~Chapter One~                                HALLOWED HALLS--- "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." ---F. Scott Fitzgerald            The wedges which have been driving us apart as a people only serve to enhance the aloneness most of us feel nowadays. The gaps between rich and poor, young and old, strong and weak, have never been more pronounced. That's the iniquitous nature of the current cycle. It becomes a simple thing to ignore the emptiness of other lives, even your own.  Provided you get at least enough out of life just to get by, the affairs of others are generally ignored. The reason for this is frustratingly simple. Every fundamental fringe of society is based on the sole (perceived) need for capitol gain.               As we examine this brutal reality more closely (an enormous task, but I'll give it a try), then maybe we'll be a little more equipped to deal with it.  Once realizing how we've made this our perceived reality (by simply accepting it), we'll then see how pervasive this money thing truly is.  It effects everything we do from birth to death.  From seatbelt laws to matters of faith, it's all about the money.  Even our inherent right to find a mate always comes down to whether or not you can afford such a luxury. Hardly a huge revelation, but it's worth taking a look.      If we can agree that the need for status has gotten out of hand, then maybe we can at least look at some alternatives.  One thing that will help us do that, will be in drawing a distinction between man-made laws, and natural ones.  Not once have I ever seen a homeless deer begging for coins.  I guess it's probably due to how hard it is to hold a cup using hooves.     While natural law is all about abundance, most of man's laws were designed specifically with a profit margin in mind.  A grandiose claim, I must concede, but we'll cite the specifics later.  Regarding the natural right to take a mate, the same old natural laws still apply, only instead of challenging an alpha male to a head butting contest, or being forced to run the course through some other hierarchy--- we humans have to jump over the hurtles set before us by our need for status.         After 10,000 years, it's still the same old game of competition, with horn or tusk being replaced by earned income potential.  Either way, quite a few of us must swallow our desires, and accept whatever we can afford.  It's still survival of the fittest, but our definitions of what qualities should be considered desirable must be seriously reconsidered.  Too many of us sacrifice our ambitions and passions, and settle for the cash instead.        How many people have ignored their heart's desire, and chose instead financial security?  Most of us would fit uncomfortably into that last category.  Why not live in a world that values and nurtures both?  Why should we be made to sacrifice one for the other? Incidentally, if I thought for a moment that such questions arose in me out of simple jealousy toward those who've secured for themselves a living, I'd be sickened by such a realization. Besides, if it were a simple matter of jealousy, then the sense of expedience driving me on now would have long since diminished. I don't intend to present this message as merely a way to blow off steam.       Oh, I'll be doing some horn tootin' from time to time--- but most of my grievances will be based on the certainty that I'm far from alone in my illness of ease.  I only wish to help usher in an age (in my own small, biased way) which might take us out of this decrepit state of thoughtlessness, and into a state of mind that will actually teach us to appreciate original thought (shudder).  The greatest prize of all will be love of truth.        I should add here, that whenever I catch myself sounding so absurdly optimistic, I'm reminded of my illness. One of the classic symptoms of manic-depressive disorder is that of delusion.  I can't decide if that's the case here or not.  Whether any of this is due to craziness or blind idealism, I leave for you to judge.         Sure, I'm a little bit touched in the head.  Who isn't these days? But must we just accept things the way they are, and just sally on as best we can? Or might we at least try and do something about it?       Nature is pure.  Then there's god, also pure in true form I'm sure. Both will be treated as one and the same within these pages.  That having been said, neither god or nature makes a delineation between good or bad, right or wrong, life or death.  They contain all of these at once. Only the subjectivity inscribed by consciousness affords us the luxury of these dualities.  God, like nature, gives all thinking creatures a choice.  Included with all life comes an owner's manual of sorts, that's intended to offer guidance.  It insures such life with an inner duty (and if it so chooses, an ability) to survive.       In our time, we've somehow managed to misplace this guide.  