Denis Dutton: A Darwinian theory of beauty

Symbiosis, The Art of Peace

"Me" is the common pronoun that we use when we refer to ourselves yet a somewhat more appropriate one would be "us", because me is not only "me", it's also more than a hundred trillion unlikely friends who inhabit the same body as my consciousness does. The entire surface of the skin, the digestive tract and every orifice we have serves as a support for these tiny organisms to cling on and make a living. By number, that is approximately ten times more than the number of cells the human body is made of. It is somewhat disconcerting to know they are there doing what bacteria do best, eat and multiply, but we need not worry, because they are doing just as much for us as we do for them and what's really neat is that they know their place: they accept us as hosts suppressing that which they do best in the interest of a long lasting relationship. They don't cross into spaces where they don't belong, they listen to chemical signals that our bodies issue and take action accordingly functioning very much like an organ, yet they are in fact individual organism, coming from more than a thousand different species all living in a fragile harmony with each other and ourselves.

What each of them do, depends very much on the spot they inhabit: they protect us from invading pathogens, they break down cancer inducing substances and toxins or train our immune system forming a bond with us from our very early days of life. Strictly speaking, the relationship between humans and their symbionts is not obligate, that is, the human body can survive without the aid of these creatures but in practice that would require a life in a completely sterile environment and a very special diet. Even if somehow we would achieve this impossible combination, there is no way to tell when our own immune system, having nothing else to kill, would turn back and kill us instead. This cooperation goes much further than just two organisms tolerating each other while while living out their lives. This is cooperation on the deepest level between two very different organisms towards a single scope: survival. A process called symbiosis.

Allies

Symbiosis is an extremely successful strategy. Virtually every macroscopic creature in the world lives in some sort of symbiosis with microscopic and / or macroscopic organisms. Trees for instance would be unable to suck up sufficient water to irrigate their enormous bodies because they lack the root surface needed to do that, so they live in symbiosis with fungi whose extremely fine structure increases the suction surface of the tree. In return, trees provides the fungi with nutrients. Cows and other ruminants cannot in fact digest the food they eat, but they posses a special chamber called rumen where they host bacteria that break down cellulose and sugars transforming them into nutrients that ruminants can process. Many plants are pollinated by insects being unable to multiply on their own, and the list goes on with more and more amazing examples of cooperation between vastly different organisms, but inside our very bodies there there is trace of an even more formidable example of symbiotic relationship...

All the cells in our bodies contain a type of little bodies called mitochondria. These tiny organelles have their own DNA, separate from the DNA of our cells, they have a double walled membrane around them and multiply by division just like bacteria do, completely independently from the hosts cell's division process. Mitochondria cannot be created by the cell, the first of them needs to be acquired through inheritance, in fact mithocondria is inherited as is, without gene recombination only on the maternal line via the egg.

Mitochondria are not only part of the human cells, they are present in almost every eukaryotic cell (briefly speaking, modern cells that have DNA wrapped in a nucleus) and function as the powerhouse of these cells, producing energy by burning nutrients in the presence of oxygen. It is supposed that they became part of the eukaryotic cell more than a billion years ago, when an intracellular bacteria developed a symbiotic relationship with its host cell (producing energy in exchange for nutrients). This theory is further supported by the fact that the genome of mitochondria is very similar to certain strains of bacteria still alive today suggesting a common ancestry in an independent organism. This weird alliance stands at the foundation of mostly all oxygen breathing organisms in the world.

Chloroplasts (the Oxygen factory in plants) is supposed to have emerged in a very similar manner, when a blue-green algae (Cyanobacteria) was accepted into a host cell establishing a symbiotic relationship a process which gave raise to all plant life on our planet.

And these are not the only such examples. An equally amazing symbiotic like behavior can be observed between cells and viruses. In fact an "endogenous retrovirus" similar to HIV is responsible for suppressing the mother's immune system during the attachment of the fetus to the uterus' wall. Without this virus, which became part of the mammalian DNA, mammals could not exist. Thousands of other such endogenous viruses exist in the human genome making up almost eight percent of the human DNA. These retroviruses have given up indefinite multiplication, which inevitably kills the host cell in exchange for being accepted into the cell and hence be multiplied whenever the cell multiplies. By their nature viruses are not self sustainable creatures and always need a cell to replicate so this process cannot be considered a true symbiotic relationship, nevertheless, these viruses did achieve stability with their host resulting in mutual benefit both parties and thus, in this mostly philosophical paper I will consider it a symbiotic relationship.

By contrast, pathogenic organisms will employ a very different strategy to do what they need to do, survive and multiply. When a micro organism enters a host it either becomes symbiotic or it becomes pathogenic. In the latter case, due to the inability of the parties to acquire balance the two will start interfering with each other's normal life cycle resulting in a fight often to the death of at least one side. If the host fights off the invader, the pathogen killed. If the host fails to fight off the invader, it will die, dragging along the pathogen as well. In either case the pathogen dies. In order to preserve the species, it needs to become contagious to be able to jump hosts. It must either become highly contagious, to be able to spread itself quickly onto other hosts before the host expires, or it needs to learn to stay dormant resisting in this manner the inhospitality of the outer world until it reaches fertile grounds again.

Pathogenic behavior generally arises by chance or circumstance when a micro organism enters a host while not being adapted to symbiotic life with it therefore causing a disease. But almost all pathogenic micro organisms have a reservoir, a host with whom they developed some sort of symbiotic relationship or at least a neutral one. It is in the interest of any such organism that cannot live on its own to develop somewhere along the line a symbiosis with a host, otherwise, it faces extinction because it can only stay in suspended animation (ie spores) for so long.

Not all micro organisms are symbiotic or pathogenic, living out their lives independently of any host. Others, are only able to grow and reproduce inside a host an aspect which is particularly interesting in the context of this story because of their obligate relationship with their host with whom they must negotiate their connection. This is not unlike our very own relationship with our host, Planet Earth.

The peace factor

It is interesting to observe the two different strategies that these organism employ. Of course we cannot assume that they do so by choosing one path or the other deliberately but it is intriguing that so many of them build stable relationships with different kinds of hosts. It is as if there was a built in mechanism that drives organisms towards equilibrium, peace and eventually cooperation.

One could argue that evolution backs the development of cooperation by providing advantage to both parties, but it does not explain the moment of truce. It is after all a very unlikely event that happens when a foreign organism invades a host in search for resources, having nothing else in mind but survival and multiplication, but when it gets there it suddenly gives up multiplication and starts giving back something for the resources he found with the host. At the same time, the host will not obliterate the invader, as it should by nature, but accepts whatever this has to offer. There are many coincidences that need to happen here: the invader gives up a basic built in aspect of its life cycle, it produces a substance which is foreign to the host yet the host will need to recognize that as beneficial and it too stop its physiological urge to eliminate the invader. Often times this process happens gradually where host and symbiont get used to each other over time, but every now and then there is this moment where both give more than they receive without any explanation. It's like some obscure innate need creates a brief timeout which give the organisms the chance to seal the bond. Some kind of a "peace factor" built into living things like gravity around objects.

Competition is vastly easier from an evolutionary point of view. Very little steps are sufficient to create an advantage big enough for one species to out compete a neighboring species or its own kind for resource and driving it to extinctions. It is easier because small changes are lot closer to the natural tendency of each organism to keep its genetic integrity over generations, still, the greatest leaps of evolution are more often then not, a story of cooperation rather than one of competition.

Ascension

Since its merger with the eukaryotic cell, mitochondria have lost many of their original DNA, a very natural process, because the cell will provide them with almost all the building blocks that they ever need in exchange for their service, but by doing so, they have lost their ability to live on their own; they can only exist inside these cells. At the same time, by the nature of their service (create energy for the cells), all cells who depend on this type of energy must have them, otherwise they could not function. Due to this strict coexistence, mitochondria, are not considered symbionts any more but more like a little organs of the cell, hence the name organelle. But to these days, they exhibit some very strange properties which makes one wonder weather they are in fact part of the building block of the cell, or they are still some very special employees of them.

