FORWARD--- "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" ---T.S. Eliot                                                                                     As I finished reading science writer Timothy Ferris' book, "The Whole Shebang," I felt both mired and inspired by it. Here was a guy who tackled nothing less than condensing all of space and time down into a few hundred pages.  How noble.       I'd just completed the rough draft of my own "book" which left me feeling at once proud and guilt- ridden.  I was proud that I'd somehow managed to make some sense of all the images that ran unchecked through my mind since I was a kid.  The guilt came from knowing how controversial they'd probably be viewed, should these essays reach the world outside my head.  In an odd way, it was a self administered rite of passage of sorts.  My dabbling into writing originated from a life long desire to purge myself of the doubts still plaguing my mind.  Maybe too, it was spurred on out of a general restlessness that had held sway over me up until now.  I thought, forgive me the cliché, that I'd try to rid myself of my demons.     Though they were arrested somewhat,  they were hardly vanquished from my conscience.  Then I look at that word, "conscience." It can mean with or of science, which is how I'd spent most of my life, in the company of science.  It was a first and lasting love. This same passion led me to the likes of Stephen Hawking, Timothy Ferris, and the late Carl Sagan.  The actual definition of conscience though, among other things, is to have a thorough sense of what's wrong and right.  When you look around you, it seems that along with a general lacking in knowledge, there's also a deficit along the lines of doing what's right too.    Perhaps the denial we see around us today is out of fear.  Whatever the reason, my own conscience wouldn't allow that to continue.  I had to do something.  Someone far wiser than me said that in order to conquer fear, you must first understand the object of that fear.  I figured the best way in which to understand something was through science, or at least its method.  I know, sounds pretty boring.  It's not though. Not if you've been properly introduced.       God may have ascertained the beginning of the universe, or in a more limited sense, the Heaven and the Earth.  But only with the tool of science however, might we have the audacity to figure out how such a masterful feat might have really been pulled off.      Back to Mr. Ferris and his courageous book.  It was only one of perhaps hundreds of such fare I'd read since childhood, but after nearly 40 years, my perceptions are beginning to change.  The picture grows ever more resolute as technology speeds some of the more curious among us ever deeper into the domain of understanding.  But the end is hardly in sight, even as we gaze into (and ultimately beyond) the stormy berth of creation.  As always, it seems that the more we might learn, the more there is yet for us to know.  Even so, this somewhat sobering truth hardly keeps the more stalwart (ok, stubborn) among us from going right on with the search.       The same old questions still beg some sort of answers, and no matter how small such hallowed truths might make us feel, we still wonder how we fit into such an overwhelming plan of creation.  That's where the courage comes in.  It's why I refer to the books written by people such as Ferris, Sagan, or Hawking as courageous .  How dare they try and presume upon god?  Faith alone should be good enough for the likes of us.      But clearly it isn't.  Theology does little to assuage those of us who would ask questions so daring as "Why ?"or "How?"  There it is again.  That guilt I mentioned earlier.  "Why," for instance, can't people like me just leave well enough alone, and have an unerring faith in god? An answer is quick to come when I look at the conditions of the world around me. Then I'm forced to ask, "What if god is leaving it up to us?"  Maybe to some extent anyway, we're on our own.      It used to be easy to just dismiss people for whatever opinions they might have. We all have them, to partially cite the old saying.  The problem was, most of the opinions that I've ever heard from people were only echoes of what someone else had told them.  The sad fact is, most of us only believe what we do, because it's expected of us.  I've always tried not to let such views (narrow though they might be) interfere with the beliefs I'd managed to scratch together on my own.  Not that my opinions are any better than those of some others, but at least they're not written in stone.  Indeed, I crave the kind of discussions that will promote growth of some kind.  There's only so much one can learn while staying locked in your own mind.        Most of us remain too comfortable in staying  detached  from the world around us. It's actually just the nature of the beast, but we also use faith as an excuse to keep the world's problems at arm's length.  We regard ourselves as the chosen ones.  