Michelson and Morley: Four Time Failures?

In the late 19th Century, two men tried to find out how fast the ether wind blowing through our Universe was going.

Michelson was particularly confident of his abilities, for he had done much to determine the speed of light already.

Ether was the substance that it was thought to have to exist in space, so that the "wave" of light would have something to go through, much like air is needed for a sound wave to go through.

The experiment was based on measuring the speed of light and seeing how much faster or slower it went when it was going "upstream" or "downstream" relative to the ether winds.

Here is a link:

Flashlet of the experiment!

So you know, set the ether wind for as fast as you can, for full effect. Obviously when the light is split into two beams, one will have it's speed shifted by the ether wind more then the other will.

And they will not be in sync when they are reflected back.

The discrepancy will tell you the speed of the ether wind, which was all the experiment was trying to find, for they "knew" ether existed.

Yet.

Set it at zero speed, and watch the light split...then rejoin in perfect sync.

This is what happened the first time, leaving two very puzzled scientists. Nothing happened. No difference. Given that their math already told them what the difference was supposed to be, this is where government defense scientists would just publish that and be done with it.

These two assumed that they had not worked hard enough. That the speed was smaller then they thought. That they needed more accurate instruments, more elaborate procudures.

So they did all that. And tried again.

And failed.

Leaving two very frustrated scientists, for they did know their own worth. Or had thought they knew it. This is where a University research team suggests that it is "unfeasible to continue at this time" and wanders off in search of a defense grant.

These poor guys. They knew ether was there! So they came up with an elaborate theory that would have ether cling or puddle on the earth, much like air can puddle.

And after much more work and development, went out to California, found a real high mountain, and conducted the experiment on top of it! In the 19th century!

And failed! A third time.

This might be where even a crack company research scientist might think about filing this in the "circular file", and quietly moving on.

They published. They published their complete and utter failure.

They didn't give up though.

Now, they figured, okay, maybe there is no ether. But light is still moving...relative to what? If not ether, what is the light speed relative to?

And decided that it was relative to the source that emitted the light, much like bullet's speed is relative to the source, the gun.

And they set up experiments to determine that.

And they failed. For the fourth time! The light was not relative to the source of the emissions.

And they published that, too.

So what was the point of the lives of these four time failures? Well, in science, even a disproving of something is a bit of data. And these two had rather thoroughly shown everything that light speed is not relative too. Which allowed a certain patent clerk named Albert Einstein to realize in 1905 that the speed of light was a constant!

And that all else was relative to it!

Would he have discovered that, without knowing of their work? Doubtful, and certainly not so soon. Modern Physics would have been delayed, perhaps fifty years. Or given the scarcity of men like Einstein, our chance might have passed us by for discovering Modern Physics, and we'd yet live in the world of classical physics.

A world where instead of WWII ending when it did, the Japanese killed 50,000 more of us as we fought for every inch of Japan. Where China stomped us in the Korean war. Where Russian and America fought war after war, decimating our cities and farms conventionally, since there were no nuclear weapons to deter.

A world where we we had no orbiting satellites beaming down information and weather patterns and phone calls. No moon trip. Higher costs for power. No nuclear medicine.

And who knows if we'd have won against the Soviets, or made a peace that bore resemblence to surrender?

Or both been so decimated as to give fresh opportunity to China, Japan or Germany?

Actions have consequences, and the actions of these two unsung heroes loom large. They followed all scientific rules. All procedures. They were meticulous in their planning, in their theories, and most of all, in their honesty.

They never doubted reality. They doubted themselves, their work, their interpretations...but never reality. Yes, ultimately they were wrong, there was no ether, light was relative to nothing. But you get so much further working to correct what you can, to do what it is in your power to do, rather then complaining that the Universe is not acting as it is "supposed" to!

They were true Scientists, and their names deserve to be remembered.

Dean

Homeschooling for freedom

This one is so staggeringly obvious. Whether you are Objectivist, Christian, Pagan, Libertarian, or of any other sincerely held belief - get your kids out of public schools! I know of only one case where a parent should send his kid to a school - if it's a private of your beliefs.

I advise all parents of all beliefs to do this. For I don’t like the idea of Christians having the government teaching their kids that God does not exist. He doesn’t, but that was between the parent and child. Or that the Goddess is or isn't. Etc.

