We Are Moving...

As of March 22th 2007, Eclectic Commons will be moving to a new address at http://eclecticcommons.com. Please update your bookmarks. In the future, only a very small subset of the Eclectic Commons catalog will be availble here.
Don't forget to update your RSS feeds to point to the following address: http://eclecticcommons.com/feed/. The Feed Director here on Blogger should forward all your feed requests to the new address. Please allow a few days for all this to take effect.

We appreciate your patience and cooperation during this update process.
Thank you.

D J Percepto

On The Power Of Three

Although the power of numbers has long been held for centuries as real, today we think of numbers more in terms of numerology which is akin to astrology and things that are considered part of mysticism. However, the significance of the number three has been consistently overlooked. In the physical world the pyramid is the spacial or volume representation of the number three. It has long been held for a special significance as in Christianity where it stands for the Holy Trinity - The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost. In Eastern philosophies, it's the Guru, The Guide, and The Master.

The triangle is a particularly interesting geometric figure. There are different kinds of triangles: the isosceles, the equilaterals and the Pythagorean triangle. If we take the equilateral triangle and extend it into space, we have the three-sided pyramid. But if we look at the pyramids that were constructed in Egypt and elsewhere, they are four sided.

The base of the four-sided pyramid is actually a square and each side of the pyramid is a three-pointed equilateral triangle. Four - the square - is the foundation, the most stable of structures, built with four corners. At the top of the pyramid is the capstone which we can see on the US dollar bill as levitating above the pyramid with an all-seeing eye in the center. Perhaps this eye suggests some kind of knowledge inherent in the pyramid that even those who designed the dollar recognized.

The purpose of the pyramids have long been held to be the burial ground of ancient Kings and Pharaohs of Egypt, but why that particular structure? Some have suggested that the pyramid had more purposes. Some mystics held that the pyramids were points on the planet that attracted cosmic energy from space , that in some way created an energy that would enable the dead Pharaoh to pass over into the afterlife, or even that they served the purpose of stabilizing the planets' magnetic energy by being focal points. Others contend that the Pyramids were the place that certain ancient orders performed ceremonies and tested novices into the order or perhaps a place of sacrifice.

It is possible that these are all a bit far-fetched for most, but they do present interesting approaches to view a mysterious object that has eluded definition for so many centuries and has defied clear and precise explanation by scientists and mathematicians.

Others have suggested that the pyramid represents the physical plane, while the inverted (invisible) pyramid, extending out from the capstone, represents the unseen realm. The capstone is the point at which the physical and invisible plane intersect and the point where cosmic energy enters the corporeal plane and is in some way transmuted to create a stable energy.

Although science would argue: "where is the proof?", what is the basis of all this conjecture about pyramids? I would say, how about using your imagination? The eye on the capstone of the pyramid does suggest some additional knowledge about the pyramids. The fact that the capstone is not mounted on the rest of the pyramid also suggests that that knowledge is still not revealed or known at this time. Perhaps, a fresh look at the pyramid, would show more of its purpose and we need not enter THE TWILIGHT ZONE to do it.

The Fault Is In The Stars, Not Ourselves

Some days, everything goes wrong. I put my keys down, and two minutes later, I forget where I put them. I hop into the shower and the water gets too hot or too cold. I try to go to sleep and I hear outside my window: "Move your F-----n Car out of the way, you xxx of a B...h!" It seems almost as life itself has plotted against me. The stars have specifically decided to curse everything I try to do right. I feel incompetent, I imagine that the gods are sitting in Mt. Olympus, watching everything I try to do, and design life's responses to spite me.

Some times I feel like going to the top of the Empire State Building and throwing myself off the top floor so my guts splatter all over 34th street, causing someone to clean it up and go "eech... how disgusting."

The computer keyboard sticks, the hard drive crashes. The mailbox key sticks. Something falls out of my shopping bag. Nothing seems to go right. My blood pressure elevates, I feel my patience fizzles into a height of constant anger. I curse the pedestrian in front of me for walking too slow and blocking my path, even thought they don't know i'm walking behind them.

My only thought is CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY. I don't want to be reasonable. I hate everthing, everyone, ice cream, coffee, food, apple pie... why oh why can't anything go right, I say to myself... and in a moment of passion, a voice inside of me says "Now now, calm down", as if my good old wise self, the parent in me, pats me on the head and says, "Now aren't you over reacting?" And then I hear another inner voice saying: " awwww shut up."

Mirror Mirror

Think for a moment that when I look at myself in a mirror, I never really see myself. All I see is a reflection (mirror image) of me, but never the "me" that others physically see.

Even if I took another mirror to reflect the mirror image (of the mirror image), I would still be seeing just another mirror image. Everyone else could see me because they are part of my external world and able to look directly and see what I can't. Hmmmm, quite a lot of me, myself and I's in this one.

Suppose there was a way to separate my consciousness from my body, as some mystics claim possible. If I were asleep, I would be able to see myself sleeping from an external perspective but I could only see myself as others see me if I were awake and moving around consciously. I often wonder why it would be important to be able to see myself as others see me.

If I look at this from a different perspective, and ask "What would be an important reason to be able to see myself as others do?", primarily from a psychological, emotional and perhaps behavioral level. Not only to separate myself from me but be able to look at myself dispassionately without judging. Then I could get much closer to seeing my life as if I am in an audience viewing it as an observer. I think it would make it much easier to see the things I'm not happy with or that needs to be changed, without forming any judgement about the behavior. Perhaps I could be more objective about myself, and that would help me see some of the blind spots that I know exist, which others can see but I can't, because I'm too close to it (or me).

Life can also be compared to the Mirror. Events, people, actions, motives, all reflect back to us things that we can interpret in many ways. Some direct, some indirect. In any event, I suppose it's a good thing to be able to see ourselves as others see us. But it could also be quite painful.

On Friendship

If the measure of my life is judged by the footnote I leave behind, the subtext of that footnote should define the character and quality of my friendships.

Footnotes are not just facts about a persons life. They are as poetry, pregnant with ideas, feelings, and imprints, left with those people who were part of my life whom I affected, and whose effect on me gave my footnote its texture.

Friendships evolve from acquaintances who become friends when vulnerabilities are revealed, acceptance extended and trust developed and solidified over time. Eventually becoming the basis that makes life worth living by bridging the gaps of separateness. Without them, we have no orientation, no connection with the outside world or the ability to judge our own actions. They ground us in different ways, depending on the type of friendships they are. But they need to be cultivated and never taken for granted, treated as flowers in a garden requiring constant care and nurturing.

One of the most valuable lessons I have learned has been that the strength of my friendships are related to my willingness to put myself in the other persons shoes in order to understand who they are, why they feel as they do and what is necessary to not only resolve any misunderstandings that may arise between us, but also to give me the ability to appreciate their strengths, weaknesses, and fears. These will ultimately deepen the friendship by communicating the value of the relationship.

