete and absolute enlightenment would mean, is worth repeating certain things, a couple of times, at the very least. It is quite possible that even the forces which govern Existence, or, if you will indulge me, God, doesn't know every single thing about Existence. Existence may be so ancient and so complex, as to be beyond any human, or even divine, conception of time, space, matter, or mind. Existence may be so ancient, that much of the history of Existence, to all beings that know of Existence, as we know it, may be lost. What I am trying to say, of course, is that complete, absolute, and total enlightenment is no light matter, if you shalt once again indulge me. Full, absolute, and total, enlightenment, is well beyond the ability of a human being to understand, or attain. At least, as far as I, the author of these words, can tell. To understand enlightenment one must first appreciate the most extreme level of enlightenment that is, with the human mind, conceivably attainable; and that is our reference point. A human being can only attain a minuscule fraction, of a single degree, of enlightenment. Anything below full enlightenment is only a degree of enlightenment. Whether you have 20 degrees of enlightenment, or 359 degrees of enlightenment, as God may have, then that is still only a degree of enlightenment, compared to full enlightenment, a state of being that may simply be impossible, no matter what level of Existence one lives at. However, a degree of enlightenment is all one needs. Even in relation to the human condition, where only a fraction of a single degree of enlightenment is possible, a mere billionth? a trillionth? of a single degree of enlightenment on this scale leading up to full enlightenment; that billionth of a degree is still something worth striving for. Full, absolute and total enlightenment is our reference point. And that is what brings us around to the point in hand. A human can only attain a degree of enlightenment about Existence. Yet, that tiny fraction, of a degree of enlightenment, one can attain, is worth living for, fighting for, and it is worth dying for.

56

L.Ron.Hubbard is the perfect example of how to successfully create a religion. He is also the perfect example of how to write the philosophy of a religion that is as absolutely and completely insane as it is possible to write. I mean what a f*****g douchebag. I write religion, seriously he was a total and complete brilliant lunatic. I mean, come on, Scientology is stupid. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out. It boggles the mind how so many successful and seemingly intelligent people can believe in such a foul and corrupt philosophy of a religion. For every talented and successful person who joins Scientology it is a victory for evil and chaos in the Universe and is a devastating blow to causality and for the future of humanity. I cannot truly ever, express the full extent of my perplexity, horror and disgust at the fact that people, can be fooled by the most hideously grotesque philosophy that L.Ron.Hubbard wrote and managed to successfully create into a fully functioning religion. If God truly is a joker then the joke is most certainly on the Scientologists. For any person of reason and of common sense is not laughing along with Scientologists, any true person of reason and common sense can only laugh at them until they simply explode from the madness that is Scientology.

I laugh at Scientologists as well as Christians, Catholics, and the like. In other words, I laugh at anyone who honestly believes their religion is the truth.

Religion will be created by human beings in complete disregard to however any one particular individual feels about it. For every individual who hates religion, there are ten people for whom there is a market and therefore a need for a product (religion can be thought of as nothing but a product, a creation by the free will of the human mind), and therefore someone WILL create religion to fill the void. I'm a direct example of that almost inevitable premise although if one studies religion, history is resplendent with examples of religions that people just sat down and wrote and quite unfortunately to the detriment for the entire future of humanity, actually managed to found and maintain a group of followers for... There are only two choices in Existence: take the power to create religion and create religion for the benefit of humanity and for the purposes of stabilizing causality and therefore the future of humanity; or ignore the power to create religion and allow insane, power hungry maniacs to create religion for their own amusement and personal self-indulgence.

In my philosophy the single greatest statement is: "I don't know".

I don't know how Existence came into being. There are some interesting scientific theories, but they are hypothetical at best.

I don't know what governs Existence, or for that matter if anything governs Existence at all.

I don't know what happens to the personality of a person when they die.

I don't know what is going to happen in the future.

I don't know what the Universe expects of me.

One can take what one doesn't know about Existence and elevate that information and turn it into religion by a simple leap of intellectual and semantic gymnastics. The truth is, and of itself, sacred. There is no reason at all one cannot take the truth, even if the truth is "I don't know", in relation to any question one can ask about Existence and elevates the resulting philosophy into a conceptual framework and call it religion. It's simply an act of thought to do so. And passing down through the generations of humanity the truth about Existence, personally, I think helps to stabilize causality in general. One is less likely to strap a bomb to oneself and blow oneself up in a crowd of people if one believes that one doesn't know what the consequences of such a horrendous action will be. There is something more terrifying than believing that one knows there is a force beyond the mortal realm that will punish you for the actions you take in the Universe. I find it far more terrifying that I don't know, in any way at all, the full extent, of how extreme the punishment can actually be, if one leads a bad life. Of course the possibilities are endless. Nothing at all may happen when you die. One may simple cease to be. But that is how my philosophy works.

Techniqually one can take the fact that there is a limit to what human beings know, and do not know about Existence and reflect that reality in the philosophy of the religion they write.

54

A very simple definition of religion is that religion is just a mutual shared understanding of how to live and a mutual understanding about what is known and what is not known about Existence, between people, in general. Techniqually that mutual shared understanding of Existence between a group of people could be anything. A group of people may all decide as a group to believe that the moon is a God made of cheese. Of course, to be a religion worthy of Existence a religion should not just be some random set of ideas that a group of people believe about Existence. That would of course be insane. A religion should be solid information about what is truly known about Existence and what is not known. Science is obviously an integral part of how a Universalist understands Existence. Religion and science are two sides of the same coin in Universalism. A religion is just a way for a group of people to relate to each other. Of course as I have said in a past a religion can be created to be purely good, or purely evil, or just plain stupid and insane. Creating religion of a high enough quality to be worthy of Existence is of course the ultimate goal of any truly benevolent and gifted writer of the philosophy of a religion.

mm the phrase "a world in which I can have my Aspergers Syndrome, healed and corrected through science" struck me.

I don't think minority = wrong.

May I recommend you use the carriage return more often. I can't read really long pieces of unbroken text, and Nietszche wrote in 'aphorisms' short, pithy statements.

