Friday, 19 September 2014

Image and Likeness? Morons marry Morons…

For one of my novels, I studied mental retardation. I looked up my Webster’s Dictionary. It offered synonyms for moron:

“…airhead, birdbrain, blockhead, bonehead, bubblehead, chowder head, chucklehead, clodpoll or clodpole, clot, cluck clunk, cretin, cuddy or cuddie, deadhead, dimbulb, dimwit, dip, dodo, dolt, donkey doofus, dope, dork dullard, dumbbell, dumbhead, dum-dum, dummkopf, dummy, dunce, dunderhead, fathead, gander, golem, goof, goon, half-wit, hammerhead, hardhead, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, knownothing, knucklehead, lamebrain, loggerhead, loon, lump, lunkhead, meathead, mome, idiot, mug, mutt, natural, nimrod, nincompoop, ninny, ninnyhammer, nit, nitwit, noddy, noodle, numskull or numbskull, oaf, pinhead, jprat, ratbag, saphead, schlub or shlub, schnook, simpleton, stock, stupe, stupid, thickhead, turkey, woodenhead, yahoo, yo-yo…”

The antonyms were two: “brain” and “genius”.
The next day I looked up the King James Bible. There I read the following verse.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” Genesis 1:27
I was also assured that, “male and female created he them”. That us, boys and girls, we’re in this together.
Now, according to Mr. Noah Webster’s listing, the ratio of morons to geniuses is 87 to 2. He doesn’t say which of these are created unto the image of God, with or without a capital ‘G’. All of them? That wouldn’t say much for God.
Or could it be that, in spite of Leonardo da Vinci’s visions, the Bible was talking about something quite different from the assurances we get from religious preachers?
I suggest that the characteristics that we inherit from ‘gods’ (biblical Elohim is plural) have nothing to do with the teaching of any religion. What the Bible intends to convey is that the creative process is dependant on, and is the result of, our thoughts. We, humans, like gods, are granted the privilege of creating our own, private, subjective reality, which we are free to regard as real. No matter how idiotic, no matter if it consists of almost exclusively empty space, we are free to consider it true. We are the creators.
The reality, of course, is our state of consciousness.

Unfortunately Webster’s Dictionary doesn’t explain why the world is in such a mess. If we were to take Mr. Webster seriously, we’d conclude that:
“Morons marry morons to create more morons…”
The Dictionary doesn’t explain that our thoughts, including thoughts we direct at other people, create the reality we live in. For as long as we assign 87 negative traits to every 2 positive ones regarding our neighbours, regarding people everywhere, this world will reflect our thoughts. It cannot be otherwise. Once our thoughts get anchored in our subconscious, they determine the precise nature of our world. We are the sole creators of our reality. We have the power to create the world in the image and likeness of our thoughts. After all, we are gods. Remember?

From that day on I decided that the protagonists in my novels would live up to the Human Potential. They would be geniuses. Find out for yourself. 

For reviews on Amazon
  Also available at Smashwords and other outlets.
Free review copies at
Your thoughts are important to me

Sunday, 14 September 2014

The Centripetal Force

Darwinian evolution is little more than the effect of centrifugal force. There is also ‘real’ evolution, but such remains the province of mystics and saints, although it has absolutely nothing to do with any religion.
A paradox?

The centrifugal force sets us apart—centripetal draws us together. This applies to physical, emotional and mental realms. The physical is obvious—it stops our planet from smashing into the sun.
By contrast, in purely physical sense, the centripetal force stops us from flying off into the cold void of space.  The same holds true of the emotional and mental realities. It holds us together. Emotionally, we know this force as love. On mental plane the key is philosophy. After all, philosophy means the love of wisdom, and wisdom is a perfect blend of love and knowledge.
Yet, on all planes, balance must be maintained.
Hence, all that separates, or tends to separate us, is part of the centrifugal force. Without it, taking all into consideration, we would collapse into a black hole that swallows all the light. And light is knowledge.
Yet these forces exist on every plane of becoming, with the centripetal being more powerful than the centrifugal. It accounts for both the rotation and the holding together of solar systems and galaxies rather than having various clamps of matter scattered haphazardly all over otherwise empty space. Likewise, whatever we do, ultimately the centripetal force, being the most powerful force in the universes, will restore our Oneness.
In essence, love is an expression of centripetal force.
Hence, we begin to understand the real meaning of love. It is that which restores Oneness on all planes of perception. The Singularity of Consciousness.

There is one other matter that ensues from this premise. The farther we move away from the centre, the more we lose touch with the concept of Oneness. In the physical sense, evolution is due to increased complexity necessary for survival as we drift away from the source of life. But as physical survival is, by definition, transient or even illusory, it follows that primitive animals are much closer to the Edenic state of consciousness from which humans have departed so long ago.
However, once we become fully aware of this separation, we can enjoy the complexities of physical evolution while retaining awareness of our true nature. ‘Real’ evolution leads to increased awareness of the individualized consciousness being inseparable from the Omnipresent Oneness. Of being all ONE.

