Coronavirus Image Photo Credit:Content Providers(s): CDC/Dr. Fred Murphy - This media comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Image Library (PHIL), with identification number #4814.Note: Not all PHIL images are public domain; be sure to check copyright status and credit authors and content providers., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=822112

Back in July I posted a Gigapixel Panorama that was inadvertantly labeled as "Tokyo" when it was in fact the Hong Kong Project.

It turns out there is in fact a Gigapixel Panorama of Tokyo and I am happy to share that here on BlogDogIt too.

Enjoy!

[Bust out of frame]

Please post screen-shots of any interesting "finds" in the comments below.

I am pleased to announce the addition of a brand new domain in the DeBurger Photo Image & Design empire: GlitchyMatrix.com

The following is the "About" section from my new blog:

Throughout my life I have experienced instances of utter weirdness; from Déjà vu and prophetic dreams to bizarre observations and unexplained occurrences. It was after experiencing a very obvious “glitch in the matrix” moment that I felt compelled to investigate the availability of the domain name glitchinthematrix dot com… it was taken (no surprise.) That was actually a good thing because it lead me to grab-up GlitchyMatrix.com (a much pithier option I feel.)

I am excited to venture into this creation and have chosen the moniker “Glitch N. Matrix” with which to present content on this site. Apologies to Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck for choosing his visage (flipped) to stand for my Mr. Matrix – I am quite uncertain why I chose to do so

The internet is chock-full of reports of the strange, bizarre and inexplicable. It is my intention to seek out examples of this Glitchy Matrix in which we live to share them with readers. I will gladly accept story submissions and suggestions and hope to one day make GlitchyMatrix.com a “go-to” source for reports of glitches in the matrix.

Shaken

by GlitchNMatrix | Posted on August 22, 2019

It is a timeworn cliché to ask the question, “where were you when the lights went out?”; this being ostensibly a reference to the legendary Northeast Blackout of 1965. So too, are many folks prompted to recall events of three years prior to that catastrophe, when plied with the question, “where were you when Kennedy was shot?” We who were alive during those occurrences may (or may not) be able to offer solid alibis for our whereabouts and activities at the time, but when an apparent Glitch in the Matrix occurs in conjunction with a major event, the moment will be forever etched in your consciousness. This is my story of just such a moment…

Several years ago I was given the gift of a really nice earthenware coffee mug that featured embossed, silhouetted figures of people dancing – in a petroglyphic motif – about its circumference. It was an uplifting graphic that added buoyancy to its substantial heft. This mug became my constant companion as I would transport my “wake-up juice” on my daily three mile commute to the photo lab at which I was employed.

I recall one day, while heading off to work, I stopped momentarily to tie my shoe; using my truck’s bumper to prop up my foot for the task. It was not until I was walking into work, and rounding the back of the truck that I noticed the coffee cup setting where I left it – on the rear bumper – without so much as a drop missing from it’s precious cargo. I tell you this anecdote to illustrate why I had taken to thinking of this item as “my lucky cup.”

This talismanic status was to be a short-lived manifestation however, for not long after the mug’s demonstration of its amazing survival skills, it met its match in the form of the concrete sidewalk just outside my home’s front gate. My house at the time had a chain-link fence and a front gate that I would routinely pass through; performing the action of unlatching, opening, closing and latching. One fateful morning as I was turning to close the gate, my prized earthenware work of art tumbled from my grasp and fell (seemingly in slow motion) to the pavement below – shattering into countless small pieces. At the time I could not fathom the forces that would cause me to subject my inanimate friend to such an awful fate but could not dwell on the matter as I was off to work.

When I arrived at the lab a crowd of fellow employees were gathering around a large central work table where the manager was setting up a television. “What’s going on?” I inquired to the dazed and confused looking assembly…

The timing was just about right. The explanation was clear. Tuesday, September 11, 2001. 8:46:40: Flight 11 crashes into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99.

“This is a dynamic and mysterious universe and human life is, no doubt, conditioned by imponderables of which we are only dimly aware. People sometimes say, “the strangest coincidence happened.” Coincidences may seem strange, but they are never a result of caprice. They are orderly laws in the spiritual life of man. They affect and influence our lives profoundly. These so-called imponderables are so important that you should become spiritually sensitized to them. Indeed, the more spiritually minded you become the more acute your contact will be with these behind-the-scenes forces. By being alive to them through insight, instruction, and illumination, you can make your way past errors and mistakes on which, were you less spiritually sensitive, you might often stumble.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/coincidence

• Norman Vincent Peale, Stay Alive All Your Life

Have you ever experienced a glitch that seemed related to a remote event? Tell us about it in the comments below.

