Judgements

Charity in Truth

10/25/2009

The recent Papal Document, Caritas in Veritate .
Spring 2009

Charity in Truth reveals both a reprehensible ignorance of the first Papal Encyclical ever written and a naive unwillingness to accept the reality of today’s MALICE IN PLUNDERLAND. Pope Benedict XIV issued the first ever Encyclical Letter, Vix Pervenit, on 1st November 1745. [Denzinger 1475-1479] The theme was precisely de usuria. The letter distinguished between interest, defined as the legitimate fee for the service of lending money, and usury which was defined as the pricing of money as a commodity. The latter functioning was explicitly condemned. This writer contends that all the ecological, economic and social problems plaguing the world can be removed by redefining the terms commodity and money.

Money, it is claimed by money mongers, is a commodity and like any other commodity its actual value can be enhanced by supply and demand and deceitful manipulation. What constitutes a commodity? A commodity is generally accepted, without further clarification, as anything that can be bought or sold. This prompts further questioning. What is the community's present accepted means for buying and selling? The answer is, money.as a token of purchasing power. A commodity therefore is any marketable entity to which a money price can be attached and which can then be bought or sold with money. If money itself is a commodity, then money is a thing that can be bought or sold with money. If the set of things that money can buy includes money itself, then we have here the makings of an extraordinary set as discussed in Achieving the Impossible where the teasing seeming contradictions or paradoxes in the foundations of Mathematical Logic are removed. The above reasoning not only involves a vicious circular logic of explaining and defining something in terms of itself, but also paves the way for an ascending infinite inflationary spiral.

Before proceeding further with this theme, it will be useful to examine more closely the nature of money itself. It is because most people only think of money in terms of the hard cash in their pockets, i.e. coins and bank notes, that they are unable to grasp credit-debt creation. They only think of deposits as the cash in the bag that shopkeepers take to the bank at the end of the day’s trading. They do not understand that banks create imaginary or contrived fictional deposits when, with their computers, they key in numbers in the loan and overdraft accounts of their clients. It may make the situation easier to explain if we abandon, when confusion may arise, the use of the word money and replace it with purchasing power. The possession of money confers upon its possessors the power to purchase whatever they want, be it goods or services, or to acquire simple economic or political power over their fellow human beings. Governments have been seduced and duped into privatising the creation and distribution of financial purchasing power. Banks do not create the minuscule amount of circulating legal tender hard cash currency. They do invent, with the stroke of a pen or the touch of a computer key, the credit and debit entries by which today’s business accounting operates and to which the total purchasing power of the community is now enslaved. The purchasing-power money, once created and credited into a borrower’s account, is then called a bank deposit. Once a client’s loan application has been approved, a bank opens an account in that name and calls the created amount a deposit. In this way a bank invents and lends its clients the money that then becomes their deposits. Such deposits have no physical reality. They are psychical constructs of negative wealth called DEBT.

Returning to pricing, buying and selling commodities, the logical absurdities of modern financial practice soon become apparent. If money is treated as a commodity, then not only can it be bought or sold for money like any other commodity, but money must first purchase its own purchasing power existence. Money has to buy itself into a purchasing power intermediary existence before it can act as an intermediary agent in the sale and purchasing of other commodities. It does this by becoming a hypothetical imaginary negative (impossible) physical quantity called DEBT. Banks own and trade in debts. Banks buy and sell debts. The activity of Banks epitomizes the notion that the shadow owns the substance. The economists' myth of self-liquidating debt-systems becomes a farce of circular uroboric logic. The alchemical incestuous Uroboros was the dragon or serpent devouring itself tail first

Money as a commodity is a form of incestuous economic cancer. The definition of a commodity needs to be modified if it is to be consistent and to avoid all circular logic. An economic commodity is any marketable goods or service which has an intrinsic value in itself and whose value can be relatively assessed using an extrinsic suitable stable non-commodity money standard and hence bought and sold. In other words, an economic commodity is any marketable good, other than money, which money itself can buy. Modern money either as bits of plastic or paper, or as numbers in ledgers and computer memories, has no intrinsic value in itself. Its only value is its otherness. It does perform a valuable service in the marketplace by measuring the value of other goods and services.

The model of money as a bartering device cannot be used as a model for its use as a commodity. Their purposes and functions are diametrically opposite. The former exists as a stable extrinsic measure of worth for a community as a whole to use: the latter as an unstable intrinsic measure of marketplace purchasing power for individuals to abuse in their exploitation of the whole global community for their own personal aggrandisement and exercise of usurped power.

In any measuring operation, the standard used must be extrinsic in its functioning to the assigned operation. It would be considered absurd if an engineer's ruler were made of elastic material which contracted or expanded according to the whim of its user. If money is to serve as the efficient means of exchange and distribution of all commodities in the marketplace, it is essential that money itself be not an element of the set of all commodities. As a means to an end, money must not be allowed to become a real end in itself. As a stand-in value-token or intermediary bartering ticket, its sole reason for existence lies in its essential otherness as a measure of relative worths. Its own worth must remain independent of and aloof to the transactions and reactions it catalyses in the chemistry of commerce.

As long as money is treated as a commodity, uncertainty and insecurity must result. It is not a question of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is simply a challenge to devise a system whereby the rich well fed haves can keep their fat share of humanity’s commonwealth cake and at the same time let the poor hungry have-nots eat a just and reasonable thin slice of it as well. Money as a commodity only exists for the personal profit and increasing wealth and power of the haves - some of the rich get richer, all the poor get poorer. In an economic system where money is self-self functioning as a commodity, the treatment meted out to the have-nots who constitute the vast majority of the community becomes more and more inhumane.

There can be no adequate understanding of the suicide or survival alternative facing humanity, without a proper perception of the financial reality that it is the abuse of the role of money which is the root cause of all economic evil, and hence of most of the social disorders threatening the future of society.In a sense money must be priceless. It is the priceless lifeblood and catalytic reactor of the economic body. It is the priceless measurer of prices which the community uses to value its own real wealth of natural resources and talent. It reflects the priceless credit and faith which the community has in its own ability to produce goods and services.