Most problems arise when one feels they are giving more than they are receiving. However if we recognize that people are different, with different natures, it would be easier to remember that such as life, relationships must be fluid and flexible. We should also recognize that people may require various levels of attention at different times. It's not important whether friendships are equal, but that each individual feels they receive the attention they most need from the other, when they need it.

On What Anthropology Can Teach Us

I have always admired anthropology more than any other social sciences. Built into its philosophical approach is the idea of studying a culture from within their society. The idea of freeing ourselves from the constraints of our personal notions and expectations - though difficult to do - is a noble ideal to aspire to. Joining a tribe to understand the significance of its customs, its view of nature, existence, the rights of maturity and how it defines its place in the world, without trying to change them, is such an important concept. All these things exhibit a respect for the ways others have organized their lives and is a counter balance from the imperialistic history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

From this perspective, anthropology is saying, you must put yourself in someone else’s point of reference, live in their "world", if you hope to understand them. The concept of putting yourself in someone else's shoes, so to speak, is an important one because it also defines the best way to understand people in our own culture.

When trying to connect with friends, it's always important to communicate with them, on some level, that we understand their problems, their emotions, their way of perceiving the world, by seeing things as they see them themselves. This approach gives us not only a greater intimacy into another person's perspective but it also gives us greater ability to know who they are, why they are the way they are and it may also help us to help them when and if they need it. Finally, it may help us forgive them for things they may have done against us. If they are our friends, why wouldn’t we want to understand them from their point of view?

Taking on someone else's reality is not about invading their privacy or trying to change them. I'm talking about a process which helps give a greater insight into why people make the choices they make, feel that certain issues in their lives may be insurmountable for them to overcome and why they do and say some of the things which can be hurtful to others and to us.

It is never easy to pull ourselves out of our world and take on someone else's because we are not comfortable doing this. It's far easier to view the world from our own vantage point, our own notions of reality and neurosis. If we are ever to obtain a more objective way to view our world or hope that others understand us from our perspective then we must try to put ourselves in someone else's reality, simply to give us the versatility to be able to take ourselves out of our world and see things in ways that give us a more prismatic sense of what this existence we are all involved in, is all about.

On Psychotherapy

When deciding to go into psychotherapy, several things should be considered. Usually, people search for the aid of a psychotherapist when attempts at resolving problems by themselves turn out unsuccessful. In all likelihood, our "blind-spots" are so glaring that we can't see the issues and the way people react to our behavior motivate us to face the need for some kind of intervention. We may be getting subtle or direct messages that things we are doing are causing problems in our relationships with others or they are concerned we are expressing self-destructive patterns. The other case may be the development of physical symptoms. In any event, it is important to be evaluated first by a doctor and , if warranted, undergo examinations to determine if there are physical causes. Once that has been completed and ruled out, the search for a psychotherapist who can help us is the next step.

The basic premise of psychotherapy is an artificially created relationship, specifically designed for the needs of the patient. The Therapist (ideally) provides an atmosphere that will be considered "objective and neutral on behalf of the patient," so that the person can convey their feelings free from any constraints or judgements. Hopefully, to help the patient open up and share their problems in an environment which offers them the opportunity to look at those issues without prior editing. The therapist is there to use his/her skill and training by focusing on the things that appear to connect the issues, identify the important themes that cause the patient to seek help and assist them in working through the process that will lead to resolution through personal insight.

Often, what happens in therapy is not exactly as it should progress. Many patients enter psychotherapy and wind up being in therapy for years. The process, which initially was to assist them in resolving their problems, leads to many other things that can complicate and prolong the therapy beyond what was initially intended. The relationship between the patient and the therapist can become the focus of the therapy when the patient projects feelings onto the therapist (transference) and the therapist may project his feelings onto the patient (counter- transference). A skilled practitioner can avoid some of these problems by utilizing the transference as a tool in therapy, however finding someone with that skill is not easy. Other factors may be that the patient edits the material, then 95 percent of the therapy involves overcoming the patient's resistance to sharing information.

Some of these problems can be avoided if the person has clearly delineated goals from the onset. Am I looking for long-term therapy or short term therapy? Are the problems I'm trying to resolve specific or generalized? Am I clear that it's my responsibility to choose a skilled therapist I am comfortable with and that I have no obligation to except to pay the fee that has been agreed upon? And finally, Am I aware, as a patient, that the things I don't consider important or feel uncomfortable about are the very things I should be talking about?

Going into therapy is not about making a friend, nor is it about being concerned with the things that usually concern us in friendships and other relationships. It is about getting help, and it is about accepting responsibility for discussing the things that we consider unimportant, or that we bury because we are embarrassed by them.

We have to remember that the things that cause us to enter therapy are often related to our blind spots, the things in our personality we don't see because we are too close to or fear. We need to remember that the purpose of therapy is to help us see the things these blind spots prevent us from acknowledging and assist us in gaining insight into our patterns of behavior that make us unhappy.

If we keep these things in mind, psychotherapy can be helpful, successful, time-limited and cost-effective in a way that will give us the help we need to enrich our lives.


references:
www.mentalhelp.net
www.whenthingsfallapart.com/psychotherapy.html
www.affectphobia.org/contact.html

On The Legacy Of Star Trek - The Next Generation (1987-1994)

SPACE, THE FINAL FRONTIER
THESE ARE THE VOYAGES OF THE STAR SHIP ENTERPRISE
ITS CONTINUING MISSION, TO EXPLORE STRANGE NEW WORLDS
TO SEEK OUT NEW LIFE AND NEW CIVILIZATIONS
TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE

When Star Trek-The Next Generation first premiered in the fall of 1987, the television landscape was very different. Only the three major networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) were broadcasting first-run television series. TNG was the first series ever produced with first-run episodes specifically created to be shown on syndicated TV (WPIX). It changed the face of television forever by opening up the way for syndicated TV to compete with the three major networks.

TNG was well received by critics. It made tons of money for the advertisers, regenerated the sagging Star Trek fan base and brought in new generations of fans that were born long after Classic Trek had been canceled - after just three years of its five year mission. It not only led the way for all other syndicated series but also made possible the development of new broadcast channels such as WB and UPN. To this day, TNG is considered the most successful syndicated series of all time.

I never considered TNG to be a sequel to the original Classic Trek. I always saw it as a completely new series with only a vague historical connection to the first series (starfleet, the prime directive, the starship enterprise). The command structure was different. There was no Vulcan on board and whereas Kirk was a more fiery and confrontational captain, Picard was more of an accomplished mediator at the helm of the Enterprise D.