 Please add GlitchyMatrix.com to your blog visitation rotation,
I hope to have great fun over there and hope you decide to join me.

                    h0e.   >> "Hume Tickles Me" <<   by -> MoonBagel


        I would like to introduce this paper by stating three things quite
 simply.  First, this is quite possibly the stupidest move I have ever made
 in my "scholastic career."  Second, this class landed at bad time for me --
 it managed to conveniently coincide with a fun-filled period of existential
 angst.  ("Katie, you have more angst than anyone I know" -- my mother over
 Christmas Eve dinner, December 24, 1997).  Finally, this is the first time
 in well over a year I have felt truly inspired.  With these things in mind,
 I proceed:

        While I have tremendously enjoyed being a part of this class,
 occasionally contributing a little insight or any of a number of inane
 comments and listening to those of others, I feel compelled to admit that I
 do not have any impenetrable, or even defendable, opinions regarding the
 vast majority of the topics we have covered in this class.  There were
 concepts and excerpts which did touch me profoundly.  I was doing some final
 reviewing on the afternoon of the 13th, and it was those pieces that stuck
 out in my mind above all others, and those which stick with me as I type
 this paper.  The prompt given for this final was "Explain your point of view
 concerning major philosophical issues studied in this class."  I intend to
 do so.  I realize fully that what follows is not what was intended when the
 assignment was given, but as I started to type the original draft of my
 paper, I realized this was going to be yet another entry in the long line of
 BS papers I have written for a huge number of classes over the course of the
 past few years. It occurred to me that this was NOT what I needed to be
 writing to fulfill what I consider to be goal of this final.  If nothing
 else, this assignment begged brutal honesty, and that is what I offer as
 opposed to my usual steady stream of bullshit.  I cannot begin to verbalize
 the adrenaline rush I felt when I realized this was my big, bright, shiny,
 sparkling, glowing chance to write honestly and feel completely justified.
 Regardless of my grade, I will come away feeling fulfilled, knowing that on
 this occasion I was not just playing a game with my teacher and that I wrote
 something that I can take pride in.

        At the beginning of the semester we read Plato's Apology.  It floored
 me, as does most any writing that involves a person standing up, unfailing,
 for something that is Right or Just.  One thing that bothers me most about
 the generation I am a part of is that the vast majority of us have nothing
 we are willing to stand up for.  To see that strength elsewhere is immensely
 reassuring to me when I wonder if there is any hope that we will ever even
 resemble virtuous people.

        Reading that passage over is a large part of the reason I decided to
 complete this assignment as I am.  While a final paper for one class in high
 school is fairly insubstantial compared with Socrates dying for his personal
 belief system, I keep in mind the Emperor Marcus Aurelius stating and
 restating that our Virtue is something we should prize, and we should never
 tarnish it by doing anything that is not right.

        My little duct-taped copy of The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius is
 another thing that affected me deeply throughout this semester.  I plan on
 purchasing the book very soon after turning in my class copy, and along with
 that, my journal will keep me in touch with what I initially felt when I
 read his words.  Attitude is everything -- if a task or an obstacle is set
 in your path, a negative attitude will not help you to continue your
 journey.  I often recall what Aurelius wrote about Maximus in the fifteenth
 entry of Book 1 -- "no man could ever think that he was despised by him."  I
 believe I could be a truly content person if, in old age, I could look back
 on my life and be assured that no man ever thought himself despised by me.
 I typed out the first entry in Book 2 and keep it in my room as a reminder
 that in every day of my life, I will meet people with unimaginable
 differences, and I must learn to deal constructively, and hopefully kindly,
 with each.  I do not have to agree with someone to respect them, or to
 simply tolerate them.  I was reminded that sadly, people are generally
 compelled to grasp at the most insignificant, fleeting, insubstantial
 abstracts in their lives and become ardently attached to their accumulated
 material wealth.  I was simultaneously reminded that I am capable of
 transcending that... well, perhaps I will not be able to transcend it
 entirely (as I am human), but I can keep at the forefront of my waking
 thoughts the importance of family, Love, Virtue, and Honor.  As I age, and
 even in my youth, I will bear in mind that death is a part of the life cycle
 and is inevitable; I should not fear death, rather, I should accept its
 inevitably and move forward with my life through the time in which I do have
 control.  The simplicity of life is important -- too much is lost in the
 overbearing spectacle some men shape their lives into.  Nature does not
 oppose itself, as that is unnatural.  The idea that we ultimately are the
 same material as the soil, an oak tree, or the star Alpha Centauri is quite
 humbling.  Each creature is born of the death of another.