I am interested in Nietszche and in religion so I might have a look at it another time.

Welcome to the site. That's a big first post.

Okay I split the first passage up to make it more forum readable. I'm editing it from a printout, trust me, it's far more readable that way. My writing is really written in the format of a book. The format doesn't quite translate, from my word processor as a book to a forum post, cleanly. But it does give the general gist and the general direction the content of my writing takes.

The more feedback I get the more I'll edit it.

The forum mods moved my post to some ass end of the forums, which I am pretty much used to having being done to me. I'm fully aware of how freakish my gift is. It's unfortunate but cool, you know. This post will most likely fade away back into the digital void and me with it. I am kind of hoping people find some hope and consolation about their lives through the work I write but I am fully used to it fading away without a single person noticing it. One day, with a bit of luck, I'll get published and I won't have to give my philosophies away for free just for it to be appreciated. If I was neurotypical people would probably be lining up to buy into whatever weird ass s**t I am actually selling. Life has the most twitsted sense of humour.

Hehe, thanks, I'm kind of completely and absolutely bound to this way of thinking with every molecule of my being. Fun, fun, eh.

I don't actually like Nietszche. I only ever really read "Beyond Good and Evil" I found his work kind of over academic and kind of indigestible. But I did adopt his style of writing. I just can't properly organize information in the usual academic fashion. Truely I wish I could, people would probably actually notice me when I write my stuff at Uni if I could pull in the high marks.

I'm far more Douglas Adams than Nietszche, to be honest. Although I do tend to gravitate from profoundly serious, to as comedic as I can be. There is a kind of existential tragedy about my life that has given me quite a bent sense of humour.

Unfortunately, I have become somewhat adjusted to the inevitability that I will never live a neurotypical academic life.

I write in almost total solitude now, aside from the presence of my wife.

Although, I am battling to get back to University again. But to tell the truth, the mainstream neurotypical, academic culture is agonisingly painful to me.

At some point I might decide that my day to day peace of mind and quiet, is preferable to trying to combat the tyranny of my own genetics.

They've moved your post to the 'Getting to know you" forum, because (I imagine) it was your introductory post. Introductions often go there.

May I suggest you repost the cosmology/theology stuff in the PPR forum (that's Politics, Philosophy and Religion). You are much more likely to get a response there.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/forum20.html

I see you've added paragraphs, good idea.

I've had a quick read of the first post and it's mostly a teaser in which you talk up your (yet to be revealed) ideas. That's a good technique, but I would rather see the ideas. Again, better to post this stuff in the PPR forum.

To WrongPlanet!! !

I only edit it once or thrice a week, so yeh I am looking at it and actually adding some paragraphs to it at the moment to test out how it looks and see how I think about the changes. One has to keep in mind that my writing looks much different in a word wrapped word processer than it does on a forum page, but I am finding it easier to edit if I break it up, at least into a few paragraphs.

I wouldn't want to give to much of my philosophy away, wouldn't that just spoil the surprise? Geez, it would be so easy for me to add the information about the process of how one should go about actually attaining enlightenment. Where would be the fun in that?

Far enough, good point, I'll try the other forum and see how I go.

To tell the truth I avoid forums. Sometimes I just need to express myself in some kind of forum.

I would much prefer to be sharing my thought in an academic forum but unfortunately the absolute chronicness of my condition makes it hard to even post here let alone study at uni and function within the academic world.

The problem with Universalism is: there is a freaken lot of it. It's a whole religion in it's own right and most of it is locked up in my Aspergers afflicted brain.

Don't get me wrong a lot of it is also written down digitally in my own word processors.

Sharing it is extremily difficult, I would like to make a living out of it one day.

It's the only thing I have going for me.

I'm just trying to create some interest in it and get some feedback so I can see my own writing in a different light, so I can consequently write more of the damned stuff.

Unfortunately the very act of sharing it makes me want to run and hide back into seclusion.

I appreciate the fact that people havn't posted stuff in my post yet that is downright unconstructive.

sure, if you think you've got a saleable book then you don't want to give too much away. You will get detractors in the PPR forum, but they mostly hate any 'god' concept beliefs. especially christianity. You do get some intelligent posters there though. I know who the trolls are so I just blur my eyes when I see one of their posts. Have a lurk there, see what you think.

yah, I understand what your saying.

The irony of my situation is that I don't write religion because I am Christian, Muslim, Nuwabian Nation of Moors, or a Scientologist. The irony of my situation is that I am so completely horrified by the state of human religion that I am writing something that doesn't completely suck, to put it simply. I'm not anti semetic, I am completely anti human religion in relation to anything laughable that they have currently managed to create on this world. I am completely logical I know, almost for a fact that religion is going to be created by any idiot who comes along who thinks they can make a buck from it. So I have decided that it's time to create a religion that isn't complete rubbish. And here I am, you know, completely armed with the ability to write religion worthy of the gift of Existence faced with a world that has no examples of religion that are actually worth believing in. So, you know, it's up to me to do it. Life only knows why I bother. I just wish I was neurotypical I'd probably be making a freaken fortune with what I know. So just to make it interesting Life decided to curse me with the most crippling of cognitive/psychiatric of disorders and give me the most profound and benevolent of gifts. Seriously, I could just scream myself crazy sometimes at the tragic existentiality of my Life. I feel like I am a character in some twisted Douglass Adams novel. Yet, I cannot deny the power of my inate natural talent. So, here I am, you know, stuck on this forum until I retreat back into my cave of seclusion to continue the work that needs to be done.

The really strange thing about my Life though, is that I'm not a character from The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, or from Red Dwarf. I'm for real. I wake up everyday, and I'm still working on it, thinking about it, watching documentaries about it, reading academic books on it, reading journal articles about it. And everything I do actually adds up, and it equals the truth. And I feel so terribly alone. It seems a strange tragedy that one of the sanest people alive is to afraid to tell anyone what they think.

There are people in my family that are athiest. Their atheism is more laziness in relation to the fact that they don't want to deal with the whole issue of religion in general in the world.

Through my own examination and research it's just as stupid to be atheist as it is to believe in god, both positions are equally unprovable.