It is a flagrant violation of the community's common good, if individuals are legally permitted to pervert the community's own most priceless possession, its financial lifeblood, by monopolizing the creation and supplying of all money, and also by manipulating its planned scarcity for their own base personal profit and power. Once a nation loses control of its currency and credit to selfish private interests, it matters little what political party is in power or who makes its laws. Usurious banking, by its intrinsically evil and antisocial nature, will wreck any nation once it usurps power and will ultimately destroy itself, as will any finite self-centred positive feedback evolutionary system. Until governments of countries resume control of the issue of their currency and credit and understand that the creation of the lifeblood of the economic body is its most godlike activity and responsibility, all talk about real democracy is just hypocrisy and deceit.

The same applies to all the statements of Christian leaders about Social Justice, Development and Peace, as long as they fear to bite the hand and overturn the tables of the avaricious money mongers in the global marketplace to whom they have sold Mother Nature’s children into the slavery of unpayable, exponentially growing, compound interest burdened debt.

There are two fundamental questions arising from the marketplace situation just described which are the concern of social morality and justice. The first has been stated as The Great Social Question. Who is the rightful owner of the financial credit or monetized estimate of the real wealth of a community or nation? Does it not belong in justice to the people by whose toil of mind and body, sweat and tears, the real wealth was produced? Have they not an intrinsic title to its ownership? Or does it belong to the banking system by whose virtually costless signature the money or make-believe ticket entitlement to real wealth is created out of nothing and put into circulation as their very own debt commodity and their monopoly in the distribution of all real wealth?

Moral Theology and Sociology have devoted much time and argument to establishing plausible rights and limits for individuals' ownership of private property. These two disciplines have yet to address themselves to the social question of the public ownership of the creative source and sink of all financial credit, without which private ownership of property or goods is mere lip-service and useless. If the world economy continues to evolve, as at present, all property must fall progressively into the hands of the banks or be under their control. Ultimately Capitalism will be seen to be no different from Communism, for the banks will own everything in both systems.

The second fundamental question relates to the attitude and way the banking system itself operates in the market place. The banks have usurped the business function of monetizing and demonetizing the real wealth of the community. In claiming that the negative wealth, called debt money, they create out of nothing is their own and must be repaid to them, they are perpetrating a fraud which differs in no respect from treason’s counterfeiting. In demanding repayment, they are holding both industry and the community to ransom. In taking possession of the real wealth goods of others in default of the payment of debt-money loaned and created out of nothing, banks become legalized robbers. Bank loans are only created on the strength of the community's capacity to produce and deliver consumable goods and to consume them. Not only do the same banks thwart the consumption of these goods by maintaining a fictional scarcity of created purchasing power money, but with avaricious stand-over tactics, they charge the community interest for the community's use of its own real basic wealth and turn the true credit of the nation into a catastrophic suicidal debt for all, except their international selves who profit handsomely by this dishonest, fraudulent and usurious trick.

Papal Documents

10/25/2009

To Catholic Ecclesiastical Authorities
Spring 2009

The two enclosed books pass critical judgment on recent Papal Documents.

Caritas in Veritate reveals both a reprehensible ignorance of the first Papal Encyclical ever written and a naive unwillingness to accept the reality of today’s MALICE IN PLUNDERLAND. Pope Benedict XIV issued the first ever encyclical letter, Vix Pervenit, on 1st November 1745. [Denzinger 1475-1479] The theme was precisely de usuria. The letter distinguished between interest, defined as the legitimate fee for the service of lending money, and usury which was defined as the pricing of money as a commodity. The latter functioning was explicitly condemned.

Dignitatis Personae contains contrived science fictions which are empirically refutable. All human life began with the programming of the female genes of the first prototype of human placental mammals. The continuity of all human life is through motherhood’s live ova or eggs gene-coded to generate live eggs from within other live eggs ad infinitum. Catholic Authorities are only now becoming aware of THE DIVINE MATERNITY.

The foetal units of human becomingness have no personal consciousness as they share selflife in the wombs of pregnant women. At some stage in this period of gestation, the latter become physically aware of the paradigm shift from their own self’s virginal singular case status {I, me, mine} to selflife’s plural {We, us, ours}. The brain of the foetus is not yet capable of initiating personal relationships and thus reciprocating this paradigm shift.

In the course of the biological evolution of human beings, almost all the units of divine becomingness have had no psychical awareness of their being in the spaced time womb of the pregnant Mother Self of the Cosmos. The time is ripe for human beings, in implosive contemplation, to reciprocate motherhood’s triune divine paradigm and re-enact in their own psyche the role of godmothering expressed verbally as {WE, US, OURS}.

The Third Secret of Fatima is not catastrophic. With expressive metaphor, it gives an intimation of the future paradigm shift from worshipping an all-male same-sex homosexual divine Paternity to the reverential acceptance of the unveiled Selflife of the heterosexual divine Maternity. This will require a complete restructuring of all formal religious beliefs and praxis.

With prayerful solicitude, Peter Lock.

Contraception and abortion

10/25/2009

The Human Placental Mammal

[The Medieval Schoolmen gave much earnest consideration to a being who had life from itself, i.e., a se. Such a being was said, in Latin, to possess the attribute aseitas, in English, aseity. This author names Aseity as the Mother Nature Self of the Cosmos.]

Strictly speaking, all biological cell reproduction is asexual being brought about by a continual fission process of one mother cell dividing in a complex process into two new identical daughter mother cells. This process is called mitosis. Initially the propagation of primitive living species followed this pattern. After a certain stage was reached, biological evolution could only continue and progress by means of distinct new individuals who were limited by spaced time.

Sexual propagation differs from the above asexual reproduction. Sexual propagation involves the fusion of two special sex cells called gametes (the female egg and the male sperm) to form a zygote. Though their nuclei fuse together to form a single nucleus, the individual chromosomes within the nucleus remain distinct.

Gametes and zygotes share the selflife of already existing human beings. Cells such as gametes whose nuclei contain only one set of chromosomes are called haploid. Zygotes whose nuclei contain two sets of chromosomes are said to be diploid. The zygote is genetically different from the diploid cells of either parent. It has a combination of both of their genes and becomes a new specimen of embryonic human being.