If not….
Since each one of us, at the level of our consciousness, is immortal, sooner or later we shall all accept this maxim. Consequently, our creativity will increase beyond our wildest imagination. However, for as long we evolve in dualistic reality, we must never forget that divinity hovers in the perfect balance between the two opposing forces. It is our job to maintain this balance in our lives.
Good luck.

PS. Women, being motivated by their subconscious more so than men, have greater creative potential than men. However, they use up their ‘advantage’ on physical plane through procreation.

For reviews on Amazon
  Also available at Smashwords and other outlets.
Free review copies at
Your thoughts are important to me

Tuesday, 9 September 2014

Free Will

Our ego demands that we, and we alone, should control our destiny. Never mind our heritage, circumstances, genetic, economic, political and sociological predispositions, and a thousand other factors—we lay claim to be free citizens, masters of our domain.
It is hard to believe that some of us continue to delude ourselves. And yet, there is a grain of truth in the assumption of our freedom although, as Einstein would say, all is relative, and Feynman would add, “in all probability”.

Actually it all depends.
If you consider yourself born without any Karma, i.e. without any genetic traits, which give bias to your behaviour, shape, facial features (such a good looks or lack of them), or other factors that influence your predispositions; if you are born without the inherent need to procreate, to amass riches: wealth, gold, diamonds, yachts, works of art or country cottages—let alone power…
…but this could never happen, could it?
We delude ourselves that it is our transient personality and not the Immortal I AM that converts potential into manifestation. Hence, the illusion of free will.

Various religions have usurped and twisted the interpretation of ancient knowledge as it applies to our everyday affairs. Yet all scriptures, of whatever origin, always apply NOT to our physical bodies and/or wellbeing, but to the consciousness that resides within them. Hence, if we refer to ‘free will’, as mentioned in any of those writings, we do not mean that our ego is free to do whatever he or she wants, but our immovable, indestructible, irrepressible I AM alone is endowed with this quality. If we, however, identify with our physical bodies as ‘ourselves’, we can but temporarily deny the dictates of the physical, illusory, reality.
Even as the conductor of an orchestra can wield his baton with great determination—he can allow the music to rise and fall, to swell or diminish in a gentle rallentando—but he cannot change a single note.
If we introduce discord into the music of the spheres sooner or later we, the transient personality, shall suffer. In the past they called such discord a ‘sin’. The music must remain pure. Perfect. As always, it is a question of cause and effect. Nothing more, nothing else. The harmony will be maintained, or restored.

On the other hand we are free to cooperate with universal laws and add to the harmony and beauty of even the illusory reality in which we spend but a few years. By doing so we enhance and enrich our more permanent abode in which we shall reap the consequences of our stints here, on Earth. And contrary to the twisters of truth, there is no such thing as a permanent state of hell. All things that we create are transient. And we, and only we, create our realities, be they heaven or hell.  And we shall continue to do so forever. That’s the glory of immortality.
Good luck.  

For reviews on Amazon
  Also available at Smashwords and other outlets.
Free review copies at
Your thoughts are important to me

Thursday, 4 September 2014

Panacea—An eye for too many eyes.

There is an incredibly simple solution to counter the widespread need amongst the youth of many countries to join the ranks of what their governments call “terrorists”. If we cannot create an equal but opposite ideology to that which drives our youth to kill in anger, and to do so at complete disregard of their own lives, then at least we must remove the motivation, which enables others to drive them such desperate actions. What they seem to want is to take at least some eyes for great many eyes.
They seem to attempt to balance the homicidal actions of their governments by sacrificing their own lives. We must never forget that our reality is sustained only by a state of balance, in all aspects of our lives.

For as long as a few plutocrats impel our governments to murder men, women and children by the use of heavy artillery and supersonic aircraft, the ranks of terrorists will continue to swell as will their anger born of desperation. This has been proven throughout history. Yet, the “duly elected democratic governments” remain blind to this overt fact. The truth is staring them in the face, but they refuse to accept it. Their reaction towards the deeply troubled youths is not love and compassion but strong-arms tactics, teargas, police batons and, if that doesn’t work, artillery and bombardment from above.
They forgot the Universal Law: action results in an equal but opposite reaction. All uprisings, revolutions, or underground “armies” of World War II, offer ample proof of that. Who is right remains a moot point. But the quality of innocence (no matter how misdirected) of the Few, will always seek to balance the brutal killing by large armies— the henchmen of a few oligarchs. Both, the armies and the self-immolating youths are exploited by the few on both sides of the equation.
The masses will remain lackadaisical.
We must wake up to the reality that it is not a question of right or wrong, but of restoring the balance: political, religious, economic, and in every other aspect of life.