We've forgotten how to read it maybe, and even if we haven't, it's long since been crammed somewhere into the rear of the glove compartment.  How's that for an analogy?       The inner voice reminds us again of where to look for it.  As a separate soul from you (count your lucky stars), I can only offer my commonality with you as a means through which to learn how better to give your own conscience a listen.  Once given the ideal, we can hammer into whatever shape that most pleases us.  But, it's going to require an awful lot of hammering, to be sure.       Depending on who's reading this, I'm white skinned (but I get awesome tans), while you might be dark skinned.  I'm male to your female.  I'm American (but in many ways, only by birth), but I yearn to be a citizen of the world.  Superficially, we may seem worlds apart, but my quest is the same as yours.  To be heard.  To be taken seriously.  To shear through the haze perpetrated on our minds by those who would homogenize us with a common illusion.  It's this illusion which tells us how we need some external force to guide us.  We've all been programmed to believe that our only hope resides in something that's outside of us.  Because of that belief, we've come to accept that only other, more qualified powers should be holding the key to whatever success we might carve out for ourselves.        Let's therefore, learn how to look inward, rather than outward for guidance.  We've been blinded to our internal (maybe even eternal) gift of reckoning for ourselves, a manifest destiny.  It doesn't supplicate itself to the traditionalist's rampant paranoia.  It won't allow us to gloat that somehow our kind is better than all else and all others.  As beings of heat (passion), we're governed by our worldly desires.  But within us--- as beings of light (compassion), we can learn to see with new eyes.       That's when we'll be utterly changed.  Then we'll be better suited to seeing how much more alike we all are than different.  Forgive these initial vagaries, but I'm still just as new to this perspective as you are, and am temporarily blinded by it.  It may take a while to adjust to this kind of vision.  But stumbling a while in brightness is surely more conducive to growth than tripping haphazardly about in the present darkness.         It's time to pull off the blinders put onto us by our "leaders," and ultimately kept on by ourselves.  Time to stake a claim for the future of true freedom, which will be forged perhaps for the first time in the spirit and wholeness of all living things.  Excuse me while I reach for the Lithium.       I used to think that it was just me, and because of my bipolar illness, that I'd eventually lose my desire to matter.  This is why it used to pain me to smile.  Somehow it didn't feel right, those occasional stabs of joy.  It didn't feel natural.  Darkness prevailed over much of my life.         Before finally getting relief from this warped perception on life (thanks mostly to prescribed drugs), I'd resigned myself to being content with just sighing and dying. Despite my self loathing, I've always cherished all living things.  I suppose I'd seen burning in them, all those things that I couldn't feel for myself.  Whatever happiness I allowed myself to experience was usually only felt  peripherally, as I watched it being enjoyed by others.       From this dire perspective, joy was more implied than actually felt.  For most of us I suppose, a thing like real joy is rare in life.  For me, it could most directly be observed by watching those purveyors of innocence, animals and children.  Eventually, it was just the animals that gave me hope.  Children are too often tainted by the false, handed down beliefs of their peers and the adults who govern them. If someone of my own species or age was having a good time, somehow I'd fail to see it. Maybe this was out of jealousy.       Regardless, my own sense of ecstasy could only be occasionally glimpsed purely through an appreciation for the natural world (along with healthy doses of fantasy). So it went that I'd come to depend on the stirrings of joy found only in my love for nature.  There was still hope to be seen in those things that had not yet been effected by the man-made limitations that kept my own wishes in check.  Ultimately though, my spirit was laid low, and I could only find contentment in watching the deer and the antelope play.  Or at least, the cats and the dogs, and other more domestic fare at my immediate leisure. In short (too late) --- people bad, animals good.  At least the animals (ok, maybe a few porn stars too) were managing to have some fun, even if I couldn't.         All these years later, I recognize that I'm not the only one among us primates who's not having too good a time.  Regardless of my genetic predisposition to chronic unhappiness, most of those I see around me have the same attitude as me.  Everyone insists on being way too cheerless, at least while they're being kept beerless.         