A zygote has twice as many chromosomes as a gamete. Hence the need for a special type of nuclear division process, called meiosis, whereby the chromosome diploid number of propagative sex-cells is halved to form haploid numbered gametes. When two gametes are united in fertilization, the normal chromosome diploid number is restored in the zygote.

The normal human is blueprinted at conception with twenty three pairs of live chromosomes, one of each pair from its mother and one of each pair from its father. Twenty two of these pairs are called autosomes being identical in size and shape. The other pair of sex chromosomes differ in women from men. Normal women have two identical, relatively large X chromosomes, whilst normal men have one large X joined to a comparatively small Y chromosome. In the normal fertilized ovum there is always one maternal X chromosome together with either an X or a Y paternal contribution. As a rule two X-s result in a female and an X and a Y in a male

Implanted in the womb, the new zygote is specifically called an embryo. Technically, biologists generally experiment with frozen zygotes, not embryos. After seven weeks of implantation in the womb, the embryo is usually referred to as a foetus. It is deliberate deception to invoke the use of emotive language and speak of the child in the womb. It is simply a human foetus. Nothing more. Language analysis would distinguish between the individual identity of a human being and the generic abstractions human being and human becoming.

The development of living human being from conception to birth reveals all the stages of the evolution of physical life on earth. Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny. There is an observable overall resemblance between evolutionary processes and embryonic development. The embryos of higher or more complex animals resemble the embryos of simpler or less complex forms. The first stages of all vertebrate embryos bear extraordinary similarities, and differentiating a human embryo from that of a frog, fish, chicken, or pig is not easy. To call human embryos sacred persons, whilst labelling their look-alikes just as mere animal embryos and usually of very little consequence is open to question and refutation. They all share selflife according to their genes.

In a woman’s ovaries long before her menstruation begins at puberty, there are live ova or eggs (gametes) already genetically programmed to produce live eggs within other live eggs ad infinitum. Every ovum is biologically sacred. Though a live virgin ova is not yet a human being, it is part of and shares the integral selflife of an already existing human placental mammal.

It might well be considered as a human becoming. It does possess haploid human being and is potentially capable, if given appropriate biochemical or biophysical stimulation of becoming a new individual human being, either identical to her as a clone or if given added conceivable genetic material from a male sperm, to develop into a unique distinct human being having a combination of both parents’ gene-traits. When such a latter biune concep- tioning occurs, there is a two-in-one fusioning of pre-existing self-functioning live haploid human gametes. Two live haploid human gametes fuse together to form or beget one live diploid human zygote. Arithmetically, two ones become one two. When does the enwombed offspring of a human being become a new distinct self-functioning human being? Physically it does so only when integrally separated from its mother after birth.

There still prevails much confusion and contrived ignorance in popular thinking and teaching in relating the traditional but unscientific Theology of the past to the verifiable realities of present-day embryology. Many well-meaning adherents of Christianity would still like to believe that an outside divine male omnipotence breathes into and infuses the individualized soul of a new human person into living matter subsequently to, or at the moment of conception, when the genetic material in a living human sperm gamete fuses with the genetic material in the nucleus of a living human egg gamete.

Such notions may have been necessary to accommodate past theological reasonings but today they are scientifically gratuitous. Freely asserted, freely denied. Once conception has occurred, the immanent Aseity continues to breathe the programmed growth of additional more complex biune selflife within this new identity. She animates both live gametes, egg and sperm. She also animates the live zygote when the live gametes fuse to effect the gene-blueprint of a future human being. There is only one Mother Self of the Cosmos who shares her own personal selflife with her spaced time otherselves.

This writer never uses the word soul. He prefers to use the grammatical self, both as a proper noun and also as a reflexive pronoun. He knows what self is by conscious experience, being the dictating director of his own self’s functioning feedback system. The traditional distinction between body and soul is better replaced with the experienced biunity of the physical and the psychical, of a force-field togetherness spirit continuum and its set of discrete quantized particles of matter. If the concept of an individual soul is abandoned, then questions do not arise concerning its immortality.

Aseity exists without beginning or end. She IS. She is SELFLIFE. Her maternal self knows infinite personal fecundity and filiation in her collective self-other consciousness which becomes differentiated and individualized in resonant spaced time human materializations. The human self, as a living image otherself of Aseity never dies. It only undergoes a new dimensioning in her collective self-other consciousness. The latter exists before physical sexual coition and conception’s union of a living human egg with a living human sperm and continues its becomingness after death’s physical dissolution.

A pregnant human placental mammal can be classified as a self-and-other-containing biunity of distinct units in biophysical union. It is a self-other-functioning feedback-system whose unique functioning self directs the distinct relational self-other-feedback functionings of both subsystems of mother-self and her embryonic or foetal other-self. The embryo or foetus is consubstantial with its mother. There is only one totally shared self in the system which ultimately undergoes a form of aseistic biological fission.

As long as the embryo or foetus is guest in its mother’s womb, it is part of her selflife and is not a new self-functioning human being having individual rights. Nature ordains that it’s life or death is solely the responsibility of the mother who, as a placental mammal, makes the decision who can enter her body and who can remain to grow within her with her own selflife. Only with the cutting of the umbilical cord is the new born offspring physically separated from the mother-self and becomes a new unique individual, though still theoretically dependent on her mammary system for nourishment. There are now two physically distinct spaced time human self-functioning beings.

Men, desirous of continuing their usurped patriarchal hegemony, need a steady supply of male offspring. They demand access to woman’s body by fair means or foul. Such right of entry (ius in corpore) was once a strictly enforced decree of Christian Canon Law. It applied to both parties in Matrimony. Once a woman became pregnant, the male partner considered himself, or was made to consider himself, the part-owner or co-parent of the growing human embryo or foetus. It would seem that, ideally, in Mother Nature’s sophisticated plan, male superior strength was not intended to be used to dominate or rape woman, but to be at her service to protect and to provide for the care and sustenance of the mother and her offspring. It general terms, it appears that of all creatures, only male man maltreats his mate.

