C~ Barack Obama - Thank You, Mr. President. And a question to President Obama re: MLK

Thank You, Mister President, for providing True Hope that The Light shall prevail on Earth. You, Barack, my Very Good Sir, give hope to so very many of us – – – in that what terrors we have barely survived seeing AS "the System"… could yield a Light so bright as You have come to represent for Us.

So, again, Mr. President Barack Obama, i thank you.

And now to my hopefully somewhat-private question to you, Barack:

How much longer must we wait, Mr. President, to see the boulevard, in Atlanta, the one which supposedly most highly honors our Beloved MLK, be so choked with pollution from cars and buses and railed-contraptions? How, Mr. President, can we ignore Our Brothers who abide upon that land stretching from beyond the westernmost-section of MARTA, Mr. President, op [“op”: please read as “up to”] the very hallowed gates of Atlanta "proper", and reaching perhaps a mile northward, all along that same stretch of MLK Blvd... How can we ignore our Brethren therein?

Thank You, Mr. President. You most certainly have my vote in 2012. I do pray that You may be granted an amenable Senate as well as an amenable House also in 2012. I say this for sake of the very country whose character has strayed very far from the ideals set to paper as Her Constitution. I Pray this for all humanity, Mr. President.






2011-01-25.dgk.C~BarackObama.03

Labels used when posting the same entry then to The Amadian Papers:

MLK Barack Obama 2012 Light and Easy


Blog entry title:

C~ Barack Obama - Thank You, Mr. President. And a question to President Obama re: MLK

My intro of self to AIR meetup.

2010.02.28

250 char max for the intro:

Hi, I'm David. I'm in Gwinnett and am intrigued, Richard, over your joining of "inspiration" and "reason" in AIR's name: I love logic and reason, yet find life would be of no use to me were it not for the stuff of inspiration. How about a meetup?

An addendum to my self-intro at [Richard's} AIR Meetup page...

2010.02.28

An addendum to my self-intro at [Richard's} AIR Meetup page ...

~~~

Richard, I learned of AIR by seeing that Laurie [of GUST] generated not only the GUST Meetup page, but your AIR Meetup page as well. Laurie then referred me to you.

I attended a GUST get-together once (GUST's Christmas get-together this past December). While I love logic and reason and have no real need for faith... when I read, at the GUST web page, members' comments and intros, I felt GUST may not be an ideal fit for me: I don't reject "God"; I reject only irrational beliefs about a god.

I do like GUST. I can find there camaraderie with others who reject, as I do, faith in religious dogma, finding such faith irrational. But, again, my fit with GUST is not ideal: it seems to me that Rationalism, as it is commonly used, often not all that rational; and I do not subscribe to the common Rationalist notion that Science can address every important question.

I either reject the notion of a universal "God", or subscribe to the possibility that one may exist, based on whatever definition of "God" is at hand.

I find no discomfort with the notion of "God" as defined simply as some kind of source for beauty and joy. All true scientists, I argue, appreciate the beauty of nature and the joy of a rational exploration of nature. THIS, it seems to me, does not oppose the thinking of either Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin... nor even the thinking of Richard Dawkins.

Furthermore, I do not preclude the existence... beyond the extents of my personal ranges of perceptions, and further, beyond the ranges of perceptions which modern Science can claim... I do not preclude the existence of a singular, aware, universal entity. And, it seems to me, contemporary quantum interpretations for the most part, fundamentally do not preclude such a universal "God". (I'm speaking here of a sheer existentiality of such a “God”, apart from any commonly supposed characteristics or proclivities of such a “God”. )

So, I find pleasure in contemplating the possibility for a universal god, but I hold no "beliefs" about that which - if existent - certainly does not see your and my physical selves as really real. (Logic, it seems to me, dictates that conclusion.)