As I like to say, it's just as stupid to not beleive in God, as it is to actually beleive in God. Both positions are equally unprovable. I only wish I could claim credit for that premise. I can only claim credit for the fact that to know that one can neither know whether God exists, or whether God does not actually exist are both equally unprovable statements and that is essentially one of the keys to enlightenment if one wishes to truely understand Existence and wants to be enlightened, from the Human point of view.

Unfortunatly believing in God, or not believing in God, doesn't actually stop people from creating religion. Even more unfortunately I am the perfect example of the fact that people will create religion regardless of anyone's opinion on God, or religion or anything involved with the subject.

If I fail it's irrelevant. I'm still going to write and create religion. And if I'm going to do it then there are far less scrupulous people in the future who will do it with exactly the same disregard to how anyone thinks. And they won't be as unwell as I am and will most definitely succeed in creating even more religions that you hate.

The creation of religion is inevitable. Someone, somewhere is going to make it. And I'm not even giving you all the more serious theory that relates to what happens if someone creates religion that is designed to be purely evil. There are all kinds of ramifications that are a direct, practical, result from the theory that I write that relates to creating religion.

I'm just giving you a taste of this kind of philosophy. The full extent of the implication of this small taste I am giving you of this philosophy is beyond terrifying.

fine. it's just that in my experience, pretty well all 'new' religions just cherry pick stuff out of other older ones and some throw in a bit of sci fi as well. Since it's often being seen by an audience who have no background in the 'canon' of faith and sci fi, it can sell well and seem incredibly new, to them.

You can write, you aint stoopid, so have you sent your work or an outline of it to a publisher? I mean with things like "The Secret" or whatever it's called and the one before that and the one before that being big sellers, there is a market for this sort of thing.

Techniqually all the religions of the world and all the philosophy of Earth and the Universe is somehow inextricably interconnected. I call it the "Continuum of Human Religion". However, it is my opinion that, say for example Christianity, may actually have a few bits and peices that are actually salvagable and are actually useful, this doesn't make up for the fact that 99 percent of it is rubbish. I mean, seriously, come on "Be good to your fellow human beings"? Any idiot can work that out that wants to create benevolent religion, it's a complete no brainer. The philosophy of a religion is not something one should take lightly, it's simply not good enough for 1 percent of a religion to be vaguely useful. A religion has to be considered in it's totality and if 99 percent of a religion is rubbish then it is a failed experiment in the human sphere of Existence in relation to the potential of what a religion can be created to be. I don't know how many times a Muslim or even a Ba'hai, and the Bahai'ulah's sputum, has pointed out minniscule aspects of the Koran or the Bahai'ulahs elegant if totally laughable work of religion, and said "hey you know this stuff was way ahead of it's time", seriously who gives a flying frick if a minniscule part of the Koran was way ahead of it's time if 99 percent of the Koran is so incredably, laughably primitive in concept. That 1 percent they hold up just doesn't justify Islam as useful. I certainly wouldn't want to pass that 1 percent of Islam that is actually useful onto my poor children, our future generations of humanity deserve better than that 1 measily percent of a religion that is worth knowing. A religion should always be considered as a whole as to it's worth. And if a religion such as Islam is 99 percent rubbish, then the 1 percent that is worthwhile, should be synthesised it into the philosophy of a religion that is at least 80 percent useful in it's entirety. Of course this is only off the top of my head theory in relation to the theory of how one should write religion properly. The actual practicality of writing religion based on the theory I am giving you is a tad more difficult than it sounds.

Yeh it's really hard to write religion that isn't total rubbish. I find all this modern rubbish people are pumping out an insult to any truely intelligent mind.

I would be lying if I said that my own religion wasn't in some ways a synthesis of information from a vast variety of sources and in many places some of my work is an original creation of my own mind. A Universalist has the right to take all the information collected by humanity and has the right to pick and choose what is useful. That is easier said than done though. I read science fiction for enjoyment but my work is more derived from science and from the history of philosophy than from science fiction. One might be surprised just how much can be learned from a good work of science fiction though. My heroes and influences are Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Keppler, Thomas. H. Huxley-most especially (he was Aldous Huxley's grandfather or great great grandfather or something), Socrates, David Hume, Charles Darwin. The difference between myself and scientology, my most despised of nemesis, is that my work is actually based on scientific method, it is based on reason. L.Ron.Hubbard claimed scientology was a fusion of science and religion which is completely rubbish. In fact what he created was about as completely a perverted version of what a fusion of science and religion would be, in relation to the fact that it is the right of any intelligent living being to write the philosophy of a religion in any way they choose. He has completely perverted one of the most beautiful philosophies imaginable into something horrific. Universalism, however is a true fusion of science and religion. One cannot be a full Universalist without at least the most fundamental understanding of certain principles of science and one can certainly not be a truely accomplished Universalist without a great deal of understanding of the philosophy and history of science. This area of my Work, I cannot fully share to you, gives the right for anyone in the future who is more able than myself to edit and revise and improve my philosophies beyond anything I was capable in my own lifetime. Universalism is an evolutionary philosophy in which the original author is a secondary concern in relation to the upgrading and improvement of Universalism as a philosophy. In a sense, which I have just thought of at this moment, Universalism is- Open Source Religion. I am giving you the source material, even here in this forum page to rewrite, upgrade and improve Universalism as you see fit. The difference between Universalism and many of the other religions of the world is that I am nothing in relation to what I write, however grudgingly, even depressingly to my own self. I am to be respected, true, as the author of the work, but in the end my actual contribution to writing Universalism is completely and absolutely secondary to the actual writing itself. I am completely selfless in that regard. I am nothing but a servant to the philosophy of the religion I write. I whole heartedly give anyone who thinks they can do a better job than I can, which is a certain inevitability as humanity becomes far more intelligent over the millenia than I can imagine and can take my work and can upgrade and improve it in anyway they see fit. I consider writing religion worthy of the gift of Existence one of the hardest things in the Universe to do, so they had better have as high a level of perfectionism as I hold my own self to. Unlike other religions in the world I demand that all people who read my work, examine every molecule of what I write and try to authenticate whether my writing is an accurate reflection of the reality of the Existence humanity lives in. But should someone choose to take on my challenge then I expect them to maintain the insanely high level of precision, perfectionism, exactitude, and accuracy that I expect of myself. If not in their actual spelling, but certainly in their actual conceptual frameworks they create.