The one-sided motherless patriarchal culture, from which society is slowly being freed, has served its purpose of harvesting distinction and self-destruction, fratricide and genocide. Whilst woman is a begetter and bearer of life, fighting, pillaging, raping, destroying, killing others are activities which seem to come naturally to the sons of men and are manifestations of the Motherless Child Syndrome. The noblest way a man could die was in battle, killing his fellowman - for woman it was in childbirth. Mule minded males are reluctant to leave to women the managing of women’s life-sharing business.

To be Aseity’s evolutionary unit otherselves we need to become real distinct materialized do-it-yourself individuals. As such, in our male fertilized human species, the unity of the We-Us-Ours collective self-other consciousness in the Mother Selflife Set is undone. Such new I-me-mine privatization from the self-functioning whole carries with it the sentence and certainty of physical death. The price of singularity is mortality. The children of men are born to die.

It is the being of Aseity’s one divine Self that is becomingly reflected in every one of her other self-other-functioning feedback-systems. These echoing images subsist resonantly in her Unified Field of Existential Relativity. They all share existence in the spaced time evolution of her self-other-life. Self-development through otherness is the characteristic of all living things.

A woman’s live ovum, whilst seeking and enjoying self-survival, is a self-functioning system of real haploid human being. While alive, it struggles as vehemently to survive at a molecular or microscopic level as does any self-developing fertilized version on the embryonic or foetal level. Self-survival and adaptational self-development are basic to all living self-functioning systems. There is one more part to such self systems over and above the mere matter of which they are composed. If they are to exist and grow as self-functioning feedback-systems, they must from the very first moment of any such existence, already respire the vital breath of Aseity’s force-field togetherness spirit which imparts to the growing system as a whole an entirely new and extraordinary dimension.

A chemically induced self-fertilization of a Queen Bee’s eggs is normal. It is physically possible to do the same with frogs’ eggs by simply pricking them. Such parthenogenesis would ensure a continuity of genetically identical new individuals or clones. If other-fertilized by a male sperm they would be genetically different. In both situations the self-developing new individual would be modified by whatever predetermining genetic data it possessed. In aseistic evolution, Mother Nature selects what fertilized individuals best suit the purposes of her self-functioning systems.

As an integral self-other-functioning-feedback-system Nature does not abhor abortion. Indeed she practises it in unique trial-and-error techniques whereby she gets rid of what does not suit her progressive intentions. Menstruation can be understood as the visible showing of the abortive ending of one life-and-death egg cycle and the expectant beginning of a new one. This periodic monthly aborting or wasting of unfertilized once living, but now disintegrated human ova is really no different biologically from wasting aborted fertilized ones. Observed at the molecular level, they would be seen to struggle in biophysical agitation as they experienced the distress of dying.

Few persons can relate with any sympathy for or empathy with the living and dying of such virgin self-functioning haploid female human being. Many men, with immature minds, fear such menstrual blood-flow in women and are generally embarrassed even to think about it. Add some new live haploid male genetic material to the haploid material of a live ovum in sexuality’s intercourse, and now having lost its pristine virginity the latter becomes the sacred object of rigorous male juridical and ecclesiastical concern.

Vocal anti-abortion advocates speak about the Right to Life. What do they understand by Life? Has a fertilized egg more right to life than an unfertilized one? Empirical Science in Biology observes and studies the phenomena of Life. It does not presume to define precisely what life is but only to describe it. We humans know what life is by living. For most academics, the essence and existence of life, and particularly human selflife, is a mystery. For this writer, Aseity or Selflife is Existential Self-Other Relativity “I Am ↔Thou Art”.

Aseity begets her other selves in spaced time. She shares her selflife with them. Begotten physically as individuals, their bodies are destined to eventually disintegrate in observance of Nature’s Law of Entropy. No human being has the right to biological life. All life is shared life. The bodies of all human beings are predestined to die. They are born stamped with a use-by date.

Every human being is called to forsake its mortal singular human I-me-mine sole self in order to participate in the plural divine We-Us-Ours before or after death or both. This is consonant with the self-sacrificial nature of orgasmic sexuality. Sexuality knows its most meaningful and profound reality in involvement with religion and selflife experience. This theme was introduced on Page 66 and bears repeating and further development.

Personal development and self-transcendence through sexual relations can and should have sacrificial connotations. To sacrifice should mean to make sacred in an act of reverential worship. For sexuality to perfect a new cultural and religious species in evolutionary ascent, we must apply such ideas of sacrifice analogously to personal relationships involving a self and its other. Unless the I-self's grain of selflife seed die, there remains but a sterile "me and mine", but if it submits to a psychical metamorphosis on encountering a beloved "you", then it enjoys a more abundant selflife as "we-us-ours" in the oneness of existential togetherness.

In the orgasm climax of sexual union there should be experienced the ecstatic pleasure of a mystical death. Biology's sex-functioning introduces limits bringing eventual death to the individual's body and likewise psycho- logically, there should be exacted a similar transition with respect to the individual self's conscious personal life. This is the self-sacrificial price that has to be paid for Nature's selective growth in unity and complexity. Sexual fertility, with its potential for an increased quality and diversity in the fruits of its union, requires ultimately the sacrificial surrendering of the flesh-masked personal individuality of both its participants to knowingly experience love’s togetherness as We-Us-Ours.

As a cosmic symbol and in the psychical realm of affective interpersonal relations and true mystical experience, human sexuality can be raised to levels of meaningfulness which totally transcend its mere biological propagative significance. Just as the ingesting of bread and wine can be transubstantiated as a Sacrament from simple food and drink to be re-interpreted as a sanctifying Eucharistic Communion, so also can the physical biune expression of human love be made the Sacrament of divine encounter and incorporation into the Trinity of We-Us-Ours. The material Eucharist is not intended for bodily metabolism. Likewise, sexual Communion can render procreation of new individuals unnecessary and artificial contraception both valid and advisable. Gluttony and lust are retrogressive and unbecoming. As the Sacrament of Existential Self-Other Relativity, sexual intercourse must always leave itself open to effect a more meaningful and sanctifying divine-human togetherness.

When does a clone or a fertilized ovum become a human person with legal rights? That is up to those human persons who define themselves to be rights-possessing human persons, to let their self-projecting reasoning decide and then to legislate accordingly. Naming a zygote a person does not make it one.