It's distant cousin, Rickettsia, has taken the exact opposite path: it's kept its very own independence remaining an intracellular parasitic bacteria, which can cause some serious illnesses in humans, by invading their cells, multiplying and eventually killing these host cells until either the infection or the human dies.

Rickettsia will probably never argue that the path it has taken is the more pure path, a noble one, which preserved its identity over more than a billion years versus the traitor which abandoned its kind and married the enemy. Nor will the mitochondria argue that peace is better than war, that living in harmony is worth giving up some of that which makes you who you are. That its even worth losing one's identity because only then one can gain a new one, a better one, a superior one.

Incidentally though, a handful of cells, which also chose to drop their identity and to perform a very specific role within yet a more complex organism, do wonder about just that. And they do so with energy produced by their mitochondria. When I think back at this magnificent journey, at all the selfless acts that had to happen so that "I" can exist, a sense of elation invades my brain and its neurons. As self-righteous as it may be, I can't help thinking that "we", humans, are more superior than bacteria, not in the sense that we deserve more just because we are more complex, but more like having potential to achieve greater goals than just surviving and spreading.

Arts Book Review: Essays on the Philosophy of Music by Ernst Bloch, Peter Palmer

Brutish Congress

Milton described it as a "brutish congress" with "two carcasses chained unnaturally together." Now, despite the bickering of a regularly constipated Eliot or feisty little Pound, there is no denying that John Milton was a great poet. Some have contended that he was the greatest of all English Poets. And yes, that would include the playwright chap whose works are the sole tenants of the Folger Library in Washington DC.

Apparently, however, Mr. Milton was not especially keen on the physical aspects of lovemaking. The pen is his tool for expressing the fervor and fascination of love. Aside from an occasional "gaudy day" in London and several ill-starred marriages, Milton managed to handle the throbbing fancies of his flesh with puritanical moderation. Then again, he went totally blind by the age of forty-three.

Well, I'm in my mid-forties, and if there was any truth to that particular ol' wives tale, I'd have been escorted to my junior prom by a German Shepherd.

My problem is that I still require a "gaudy day" once in a while, although Lamai, not London, is the pasture where I graze and carouse. It's a convenient retreat from the rigors of righteousness. A half year has expired since there I last retired. It's time again to sate this yen.

Wow, is it not astounding how like Milton I am sounding?

Perhaps for the British it is brutish, but for most people the prospect of sexual congress is exceedingly tantalizing. Other than submitting to a lobotomy, sooner or later only the deed itself can quell the passion.

It is commonly professed by virtually every religious code that the purpose of sexual intercourse is to propagate the species. I have no objection to that purpose. I do have an assortment of objections to certain members of the species--for instance, the entire pitching staff of the Chicago Cubs should be replaced--but, for the most part, I'm all for keeping the curtain up and the show running.

My only quandary is to why God designed man to enjoy such pleasure in the carnal procedure necessary to maintain the species. Broccoli, garlic, and liver are also helpful for the nourishment of the species, but most of us indulge those items for that reason alone--and we do so reluctantly. Jogging is a colossal bore, though gads of people do it to prolong their presence upon the stage. More to the point, child bearing and child rearing demand a vast amount of personal sacrifice, discipline, and understanding. Were I to have a child, I'd pray to God for the virtue required to meet those challenges.

But why isn't the act of sexual intercourse itself more along these lines? I mean, if I wanted to have a child, and having that child obliged me to jog five miles a day while subsisting on yogurt and lemon juice for nine months, I suppose I'd muster the resolve to do so. However, that is not the regimen.

As it is, I can sally forth on any given evening, drink to my heart's content, and impregnate an equally inebriated stranger for no other reason than that we provided each other with a great deal more pleasure than can be had from jogging five miles while subsisting on yogurt and lemon juice.

Recreational sex has long lost its status as a trophy of conquest. It's not a matter of pride any more. It's engaged in merely as a final and shameful remedy for a septic, though ardent, delirium.

Obviously, I lack the willpower and moral restraint of more virtuous men.

But again, I wonder, if God meant sexual intercourse for the exclusive purpose of propagating the species, why did he imbue the procedure with such wanton pleasure? Could it be that God has a higher appreciation of man than man has of himself?

Perhaps if sexual intercourse was no more sensually gratifying than a jungle trek with an eighty-pound pack on your back, or a spoonful of cod liver oil, the human race would have crossed the finish line ten-thousand years ago. Or is God trifling with us?

Clearly, there is more fun and frivolity in the procedure necessary for the creation of human life than there is from the application of talent and sweat necessary for the creation of a love poem, or a bridge, or a loaf of bread. Is not human life the most precious and sublime of all the masterworks achievable by man? Yet it requires no apprenticeship and a lot less skill than is compulsory for the same fertile transaction performed by two rhinoceros.

Having observed two rhinoceros in the midst of attempting sexual congress, I can only conclude that they were doing so in order to propagate their species, and surely not because either of them was enjoying the ordeal. Sex is not a sport for rhinos. They aren't known for faking orgasms. And though I use them myself, rhino condoms aren't a big seller.

Human beings, on the other hand, are the only species that engage in sex while purposely taking precautions to insure that no life will ensue. If, unintentionally, life does supervene, humans now have developed the means and morals to dispense with it--although we are fashionably outraged when a madman pummels Michelangelo's Pieta with a hammer.

It might be construed that man has become more interested in attaining a degree of immortality via the creation of art than by way of propagating the species. No, God is not trifling with us. The pageantry of human behavior must surely be His primary source of entertainment. He probably suspects that without the enticements of lust, man would simply stop reproducing himself, and then--in a very short time--God would have to rely upon the antics of birds and bees and rhinos for his amusement. And the antics of birds and bees and rhinos, curious as they may be, are not the stuff of Dante's Divina Commedia or Milton's Paradise Lost.

Imagine a cast of rhinos starring in the movie Casablanca. Who the hell would play the piano? Imagine a pitching staff of orangutans playing for the Chicago Cubs….

In that case, what you might gain in competence you'd lose in drollery.

If God were enamored of competence, he would have rested on the sixth day, not the seventh. Bounders and blunders may not be his pride, but they must be his joy. Whereas the rest of his handiwork operates with awesome proficiency, human beings are forever stumbling, stuttering, and stultifying themselves through one escapade after another of sheer buffoonery. A review of my most recent vagaries in Lamai would provide ample testimony to that assertion.

If only debauches of bad taste didn't taste so good.

God must have one hell of a sense of humor. At least I hope he does.

Otherwise I don't fancy my chances of redemption. And for heaven's sake, don't let Milton be the judge.

McFinn is from Chicago and currently resides in Cambodia. He has a degree in Philosophy from Georgetown University. Much of his work should be considered humorous and fictionalized memoirs. There are also satirical essays. Location settings include Thailand, Cambodia, India, Burma, Morocco and Greece. Excerpts, reviews & purchase information are available via his website: http://www.morganmcfinn.com

Ideal Entertainment Philosophy

Life And Its Beautiful Stages

Life is a beautiful journey. So all of us should continue it gracefully. It is a precious gift of God given to us. We all should feel lucky enough to get it. There are many stages of life and each has its own charm. From infancy to old age, all stages are inter-linked. One becomes the foundation for the other. Infancy and childhood-- both are full of innocence. A child finds happiness even in very common and simple things. Playing is the biggest hobby of all children of all societies. A child has its own world of dreams and imagination, having a tender heart which cannot tolerate toughness and harshness.