I'v done a very brief study of the history and philosophy of science. I am not sure that you all, the readers on this forum know much about Isaac Newton and what he did. He was totally paranoid that people would take his work and claim credit for it. I can understand how he feels. My brief study of Newton suggests to me that he was also a healthy person, with a healthy brain and could work inexhaustably, much like L.Ron.Hubbard could work inexhaustably. I do not have that luxury. I am not healthy in my brain. That is why I am sharing on this forum these ideas of incalcuable value. I am hoping that in some way I am reaching some of the people on this forum and giving the people of this forum something that they can relate to, because quite honestly I am afraid that I will die without any of my ideas ever being known to anyone. I hope to be published one day, that is true. But the absolute agony I go through day to day struggling against a neurological/cognitive anomoly that I have absolutely no control of, may make it impossible for me to reach anyone at all, let alone a publisher. Enjoy my work, remember that the very stress of putting my thoughts here may make it so that I retreat back into absolute seclusion and that you will never see anymore of what I have to say. Do not underestimate the value of what I am giving to the readers of this forum, currently, for free. Techniqually what I write is my gift to humanity. I hope to make a living from what I write. If my brain was healthy I would have universities to build, schools to build, scientific research of every kind to finance. And I have the entire of humanity to try and touch with the phillosophies I write and I am currently giving some of the most significant insights into the nature of Existence that I have worked out, to you, for free. My ambitions far outstrip my broken brain and physiology. So, here I am humbling myself before you, the readers of this forum.

I worked out something very important, early in my study of religion. There are essentially only two choices in relation to religion. Either create religion, or ignore it. Ignoring religion or lashing out against it for the sake of it is just a cop out to me. One can argue that religion is useless till they die from old age, in the end someone like me is going to step up and create it whether you like it or not, and unlike me, they may not be ill, and they may not be benevolent... The difference being, between myself and other people, is that people will create religion without any concern for the future of humanity and the general well being of the individual. I'm different I see a that religion can be created for the benefit of humanity and that the philosophy of a religion doesn't have to be completely insane total rubbish. The creation of religion is almost inevitable. Someone has to do it. Someone will do it. You can't stop people creating religion. You can choose to ignore religion, you can lash out and fight against it's Existence but that accomplishes nothing. A government can make religion illegal, it can repress it as much as it likes and religion will then just go underground. And God only knows how horrendous the repurcussions will are, of a religion that is forced to go underground, will be, once it resurfaces and decides to rebel. Holy war of incomprehensible scale and destruction, springs to mind. I have this general philosophy that a person should either step up and do something constructive about religion or step aside and leave it to the experts. Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up, as I like to say. A lot of people hate religion but they don't actually do anything constructive to rectify the situation. I have this opinion, where it's like, if a person doesn't like religion then shutup or do something real about it. I am the man who has stepped up and is doing something real. One cannot remove religion from human culture anymore than you can stop breathing because you don't like oxygen.

Pick up a dictionary of religion from any bookshop and you will find reference after reference of religions that you have never even heard of. There is in a sense no such thing as a cult. You have primitive tribal religions, you have the dark age of religion from around A.D 0 to about the 1800's and then you have new religious movements. Cults is just a derogatory terms for religion people don't like. Whether a religion has 50 followers or 10 million followers, or a billion followers they are all religions. I consider almost every religion I have studied from the earliest most primal of human religions to the most modern of new religious movements all completely failed experiments in religion. If one limits one's mind to the examples of human religions that exist then one, if they have any true level of reason and intelligence is going to be sorely dissapointed. Basically there is no religion of quality that exists on Earth that I can hold up as an example of a exemplary example of a religion worthy of the gift of Existence. Through Universalism I have taken the kinds of levels of perfectism, exactitude and extreme high level of standards that a man such as Newton would have expected of themselves and have developed theory and rules that relate to writing religion. I am quite Socratic, if Socrates lived in the 21st century, with humanities current level of understanding of the Universe and Existence and I have defined rules that I adhere to when I write my religion. That doesn't mean I don't use a degree of artistic licence when I write religion but I do adhere to my own rules. My goal is to write religion, and actually write theory that people should consider if they truely want to write religion that actually reflects the reality of the Existence we live in.

I like to use the example of what happens to the personality of a person when they die. It's a question I like to ask people. There is a correct answer to the question. Nobody from all of human history has any accurate, empirically verifiable evidence in relation to what happens to the personality of a person when they die. I elevate this truth and I turn it into religion. I say it is okay not to know the truth. This is the fundamental principle of how Universalism functions as a high quality of religion. The whole purpose of Universalism is to tell the truth to the very extent of human ability. If the truth is that there is no actual information about what happens to the personality of a person when they die, then that can be transformed into the philosophy of a religion and it is what we pass from generation to generation. My wife was Christian, she was Catholic. But I taught her that, nothing is known about what happens to the personality of a person when they die. Techniqually, she had never heard such philosophy before and certainly not philosophy such as this transformed into religion. Now she believes that no one knows what happens to the personality of a person when they die. Such information might be self evident to anyone with a degree of rationality and with a solid mind. But she was brought up to believe in heaven and hell from birth and I converted her to my religion. When we have children she will teach our children Universalist philosophy. Hopefully our children will learn this Universalist philosophy and they will become smarter and more agile of mind than those around them, even if we teach our children to blend into mainstream society and hide their knowledge from people less enlightened then themselves.

Stoopid hehe, yer funny I likes you.

Writing the way I do has taken me over twenty years to perfect and I feel like I am just starting to get a handle on it.

This is one of the problems of having a severe neurological/psychiatric anomoly.