Whatever unfortunate circumstance experienced by the unbelievers is a fate that's deserved.  This often leads us to believe that all is just as it was meant to be.  If someone or a group of them are suffering in some way, we take false comfort in believing we're somehow better than they.  This attitude reflects either false patriotism, or religious zealotry.       In the event of being proven wrong with our sometimes smug attitude, we've always been superb at blaming someone or something else for the inequity that besieges our planet. Ever since a young age, I became increasingly aware of how most of the problems we face as a species today were created by us alone. It's the fundamental ways that most hold so dear, which have led to our current perceptions of how the world should be run.  I don't mean to sound nihilistic, but it's being run right into the ground.       We tend to always blame someone or something else for our tribulations, a little red devil perhaps.  Since the beginning of human history we'd always convinced ourselves that if any salvation was to be found--- then we'd have to pay for it first, and with great suffering.  That's what we've been doing now for millennia.      Our suffering as a whole has been going on for so long now, that we've grown numb to it.  We accept it as the natural way of things, and so we attempt no course correction. Even though warning bells are going off all over the place, we stay warm and fuzzy, all wrapped up in denial.  The fact is, it's becoming a dangerous world.  No wonder so many of us pray for some final sort of judgment, so that the "gold can be in sight again."      I'm writing this portion of essays just before the year 2000.  With all that gloom and doom tripe already out there in such abundance, I thought it would be ok to try and offer another way of seeing things.  These writings dare  lay claim to a more fresh perspective.  They contend that hope might still be possible on this world.  We don't necessarily need a heaven that may or may not lie somewhere beyond our immediate grasp.       On one hand, there's theological doctrine.  It usually preaches that salvation can only be attained through some kind of repentance.  On another, there's the method of science, where the only salvation that may come lies squarely within the cold scrutiny of pure understanding.  Unfortunately, the only tribunal offered by science comes in the guise of so many vexing questions, that some  might never be fully answered.  But are the questions posed, whether or not they be asked through science or theology, not elementally the same?      Might there not be a way to reconcile these two diametrically opposed forms of discipline? Many suppose not.  They believe that these two precepts must forever remain separate.  Therein resides a large part of the problem, and separate we remain.  Being separate from all else is not the natural order of things.  If there's one thing that nature (or god if you please) has repeatedly demonstrated, is that safety only exists in those numbers representing unity.      To that end then, this collection of "what ifs" were written. Here it's hoped, will be the beginning of true unity. It's a unity that's deeply forged in the very act of creation itself.  If such unity can be found, it will lie in the power that binds all matter (and energy) together.  That same power is with us still. The sooner we recall this, the better. Then again, maybe my electro-shock's over due.       The smell of singed hair aside, and even though I lean more toward science than organized religion, both are considered in the pages to come.  I tried my best to give each an equal footing, but particularly when being forced to include the views of western ideologies, I sometimes felt my anger getting the better of me.  It couldn't be helped.  The primary source of this anger resides in the obvious observation that most (if not all) religion resonates (dimly) in a language written by, of, and for the cause of men alone.  It separates us from the rest of creation, and makes us somehow more special than everything (and everyone) else.  This dismal fact is hinted about  most splendidly in the book of Genesis: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be           fruitful and multiply."    Well, maybe we've gone a little overboard with the multiplying part.  After all, as a species, we've crossed the 6 billion mark as of October, l999.  In Carl Sagan's  final effort, "Billions and Billions,"  he pointed out that in order to count to just one such billion, it would take 32 years in one second intervals.  That's an awful lot of fruitfulness.  Overpopulation might be blamed at least in part, on books like the bible, which people choose to interpret literally.   Getting back to Genesis, it goes on to say: "...replenish the Earth, and subdue it .  Have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth  upon the face of the Earth."       Evidence that we've been overly eager to comply is pretty apparent today.  