The social commentary was now being presented by two characters: Commander Data - in his search to be more human - and by Wesley Crusher - in his search to grow up. The half-breed characters were portrayed by Counselor Deeana Troi (half Betazoid, half Human - aka the Enterprise Slut) and by Worf, the (culturally compromised) Klingon brought up on Earth, by humans.

The uniqueness of TNG for me was the Hallow Deck which opened up a whole new venue for playing with non science fiction settings within the deck of the Enterprise while it moved at warp speed through the galaxy. The other was The Borg, which presented the most terrifying adversary humanity ever faced. The TNG episode "The Best Of Both Worlds" was picked by TV Guide as the second most popular cliffhanger of all time, just behind "Who Shot JR" in Dallas. Star Trek 8 - First Contact, featuring The Borg, was the best of the TNG movies.

The linking of the original series with TNG, hinted at briefly in the premiere episode with the appearance of a very old Dr. McCoy, was fully solidified with the appearance in the third season of (Bendii-syndrome-afflicted) Sarek, in the fifth season by Spock (whose judgment had been influenced by his emotions) and in the sixth season by a very stout (in Transporter-suspended-animation) Scotty. As with the Classic Trek, and the other Trek series, the characters became the most important element that contributed to the popularity of the series, as well as the special effects, and the themes covered, which were both thought-provoking and relevant.

By the time it completed its seventh and unprecedented season, it had become one of the most respected series of all time and considered among the best science fiction television ever produced. At the Emmies, it became the first science fiction series to be nominated for Best Dramatic Series. It didn't win because even in 1994 it was difficult for the awards community to accept science fiction to be as legitimate as other forms of drama. Never-the-less, it made television history by going where no television series had ever gone before.

On Sacrifice

Although the practice of sacrifice has been used in many ancient cultures, its intent was, in some way, to satisfy the demands that the gods were making for repayment of some beneficial effects bestowed on behalf of the people. Over time these sacrifices became physical and included the sacrifice of animals and humans, in the hope that the gods would look kindly on the people and give them good fortune or ward off some evil that had been prognosticated.

If however we look at sacrifice strictly from a spiritual point of view, then it takes on a completely different meaning then interpreted by historical context. To sacrifice ones life for others is a noble gesture, that shows a person who recognizes the value of life, and chooses to give their own for the benefit of others. The selflessness of that gesture represents for the sacrificer, an evolutionary act in their development beyond their own desire for self preservation. A mother who throws herself in front of a car to save her child who runs into the street is considered one of the greatest acts of sacrifice one can make.

Sacrifice can also refer to giving up parts of the self that are associated with things not worthy of a spiritual person. Anger, irritation, selfishness, are just some of the traits that can be willingly sacrificed when one chooses the path of the spirit and consciously sets ones goal on the path of knowledge and wisdom. Recognition that in order to go to another level of development, giving up those self- associated traits, which impedes the progress one can make on the path to enlightenment.

Enlightenment is not an unattainable goal. But it is to some degree a level that one must consciously make a choice to search for. In the process of that search, qualities of our humanness more associated with self are needed to be sacrificed in order to understand what the greater purpose is. Most religions talk about sacrifice. Certainly Christianity speaks a lot about Christ's sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

We also need to acknowledge and accept responsibility for our own sins. We can never gain wisdom from learning what we have done wrong if we continuously deny them or go to someone to seek absolution of them. Only by willingly accepting the consequences of sins, can we ever hope to finally sacrifice the motives and causes that made us sin in the first place.

More on sacrifice at another time.

---

I want to take this time to wish happy birthday to kevin - a good personal friend of mine and friend of this blog community. The following poem celebrates the man, his accomplishments and his valuable contribution.

K
He Walks With The Swag Of A Confident Man,
One With The Step Of A Kool Cat Dude.
He Looks To One Side Then The Other, With Ease,
Sniffing The Scent Of The Wind As It Moves
Like A Panther, On The Prowl For His Next Prey,
Caring Nothing That Others Look To Him And Pray
To Get His Notice, His eye, His Heat,
Notice Me, They Think, As He Passes The Fray,
Knowing They Notice, He Flinches And Belches,
Well I'm A Confident Man, He Thinks,
I'm The Kool Cat Dude, I Do What I Want, I Do What I Please,
I Pick Who I Want, Cause I Want Who I Pick, If You Please
Cause I'm The Cat, The Kool Cat Dude, Who Everyone Sees
Who Everyone Wants And Says, Please Notice Me
But He Wants Who He Wants, The Ones You'd Least Expect,
Cause He Senses The Heart Of The One He Picks,
Caring Nothing Of The Yearns, And The Calls For His Heat,
Cause He Is The One, The Kool Cat Dude,
The One With The Heart Of Gold

More On Karma

In a previous essay, I wrote about KARMA as the law of cause and effect. In this essay, I want to explore KARMA as the energy of attraction. By attraction, I'm referring to how elements, whether they be identified as physical elements or thoughts and actions, causes and effects, can be pulled towards each other, or repelled, by their magnetic nature.

For those who have studied chemistry, the periodic table exhibits numerous physical elements defined by their atomic number and weight. Their excitability for attraction to other elements is caused by the number of electrons which are needed to complete their outer shell and attain what is known as equilibrium. Water is created when oxygen, which needs two electrons to complete its outer shell, combine with two hydrogen atoms. The inert elements, such as Krypton, Argon, and Helium, have the complete number of electrons in their outer shell. They have no need to attract, or be attracted by other elements because they are already in a state of equilibrium.

If we look at thoughts and actions, (or cause and effect), in an analogous way, they too have the quality of excitability. They can attract other thoughts and actions and have the potential for provoking an energetic reaction which motivates the impulse towards a state of equilibrium, or conversely, they can perpetuate and perhaps magnify excitability. Whether thoughts and actions (or causes and effects) are excitable in precisely the same way that physical elements are, is not known. My use of the physical elements is a way to tangibly exemplify this process.

Equilibrium is that state where all the components of a "condition" find a state of balance, no longer having excitability (attraction or repulsion), as a quality of its existence. It has found its true nature which is defined by its equilibrium.

KARMA can be viewed as analogous to the excitability that causes physical elements, or in this case, "thoughts, actions -- causes and effects", to combine and form completion and attain equilibrium (balance). If we initiate certain actions that are injurious to others, we are attracting energies (from those thoughts and actions) back to us through an umbilical cord of sorts. KARMA works by drawing the corresponding energies that we send out, back to us.

While we think we are sending these energies outward, what we are actually doing is providing an inlet and attracting them through this opening (cord). We may not initially be aware of what we are doing because we are not cognizant of that energy, or the power or how our own thinking creates, in this case a negative vacuum of magnetic energy. Whether we accept this or not, each thought and action we create has within its innate structure, a magnetic force (either positive or negative). Everything in its purest form has, like the atom, a series of magnetic forces that will have some level of excitability as a defining quality of its nature. Karma works through the energy we create from our thoughts and actions that we emanate and conversely attract (from outside ourselves), by the very nature, substance and quality of our thinking.