Then comes adulthood where maturity starts. With maturity, sense of understanding also comes. Now the same child becomes a grown up who starts taking responsibilities. Here is a lot of zeal, vigor and energy. This is a crucial period of life where one has to walk carefully avoiding the wrong paths of life. Here self control is too much needed so that one can save oneself from the vicious cycle of vice. So we all should pay attention towards this stage because whole life can be spoiled if we are misguided at this point. We should be careful in choosing our career options to maximize our potential and energy. This stage of life brings the essence of life. We can do each and everything during this period. We can do a lot of efforts to improve our selves-- our society--our nation as well as the world.

After this, the coming of old age is sure in a gradual manner. Day by day, we start feeling feeble. Our senses feel lack of energy. But we should not feel sad rather accept this stage in the same way. Do not feel distressed. Keep yourself busy in simple and small things which are not difficult for you. Sometimes old age is compared to the childhood as an old person needs the same protection, care and affection which is needed for a child. So we all should pay respect to our parents as well as grand-parents whose love and care have made us able to grow up.

Thus we see that each stage gives us a lesson to learn. Childhood teaches us how to enjoy and how to get happiness in small things. Adulthood teaches us how to make the life best and how to live in the society in a better way. Old age teaches us how to remember the Almighty who has sent us in this world. In childhood, one is busy in playing. In adulthood, one is busy in responsibilities. But during old age, one is free from domestic responsibilities to a large extent and can find time to pray before Him. So no stage is useless. Each has meaning of its own that is different from the other.

Life is a beautiful journey which has many phases like infancy, childhood, adulthood and old age. Each phase has its own importance.by combining the all stages, it becomes a complete life. We should enjoy each phase beautifully.

Teaching Philosophy & Art Advocacy

Fire Up Your Best Thoughts

Thought is energy as nuclear fission is energy. What I mean by this is everything is unified by the concept of energy from thought, vibration, light to actual nuclear fission. When you are feeling down, fire up your best energy or thought and you can change that. Changing the way you personally vibrate can be the easiest thing in the world, sometimes though, it can seem like the hardest. So, I will give a simple formula for it: All you have to do is change your value. Up or down, you can change your value. It is that simple.

So, what I mean by "fire up your best thoughts" in the title is, change your value to good and you will be good. Sometimes it may take time, that does not matter, just know that it can be done and ultimately it will be done.

Before I started writing this article, I was feeling very down, even sort of in the dumpster of feelings. Then I started to change my vibrations in this way. I thought to myself: "Is it as simple as giving myself a higher vibration value, or is my judgement eluding me somehow and it is more complicated than that?" Well, it is that simple. It is like taking yourself up from two to ten, on a scale from one to ten and if that seems to hard on that scale, try from two to five, start small with three points instead of seven.

Listen, this is what makes the most powerful change in existence vibrational changing of yourself. This is not just do it yourself popular psychology, this is how reality works at the most basic levels when you really think about it and when I think, write and ponder about it.

Here is my take on good vibrations and bad vibrations in a final sense in this article to wrap up this article with a synopsis of the theme and philosophy of this article: As Claude Myron Bristol once said, thought attracts what it vibrates to. That is the reality of all situations. Earl Nightingale said we become what we think about. Joseph Banks Rhine in his laboratory proved this to be true with the mental control of dice. Good hypnotists change the behavior of people all the time through pumping up attitudes through the use of good vibrations. So, the point to this whole article is that reality is what we make it through our vibratory levels we create and control ourselves ultimately through our thoughts, actions and what we generate. Could any reality be explained more clearly? We control ourselves through basic vibration.

My name is Joshua Clayton, I am a freelance writer based in Inglewood, California. I also write under a few pen-names and aliases, but Joshua Clayton is my real name, and I write by that for the most part now. I am a philosophical writer and objective thinker and honest action taker. I also work at a senior center in Gardena, California as my day job, among other things, but primarily I am a writer.

TOUCHED: Philosophy Meets Art

Flowers Speak About One's Personality

Everyone takes the help of flowers to commemorate special occasions and milestones of life, to express their feelings and gratitude, to create a festive atmosphere, or simply to beautify their homes! However, each flower speaks about one's personality and style. An individual's favorite flower goes a long way in describing his or her quintessential attributes and thought process. Let us have an insight of what each flower speaks about one's temperament.

Rose: Rose is the favorite flower of many; however, it is the most traditional way of expressing love. Warm, passionate, vulnerable, romantic are the words associated with rose lovers. Although a bit old-fashioned and ultra feminine, they love being at the center stage with all eyes upon them.

Lily: Filled with dignity and poise, these people incline towards cheering unhappy hearts with their care and guidance. Graceful, nurturing, caring and charitable are the traits of lily lovers.

Daisy: Those who choose daisy are optimistic and high-spirited individuals and love to delve into the beauty of nature. Being loyal in relationships is of paramount importance to them. They are outdoor individuals who love to embrace new adventures.

Orchid: Orchid lovers are perfectionists, highly organized, detail oriented and efficient people. Their appearance and tenacious personality emanate a calm yet strong aura.

Carnation: Those who choose carnations are traditional people and are not susceptible to changes. People like to approach them for advice because of their respectful and loyal demeanor.

Tulip: Tulip lovers are the most charitable and cheerful people. They always think about new ways to improve life and would give sound advice to others even when unasked. They are decisive and rational people bearing a great value for etiquettes.

Violet: Sensitive by nature and having a fetish for privacy are the characteristics of those who choose violet as their favorite flower. These people are extremely introverted and exude a complex personality.

Gardenia: People who love gardenia flowers carry a very happy-go-lucky demeanor. They tend to illuminate any dull or gloomy atmosphere by their presence. Such personalities believe in vibrancy. They add to the colorful charm of life everywhere they venture. It is always a pleasure and cheerful experience to stay in the company of such people.

Sunflower: Full of energy, zeal and optimism to the core. These are the traits of sunflower lovers. People count on them for insight and guidance. Their pleasing personality speaks about their devotion towards leading a good life and helping others in achieving the same.

This article is written by Shrey Sehgal from FlowerAura. They are the Pioneers in flowers delivery services in Chandigarh. Remember us if you wish to send flowers to Chandigarh or anywhere in the country.

Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club

Significance of Flowers in Hindu Mythology

Hindu mythology is replete with names of flowers. Most of them carry a mythological or spiritual significance. In fact because of their mythological significance, these flowers are inevitable during the worship of a deity. Let us have an insight on some of the flowers considered sacred because of the role they played in Hindu Mythology.

Kamal (Lotus): From times immemorial, lotus has been the most sacred flower in Indian culture and tradition. It holds a vital place in Indian rituals. The lotus is the abode of Lord Brahma-the Creator. Goddess Laksmi sits on a pink lotus. A white lotus embodies Goddess Saraswati. Lotus finds mention in the Bhagwad Gita where Lord Krishna commands mankind to emulate the attributes of lotus and strive for 'Moksha' or liberation from worldly matters.

Ashok (Sita Ashok): This flower symbolizes protection against grief. In the epic Ramayana, Goddess Sita, after her abduction by Ravana, spent her sorrowful days under the shade of an Ashoka tree in Ashok Vatika (garden of Ashoka trees). Indians believe that Ashoka flowers when immersed in water make the water pious and sacred.

Parijat (Night flowering Jasmine): Parijat is a holy tree brought to Earth by Lord Krishna for the happiness of his wives, Satyabhama and Rukmini. According to Hindu mythology, both of Lord Krishna's consorts had a fetish for Parijat flowers. Therefore, to keep both of them happy, he planted the tree in Satyabhama's garden in such a way that its flowers fell in Rukmini's garden.

Neel Kamal (Blue water lily): As per Hindu Mythology, Lord Ram sought the blessings of Goddess Durga before commencing battle with Ravana. Lord Ram knew that Goddess Durga would be pleased if he offered her one hundred 'Neel Kamal' flowers. Therefore, he traveled all across the world in search of these flowers, but was able to gather only ninety-nine of them. He then decided to offer one of his eyes, which resembled the flower. Seeing his devotion, Goddess Durga appeared before him and blessed him.