        I was very impressed by Immanuel Kant's astoundingly logical
 discussions involving the hypothetical and categorical imperatives and sense
 of duty.  They appear to be workable and effective in practice -- virtually
 every mentally stable person can agree on such categorical imperatives as
 "murder is wrong."  Though it has been said that "the road to hell is paved
 with good intentions," I prefer Kant's "without the principles of good will
 this may become evil indeed."  There is a huge gap between intentionally
 killing someone and accidentally killing someone, one that is certainly
 worthy of note.  If it provides nothing else, taking the time to ask whether
 a decision is one you would be comfortable fully shouldering the blame for
 and if you would be comfortable if that decision was echoed throughout the
 world gives you time to thoroughly think through a choice.  Differentiating
 between profound concerns and relatively trivial ones through the
 hypotheticals and categoricals is also valuable.

        Plato's Cave struck me, as well.  It can takes one's previously
 infallible sense of what is real, and flip it around, kick it and poke at it
 a little, and leave you with a new, perhaps unsettling, perspective.  It
 gives a profound twist to the phrase, "food for thought."  After I first
 read this allegory on one of the first days of this semester in my Language
 Arts class, the concept of our lives being controlled by puppeteers
 manipulating shadows proceeded to dance about in my head for the rest of the
 day, and a number of days after.  Whether this is taken in a political sense
 or a more religious one, the perspective it provides is invaluable.

        The next time I see "fish" spelled "ghoti" I will be reminded of
 Russell and Wittgenstein, and how they had far to much time on their hands.
 They made reasonable points -- it is impossible to know precisely what
 another person is attempting to express when you speak with them.  However,
 I feel that is one of the beauties of speech and language.  The vagueness of
 some words and the intricacies of others smack me around on a daily basis.

        The Metaphysical unit of this course intrigued me the most by far.
 Until I was about thirteen years old, my various religious education
 teachers at St. Therese were thoroughly convinced that I would become a nun
 one day -- "she sure knows her religion!"  Apparently I was getting to know
 the Catholic Church a little too intimately for the tastes of some.  After
 my teachers tired of my incessant questioning and I was shouted at on more
 than once occasion to "Stop asking questions!  You shouldn't be questioning
 your religion.  You are supposed to have faith!"  From that point on, direct
 participation in organized religion left me with a repugnant taste in my
 mouth.  I still remain fascinated by it, however -- the culture surrounding
 some of our world's long-standing faiths, as well as the dogma that is at
 their roots.  I am not able to make these dogmas my own, however.  I have
 remained a devout agnostic since I was thirteen years old, through threats
 of "you're going to go to hell!" and friends' not-always-subtle attempts to
 convince me to convert to their various faiths, from Aquinas's proofs of the
 existence of God to Anselm's ontological argument and Aristotle's unmoved
 mover.  I have no fact-based, logical argument prepared for when I state my
 disagreement with their conclusions and explanations.  All I can say is that
 I feel spirituality should be and, in fact, is an intensely personal
 experience, and not a choice that results from incessant exterior pressure.
 I simply cannot believe in God by playing the statistics -- 75% odds that a
 belief in God will save my soul from suffering eternal damnation or simply
 not waste my time is not a compelling reason to believe.

        Hume tickled me.  I am not sure how else I could express Hume's
 effect on me.  He tickled me.  While he made strong points which are worthy
 of consideration, I an incapable of taking him seriously.  Perhaps he was
 not taking his ideas seriously, either.  Maybe he merely did not exist.
 Perhaps the Hume argument is worth utilizing the next time I want to hear a
 band or artist that is performing at the numerous establishments in Kansas
 City/Weston/Westport/Lawerence areas that serve alcohol, and therefore will
 not allow a minor through their doors -- "I don't exist!  You can't prove I
 exist!  Just try to keep me out."  Unfortunately, I will probably be sobered
 somewhat when Big Mr. Door Man uses physical force to remove me from the
 premises.  Ah well -- it looked good in theory.