~~~

Now, to You, Richard, and to AIR:

On your use of the word "inspiration" in AIR's name: whence inspiration, Richard? Why did you choose that word? Inspiration, as You know, very often connotes a reception of an idea from not only a source outside You, but beyond you, beyond a merely four-dimensional existence.

I'd really like to chat with you about AIR, and where you'd ideally like to see it go. We could meet at the next GUST meeting (Mon, March 8 at UUCG).

Alternately, please feel free to either call me (cell: 770.378.4512) or email me (amadian01@gmail.com)

David Kapp

~~~

"I believe in intuition and inspiration. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research."

- Albert Einstein, 1931

"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious."

- Albert Einstein, 1927

".... From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."

- Albert Einstein, 1945

Evolution and the scabbardfish's deleting of a molecule before adding its replacement

"Imagine you're a water molecule in a glass of ice water, and you're floating right on the boundary of the ice and the water," proposes Emory University physicist Eric Weeks. "So how do you know if you're a solid or a liquid?"

 Cool.  And the article from which I copied that line is cool as a whole.




And I then referenced the linked article, and then took read a tangetal article which reads in part,

Emory University researchers have identified the first fish known to have switched from ultraviolet vision to violet vision, or the ability to see blue light. The discovery is also the first example of an animal deleting a molecule to change its visual spectrum.

 My question here is: the scabbardfish specie's precursor's having developed an ability to see ultraviolet light was certainly a fantastic development, one which only theretofore was enhanced continuously, to great benefit to that scabbardfish's ancestor.  That creature's ability to see ultravioletly was absolutely central to the specie's ability to survive, and, in all liklihood, thrive within its environment.

So, how could it be that such a valuable ability would evolve in such a way that an existent benefit would be nullified?; Of course, it happened that a gradual drift from the ultraviolet to "visible" blue light, from the creature's perspective, happened to represent, itself [the drift along the spectrum itself] an evolutionary benefit: either that creature's predators, or its prey, once seen a bit using ultraviolet light, was being rendered mre clearly visible by blue light.

But, wouldn't the existing ability to see ultraviolet light function as a pressure, acting upon natural selection, which would counter a random drift, across generations, toward a bluer sensitivity to light?

Of course.  But countering that point:

We an safely presume equally that the implied predator/prey, for the scabbardfish's ancestor, was adjusting its detectability from the ultraviolet and toward blue.


But... here, a molecule was deleted was it not?  Did the article's author truly mean that?  Was a [see ultraviolet] molecule deleted before the [see blue] molecule appear within the follil record?  Now, if that were true, well, I'm astounded.

Racism and the racist's evolutionary motivation toward kin selection

Saturday, Sep 19, 2009

2009.09.19

Ms Kelley,

Thank you for writing your Play the Race Card article. I find it at once truthful and very well-written.

You know, Ms Kelley, we cannot teach those who wish to continue grasping backward ideas. We cannot awaken them to more evolved perspectives.

I have lost count of the number of times a fellow white male, jumping to a stupid assumption that I probably think as he does, has shared with me, in private, a clearly racist comment. It is often smilingly shared in the form of whispered riddle, a riddle joke question.  The fellow, were he rather aware of his motivations, might realize as I do that he is "innocently" seeking to bond with me as a fellow White Man.

As one who relates every bit as keenly to the native Nigerian or Nicaraguan or Nepalese as to a caucasian, I cringe when I hear those comments.  Usually when I hear one of those comments, I call it what it is - possibly placing the word "racist" in my response - in a mild and non-accusative manner, to that fellow white man. And I quickly and politely end the conversation: no matter how intently he protests my observation, no matter how clearly his words and demeanor might suggest racism present, I know, his ego absolutely will not permit him to be honest about racism, even when it was so politely and mildly identified.  I usually simply walk away as he continues to protest my pointing-out his racist words.

I walk away without further ado because I know that I lead the racist beyond his racism. Were I to foolishly stand with him and continue to debate my point would be not only meaningless, but also destined to raise the temperature of both my blood and his.