Kadamb: The Kadamb tree yields magnificent golden balls of yellow flowers. These flowers have a captivating fragrance. Abundantly found in Vrindavan, Lord Krishna sang and dance in festivity with the milkmaids under the shade of this tree.

Japa Kusum (China Rose/Red Hibiscus): Japa flower is an extremely beautiful and an auspicious flower. During the worship of Goddess Durga, the offering of these flowers is inevitable. The red color of the flower enhances the ferocious look of the Goddess.

Hindu mythological stories are full of references to flowers. These flowers revered as sacred, will continue to hold a significant position in Indian tradition!

This article is written by Shrey Sehgal, Founder, FlowerAura. We are pioneer services provider for Flower Delivery in Chandigarh. Remember us if you are looking to Send Flowers To Chandigarh.

Rethinking Entertainment: Philosophy As Evocative Fun: Øyvind Olsholt at TEDxTransmedia2012

How to Apply Good Advice

This will be a very basic and swiftly read article. Think about this fact, some of the best advice in life is discarded hastily, while bad, but good sounding advice is followed to the letter. We need to analyze all actions and advice before we take them, as well as use purely intuitive faculties of mind. This balanced approach may not seem like the best way to consistently live to some, and too cumbersome at times, but, this is the best way to deal with problems there is. Indeed, the success rate with this approach if done correctly is high. For, when balancing reason with intuition, you have combined the main thinking tools of the mind and feeling tools of the heart.

Think and feel about anything in a genuine way and sense, and you have made a good start toward judging its effectiveness or benefit for you. For intuition and thought are judging tools, not just something we think or feel about randomly.

The best advice I can give in this article is: Trust your feelings, but temper those feelings with your best judgment. Of course the limit to this advice is that you can judge for yourself, but never for other people. All you can do is suggest what you would do at best to them, but morally, even if the advice is good, the issue cannot be forced.

When I think of the genuine nature of power and judgment, the best of us can only judge for ourselves and nobody else. In my reality, only the worst of us are arrogant enough to want to have "the power of life and death" or to "rule like kings" over others. We have to start by thinking for ourselves, and taking rational actions tempered with intuitive thinking and action.

What comes from the unconscious can be the most powerful reality revealer there is, but, overconfident feelings are overconfident feelings and those are imbalanced and unhealthy, too. Overconfidence without reason is a total disaster like a person walking off a very high cliff without anything to save their lives and a blindfold on with total confidence that they will survive.

To end this article, I can only say think as well as feel when you judge for yourself. That is the most powerful thing you can do for your life and existence. After all, life is our choices, and reality is what we make it through our choices. Existence is, but what we do with existence is our choice. Do your best always. That is how to apply good advice.

My name is Joshua Clayton, I am a freelance writer based in Inglewood, California. I also write under a few pen-names and aliases, but Joshua Clayton is my real name, and I write by that for the most part now. I am a philosophical writer and objective thinker and honest action taker. I also work at a senior center in Gardena, California as my day job, among other things, but primarily I am a writer.

JES Photography: Because LIFE Is An EVENT!

Stories on Wildlife - B2: A Legend Fades in the Mist of Time

B2... A mere image of him would be enough to open the flood-gate of memories and leave me enthralled for hours... He had that kind of magnetic pull. I am sure tens of thousands of wildlife enthusiasts from all over the world would be harboring similar fond memories of this large-hearted gentleman. So this piece is not just a tribute to B2. It's also my salute to all those animal lovers who made B2 the superstar of Indian forests.

To say that B2s death has saddened the animal lovers would be an understatement. That's my personal view, and I am sure there would be some who will take it with a pinch of salt. How can an individual tiger become so important to humans, one may ask?

Well, here are some undisputed facts: B2 remains the only tiger in the world to have been documented by photographs and videos throughout the stretch of his life. First photographed when he was barely 15 days old - being taken away to safety by his mother Mohini - he was also clicked 14 years later, just a week before his death in November 2011. During his lifetime, B2 was the focus of at least five television documentaries made by international channels. And his death was taken note of by the national media. Not many tigers- or for that matter, humans- enjoy this kind of attention.

I remember it was the start of the new millennium when I first laid my eyes on B2. The encounter lasted a few minutes, but remains etched in my memory to his day.

It was early January, and the golden grasslands of Tala were enveloped in thick fog when a sharp Sambhar call on my right brought my Gypsy to a halt. The visibility was less than six feet; no chance of a sighting in that miserable weather, the Gypsy driver muttered to himself in despair. But he was dead wrong. Seconds after the sambhar gave its second alarm call, there emerged out of the fog on my left the handsome face of a tiger. It was a sighting which still haunts me. He was barely four feet from me, stared at me with inquisitive eyes, and time stool still. I watched in disbelief as the tiger came out on the road and circled our Gypsy. We were startled. Giving us an indifferent look, however, it disappeared into the fog.

"This was B2," the driver hushed into my ears after the tiger disappeared. The whole encounter would not have lasted more than two minutes. Of course I didn't realize then that the chance meeting would turn into a full-fledged, one-sided love affair for the next 11 years and provide me with some of the happiest memories of Bandhavgarh.

A huge and handsome male, B2 was also one of the gentlest tigers one could come across. There wasn't a hint of mean-streak in him.

By 2007, I found that B2's reputation had spread far and wide. Among his countless fans, there was this lawyer from London who would visit Bandhavgarh once a year only to photograph B2! I realized B2's gentle disposition made him photographers' favourite. There is no record of B2 having ever charged at a tourist or shown his anger to anybody. "Here is one happy-go-lucky tiger, minding his own business and not really bothered about tens of thousands of people, his fans actually, who have made Bandhavgarh their pilgrimage because of B2,'' I told myself one evening during B2's typical "modeling session" in front of dozen odd tourist Gypsies.

The area near "Badi Gufa" of Bandhavgarh was where I found B2 during most of my visits. For 10 long years, he was the king of Bandhavgarh- with not a challenger in sight.

But I knew happier times would not last forever for B2. Age was beginning to catch up with him, although his rightful heir had still not arrived on the scene. I knew, however, it was only a matter of time... And I arrive he did, finally, in the form of Bamera male. The formidable looking male, named after Bamera, the stretch of forest about 15 kilometres from Tala, had just begun to flex his muscles. By January 2010, Bamera male- or naya male, as some jungle guides would call him- started passing through Tala once a fortnight.

The conclusive fight between B2 and Bamera male, however, was still a few months away. In-between, there came a sudden twist in the tale. It was February 2011 when B2's son Kalua decided to initiate his first battle for territory. Though smart as a whip, Kalua was still a green-horn in the ways of the world. He learnt his lesson a rather hard way when one afternoon he locked paws with B2 on a small plateau overlooking the 'Ghoda Damon' area, barely a kilometer from 'Badi Gufa'. The fight last only 3 minutes, and ended in Kalua bolting off with his tail between his legs! In fact, so humiliated did Kalua feel after the defeat that he left Bandhavgarh altogether (I am told Kalua is at present living peacefully in a forest stretch near Shahdol, some 70 kilometres from Bandhavgarh. But I am sure he is biding his time and will return in due course to challenge Bamera, the new king of Bandhavgarh. But more about that later, when- and if- that widely anticipated fight takes place!)

Though he defeated Kalua swiftly, B2 was no longer at ease with himself. Suddenly, his sightings in the park became rare. And even when he did show up, he looked distinctly weak. Life force was clearly draining fast out of him. It was no coincidence that around the same time, Bamera male started asserting himself in the Tala range. Instead of passing through Tala- as he used to do for past 18 months or so- Bamera male would now stop here for two or more days. A clear-cut sign that he was eying the prime grass-land of Tala, as also its abundant prey base.