If we are aware of the power of our thoughts and their ability to effect the environment by impacting on the people surrounding us through this power, should we not take care and at least think more carefully about the quality of those thoughts and actions which will directly or indirectly reflect back on us?

Even more on KARMA at another time…

On Healing and Healers

When I was in college, one of the courses that I found most interesting was Medical Anthropology. It covered medical practices from a cross-cultural standpoint. Although it was a reasonable approach, it was also one that was often at odds with the scientific approach that western medicine embodies, primarily because in many cultures, healing is also mixed with mystical practices and beliefs. I generally do not like to use the word mystical or mysticism, because it denotes some kind of mystery usually not knowable. However, for lack of a better term, I will use it for the time being.

Although the thought of distinguishing healing from medicine would seem radical to the west, I do see it as analogous as viewing the distinction between spirituality and religion. A healer could be a physician, but not necessarily; while the reverse could also be true for some physicians, who heal, but not generally in the mystical sense. Although some physicians can be "mystical healers", their ability doesn't come from their western training.

While western medicine is steeped in science, healing and healers have been around for centuries in many different ways and in just about every culture. There is the medicine man in Native American, African and South American cultures to mention just a few. What makes a healer different from a physician? What constitutes the basis for healing? What are the ways healers heal? These are all questions that are valid to ask and reasonable for inquiry. They are also questions that are difficult to address in one short essay. My purpose is not to provide a detailed accounting, but just give an overview of the process. It's up to the reader to question, explore and come to his own conclusions.

- The Basis for Healing
Many belief systems view the body as analogous to the universe as being composed of energy that is either harmonious or disharmonious. When one is harmonious with the forces of nature (energy), health ensues. When one’s energy is disharmonious, sickness can develop. The task of the healer then becomes to find where the disharmony in the person's body exists, and help them to restore it to a state of harmony. In western medicine, a comparable view is HOMEOSTASIS. Wikipedia defines homeostasis as "the property of living organisms to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable, constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms." In other words, homeostasis is a condition of harmony and balance, and the body, with interconnected mechanisms, works to maintain that balance.

Human life and health exists within certain boundaries where the body maintains all the systems in a harmonious interrelationship. If anything upsets that balance, then the person will get sick. How that illness defines itself depends on the kind and location of the disharmony.

In addition to the energy contained within each body, the individual cells also have a unique energy level. So there are many things to consider when health and illness is concerned. Perhaps cancer is the breakdown of the energy level of a cell that then proliferates and spreads, interfering with the other processes of the body by interrupting the homeostasis of the whole system.

How the healer works to restore the balance of the person's body can take on a variety of forms. Herbs that have been known to be effective in restoring the body’s energy balance can be used, or with acupuncture where certain nodes of energy regulation can be manipulated with inserting specially designed needles into the body at those nodes, then rotating the needle to stimulate the flow of energy to the weakened area(s).

Other kinds of healing can involve the healer who is able, by some process, to draw out the illness from the sick person, take it into their own aura (energy) and then discharge it by a process that is still unclear. Again, these are methods that are not generally accepted in the west because they don’t necessarily lend themselves to the scientific method or to reproducibility, because they largely depend on the ability of the healer. The scientific community, however, views the experimenter as simply the facilitator of the experiment; his energy level is not supposed to intermix with the experiment he is performing because it would affect the ability of the experiment to be reproduced by someone else. This is primarily the difficulty in using the scientific method to prove healing. We can't separate or isolate the energy of the healer from the person he is healing. It's not possible to reproduce the healing with someone else who claims to heal since their level of energy will be different, and the basis of the healing will often be determined by the level of energy of the healer.


[from the author]
There are other ways to conceptualize illness and healing. Although the differences are clear, there is a place for western medicine as there are for other forms of medicine and healing. The important thing is to have respect for the varieties of approaches and to recognize that those forms, unfamiliar to us, can work and do have at its basis a long tradition of theory forged from a view of the world and universe that goes beyond what we normally consider as part of the scientific tradition.

On Accessibility of Health Care in the United States

There is no excuse or logic why so many people in the United States remain uninsured or have no accessibility to medical care. I fail to understand any excuses that try and explain it. In a country so rich, with almost unlimited resources as the United States. Politicians on both sides of the aisle that elucidate the complexities of solving this problem have failed to find any reasonable solution to the biggest failure of the American Government (both under democrats and republicans) and to the American way of life.

The only two choices that have been presented (to date) are: government control of the medical care system (socialized medicine, as in Canada) which needs a lot of thought, and consideration, or a private-sector Medical Care system whose accountability remains more involved with its investors. What we have now is a split between private sector control (accessible for those who can afford it) and a public medical care system for others who can't (medicaid). We also have non-profit medical providers which are supported partially by the government and private donations.

Although everyone agrees that change is needed, there are many differing views on which of these two choices would solve it. What we really need is an enlightened economist/philosopher with vision to come along and propose more creative options, new ways of looking at this problem and perhaps rethinking the whole medical structure in this country. I felt that it was important to present this issue as a challenge for a fresh approach to problem solving - something that will be needed to resolve this problem. The following are some of the current issues which have resulted from a mostly republican philosophy, expressed by the current republican administration.

The pharmaceutical companies (with the sanction of the republican administration) control the price of drugs which they claim are high because they need the money to continue researching new drugs for treatment. Yet here in the United States, they spend billions of dollars to advertise new prescription drugs on television, radio and magazines to manipulate the population to put pressure on their doctors to prescribe these medications even though generic drugs are perfectly good to treat most conditions. This money would better be served by putting it into research. Part of the problem is that the pharmaceutical companies are businesses. Their accountability is to their stockholders not the American people. They are in business to make as much profit as they can. Their accountability always remains with their private investors. This is part of the complex problem of solving the Health Care Crisis in this country.

The cost of using HMO's (also private corporations) have sharply risen for those who have them. When I started paying for an individual policy three years ago, it was approximately $320 a month, and is now just under $650 a month for standard individual coverage. Most HMO’s won't touch you if you have any pre-existing conditions. That is standard policy with all HMO's.

Children, the future of the American Culture, go uninsured throughout the country, which is the richest country in the world. People are forced to crowd the emergency rooms because they don’t have the money or the coverage to go to doctors, while the Medicaid system is forced to absorb all these costs and the taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. The Republican Administration enacts laws to prevent people from getting medications from cheaper sources like Canada which they claim is for the benefit of the American population. They reason Canadian drugs have not been proven to be safe for US consumption. The President, and his administration, acting as the grand protector of the United States, will do everything to keep the American population safe, so the propaganda goes.