I just can't seem to focus on the practicalities of publishing. Not only that, once people work out exactly how sick I really am I become a pariah, no one wants to touch me, academics have ostracised me, general practioners don't know what to do with me, psychologists have wiped their hands of me, psychiatrists have been completely unsympathetic to my suffering, no-one wants to touch me. I was ex communicated from the Ba'hai religion because they were threatened by my mind, which quite truthfully was a bit of a blessing, it was only a matter of time before I would have started to despise them and their blind fanaticism to a writer of religion who work in it's totality sickened me to the core of my being. What can I say I was lonely and bored at the time and needed someone to talk to about religion.

I'v only in the last few weeks thought about actually approaching a publisher with some of my more polished work.

It takes me monthes and years to write this stuff. I read what I have written about one to three times a week and either write new stuff or edit old stuff, it's an extremily time consuming process and honestly while I do have a huge amount of writing under my belt it's still pretty disorganized across dozons of documents.

I'm just in the process now of trying to clean it up and put it all together in some kind of organized format that I can present to a publisher as a proof of concept.

It just seems impossible to me to break out of my day to day rituals and get my ass to a publisher. But I am trying.

I use the analogy of railway tracks to describe what it feels like to be me. It feels like I am a train stuck on tracks every day hurtling along and rarely being able to actually break free from those tracks long enough to do anything practical with my life.

But I am trying to polish up the new writing I have done this year, some of which I have given examples of here in this particular forum page. I edit it about once a week and you would be amazed how many times I have to read it and add commas, or rewrite sentences to be more readable or just change words into other words that I think more accurately describe what I am trying to explain. It's an exhausting process. But I am trying to polish some of my stuff up enough at the moment that can be used to gain a publishers interest.

You just have no idea of the level of exactitude, perfectionism and the extremely high level of standards I expect and demand of every single passage of my work before I feel it is ready.

Just in the small time I have been writing in this page on this forum I have made so many small adjustments to the writing I have given you that it's already obsolete, even if the basic content is the same level of polish, as the stuff I have written here it is already improved.

I could go on but your noise to signal ratio is still a bit ruff. Try this on for noise to signal ratio and realize that here also lies the fundamentals of how to build a functional religion.

----------------------


ETHICS General

1. Endeavor to do the least possible or no harm to all persons, property, life, liberty, livelihood, environment, self, others, family, community, Country, World, Economies,
Children, Elders, Workers, Voters, and Ecosystems. (And so forth.)
2. Endeavor to make all of ones labor to meet ones own needs also coincide with the maximum energy potential of benefit to others. Practice the law of charity and reap
the rewards of the law of karma. Give your best to others and go the extra mile, for the
good of all, for the benefit of all of ones relations.
3. Emotions derive from primary instincts. Flight renders fear and fight renders Rage.
4. Emotional Energies are best resolved via right action problem solving process, not
allowing emotion to guide or control ones thinking or process.
5. The 1st and second principle applies as a matrix to the whole Needs Pyramid. That Pyramid consists of Physical needs at the base, social needs, emotional needs, mental
needs and spiritual needs at the top.
6. We only move up through the pyramid of needs one need at a time and in order of
priority for survival. Needs are coded as instincts that drive all of human behavior. All
behavior is tactic to meet ones needs. Behavior which harms others or which fails to benefit the whole of society is unethical behavior, but it must be understood to exist
as a psychology which is an instinct attached to a bad problem solving tactic. People
only act to meet their needs, if they act badly, what they need to act better is a better
tactic.
7. Thus do no harm and work for the good of all as you climb your pyramid of needs
and be cognizant of what your needs are, and lucid in terms of having good tactics that
are socially beneficial for meeting your needs.
8. Most morality can be expressed as iterations of the do no harm rule. Do no harm against ones relationship with spirit, Do no harm which would kill another person, do no
harm by stealing or thieving, do no harm by potentially transmitting STDS i.e., law against
Adultery, the list goes on etc; most of the Ten Commandments can be rewritten as specific details of the do no harm rule.
9. Ethics is the process of reconciling the needs of society with the drives of the Reptilian
and Mammalian Brain and thus Ethics are the laws of nature which allow us to exist in
peace as a culture or society instead of continuing the law of the jungle.
10. We are spirits in animal bodies, and there is a law of the jungle under our skins which must be somehow evolved and cultivated into cooperation (and cooperative
process) rather than violence (and violence as a problem solving process.) The law of the jungle is violence. The law of Angels is Cooperation.
11. Everything is connected to everything else, thus anything you do to another you do
to yourself. This becomes increasingly true as the law of karma carries out its permutation selections of what would otherwise be random chance rendering thus
synchronicities.
12. A person cannot obtain waking altered states of consciousness until they resolve
the assorted shadow issues of the Mammalian and Reptilian Mind.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ET/
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/e/ethics.htm
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/de ... thics.html
http://ethics.sandiego.edu/
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/lymedisease/112259
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/228/execution-ethics.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere
http://www.conbio.org/cip/article74har.cfm
http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/p ... s/good.asp
http://skeptically.org/ethicsutility/id10.html
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0g ... -501&x=wrt
http://www.globaljusticemovement.org/mission_ethics.htm

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1Cr/1Cr013.html
http://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/13
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/13/1a?cr=1
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/c/41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_13

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma1.htm
http://world.std.com/~aditya/BB/Law%20of%20KARMA4.htm
http://www.ncf.ca/freenet/rootdir/menus ... arma2.html
http://www.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2 ... fall02.htm
http://www.purifymind.com/YogaKarma.htm
http://www.purifymind.com/UnderstandKarma.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle
http://www.eyeoftheneedle.net/Church%20 ... needle.htm
http://www.debunker.com/texts/needleye.html
http://www.shamar.org/articles/camel-needle.php


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instinct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct
http://www.actualfreedom.com.au/library ... tincts.htm
http://drbeetle.homestead.com/mindrules.html
http://www.neurosemantics.com/Stutterin ... attern.htm

http://www.barrettdorko.com/articles/supress.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/bl ... brain.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_h ... y_of_needs
http://crs.uvm.edu/gopher/nerl/group/b/c/PyN.html
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psycholo ... ramid.html
http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer ... iles14.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0817-13.htm
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Anthro/An ... actice.htm
http://www.atam.org/SerpentBrain.html
http://www.psycheducation.org/emotion/R%20complex.htm
 HYPERLINK "http://www.geocities.com/somewherereal/YourBrain.html"
http://www.geocities.com/somewherereal/YourBrain.html