I do always hope, in such circumstance, that I had nourished, a tiny bit, in him, growth beyond such darkness as racism represents.



More often than I hear a clearly racist comment to which I can respond, as above, with a conclusion that the speaker is indeed racist... I hear a less-easily-categorizable comment, one which may represent racism, but one which I'd be foolish to challenge; in those instances, when in the past I did challenge the fellow white man, suspecting racism, I would invariably hear an absolute denial of racism. True, within the denial, I may have heard one or two more "hints" that racism were present, but I lacked evidence ample enough to warrant calling a probable racist a possible racist.

So, in the latter circumstance - where I suspect I've heard racism but am not wholly confident that I did - I ignore the comment, without response, and quickly and abruptly exit the conversation.

Racism, Raina, is, as often as not, a deeply-embedded, evolutionarily-embedded, intent to have one's genes prosper and promulgate through succeeding generations of the specie by eliminating whatever near-genetic-relatives might compete for natural resources both would pursue.  So it is that our human ancestors - yes, yours and mine did also - eradicated their near-relatives among the upright-walking humanoid primates. And so it is that to this day, a human is statistically more likely to wave to an unknown neighbor, from down the street in the same home subdivision, if that neighbor is walking the neighborhood than to that same unknown neighbor were the two to pass along a grocery store aisle.

Relatedly, many modern white people, unknowingly, wear racism as a outward indicator that the wearer's animal instinct wants to rid itself of a creature, easily identified - by skin color - as "not-kin", and so protect nearby resources from consumption by that other-skin-colored individual. The white "racist", then, is unaware of his real motivation: he may have consciously applied to a black person the status of "nigger" only as a side-effect of having unconscoiusly applied to that black person the status of "certainly, non-kin".  This enables the white "racist" a means by which to justify treating the black person with less accord than would be granted a fellow white person who is inherently more likely to be closely related genetically and is thus granted "kin selection" treatment, as the evolutionary biologists might call such courtesy toward ones most likely to be genetically related.

Racism, then, is usually nothing more than the conscious reflection of unconscious, self-interest-supporting motivations.

We will not succeed in convincing the racist to grow beyond his stupid, immature views, then.

But, doing as you have done - writing well, speaking well, calling a, um, calling a spade a spade... you are contributing measurably to the total knowledge available to those who, rather than being satisfied with the status quo of his conscious prejudices and his unconscious biases, seek growth. And, perhaps, in so doing the physical child of the racist can be reached, and taught.  Nourish the best and highest intentions even abong the racist.  Perhaps we can, in that way, gradually help our specie to move beyond racism.

Michael David Holland
Atlanta

Welcome to the Amadian Papers

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009   2009.09.08

Welcome to The Amadian Papers.

The writer of this text is human.  His name is David.

 David will present via this "blog" a conversation between two characters, his own self and "Amadian".

"Amadian" can be said to be a character David invented, a character whose central identity can for the moment defined as merely a compilation of David's prettiest thoughts. When Amadian is speaking (or writing), his words are shown here in a blue Helvetica font, heretofore called here the Amadian font.

         I, Amadian, wish you well.

         I hope this writing finds you at peace, and joyful.

A third character, "Michael David Holland" will also speak or write here.  The appelations Michael David Holland and MDH are used to represent the professional persona of David; in these writings, in particular, Michael David Holland or MDH will be doing most of the writing as well as most editing of written text; so it is that most of the writings presented here will be attributed to MDH.  Where it may be unclear whether David or Amadian or David is doing the speaking (or writing), MDH will provide additional clarifying edits. MDH will use this Times (aka Times Roman) font for his contributed writings as well as his edits. 


Now, to differentiate between David the overall, outward facing, human personality and those characteristics, for David, which Michael David Holland considers apart from his own nature and character... we will for now refer to that nature and character of David which MDH feels are not part of his independent self, by the name david - with a lowercase initial "d".  