Anyone who has visited Canada, seen their medical system and the quality of their pharmacies, know that all that is a bunch of governmental fabrications aimed at propping up the American pharmaceutical companies to keep them in control of the costs. Everything that the republican administration has done to date has been more for the benefit of the drug companies than for the American population.

I haven’t even mentioned the FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, that ineffectual, arbitrary, excuse for an organization which has become more of a political arm for the Republican administration, by creating the illusion they exist to protect the American population. I don’t know which is more pathetic: The organization itself, or the people who believe what they say. This is also true of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The politicians go on and on. The republicans would put a band-aide on the medical care system and prop up the HMO’s and other American pharmaceutical companies, and continue to require Americans to pay exorbitant fees for everything medical. The democrats, newly elected to control both senate and House, are still so lukewarm and disorganized about medical care reform that they provide no concrete leadership to rely on to negotiate a reasonable re-haul of the medical care system.

What we should all do is what Peter Finch did in the film NETWORK, where he told people to go to the window, open it up and yell as loud as they could: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." We need to tell, not only the politicians, but the universities, the problem-solvers, the creative thinkers and economists that they need to step forward and propose ideas, any idea. It's from these kinds of thinkers, with focused and dedicated politicians, that the answer must come.

My solution is simple: Treat this issue like the election of a pope. Take every member of the legislative branch of the government (house and senate) along with the president in a room, and lock it from the outside. Tell them that they will not be allowed out until they find a credible solution to the medical care crisis. If we want an even faster solution, tell them the restrooms will be off-limits.

Although this seems ludicrous, it stems from my personal frustration that solutions to this problem remain bi-polar. No new creative ideas. Who believes the United States can do better? The answer won't come from politicians alone. They will have to come from all of us.

On Marijuana

OH CANNABIS, OH CANNABIS
HOW GOOD YOU MAKE ME FEEL
CAN IT BE A MISPERCEPTION,
OR PERHAPS A HIGH POINT OF CONTENTION
THAT SOCIETY THREATENS ME WITH DETENTION
IF I PERSIST IN MY WAYS
TO INHALE YOUR SWEET FUMES,
THAT CAUSE MY MOODS
AND SEALS MY DOOM
SITTING ALL ALONE
IN MY CELL BLOCK ROOM

Marijuana has been misunderstood for so long, it's questionable whether it's possible to look at it with a fresh perspective. It's been lumped together with other drugs for so long that to even utter that word in anything above a whisper in certain public circles, is to draw the attention of all those "upstanding law abiding citizens" who look on marijuana as a corrupter of the young, and a defiler of the very foundations of civilized society.

Those very same citizens who would think nothing of displaying bottles of liquor in front of their children or go to a bar and drink till their breath reeks of drink, that being in the same room as them runs the risk of causing second hand drunkenness. They would say, "Its legal, so its ok".

Think of the kind of society we live in: We watch television commercials all the time. How many of them are related to over-the-counter drugs, which I might add are taken like candy. Got a headache? Take an aspirin, a Tylenol, or Ibupropen. Got a stomach ache? Take "Pepto-dismal". Got cramps, aches and pains? Take this or that.

Anything that one wants to take for whatever ails them is available at the corner drug store, and what isn’t, is now advertised by the pharmaceutical companies specifically to encourage people to pressure their doctors to prescribe them, such as overused antibiotics. And I haven’t even mentioned the livestock industries that load up cattle, sheep and chickens with antibiotics so that they are plump and ripe for the butcher block, never thinking that we are ingesting second hand antibiotics thru what we eat which all adds to the ever-increasing antibiotic resistance that threatens us with the new resistant strains of bacteria which would render current antibiotics useless. They are all legal.

It's interesting to think that we live in essentially a pill-popping society that has no tolerance for pain, and which measures the goodness or badness of what we pop into our mouths by whether it’s a legal drug or not, as if abuse of over-the-counter medications or prescribed medications is not an even larger problem in this society than marijuana could ever be. Just think about cigarettes, and that old bastion of capitalist institutions, the tobacco industry, and how much damage they have done over the centuries. Still sanctioned and protected by the American Government, despite all the revelations that have come to the public's attention for decades about cigarettes and addiction.

The US Government, never-the-less, stands as the guardian of our health so to speak, to keep the devil's harvest from the grasp of the public, while maintaining that it causes it's users to go on to other drugs despite any significant evidence that it does.

The medical use of smoking marijuana has long been known to have many beneficial effects. In addition to increasing appetite, alleviating side effects from chemotherapy such as decreasing nausea and vomiting, lowering intra-ocular pressure in glaucoma patients, just to name a few, the US Government continues to dig it's heels into the ground and claim that smoking marijuana has no beneficial effects, at least not substantial enough to make it's use in medical situations and under medical supervision legal. It claims that Marisol, the pill form is sufficient enough, even though many patients who have tried Marisol don’t feel the same beneficial effects that smoking extends.

The US Government won't even publicly conduct studies that might provide the evidence that would substantiate the claims that people with medical conditions have sufficient justification to claim the beneficial effects of smoking marijuana. It maintains it's decades old position that this drug should be categorized with other drugs that are much more harmful and addictive, using the argument that marijuana leads to the eventual use of these other drugs.

There is no sufficient evidence to prove that using marijuana directly leads to the use of other drugs. It should be legalized, at least for use in medical situations. The US Government, rather than stick it's head in the sand, should be conducting scientific studies that are objective and open to what the results might show.

On The Death Penalty

If I had committed some crime and I was condemned to death, such as Timmothy McVey in the Kansas City bombing, I would have denied all appeals made on my behalf and chosen death as he had. He is still contemporary enough to stir up the National anger that supports the death penalty. "A perfect example of someone who should die for what he did", they would say. And those directly affected, and most of the city of Kansas City, would also agree.

Putting myself in his shoes, I would think that death is preferable to living the rest of my life, a young man in prison without any possibility of parole. No chance to escape, no place to go, nothing to do except survive for many years trapped in a prison population, out to get him, where society has thrown away the key. He chose death to a living hell.

My position on the death penalty is that I am pro-life, but it seems illogical to me for those that are pro-death even for certain horrendous crimes could also claim to be pro-life when it comes to abortion. Life is life, whether it’s a sinned life or an innocent life.

From everything I have written up to this point, it should be clear that my views on CAUSE AND EFFECT (KARMA), resolve, for me, the issue of the death penalty. I don’t think it's necessary for someone to be put to death by the state to know that the cosmic laws will take care and appropriately deal out justice to those who have committed horrendous crimes. It's enough for me that they have been ostrazised from society and kept under lock and key for the remainder of their life.

For those directly affected by the crime, such as the family members, it's hard to simply say, let KARMA take care of the situation. For them, the pain is too great, and the desire for revenge is understandable. If I were in their shoes, I would in all likelihood wish for the same thing. But I'm not, and neither is society.