Don’t have time? Oh, come on. These are your kids. If your job is that busy, find another. Or one of you stay at home. I am afraid that in the large scheme of things, you’ll be "John who?" within six months after you retire from your 30 year career. Or your grandsons can tell their grandsons about you. You decide, that’s freedom - but one is more natural, more rational and more rewarding.

What to teach? Reading, writing and arithmetic are the basics. Any kid learns those and he’ll do well - and also will learn much else on his own if he wants to and can. You won’t stop there though. He may read History, Science, Literature, all the basics. Go talk to the Christians, they’re pros at this.

Teach logic and philosophy. My wish is that you at least teach them that initiating force is wrong. Assuming you teach them your own philosophy, make sure that you show them the other beliefs afterward. Show them the arguments for those things - and your arguments against those things.

If your child ever asks you a question, on anything, always stop whatever you are doing and answer. Never, ever, put him off, or leave it to another - or he will find that other, and who knows who that will be.

You should suggest good books with fun stories of your ideas in practice. Reading nothing but Robert Heinlein, L. Neil Smith, and other Libertarian style fiction writers is in itself a psychological persuasion of sorts - to freedom. Always be an example of the truth yourself.

This can be ignored though, can’t it? I’m just being fanatically "anti-government", it’s really okay to send kids to public schools, they can learn the truth at home. Can they? Are you that good at fighting the psychologically persuasive methods employed at our Government Indoctrination Centers?

For the movie "Brave New World" was correct in one thing, "A thousand repetitions make one truth."

Our government knows this, so they like your kids to be in their schools 8 hours a day, 20 days a month, 9 months per year, for 12 years, which equals 17,280 repetitious hours of indoctrination. 1,440 hours per year to instill them with concepts of sharing, giving, mercy, altruism, patriotism, democracy, service to country, the collective unity of the whole, mythology and mysticism, getting along with others, submitting to bells, submitting to authority, submitting to class opinion, not questioning but accepting, not understanding but memorizing…repeated ad nauseum.

Bell rings, move, learn it again. Bell rings, move, learn it again. Bell rings 1,440 times per year, you will move, and learn it again, 1,440 times per year, year after year, for 12 years.

You will do this until you graduate, or as it says in the book, "Brave New World", "Till at last the child’s mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child’s mind only. The adult’s mind too - all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides - made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions! Suggestions from the State!"

The superficial "educational" subjects change, each hour and each year, but the two general lessons of "submission to the collective" and "the truths of mysticism", stay the same.

From Kindergarten to twelfth grade, from "Let’s play something we ALL can enjoy" to "Democracy is the greatest concept known to man.", it is all a repetition of the idea of "submission to the collective". From Kindergarten to twelfth grade, from "Let’s play make believe" to "We must respect the beliefs of others", it is all a repetition of the "truths of mysticism".

Wander the halls and count the posters, which if in Germany would be called "Propaganda", but here are called "Character Builders" or "Motivators". Unasked, let alone answered, is, "Building what kind of character?", "Motivating to do what…and for whom?" *

Even those propaganda messages of submission to the collective and the truths of mysticism are a cover for an even deeper message. As Alvin Toffler pointed out, education consists, "of three courses: one in punctuality, one in obedience, and one in rote, repetitive work." The motivation for that is apparently, and there are more sources then Toffler for this, to train children to be good factory and office workers.

It is little remembered now, but it is human nature for us to be what is sometimes known as "burst workers". This is where we do work in very large bursts, taking much time off otherwise for anything else we feel like. I would not necessarily advocate that we go back to the stage of no time pieces, no set appointments, leaving a project half done to go fishing, or other such things. Doing things in order and on time benefits all of us to greater or lesser extents now.

But I do think it’s worth remembering that the Europeans had to be beaten and starved into this type of outlook, that their kids had to be schooled before it was fully accepted, and when the Europeans tried to impose this on other cultures later, they took the resistance of others as "laziness", rather then, "Oh, they react like we do to the unnatural!"

The order and pattern of public schools was not only to force children into accepting factory and office lifestyles, it was to train them out of all the independence and love of liberty that is their birth right. In some cases, such as Prussia, public schools were started for the express purpose of turning independent minded children into obedient adults who would kill and die on command. NOT by having classes on "killing and dieing", but just by using the methods of training to obedience and squashing their spirits.

I need hardly point out that it matters not whether our own public school teachers have such motives. Any motive or intention for good or for bad is entirely irrelevant. The methods in America in the 21rst century are the same as they were in Prussia in the nineteenth, simply more sophisticated and sugar coated.

