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

On Life on Other Planets

I've never had a problem with whether life existed on other planets; My issue has always been what kind of life we'd find there: would it be intelligent? If so, would it be humanoid? The fact that no life has been found yet doesn’t mean its not out there. Just because something hasn’t been proven does not mean it doesn’t exist.

By using "belief" as our starting point, we limit our possibilities of viewing anything and make it far more difficult for us to acknowledge when, in the future, scientific proof may demand acceptance. There are things we simply don’t know or understand now. Are we prepared to say that we are absolutely sure there is no chance to prove life exists elsewhere, solely because we have no evidence of it now?

Science could never take this position. Science begins from a point of not knowing and proceeds by collecting data, establishing facts, creating theories and hypotheses, testing them, conducting independent experiments to establish that whatever conclusions it comes to are reproducible, then constructing knowledge based on what it has found.

If science took the position that since life has not yet been found elsewhere, that it doesn’t exist, then it would be discarding the very nature of what makes science "science". Even today, evidence is being seen that some form of life could very possibly exist on one of the moons of Jupiter or some really harsh ecosystems on our very own planet.

I'm not a scientist; I offer no proof that life exists somewhere else. But I also think it’s a bit condescending to think that of all the billions of stars, of all the infinite galaxies out there, that we are the only place that life, with any kind of intelligence or consciousness, exists. My only question remains whether it would be humanoid life.

The fact is the Earth is so bio diverse - so many different species exist here. If intelligent life evolved here into human form (putting aside religious theology for a moment), is it possible that another form of life - common to Earth - could have taken the evolutionary path as the dominant form of intelligent life? If there are billions of species and humans are just one of those species, then had the conditions that made humans the dominant form been more favorable to insects, perhaps they could have become the predominant form of intelligent life.

It's also conceivable that other planets will have their own unique biodiversity. That biodiversity would presumably be dependent on many factors such as the predominant elements in their atmosphere, the gravity of the planet, the rotation on its axis, the time it takes to travel around its sun, as well as other factors we have no knowledge of. It seems again very presumptuous to expect that intelligent life would appear as humanoid or anything related to any of the species we have on earth. Conditions there would be so vastly different than the ones existing on Earth. So for me, the only real solution is to keep an open mind on all these questions of life on other planets and let nature unfold in its own time and reveal its secrets when it's ready, without forming any opinions one way or another.

The Home of The Brave

The Home Of The Brave is not a reference to the United States but to New York City (The Big Apple). We have to be brave, if not crazy, to live here and be rich to enjoy it the way it's meant to be enjoyed. If we are not living in a rent stabilized or rent controlled apartment, we probably spend 75% of our take-home salary on rent or maintenance fees for our million dollar "studio" condo. The remaining 25% is for all our other expenses. Add to that the fact that all the single people in NYC actually occupy their own apartment rather than having to sublet or share one with someone else. Even then, the rent is so exorbitant that we still pay an outrageously high percent of our salary to rent a room

Then there is what the NYC politicians would have you believe is the greatest public transportation system in the world, none other than that filthy, dilapidated, run-down, over-heated "thing" called the NYC subway system. That archaic underground mess that we all have to use to travel daily from place to place. Groaning and moaning in the summer heat as we descend, step by step, knowing that as we go deeper, we run the risk of drowning in our own sweat, waiting for a train to finally come as we step onto an air-conditioned but over-crowded car, with people trying to look around at everything but each other.

Then there are the "fragrant" aroma's that define the city; those noxious scents of the garbage trucks as they loudly pass in the pre-dawn hours picking up those black bags left out on the street every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturdays. Nor should we forget the garbage strewn all over the streets because the sanitation workers will, unless our garbage is neatly packaged and left in it's appropriate place near the curb, ready for pick-up.

So far, I have only mentioned the noise of the garbage trucks. Let's not forget the morning influx of traffic as cars and trucks descend the city streets moving like packs of rabid animals looking for a quick way to pass each other, cursing in foul language, as they scour the streets for a place to park. The taxi cabs, moving so fast that they think only of hitting the gas pedal to pass the cab next to them, to prove they can somehow fly over the potholes that litter the streets.

Then there is the department stores:

OH BLOOMINGDALE'S, OH BLOOMINGDALE'S
FOREVER MAY YOU BE
YOUR GROUND FLOOR OF PERFUMED SCENTS
IS ENOUGH TO ASPHYXIATE ME

The only true gem of NYC is Central Park, that oasis of respite from the hustle and bustle of the congested city streets. But if we left it up to the real-estate developers, they would eviscerate Central Park or eliminate it completely, and build even more skyscrapers to house more business's and even costlier condos.

Don't you just love NYC? I do, but that's because I was born here and I occupy my own "extremely cheap" rent-stabilized apartment. What's your excuse?

The Final Tie

There is perhaps no greater emotional event for a child than a parent's impending death. Whether adult or very young, it can only be described as a horrible experience that I can only convey from my own life's experience. Yet when it was over, I would say it was one of the most profound and spiritual events that I ever had.

