A New T-party

Serving IT, ET, NT, GT, BT, ST, MT and many, many more T's 

Return to the Forthuyse Home Page http://forthuyse.googlepages.com/home

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Olbers' paradox in action

Olbers paradox

described by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers in 1823 (but not published until 1826 by Bode) and earlier by Johannes Kepler in 1610 and Halley and Cheseaux in the 18th century, is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the supposition of an infinite and eternal static universe. It is one of the pieces of evidence for a non-static universe such as the current Big Bang model. This "paradox" is sometimes also known as the "dark night sky paradox" (see physical paradox).

Over the many centuries human beings have gazed into the night sky and wondered about the mysteries of the universe, people sitting around campfires and perhaps even before campfires were invented, have told each other stories about the great mystery. Many of the stories they told each other were quite absurd if you applied rational thinking--except that there was a rationale for telling each other such stories. For one thing, it tended to allay fears by exerting a sense of control over reality. Apart from that, the human mind is a curious mind. It wonders as it wanders off in imagined worlds of human fabrication. The mind does that because the mind can do it--for what the mind can do it usually does, unless restrained.

It is a mind that refuses to accept "no''  for an answer to the question:  is there any meaning to all of this? And by this is meant all that the mind perceives.  The mind cannot accept such a denial of meaning, because meaning and the search for meaning is its raison d'être, its reason for being.  But there really is nothing that can explain anything we see, hear, or otherwise experience in any ultimate or absolute sense. 

Everything we are, experience or perceive is based in a great mystery. There are many smaller, subsidiary mysteries which we have been able to explain in an untold number and variety of systematic world views, some rational, some less so--and some quite absurd. The mind enjoys what it does and enjoys sharing with others what it does. Thus stories are told--stories that connect otherwise lonely people with each other in families, clans and other social groups and with those who lived in the past, or may yet live in the future.

Thus the legends of history and prophesies of the future originated. Literatures  as written stories and drama as enacted stories were their off-spring. Religion too had its origin in these primary sources. The problem with some religions, in particular the revealed religions, is that they have refused to acknowledge their family connections  and insist instead that they were foundlings--more or less dropped from the sky. 

The story of Moses (a name which is actually the Egyptian word for 'child')  is a prime example of this religious metaphore of the foundling--but so were for instance the founders of Rome, Remus and Romulus, twin boys raised by a she-wolf.

The Greeks told each other the stories of the Dioscuri or Dioskouroi in Greek--the twin sons of Zeus. Nice looking boys by the way as shown in the following statues--kouros is the generic Greek word for a 'youth': 

Castor and Pollux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  

    Busto de Zeus hallado en Otricoli (Sala Rotonda, Museo Pío-Clementino, Vaticano).  Ancient Greek marble statue of one of the Dioskouroi

Zeus flanked by his twin sons, an archaic youth or kouros and its classical version

There are many other such twin foundling stories, for instance in the Popol Vuh, the creation story of the Maya, generally acknowledged to be the greatest literature produced  in pre-Columbian America. To the Mayans of course the stories of these twins were more than that--to them they were the religious truth.

But ladies and gentlemen, as Biden would say,  that was thousands of years ago!

Popol Vuh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The most rational systematic world view has been the one that recognizes logic as it prime directive. Logic is based on what a rational mind will accept as self evident if presented in a step by step argument. But a logic that starts from an absurd, non self evident premise will acquire the aura of acceptability to those who have been raised or persuaded to accept the absurd premise, be they Greek, Roman, Mayan or Christian.

Scientists always undertake to test non self-evident premises, whether plausible or absurd, by experimentation that seeks to find fault with the premise. Any premise that is both non self-evident and incapable of experimentation that might find it lacking in veracity cannot support further scientific conclusions.  In short, any scientific theory must be  subjected to what is called falsification.