Yes, your teacher was nice. So what? She herself was indoctrinated. She probably doesn’t do evil deliberately, then again, since some do, why not her? But in any case, she was told a good reason for every single thing that she does - and all those things just happen to add up to bad. As Ayn Rand said, "Don’t bother to examine a folly, ask only what it accomplishes."

Why do you care what the "intentions" of a given teacher are, any more then of a cop or congressman? Maybe the private intentions of a teacher, cop or congressman are good, maybe they are bad, but you are brainwashed, hurt and robbed all the same. Does the knowledge that it’s possible that the brainwasher is ignorant make you feel better?

Read the books John Dewey wrote. He’s the one called "The Father of Modern Education". They aren’t lying when they say that. It’s all written out. Did you know the bell system was to train children to be used to it, so they would respond better to bells when they got factory jobs? That, and more, can be found by any parent concerned enough to read and study about his children’s environment.

Ever seen those old school books in the antique stores? I find it scary that those 19th century ones are choked with Latin, law, gerunds, calculus, Mesopotamian history - and it’s only a 7th grade book! Clearly, a lot of effort has been made to make the majority of us much more ignorant then usual.

If you love the government, then have nothing to do with your kid’s education. If you love your kids, then have nothing to do with the government’s education. Are they already in public schools? Then remove them now. Domani e tropos tardi.

Dean

* Read an essay called, "The Comprachicos", by Ayn Rand, in her book, "The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution"

Trusting Science...somewhat

It is important to understand what theories are. They are explanations that seek to make sense out of something, based upon the available data, and accepted laws.

A law is something incontrovertible...though in recent times, most scientists would probably have not ever assigned the word "law" to anything, even gravity.

There is a much overlooked principle of science. Any law, theory, "truth", etc. can only ever be viewed as "The most likely explanation given what we know now, and assuming no changes, and pending further information."

There are two mistakes to be made here.

1. To assume then that nothing is certain, and become one of those annoying skeptics who seem to take perversly ignorant pleasure in saying, "But one can never be for sure."

2. To be so "for sure" that when a new explanation presents itself, that because it is strange to you, to reject it, without giving the data a fair look.

What is a lay man to do? I'll be more honest then some, since I know damn well that even I can't study every aspect of science - accept it on authority.

What a thing to say, I must be mad, right?

Nope.

There are groups of men and women, generally refered to as Scientists, who have been studying this stuff for centuries. When they have been listened to, many fabulous machines have been invented for us, new things discovered, etc. When they are ignored, things aren't as good, standard of living lower, no new ideas, etc.

For the purposes of living our ordinary, day to day lives, it is safe enough to trust the presentations of the established scientific communities. Note that in so doing, you are keeping in mind some things.

1. That should their finding mean some kind of change in your life that is large, or at odds with what you believe right, or both, you should drop your "acceptance" and investigate thoroughly, or have someone you trust do so.

2. That when you see members of the "fringe science" community making claims, that you at least keep in the back of your head that they might be true. But that given even our less then optimal culture, those who have odd ideas probably will get a hearing eventually. Also, for every "lone genius" who was right, there are a million crack pots who weren't. Be patient.

3. New ideas that overthrow old ideas do happen. So do not let your world be rocked by hearing that maybe there is an extra dimension. Usually the basics stay the same, and even when those change, it is usually nothing that has any personal effect on you. 3, 4 10, 26 dimensions has nothing to do with putting food on the table. Take it all as a fascinating game being watched. Observe the players and the sides, be somewhat knowledgeable of the issues being fought, and just enjoy it.

4. If there is new technology to be had from one side winning, the right side will win. This, by the way, is a sure fire proof of them being right, when they actually make a machine that is based on the theory. I flat out had a big problem with quantum fluctuations leading to electrons "disappearing" from one side of a barrier, and "reappearing" on the other side of it. Till I read of the machine where this happens. Not a lot to argue about then.

Now.

If you keep all that in mind, then in that very limited, highly qualified way, can you simply "accept" the theories of science, and teach them safely enough.

You then avoid being the know nothing skeptic who wants to doubt evolution for the heck of it. And you avoid being the simpleton who believes every fringe pseudo-science report on Global Warming.

When the new report calls for taxes and regulations, or some other thing that harms another, drop authority and investigate.

When it predicts a new type of machine, wait for the machine.