The question still comes down to whether THE STATE has the right to take life under any conditions. If religious authorities and spiritual people contend that life is sacred no matter what - even a sinned life is as sacred as an innocent one - then THE STATE, in my opinion, clearly has no right to take life. Only God does.

The problem with the judicial system in this country is that it talks about rehabilitation, but how it meters out “justice” is more based on revenge. It is not interested in taking a perpetrator of societies' laws, and turning him/her into a contributing member of society. There is too much anger in society to pay back some form of pain to those that have committed crimes, but the level of revenge for those who have committed minor crimes seems to be out of proportion with the reality of what has actually been committed.



Crimes that are not injurious to others should, in my opinion, not be aimed at revenge or retribution. There should be more aggressive attempts to re-educate those people and make every attempt to get them reintegrated back into society. The problem is society doesn’t acknowledge this. Often people who commit less injurious crimes are locked away with people who have committed more serious crimes, and by the time their sentence has expired, those who should be allowed to re-enter society have been so hardened by being mixed-in with the prison environment of career-criminals that they have themselves become irretrievable. The objective of re-education and rehabilitation then becomes a pointless endeavor. When they are eventually released, they can no longer survive in a society that has labeled them as criminals, and which provides no support system to help them readjust. They cannot easily integrate or live without repeating some of the crimes that brought them to the criminal justice system in the first place.

Large percentages of people incarcerated in prisons today are there because of some drug-related crime - either selling or using substances that society has deemed illegal. These criminals are not on the same level as those that commit the crimes of murder. They do not deserve to be thrown away into hardened prison populations because society hasn’t thought out a proper way to rehabilitate them.


The issue of the death penalty, how we define any of the criminal elements in society, and how we deal with them as a group, defines the very civility of our culture. What the United States says in the way it deals with its criminal elements is that it's not the least bit interested in rehabilitation, and that certainly has had Karmic consequences on our society.

On Being an Ethical Person

I - Defining ethical behavior is less a factor of whether a person is intrinsically good or bad as it is with how they deal with a moral dilemma that presents them with two or more conflicting resolutions. What is important is the code they use (process of reasoning) to arrive at the choice they make in resolving the dilemma.

We all, at one time or another, face moral dilemmas in life. They are unavoidable. They create conflict because the potential choices of resolving them are so at odds with each other and because they test the very foundation of the morality we have been brought up to accept. The actual position we take in resolving them are less important to ethics than how we prioritize and reason out the position to come by whatever decision we reach. We can also learn more about the character and internal workings of a person not by the position taken for resolution but in the way their process of thought proceeds to come to that decision.

We often confuse being an ethical person with being a good person, as if goodness has anything to do with it. Very often, the position taken in resolving the dilemma is one that a majority of people may not agree. The value judgement we place on any given choice is not what makes the person ethical or not. It's often the way we (society) would like to define a "good" person as being ethical and a bad person as being unethical.


II - What makes a good person good, and a bad person bad?
Again, when we are referring to whether a person is ethical or unethical, what we think we mean is whether they are good or bad. So, how do we define someone who is good or bad? A good person is someone who does good things, and a bad person is someone who does bad things.

What society attributes as good or bad is essentially more important to defining goodness and badness as any other factor, since we as individuals take those interpretations and internalize those values as our own.

How we act them out in our behavior (which society labels) will be ultimately how we will be defined as good or bad, while religion often use evil synonymously with bad, but it's essentially the same thing.

Most things we associate with a good person include being true to those attributes deemed valuable and important in defining a person as a positive contributing member: helpfulness, magnanimity, honesty, kindness, bravery, reverence and others. Which ones have i forgotten?

Being a bad person would include doing things that are counter-productive to society, being destructive to others, selfishness, irreverence towards religion, the laws of society, etc.

The important thing to remember is that however we are defined by society or by ourselves, ethics has nothing to do with it. A "bad" person can have an ethical code by which they live as much as a person defined as "good".

On Abortion

The problem with the abortion issue is the way it's being argued. The people who belong to the Right To Life group usually see this as a religious issue; That religion states once conception occurs, aborting the fetus is murder. They view themselves as good faithful religious people, simply following the tenants of their faith and of God. End of discussion.

The Pro-Choice group are usually people who start from a different point of reference. They begin at the point that women have as much right to make choices about their body as men do. The constitution clearly states that all people are created equal, and to restrict women would be the same as saying that men and women are not equal. The fact that it's about abortion is not the central issue here. It's about equal rights.

The basic problem with arguing abortion from any vantage point comes down to the issue of how does one argue a secular position with a religious position. The truth is you can't. No matter what you say from a secular point of view, the religious position always claims, by divine revelation, tradition, and other God related influences, to take precedence over the secular position.

It also illustrates a similar problem that a secular society has in relating to a religious state where a particular religion is tied into the way the government defines it's role. How does a secular society negotiate with a religious state? Especially when the religious state sees the secular society as being blasphemers against the will of God by not bringing God into the way they conduct their business.

The abortion issue is one of those issues that I define as a moral dilemma, for both the society and the individual. No matter what position is taken, pro-life, or pro-choice, there will always be dissenters who will disagree. To think that society will evolve to a point where it will eventually find some kind of resolution that will satisfy both is to be deluded by a hope that there is always a way to compromise on some issues, when a religious position is involved.

The founding fathers had their reasons for making a clear separation between church and state. They knew that if you allow religion to have any control in government, you always ran the danger of one particular religion becoming more influential over other religions, and eventually exerting their influence at the expense of other religious beliefs. That is precisely why people came to the "New World", to escape religious persecution.

This is not to say that religion should not have some influence in a society or even a government, but the problem is agreeing on the extent of it's involvement. There are certain common fundamental values - ethical conduct, for example - that can be accepted as important in almost every society, and can find it's way as part of some governmental foundations as long as it's not identified with only one religion. The Ten Commandments is a good example, as long as it's not identified as solely a Judeo/Christian religious belief, but is applied in ways that incorporate the values of other religious-based philosophies.

However, once you identify any religious tenant as belonging to one particular religion, the risk of monopolizing the religious purity of one religion over another is always a concern. Then the justification for trying to exert influence on the population to accept one over the other becomes part of what a government does whether directly or indirectly. To alleviate that possibility, the founding fathers wanted a clear separation of church and state.

In today's political reality, the United States has to deal with countries who anchor the whole foundation of their government on a religion. The political problems that this has presented are incalculable. How do you compromise with a country that claims they have the will of God behind them? Most of these countries, by and large, are not democracies. They are hierarchies and the population follow what they are told by the powers that be that define what it means to be a faithful to the religion.

We need to find new and different ways to negotiate with religious societies - as well as the abortion issue - instead of continuing to frame the debate as a secular position vs a religious one. The only possible evolution we can hope for is a different venue for society to deal with some of these highly charged issues than the way it has in the past.

