Ken's Den

Flame of Darkness

(I can't get the spacing in this like I have it in real life. So if you want the real way it is written just ask..)

A Flicker of Flame

My Mind went mad

A flicker of Flame

My sanity threatens to crumble

Chaos

A lighter flashes

As someone lights his

Cigarette

My heart numbs

As someone flicks

A match to light

A candle

The Tounge of Fire

Creates a Dance of Death

The images that soar within

My eyes eco within my dreams

For a thousand years

I shut my eyes

The fire wavers in the dark of my lids

Can no one see can no one feel

The Fire it is all in the fire

The future, The past, The Now

It is all there, All within the Flame

Images

Weaving and dancing

And meshing into themselves

Images

Usually not worth going mad over

Just small things that has or will happen

Children growing old, Lovers kissing in the sunset

Battle of long ago and of the future

Usually interesing and fun to watch

Storylines of every life meandering

One within the other

Now it has

Changed

Only Darkness

A deep Darkness

Darkness

With little speaks of White light

Space

Outer-Space it must be

Billions of Twinkling stars

Beacons

Winking at each other

Knowing the Horrors that lay behind them

Horrors of horrors

It makes the stars dance

And blink with glee

I must look thither from the Flame

It bites at my heart

Mockes my Soul

I know the end, I know the Horror

Puff

The Flame vanishes

Yet my mind is still at ill ease

The images of the Horror

Still in my head

Tea and a Book

That will settle me down

Tea and a Book

But alas I only fool

Myself

For my mind cannot

Concentrate

On anything but the

Horror

The Darkness Behind the Darkness of Space

What time is it?

I was talking to one of my friends the other day and we hit upon a subject that I am very interested in. We started talking about what we thought TIME was. He asked me what I thought it was, he said, do you think time is a force or a dimension. I said that I didn't feel it was either of those. I told him that I think Time is an abstract idea created by man for his endvor to become more responsible and perhaps even repressed. I will give reasons why I do not believe time to be a force nor a dimension (which I will double also as the idea of time being a tapestry and as a continuum). Then I shall give my theory.

Time as an A Posteriori* tapestry that weaves everything within it's great quilt though seems like a good theory, it breaks down in a few areas. One of the areas now is a little science fiction, but to me, it is because time is not a posteriori what so ever, that this idea is indeed science fiction and will always be. If time were a dimension it would not be very difficult to travel different speeds through it. Indeed, time travel would be, perhaps, an everyday thing. Even if you needed a certain mode of transportation to travel though it at a different speed then one second at a time, we would most certainly know about it, for people would come back and forth, we, in a sense, would have never had a time when time travel did not exist. For people would have used it to go hither and thither across the tapestry. Yes, strange people in the Ozarks do testify to have seen people that have traveled in time and may even say they have too, but of course we aren't going to believe them are we?

Also, something else that seems to have a hole in this theory, where is the present? If time is a dimension, a continuum, or tapestry, then where is the present? As it is, in this theory, there is a past, future and present. However, is there a present? A present tense in a system that talks about a past and a future could not exist. It is like this, as we wait for the present to come we dwell in the past, but before the present can get here it is already in the past. Thus, we missed it. Not being in the past anymore, because then we would still be waiting for it. And also, sense we would have to give the present an a posteriori because it is a part of time, then we have to also give it at least an ideal form, and giving it a form makes it at the very least an ideal substance, and two substances cannot take up one space. A cannot interfere with A's spot nor can B, C, ect.. So a present cannot exist, because it would be too much of a paradox within itself. So, that leaves us with a past and future. Well, how can they indeed exist? Where is the future, and what happen to the past? A future as soon as it happens would become a past, and we cannot live in a past because it has already happen. We cannot live in what has already past, for we are still here. And we cannot live in what is about to happen because it hasn't happen yet. Also, once again, we have the problem with B trying to exist within A's spot. When the future happens and becomes past within the same moment, how can it exist in the same spot? That cannot logically happen. Logically speaking, a dimension or tapestry of time cannot exist for the paradoxes would force it to fail.

All right, now what about a force? Can Time can be a force like wind, gravity, weather, ect? Perhaps, however, here would be some problems with this. Once, time travel couldn't exist. Ok, I don't think there is anyway that time travel could exist what so ever. Because to time travel one would have be able to go back and forth within time. If Time was a force likened to a river as it is oft called, then that means it is only going one direction, so there would be no past or present. It would be constantly "slipping into the future" like what Steve Miller, says. Now, this is going to get confusing, even worse than before. So, first I will try and explain why a present nor past cannot exist within this theory. The Past cannot exist because we are constantly going into a future, so even if it did exist it wouldn't matter to us because we could never ever get back to it. (Thus, no traveling back in time) Ok, here is why though that the past cannot exits. The future would happen, and make that into a past, though again we would be dealing with a paradox of two objects trying to exist in the same space. And so again, we cannot have a present because the future would have happened and because a past before it could become a present. As I am thinking, a past could exist, though not logically because of the too many objects in one space issue. But even if a past did exist in this theory, it wouldn't matter for we could never reach it again. One couldn't even talk about it all that much, it would be foolish to say, let's go back to the past, even though we are being forced into the future at all times. If there is no present because it is becoming the past as soon as it happens, and we cannot live in a past because we are being forced into the future, then we can only live in a future, but if that was the case we could never know what was going on because we live in a tense that hasn't happened yet. Though you are right, half the time no one knows what is going on anyway.