When it simply is a description of things, like cosmology, or evolutionary development, let stand in the running with the others, but rank it based on the established scientific community's assessment of it.

You won't go far wrong. Trust in authority is not an automatic boogeyman. The trick is to find an authority to trust first. For obviously, we cannot all be experts on everything. We trust a doctor to know the right surgical procedure, and the lawyer to know the right presentation of the case. We may retain doubt, but we must in the end, do so.

Same with the scientists. We may doubt, but in the end, and using the qualifications I mentioned, we must trust to a certain extent.

Dean

Mystics and Logicians

I wonder if mystics do not have their eyes closed and are feeling the trees and moss and creek with their hands, and imagining in their minds how beautiful it is. While the logical people are intently looking at the wonder that surrounds them, while their hands are in their pockets so as to not interfere with that which they so enjoy observing...

A logical person might well then think the mystic can't "see", while the mystic has the same misplaced smugness that the logician can't"feel"....

I shy away from suggesting some kind of complete equality of approaches, I think that in a choice between one and the other, history has shown that you trip over things less with eyes open and hands in pockets then you do with eyes closed and hands out....

But might not still both sides have a bit more appreciation for the wonder that each side feels and sees? Me...I'd like to have both...and I think I do. I feel what I gather the religious/mystics like to speak of.

But my seeing of the sparkles of the light dancing on the creek makes me feel more pleasure in feeling the cool wetness of it on my hands....not the less. And feeling that cool wetness gently pushing at my hand, gives me a better feel for what I'm seeing.

I've noted that most mystics are ignorant of their world, and lost in imagination. I've noted that most logicians are dead to feelings. The one glorifies the woods, but couldn't build the simplest tool for surviving there. The other glorifies machinery, but will walk past it without a glance, just taking it for granted.

I think everyone should try for both. Enjoy nature's beauty...and her bounty. See. And feel. Learn to build, and learn to rest and enjoy what has been built. Appreciate different approaches, and look for commonalities.

Do not compromise...but don't close off a door unnecessarily.

Dean

Your Duty?

I'd like to share this quote from Robert Heinlein in his book, "Time Enough For Love". It is in the second collection from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long".

Robert Heinlein was a brilliant man. He spoke equally to conservatives and liberals, rationalists and mystics, for he was really speaking to the human, the good, the noble, in all of us.

Some of you may be familiar with his more known book, "Stranger in a Strange Land", a sixties classic that did much to assist the sexual and cultural revolution of those times.

For those who know him only for that movie, "Starship Troopers", please know they butchered that book, and you'd do yourself a favor to read that one. Or any of his, actually.

"Time Enough For Love" is quite a good one of his, but if you hadn't read his books, "Revolt in 2100" or "Methuselah's Children", you wouldn't understand all the background.

Anyway, here is what he said about Duty:

"Do not confuse 'duty' with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.

But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants "just a few minutes of your time please-this won't take long." Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time-and squawk for more!

So learn to say No-and to be rude about it when necessary.

Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you."

(This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don't do it because it is "expected" of you.)

Something to think about.

Dean

Happy Boxing Day!

Let all of us who are descended from the peasantry of Britain take time this year to remember Boxing Day - and all who have ever had ancestors who were forced to labor for another.

Here is a link:

Boxing Day at Web Holidays

The origins of the Holiday are a subject of some debate, but my own family has maintained an oral tradition of important things since the 1780s when the first West we know of learned to read and discovered a giant family tree of his Lord covering the wall of one of the rooms he was in charge of.

He thought that there was a connection between keeping track of family history, and the wealth and privilige of those who did so. So we have done it ever since, very, very carefully. After 100 years we thought he was wrong. Now we understand that he was right.

He was also the first house servant, a very high position to be "in" the house in those days. The butler chose him as a youth from the rest of the peasants, and taught him to read and do numbers.

Eventually, my great, great Aunt Sarah was Lady in Waiting at Queen Victoria's Court.

Realizing that we were unlikely to rise any higher, my great great grandfather came to America with his two children in the early twentieth century.

We retained the stories though. The principal one being to not forget how bad it was.

The typical reasons given for Boxing Day are:

1. That this is when they opened Church alms boxes. Yes, some churches had alms boxes. Do not kid yourselves that the government priest was passing it out to us, or that many would be caught dead petitioning.