        Hume's tickling kept my thoughts careening about inside my head for a
 number of days.  It is entirely possible that I do not exist!  Hume created
 opportunities for brainstorms I never dreamt I would be part of.  I thought
 for well over a week about Hume's arguments and realized that I am not able
 to craft a reasonable rebuttal.  His statements, as ridiculous as they may
 read, stand.  Sure, I still think I exist -- but what evidence do I,
 personally, need to accept that "fact"?  For the time being, I will trust in
 my senses to guide me.

        I learned a great deal about Marxism which my thoroughly
 Americanized, "Communism = EVIL!" mind had not been exposed to previously.
 I still maintain that Marxism is a lovely system, in theory.  If the
 evolution of his dialectical materialism had been allowed to progress
 normally, perhaps we could have had 45+ years of peace instead of the
 nuclear arms race and Star Wars.  I can relate to the problem of man's
 alienation from his work when he has little control over it, and recognize
 the maddening exploitation in the primal communal, slave, feudal, and
 capitalist societies.  Perhaps if they had not been so greedy... but, ah!
 there is the problem.  It seems to be impossible to implement a man-made
 system and have it work to the point where it can fulfill the boldest
 idealists' dreams.  Human drives are indestructible, and it is those most
 natural of tendencies which cause the most mechanical and artificial of
 systems to crumble.

        In the end it was Tolstoy's My Confession who affected me most
 intensely.  He too suffered an existential crisis:

        "My life came to a standstill....The truth was that life was
        meaningless.  It was as though I had been living and walking along,
        and had come to an abyss, where I saw clearly that there was nothing
        ahead but perdition....

        "...I did not know myself what it was I wanted: I was afraid of life,
        strove to get away from it, and, at the same time, expected something
        from it."

        In many cases I found his words to be intensely familiar.  He lived a
 seemingly perfect life -- he had money, an education, respect.  I have many
 advantages -- I am well-liked by most (so far as I know), I have a
 supportive and close family, and that elusive “potential.”  Regardless, I do
 not have all the answers, nor will I pretend to.  I must take my time to be
 pensive and ponder.

        About those issues which I have neglected to discuss in this paper,
 well, all I have to offer is a “maybe next time?” coupled with a shrug.  I
 expect to have to re-read all of my books in the near future to exercise my
 newly-gained philosophical perspective.  My summer will be filled going over
 and over the Meditations, and perhaps reading The Apology once again, to
 give me strength in the face of apathy, indifference, and ignorance.  A
 large block of time will be spent creeping around bookstores in search of
 writings by Nietzsche, Hume, Marx, Kierkegaard, Sartre, and especially
 Tolstoy.  When I read Sophie's World again, it will be an entirely different
 experience than when I first read it.  I have perspective!  I may not have
 been able to make the most out of this course while I was a part of it, and
 I am saddened that I could not bring myself to take full advantage of it,
 but I refuse to let my mind atrophy further by letting that which I did
 ingest drift away.  This paper will remain with me in the future, and will,
 in all likelihood, suffer through revisions at the mercy of my confused,
 questing adolescent brain.  Hey, just think -- you could be holding a burst
 of brilliance in your hand.  After dozens of revisions, this could be my
 masterpiece.  Or maybe it won't be.  At any rate:

	Though my continued reading will not appear on a progress report, nor
 will it be fit for mention on a college application, that which I have
 learned and will learn will know no confines, and that, ultimately, is what
 is truly important.  What is my point of view concerning major philosophical
 issues studied in this class?  It is still evolving.  "I don't know."  That
 is my honest answer.

 ---

Few folks would argue that to commit oneself to reading a 12~1500 page novel is a daunting assignment, to say the least. This is however, something I have intended to do and something I am pleased to say I have finally accomplished.

In the interest of full disclosure: Rather than curl up in some well-lit nook to pour over this monumental tome in hardcover form, I chose rather, to listen to the "Golden Voice" of David Fredrick Case (a.k.a. Fredrick Davidson) read Leo Tolstoy's - "War and Peace" aloud to me - via the Blackstone AudioBook - on my daily commute. At nearly 60 hours of playing time this too proved to be a serious commitment to task.