It's as if god himself has given us special permission to do with this lovely world what we wish.  It occurs to me that maybe we've taken lessons like Genesis just a bit too far.      Like I said, I feel kind of bad about preferring science.  One of the most compelling aspects of preferring science over religion (please bear in mind that I only refer to religion in the organized sense of the word), is how it's so geared for change.  It's always growing.  It also tends to undermine matters of faith so easily.  I take no delight in pointing this out, but feel that I must, if only to remind you that maybe something so easily shaken as faith can sometimes seem to be doomed to falter in the first place.        As each new scientific revelation gives us further understanding into how the universe unfolds, the fallacies (and hypocrisies) invoked by most world religions are exposed with increasing frequency.  To many of us at least, the more we come to learn, the less credible books like the bible become.  After all, it was daredevils like Copernicus (and later, Galileo) who permanently removed us from Galactic central.  And as we approach this bold new age, it seems that there is nothing that's truly sacred.     Nothing that is, until we start placing more value on independent thought.  From my own limited perspective, that's a rare quality these days.  It's fine to have unerring faith in something beyond ourselves, but not if in so doing, we leave our ability to think on the curb.      People sometimes use their respective faith as a weapon, or they brandish it before them like a shield.  Some feel that if they can keep themselves removed from the fruits of temptation, then they can remain safe in their faith.  Safe, perhaps, but always in the dark too.  It's not their fault entirely.  Knowledge was always something that most religions tried to avoid.  That's why, with as much respect as I can manage to muster, I must say they've done a bang up job of it. Our gods it would seem, prefer us to remain stupid. No wonder then, why pursuits of knowledge pose such a threat to those who prefer to remain blinded by the light.      Everyone has the right to understand the world in any way they see fit. As was mentioned before, religion is just a tool.  It's one of a handful of ways in which humans have tried to aim us toward further understanding. It's simply (quite simply in fact) a way that presupposes how we fit in.       Upon further examination, you're forced to see that religion fails in this task.  If anything, it seeks to show us how we don't need to fit in at all.  Not with anyone or anything other than with whoever or whatever we choose.  Not only are we apart and immune to the much clearer laws of nature (or so we're taught), but we even fail to see eye to eye among our own kind.  Any belief  creating separation rather than the unity, is a reality we can no longer afford.      So there you have it.  That's the premise here, lofty though it may be.  Sure, there's a twinge of guilt here and there.  But I took some solace in the final words of Tim Ferris, and in his own unique recipe for what faith is: "Its token is reverence.  Its habit, to respect the eloquence  offered up by silence.  For god's hand may be a human one, if  you reach out in a loving kindness, and god's voice your own, if you speak but the truth."       Well, how about that? Preferential treatment of science or no, it seems Mr. Ferris felt the same sting of guilt (or politeness) that I had.  In the passages inscribed through the merits of science, with it's shrewd skepticism and cold rationale, there's still some room left over after all, for the simple sublimation that can only come from faith.  We still need faith, no matter how blind it may be.       Despite how smart you are, there's still in the end, something missing, and you're left feeling alone.  What I hope to show in the chapters to come, is that we're not.  We never have been.  Sorry, but there won't be much talk of a bearded man in the sky by the way.  So, without further adieu, let's plod onward, shall we? No sense pussy footing around any further.  But before we do...     One of the fears here is that I will come off sounding too brash, condescending, or even worse, syrupy. I'm also pretty aware of how people hate being preached to.  But, compared to the utter cynicism that once dominated my life, well... forgive me if some of this stuff reads like one of those silly self-help books that are still so popular.       None of this is meant to be a guide to a better personal life (although I should remind you that you should floss daily).  After all, it's not like my own life is a blazing banner of success.  At the risk of sounding wretched, the best part of an average day for me, is in combing my cat.  As for these writings, they're geared to help us look beyond the limitations placed on us as a society today.     Fact is, we have more knowledge available to us today, than ever before in history.  