Most of us imagine that this is a war between the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ forces. Not so. There are but few oligarchs on both sides of the equation. A Few oligarchs manipulate weak-willed governments with money—a Few other oligarchs manipulate weak-willed youths with distorted ideology.
Bombs are action—terrorism: reaction.
To repeat, unbeknownst to all governments, it is not a question of who is right and who’s wrong, but of restoring the balance. When the Few oligarchs stop using armies to amass more riches, the other manipulators will lose the means to motivate and incense the minds of their sacrificial lambs.
It’s that simple.
We cannot control the masses, but a Few of us can control some to fight and die for us. Yet, only their bodies are murdered. Their consciousness lives on. It’s immortal, whoever they are. And it never forgets, hence history will continue to repeat itself. Until we learn.  

For reviews on Amazon
  Also available at Smashwords and other outlets.
Free review copies at
Your thoughts are important to me

Saturday, 30 August 2014

Review of DELUSIONS by Philippa Rees

“Deciding to review a book is like being a hotel receptionist in Monaco. Your recommendations are expected to be impartial but with the dullness of uniform options you steer your guests towards the hidden restaurant you fortuitously discovered. You hope they will unfold their napkins and enjoy it as much as you did. This book, the chef claims, was inspired by Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'. He may well have observed the famous atheist in the polished steel kitchens of the Royal Society, cooking up traditional fare, steak and kidney pudding, shepherds pie, boiled mutton with gene caper sauce, knowing the palates of his readers will be satisfied with what they had expected, solid and kind to the digestion. Honestly presented certainly, but then the chef has become famous for that, no dressing things up with persuasive parsley. No foreign muck.

In contrast, the author of Delusions, Stanislaw Kapuściński, improvising in a beach shack, has produced a smorgasbord of samples, surrounded by heaps of bright chillies, unusual spotted gourds, sparkling sea salt, freshly slaughtered cows…

His narrative follows the traditional three courses; Man in the Nursery, in High School, in University to tease out the growth and fossilization of Delusions (of both religious and scientific kinds) and also to show the creation of time (past, present and future) cementing and itself created by this division. It is impossible to identify all the flavours that waft from this multidimensional dish, except to urge a reader to order it. It gives a broad education across both centuries and disciplines, and obscure and classical sources. As importantly, it is enormous fun, spiced and aromatic. Unlike his posturing 'mentor' the author's irreverence and wit make his views the more compelling.

Kapuscinski's intentions are early implied, to match Dawkins bite for bite and (as honestly) to demonstrate the irreconcilable gulf between intellectual reductionism and emotional religious dogmatism, each flailing towards fundamentalism in trying to flatten one another. In that he takes on Dawkins full square and very gently gradually knocks him over. Not by a deft left hook, but by tugging at his shirt. He admires his opponent's skill and breadth of culture but laments it is not sensitive to the deeper inspiration which might modify his intellectual stridency.

This reader bit into each dish with relish, savouring the fresh flavours of things turned inside out, the familiar used uniquely, the telling argument nailed with just enough illustration, but never too much.  (A few infant prodigies to question the central tenets of Darwinian gradual progress or the non-survival of memory) Kapuściński's erudition is worn as lightly as a tee shirt pulled over well exercised pectorals of Jesuitical education, Gnostic doctrine, Sanskrit sources, mythological and symbolic familiarity of the Bible and Koran which reduces both fossilised religious distortions and scientific certainties (knowing more and more about less and less) over a bright flame, until both cry for mercy. He remains fairly merciless and for that I celebrated.

In the end it is the primacy of mind preceding brain, idea determining creation, and responsibility in the moment of NOW that lies at the foundation of his appeal to 'pragmatic realism'. The name sounds philosophically chilly, deliberately eschewing inflation, but it belies the passion, and anger, and incipient despair underpinning this very profound work. He gives you himself, grated raw, and dipped into sauces, both sharp and honeyed. The appetite was self-renewing, and consuming pages effortless.

What remains is a deeply humane appeal to reap the best of human inspiration, devoid of dogma, restoring, indeed pleading for, worshipful sanity derived from self-knowledge and true identity. The essence of the individual, one with god, was derived from the only sources that were left standing; the ancient mythical, the repeated mystical and the personal experiential, now indivisible, simultaneously being and becoming in a universe hopefully emptied of delusion (and scientifically proved pretty empty of anything- the two are not unconnected) but waiting for a better use of imagination and light, with little time remaining. For all the chutzpah of this broad-brush annihilation of false stanchions, the ornate pier has collapsed, the crisis he uncovers is urgent. I thought it brilliant.” 