By June 2011, there was no sign of B2 in Bandhavgarh. He was spotted once, and rather briefly, in October and then no more. What happened thereafter is known to all B2-lovers, but I would like to imagine it this way: instead of letting him killed by Bamera male, B2 left Bandhavgarh on his own. True, Bamera male was his own son and a tiger- no matter how old it is- would defend its territory till its last breath. But B2 being a thorough gentleman and a magnanimous father, decided not to come in his son's way. And therefore, he left Bandhavgarh.

On November 19, the forest authorities came across a tiger lying listlessly in a small stream in the Charwaha forest range, some 80 kilometres from Bandhavgarh. He was obviously dying, and dying fast. A rescue team, led by Bandhavgarh's Deputy Director Mr Mridul Pathak, quickly arrived on the scene. In no time, they realized it was their beloved B2 breathing his last. Swift attempts were made to revive him, and necessary medicines darted into his body. Tranquilised and put into a cage, he was rushed to Bandhavgarh in a truck. Sadly, but did not survive the journey.

An animal's behavior is often open to several interpretations, and a scientific verdict may not be the last word on a contentious issue. I would like to assume that B2 did not want to die in Bandhavgarh. Somewhere between Charwaha and Bandhavgarh, he realized he was being taken to his erstwhile kingdom. That was the place he had bequeathed to Bamera male, his own son, wasn't it? And therefore, before the truck carrying him could reach Bandhavgarh, he decided to close his eyes forever.

B2, the star of Bandhavgarh, lived and died on his terms.

For more info visit:- http://www.navinraheja.com

Navin Raheja a wildlife enthusiast and a passionate photographer. Navin Raheja Chairman, Wildlife Conservation Society of India. Raheja Productions a subsidiary company of Raheja Developers.

I Am Bruce Lee - Trailer

On the Meaning of Damcar in Rosicrucian Mysticism

In the Rosicrucian manifesto, Fama Fraternitatis, the youthful Christian Rosenkreutz acquires his knowledge of mysticism during a journey to the Holy Land, in a place called "Damcar," described as a city in Arabia. While today the word "Arabia" tends to refer to the Arabian Peninsula, the Fama is probably using it merely to refer to lands inhabited by Arabs. Across four centuries, scholars have tried to identify the city of Damcar, but without success.

The likely reason for using Damcar, rather than the real name of the mystical city, is that the real name would openly identify one of the founders of the Rosicrucian brotherhood, surely something they wanted to keep a secret. In 1652, the first English translator of the Fama, Thomas Vaughan (who is quoted below), was totally confused by the meaning of Damcar, but seeing an apparent reference to Damascus and thinking Damcar may be the same place, opted to translate everything with the nonsensical "Damasco." Original German words are in brackets:

"Brother C.R... went to Damasco [Damascum], minding from thence to go to Jerusalem; but by reason of the feebleness of his body he remained still there, and by his skill in Physick he obtained much favour with the Turks: In the mean time he became by chance acquainted with the Wise men of Damasco [Damcar] in Arabia, and beheld what great Wonders they wrought, and how Nature was discovered unto them."

Here we learn that Damcar was a city of wise men who were mystically active. Since Brother C. R. became familiar with them in Damascus, Syria, we have to assume that the city of Damcar is relatively close to the city of Damascus.

The Fama continues: "hereby was that high and noble Spirit of Brother C.R. [C.R.C] so stirred up, that Jerusalem was not so much now in his mind as Damasco [Damcar]; also he could not bridle his desires any longer, but made a bargain with the Arabians, that they should carry him for a certain sum of money to Damasco [Damcar]; he was but of the age of sixteen years when he came thither, yet of a strong Dutch [teutschen] constitution."

First of all, we observe that Brother C. R. and Brother C. R. C. cannot be the same person because Brother C. R. is afflicted with "the feebleness of his body" but Brother C. R. C. is only 16 years old and of strong constitution. Thus, while Brother C. R. is stuck in Damascus, Brother C. R. C. has to be in Jerusalem. Since Brother C. R. C. pays Arabs to carry him to Damcar, we have to assume that Damcar is relatively close to Jerusalem.

The city of Damcar is therefore close to Damascus and it is also close to Jerusalem. Where is it located? Obviously, the city of Damcar has to be located in northern Israel.

We must now concentrate on the word "Dutch" toward the end of the last quote. Since "Damcar" is an enigma, could it be an anagram of a Dutch word? Let's try DRAKEN, rearranged as Denkar, pronounced Damcar. Dragons. Yes, dragons. But a better translation of "teutschen" might be "German" rather than "Dutch." The German word for dragon is "Drachen," which is close enough because the Germanic "c", "ch" and "k" have similar sounds, and all the same arguments apply.

For the Christian mentality of the early 17th century, the words "dragon" and "Arabia" would quickly conjure up only one thing: Saint George. Everyone knew that Saint George killed the dragon, by some legends near the Bay of Beirut, and by other legends in the Holy Land or in Libya, but nonetheless all Arabic places.

Next, we must take note of the noble "Spirit" of Brother C. R. C., which reminds us of the two "Sancti Spiritus" and the "Spiritum Sanctum" from elsewhere in the Fama. Thus, the Fama probably wants us to view only the "Saint" as a clue (and disregard the "George" except to work in English as this was the patron saint of England!). "Saint" is a word that has five letters and begins with the letter "S."

To sum up: Damcar is a mystical city renowned for its wise men. It is located in northern Israel, and the real name of this city has five letters and begins with the letter "S."

Safed, a city of northern Isreal, was the originating city of modern mysticism, known as Kabbalah. In the 15th and 16th centuries, wise men came from many places -from as far away as Spain- to congregate there. There can be no doubt that the indicated city is Safed because the Fama refers to the Kabbalah (Cabala) or cabalists in four different places.

Isaac Luria, famed founder of the Lurianic Kabbalah, was 36 years old (16 plus 20 or the "XX" part of "CXX" in the Fama) when he arrived in Safed in 1570 after getting a cold reception in Jerusalem ("Jerusalem was not so much now in his mind"). In sharp contrast, in Safed he was welcomed with open arms ("there the Wise men received him not as a stranger (as he himself witnesseth) but as one whom they had long expected").

The story of Isaac Luria continues in Nova Atlantis, Rosicrucian "fragments" attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, where we encounter the mysterious "sacerdote Aegyptio." These are Spanish words inexplicably inserted into an all-Latin text. The distinction can be significant: whereas the Latin "sacerdos" generally refers to a priest, the Spanish "sacerdote" can refer to a person who performs the rites of any religion. Later, the Nova Atlantis proclaims "Erat autem Iudaeus." Isaac Luria was in fact an Egyptian rabbi.

The Nova Atlantis goes on to say that he was sometimes called the Milky Way ("Vocabat eum etiam quandoque viam lacteam"). Luria was widely known as ha-Ari, the Lion, where Leo is a constellation of the Milky Way. And he was sometimes called the Elijah of the Messiah ("quandoque Eliam Messiae"); Luria was noted for his frequent conversations with Elijah the prophet. And there were many other names that signaled his greatness ("aliis compluribus nominibus magnum eum insigniebat"): Ha'ARI Hakadosh, ARIZal, Rabbi Isaac ben Solomon Luria Ashkenazi. Above all, these words are quickly followed by a direct reference to the Kabbalah ("per secretam quandam cabalam").

In conclusion, there is ample reason to suspect that Rosicrucian mysticism is a historical derivative of the Lurianic Kabbalah. Indeed, there seem to be many parallels in the teachings and beliefs of both.

Morten St. George is the principal architect of the Andean Sky God website, a site that prides itself on providing imaginative solutions to a wide diversity of historical mysteries ranging from the Nazca Lines to the Voynich manuscript.

One Last Thing: The Untold History of the Martial Arts Philosophy

Let's Reverse Aging - Let's Live In 20-Year Old Bodies for 1000 Years!