2. I smile at the suggestion that some of these links have that the Lords and Ladies gave us "Gift Boxes" to thank us! Hmm...wouldn't say no house did it. Certainly not that we heard of, or we'd have run away to there!

What really happened was this. We worked all of Christmas so that Lords and Ladies would have their ease and comfort. Then we got to clean up.

The boxes themselves, in those pre-mass produced days, had intrinsic value. We were "allowed" to remove the boxes as trash, and to fill them up on the morning of the 26th with any food left on the table from the day before that our Masters had not ate fully of.

Many viewed this as kindness, much like some today think it's generous of the government to give a tax rebate. John West did not. Not that this stopped us from eating the food. For otherwise, it was bread, beer and what rabbits we could poach that fed us.

That and what we, as house servants, could filch from the larder. Of which we...lol...filched plenty! But always was it coordinated, my ancestor and the butler worked together. Every servant got some...depending on hierarchy and friendship and cooperativeness. Servants world at a large house was quite an intricate world.

The boxes would be traded to the merchants who came out to the house. In such manners could we get paper and blankets and needles and cloth. For such things were not as easily filched, being more valuable in those days then now. And it was usually only one of those things at a time, but there were other ways for other times.

Had we stayed in England we'd have probably joined the Fabians, but we moved to America instead. And remembered. And still celebrate the holiday, as a day to remember what we had to go through for a decent meal, and how it is wrong for any to have power over any, and for men to have sneak and steal for good food.

It may seem a rather somber story, but we always enjoyed it as children when my great grandfather would tell it. He was very, very strenuous and excitable! He'd tell us of how hard it was to evade the young Lords who were not usually as mellow as the older Lords. And who could have us turned out to the fields, or even fired. And without a reference...starvation or crime.

Lords learn to relax after a few decades of dealing with servants...they accept finally that we will take a certain percent no matter what. So long as it's a given and moderate percent, all is well. But we've decades of stories of drama and intrigue for such basics as we take for granted now. And danger. My great grandfather would say, "You have it easy! There wasn't always good food yours by right! There might not always be! Remember!"

Every time he'd end it that way. That's how I end it with my children, though I don't shake my fist and say it so loudly!

(give me time!)

Anyway, my kids enjoy the story too, though obviously the above is just the bare bones. In any case, thought some might like to know the real meaning of Boxing Day. Remember the past. Be pleased with the present. Prepare for the future.

And to all of you who were servants and peasants in those dark days, remember it is our day now, that we did, eventually win, and so long as we don't forget, we'll never have to face the shame of giving our families the "gift" of leftover food from our "Generous Lord's Table". And the worse shame of being thought blessed that we could do so while the field workers could not.

Dean

The Christification of Commerce Day

Well, it happens every year, yet makes me sad all the same, this "christification", of Commerce Day...

A little history...

Way back before Christ's time, people celebrated the birth of the Sun.
They could see that the sun was getting lower and lower in the sky, and the weather getting colder and colder. Always before it had started to rise again...but would it this time?
December 21 marks the typical low point of the Sun, being the Winter Solstice. Typical was the Roman response then...

They would start a big party about a week before the 25th of December, to show the Sun how great things were down here, and that there was no fun to be had in leaving. They would show fun in the simplest and most honest way possible...partying, merry making, drinking, eating, having sex...

Not having the most exacting of astronomical observation devices, it would be the 23 or 24th before the priests would be able to know for sure the Sun was rising higher again.
Just in time to celebrate the birth of the Sun God Mithras, which was on the 25th of December.
They would show honor to the new life given to everyone by the Sun's continued presence...by showing it to their fellow man.

Again, in a very honest way...they didn't just tell their fellow man they were happy they were all going to live, no, they gave gifts, gifts that cost, gifts that had value, and thus, gifts that meant something. In other words, Commerce.

Commerce was engaged in, not simply the buying and giving of tools, but of nice things, things for enjoyment, art, vases, pottery, paintings, things that were purely for enjoyment of life.
Merchants vied with each other as to who could bring in the best things to make men happy, artists competed to make things more beautiful, craftsmen poured their efforts out, all with the goal of making man happy.

Oh, in those times, many gifts might have been hand made, "purchased" with their time and effort, but just like now, many gifts would be purchased from artisans and craftsmen, to be given as a token of affection to friends and family.

It was meant joyously, a proud sign of, "See, we are alive, and as glad as I am of my life, I am glad of yours...here, take this from me, a little back for the joy I receive in seeing you!" And vice versa...nice.