But what good is knowledge if we live in a world that's far too forgiving on a general lack of self-reliance? How can complete freedom truly be in sight if we remain so dependent on others to help us on our way? It sickens me to see not only how ill- informed we are, but how insistent we appear to remain so.      These exercises aren't meant to offer the quick fix we've all come to expect either.  That's why television was invented.  Instead, the modes of thought incorporated here only represent a few examples of how far we've come as a species.  They also remind us of how much further we have yet to go.  A daunting undertaking to be sure, but one I hope to show will be worth the effort.  Since my goal is to establish some new parameters in which to create true unity, I'll try to keep it light, maybe even innocuous.  But there's no denying those times, especially early on, when a degree of heavy- handedness might also be warranted here and there.   It can all get rolling with the asking of a single question:    "Why?" It's the question asked out of the innocence of a child. Is that why we're so hesitant to ask this simple question? Is it why we keep tolerating the intolerable, rather than to appear childish?        Why? There are many more of us out there somewhere who are asking the same question, but who prefer to remain silent.  Hopefully this book has found some of you.  We all wonder about the same things at some time or another.  If we're bold and honest enough, real answers can come.  We all have within us an ability to ask questions of this sort, but how many of us are courageous enough to ponder them, truly?       There's an inner voice.  We've all thought we've heard it at some time in our lives.  Many of us have ignored it, or we've been asked to.  The aim of this book is to rediscover how to listen again.  The contention here is, it's because of our refusal to listen to that voice inside, that we're getting so weary.  It cries out to us, but we are deaf.  You can call this inner presence your conscience, your subconscious, or your soul if you prefer.  But the presence of free thought can scarcely be argued if we're honest enough with ourselves to listen again.      Generally, the existence of such an entity as a soul is taken as a given by most.  But this offers little by way of inspiration in a world that no longer asks questions.  I too choose to believe in the soul, as I think any hopeful person does.  But I also feel a clearer definition of what that might be is in order, especially if we're to pursue this argument any further or deeper.  The concept of a soul is meaningless unless we're willing to examine it more precisely.       For instance, consider how few of us actually wrestle with the possibility that our concept of a soul is just a fanciful way to usurp the more legitimate slice of immortality given to us through the simple act of procreation alone.  For the sake of simplification (perhaps overly so), we will take a huge leap of intuitive initiative here.  We'll accept it on faith that such a thing as a soul actually exists, just as surely as consciousness does.  Further, we'll contend that these two qualities aren't necessarily incompatible.  Besides, as will be mentioned repeatedly in the text to come, it makes us feel better.       This doesn't imply that we should continue living our lives in some blissful ignorance.  That is, it's alright to believe in anything you wish , so long as it's tempered with a modicum of insight. Certainly the prospect of being given "another chance" is at the very least, aesthetically pleasing.  I mean to say, a corpse is a corpse, of course? Of course. And as such, the potential for any further growth is decidedly slim, save the thrill of actually lying around to feel the flesh first constrict upon, and then abandon altogether, the bones that once spirited it. That's a pretty rotten thought.  Most of us would rather think that there's more beyond this one lifetime of experience.       From the vantage point of a species that's so aware of it's own finality, why not choose to believe in some eternal life force, something that can transcend physical existence and traverse the photonic plane? A being of biology can die, as the eons have always been so keen at bearing out. But a being of light (energy) can never be diminished.      These sorts of issues will be dealt with for sure, and both science and theology will be given their due.  As will their failings, because each are beginning to lose sway in our ranks.  A yawning chasm of distance has kept faith and physics forever at odds.  How can that gap be closed? It's apparent that  a reconciliation is in order.      A new consciousness is dawning.  It suggests we're getting tired of fooling ourselves.  We're not so blind as to be able to ignore the problems continuing to plague our world at large.  But in spite of this, there are the tenants of tradition, the majority of people who still cling stubbornly to the old ways of doing things.  As we'll discover though, theirs are a  dying breed.  