If a premise is not falsifiable than it is also not verifiable.  And under identical conditions, such  falsification or verification must also be repeatable. Falsifiability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the scientific process. It is a process which has been globally accepted by humanity because the process itself has proven to be more functional in the pursuit of knowledge than other systematic world views.  Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take systematic theology, for instance, please. Theological theories cannot be falsified or verified, nor can their outcome be repeated under identical conditions. Even when they are patently absurd, it does not mean they are false--au contraire: credo quia absurdum, one might actually believe something because it is absurd! It seems to me, however, that to adduce absurdity as the reason for believing something is itself absurd. There is no problem in basing a play on an absurdity--that's done all the time. As long as religion is understood to be some kind of divine play, spiel, spel or spell, saga, literature or drama then you acknowledge that it is an essentially human expression concerning the past, the future and the divine.

That is when religion will take its legitimate and respected place among all the other arts and disciplines.

Homer, Popol Vu or Shakespeare were no less inspired literature than Ramayana, Avesta, Bible or Koran.

And they are all about relationships.

Much of the success of the modern scientific world view has come about because it was developed in the West, where  it was separated from systematic theology, in the same way that religion was separated from politics.

It liberated science from the bondage and blinders of absurdity based theologies--but it can equally liberate religion from the bondage of reason--and sanctify absurdities in the same way absurdity is  dignified and accepted in other forms of art and literature, in dreams, drama, in poetry and prophecy.

The success of the western scientific model was based in the separation of systems that each claimed unlimited sovereignty. That was bound to create conflict.  The separation of church and state (religion and politics) made the rise of independant nation states possible, but this separation has always been an uneasy compromise, requiring great vigilance on both sides of the border. The separation of church and academy  (religion and science/art)  has made independant science and art institutions possible--but here too the armistice has been  precarious. By giving up its material power over the individual, religion gained in spiritual power--leaving the material power to the secular authorities--and vice versa. It made sense.

Such separations were functional for a long time--and probably are still functional today--but they may at some point in the near future lose their efficacy. The reason why this is so is because in politics we have become so globally  interdependant that completely independant nation states are well on the way out.

The concept of national sovereignty is becoming a hindrance to furthering global human rights and well being, economic development, as well as to the health and future of our species and of the entire biosphere.

Just as we know now that humanity is a single species, we also know now that in our solar system there is only one planet hospitable to human life.  We are all part of a single species and we are all in the same boat.

That is important knowledge that should guide us in times to come.

What most people apparently do not yet realize is that we are all manifestations of the same Mystery, regardless of the diverse ways we try to explain the Mystery.  Because of that lack of understanding and acceptance, we are still very much divided by religion. The diversity in religious premises can be overcome once it is acknowledged that all religious premises are grounded in a great mystery, which is not subject to doctrinal definitions or limitations--but which is self evident as the absolute mystery and as such not subject to dispute.

I am not alone or original in making such assertions--see for instance: The Natural State - John Wheeler --

[By the way there will be some blank spaces--but scroll down some more--I am not yet done]


Your natural being is present and aware here and now. It is not that there is some “you” and then this other thing (being or awareness). Even the notion that “I am aware of it”  is just a concept appearing in what you are. The separate “I” itself is purely a concept. It is clear that you are present. It is not something “you” become aware OF. That is entirely conceptual and based on conceiving yourself as something apart from your being. So the whole problem is conceptual and delusive, because it is granting some separation from what you are. You are not a separate someone to be aware of reality at some moments and not others. You ARE the pure being itself. This being or awareness has no need to become aware of its awareness. It is awareness itself. It is that clear, rock-solid knowing that is here right now. This cannot be denied or contradicted (you cannot say “I am not”). So, full stop in this moment. There is no problem with the fact of your being. Once you grant the assumption of the separate “me” as a real, independent entity, then there arise other (assumed) difficulties. But they are all delusive, because the root assumption is false. 



"Find out what is the foundation of Consciousness. Undress the concept of "I" and jump into the ocean of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. You are That. You must look to your Self right now. Don't postpone."