Enter the Christians, 4th century, on the rise, power-wise. Their biggest obstacle? The Roman soldiers, who were Mithraists almost to a man, in the "free to worship as you please" society of Rome. And everyone loved the Mithraist birthday celebration, the partying, the gift giving, the affirmation of continued life...

The Christians came up with a bold idea...that their God was born on the 25th too, though not only is there no Biblical authority for this, it seems unlikely shephards would have been tending their sheep on hills in the middle of winter...

But they said it anyway, and further claimed that they didn't start the festivities a week before hand, they had Advent start a month before the big day! Shrewd thinking, when dealing with party and life loving Romans.

It worked. The soldiers could accept the Christians more, first as simple "fellow travelers" sharing similar fun during that time of year. And some soldiers could convert, and not be alienated from their buddies during the festivities...

The rest you know, Christianity prevailed in Rome...hence Europe...hence much of Earth...
Yet something funny happened after their power over men was supreme...all of the sudden, the partying and happiness and life affirming part...wasn't thought to be as appropriate.
The Dark Ages of Man had begun, and with it, the Christification of the Solstice Celebration...of Commerce Day.

Now Advent was to be marked by coming into church and praying. Whereas the wine and food once flowed free, now one candle would be lit, and you could bring additional donations "to Jesus" to be laid before the "his representatives". Rather then this time being of merry making, it was now of additional work.

Each week, a new advent candle, another reason to leave the warmth of family home, and lay more offerings before the Priest, with another candle lit.

Little left to a peasant anyway, less after a month of extra offerings... Then...hooray...(shh!)...the Birth of Christ. Celebrated by...going to Church, again to lay down more offerings. And hear the "Good News" that he was born.

And while offerings of gifts to friends, family and even strangers had been done normally and naturally before, now there was little left for those who meant anything to you, and the giving to strangers was now to be an obligation, not a joyous gift.

Yet through the 1,000 years of Church rule we refer to as the Dark Ages, people did manage to hold some back, to give to family and friends. Not as much as they might have given, but some.
In nations with the most freedom of Commerce, and hence the most abundance, the people there gave the most to others on this oldest of Holidays. And people wanting the best for their friends and family more and more went to fancier artisans, more skilled craftsmen, for the increasingly marvelous wonders that could be had.

America and the Western World, having the most freedom of Commerce, led the way in this, and Christmas started regaining it's true and lost meaning of merry making and gift giving to those who meant much to us...and to strangers, too, but in a happier way.

Oh, concessions were still made...we still won't party and get drunk before his birthday like we used to...

But we do give massive amounts of gifts, not to church, but to family and friends...and we all then go and party and drink on New Year's Eve, the previously uncelebrated holiday that we all started to party on when the Church forbade frivolity on the days before Christ's birth.
So we can, and do, celebrate the "New Year" then, though the new year really was December 25th when the Sun rebirthed itself, which made the new year possible.

But now...now...

In the last thirty years, the Churches have been whimpering about all this. Trying to once again take the Commerce out of Commerce Day, the "soul" as it were, out of Solstice day... They can't burn us, but they can try to guilt us.

"Christ is the reason for the season"...(not originally)
"Don't take the Christ out of Christ-mas"....(Yet commerce is taken out of commerce day)
"Better to give then recieve"....(they mean to them and their causes, for it's obviously best to do both!)
"The Commercialization of Christmas"...(there's a reversal!)

And so on.

And now rival religions, rival groups, rather then all celebrating together the Sun's birth, now compete for what the day will be called...bringing in more guilt on what should be all pleasure.
I say enough. It's not enough to cease all celebrations till the actual day of the 25th? Not enough to defer the party for another 6 days? Not enough that every old way, old custom, old goodness has to be tossed to the side, and that a general affirmation of all life, all ways, all gods is now to be for only one...and with the name itself to be fought over?

Now we are to feel bad for gift giving and merry making, even in the restrained way we do?
No. Let us reclaim the Holiday, and give it back it's old meaning. The Sun is sinking, will it leave us forever? Well, if you mope around it might. If you count Christmas as a burden or obligation it might.

So smile! Laugh! Make Merry! Buy those gifts for others, and make the fun gifts, just to say, "Hey! I like you!" Put some "soul" back into "solstice" day! Share with others your joy, and don't let it turn into just another opportunity for "conversions" and "charity".