Persons are what persons think and say they are. Pro-life advocates like to empathize with the embryo or foetus. What they are actually doing is simply raising the concept of an embryo to the level of complexity of a human being and lowering the complexity of a human being to the level of an embryo.

When does a human being become a person? Some cultures say at eighteen or twenty one years of age. Some say at puberty; some say at birth or at conception or two weeks or more afterwards. Some jurists in patriarchal societies would deny women the title of even being a person and hence not having any human rights whilst males in their wombs would be legally sacred.   When does a human being become a legal person? The answer is simple. When it is given a Registered Legal Name by the appropriate legal authority.

What is a human person? For the Latins of antiquity, persona (a feminine word) was the mask that actors wore. Who are human persons? Human persons are Aseity’s otherselves, her dramatis personae, the actors, masked with spaced time, of her two-in-one-act dialogue “I AM” ↔ “You are”.

Scientists can cope quite adequately with giving names to past, present and possible future observable entities. They know what they are talking about when they speak about cellular and corporal generic human being and also individual human beings. They are dealing with a posteriori facts. They are not concerned with intangible and contrived fictional transcendent realities like a hypothetical human soul. It is not for empirical science to define what constitutes a person from metaphysical, political, legal and moral points of view. On the other hand, many biased expounders of bioethics use completely arbitrary a priori fictional considerations in defining their own terms.

Restructured Set Theory can enlighten philosophers about the reality of unity and infinity. Existential Self-Other Relativity in Modern Science can provide the purveyors of food for thoughtful human beings with consistent foundations on which to build for the future. It can also remove troublesome enigmas. When does a human being become a person?

The answer to this question has been one of the main themes of this book. The author has allowed the Grammar of person speech to speak for its self and to be definitive in this regard. Users of the pronouns “I and We” are first persons. Those named “Thou and You” are second persons. “She, He, They” are third persons. A human being who is able to say, or to think, “I am” or “We are” is a person. A human being who is known and called “You” is a person. Human beings, spoken about as “They”, are persons. The Personal Selflife of Aseity is a Trinity of Divine and spaced time human Persons.

With reflexive attention, a pregnant woman knows her own selflife now includes that of the foetus in her womb. Her former singular “I am” becomes eventually aware of other selflife within. She has a personal experience of biunity’s two-in-oneness. She can monologue with her otherself as a “you” because the latter is sharing now in her plural person selflife of “We”.

Though religious right-to-life arguments against abortion are understandable in the shadowy light and specious terms of much of their traditional patriarchal western culture, they are basically legalistic and emotional, and in some respects are quite inconsistent and lacking in scientific logic. Opposition to abortion and linking it with medical research involving frozen zygotes (incorrectly termed embryos) as with stem-cells, is more often than not a misguided ego-trip by irrational over-zealous fundamentalist protesters rather than a genuine understanding and concern for human gametes and zygotes.

Bioethicists are implicitly claiming to know the scientific mind of their God when they accuse scientists of playing the role of their God in the laboratory. Aseity, who is SELFLIFE, has played god successfully for billions of years in life’s evolution here on her Planet Earth. She and her living image otherself, the human placental mammal, are quite capable of carrying on the good work.

This author would hate to find himself in a woman’s drastic situation of having to choose about terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Preventive systems using some sort of artificial contraception eliminate the necessity of having to make such decisions. It is quite pragmatic and logically acceptable, however, to both sides of those engaged in the abortion debate to allow the living human female ovum and the living human male sperm to disintegrate and die separately instead, in their hapless and helpless live state of being mere haploid human gametes.

The author has no intention of passing moral judgment on abortion, nor to condemn women who terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Natural Law ordains that the continued selflife of an embryo or foetus is the sole responsibility of the mother. It is pre-eminently woman’s business. It is man’s business to love and worship his partner, to protect and to provide for her and her offspring.

With reverential worship of her charms,
man finds his being’s good in woman’s arms.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is hers. The decision to abort all life on the Planet of Mother Earth with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of global mass destruction is still on political operation tables for bloody-minded men to decide on and then try to implement. ■

Hushed Questions

10/25/2009

Did Jesus have genes?

What are genes?
Genes are units of inheritance. They are a sequence of DNA on a chromosome. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is one of a class of large molecules which are found in the nuclei of cells and which are responsible for the transference of genetic characteristics. Each gene contains information coded in the form of a specific sequence of nucleotides within its DNA molecule. Both parents contribute their individual genes to program together a new human being.

Was Jesus a real son of a man?
Whose genes did Jesus have?
Did Mary and Joseph consummate their marital union?
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?
Did Jesus marry?

For traditional Christianity, the real climax of human evolution was the Incarnation. Culturally, supposed virginal conceptions and virgin births were nothing new. They were prime material for many mythologies and folk lore and influenced the early centuries of Christianity far more than we have been led to believe.

Patriarchal Judaism, then the Apostle Paul and later the Gospel writers and the Fathers (married or celibate) of the Church had their own naive primitive concepts about sexuality, about fatherhood and motherhood. These only reflected prevailing mindsets. For the most part they were merely a priori contrived fictions, claiming to report matters of fact but not actually supported by factual study. They knew nothing of Biological Science. In their ignorance of such, patriarchal authorities arrogantly, and with prejudiced assessments, considered the female as merely the receptacle of the male semen from which all new life had its assumed beginnings.

For almost nineteen centuries, Christian theologians had been blissfully ignorant of the live female ovum and its role in human propagation when fertilized by a live male spermatozoon, i.e., by one of the minute, actively motile, haploid gametes in semen. Unless Mary’s own child had developed naturally from one of her male-fertilized ova, she could in no real way be understood now as Jesus’ true mother. The Incarnation is no longer a mystery. It is early Christian folklore.

The hushed question vexing thoughtful Christian theologians is What was the nature of Jesus’ genes and chromosomes? Modern Genetics would affirm he had to have the genes of his parents, Mary and Joseph who must have consummated their marital union for Jesus to be conceived as the son of a man born of woman.

The traditional ever virgin Mary, Mother of God, has lost all meaningful reality. It was a contrived fiction, enunciated in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke some 70 or more years after the event. It is no use Church authorities invoking a special divine intervention to effect the transplant of the Word of God into Mary’s surrogate womb. Such extraordinary conceptual conceptions find no resonance in human biological experience and make no sense to modern minds.