Another hole in this theory is the idea of time movement. If we are always being forced into the future, then which way is time really flowing? Is it flowing toward a past, or is it flowing into a future. Because, if we are being forced into the future, time has to be coming backwards in order to hit us. If time is flowing in a future direction and we are going into a furture direction, then are we really making any progress in time? It would be like you tring to get into a car that is going the same direction that you are going how would you catch it, unless it is going slower that you are walking, then why even bother getting into the car? What then, would be the point of time going into the future, if it is going slower than us? We would be moving faster than time, which I suppose would mean we were living in a past future. Because we would still be in time, but it would be catching up with us. We would be in the future because time is slower than us but then there could never be a past because it would never happen for us. And if time was going the same speed we were, then we wouldn't be able to talk about time since we would never know it's passing.

Does that mean we would be going one direction and the future going another? We are heading into the future, while the future is heading into the past. If that was the case then it would either all be future or it would all be past. But we cannot live in a past and future, we live in a present that cannot happen within this theory. For if we were headed in one direction (the future) and the future was heading in another direction (the past) then you cannot have a future, because it is the past, and you cannot have a past because it would be a future. it would have to be one or the other, and either way we couldn't live in it. That whole is time a future or a past is a brain scratcher. Hmm, I might come back to that sometime even though I don't believe in it, it does make for an interesting idea.

Well this is getting rather long, so I will now talk about what I believe time to be. Time to me seems that the only way it could exist would be an a priori* existence; only within the mind. So, there is no actual past, or future, there would only be a present, but that word wouldn't need to be used either because there is no reason for it. If there is no past or future, then all you would have is a present, and thus, the word doesn’t need to be used since it is the only true tense. Time that we have is just based on relative physical things that happen. For instance we have a day and night because the earth turns around the sun, well on other planets their day and nights are a lot longer or shorter depending on how fast the planet revolves. Same with a year, how fast does it orbit the sun is our year, well, other planets go faster and slower around the sun too. So, that couldn't be used to measure time if it excited in a continuum, after all it would have to be more uniformed than that. What about people aging you might suggest. Well yes, people age, but that is just another physical thing that means not that time exists, but that physical things happen. That is rather relative also, I mean, when I am fifty I might look like I am ninety years old, and you might hit fifty and not look a day over thirty, so how can you use that to show that time exists? But, now we need something like what could be called time in order to become responsible or to do anything in the society in which we live. If you want to hold a meeting you are going to have to use something to make sure people show up and congregate together. However, that doesn't make time either. So time itself doesn’t exist, just an idea of time. An idea that we use to measure when sometime starts and ends. It is nothing that we can indeed experience, just something that we use to make our lives a little easier. I am sure that ancient people didn't view time as one might think, or that animals view time as something that exists.

Also, if time existed on an a posteriori existence we would always know what time it was, because we would be living in and experiencing it at all 'times' thus we wouldn't really need clocks, just like we don't need anything to tell us that there is gravity or wind, because we can experience them. Thus, I have to say that time as we know it is only has an a priori existence that exists only within our heads.

*A Posteriori means after the fact. it is an idea or proposition that is experienced. A Priori, means before the fact. it is an idea or porp that is not experiences but only from the mind.

Sonnet #1

Star cross'd lovers down a path long and true

She with his ocean and he with his start

They endure hell that they are put through

For him 'tis a quest to win her fair heart

For her 'tis a journey to win his heart's kiss

Their wonderings take them into their souls

They delve into their long eternal bliss

This bliss that they enjoy has one black hole

The love they have can be shown to no one

They hold each other in the dark of night

For the Love they hold dares not see the sun.

She is his maiden and he her brave knight

They know in the end that they will ascend

Up to the light and find their shining end.

What is Evolution so afraid of? Education's folly.

I heard from a good friend of mine today that in Minnesota they are trying to pass a law that would allow schools to teach Evolution but frown on the teaching of Creation. Now of course that is a debate that is about as old as apple pies and baseball, but why does it keep come up nearly every year? It makes little sense to be, and I am an Evolutionist.

First of all, I should re-state what I am. I am a Theistic Evolutionist, meaning, I believe in Evolution, but I also believe in God, and that God started everything and then let His Nature that he started take it's own course. A lot of people say that it is cheating to say that, because it takes the best of both worlds and tries to tie them together and make friends of both camps. Well that may be so, but it isn't the nice easy package that everybody thinks it is, after all, by trying to show that both camps can stand side by side, a Theistic Evolutionist isn't accepted in either camp. Now, do not get a Theistic Evolutionist mixed up with a Deist that nearly believes the same thing, but the difference is, a Deist thinks that God indeed started everything up and let nature take it's course, but he would go farther and say that God (or some supreme being) had absolute nothing else to do with His creation. Now a T.E. would say that God still intervened when He needed to, but kept his Nature mostly to itself. He more intervened with his people.