In a prior life, back in my youth, high-school and college days I was a competitive runner, eventually brushing up against World Class status, but just not the Olympic material I'd hoped for. I was discussing my quest and training to run my 4-minute mile with an acquaintance the other day, it's a topic I don't often reflect on because I always fancied myself an Olympic runner, and because today, I miss the abilities I once had.

Glory days are fun to talk about for a brief time, but they quickly become depressing to dwell on, at least that's the way I see it - I mean you can't go back, other than in your own mind.

Oh sure, I still consider all those years of winning and hardware a lifetime achievement, but it's a personal thing, it part of my character make-up, history, and still part of the way I think - as an athlete - winning, victory, and never give up. My acquaintance whose also achieved, having competed in the Iron Man Triathlon noted;

"Personally I am always impressed with someone not only willing to get their body into the shape to accomplish this type of otherworldly athletic feat, but then even more impressed by the mind over body control to push to continue striding hard even when your entire body, heart, and soul are telling you to slow down."

"Yes, me too," I told him, "It hurts, but you do it anyway. It sometimes seems not like a race, well the first couple of laps, but a test to who can take the most pain and still keep going. I guess, this is why I respect US Navy Seals, mountain climbers, extreme sports people, Triathletes, etc."

Still, thinking back now, I remember is all the pain, all those workouts, all that training, beating my body into submission, but I also remember the agility, the power, the strength I once had. I think we need a way for humans to run and physically perform at optimum during their entire life time, not just when they are young in their 20s or 30s.

We need to stop this problem and ditch old age, it is insidious, having to grow old is pure evil. Not that I believe in that sort of thing, but I'd say if evil is, that's it. Think of all the cognitive losses of old people, that's horrible, all that experience, wisdom, knowledge, all lost. That sucks. That's not right, we need to fix that. If we could retard the aging process with modern medicine, I believe we'd have more wisdom amongst our population, making fewer mistakes, voting smarter, and making better decisions. That would be one of the biggest gifts to humankind. Let's cure old age.

Whereas some people die prematurely due to accidents, illness or other tragedies, no one gets out alive - old age is the real killer, so we ought to solve that one first. Everything else is secondary, please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's topic. http://www.WorldThinkTank.net - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance. Currently, Mr. Winslow is working on a non-fiction eBook about the Future of Human Sports.

Karen Page interviews Director Guill Fisher about the play Kindergarten Philosophy

Charity: A Consideration of Responsibility

Every day, at least everyday the physical mail arrives, our household receives as many as a half dozen (and at times more) mail solicitations from charitable organizations. A similar stream of requests comes to us via Email.

While some might consider this a nuisance, or a waste, or even harassment, by the charities, I decidedly do not. I consider the inflow reasonable, and the charities' efforts to solicit as legitimate, and the imposition on me not a nuisance, but to the contrary a challenge. Not a challenge in a sense of how to handle or dispose of the mail, or how to stem the flow, but a challenge as to how to respond in an ethically responsible and appropriate manner.

So, given a decision to not dismiss, or throw out, or simply ignore the incoming wave, what is the proper action? Should I give, and how much? Now our household, as might be considered typical, earns sufficient income to cover necessities and some amenities, but we are not living in large luxury. We own standard brand (Chevy, Pontiac) cars, live in a modest single family home, consider Saturday evening at the local pizza parlor as eating out, and turn down the heat to keep the utility bills affordable.

Contributing thus falls within our means, but not without trade-offs, and even sacrifice.

So should we give? And how much? Let's consider (and dismiss) some initial concerns, concerns which could otherwise deflect, diminish or even remove an obligation to donate.

The Legitimacy and Efficiency of Charities - Stories surface, more often than desirable, highlighting unscrupulous individuals who prey on sympathy and use sham charity websites to collect contributions but then keep the donations. Other stories uncover less than competent actions by charities, for example excessive salaries, inappropriate marketing costs, lack of oversight. With this, then, why give?

While striking, these stories, as I scan the situation, represent outliers. The stories rate as news due to the very fact that they represent the atypical. Do I believe mainline charities, like Salvation Army, or Catholic Charities, or Doctors without Borders, do I believe them so inefficient or corrupt to justify my not giving? No. Rather, the response, if I and anyone have concerns about a charity, is to research the charity, to check and find those that are worthy, and not to simply cast one's obligation aside.

Government and Business Role - Some may argue that government (by its programs), or business (through its contributions and community service), should handle charity needs and issues. Government and business have resources beyond any that I or any one individual can garner.

My look again says I can not use this argument to side step my involvement. Government needs taxes, plus political consensus, both uncertain, to run social and charity programs, and businesses simply are not sufficiently in the business of charity to expect them to carry the whole weight.

Deserving of our Amenities - Most individuals with a modest but comfortable status achieved that through sacrifice, and scholastic effort, and hard work, and daily discipline. We thus should not, and do not need to, feel guilt as we reasonably reward ourselves, and our households, with amenities. And the term amenities doesn't imply decadence Amenities often include positive and admirable items, i.e. instructional summer camps, travel to educational places, purchase of healthy food, a family outing at an afternoon baseball game.

However, while we earned our amenities, in a broader sense we did not earn our stature at birth. Most financially sufficient individuals and families likely have had the good fortune to be born into an economically productive setting, with the opportunity for education, and the freedom to pursue and find employment and advancement.

If we have that good fortune, if we were born into free, safe and relatively prosperous conditions, few of us would change our stature at birth to have been born in the dictatorship of North Korea, or a slum in India, or a war-ravaged city in the Middle East, or doctorless village in Africa, or a decaying municipality in Siberia, or, since the Western world isn't perfect, an impoverished neighborhood in the U.S., or a cold, wind-swept nomadic steppe in South America. Certainly much of any success comes from our own efforts. But much of it also comes from the luck of the draw on the stature into which we were born.

Economic Dislocation - Isn't giving a zero sum game? Diverting spending from luxury items (e.g. designer sunglasses, drinks at a fine lounge), or even making sacrifices (fasting a meal), to give to charity, creates economic ripples. As we convert spending to charities, we reduce spending, and incrementally employment, in companies and firms providing the items forgone. And the ripples don't affect just the wealthy. The employment ripples impact what might be considered deserving individuals, e.g. students paying their way through college, pensioners depending on dividends, inner city youth working hard, average income individuals providing for families.

However, in reality, for good or bad, every purchasing decision, not just those involving charity donations, creates employment ripples, creates winners and losers. A trip to the ball game verses a trip to the theme park, a purchase at a local deli verses a purchase at a large grocery, clothes made in Malaysia verses clothes made in Vietnam - every purchasing decision implicitly decides a winner and a loser, generates employment for some and reduces it for others.

So this issue, of purchasing decisions shifting employment patterns, this issue extends over the whole economy. How can it be handled? In an overarching way, government and social structures must create fluidity and freedom in employment so individuals can move (relatively) smoothly between firms, locations and sectors. This public policy issue, of dislocation of employment due to economic shifts, looms large, but in the end, should not, and more critically, can not, be solved by failing to donate.

So donations to charities shift employment, not reduce it. Does employment in the charity sector provide substantial work? I would say yes. Take one example, City Harvest New York. City Harvest collects otherwise surplus food, to distribute to needy. To accomplish this, the charity employs truck drivers, dispatchers, outreach personnel, program managers, research analysts, and on and on. These are skilled positions, in the New York City urban boundaries, doing meaningful work, offering strong careers. In many cases, for a typical city individual, these positions would represent a step up from fast food and retail clerk.

Culpability and Means - Though a fine line exists here, charity might best be considered generosity, a positive and voluntary expression of the heart, and not so much on obligation which weighs on the mind as guilt. The normal and typical individual did not cause the conditions or situations requiring charity. And the normal and typical individual doesn't possess excessive, or even significant, wealth from which to donate.

So, given that the typical individual lacks culpability for the ills of the world, and similarly lacks the means to individually address them, one could argue we are not duty bound. We can decide to be generous, or not, with no compulsion, with no obligation, with no guilt if we discard the incoming solicitations.