Now that I've found the right balance of meds, I feel better equipped to reclaim for myself the ability to play again.  After leaving the hospital in Dec. of 1989, the eternal child stirred once more in me.  I'd set about finding someone with whom I could share this reclaimed need to just have fun.  But I awoke to a world where kids grew up far too fast, or at least were forced into premature maturity by circumstance.  Everyone was as serious and troubled as I once had been, and now at the age of 38 I'm still left asking: "Would anyone like to play?"      Now that I'm all bright eyed and bushy tailed, I'm looking for a good time. I think changing the world would be a great deal of fun.  As I look around for a partner in crime, all I can see is everyone walking around in a perpetual haze.  After taking care of the hell in my head, I can't help but wonder if it was released into the world outside of it.       With apologies for all this self-aggrandizing, maybe it'll help you to lighten up (after its initial effect of outraging you), if you realize that we all help to create our own hells.  This is done chiefly by adhering to the belief that we're helpless to do anything about it.  If this is true, it's only because we continue supporting (in one way or another) those institutions that were so well-crafted as to be self- supported and self-perpetuated by those men who first came by them.       It all began roughly ten thousand years ago.  Someone was perceived as being somehow more able and fit than all the others in a given group, and the reigns of society were effectively handed over to him.  By the way, I'm not being a chauvinist here at all, with my continued use of words like "he" or "him." To this day, we continue allowing men (suspiciously Caucasian ones here in the west) to take their place at the helm.  It's been going on now, generation after generation.        All the "hows" and "whys" will be sorted out later, but for now, let's just say that this was a big mistake.  Not that white males aren't perfectly capable of creating a better world, but are others any less capable?  If your answer is yes, consider the fact that any other way has yet to be tried.       We only have to look at the laws of gods and governments since time was first being recorded to see that all the problems of the now can be directly traced to their source.  Let's look to the very things which were supposedly created for us as a means for protection.       Look closely enough and it's easy to see that the only thing we're being protected from is our natural ability to think for ourselves.  I know this is a pretty broad stroke, and I catch myself wondering if this is really true.  I can't figure out why I still insist that humanity is still capable of nobility.  I sometimes reconsider this presumed ability of our species to be self-actualizing, especially after watching a couple hours of daily talk shows (or since this was originally written, reality television).         Nevermind that right now.  I choose to think that the apparent stupidity we see today, can at least be blamed in part on this society in which we live.  Any social order which actively discourages the acquisition of knowledge for its own sake, is bound to be a bit slow on the uptake in the long run.  This would explain all the ignorance we see, especially if you're willing to take inbreeding out of the equation.       Most of us have been carefully groomed to accept the current reality as unchangeable.  In truth, most of us actually prefer not having to think things out for ourselves.  We trust in others to do that for us, or at least we pretend to.  We need to get over this dangerous and reckless practice of playing "follow the leader."      As I say, I've recently become a strong believer in the need for play, only it's time now to think of something more creative, inventive, and of course, fun.  Here are a few examples of the games we play today.  Some of them aren't all that fun anymore.       It can all get started by looking to our old friend, organized religion.  I speak of most ALL religions, but I'm in the U.S.  I'll therefore stick with the Christian religion, and all of its splinters.  The Ten Commandments for instance, were clearly not meant to be taken literally.  Just look at how screwed up anyone gets if they actually attempt to adhere to them.  Let's just take two of these divine laws, and throw them into the already confused lives of us average humans.      "Thou shalt not kill."  That one actually makes sense, but we need no tablets of stone to teach us this obvious discipline.  This one's really more about the eastern philosophy of karma, but that's where its similarity ends.  If you kill somebody, then you're going to upset someone else who might've been fond of your victim.  They're going to come looking for you, and if they're successful in finding you; well, you know what's likely to happen next.  Live by the salad fork, die by the salad fork.  