It is my opinion that religion has no place in government. In any government, anywhere. I do not believe in the validity of a religious state because it’s a way of negating any possibility to disagree or even negotiate with a position a religious state deems is the direct will of God. No religion has a monopoly on the truth, or on the right to claim that their positions are right simply because they claim their religion has precedence over others. This has been the basis of religious persecutions for centuries, and no religion in existence today has been above this crime.

As strong as this position sounds, it is strictly my opinion, but one that I firmly stand on despite any criticism that I might get, or expect to get, mostly from the religious point of view.

What Does Religion Teach Us?

What religion teaches us is in my opinion one of those highly charged questions that, depending on how it's presented, can either be taken as informative or heretical. It's filled with contrasting opinions, historical debate, and to some extent, of unquestionable importance.

Religion in general tries to fill in the gaps of knowledge that, for centuries we have attempted to resolve, but have not been able, without the kind of believe system it offers. Religion asks us to accept on faith certain things about ourselves, our world, and our universe. It has controlled our actions to some degree, and reinforced values that we have been brought up to believe since childhood. It expects us to accept certain "truths" based on what it has identified as divine revelation, in most cases by others who we are asked to accept unconditionally based on their status within a particular religion.

Some religions claim they can absolve sin by confession to an "ordained" religious authority who we are to believe, have the power to absolve sins and wipe the slate clean, so that we can start fresh and perhaps sin again. This contrasts in many respects with the law of Karma, which holds us accountable for our actions and makes us totally responsible for altering, or refining our karma by changing ourselves through our thinking and our actions.

To be fair to religion and its intent, we also have to recognize that it does provide a moral basis for living. No one would argue that the Ten Commandments establish a code for ethical conduct or that the teachings of Christ extends the most simple and effective way of working with the heart, forgiveness, redemption, and of resolution of earthly existence.

Although the higher intent of religions has been to uplift people to be better persons, to live a life that emphasises sacrifice for humanity, we also need to look at the historical record of what religions have actually accomplished for humanity and history.

When I refer to religions, I'm speaking about organized religion, not the fundamental spiritual values it claims to teach. For some, this is not a distinction easily accepted. Many see a person within a religious hierarchy as an unquestionable messenger from God. To question this, is to question the authority of religion itself. I, however make a clear distinction between what is religious and what is spiritual. Religiousness is taught by organized religions. While a religious person can be spiritual, a spiritual person need not be religious in the "organized" religion sense.

My position is that we are all messengers of God. We all have the capacity of divine revelation if we simply learn to listen to the higher planes where this inspiration comes from. We all have spirituality if we listen and respect that side of our nature as opposed to the physical one that is closer to the earthly existence we all inhabit.

If we recognize that spiritual knowledge and attainment are not under some lock and key, or as the monopoly of some who claim religious authority by attainment in a particular organized religious context, then it is easier to see how one can have a deep sense of spirituality without belonging to a particular religion.

Religious organizations have also been responsible for deep division between religions, discrimination and if one examines the historical record, crimes have been committed in the name of religion. This is historical fact rather than conjecture or opinion.

If a religion is supposed to teach the highest values and be credible as being a messenger from God, how can it have been responsible for such crimes against the very people it was supposed to Sheppard, which in my view is all humanity, not just some. Religions need to be responsible not only for the flock they profess to Sheppard, but also for all humanity that they belong to. If they separate themselves as one group from another, then they miss the point of what it means to be spiritual.

Spiritual people recognize the need to uplift all humanity. They don’t claim to have a monopoly on the path. They are there to help humanity as a whole reach a higher level of attainment and evolution that reflects their growth more toward the higher planes that spirituality is akin to, rather than do things that are more associated to the baser levels of existence.

Religions are not democracies, they are hierarchies. They don’t take suggestions, nor do they feel they have any accountability to their flock other than following what they feel is their interpretation of God's intent that they are responsible for passing on to the flock.

The flock, so to speak, is not there to question the hierarchy. They are simply to follow what the religious hierarchy say is appropriate to be a good religious person or risk being considered a blasphemer.

What in fact happens in the real world is that many in the flock feel dualistic because on one hand we need the approval of the religious authority to feel we belong, but in private do what our own conscious dictates is in our capacity if it in some way is in conflict with what the religious authority deems appropriate. One case in point is birth control and abortion. Although religion doesn't teach us to be dualistic, it in fact has implied that to be accepted and have conflicting positions with its moral and ethical authority, we must be dualistic, and keep our true ideas to ourselves or risk being ostracized from the very organization we are taught to need acceptance from.

A better question to ask might be what can religion teach us, as opposed to what do they teach us?

references:
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/religion/

On The Theory of Intelligent Design

"Intelligent design is the theory that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". The proponents continue, "Intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands in equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life".
-- Wikipedia Encyclopedia

My first impression of the recent court battles to decide whether to present Intelligent Design (ID) as a scientific theory, was suspicion. To me, they appeared to assume too much by suggesting that when "something exhibits specific complexity (is both complex and specific simultaneously), that one can infer it was produced by an intelligent cause." They go on to use the patterns of molecular sequences exhibited by DNA as the way details of living things can be characterized according to this theory.

Although I never really understood many of the nuances of the theory of Evolution, I have always trusted the scientific method as the basis for scientific fact. I never felt that my trust was a leap of faith in the religious sense, but a knowledge that was obtained starting from a point of non-knowledge and built upon impartial observation and independent reproducibility of events. I have always respected that approach and tried to adhere to it in any of my searches for knowledge.

ID assumes that complex organisms can't just develop through the process of natural selection, that they must have been initiated by some perhaps unknowable intelligent being that initiated it and still directs it. Every fiber in me reacts to the "they must have been" as being quite a jump. It runs counter to everything science stands for, in my opinion.

On the other hand, natural selection doesn’t attempt to dispute the existence of an intelligent initiator. It simply describes a process by which organisms become more complex, and tries to understand why that process has taken the course it has. There are many disagreements among Evolutionists about specifics, and that is the way science should be, until more facts reveal more information, and raise more questions than provide answers or “must have beens”.