By a small margin, I judge otherwise. When I compare the utility of the last dollar I might spend on myself, to the utility of food for a hungry child, or medicine for a dying patient, or a habitat for a dying species, I can not conclude charity rates only as discretionary generosity, a nice thing to do, something to consider, possibly, in my free time. The disparity between the minor incremental benefit I receive from the last dollar spent on myself, and the large and possibly life-saving benefit which another would receive from a donated dollar, stands as so large that I conclude that I in particular, and individuals in general, have an obligation to give.

Blameworthiness of Poor - But while our lack of culpability and means may not mitigate our responsibility, do not the poor and needy possess some accountability. Do they not have some responsibility for their status, and to improve that status? Do not the poor bear some level of blame themselves?

In cases, yes. But it is disingenuous to dismiss our moral obligation based on the proportion of cases, or the extent in any individual case, where the poor may be at fault. In many, if not most, situations little or no blameworthiness exists. The hungry child, the rare disease sufferer, the flood victim, the disabled war veteran, the cancer patient, the inner-city crime victim, the disabled from birth, the drought-stricken third-world farmer, the born blind or disfigured, the battered child, the mentally retarded, the war-ravaged mother - can we really attribute sufficient blame to these individuals to justify our not giving.

Might others be blameworthy? Yes. Governments, corporations, international institutions, family members, social agencies - these organizations and individuals might, and likely do, bear some responsibility for putting the poor and needy in their condition, or for not getting them out of their condition. But we have already argued that government needs taxes and a consensus (both uncertain) to execute programs, and corporations are not sufficiently in the business of charity. And we can stand morally indignant at those who should help don't, but such resentfulness doesn't correct the situation. The needy, mostly blameless, still need help and care. We can lobby and pressure organizations to perform better, but in the meantime the needy require our donations.

Concerns Dismissed, Concerns to Weigh - So on balance, in this author's view, a strict obligation exists towards charity. To turn a blind eye to charity, to discard the incoming mail, rates as an ethical impropriety. The needs of charity rate so high that I must recognize a deep obligation to donate, and my survey of counter considerations - just covered above - leaves me with no logic to offset, or negate, or soften that conclusion.

If one has an obligation to charity, to what extent should one give? A few dollars? A certain percentage? The amounts left after normal monthly spending? Our discussion framework here is ethics, so I will frame the answer in ethical terms. The extent of our obligation extends to the point where another obligation of equal weight surfaces.

Primary Family Duty - If a person should give up to an equal consideration, one could judge one's obligation extends to giving essentially every dollar to charity, and to live an ascetic life, keeping only minor amounts for bare subsistence. The needs for charity tower so large, and the needs of unfortunate individuals stand as so compelling, that a greater need than one's own essentially always exists, down to the point of one's subsistence.

This interpretation might be considered to have good company. The preaching of at least one great figure, Christ, could be construed to indicate the same.

Now, in practice few give to such an extreme. That few do stems in part to the sacrifice such an extreme scenario entails. That few do also stems in part from not everyone agreeing, in good faith, with the conclusion that one has an obligation to give.

But would those be the only reasons? Given one agrees with the conclusions above, and one has a will and sacrifice to give, does a significant, compelling, morally worthy obligation of equal weight exist?

Yes. That obligation provides an implicit but critical foundation of society. That obligation brings order to our daily list of concerns. Absent that obligation, one could be overwhelmed by the needs of mankind.

What is that obligation of equal weight? That obligation stands among the highest, if not the highest, of one's obligation, and that is the obligation to care for the immediate family.

Individuals work two and three jobs to care for family. Individuals spend nights in hospitals beside sick members of family. Individuals worry to distraction when family members come home late. Individuals stop what they are doing to console, or comfort, or assist, a family member. Daily, we check on the needs of family, and respond, feel obliged to respond.

We do not, daily, go down the street, in normal situations, and check the needs of the several dozen families in our block or apartment. Certainly we check on an elderly neighbor, or a family with a sick member, but we have an expectation, a strong one, that just as we must care for our family, others will care for their family, to the extent of their means. I would claim that as one of the most fundamental bedrocks of social order, i.e. that family units provide for the needs of the vast and great majority of individuals.

Now our concern for family arises does not arise primarily from our engaging in deep ethical reflections. Our concern for family arises from our natural and normal love for our family members, and our deep and emotional concern and attachment to them, reinforced in cases by our commitment to religious and church teachings.

But that we execute our primary responsibility from non-philosophical motivations does not lessen that the ethical principle exists.

Now, as mentioned earlier, this family-centric ethic provides a linchpin for our social structure. The vast majority of individuals exist within a family, and thus the family-centric ethic provides a ubiquitous, practical, and strongly effective (but not perfect, which in part is why there are needy) means to care for the needs of a significant percentage of mankind. Absent a family-centric ethic, a chaos would develop, where we would feel guilt to help all equally, or no guilt to help anybody, and in which no accepted or common hierarchy of obligation existed. The result? A flawed social structure with no organization or consistency in how needs are met. Civilization would like not have developed absent a family-centric ethic.

Thus, obligation to family, to those specific individuals to whom we are related, to feed, cloth, comfort and support our family, surpasses obligation to charity, to those general individuals in need. I doubt few would disagree. But obligation to family itself involves a hierarchy of requirements. Basic food, shelter, and clothing rate as overwhelming obligations, but a second handbag, or a slightly large TV, or fashion sunglasses, may not. So a cross-over enters, where a family need descends to a desire more than a requirement and the obligation to charity rises as the primary and priority obligation.

Where is that cross-over? Determining the exact point of the cross-over requires strong discernment. And if we think that discernment is complex (just the simple question of how many times is eating out too many times involves considerable thought), two factors add further complexity. These factors are first the dramatic shifts in economic security (aka in the future we may not be better off than the past), and second the compelling but ephemeral obligation to church.

The New Reality of Income and Security - Our typical family for this discussion, being of modest means, generates sufficient income to afford satisfactory shelter, sufficient food, adequate clothing, conservative use of heat, water and electricity, some dollars for college saving, contributions to retirement, plus a few amenities, i.e. a yearly vacation, a couple trips to see the pro baseball team, a modest collection of fine antique jewelry. In this typical family, those who work, work hard, those in school, study diligently.

At the end of an occasional month, surplus funds remain. The question arises as to what should be done with the surplus? Charity? Certainly I have argued that donations to charity fall squarely in the mix of considerations. But here is the complexity. If the current month stood as the only time frame, then direct comparisons could be made. Should the funds go to dining out, or maybe saving for a nicer car, or maybe a new set of golf clubs, or maybe yes, a donation to charity?

That works if the time frame stands as a month. But the time frame stands not as a month; the time frame is several dozen decades. Let's look at why.

Both parents work, but for companies that have capped the parents' pensions or maybe in unions under pressure to reduce benefits. Both parents have moderate job security, but face a not-small risk of being laid off, if not now, sometime in the coming years. Both parents judge their children will obtain good career-building jobs, but jobs that will likely never have a pay level of the parents' jobs, and certainly jobs that offer no pension (not even a capped version).

Further, both parents, despite any issues with the medical system, see a strong prospect, given both are in reasonable health, of living into their eighties. But that blessing of a longer life carries with it a corollary need to have the financial means to provide for themselves, and further to cover possible long-term care costs.

Thus, caring for family obligations involves not just near-term needs, but planning and saving sufficiently to navigate an incredibly uncertain and intricate economic future.

That stands as the new economic reality - diligent parents must project forward years and decades and consider not just today's situation but multiple possible future scenarios. With such uncertainly within the immediate family's needs and requirements, where does charity fit in?

Then we have another consideration - church.