[I can't seem to get rid of the above blank areas, and I am giving up trying--sorry about that] 

Rather than accept the great mystery, people still cling to diverse sectarian teachings based in absurdity.

Each religion has of course its own answer which it asserts could unify humanity--if only all of humanity would accept their particular sectarian world view--but that is unlikely to happen. So what binds or bonds humanity together are the undeniable facts that we all live in that yellow submarine called earth and  that we all tacitly accept the benefits of the scientific world view in our daily life. Many people also agree that religion is very important, if not central to their life, but are still very sectarian in their religious views.

As long as that is the case, we need to continue to separate religion, science, arts, and politics. Like I said, this is not necessarily the ideal situation, but for now it will have to do.

The fact is that at higher levels of awareness, all separations  fall away. There may be functional separation, but no absolute separation.  For the time being, the scientific model of the universe is what is most helpful to guide humanity as a whole through the dangerous times to come. And that leads me to what follows.

After eight years under Little Boy George in the White House we finally have a chance to elect a Democrat to the Presidency who gets the importance of science and technology--and not just in warfare.  What we need is not just one more Tea Party served in the Rose Garden or in Boston Harbor, but leadership in Washington that will encourage investment in Internet Technology (IT), Energy Technoloy (ET), Nanotechnology (NT), Genetic Technology (GT), Biotechnology (BT), Space Technology (ST), Marine Technology (MT), and many other kinds of technology.

What we need are fewer ideology based initiatives and more science based initiatives. What we need is compassion that is not conservative but progressive in its awareness of the disastrous situation the world's biosphere and humanity will be in if we do not develop the technologies that may get us out of that jar of pickles Little Boy George has put us in.

But let's first take some perspective of where we are.

You already know that Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson are among my favorite science commentators. In a recent documentary, another great commentator,  Michio Kaku - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia was sitting at his dining table and explained that--at almost 60 years of age--if he represented each year as a millimeter in length, 60 milimeters would separate him from the time they took the baby picture of him which was standing about two feet away on the table.

The dining table itself was about 2 meters (or 2000 milimeters) long--representing roughly the time of the common era so far: the roughly 2000 years since the reign of Caesar Augustus.

By that measure,  Michio would have to take a long trip from New York, where he lives, to visit me in San Francisco, to represent the age of the earth, over 4000 km--4,000,000,000 mm--or 4 billion years ago.

I imagine that to get back all the way to the Big Bang, he would have had to travel around the globe along the equator (almost 13,000 km)--which would represent 13000 x 1000 x 1000 mm or 13 billion years.

See: Age of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The age of the universe is the time elapsed between the Big Bang and the present day. Current observations suggest that this is about 13.73 billion years, with an uncertainty of about 120 million years.

13 billion years  is a long time, but it represents only a relatively short era in the projected life time of the universe. Our universe that is--for some of the latest conclusions of string theory and M-theory scientists (among which Michio Kaku himself) state that there are an infinite number of such cosmic bubbles.

The Absolute manifests all of that--from the tiniest nanoparticle to the sum of all cosmic bubble universes.

That is in any event what we use the term The Absolute for--to designate what is and manifests all of that, in an inclusive manner. You and I are part of the Absolute, we are manifestations of the Absolute, we are not under the Absolute, or creations of the Absolute, but we are included in the Absolute as integral parts of the Absolute--for the Absolute is not ever separate from anything it is and manifests.

That's why when we absolutely have to  pledge allegiance to a piece of fabric or the idea for which it stands, I recommend we all say: One nation in God, rather than One nation under God.

You can't be both in God and under God. You could be included in the Absolute and under God, but only if you agree that the particular God you reference is not the  Absolute, but a deity of lesser rank.

The idea we are all always already included in the Absolute ought to put some sparkle in your eyes and take the fear out of your heart. But it does not absolve anyone from the responsability to act accordingly:

Observe oh Mankind, Humanity, our Species is a single Species! 