My impression of ID is that it is an attempt by its proponents to open the door for religious theology to claim creationism as a scientific theory and present its "must have beens" on the the same level as scientific theory and proven fact. I have no problem with teaching ID in the school system but not alongside Science. It belongs in a theology course, alongside religion and philosophy.

references:
www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org
www.actionbioscience.org/evolution.nhmag.html
www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
www.natcenscied.org

Top 10 Science Fiction/Fantasy Films

As a general rule, I don't like to list anything as my favorite or rank them from one to ten. I prefer to have tiers (levels) that I would include as my best. This system allows me to consider several films that are very different on equal footing. Each of them has left an impression on the genre that has made them unforgettable. Considering they span eight decades of film-making, they are quite remarkable. I also included some TV Science Fiction. I felt that although this list is about movies, it's also about the genre of science fiction /fantasy. Everything in this top level is to me the best. Every one of them has a reason and a meaning for being on this list. They are in no particular order:

THE LORD OF THE RINGS (all 3 films, as one) - Peter Jackson's brilliant homage to Tolkien's fantasy. It wasn’t just the screen adaptation that was brilliant, but it showed his deep respect, passion and reverence for the original book. An unforgettable score, set and costume designs that literally brought the feel of the book directly to the screen. Only a devoted fan could have accomplished such a huge undertaking. Jackson found the balance between those who never read the books, with those who had. He identified specific memorable scenes from the original material (book), then accurately reconstructed them onto the screen, connecting them like pearls on a string, while adapting the story to fit the medium. My only regret was itdidn’t win the twelfth Oscar to make it the most "oscar-ed" film in motion picture history, and yet all three films did win a total of 17 Oscars which puts it in a category all its own.

KING KONG (1933) – It’s the original Kong. It’s the one film that most science fiction directors, special effects and visual artists consider the seminal film, the template for all epic films of its kind that were to come. It defined the genre of what was to become the fantasy film. It's the great Kong, the eight wonder of the world. It put the newly built Empire State building onto the cinematic map as one of the most important structures ever built. It's also the retelling of the Beauty and the Beast legend that has captivated audiences and readers since it was written.

INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) – The only science fiction film that I know that featured no alien technology. It could be classified as a mystery, a social satire on a communist takeover of a free society in the mid-fifties. But it's that look of horror and that drop of dirty cave water dripping from the tip of Kevin McCarthy’s nose as he looks into Becky's (Dana Winters) eyes in the cave scene as he realizes that she has become a pod person that sealed that picture as one of my top ten favorites. It also made me look twice at Brussel Sprouts before I would eat it. Filmed in just 2 weeks in stark black and white, with memorable performances by Carolyn Jones (Morticia Adams from the TV show, The Addams Family). If anyone hasn’t seen that film, they should go out and rent it or buy it. It's a true classic.

FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956) – A solid piece of outstanding science fiction, as a loose reinterpretation of Shakespeare's Tempest. Walter Pigeon as a philologist studying an ancient, extinct society; Leslie Nielsen as the Captain of the space craft, with a backdrop of cheesy set and costume designs which often reminds me that it’s the progenitor of Classic Star Trek that would come ten years later. And of course, Robbie the Robot, a miniature of which has sat on my desk for years. The eerie sound effects are astounding and worthy of a classic that has stood for five decades as one of the greatest science fiction classics of all time. No film is more deserving of being considered on any top ten list as this one. Its message is timeless, and its psychological implications of "monsters from the Id" still relevant to contemporary human evolution.

ALIENS – This is the movie that redefined the meaning of hero, and expanded it to include women. Segourney Weaver shines in this "thumpa-thumpa" heart pounding thriller that was also the first performance by any actor to receive an academy award nomination, as best actress, for a science fiction role. Although Aliens is the film to be on this list, Alien deserves a place as part of the film’s back-story. Every sequence of events lead the audience down a path of adrenaline-filled danger as Weaver is continually faced with confrontation that at the very end defines the meaning of what heroism is: heroism isn't overcoming one's fear to act, but acting in spite of one's fear. This is the reason it's on my list.

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (1951) – "Gort, klatuu barata nicto" says Patricia Neal to the robot, and although some may see this film as dated, with not so hot special effects, it’s the message of the film that places it on my top ten list. A film relevant to its time. One that explores the consequences of nuclear arms proliferation by a world that has no clue of its effects on others. It suggests that we aren't all alone, and it draws our attention to possibilities of life from other parts of the galaxy. It reminds us that with all scientific advancements comes recognition that we are responsible for how those achievements are used, constructively and destructively.

FANTASIA (1940) – It belongs on my list because it was a brilliant concept to create visual interpretations (cartoons), and play them to classical music. Imagine, this was created in 1940 before computer technology was even conceived. Each sequence is as perfect, for adults as well as children. Its instructive orchestral sequences explains different kinds of music structures as it illustrates various ways music tells a story.

LA BELLE ET LA BETE (Beauty and the Beast - 1946) - Jean Cauteau’s French version of the classic fairy tale. Done in black and white, I still remember the arms jutting out of the walls holding the candelabras and the surrealistic ambiance the movie created. It redefined the love story and emphasized the importance of measuring love and beauty by the quality of one's heart rather than by what one sees on the outside. It should remind anyone making lists of their top films, not to forget foreign language films. There are so many out there that are deserving of credit. I had to include at least one. This was the one that I choose.

THE TIME MACHINE (1960) - A classic by any measure. Imagine being able to travel through time. Who hasn't had that fantasy? A worthy score, appropriately set at the turn of the century as was envisioned by H.G. Wells, with thought-provoking themes of how our society may develop in the future. Excellent special effects. I would love to have a miniature version of the actual time machine on my desk right next to my miniature of Robbie the robot, from forbidden planet, and the robot miniature from the TV series "Lost in Space" (danger, Will Robinson). Anyone who knows where I can find one, let me know, please.

PLANET OF THE APES (70’s) - Charleston Heston’s claim to Sci- Figlory, a film that was a social satire. It was brilliantly written, well acted, but it was the very last scene as Heston rides on the beach when he discovers the truth of where his destiny truly was that made the film worthy of my top 10 list.

JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH (1960) - I liked the journey, the adventure, and Jules Verne. The whole idea of going inward, searching to the center of the earth, rather than outward toward space was almost an allegory for a search into ones own nature. What's the point of searching outward unless you know where and who you are to begin with?

THE TWILIGHT ZONE - Although many would argue that the Twilight Zone was not Sci-Fi, it went beyond Sci-Fi and fantasy. Anything as imaginative as what was presented weekly for our consideration, is in my mind within this category, and deserves recognition as one of the truly significant anthology series of all time. It focused so much of its attention on the IRONIC TWIST, the unexpected. It expanded the boundaries of our imagination and took us on a journey that went into other dimensions of thought and reality. I added it to this list because it belongs here.

Classic STAR TREK & THE NEXT GENERATION (TNG) - Both series deserve to be on this list for different reasons: Classic Trek for breaking so many barriers during the sixties, and creating some of the most memorable characters in Sci-Fi history. TNG, which will be illustrated in its own essay which will be posted, for your consideration at some later date.

I am sure I have forgotten some that I will agree also belong on the list of top ten, which, in my case is more than 10. Which of these would be placed on your list?

references:
The Lord of the Rings
King Kong (1933)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Forbidden Planet
Aliens
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Fantasia
Beauty and The Beast
The Time Machine
Planet of the Apes
Journey to the Center of the Earth
The Twilight Zone
Star Trek