Of course they'd be the last to admit it, even to themselves.       Tradition is a commodity we can no longer afford. The conservative agenda serves only to divide us, and not to unite us.  Being so secular might seem right, so long as you manage to hoist upon your sagging shoulders, the burden of the status quo.  But how long can living in this house of cards continue, as the ideals that had once worked so well, begin to crumble before the needs of an entire globe? Patriotic fervor, along with America's penchant for xenophobia is losing ground.  The future suggests a favoring of globalization.  Barriers are made to be broken, and the present becomes the past.  But what of the future?      It's already here, whether or not we're willing to accept it.  It's here, along with the change that's so necessary for us to survive.  And that's the name of the game, isn't it? Survival.  But only with the needs of a faltering world at the core of it all, can the game remain afoot.  The view of the separatist is no longer in vogue, despite the banter among the priests and the politicians. They only have a single agenda between them--- how to keep the masses mindless and culled. So far anyway, they've met this challenge well.  It's a far cry between their version of a world order, versus a new and true definition of that term.      Sometimes, I think we need to create for ourselves a whole new world.  A world separate from this one I mean.  On one, this one, you could leave behind the people who prefer to remain oblivious to what's really going on around them.  They are the traditionalists who would choose the ways of a world without hope, having not the slightest desire to affect change in their own life times.  This would be so, even if only because they refuse to do anything that could bring about such change.     Through fear and ignorance, those in power seem hell-bent on staying the current course.  It's therefore become a world of misguided ambition.  It's stagnant with a lack of imagination or creative will.  It's a world of fearful followers and dubious leaders.  This is not a world for those of us who long for something better.  Maybe it's best to move someplace else.  Or maybe, if the fundamentalists are right, there will come a rapture.  If their limited vision of what's in store for us isn't simply mad cow disease, or the result of inbreeding, then all the true children of god will be taken in the twinkling of an eye.  I hope so.  That would mean those of us left behind could finally raise up the bar on public debate.  See what I meant earlier by "heavy handedness?"      Barring the rapture, we still have only this one world.  And it would be a nice place too, if only we'd learn to look at it with newer eyes.  If only we could learn how to share it, not only with others of our own species, but with all other occupants of this world as well.  Right now of course, this is mere whimsy.  The idealistic delusions of an idle and forever dreaming mind. It just ain't in the cards.       John Lennon once said something to the effect of: "The creation of the word "I" led to the degradation of the world."       It was an attitude which probably just reflected the beat-nick fascination with the eastern teachings that were flourishing at the time.  In an effort to get loose from the clutches of convention, drug culture and altered consciousness often go hand in hand.  Regarding eastern teachings, it's probably not too far from some semblance of truth.       By altering our perceptions, we can see how insignificant we are in the scope of an entire universe.  When reaching a transcendent state, its accuracy can be measured in how alone all of us generally feel in life.  Transcendence helps us to cope.  Since we can only experience the world from our own, completely unique perspective, there's bound to be the occasional stab of loneliness.  It's this sense of self which makes us act so selfishly.  This brand of selfishness can't be avoided, so we must seek a way to make this reality work for, rather than against us.      For what it's worth, selfishness in itself needn't necessarily be a bad thing.  Without such a selfish nature, we wouldn't survive all that long.  For the sake of sheer honesty, and with few exceptions--- when push comes to shove, we opt for survival.  That's nature's only law.  We're predisposed to honor it.  Such an instinct to survive keeps us alive not only as individuals, but as an entire species.  It's a sophomorically simple thought, but rarely considered by those of us who still feel ashamed of indulging in this natural behavior of being selfish.  The trick we need to practice for the future, is how to incorporate the natural will to survive with the considerations of the entire world in mind.  Most of humanity is quite selfish.  For a few of us, there's this twinge of guilt associated with selfish ambition.  Why all the guilt for acting selfishly?      Every so often, someone appears on the scene who makes us feel bad about our selfishness and shortsightedness.  