As a species we need to be aware of the following:

1. The Absolute is All-encompassing.

2. The Absolute is therefore All there is.

3. The Absolute is not subject to dispute.

And yes, you may call the Absolute God, if you insist, or not if you prefer. Whatever you call it or try to make out of it does not change the Absolute  for the Absolute is not subject to limit, definition or dispute. 

To observe that we must understand that, we must be that, and we must act like that.

That is a tall order, but there are no short cuts--no vicarious nonsense is acceptable.

But you can't put The Absolute First (or 'God First' if God is what you prefer to call the Absolute) for there is no first, second or third when it comes to the Absolute, wherever you might put it. You can't misplace the Absolute either--as in:  "Darn it, where did I put the Absolut this morning." No! No way, no McCain.

You can neither eat the Absolute nor drink it. Unless you spell it the Swedish way: Absolut, that you can drink, but they don't serve that in Holy Communion, last time I checked--although... it just might give you the courage to face the truth of the Absolute without looking for some kind of scapegoat in human form.

Some people objected to my suggestion that we should not put Country First, but Humanity First--and that God should be first, rather than country or humanity--that sounds plausible, but then the question is: which God? Your God, my God, or the neighbor's God? As a single human species we do not worship a single God--unless you equate God with the Absolute--and the Absolute does not come first, or last, but is all there is--it is all encompassing.  

Besides--I can't think of a single instance where God and humantity are in conflict. Country and humanity--yes, many conflicts between those. But what conflict could ever arise between God and humanity where we would have to chose one over the other? 

If anyone can think of a single instance where they would choose for God over against humanity, then I would be shocked, surprised and probably disappointed. Please let me know by writing to: forthuyse@gmail.com 

As a single human species we face the most daunting odds in the next few decades. We are close to the point of no return. We have just that little time to turn the current trends around--and if we don't, we will slowly enter a long period of inevitable deterioration in the global environment and in the human condition.

It is not just our country that is at stake.

In this context, let me include some references my cousin Evert provided me a few weeks ago:


Evert is trying to do something about the global amd humatitarian crisis as the Director of www.gezen.nl and is also involved in a new start-up company called Solaq, BV --which I suspect stands for Sol-aqua, Sun-Water, or Zonnewater--a company that will attempt to desalinize ocean water to make it drinkable and useful in agriculture.

Note: the Dutch designation BV and the Belgian BVBA both of which which stand for Besloten Vennootschap met Beperkte Aansprakelijkheid are--under the rules of the European Union-- considered equivalent to the German GmbH, (Geschaft mit beschränkter Haftung) the English Pvt. Ltd. (Private Limited Company) and the French SARL (Societe anonyme à responsabilité limité). 

 Cf.:  Besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid - Wikipedia  De besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid of in kort besloten vennootschap (in Nederland afgekort tot B.V., in België bvba) is een rechtspersoon waarvan het maatschappelijk kapitaal verdeeld is in aandelen die niet vrij overdraagbaar zijn; de aandelen staan op naam. Het besloten karakter is gelegen in het feit dat de aandelen niet vrij overdraagbaar zijn, dit in tegenstelling tot de naamloze vennootschap waarvan de aandelen in beginsel vrij overdraagbaar zijn.

Door de komst van de Europese Unie kunnen rechtspersonen uit het buitenland gelijk worden gesteld aan de Nederlandse bv of de Belgische bvba. Dit zijn onder andere de Duitse Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH), de Engelse Private Limited Company (Ltd) en de Franse Société à Responsabilité Limitée (SARL).  

In the US these forms of business come closest to a closely held corporation.

What is a closely held corporation? A closely held corporation has a small number of shareholders, no public market for the corporate stock and the ownership and management overlap. Many small closely held corporations are functionally not greatly different from small unincorporated businesses in such matters as how they operate, make decisions and raise capital. Despite the difference in liability exposure, some lenders have been known to require managements of small corporations to pledge personal assets to secure business loans.

OK, back to our main topic now. Since scientists are predicting that the shortage of energy sources and the shortage of water resources are likely to be at the heart of human conflict for the foreseeable future, what Evert is doing is truly important.