Philippa Rees

Author: Publisher

For reviews on Amazon
  Also available at Smashwords and other outlets.
Free review copies at
Your thoughts are important to me

Sunday, 24 August 2014

The Mystery of Time…

The concept of time underwent many metamorphoses. The real reason for time is to keep all things from happening simultaneously. After all, we’re all immortal. It would be one hell of a mess!
In my book: VISUALIZATION—Creating Your Own Universe, I discus various concepts of time. You might find them interesting.

“St. Thomas Aquinas proposed three types of time. Tempus concerned the “temporal” or earthly time. It measured the duration of changes taking place on earth. The second type of time Aquinas called aevum, or time affecting changes in or of mental processes. It did not concern material changes but rather changes in mental states. It also applied to all that is incorporeal, to angels and to states of consciousness. The third type of time Aquinas called the aeternitas. It concerned the divine. While it was the domain of God, it also embraced our ability to experience infinity or immortality in a single instant. It is the time that permits the present and infinity to be one.
In science, Aristotle and Newton measured time unambiguously as the duration between two events. They believed it was absolute time.
Then… Einstein destroyed the misconception that time is absolute. In his theory of relativity he married the concept of time and space into a single idea of space-time. According to the physicist Stephen Hawking, the distinction between space and time disappears completely when using imaginary time; time measured using imaginary numbers. There is no difference between going forward or backward in imaginary time.
(Surely this is the only time used by politicians, but back to science…)
We can also go in any direction in space. Other scientists took up the banner and came up with different definitions of time responding to different qualities and/or events of past, present and future.
Another Professor of mathematical physics, Frank Tipler PhD, offers us an elaborate menu of different ‘times’. He measures duration in terms of proper time, as measured by our clocks in the present astrophysical environment. Using this definition, time and space is measured in the same units, i.e. if time is measured in years then distance is measured in light years. He also computes in conformal time, which is measured in terms of a specific scale factor. We don’t have to worry about it because, as far as I understand, it is used only to calculate the behavior of light rays.
Then there is the entropic time, which “is a more physically significant time-scale than proper time.” It is used to measure the amount of entropy that exists in the universe at a specific proper time.
Next is the subjective time defined as the time required to store irreversibly one bit of information. Rather as in the speeds of computers.
Finally the theoretical physicists use the York time, so called after the American physicist James York, which simplifies mathematics of the field equations.”

More about time at another time. For now, I leave you with NOW. Find out for yourself. Below. 

For reviews on Amazon
 Also available at Smashwords and other outlets.
Free review copies at
Your thoughts are important to me.

Tuesday, 19 August 2014

The Powerful and the Saints

We elect officials of great promise who soon become corrupted by the power they wield. It is a vicious circle. It happens to the nicest men and women. Once elected, in time oligarchs get richer, we—get poorer. Everywhere—no matter what political system.
A vicious circle.
In the past there were revolutions. The masses got together, spontaneously, and eliminated the exploiters by cutting off their heads or by other unpleasant methods. Madame Guillotine set things right. Must it come to that? But it didn’t last. People forget that over time, power corrupts.

Yet the way out is so very simple. Power corrupts even the nicest people… over time. Eliminate the time element and you eliminated corruption.
All we need do is to limit the political oligarchs to terms so short that they will not have time to become corrupt. That’s all. And never more than 2 terms in succession. And that must hold for ALL levels of the government: the Executive, the Congress, the Houses of Parliament, the House of Lords, …and every other legislative body wielding power over others. Let new men and women come in with fresh ideas. And never forget the old adage:

Only a fool would want to be a president.
Only a saint would agree to be one.

Then, and only then, we would elect people who want to serve us, not make money on us. If a man is poorer after he serves then he was before, he is honest. If the opposite is true than it is a dead giveaway of what his/her real intentions were. Also, before 1958 there were no presidential pensions. What happened? Do the presidents, senators, prime ministers and/or members of any governing body get pension higher than the national average? Do they wait until they turn 65?
We could also withhold paying taxes. If the oligarchs were to put us all in jail, they would soon have no income. For a while they’d print more worthless currency. And then…?
It is up to us.
I firmly believe that there are exceptional men who enter public service with the intention of serving people. And they do so, for a while? Yet the power of corruption is so insidious that only a saint could possibly withstand it. Have you elected many saints lately?
We, the people, have lost virtually all the power. Madame Guillotine will no longer help us. We must help ourselves. And don’t get me wrong. There are people out there who are very honest. If we search them out, and beg them, they might agree to serve us. People who love people more then they love power or money or prestige. Of course, some of them get crucified for trying to help us. Others might lose their heads… 
Perhaps they all ought to be admired? Read what happened in Headless World. You might like it?

For reviews on Amazon of

 Also available at Smashwords and other outlets
Your thoughts are important to me