People like Gautama (Buddha), Ghandi, and in the west (though born in the middle  east), the Christ.  The very existence of these men have proven that the world can be changed, and almost over night. Their selflessness by example has permeated the core of our consciousness. But why are such people so rare in our history? Without exception in the case of the aforementioned, they all had to die for their transgression of peace.  While we might well be selfish, at least we're still here to feel guilty about it.      As I already mentioned, the trick here is to figure out a way to protect your own interests by remaining selfish, while at once considering yourself in line with the welfare of others too.  To assist in this effort, maybe it would help us if we were to realize that on a fundamental level, what's good for the oil, is also good for the glove.  In the truest sense, we're all the same.  Leaders of peace have always let this principal be their guide.  We just need some new players, though we may be forced to accept too, that the game has always been raided.      The uncomfortable reality is that any hopes we might have for finding what Fox Mulder is always calling the truth, is often overshadowed by any faith we might have in ourselves.  As it turns out, such truths can only be rooted out with the utmost sense of honesty, and more importantly, with an unerring insistence on being honest with ourselves.  Herein resides the problem.  In order to achieve this state of consciousness (if in fact it can be achieved), we must first reconcile ourselves with the fact that most of what has been deemed the truth by our species, turns out to be anything but.  This then will be the crux upon which these writings are based.        As anyone with a heightened sense of awareness can attest, such awareness can sometimes lead to a feeling of isolation.  Since I'm a pillar of social success, I'm not speaking about myself of course.  Pay attention, I'm kidding!  Truth is, I've never been very good at fitting in with my fellows.  Lately, I've been getting increasingly less able to tolerate the highly conservative fabric of our society.  People are resistant to (or are afraid of) any notion of change, much less a complete reevaluation of the current system of doing things.  Based on the apparent degree of increasing unrest today, a fundamental restructuring of virtually all that we know is well founded. It's also long overdue.     People may choose to stand their ground, but will be helpless to avoid the change that's rushing toward them, no matter how much they might try to wish it away.  A basic philosophy in these essays is the assertion that change is inextricably woven into everything the unflinching universe saw fit to create in the first place.  Don't be too surprised if you feel like you're being beat over the head with this particular argument.        Let's face it kids.  We're living in a world where taking any particular stand is considered a threat by many. There's a word that's being used more and more to describe speaking the truth.  It's called "controversial." There are potentially serious repercussions for speaking truthfully, due largely to how the self-anointed powers that be have no intention of giving up their seats at the head of the table. They know they're holding all the marbles (although they may have lost a few).  Unless you're willing to play by their rules, few are welcome to join in with their  fun and games.       Their "reign deer game" rules are very simple. Achieve power through a general deception of the "mindless" masses, and employ whatever fear tactics that are deemed necessary in order to maintain that power.  Again, and with bold- faced honesty, this book systematically demonstrates how these lies have been perpetrated and maintained throughout the whole of human history.  It's been that way for so long now, hardly anybody seems to notice anymore.      If your hackles have already been raised, then I'm glad.  Since this is only an introduction, we must be content for now that the specifics will be dealt with in the pages to come.  This will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers.  As is so often the case, anger is generally a reaction to fear. The anger in this case will be promoted  as it becomes ever more clear how we've all been duped by the current power structures.        Should these words someday find a voice, and if misunderstanding does result, then I'm sorry.  Whatever happens though, know that all of this was brought about by a single person, me, simply trying to belong.  People have never felt so alone and cut off.  I'm only setting about trying to figure out why.  It really comes down to this:    Sometimes, the more you think about something, the less sense it makes.  It becomes painfully apparent that it's easier to simply accept things the way they are.  This passive stance is the path that for whatever reasons, most choose to take.  Thankfully, apathy isn't the guiding force for all of us.  Some of us want to make some honest to gosh change.