So anyway, back to the topic at hand. Why are Evolutionists so afraid of that they cannot allow other theories to be taught in the school systems? After all, every idea, every story, everything that talks about the creation of this world, no matter what, is all theory. Because frankly, if anybody was indeed there, they have probably died by now and forgot to write down what they experienced/saw happen. So everything, from the scientific theories to all (and there are a LOT) of the Religious theories (indeed they too are theories) can say their piece, but in the end hands down they have one blanket to cover them all, and that blanket is called Faith.

Now once again, forgive me, I will come back to my subject, what is Evolution so afraid of? Now, of course Evolution should be taught in schools, after all it is a theory that a lot of people hold to. So why should Evolutionists be so afraid to have other theories be taught along side? After all, Evolution has the most physical evidence out of all of the other theories. Sure the physical evidence has some holes in it, but look at Creationism, the only thing really backing it is a written piece of work that is probably written in poetic language to begin with. Also, Creationism has some very little physical evidence through anomalies. So, one has to have a lot more faith to believe in an actual seven day creation. However, different sorts of creationism could and also should be taught a long side of it, like T.E. for instance. But also, other religion's creation stories should be taught. Because, in the end, they are ALL myths, no one was there, no one can remember anybody who was alive when the world was created, and no one has any actual reliable evidence to support one said theory. All of the theories have are good evidences that point toward them and people who have faith in them.

Now, let us talk about the educational system itself and it's talk of trying to get ideas out of schools. Now, it hurt me a lot to write that sentence. People (educators) trying to get ideas out of schools. Now how in the world can one have a rounded education if one is only taught a very narrow way of thinking? Yes, I do realize that you cannot teach EVERYTHING, but one can teach more than just one side of an argument. Teaching one side of an issue doesn't exactly sound like education, but more like propaganda.. hmm, interesting. So, if you took teachings of other origins of the world out of school, what kind of propaganda is that? Well, not exactly the most important issue the school teaches, but if this sort of stuff gets past, then where will this madness end? That democracy is the only good government and all others are bad so let's not teach that? Wow, that does sound firmiller. You hear about socialism in schools, sure, you hear about Red China, and Russia, but you never hear about Canada. Ok, now that might be going too far, I don't mean to sound like Art Bell, but it is worth thinking about. But I was always taught, by the same system that is trying to take out all other theories of the organs of this universe/world, that you should look at all sides of an issue, as many sides as you possibly can and then choose which is best for you to believe in, or what side of the issue that you like the best, or that makes more sense. But it is easier to just teach one side of something isn't it? So, perhaps it isn't propaganda, but indeed, just laziness. I understand laziness; sometimes it is just easier to be lazy and it doesn't really affect much, but in this case, it can be VERY dangerous. Laziness in education is never a good thing; it can only lead down a road of darkness back into Plato's Cave.

That I think, is the main issue of this whole issue, it isn't whether God has a place in the schools, or if anybody has time to each several opposing views, but how lazy our educational systems are becoming. Perhaps, some teachers will say anything so that they won't have as much to worry about, and as much to grade. This kind of thinking only hurts one group of people, not the teachers, they get paid no matter what they teach, no this just hurts the students and their education. But then the teacher says, o, who cares what we teach, the students don't pay attention anyhow, and Friends is almost on.. Maybe I am being extreme here, but test scores are low, and I am not going to blame the kids.

Questions

Now that I have started blogging, one has to wonder what I would talk about. I, at first, wanted this to be a place where I could put some of my poems and stories and i might still do that, however, I think it might be a good place for me to rant and rave about different philosphical questions and theories that I might hear. Philosophy has always been a big interest in my life, so big in fact I am going to school for it. I am not sure if I am going to major in it anymore though, I am still going to minor in it, but my interests have now turned more toward writing. I know that one can write in philosophy, after all that is pretty much all it is, though I am interested in writing about other things instead of just philosophy.

I do understand that people actually get paid for writing about philosophy and their own personal philosophies at that. However, that is relatively new in the field, most of the classic and even modern (modern I mean mid-ninteenth to early twentith centery, the modern era) would have to write their philosophical papers and books in their spare time or as essays for the university they happen to be working in. Thus, gaining no fiscal income from their philosophical work. So, since I am using this blog as my spare time writing tool, I think that perhaps I will talk philosophy. Also, I might put a movie review or two in this.

One last note, while I am writing about philosophy on here, I might use some big philosophical words. Now, I am not trying to show off, I am just using them because they are easier than writing out what they mean. Of course you can always look them up, or ask me if you aren't sure what they mean, I am not trying to make myself look high and mighty when I use them, nor am I trying to show how smart I am, I am simply using them because they condence bigger meanings into simple words thus, making it easier to write. Don't feel dumb if at times you don't know what I am talking about, because after all, I had to learn the words too. I am using this blog to share what I have learned and what I happen to think to teach others, and by doing so I will gladdly teach you the words too if you ask me.