If god didn't tell us about this killing others thing, chances are, we'd have discovered this rudimentary law in short order for ourselves.          I resent living in a world where we need to get such simplistic ideas out of the way before a real dialogue can begin, but what choice is there? Now, let's throw in commandment number two.  Not in the biblical context, but simply for the sake of the argument.  "Thou shalt not steal."  Hmmm.  This one's tougher to live by, especially in a world where necessities for survival tend to be hoarded by the more fortunate.  Take food for instance.  No, really, take it.  Because you just might be forced to if you wish to live.       Which raises the point, who exactly is the first commandment (about not killing anyone) meant to protect? If the answer is everyone, is that including yourself? To refuse to steal in extreme cases, is to refuse to live. If you kill yourself (and your entire family if you happen to have one) by refusing to steal at least enough to sustain yourself, then you've just committed suicide.  One crack of thunder later and, Boom! You go to hell.  Yet if you do get desperate enough to steal, would that not be in violation of rule number one? You can see where this is going.  Cut to the present, and you can see where the whole world's going too.         Earlier, I'd referred to man-made law as being self-perpetuating. This is to what I was referring.  Such laws are intentionally designed to promote guaranteed failure on the part of anyone who's fearful enough to try and abide by them.  Hope I'm not bursting anyone's bubble.  Sometimes, in order to learn how to swim, someone's gotta throw you into the pool.       Cruelty is not my intention here.  It's just that I'm getting tired of having constantly to defend the rights of those who take it upon themselves to think on their own. I only wish to connect in some way with those of you out there who agree with some of the things to be discussed at length later on. If all goes according to plan, any inevitable disagreements will be followed by a healthy, growth inducing series of debates.        As difficult as it may seem to many, the fact remains that most man-made laws are meant to be broken.  This is hardly a mind-blowing observation.  It's just that  we've all been witness to how laws are constantly being bent to conform to whatever circumstance not fitting  neatly into a predetermined place.  Loopholes aside, we seem to be living in a world of absolutes, but only if we're willing to ignore those natural laws to which we've been made oblivious.        Cutting to the heart of the matter, man- made laws (and the religions that so often work hand in hand with them to achieve the same end) may have been written in stone.  But in accordance with the supreme laws of the natural order, even stone will erode away if given sufficient time.      The short version?   Man-made laws, religions, and traditions stand rigidly against nature.  Natural law on the other hand, insists upon flexibility. In nature, nothing is permanent--- save change.  Cliche' I know.  To deny this (which our institutions seem hell-bent on doing), is to... Well, just take a look around.  Deny nature, and you'll also be denied its most precious freedom, the right to live.  In some odd way, this closely parallels another, more familiar edict.      We've all been kicked from Eden, simply in refusing to play by the rules.  Ironically, we've been equipped by nature to build it anew, even as man-made laws forbid us from even attempting to rebuild Eden.  In this world, knowledge can only lead to trouble (unless it's sanctioned for the usual militaristic or nationalistic causes, where it can lead to even bigger trouble).       Knowledge used as a weapon, rather than as a form of betterment, can, and often does lead us astray.  But the acquisition of knowledge can be a good thing if it's pursued while using a little thing called wisdom. But, to stick with the argument at hand --- who's the wiser between man and nature? Well, since man is of nature, and not the converse, then there can be only one correct response.  But what of a god or gods? Is god of man, or man of god?      That's more difficult to answer of course, and indeed, philosophers have ceaselessly contemplated it for centuries, if not for millennia.  So it comes down to this:     Of laws, in which do we abide? Man's or god's? Man or nature? Is nature of god? We would all agree that in nature, can be found a reflection of god.  And that in humanity, can reside some aspect of god.  The question posed then can be: "Is law and religion of man or god?" So on and so forth.    Judging from the veins bursting in our heads now, clearly, we're not yet qualified to make any definitive conclusions. We can only come to grips (or to blows) with such an awesome prospect through our own limited devices.  In so doing, any task masters we might assign in aiding us in trying to figure such things out are bound to be just as limited, since they too will be man-made.       