Such charities may have their places, but this is a time for celebrating life, not misery, for sharing camaraderie with loved ones, not "digging deep" for strangers.

(oh, give to strangers, even the Romans let the slaves be free on Mithras day, but forget not to place your loved ones first.)

Now call the day what you will, but know it is Solstice Day. Call it Hannukah, call it Kwanzaa, call it Christmas, call it as you like, but put it's meaning back in!

As an Objectivist, I call it Commerce Day, a day of celebrating the material abundance we have, when left in freedom. A day of exercising man's creativity to it's peak in the buying and giving of such fascinating gadgets and toys, all with only one purpose to them - human happiness.

I don't buy the gifts of a rubik's cube or electronic game or for it's value in the fields and factories, I get it for it's happiness, for that is all such are good for - and friends, that is enough value for anything.

I celebrate that I have met my needs, and have more to share with others. I celebrate that man's purpose is happiness, not slavery. Joy, not misery. Fun, not "giving till it hurts". All in a simple and honest affirmation that I'm glad for the year before, and glad for the year coming up, and glad there are good people to share it with.

In other words, I keep the Christ out of Commerce Day, the Christ out of Mithras's Birthday, the Christ out of Solstice Day, and focus on the real meaning of it all instead...

The Birth of the Sun

L'Chaim!

Dean West

Different Maps

So many religions, so many philosophies, so many ideologies...what are they all for?

1. They are an attempt to understand our universe, this reality.

2. They are also an attempt to live life in a better fashion.

Each religion, each philosophy, is a different way of describing these two things. But each has the same goal, to describe it. Each has a desire for understanding and happiness, which is the short form of those two points.

Should we focus on differences then in the flavors and wrappings of people's ways, or should look deeper to the underlying similarities?

While respecting that there are great differences in the wrappings, between say Islamic and Taoist, we can observe important underlying similarities.

Both individuals have at least chosen a philosophy. Both seek understanding and happiness. Both subscribe to a moral code. Both strive to be better.

This is much similarity.

I have noticed that the Holy Books of Earth seem to know of this. Christians know that Jesus said, "In my father's house are many mansions." Islamics know that Mohammed said that all men will be judged by their own book - the one they accepted. An Eastern philosophy said, "There are many paths to Nirvana."

Even in "Atlas Shrugged", the "Bible" of Objectivism, Ayn Rand writes that whatever may be subject to disagreement there is one thing that cannot be. That no man has the right to initiate force. That was an implicit acknowledgement that there differing maps, but that none should harm over them.

Indeed.

Thomas Paine, writing of tolerance, said that every form of worship, contemplation, etc. is but a gift to the person's father in heaven, or God. I might also add a gift to the idea of good in general. He also said that it would be wrong to be upset with another's differing gift to their father or god. And I would add again, or gift to that which is the good.

But why so many differences? Because these systems are but maps of a country that few of us in history have seen clearly. A place where men are free, where pain is rare, where all know all, where all work and play together in peace.

All of us look for maps to that fabled land, and the land really does exist, but the making of the map has been such a long task. Not made easier by those who in a quest for power, or out of ignorance, come to worship the map, not the country it was to describe.

So many maps started well, only to be twisted. Still happens.

Is there a "best" map? Perhaps...but certainly no perfect one. Don't harm your fellow man when they've done you no wrong. Strive to know and be the good.

If you want to translate that into the "love your neighbor, and love your God", fine. If you translate that into "live in peace and seek inner wisdom", no problem. If that means an ethical code with strangers and being a slave to Allah, that works too.

It even works for non-force initiating Objectivists who strive to live morally.

It all comes out the same. Just different flavors. The only time the problem arises is when those in charge put the translation over the idea or the map over the country. And when I, or a Muslim, or a Christian don't all say it the same way - seek to "convert" we who are pretty much already there.

None of the above should be taken to equate Atheism and Theism, Rationality and Mysticism, Communism and Capitalism. Just that individual adherents to a variety of different ideas may still share a common bond of seeking understanding and happiness. Some maps are, after all, a little better then others - just none so much better as to be worth hurting over.

I find logic and liberty to be better then faith and force. I find logic to lead to liberty, and faith to lead to force. But I would not forbid a man of faith because it might, and even probably will, lead to force. I'd just be sad, and perhaps upset, in the meanwhile, at any inability to reject a clearer map. I would still respect his search for the country though.

Dean West