A brief synopsis of this Leo Tolstoy masterpiece follows: 

Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 and follows three of the most well-known characters in literature: Pierre Bezukhov, the illegitimate son of a count who is fighting for his inheritance and yearning for spiritual fulfillment; Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, who leaves his family behind to fight in the war against Napoleon; and Natasha Rostov, the beautiful young daughter of a nobleman who intrigues both men.[Amazon]

All-in-all I must say, this was a very rewarding exercize and well worth the effort. The book is in the public domain and is available to read on-line if you are feeling adventurous. LibraVox also has available AudioBook versions if you wish to have the story read aloud to you, thanks to community volunteers.

Tolstoy's notes from the ninth draft of War and Peace, 1864.

Many people will ponder tackeling a reading of this - currently rated, "ninth longest" - book and will quickly decide on any of several thousand other things with which to while away the hours. If you are one of those who, after picking up the book - finding it simply too arduous - fliped to the back of the book, you have been unwittingly blessed with a fine bit of philosophical verbiage from the brilliant mind of Leo Tolstoy; a bit of wisdom that has long been the reward to those who travel through the narative on the authors intended path. If you go through life having never read War and Peace I suggest you at least examine the following, closing chapter. Rather than a "spoiler" you are most likely to find the encouragement to discover how Tolstoy masterfully laid the foundational context for this rather mind-bending look at reality versus history:

WAR AND PEACE by Leo Tolstoy

    From the time the law of Copernicus was discovered and proved, the mere recognition of the fact that it was not the sun but the earth that moves sufficed to destroy the whole cosmography of the ancients. By disproving that law it might have been possible to retain the old conception of the movements of the bodies, but without disproving it, it would seem impossible to continue studying the Ptolemaic worlds. But even after the discovery of the law of Copernicus the Ptolemaic worlds were still studied for a long time.

    From the time the first person said and proved that the number of births or of crimes is subject to mathematical laws, and that this or that mode of government is determined by certain geographical and economic conditions, and that certain relations of population to soil produce migrations of peoples, the foundations on which history had been built were destroyed in their essence.

    By refuting these new laws the former view of history might have been retained; but without refuting them it would seem impossible to continue studying historic events as the results of man's free will. For if a certain mode of government was established or certain migrations of peoples took place in consequence of such and such geographic, ethnographic, or economic conditions, then the free will of those individuals who appear to us to have established that mode of government or occasioned the migrations can no longer be regarded as the cause.

    And yet the former history continues to be studied side by side with the laws of statistics, geography, political economy, comparative philology, and geology, which directly contradict its assumptions.

    The struggle between the old views and the new was long and stubbornly fought out in physical philosophy. Theology stood on guard for the old views and accused the new of violating revelation. But when truth conquered, theology established itself just as firmly on the new foundation.

    Just as prolonged and stubborn is the struggle now proceeding between the old and the new conception of history, and theology in the same way stands on guard for the old view, and accuses the new view of subverting revelation.

    In the one case as in the other, on both sides the struggle provokes passion and stifles truth. On the one hand there is fear and regret for the loss of the whole edifice constructed through the ages, on the other is the passion for destruction.

    To the men who fought against the rising truths of physical philosophy, it seemed that if they admitted that truth it would destroy faith in God, in the creation of the firmament, and in the miracle of Joshua the son of Nun. To the defenders of the laws of Copernicus and Newton, to Voltaire for example, it seemed that the laws of astronomy destroyed religion, and he utilized the law of gravitation as a weapon against religion.

    Just so it now seems as if we have only to admit the law of inevitability, to destroy the conception of the soul, of good and evil, and all the institutions of state and church that have been built up on those conceptions.

    So too, like Voltaire in his time, uninvited defenders of the law of inevitability today use that law as a weapon against religion, though the law of inevitability in history, like the law of Copernicus in astronomy, far from destroying, even strengthens the foundation on which the institutions of state and church are erected.

    As in the question of astronomy then, so in the question of history now, the whole difference of opinion is based on the recognition or nonrecognition of something absolute, serving as the measure of visible phenomena. In astronomy it was the immovability of the earth, in history it is the independence of personality- free will.