Science now poses more problems than ever about the consistency and credibility of Biblical traditions, about Jesus’ birth and crucifixion and the Creeds of the early Church.

There is a troubling dilemma arising from the Gospel details about the death and burial of Jesus. In John 19/39 we read how Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus asked the astonished Pilate (Mark 15/44) to let them remove the body of Jesus. Nicodemus brought with him a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing an incredible about a hundred pounds weight. Such medicaments and in such quantity were never part of Jewish burial ritual which confined itself just to washing and anointing the dead body with oil, before placing it in a winding sheet..

Instead the mutilated comatose body of Jesus received healing treatment with the most powerful natural medicinal agents known at the time. There seems to be no authoritative theological comment on this extraordinary quantity of recognised healing agents whose only purpose could have been to minister to the living, not the dead.

This alternative understanding of the events of the first Good Friday would remain only pure conjecture were it not now for the evidence revealed by the Shroud of Turin. The highly questionable (faked?) carbon dating of the latter in 1988 is treated at length in the Article - The Shroud of Turin. It was imputed to be a medieval forgery.

Instead of being merely a theory, there is now factual scientific confirmation that the body that was laid on the winding sheet was not dead. There are a score or more of distinct blood stains on it. Dead bodies do not bleed nor can such Shroud vapograms be produced except by the interaction of warm moist vapours on chemicals in contact with the surrounding cloth. Such vapours could only be from a live fever-ridden body.

In 2002, vital restoration work on the now discolouring Shroud was authorized and carried out in secret by a team of Swiss textile historians and technicians. Their observations gave the lie to the carbon dating. The seams, visibly evident on the cloth, had been stitched with a pattern and technique that was unknown in the Middle Ages. However they did match exactly similar cloth found at Masada near Jerusalem and which dated from the first century.

There is no reason for the faithful in the pews to be disillusioned by this turn of events and this new knowledge and understanding of the origins of Christianity. An integral truly Neo-Catholic Church, reborn in a Scientific Reformation, is perhaps much closer than we have dared to think. The Beautiful Lady of Lourdes, Fatima and other sites bespeaks a loving caring gentle Mother, ever mindful of the Children in her Selflife womb. The childlike minds of both well-meaning Christians and non-Christians alike, of pious folk of The East and of The West have always intuitioned a real divine Mother Self, sharing her selflife with them all, her begotten spaced time human gods and goddesses. Praying to Our Lady has been and will continue to be a meaningful act of universal religion.

Our Lady, your Selflife Spirit breathes within us.
Hallowed be your name.
Your Queendom come, your will be done.

Whilst Empirical Science has relegated the traditional Virgin Mary, Mother of God, to the realm of Mythology, it has at the same time acknowledged the reality and importance of The Woman. The latter, at the pinnacle of the class of placental mammals, would seem to be the primary goal of biological evolution on the Planet of Mother Earth. The male of the species has only a passing secondary role. Technically, in their physical selves, men are not placental mammals. Their nipples make evident vestigial traces of their having been born of woman, but they have neither a womb nor mammary glands by nature.

The author questions many long-standing and cherished ideas about patriarchal traditions and passes judgment on the theological foundations and development of the belief in the same-sex union of just the one male Father-Son God. He nowise intends to depreciate or destroy the latter but to liberate, both it and all other thinking about culture and religion, from the contrived fictions and tyranny of dominance in which patriarchal make believe has implicated them over the course of the last few millennia.

Motherless patriarchal monotheism

10/25/2009

To Catholic Ecclesiastical Authorities. May 2009

In the light of the cultural and scientific advances of the last fifty years, the tenets of Judaism's motherless patriarchal monotheism have long passed their usefulness. So too, the reality of the same sex (homosexual) all male sire-son "Abba" deity of Pauline Christianity is fast becoming academically untenable and unacceptable.

The enclosed booklet asserts the primacy of Aseity, the Mother Self of the Cosmos. The continuity of all selflife existence for evolved higher animals has been solely the function and responsibility of the female placental mammal who, as scientists generally agree, is the goal of biological evolution on Mother Earth.

It is logical to infer that the human female placental mammal is begotten as the spaced time image and likeness of the Mother Self of the Cosmos. It is also logical to contemplate the analogy between physical and psychical conception and gestation. In its earliest physical development, all human becoming passes through an unconscious transitive stage of life in the mother's womb. Relatively few humans ever become reflexively aware of their psychical development in the womb of the selflife consciousness of Aseity Herself.

Sooner or later, the Masters in Christendom will have to concede that the historical Jesus, the Nazarene Reformer, had the genes of his parents who must have consummated their marital union. They will also have to concede that this author's thesis of Existential Self-Other Relativity as enunciated in his restructured foundations of Mathematical Logic takes the mystery out of the Trinity.

Finally they must come to terms with the situation of John 19/39. The writer obtained his Diploma of Pharmacy in 1943. He has studied and handled myrrh and aloes. Myrrh and aloes are not spices. They are resinous exudations of plants. They were never part of Jewish burial ritual which consisted solely in washing the corpse and anointing it with oil and then wrapping it in a shroud. Myrrh and aloes in combination were among the most powerful antiseptic and healing agents known at the time. Every week, as a Pharmacy apprentice, this writer would dust the bottles in the Dispensary. Among the latter was a bottle labelled Tinct. Myrrh. Co. [Compound Tincture of Myrrh and Aloes]. In those days, its use was limited to painting on sore or ulcerated gums and as an ingredient of mouth washes and gargles for ulcerated throats.

The only purpose of such an extraordinary quantity, a hundred pounds weight, in the circumstances of John 19/39 would have been to restore and resuscitate the live mutilated comatose body of a drugged crucified man. Pilate marvelled that he was already dead when the Nazarenes, Nicodemus and Joseph, asked for the body of their Master.

Christianity is becoming divided. Most Christians who still care about their traditional Religion remain loyal to the old ideas and ways of thinking. They are not disposed to abandon the former fundamentals of their Faith. On the other hand, many persons of goodwill search for more knowledge of, and experience of, meaningful religion. In their quest for union with the divine, they now accept that in the planned evolution of human culture, we are outknowing our cherished myths and outgrowing our revered cults.