There is no insanity here. 


David, over the first years of his human childhood, while living in the states of Maryland and Virginia in the United States, learned to differentiate between ideas and feelings which seemed to him had been generated, within his mind, by something outside his mind.  As a teen, he began seeking a label, for that seeming internal-yet-other source for what were wholly positive thoughts.  Although David at first, in his writings, used the term The Voice to indicate that internal-yet-other source, he sought a more personal label for The Voice, a label which would represent for him the deep respect, appreciation, and veneration he maintained for that source.  David did not worship The Voice.  "Worship", or whatever mental state David experienced which might be considered close to worship, was reserved for David's grouping of all of the beauty, the joy, which David saw in nature, in human arts, in friendships... and, he grew-up in a predominately christian nation, David found familiarity in using the word "God" as label for all of joy and beauty.


Michael David Holland generally avoids use of the word "God", as that word carried negative connotation for many people with whom he seeks to share certain notions.  It is merely a point of practicality by which MDH will here instead use the words joy and beauty, and, by preference, Joy and Beauty (capitalized.)  


Privately, both David and MDH use the word God, in speech and in writing, with comfort.  











For most practical purposes, at least in the beginning, MDH can be considered to exist apart from David only in this separation of editor and non-editor roles here.  


MDH considers Amadian quite apart from his own self, as well as fully apart from David.  MDH noes not assert that Amadian exists as an identifiable thing or being.  Again, MDH, it seems, invented Amadian.  MDH invented not only himself, but invented both Amadian and david,  is human, as id David.  

David, the overall human David, either inclusive or exclusive of MDH, does not exhibit a "multiple personality" disorder or dissociative identity disorder.  Amadian is not a human personality.  

, and so does not represent any sort of "variation on a theme" or offshoot or personality who is either distinct from David or evident, behaviorally or via expression, from David.  

MDH, when he initially began writing and speaking, used for David a label which, while not obscene or vulgar or otherwise inherently disrespecting, yields connotations which he (MDH) wishes to avoid for now.  While MDH still prefers that label for David, and will present that label in due time, for now MDH         

David's contributions are presented in the Courier  font.


This stuff is stupid.


While, again, most editing will be performed by MDH, Amadian will sometimes present his own clarifications and edits.  Those will of course be presented in the Amadian font.



Initially, it seems, David invented Amadian, with Amadian serving as a sort of goal, in personality, demeanor, and professional and personal accomplishment, toward which David could aspire. David playfully invented a history of Amadian's initial interactions, within David's historical past, which David enjoyed toying with, although David never actually "believed" Amadian existed apart from him.

Over time, the Amadian persona acquired "weight" in David's life sufficient to be able to serve as a sort of mentor or guide for David. Under this guise, David has thought, Amadian might exist as a sort of Freudian super-ego, deliberately crafted and explicitly approachable as though Amadian were indeed an entity apart from David. When Amadian speaks or writes, David enjoys "pretending" that Amadian is indeed an entity apart from his self.  Amadian may now exist as a meme, Richard Dawkins style.  (David recognizes that under Mr. Dawkins' scheme, a meme would not be "sourced" from a single human.  Still, David considers the meme concept quite useful in describing Amadian, so is explicitly, though very respectfully, violating Mr. Dawkins' definition.)

David is fairly intelligent, and has throughout his earthly life consistently strove to maintain, within his thinking and his perceptions, objectivity. There are a couple of areas of David's experience where he considers himself not very objective at all. 

For example, when he is "tired" or "depressed", David realizes these states are probably not fully valid:they are likely tools used by David the ego personality ("ego" here is used much as it is used by A Course In Miracles (ACIM), a paradigm to which, though David does not actively subscribe, he does grant considerable accord, considering it not only beautiful but worthy of subscription by many.)

Still, David considers himself rather objective overall, insofar as a member of the human specie is capable of objectivity.  


MDH