Church as Charity, or Not - Certainly, gifts to the local church, whatever denomination, help the needy, ill and less fortunate. The local pastor, or priest, or religious leader performs many charitable acts and services. That person collects and distributes food for the poor, visits elderly in their homes, leads youth groups in formative activities, administers to the sick in hospitals, aids and rehabilitates drug addicts, assists in emergency relief, and performs numerous other duties and acts of charity.

So contributions to church and religion provide for what could be considered secular, traditional charity work.

But contributions to church also support the religious practice. That of course first supports the priest, or pastor, or religious leader, as a person, in their basic needs. Contributions also support a collection of ancillary items, and that includes buildings (generally large), statues, ornamentations, sacred texts, vestments, flowers, chalices and a myriad of other costs related to celebrations and ceremonies.

And unlike the nominally secular activities (the priest distributing food), these ceremonial activities pertain to the strictly spiritual. These activities aim to save our souls or praise a higher deity or achieve higher mental and spiritual states.

So donations to church, to the extent those donations support religious and spiritual aims, fall outside the scope of charity, at least in the sense being considered for this discussion.

So where on the hierarchy of obligations would such donations fall? Are they an important obligation, maybe the most important? Or maybe the least? Could donations to church represent a desirable but discretionary act? Or a folly?

Many would claim that no conclusive proof exists of a spiritual deity, and further that belief in a deity represents an uninformed delusion. However, while proving the existence of a deity may stand as problematic, proving the non-existence of a spiritual realm stands as equally problematic. The spiritual inherently involves that beyond our direct senses and experience; so we us inner experience, interpretation, extrapolation - all in the eye of the beholder - to extend what we directly experience into the nature of the spiritual and transcendental.

This renders, in this author's view, the existence and nature of the spiritual as philosophically indeterminate. If one believes, we can not prove that belief incorrect logically or philosophically, and if another does not belief, we can not demonstrate that they should believe.

Working through the Complexity - This article has concluded that strict obligation to charity exists, and further concluded that obligation should be carried out until other equal obligation enters. Obligation to family stands as the paramount competing obligation, and obligation to church, to the degree based on legitimate faith and belief, also enters. A baseline obligation to self, for reasonable sustenance, also of course exists (one can not give to charity if one is hungry, sick, tired or exposed to the elements.)

Given this slate of obligations, competing for an individual's monetary resources, what strategy provides for a proper ethical balance? Or more simply, since, even after all the words so far, we still haven't answered the question, how much does one give to charity?

The answer lies not in a formula or rule. The balancing act between obligations, the time frames involved in financial considerations, and the presence of the ephemeral spiritual component, present too complex a problem. The answer lies in a process. The process is to plan.

Planning - When commuting or traveling, to reach the destination on time, whether it be the office, or home, or a hotel, or a campsite, or the home of a relative, requires planning. The traveler must consider all the various factors - distance, route, method of travel, congestion, speed, arrival time, schedules and so on.

If simply arriving on time takes planning, certainly the much more complex task of fulfilling and balancing the obligations to family, self, charity and church, demands planning. What type of planning? Given that our discussion centers on monetary donations, the requirement is for budget and financial planning. Many reasons drive a need for financial planning; our ethical obligation to charity adds another.

That might appear strange. Serving family, community and God involves financial plans? That strikes one as an improbable and illogical linkage. Serving is action, caring, doing. Why does financial planning become such a central ethical requirement?

A moments reflections reveals why. For most, we cannot grow food to meet our family obligation, or deliver medical care for disaster assistance, or weave the garments used in church celebrations. What we generally do is work, and through work, earn a salary. Our salary literally becomes our currency for meeting our obligations. That is the essence of our modern economy, i.e. we don't directly provide for our necessities. Rather, we work, and acquire food, shelter, clothing and so on through purchases, not by producing those items directly.

The Value Trade-off - Let's assume we accept charity as an obligation, and planning as a required step to executing that obligation. The rubber now meets the proverbial road. We are doing financial planning, and have reached the point where we are allocating dollars to specific expenditures.

Given a typical family, this allocation, with or without charity as a consideration, poses direct, immediate and personal questions, and on very basic items - how often should we buy new clothes and how many, when should we purchase a new car and what type, what foods should we select at the grocery store and how exotic, at what temperature should we set the thermostat in winter and again in summer, for what college expectations should we save and how much should we rely on loans and grants, how frequently should we go out for dinner and to what restaurants, what assumptions should we make about saving for retirement, what plan do we have if one of the family becomes unemployed, and, consistent with our theme here, how much should we contribute to charity and church.

While money provides a common currency for commerce, value provides a common currency for ranking that which money purchases. Value consists first of utility (what objective functionality does the item provide us, e.g. auto gas mileage, basic nutritional value of food, interest rate on savings) and second of preference (what of our subjective likes and dislikes does the item satisfy, e.g. we like blue as the exterior car color, we like fish more than chicken, putting college savings into international stocks seems too risky).

Now we have it. The concept of value frames the central imperative in our moral obligation to charity. Specifically, our moral obligation to charity involves our consciously evaluating and adjusting and optimizing what we value (in terms of both the utility provided and the preferences satisfied) to fit in charity.

What are example scenarios of such evaluation and adjustment? For the average golfer, do elite golf balls provide significant added utility (aka lower score) and would not regular, and less expensive, golf balls be sufficient? Could equivalent family consideration be shown with less expensive, but carefully selected and wrapped, birthday gifts? Do generic store brand items often provide the same performance and/or taste as name brands? Could an occasional movie, or dinner out, be skipped, with a family board game as a substitute? Could a weekend vacation of hiking substitute for a trip to a theme park? Could an occasional manicure, or trip to the car wash, or restaurant lunch at work (aka bring lunch) be skipped? Can the kids help out around the house so mom can stay late and work overtime? Can a family member skip a TV show to become more effective at financial planning? And can all these actions increase both the family security and allow contributions to charity and church?

Note these examples do not just imply sacrifice. They imply substitution, i.e. finding value in replacement items or activities. There lies the core of value adjustment; that adjustment involves breaking routines, finding new preferences, exploring new options, to uncover activities and items that are more effective value producers, and in doing so make room for contributions.

Another example? While a designer tote bag carries a certain prestige, which we may like, the inexpensive tote bag we might receive back for a donation can also carry for us a different, but equivalent, prestige. Or maybe we simply judge in our heart we have done a noble thing to contribute, and come to value that highly.

Now, many families (far too many) must do all the above examples simply to meet family obligations. Affording golf, or any leisure sport, as a hobby might be an unreachable dream for them, much less worry about what type of golf ball or equipment used.

But in a sense that demonstrates the point. Individuals almost without hesitation or deliberation adjust their expenditures to maximize meeting their obligation to family. The conclusion here is that we have a moral obligation to extend and expand that process and thus adjust the (objective and subjective) value of our expenditures to not only maximize executing our obligation to family but to also maximize meeting our obligation to charity.

Final Thought - Agree or disagree, the logic here has traveled from the simple charity solicitation in the mail all the way to financial planning and value evaluation as moral obligations. That is a long road. And despite any counter-intuitive reaction, and even absent charity considerations, doing the best for ourselves and our family with our money requires traveling that road of planning and evaluation.

A commercial for an investment company asked, during its run, do you have a plan to reach your number, with your number being the amount of funds needed to survive retirement. Similarly, just few minutes of the any message from Susan Orman, an irrepressible financial advisor and TV personality, will almost certainly contain an admonition for us to do financial planning. ("Show me the numbers," she has been fond of saying.)

So counter-intuitive or not, the need to evaluate our finances and spending, and more importantly evaluate the value of what we get out of that spending, stands as a key, critical activity. That our moral obligation to church, and family, and charity, and self, require that same planning and evaluation, simply means that executing those moral obligations involves not much more than something we should do anyway.

David Mascone has degrees in Engineering and Business. He has interests in science, philosophy and theology. His leisure activities include sports, hiking, science fiction and little league umpiring. His intellectual focus is finding consistency and synergies between the great masterpieces of human intellect, including religion, science and art.