PSYCHOLOGY General
1.Psychology is the study of the human mind. Most specifically the psyche, most generally All of human behavior.
2. The human Brain is composed of between 40 and 70 different organs, depending upon
how you define differences. These are called brodmanns brain areas. Each brain area
is responsible for specific types of brain processes and mental functions.
3. The human mind has four main operational conditions, they are beta brainwave states, alpha brainwave states, delta brainwave states, and theta brainwave states. Each of these might be further subdivided into waking or sleeping states of consciousness.
4. Beta brainwave states are those in which the dominant area of the brain is the frontal lobes. Alpha brainwave states are those in which the dominant area of the brain is the Mammalian brain or Occipital lobes, and Delta brainwaves states are those where the brain is dominated by the Reptilian Brain or brain stem. Theta brain wave states are
a second waking condition in which the body is healed, or, in which the normal flow of
dominance from top of brain to bottom of brain is reversed, and the bottom of the brain
loads information into the top, which is then experienced as dreams.
5. We have instincts which compel us to seek out gratification of our needs. All behavior is motivated by a conscious or unconscious belief that said behavior will get some need met.
6. Psychology involves first an instinct, which compels a thought process, and then a planning or strategizing session in which the individual uses their maps of reality and belief systems as well as learned knowledge and social conditioning to arrive at an end
product of doing something to get what you want. Schema are maps of reality which we
use as tools to meet our needs .Social Conditioning and personal experience and learning
play vital roles in helping the mind to think up tactics to meet needs.
7. Criminal behavior is behavior which that person believes will get their needs met. Punishment was well demonstrated to have little or no effect on learning curve. What is required for a person to change their behavior is a functional tactic that does work to get their needs met.
8. Groupthink is a social phenomenon of psychology where a group uses false
consensus process to end up behaving stupidly as a group. Groupthink occurs when
people cave into social pressures, where propaganda replaces knowledge or facts, and where group identity is created out of participation in group delusions, lies, codependency, or criminality. Groupthink is how a mob drifts to the lowest common denominator, and why a mob is potentially vicious, evil, and sociopathic. Group
authority ameliorates and dissolves personal conscience, and by having their emotions
manipulated and their social identity threatened, people give up their own better judgment and accept the judgment of the most psychopathic member of the group.
9. Pack Psychology is the psychology exhibited primarily by mammals in small groups
in which 3 primary roles are assumed by social participants. The roles are Alpha- the leader, Beta- the followers, and Delta- the orbiters. In human society that translates in a super-simplified way into bullies, cliques, and nerds.
10. Problem solving psychology must contend against groupthink and pack psychology in the arena of opinion. Problem solving psychology is emotionally neutral and uses the mind and logic to look at all aspects of a problem and try to come up with a viable problem solving process. Problem solving psychology is the worst enemy of both
Rightist and Leftist Dogmatists. True problem solving psychology comes from the place of the radical middle. It takes in all sides and all viewpoints, and it gives each its fair dues
And attention in creating a problem solving process that works from the big picture down through into the nano details.


Psychology;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology
http://psychology.about.com/
http://www.psychology.org/
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-psychlgy.html
http://www.socialpsychology.org/

Brodmanns brain areas and etc;
http://www.umich.edu/~cogneuro/jpg/Brodmann.html
http://spot.colorado.edu/~dubin/talks/b ... dmann.html
http://www.whale.to/b/brain.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodmann_area
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... uman_brain
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsule ... une05.html
http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmccaff/syllab ... unit4.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/qa2.html

brainwaves;
http://www.brainwaves.com/brain.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/unohu/brainwaves.htm
http://brain.web-us.com/brainwavesfunction.htm
http://www.crossroadsinstitute.org/eeg.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwaves

SOCIOLOGY General
1. Sociology is the study of groups of people, how they interact, how they create and hold group structures and group identities, how they band together, how they deal with conflicts, and everything that whole groups of people do.
2. Sociology studies social units such as families, packs, tribes, villages, cities, hives, herds, and mobs.
3. The precarious balance of true democracy is that society must balance social welfare and social support and services against the counterweight of free enterprise. If the balance falls off towards social welfare, the society falls into entropy as the government destroys
private enterprise to fund social services. The result is socialism, which always decays into its own form of totalitarianism. If the balance falls off the other way, then free enterprise results in a plutocracy and then an oligarchy followed by mild oligarchic mercantilist fascism and then a severe oligarchic fascism. Socialism is not a whole goal
or endpoint we wish to arrive at, but the system "as is" is out of balance resulting in a corporate oligarchy. The only way to fix this is to return the power back to the people and
restore a genuine democracy.
4. Sociology understands that social phenomenon are very complicated, and that social problems have many underlying contributing causes for any given effect. Oversimplification, blaming, black and white thinking, and false dilemmas do not help to solve problems in a real way.
5. People are conditioned to behave by their social environment. Personal responsibility is important, but where statistics show a trend in negative or antisocial behaviors, Society
as a whole must shoulder some part of the blame and work to improve conditions socially
just as it works to rehabilitate the criminal, so should it seek to rehabilitate itself.
6. People have several layers of personal space, a psychological truth which is mostly subliminal, but which nonetheless governs almost all social interactions. People should learn to consciously understand personal space to cut down on miscommunication and stress due to problems handling personal space issues.
7. The best way to run a democratic system is by using consensus process to the point of
a clear and overwhelming (two thirds) majority. Consensus process means talking about and working out issues and differences to arrive at a mutually beneficial compromise much of the time.
8. The best guardian of the balance between socialism and free enterprise is intellectual meritocracy. A functional society should be free of propaganda, should not have anti-intellectualism, and should consider ideas on their rational merit, not according to what
others have to say or social pressures, but by means of a reproducible rational problem
solving application of intelligence and knowledge.