In 2002, vital restoration work on the now discolouring Shroud of Turin was authorized and carried out in secret by a team of Swiss textile historians and technicians. Their observations gave the lie to the dubious carbon dating. The seams, visibly evident on the cloth, had been stitched with a pattern and technique that was unknown in the Middle Ages. However they did match exactly similar cloth found at Masada near Jerusalem and which dated from the first century. There are a score or more of well-defined bloodstains on the Shroud. Dead bodies do not bleed.

If the Turin Shroud is authentic, the Mass has lost all its meaning. The Pauline Theology of the Messianic Christ-Redeemer and his vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind. becomes pious make believe. The Resurrection becomes once more what the original Aramaic word intended, namely Resuscitation.

Our Lady of Lourdes and Fatima has not abandoned us in a wilderness. The Mother Self of the Cosmos is inviting all her otherselves back to her womb to be reborn into a neocatholic Psychical Incorporation, Aseity Inc.

The writer would like to think that the Queen of the South Press [website: www.queenofthesouth.com.au] is relevant to Matthew 12/42 and Luke 11/3 1.

With prayerful solicitude, Peter Lock

Paradigm Shifts

10/25/2009

Among serious minded people the Middle English word paradigm is taking on important modern meanings. There is much talk about expectant paradigm shifts, about some new compelling Philosophy of selflife and the meaningfulness of human existence.

The first meaning that the Macquarie Dictionary gives to the word paradigm is from the point of view of grammar - the set of all forms containing a particular element, especially the set of all inflected forms of a single root, stem, or theme. Language analysts study the paradigm of case. Another listed meaning of paradigm is - a set of concepts shared by a community of scholars or scientists.

In English Grammar, case is defined as the relation in which a noun stands to some other word, or the change of form, if any, by which this change is indicated. There are three cases in modern English – the Nominative, the Objective and the Possessive.

A noun used as the subject to a verb is said to be in the Nominative case: Birds fly. When a noun is the object to a verb it is said to be in the Objective case: Children fly kites. The Possessivecase usually denotes the possessor or owner. It is formed by adding ’s to a noun: A child’s toy.

With personal pronouns, we have the singular case paradigm or set {I, me, mine}, and the plural case paradigm {We, us, ours}. The paradigm shift from singular to plural, from a singular individual unit to a set or unity of pluralized individual units, is what the members of the human race must adopt if they are to survive the lessons of History in Biological and Cultural Evolution - Privatize and Perish.

Feedback trial and error processes are foresighted means to certain determined ends. In all eras preceding the advent of human self-consciousness in this planet's evolutionary development, the eventual fate of any new parts, through success or failure, would have been judged by their feedback effect on the whole system, for better or worse, for richer or poorer. The degree of symbiotic incorporation into an ecologically favourable plural environment measures success, but rejection by such as unsuitable or detrimental determines failure.

In his book, MALICE IN PLUNDERLAND the author expresses concern that the vast majority of human beings are completely ignorant of the planned abuse by the banking system of the role of money in Consensus Economics. This is not an isolated occurrence in the course of human cultural evolution. There are still contrived fictions in which an aberrant patriarchal make believe has implicated human thought over the last few millennia. Not the least among these topics of male indoctrination is the role of sexuality in human social behaviour and in the propagation of the human species.

The emergence of an elegant, highly intelligent and dignified feminism in academic and political arenas and a sense of global pluralism associated with being the children of the same Great Earth Mother are not passing New Age intellectual fads. They are instituting paradigm shifts destined to be the salvation of mankind.

The yearning for increased conscious self-awareness and inner perceptual experience of the numinous, are laying the foundations of cultural movements to replace the outknown myths and outgrown cults of conservative male-dominated thinking in the realms of religion and morality, politics and economics. The motherless child of an all male same-sex deity is slowly being abandoned by its spirit of masculine despotism and uniformity. Stranded, alone, such child awaits its call to return to the womb from whence it first came.

Freedom from the slavery to interest burdened debt will eventually be achieved when women once more take control of the course of human affairs. A pregnant woman understands the full implication of the paradigm shift from the singular {I, Me, Mine } to the plural {We, Us, Ours}

As far as we know now, in this the 21st Century, the Placental Mammal is at the Pinnacle of the Tree of Lifeon this Planet. It would seem that the continuity of all selflife existence for evolved higher animals has been, and still is, solely the self-functioning and responsibility of the female placental mammal who, as scientists generally agree, is the goal of biological evolution on Mother Earth.

With prejudiced superficial assessments, patriarchal authorities considered the female as merely the receptacle of the male semen from which all new life had its assumed beginnings. Philosopher-Scientists like Aristotle and others with a questioning frame of mind put forward theories of sexuality. For Aristotle, homunculi existed in the male seed. Homunculi were fully formed miniature human beings ejaculated into the female womb in copulation. The same agenda applied to all creatures. Seed plants and their flowers gave visible evidence of something existentially quite different, of distinction and union. Both fauna and flora have their mysteries of life and death and their unveiling challenges human understanding.

Worlds pass, their myths outknown,
their creeds and cults outgrown.
Selflife evolves, forever new.

Same Sex Unions

10/25/2009

Homo, from the Greek homos, means same.
Homo, from the Latin homo, means collectively man and woman.
Homo- as a prefix or combining form meaning same is contrasted with
hetero- meaning other or different. A homosexual same sex relationship contrasts with a heterosexual self-other sex relationship.
In the self-other revelation of Existential Relativity,
heterosexuality engineers all biological evolution.
Homosexuality can be meaningful psychologically:
biologically, it is generally infertile and sterile.

************************************************

Whilst modern social attitudes are becoming polarized as regards heterosexual and homosexual unions, it is thought provoking to observe that the patriarchal obsession with a homosexual (meaning same sex) Father-Son deity still dominates all Christian theological discussion and liturgical expression. Past theologians of both Eastern and Western Christianity have argued and fought over the nature of the processions of the divine persons of the Trinity. Pauline Christianity evolved from its parent motherless Jewish Monotheism. Its mindset could not conceive nor would it ever have tolerated any inclusion of woman in an all male godhead. There was and still is no word in Hebrew for goddess or godmother. For Judaism and its Christian and Islamic offshoots their deity could in no way be construed as heterosexual.