Heavy-handed or not, the scope of this book is doomed to be just as quaint.  As unavoidable as this bleak reality is,  maybe just one small allowance can be made.  All former laws of thought are hereby suspended for now.  Hopefully with your help, the bar can be raised a might, and we'll finally be left to wonder:                "Are there really any limits at all?"      Or are they too curtailed only by the barriers created by the good old "we"?       All this zig zagging seeks to seriously (with some rhetoric thrown in here and there), if only marginally,  answer such principally important questions.  Of course, the humbling part will periodically come rushing in to remind us that inevitably, there's no one right answer to whatever questions we might pose.  Then and only then, will we be sufficiently suited to trudge brazenly into a few of the areas which will teach us the true meaning of the statement: "It's all relative." I guess the first thing we need do, is to find some ways of ridding ourselves of the age old rhetoric that keeps us from looking ahead very far.    Another issue that will be handled rather liberally is the topic of  "human see, human do."  The classic sci-fi ape flick aside, it proposes that most, indeed all of the humanities and technologies devised so far, are directly traceable to their natural counterparts. Humans are excellent mimics.     Ergo: Birds vs. Avionics.  Horses vs. Horsepower.  In general, mechanical vs. organic.  All of humanity's most inspiring innovations were in point of fact, borrowed from pre-existing precedents set first in nature.      This leads to another innocent question:     If there is a god, then why hasn't he sued us yet for copyright infringement? Maybe that's what hell is really for.  Once more, I'm forced to look at the human part of the equation as to why things are the way they are, hence the sarcasm.    Human see, human do? You bet on it everyday.  Every time you take a snap-shot for your photo album (be it on digital disc or not), you're mimicking the eye's bio-electric ability to process photons of light into visual data.  There are even simpler examples.     Each time that you toss your freshly laundered unmentionables into the dryer, in a less dramatic sense anyway, you're bypassing the need for a sun (at least as a drier of clothes).  Your car has the same basic requirements as your own body does.  It has a heart in the sense that it has pumps which distribute liquids for cooling and lubrication.      A car's legs were perfected by humans to promote more efficient locomotion in the form of wheels.  And, keeping it simple for now, your vehicle of choice even has a brain (albeit a less sophisticated one in the form of a distribution system).  To anyone even vaguely familiar with basic mechanics, these comparisons would be considered mundane.  As a rule, if it can be done by nature, then it's only a matter of time before it can be done by the more adept among us humans as well.     Human see, human do better? In some cases, most certainly.  As a general rule of opposable thumb, the common thread that runs (and hopefully doesn't   become frayed) throughout this book is the rather contentious (but easy to back up) claim that if it can even be imagined, here on Earth or elsewhere, then so too can it be done.  If something can be previewed in the mind, such an image had to come from somewhere.  That's because somewhere, the image has already been made into a physical reality.  Sounds like quite a reach right now, but maybe I can convince you later.    This recalls the axiom that there's nothing new under the sun. Only when we alter our perception, does a thing seem new.  I believe that to be true not only under our own sun, but under the countless trillions of others scattered throughout spacetime.  Generally speaking, natural order is consistent throughout the universe.  Because of how ignorant most of us are to this reality, we'll have to disembark from the train wreck of conventional wisdom. Once we get our bearings, maybe a new appreciation for trying something new will have some appeal.     It will become an absolute prerequisite to cast aside any Victorian standards you might still have cluttering up your brain.  It's there only to burden you.  There will simply be no room here for purism, or for the self-defeating  attitude put forth by the creationists. These kinds of faiths have already had their turn at the wheel.  While the faithful keep looking for Noah's ark, more forward thinking people can get on about the task of building one that will help us ascend to the heavens.     I'm only trying to give some latitude to anyone willing to sing a new song, or to chart a new course.  The next port-of-call will be nothing short of becoming god-like ourselves.  If that sounds sacrilegious, consider how you might be perceived by a Neanderthal human.  After the difficult chore of going back in time, 100,000 years say, all you need to do then, is to convince our not so distant cousin that you're a god.  