    As with astronomy the difficulty of recognizing the motion of the earth lay in abandoning the immediate sensation of the earth's fixity and of the motion of the planets, so in history the difficulty of recognizing the subjection of personality to the laws of space, time, and cause lies in renouncing the direct feeling of the independence of one's own personality. But as in astronomy the new view said: "It is true that we do not feel the movement of the earth, but by admitting its immobility we arrive at absurdity, while by admitting its motion (which we do not feel) we arrive at laws," so also in history the new view says: "It is true that we are not conscious of our dependence, but by admitting our free will we arrive at absurdity, while by admitting our dependence on the external world, on time, and on cause, we arrive at laws."

    In the first case it was necessary to renounce the consciousness of an unreal immobility in space and to recognize a motion we did not feel; in the present case it is similarly necessary to renounce a freedom that does not exist, and to recognize a dependence of which we are not conscious.

~~~~~ THE END ~~~~~

Download in PDF From Archive.org

After over twenty years, I finally did it...

It has been that long since the dial-up modem took me into the esoteric world of the Trader's Connection Bulletin Board system of Indianapolis, Indiana. That was the first hub connection to the internet I was able to access and set me back $4.95 every blessed month. Of course there was a freely available dial-up connection to the Indianapolis/Marion County public library but access to the world outside of their facility was mainly connections to other Libraries across the U.S.

T-CON (as the BBS came to be known) offered a portal to the upstart "world wide web" via the venerable, text only, internet browser known as "LYNX" and while websites were all the rage, it was GopherSpace that was "where the action is."

It was in that era when I learned the basics of internet page building. Not too many years later I was cutting my teeth on the LINUX operating system and hosting my own website servers. Through it all I was longing for the early days of inter-web exploration and vowing to build up a GopherSpace location in an effort to do my part toward keeping that means of communications viable. Without further ado... I am pleased to announce this long awaited dream of mine is now on-line:

 gopher://InfinitelyRemote.com 

Imagine a world where the internet does not track you with cookies. Imagine an internet without advertising (if you dare.) GopherSpace is that internet. GopherSpace stood as early predessor of the internet of today. This undeniable resurgence of the Gopher Protocol could possibly represent the roots of a brand new World Wide Web. And after all who ever said there could be only one? If this sounds like something that might interest you why wait... Get yourself a copy of LYNX browser installed on your system and "Gopher IT!"

    [----------------------------------------------------------------------]

      iIIIIIi       iIIIIIi     Welcome to the InfinitelyRemote GopherHole!
     IIIIIIIIIi    IIIIIIIII             How did you end up here?
     II     iIIi  iIIi    II
    IIi      iII IIi      iII     contact: gopher@InfinitelyRemote.com
    II         IIIi        II           (if you think you should.)
    II         IIIi        II
    IIi      iIIiIIi      iII    This service has been prepared as an edu-
    iII     III   III     IIi    cational exersize - much content has been
     IIIIIIIII     IIIIIIIII     assembled from questionable sources  ---
      iIIIIIi       iIIIIIi      browse accordingly. ;-)      & Enjoy!

    [----------------------------------------------------------------------]

A rare interview with some of the founders of Gopher:
Mark McCahilll and Farhad Anklesaria

Description -English: A rare interview with some of the founders of Gopher: Mark McCahilll and Farhad Anklesaria, also including some early screenshots.    Date     2 November 2013, 21:43:08    Source     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR76UI7aTvs    Author     Kevin Henninger, Mark McCahill, Farhad Anklesaria and John Goerzen (jgoerzen@complete.org)
 

I promised a follow-up article to "The Truth About God" and although I know (pretty much) the ideas I wish to convey, the approach to doing so has been somewhat elusive. With today being officially "Freethought Day," I figured it best to simply begin the task and work my way toward the end. To wit...

A proposed discussion of God will probably elicit eye-rolls from the vast majority of potential readers while a minority might actually be intrigued. Those with long-held traditional beliefs may have zero desire to explore what others of differing ideals would have to say on the subject of a "Supreme Being."

Religion is big business. There seem to be more religious based institutions and houses-of-worship than coffee shops, which suggests to me that folks must need their God as much as (if not more than) their coffee. Like coffee, God seems to be available in several popular flavors: from the trendy to the traditional, chances are somebody, somewhere has a God for you.

It is this apparent discrepancy in God's identity that no doubt, turns many people away from a quest for the truth about God. With so many options on what to believe, many have determined the "safe bet" is to disregard the whole debate and live their lives like none of this matters. Others of course, will cling to their beliefs like nothing else matters. The fact of the matter is that God is Real whether we believe in Him or not .