Sociology Introduction;
http://www.thomsonedu.com/thomsonedu/di ... enumber=14
http://www.polity.co.uk/sociology/sociology_txtbks.asp
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0 ... mmary.html
http://www.sdsmt.edu/online-courses/is/soc100/Intro.htm
http://www.sdsmt.edu/online-courses/is/ ... ourse.html
http://www2.wwnorton.com/college/soc/giddens5/
http://www.camden.rutgers.edu/~wood/207syl.htm
http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI2110/soci1.htm

Types of Government;
http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/WorldAff ... fgovt.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_ ... 151570.stm
http://home.earthlink.net/~kingsidebishop/id2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government
http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americanc ... rnment.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fo ... government

Social Conditioning;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conditioning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 833AAzVVlZ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_learning_theory
http://www.dailyom.com/articles/2006/4952.html
http://changingminds.org/techniques/con ... ioning.htm
http://www.winthrop.edu/english/nosearc ... social.htm

Pavlov;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov
http://www.psyhist.com/conditioning.html
http://www.sntp.net/behaviorism/pavlov.htm
http://users.cwnet.com/phelps/pavlov.htm
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0497_ ... orism.html
http://tip.psychology.org/skinner.html
http://www.brembs.net/operant/
http://psychology.about.com/od/behavior ... opcond.htm


EDUCATION REFORM General
Curiosity drives learning if it is allowed to do so and not shut down.
Curiosity is shut down via the current system, creating the ADD disorder sudden appearance on the charts. One half of ADD is a person who can’t pay attention. The other half is a boring culture, delivery of information modus
operandi.
Curiosity driven learning involves more brain area participation. If a person doesn’t really like their experience, the subconscious mind edits it and doesn’t learn from it. Using curiosity driven learning potentially accelerates the learning curve such that it would not be unreasonable for the society of the future to expect the equivalent of a multiple PhD education from High School.
The largest obstacle to curiosity driven learning is the current student to teacher ratio. Curiosity driven learning requires a personal curriculum to be developed per child, an enormous labor process for most teachers. The cure is to use peer tutoring, and older child tutoring in conjunction with professional testers. Teachers are being asked do two different jobs, Teaching and Testing. Testing is incredibly underutilized. How can you know what a child is ready to learn if you have not learned from them who they are and what they know already?
The second largest obstacle is a lazy educational system which must be corrected
and re-educated itself. The educational paradigm being taught for use is not the one which is being taught in reform education psychology and sociology classes.
The first battery of tests should be; IQ tests, aptitude tests, Sanity tests, Type of intelligence per intelligence tests, learning style tests, performance tests, peer skills tests, comprehensive topical subject tests, and in general, any test which can be used to effectively appraise an individual child for the purposes of creating for that child a personalized curriculum.
The topics of psychology, sociology, conversational logic, and ethics should be added to the current curriculum for all Middle School (ages 12 to 14 or grades 6 thru and High Schools
Personality differences including learning styles and Types of intelligence
Can mean that people learn in very different ways. Groups of students should be organized without regard so much to age as to learning style. A class full of visual
Learners from 3 age groups is better than a class full of kinesthetic learners and visual learners who find each other distracting and each others interactions with the teacher bizarre. Throw in some introverts and some extroverts and a speed-reader or two, and a teachers modus operandi cannot hope to reach well the different types of Students that s/he is teaching.
10. Our society is composed of a population which is by about 50 percent Anti-intellectual. (As part of a deep and long term attempt at denial of science facts)
The sheeple will crucify the nerds, that’s the end result of pack psychology and anti-intellectualist mob events. Both alleged “Sides” in the great orchestrated argument between left and right are delusional dogmatist simple minded over simplified versions of reality, oversimplified problem solving process, and thus oversimplified and therefore
Usually counterproductive pseudo solutions. Polarity does not contain sanity, both sides are polarized via each other, but the line that connects those two dots at no point in time Ever gets around to the big picture or the whole truth. Evolution and mother nature will on the other hand favor the nerds.

Education reform;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_reform
http://www1.worldbank.org/education/glo ... ionreform/
http://www.education-reform.net/
http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Educatio ... on_Reform/

Curiousity driven Learning
http://www.csl.sony.fr/~py/developmentalRobotics.htm
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/interest.html
http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/Curiosity.asp
http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00h/students/explore.htm


Types of Intelligence;
http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/wh ... types.html
http://www.ldpride.net/learningstyles.MI.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_intelligences

Learning Styles;
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Learning_Styles.html
http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html
http://www.chaminade.org/inspire/learnstl.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles
http://www.funderstanding.com/learning_styles.cfm

Student Teacher Ratio:
http://www.edspresso.com/?OVRAW=educati ... C=advanced
http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseA ... ctionID=97
http://www.dreamagic.com/jesse/isedurat.html

Anti Intellectualism;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism
http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i15/15b00701.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectual ... 0394703170
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0121/p17s02-lehl.html
http://mtprof.msun.edu/Spr1997/TROUT-ST.html
http://www.wayofthemind.org/2006/07/26/ ... ectualism/
https://urresearch.rochester.edu/retrie ... ualism.pdf
http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/ ... Maine+news