My mother was diagnosed with cancer at a time when medical treatment was limited and, although remission lasted a number of years, I was not prepared for the final decline that would last approximately 6 months. I was in my mid to late twenties when that occurred.

Since my father had also faced numerous cardiac conditions and subsequently died at the age of fifty-one, some ten years earlier, I was left to deal with the whole issue of my mother's progressive deterioration. As is usually the case, the responsibility falls on one of the children.

My relationship with my mother was difficult and complex but I found myself totally unprepared to deal with her increasing dependency on me. The pressure placed on me by both her and hospital bureaucracy - which made me financially responsible for all her treatment - was enough to cause me nightmares and took me closer and closer to my breaking point.

I was on a roller-coaster with no end in sight. The ride was so extreme that life seemed to hold nothing for me but the promise of a burden around my neck that was getting heavier and heavier.

After numerous procedures, the doctors made clear that she was a terminal case that would only deteriorate. They pressured me to transfer her to a hospice because they claimed the hospital she was in was an acute care facility and not the appropriate place for someone who is terminal. When I took too much time to consider it, they transferred her from the surgical ward to the medical ward.

For those who know the medical ward of any hospital, but especially teaching hospitals, it's pretty much the dumping ground for many terminal patients for who no further treatment is planned other than maintenance. It’s the place where the nurses don’t bother to turn the patients, change the urinary catheters or simply place the bedpans on the side of the bed and expect the patient to somehow fill it up on their own.

When I went to the medical ward for the first time and saw the bedsores that subsequently developed, or the food on the tray that was just left there uneaten because my mother couldn't feed herself, I became angry. When I confronted the hospital staff, I was told that she didn't belong in the hospital, but in a hospice. It finally dawned on me what message the hospital staff, including the social worker, was sending me: “If you want her treated properly, transfer her to a hospice”.

When I first went to the hospice after she was admitted, I was struck by something I had not noticed before. All the patients had a similar look. It was almost as if I could see the mark of death on them. The shallowness of their color, the thinness of their faces and the protruding cheekbones. I now saw this same “look” on my mother. It finally dawned on me that she would never leave. Although I knew she was terminal, I had not seen any of this in the other hospital. Now I knew it was just a question of time.

There were some lucid moments the last week of her life, mixed in with the almost complete sedation of the morphine that already made her nothing more than a breathing corpse. But when she was alert, I did have the chance to resolve some of the issues that were still outstanding in our relationship and to finally say the one thing that I always found it difficult to say to her my whole life: “I love you”.

I was there when she died just before Christmas in 1979. The end of a decade, the end of a relationship, and the end of my “childhood”. I was also surprised to feel a sense of liberation mostly because no one would ever treat me like their child again, and although I felt like my life had changed, I also felt a kind of renewal and confidence that I had learned the lessons I needed to survive without my parents, and that felt good.

What Can I Know? How Much Can I Ever Know?

If we assume that all we can 'know' is based on the five senses (hearing, vision, smell, touch and taste) then all we can potentially 'know' is limited by the built-in boundaries these five senses inherently possess. However, if we view the senses with a greater but as yet unfulfilled potential then perhaps there are more things (of an undetermined extent) that we can 'know'. Where the limits of our knowledge may be, we cannot say. The capabilities of the senses we possess and how the evolution of our brain affects them will be the determining factor of what we can ultimately 'know'. Although this may be true in the physical sense, the spiritual sense is a whole different matter.

There are people who claim to see beyond the extent of the five senses, possibly a sixth sense, and others suggest even more senses beyond our 'collective imagination'. If we take the view that some undefined "spiritual sense" is possible then spiritual development itself offers an additional avenue of knowledge - and perhaps wisdom - that we may consider feasible in knowing more things then the current senses allow.

If we think that what we can 'know' is based solely on quantifiable measures then what we are dealing with is a physical reality of infinite facts. Is it reasonable to want to 'know' everything that is possible, or is it more credible to want to 'know' the things we need at any given moment for living our life and dealing with the complexities it presents? What accentuates our motivation to search for more is curiosity and it is this quality that mystifies the urge to search at all.

Anyone who has studied Calculus should remember the concept of infinity: we approach it but never by definition reach it because that would preclude its existence. So even if we expand the current level of our physical senses there would still be things we cannot 'know' because we are finite, living in an infinite universe. The very nature of our existence would preclude us from amassing all knowledge even if that is our aim.

If we consider spirit to be part of our true nature and the infinite universe then, although continually evolving, we would still need to evolve so far beyond what our present spiritual awareness can even conceive possible to 'know' the true extent of our knowledge capability.

So the question of what can be considered our knowledge potential becomes an irrelevant venture. It would seem more fruitful to search for the things we need to 'know' to help us achieve a greater understanding in dealing with our circumstances at any given moment (with reasonable patience) and accept evolution as the natural path for all things to unfold in its own time, and trust it as the best way to understand ourselves, the apparent limits of our universe and perhaps the reason why we exist at all.