It is interesting, even to the point of being entertaining, to study the various Doctrinal Creeds and Council Decrees of the Christian Church as it developed over the Centuries. Participating authorities struggled with the meaning of words in order to avoid inconsistencies and ambiguities. A word out of place or its meaning poorly defined and its user could be labelled a heretic with dire consequences. Liturgical prayers were addressed to God the Father and to God the Son in the Unity of the Holy Spirit. Any language precision defining the procession of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son challenged the best minds in Christendom. The Trinity of three Persons (two of male gender and one neuter) in the one God was declared an incomprehensible Mystery. The patriarchal ecclesiastical authority guarded its male hegemony jealously.

History, nevertheless, shows thatreligious experience cannot be divorced from sexuality.Same sex unions are an important aspect of sexuality and which are not new but which are much discussed in political and theological circles today. They threaten to split the Anglican Hierarchy worldwide and are also highly relevant to the official mindset of Roman Catholicism.

What are we to determine about same sex relationships? They are understandable in women and men as resulting from sexual abuse as children and also when married. What is not so understandable is the theological inconsistency of churchmen in authority with regard to same sex unions when their own God, a patriarchal motherless deity, is decreed, without question, as a same sex all male sire-son union.

The irony in today’s official Christian attitude to Marriage is that though heterosexuality (woman and man) is demanded in the partners of a sacred matrimonial union, such union is contracted in the Name and with Blessing of a motherless all male same sex Sire-Son God.

Paul the Apostle had never met the physical Jesus, the son of Jewish parents. He had a radical mindset changing experience of a Jesus the Nazarene Reformer in his recorded paranormal encounter with him on the road to Damascus. Celibate (?) Paul’s admission of a sting of the flesh (2Cor.12/7) has given rise to speculation that he might have had a disposition to homosexuality. Converted Paul became the slave of his psychical construct Jesus the Christ whom he identified in his own mind with Jesus the Nazarene. The meaning of the original Greek doulos was a born slave (Rom. 1/1). The so-called Epistles of Paul were written a decade or more before any of the Gospels made their appearance. As far as we know, Paul was the first preacher and writer to speak of Jesus the Christ. Pauline Christianity developed from patriarchal Jewish mythology and traditions. It postulated a motherless deity, a Father-Son Paternity, a same sex (homosexual) divine all male union.

Genesis 1/27 can be manipulated and spin-doctored to insinuate a heterosexual deity - God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them. This is simply naïve wishful thinking. As stated above, the mindset of male monotheism could not conceive nor would it ever have tolerated any inclusion of woman in an all male godhead. In today’s realm of real human affairs, not that of past mythological gods and goddesses with their folk lore and legends, empirical evidence now says there cannot be a father and son without a mother.

Many Christians may find it totally unacceptable, but it is not illogical for modern culture to construe such a Pauline conceived same sex all male union as being literally homosexual, from the Greek homos meaning same. Paul wrote at times of the Spirit, but his Divinity was biune not triune in the full sense into which it would evolve later. Nevertheless Paul’s Christology is the very essence of orthodox Theology and still dominates its thinking as it did for the scribes of the Christian Gospels and the Church Fathers.

Paul loved his brainchild, the motherless Jesus the Christ. He perceived and mothered the latter’s spiritual presence within himself. He longed to be dissolved and to be with him. He spent the rest of his life preaching about the Mystery of God the Father and God the Son as revealed in Jesus the Christ. [In actual reality, it was The Woman in his psyche who conceived and sired his Son of Man.]

As young people become more aware of the empirically verifiable realities of Biological Science, teaching authorities must accept that it is time to free Religion Education from the contrived fictions, deceptions and aberrations in which patriarchal ignorance and legendary make believe has implicated them over the course of the last few millennia.

Modern educated intelligent parents, real mothers and real fathers, rightly object to having their children christened (baptized) into an obsolete motherless all male Father - Son same sex (homosexual) uniformity.

***************************

Two Witnesses

10/25/2009

Paul the Apostle had never met the physical Jesus, the son of Jewish parents. He had a radical mindset changing experience of a Jesus the Nazarene Reformist in his own recorded paranormal encounter with him on the road to Damascus (Acts 22/8). Celibate (?) Paul’s admission of a sting of the flesh (2 Cor.12/7) has given rise to speculation that he might have had a disposition to homosexuality. Converted Paul became the slave of his psychical construct Jesus the Christ whom he identified in his own mind with this Jesus the Nazarene.

The so-called Epistles of Paul were written a decade or more before any of the Gospels made their appearance. As far as we know, Paul was historically the first preacher and writer to speak of Jesus as The Christ. Pauline Christianity developed from patriarchal Jewish mythology and traditions. It postulated a motherless deity, a Father-Son Paternity, a same sex (homosexual) divine all male union.

This writer in his early twenties had a radical mindset changing experience as a result of a naive friendship with a male homosexual. Though he was not sexually abused, a situation arose which was extremely distressing, indeed eventually catastrophic, and yet from which he could not see how to escape. Eventually he did, but not without a devastating brain storm from which he emerged with his personal consciousness transformed to include the perception of being in the womb of the Mother of God. In the first part of his book Faith Fact Fiction, there is a more detailed account of his subsequent spiritual odyssey. Over the course of more than fifty years, he has written on a range of subjects in which he has been tutored by her. In her service, as young John Bosco was instructed, humans become wise and without whom all other wisdom is foolishness.

It is only now that the author has overcome reticence to speak about himself and to make public how he came to write about the Selflife of Divine Maternity and Existential Self-Other Relativity.

In 2 Corinthians, Chapter 12, Verses 1 to 4, Paul describes how he was caught up right into the third heaven… into Paradise and heard words said that cannot and may not be spoken by any human being.

This writer is not subject to such restrictions with respect to what he has heard in his lifelong dialogue with Divine Maternity’s Mother of all Other Mothers. He dares to write in judgment her words concerning Selflife.

Worlds pass,
their myths outknown,
their creeds and cults outgrown.
Selflife evolves forever new.

Categories