He will also be attending the  2nd Annual Concentrated Solar Power Summit US at the end of this month (September 30/October 1) at the Hotel Nikko in San Francisco, which is in less than ten blocks walking distance from where I live myself--so I hope we'll be able to get together. Hotel Nikko - Pictures

Conferences like this provide hope that technological improvements may yet forestal the disastrous outcome which the last eight years of the science-denigrating Bush administration has done nothing to avoid--and everything to make worse. And we--the American electorate--elected him, twice!

Just last night I saw Tavis Smiley interviewing BHL --initials standing for the well known contemparary French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, who started out one sentence with, "Of course we all know that George W. Bush has been the worst American President ever...'' (not an exact quote, but reasonably close) accompanied by the obviously embarrased but unprotesting laughter of the host.  I have my own differences with BHL, but when it comes to Little Boy George he certainly has a point...

BHL is not alone in his assessment, to say the least. I can't even begin to  count the number of scientists I have heard make similar remarks over the last eight years as I listened to C-Span and Charlie Rose interviews, think tank symposia, scientific  conferences, university lectures and book discussions groups.

This is true on both sides of the Atlantic and across the globe. Bush has done only one thing right--and I must give him credit for that: he did a lot to alleviate the problem of  HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.

In a previous journal entry I reflected on the fact that what we can observe of the universe has greatly expanded in a very short time span--but that now we must also recognize the fact that what we are able to observe is minimal compared to the size of our actual universe. By minimal I mean a fraction of a percentage point.

In this journal entry I wanted to add to those observations that the time scales in the life of our universe also are far greater than even His Grace, Bishop James Ussher  assumed: just as the physical aspect we experience and know about is a fraction of a percentage point of the actual size of the universe, so is the time scale we as a human species have experienced only a fraction of a percentage point of the projected life time of our universe. 

Note: In the 1650s, an Anglican bishop named James Ussher published his "Annals of the World," subtitled, "The Origin of Time, and Continued to the Beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign and the Total Destruction and Abolition of the Temple and Commonwealth of the Jews."

The good Bishop's  6000 year time scale of world history was based on the Bible and A Bunch of Begats

For a somewhat less absurd approach towards  understanding the historical  time scale I will refer you to:

Five Ages of the Universe

and to: Graphical timeline of the Stelliferous Era - Wikipedia, the free ... from which I will quote:

Stelliferous era

The book The Five Ages of the Universe discusses the history, present state, and probable future of the universe, according to cosmologists' current understanding. The book divides the timeline of the universe into five eras: the Primordial Era, the Stelliferous Era, the Degenerate Era, the Black Hole Era and the Dark Era.

The Five Ages

The time scales treated in the book are sufficiently vast that the authors find it convenient to use scientific notation. They refer to the "nth cosmological decade," meaning 10n years after the big bang. In what follows, n refers to the cosmological decade.

[edit] Primordial Era -50 < n < 5

In this era, the Big Bang, the subsequent inflation, and Big Bang nucleosynthesis are thought to have taken place. Toward the end of this age, the recombination of electrons with nuclei made the universe transparent for the first time. The authors discuss the horizon and flatness problems.

[edit] Stelliferous Era 6 < n < 14

This is the current era, in which matter is arranged in the form of stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters, and most energy is produced in stars. Massive stars use up their fuel very rapidly, in as little as a few million years. Eventually, the only stars will be miserly red dwarf stars. By the end of this era, bright stars as we know them will be gone, their nuclear fuel exhausted, and only white dwarfs, brown dwarfs, and black holes will remain. In this section, Olbers paradox is discussed.

[edit] Degenerate Era 15 < n < 39

This is the era of brown dwarfs, white dwarfs, and black holes. White dwarfs will assimilate dark matter and continue with a nominal energy output. As this era continues, the authors hypothesize that protons will begin to decay (violating the conservation of baryon number given by the Standard Model). If proton decay takes place, the sole survivors will be black holes.