Him. So many talk about God in the third person; like "He" is somehow apart from mankind. Big Bossman God, watching over his creation just waiting for someone to screw-up his hard work. "He sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake." Oh wait, that's Santa Clause... "meh, same difference," some would say. Me? I really don't think God is that cute or concise.

I say God is REAL. More properly God is Reality; God is the reason for Reality. So many believers speak of God as existing somewhere "out there" - separate from "His Creation" - This cannot be. For God to be the Supreme, "He" must encompass the outermost. (Now stick with me here...) If it were possible for God to create a dwelling place that existed apart from his own essence then the space which contains that place would be greater than He. Therefor, "Everything that exists does so within this Supreme Being." Any quest for truth must begin with this undeniable fact.

Another essential fact - often overlooked, surprisingly - is that our existence is a series of consecutive "NOW" moments in time. Nothing can ever be any different than it is in each moment. A recognition of expectation that the next moment "will be" is perhaps the quintessential, defining characteristic of humanity.

Science has made tremendous strides in defining the boundaries of our universal existence to the extent of our ability to perceive. Religious beliefs are a testament to many aspects of our reality which are beyond our ability to readily perceive. A recognition that we all exist within the Reality that is God will go a long way toward understanding the truth of human equality and should bolster the cause of "COEXIST" - as if it were even a choice.

     Do you believe in God?  Yes   No   Unsure

Regardless of how you answer this question, mankind has found it desirable for you to be identified with one of these labels:

• If you answer "Yes" you are considered a Theist.
• If you answer "No" you are an considered an Atheist.
• If you answer "Unsure" you are considered Agnostic.

Given this reality:

• Many theist will have the unwavering opinion that their beliefs are true and those who do not agree are somehow wrong (or at the very least misguided.)
• Many atheist will have the unwavering opinion that their beliefs are true and those who do not agree are somehow wrong (or at the very least misguided.)
• Many agnostics will have the unwavering opinion that their beliefs are true and those who do not agree are somehow wrong (or at the very least misguided.)

This may be the one religious "Trio" we can all agree on.

A realistic examination of a human being's existence will show that any one of these labels may well be applicable to an individual at any given moment. Labels can shift when the devout worshiper has a moment of doubt or a died-in-the-wool atheist is caused to wonder (if even for an instant,) when the agnostic feels a pull from one side to the other for instance. This is certainly a topic that has worked to shape human civilization throughout history and affects us all (for better or worse) on a daily basis.

One troubling aspect of the entire debate - if we can at least agree on the "debatability" of God's existence - are the great many defining characteristics ascribed to the role of a "Supreme Deity." Whether known as God, Allah, Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Vishnu, Yahweh, Zeus, Jupiter, Allah, Xavier, Waheguru, Jah, Ngai, Baal or countless other "handles", people around the world have found at least some benefit in the recognition of forces that permeate the universe which appear greater than what can be entirely comprehended by mere mortals. Even the unbelieving atheist is not generally willing to disregard the fact that science, in its attempts to explain all that is, falls short in a great many troubling ways.

Many folks simply take it on "faith" that their God is real. Many claim to be looking for signs or proof before they will subscribe to such notions. Still others will entirely turn away from any such thoughts, preferring to live their lives devoid of any and all fruitless struggles and attempts to know the unmistakably, unknowable. 

Another of those timeless human conundrums is embodied in the question, "Why are we here?" Any answer to this is undoubtedly going to be in "essay" form. In many ways the world's religious institutions owe their very existence to the persistence of humanity's desire for an answer to that very question. Whether the question is asked at the personal, internal level: "Why am I here?" or on a more cosmic scale: "What does it all mean?" any answer we are likely to come up with in our present situation - particularly if expressed in a global forum - is going to result in quintessentially unresolvable matters of opinion with an "agree to disagree" outcome at best. If only it were possible to actually and truly "agree" on our rights to "disagree" this world would be a far better place (of course you may disagree with this assessment.)

I believe in absolute Truth; that there is to be found a common, universal explanation for all that "was, is or ever will be." I intend to explore this reality from the standpoint that:

1. we cannot all be right (but what if we are?)
2. we cannot all be wrong (but what if we are?)
3. we are all in this together (whether we want to be or not.)
4. knowledge of Truth is a reasonable expectation (even if many of its aspects are ultimately, unknowable.)

Oh, and yes... God is Real.

To be continued...