Following my previous comments about the subtext of 'being offended', I see a great danger in accepting a feckless victimhood.

In recent times there's been frequent media reports of people being threatened should they offend, or when they've offended the name of Allah, or Mohammed.

I recently chimed into a forum discussing the subject of quantum physics, and the implications thereof.

Out of which came some ways of explaining my views in a more 'elegant' manner.

Following are my edited excerpts of my final few posts to this forum:

------------------------

Years ago, when in a self-development course, the teacher said "you're 100% responsible for your reality" ... me, in response "nah, that can't be true" (in class), He, "it's 100%". Me, "Nah, it can't be because ... yadda yadda". Class now cranky with me, an upstart who won't sit quietly and obediently listen.

Long story short. It is a literal 100%. I've done a lot of work over the years to nail the mechanics of how that can occur.

But here's the thing. If not 100%, then what figure is it? 100% has a certain 'purity' to it that I found compelling.

Science can't get near that 100%, blaming chance, or randomness or god knows what else. That's inelegant.

100% is elegant.

As mentioned in "Let's get clinical" and "for the 100th time", I've noticed a penchant for many people to believe in limiting systems.

Unfortunately, I forget on occasions the same very principles that I espouse.

A recent example was that of a lovely woman who professed to be an astrololger. Instead of my inviting her to consider some examples of  dynamic and fluid potentials available to her, I joked about her beliefs in a condescending manner. Not good.

I often hear of, or run across people who espouse all sorts of ... well, quite frankly, incoherent, silly ideas and beliefs.

For example, in response to one forum, I received the comment that "there is no right answer or absolute."

Well, let's consider that ... no absolute? Absolutely no commonality, at all?

That begs the question .. if there's no underlying commonality, no absolute common ground to existence, what then enables it and us to all interact? What's the 'connective tissue' that enables that interactivity? What's the ground upon which, and by which, separate things move and connect?

So, here's a response I crafted that kiboshes a few misunderstandings.

Enjoy.

----------------------------

Consider some "stuff" of which the entirety of existence is composed. Not physical, not even necessarily spiritual. Let's just call it "stuff".

Now, this 'stuff' is, by definition, literally everywhere, in everything, everyone one, every thought, God, Evil ... it's literally everywhere. In fact there is no place it is not. Given its ubiquity, we can say it is 'one-stuff'.

If we want to believe that some spiritual beings or others are not composed of this one-stuff, we need ask of what they are made. Whatever that is, it will ultimately need to be made of said 'one-stuff' in that said one-stuff is the ground stuff of all existence. no exceptions.

Now it gets interesting.

When writing Be and Become during the latter half of the 90's, the various revisions of the manuscript1 included chapter (Nine) titled as "Men are particles, women are waves".

However, prior to publication I had the thought (contrary to my better instincts) that the chapter would best be titled differently, to what is now "Material men, wonderful women". It was, I thought, less likely to be dismissed as 'stereotyping' people, even though I felt at ease with the "Men are particles ..." title.  "Men are particles, women are waves" quite adroitly and succinctly expresses the inherent dynamics of life towards individualism, and collectivism -- men and male animals do (as a general rule!) bias themselves towards the hard, physical, individualistic side to life (characteristic of particles). Women do bias themselves towards the soft, interconnective, cooperative, relationship side to life (characteristic of waves and fields).

Stereotyping?

Hardly -- walk down any street asking everyone encountered their occupation.  Then note the gender percentages of those in the 'hard-sciences', engineering and Information Technologies, compared with those in care services, humanities and communications.

The bias is not because men or women are 'pushed' into the various professions, or due to restrictions such as 'glass ceilings'. There's been plenty of attempts to get more women into IT, but they simply just aren't as interested ... as a GENERAL rule!. Yes, there's always exceptions, but we're talking 'bias' in numbers, of percentages, not of exceptions.

Anyway, this all goes to remind me of the need to follow my intuition, not what the naysayers might say, or what I think might be best in terms of my work.

It doesn't pay to second-guess that which is beyond modeling or explanation -- the intuitive.

Occasionally I get involved in deep discussion about life, the universe and whatever -- especially the weird, nonsensical idea that we can "transcend the ego".

What I've come to recognise is that those who seek to control conversations and others can do so in very subtle ways.1

And one of the most devious ways is to assert that someone is stuck in their ego, as was levelled at me recently during a vigorous discussion with a friend.

What does being stuck in one's ego actually mean? When can we ever speak, live, and work without an ego?

Last night while enjoying a wonderful dinner I had the pleasure of engaging conversation with a number of intelligent men on matters philosophical.

It became evident that some held beliefs that were rooted in the ideal of perfection: the age-old belief that when we get 'over there' or perhaps 'up there' everything will be 'perfect' (at which time, we'll have 'transcended' the troubling, fault-ridden ego).