[edit] Black Hole Era 40 < n < 100

In this era, according to the book, organized matter will remain only in the form of black holes. Black holes themselves slowly "evaporate" away the matter contained in them, by the quantum mechanical process of Hawking radiation. By the end of this era, only extremely low-energy photons, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos will remain.

[edit] Dark Era n > 101

By this era, with only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with very low energy levels and very large time scales. Electrons and positrons drifting through space will encounter one another and occasionally form positronium atoms. These structures are unstable, however, and their constituent particles must eventually annihilate. Other low-level annihilation events will also take place, albeit very slowly.

This final dark chapter in the life of our material universe sounds a bit like what we started with according to the book of Genesis:

Bereshit Barah Elohim ha Shamayim was ha Aretz. Wa ha aretz tohu wa bohu.

In the beginning the energies formed the heavens and the earth and the earth was formless and empty.

Note: At that time the earth was essentially thought of as the the only body in the entire universe--so one could read this as the universe was dark and empty. The heavens were not considered a part of the universe--they were separate. And ds Lever taught me--when I took a semester of biblical Hebrew at the Groen van Prinstererlyceum--that Tohu wa Bohu means woest (vormloos) en ledig in Dutch, or wild (formless) and empty English. It sounds therefore like the final stage of our universe is very much like the setting which Genesis describes as the stage for a new creation, a new carnification, vleesmaking, vormgeving: a new formation.

Before I go on, and lest I offend some Christian brethren with my radical views, let me refer you to:

Atheïstische dominee schokt Gereformeerde Bond De Gereformeerde Bond binnen de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland is geschokt door het boek 'Geloven in een God die niet bestaat' van dominee Klaas Hendrikse. Daarin schrijft de predikant in Middelburg en Zierikzee niet te geloven dat God bestaat. 

Religious Buddhist are atheists too, so why not religious Christians?  Answer: So far they have just lacked a functional theology.

While the Judeao-Christian-Moslem traditions do not envision such a cyclical pattern, even less the idea that there is no Pancreatic  (Alvleesmakende, All-flesh-making)  God. the most ancient world view, that of Hindu philosophy, does in fact refer to what they call the day and night of Brahma: 

Hindu units of measurement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hinduism’s understanding of time is as grandiose as time itself. While most cultures base their cosmologies on familiar units such as few hundreds or thousands of years, the Hindu concept of time embraces billions and trillions of years. The Puranas describe time units from the infinitesimal truti, lasting 1/1,000,000 of a second to a mahamantavara of 311 trillion years.

 Hindu sages describe time as cyclic, an endless procession of creation, preservation and dissolution. Scientists such as Carl Sagan have expressed amazement at the accuracy of space and time descriptions given by the ancient rishis and saints, who fathomed the secrets of the universe through their mystically awakened senses. [1]

Another intersting aspect is that the designation Brahma or Brahman, like that of Elohim, can be read either as the name of a single God, or the designation for Energy or Energies.

Sanskrit-iz-ed Words: Syria and Asyria - Brahman and Abrahm(an) Devas or Gods were the ruling gods or angels of different aspects of nature, like Indra, Vayu, Agni and so on. They were also called Brahmanic religion because they believed in the Brahman (singular subjective is Brahma) as the Super Soul that pervades everywhere, is beyond past, present and future.

Note: Aspects of nature--or views of nature, the way we see nature, often are personalized and sometimes antrhopomorphized: Mother Earth, Heavenly Father, and so on--but these personalized aspects of nature are paraded before us with masks, or personae (Latin persona=mask)--like actors on a stage who spoke through a mask. It would be hard to have a play about the energy involved in a hurricane unless you personalize the hurricane by putting a mask on it and treat it like a person. The three persons of the Trinity are the three masks through which the Absolute speaks to those trinitarian Christians who put those masks on the Absolute. Nothing wrong or disfuntional with that. However, the fundamentalist mistake is then not to see through the masks and understand that God (or the Absolute) speaks or sounds through the masks.