CIVIL ENGINEERING General
Civil Engineering is about how to build society or civilization from the nuts and bolts pragmatic perspective. A civil engineer is unconcerned with personally understanding
The social impact of their work unless they are specifically asked to think about that.
Rather, what a Civil engineer thinks about is how to build a structure, have it last, have
It mesh with its environment, have water flow around it, have wind not push it over. A Civil Engineer builds what society asks for generally, adding the details that make a description into an operational reality.
Many social and civil problems have civil engineering components. Energy usage
And creation, for instance, has both a social and a civil level as problems to be solved. Zoning laws and other social considerations limit what a civil engineer can do. And, rightly, civil engineering realities create limits for sociologists. Civil engineers are concerned with how efficiently resources are used, how much load a structure can bear, how well a structure accommodates traffic, and other details such as environmental impact.
Civil Engineering has aesthetic components, resource management components, construction components, and other issues which must be juggled for a good overall design and implementation.
Serious solutions for assorted problems are implied by depth understanding of civil engineering issues. Poverty for instance can in theory be out civil engineered by building the structures that are needed to house people, employment, education, and social welfare systems. The solution for instance to the Palestinian problem once diplomacy has finished is civil engineering; building the new State of Palestine and simultaneously building a strong Israel. Eco Villages, Tribal Arcologies, Permaculture,
Cable cars, Solar power, Geothermal power, Wind power, Tidal power, and other such
Civil engineering solutions can solve myriads of problems that would be untenable from the sociologist’s desk alone. Simultaneously, Good civil engineering requires us to be honest about things that don’t work, such as fossil fuels, bio-fuels, nuclear power, hydroelectric power from rivers and dams, and individualized mass transportation.
Ideally, most people should live in communities rather than in nuclear families
Cut off from community support, and communities should maintain community gardens
And local employment to increase the efficiency of civilization as a whole.

Civil Engineering;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering
http://www.icivilengineer.com/
https://engineering.purdue.edu/CE/
http://www.unm.edu/~civil/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_engineering
http://whatiscivilengineering.csce.ca/



Economic Social Justice;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_justice
http://indymedia.us/en/topic/economicju ... hive.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/community.htm
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/economicju ... efined.htm
http://www.cesj.org/


Eco-Village;
http://www.gaia.org/gaia/
http://gen.ecovillage.org/
http://www.ecosustainablevillage.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-village

Arcologies;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcologies
http://www.arcosanti.org/theory/arcology/main.html
http://www.arcology.com/
http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Self-suf ... Arcologies

Permaculture;
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/perma.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
http://www.permaculture.net/about/definitions.html
http://www.permaculture.net/about/brief ... ction.html
http://www.permaculture.org/nm/index.php/site/index/


Cable Cars;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_car
http://www.rickly.com/sgi/cable_cars.htm
http://www.cable-car-guy.com/html/ccmain.html
http://www.photovault.com/Link/Vehicles ... ume01.html

Solar Power;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/
http://www.montanagreenpower.com/solar/index.html

Geothermal Power
http://geothermal.marin.org/pwrheat.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/powerplants.html
http://geothermal.marin.org/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15749933/

Wind Power;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_wind.html

Tidal Power;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinv ... _power.htm
http://waterpower.hypermart.net/tidal.html
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_ ... 0Power.htm

POLITICAL SCIENCE General
What kind of government does the USA have? What kind of government does Santa Barbara have? Because while it is intended to be an approximation of democracy, via
The process of representation, how much representation does the common person have
In a false dilemma war between republican and democrat? How much access do we have
To our representation? How much does our representation really work to represent us? And are they loyal to the people, or, are they loyal to that fraction of the people who can afford to belong to the aristocrat class? In theory, the political process is where and how society codes ethics and social and civil engineering into actual laws and rules and actions of the government. Politics might be defined as that sphere of social reality devoted to government, and in a democracy, Political science becomes the complicated process of getting social participants to fully invest in their own self governance.
Political science is thus about the cycle of communication, ideation, and manifestation of social and civil self administration. In America, this is a dialogue allegedly between any and all, but in reality, it is a monologue with two sock puppets
Taking up all of the air space. What difference is there between the $rich$ leftists and the
$rich$ rightists? Both rule over the under-caste of laborers and Workers, who in truth end up having little or no say in government. The masses are drowned out by two sock puppets screaming at each other.
Political Science combines all other sciences in one way or another. It involves Ethics, Morality, Physics, Architecture, Psychology, Sociology, Law, communications, Logic, and in one way or another every other science or paradigm. The subtopics of Political science are therefore Political Science sub all of the other Sciences and paradigms. But do our representatives have the information they need to juggle so many
Problems and issues? Do we as a society have a problem solving process, and are we solving problems? Or are we mostly making social problems worse by complicating society?
Perhaps more importantly, all of the sciences have bearing on Political Science.
Communications theory gives us solutions to most problems in government which we simply fail to employ. Civil Engineering tells us with mathematical certainty what the
Consequences are of building or failing to build any given thing. Sociology has the answers easily to almost all serious social problems. Hard Science can solve the energy
Crunch. The problem is that people are allowing money to make the decisions, not a lucid
Problem solving process. The problem is that the answers the sciences have to give us are being ignored, so that power hungry fools can continue to stay on top of their power-play games, and stay cozy, unaffected by truth or knowledge or reason.
All opinions were not created equal. The perspective of a sociologist is simply a more well formed perspective than a laypersons is if we are to seriously consider solving social problems. Opinion is based in emotions, in simplifications, and usually, in leftist or rightist sponsored propaganda. But neither left nor right side is interested in solving problems, as much as they are trapped in a net of their own making of lies they told themselves often enough that they believed them. The saddest part of ignorance is that if
People would just slow down, they could take the time to educate themselves.

Political Science;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Political-Science/index.htm
http://www.apsanet.org/
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-91 ... al-science

Propaganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
http://www.propagandacritic.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Propaganda
http://www.esrnational.org/whatispropaganda.htm
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109443/propaganda
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 632AAcIoJT
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... techniques
http://www.serendipity.li/more/propagan.html
http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propagan ... iques.html
http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/l ... asp?id=405

Types of government;
http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/WorldAff ... fgovt.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_ ... 151570.stm
http://home.earthlink.net/~kingsidebishop/id2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government
http://www.twyman-whitney.com/americanc ... rnment.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fo ... government





Oligarchy;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9057016/oligarchy
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ol/oligarch.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oligarchy
http://www.oligarchyusa.com/
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200 ... 2005-03-30
http://www.democracymatters.org/article ... select=458
http://familyrightsassociation.com/news ... garchy.htm
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/15598 ... _Oligarchy
http://www.irregulartimes.com/oligarchy.html

Class warfare;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Warfare
http://www.therationalradical.com/outra ... arfare.htm
http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/technol ... rfare.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalg ... =3&pid=292
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/busin ... nd&emc=rss
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 547AAc3Bjq