Whipping out a cigarette lighter and sparking it up would probably do the trick.      Our potential to become god-like will bode especially true as we slip into the inviting, and equally foreboding  waters of molecularization.  We've already began swimming amidst the double helical rungs of DNA.  Here's where we'll finally find the proof needed to shatter the myth that only man was created in god's own image.       Suddenly and at last, we'll have to  share that distinction with virtually all other life on this planet, plant or animal, living or dead.  That's because of how anything and everything bearing the signature of DNA, will immediately have to be welcomed as a member of the family.  An absolute horror for many, and an absolute delight for those of us who wish to finally move forward.  Sorry if I sound so malicious here.  All I'm really doing is making way for a few alternative views.    No one is being judged here, and there will still be plenty of room in hell for me should I be proven wrong.  That aside, now that the human genome has been essentially mapped out (a voluminous undertaking that will easily fill the library of congress), this will make it increasingly more difficult for the fundamentalists to keep wagging their fingers in protest every time someone utters that un-holiest of words, "evolution."      Once we get that far, the potentials for our collective future will become immediately more complicated, and a great deal more liberating.  But nothing good can come from such ventures if we stay the present route where secrecy is everything, and freedom to benefit from new technologies is non-existent.  There can simply be no more secrets in tomorrow's world.    The ultimate weapon (at least until anti-matter bombs are created), will be created in the field of eugenics.  Most everyone has been bracing themselves for the impact of genetic engineering, but how much do they really know about the subject?     A goal of supreme importance here, will be to touch briefly upon a few of the many new realities that are being thrust upon us by progress.  What were originally predictions (which I'm hesitant to admit, have been coming to me in dreams since childhood--- insert the twilight zone theme here), have since come to pass.  Many of the ideas discussed may already be familiar to you, at least in principal.  Any new technologies talked about won't be nearly so important as how we should approach them a tad more spiritually.   In turn, this is tantamount to whether or not such advances will propel us into a brighter future, or whether we'll allow ourselves a cataclysmic plunge back into the depths of ignorance from which we sprang.  By way of a common example, if we continue allowing breakthroughs to first remain in the strict jurisdiction of military endeavors, then the same old pattern will remain in place.      As long as any advances are first put to the test through military applications, we'll be putting our collective future in deep peril.  Every time I turn on the news, I'm still perplexed as to why all these people remain so hell-bent on shooting at each other.  I'm sure it's because of how there's always someone to profit from such misery.    A word you'll hear repeatedly from here on in will be the word "collective."  This is a necessary redundancy I'm afraid, because any hopes we have for the emergence of a better world will be contingent upon the concept of a collective consciousness.  It's already been busy chugging away all this time.  It's brought us right here.  Now all it needs, is a little fine tuning.    I remind you that the world as it is today, was brought about by this same concept of a collective effort.  In this new arena, old and established realities will fall quickly away, in favor of this new matrix.  In other words, we must work together to build for ourselves, such an improved world view.      This has already been done to an unimaginable extent through our communications technology, and the world has in fact, gotten much smaller.  It's not as easy for political figures to hide things from a prying public as it once had been. We have incredible access to immense cachets of information, but have yet to organize it to all of our mutual benefit.  What good is information if it's been filtered and trivialized long before we can have it as our very own?  Now, more than ever before, it's time to wipe the sleep from our eyes.     Sorry about that.  The ranting again that is.  I've just caught myself sounding like another one of those alarmists who's trying to save the world.  We all need causes, but they should be tailored to meet the needs of our commonality rather than our differences.  The theme offered here will be with our common heritage, and what we can do with it, at its heart.     Grandiose? Fair enough. Idealistic? Sure. Unrealistic? Yes, if you let today's narrow-mindedness keep you bound and gagged.  Are you ready to plod ahead? Good, I could use the company.