The designation Brahma(n) is in fact largely onomatopoeaic: Brrr stands for the sound of energy. When you are cold, you make that sound automatically to give your self energy--your lips vibrate--another sign of energy. Your body shakes and shivers to dispell the cold and to create warmth. When you start your car engine, it goes Varoom, Baroom, Bahram, Brahman or something like that: BRM BRM, perhaps. Unless you drive one of those nore highly engineered cars that go zoom zoom, the sound of a bee flying though the air.

Well guess what, the word for 'create' in the ancient Hebrew of Genesis was Barah. That sounds to me like another onomatopoeic expression of the sound energy or energies (Elohim, Brahman) would make. BRH.

In Dutch the word for create is scheppen--akin to the English verb to shape. That's why I prefer the word to shape or to form instead of to create in translating the Hebrew word barah. Create has to do with kreas, flesh. Not all that was created was made flesh--it was formed, shaped, materialized even.

Not everything that was formed was  made flesh. The Pancreator is therefor a fiction--the All-flesh-maker is an illusion. But if you want to call the Absolute 'God'--that is fine. No need to stop believing in God, but also no need to believe in God--for God (as the Absolute Mystery) is self evident, for there is awareness.

No one can explain, define or limit, but also not dispute either being or awareness.

If the single species of humanity is ever to integrate as a single global community, then we must see to it that religion, science, art all have autonomy within the single sovereign human community of our planet--which must subscribe to what is self evident:

We are all included in the all-encompassing divine mystery. That recognition is non sectarian and must be our primary world view--our prima philosophia--if we are to overcome division, discrimination and war.

So anyway, after a long cold night, Brahma shivers and wakes up trying to give himself some energy: Brrr.

The Ah could be interpreted as a cry of relief, surprise or wonder. The Ma is, well, Ma, mother, of course, the source of life, or just a routine ending, like in Sanskrit atma--soul, spirit, breath--akin to German atem, atmen and Dutch adem, ademen, (breath, to breath). Adam happened to be the first human being that breathed,  (respirated) and therefore had a spirit or a soul (atma ). But that's literature, not science.

Time and Space are functions of perception. In our case, human perception, but there are other species with different perceptions of time and space, which I doubt will agree to our own--I mean--how could they?

Even a human toddler's sense of time and space is different from an human adult. Let's not even consider those of a Mayfly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  Because of its short lifespan, the mayfly is also called oneday fly in some languages — French éphémère, German Eintagsfliege, Dutch eendagsvlieg.

So let's once and for all do away with the idea that human perception is binding on the Absolute or that the God some human beings arrogate themselves in their hubris to perceive is equivalent to the Absolute.

There is a difference between believing in an absurdity and accepting a mystery.

What the latest science and the most ancient Hinduism both tell us is that there was no creator God, but that there is an Absolute, of which all that exists is a manifestation. If there is a separate manifest God, than that Manifest God is also an il-lusory or playful  Manifestation of the Unmanifest Absolute.

Note: Illusory or in-luso-ry  means in play, or playful:  Phaedrus_De Lusu et Severitate common > ludo, ludere, lusi, lusus. play, mock, tease, trick.

This playful Mayfly reality we human beings have the immense privilege to be a part of can either be experienced as a terrible burden--where the elephant of the manifest world tramples you, or as a means of transportation, in which case you may sit on top of the elephant, provided of course, you treat him well.

That is a choice each of us can make, and indeed must make, for no one else can make that choice for us--and you do not make that choice to mount the elephant, the elephant will step on you and trample you.

The word transportation must be undersood here in the sense I used it in my journal entry op de brommer.

If we, as a species, do not make the right choice, we are indeed, op de brommer without a helmet--as I already intimated in http://pages.google.com/preview/forthuyse/opdebrommer-onethemoped

And since it is getting late here at the Alliance Française in San Francisco, I will call it a night. Bon Soir!