“What is truth?” asked Pontius Pilate and washed his hands.
Ever noticed how rigidly members of the medical profession cling to whatever opinion is currently on the party line? Isn’t it maddening? Especially, since these sanctified opinions seem to change every thirty years or so. These doctors strike me as little echo machines. Some of my views clash radically with the accepted “truth” of these gurus of health.
When it comes to diet, I believe the natural diet for human beings is raw vegan. My reasons are available at my web site, Kia’s Hero’s Journey. I have healed myself from two serious illnesses (hepatitis c and diabetes) with my diet. But there are enormous establishments devoted to pushing a much less effective approach to fighting disease. As a diabetic, I was forced to attend boring classes with complicated diet regimes based on theories I consider incorrect. I attended the classes and did my own thing and got rid of this “incurable” disease. Billions are squandered fighting cancer with an incorrect approach. Many people have beaten cancer just by eating raw vegan. But the medical establishment insists on surgery followed by chemo which strips the immune system. Sure, it kills the cancer but keeping the same lifestyle that led to cancer brings it back and with no immune system with which to fight it. I could go on and on but this isn’t what this blog is about. I’m merely providing an example of how widely people can diverge in their views. But finding a doctor who isn’t lock-step-lock with the establishment is like finding a needle in a haystack. Sure, there are some mavericks like Dr. Bernard or Dr. Wakefield (anti-vaccination) but they are not accepted as voices of diversity. Dr. Wakefield is actually demonized.
I find it odd that doctors seem to accept that medical opinion changes with the times but aren’t bothered by the way they follow the party-line even when they must logically know that their current views will probably fall out of vogue and they will be forced to change their opinions. Is it laziness or cowardice? Going against the current certainly does take courage but there is a lot more dignity in thinking for oneself. I was in a nut house between the ages of 13 and 15. During that time, I was never psychotic and never treated with anti-psychotic drugs. Yet, when I recently obtained my medical records, I saw that they had diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia. I showed this to some shrinks of 
today, some 60 years later. They apologetically explained that this was “the times.” Everyone was schizophrenia-happy then. Now, it’s more about personality disorders. But they are being very careful to define the parameters of their science with the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) which issues a numerical code for every “disorder.” There is even a code for being a former drug addict. It is 304.8. These codes make it easy for insurance companies to decide whether to pay or not.
When it comes to issuing prescriptions, doctors have to contend with, not only peer pressure from the medical cult, but the long and highly intrusive arm of the law. The law puts every medication on a schedule which determines how difficult it is for a doctor to issue it or for a patient to obtain it. Doctors have some collective input into the rules but politicians have the final say. Given the intellectual level of many Congressmen, their power to come between patient and doctor is really quite alarming. Before the Harrison Act of 1914, people could buy any drug or medication they wanted. Certainly, prudent people consulted doctors and let their medical knowledge guide their choices, but it was optional. This law was originally only meant to be a tax on opium. It was probably an anti-Chinese law because the Chinese railroad workers could work Caucasians under the table with the help of opium. The law was strengthened by Congress until it became a law of prohibition, not 
just a tax. Doctors are victims of these laws as well as patients. They are under pressure from patients and cops, pulled into two opposite directions. The drug laws have made outlaws of many people who make up the bulk of the prison population. Even if drugs were legal, most people would probably depend on doctors for prescriptions if only because insurance would only cover doctors’ prescriptions. I am firmly for legalization. But that also is not what this blog is about.
As Howard Roark, the architect in The Fountainhead, found out when he sought a position in architectural offices, he was automatically rejected as a job applicant. “It was not malice. It was not a judgment passed upon his merit. They did not think he was worthless. They simply did not care to find out whether he was good….’You were kicked out of Stanton. You were kicked out of Francon’s office.’ All the different voices saying it had one note in common: a note of relief in the certainty that the decision had been made for them.” I have had the same experience as I’m sure many of you have as well. Your value is based on the opinions of others from your past. Consensus.
On the Other Hand:
There does seem to be a need in such a complex society as ours for some sort of standard. And yet, the very times we need one, it seems to be lacking. We often disagree about what some words mean. For example, the word sociopath. Some use it interchangeably with psychopath. For others, it has a distinct meaning. What words mean should be based on how useful a definition could be. But people don’t even agree on what a psychopath is. A growing consensus believes that a psychopath is someone with certain neurological anomalies. So when someone without those anomalies behaves like a psychopath, he can be called a sociopath. Is psychopathy a disorder? It’s not listed in the DSM. Hare has stated in a lecture, “Psychopaths are not disordered. They don’t suffer from a deficit, but they’re simply different.” Yet most people go on talking about it as if it were. And to add to the confusion, there’s a book out 
called The Myth of the Born Criminal: Psychopathy, Neurobiology, and the Creation of the Modern Degenerate which debunks the very idea of a neurological condition that can hold together into one phenomenon called psychopathy.
These days, many people are rebelling against the standard idea of what is “true.” For example, Christians are fighting Darwin’s theory of evolution and demanding creationism be taught in schools alongside with it. They have enough scientifically educated people on their side to at least muddy the waters. While most of us would be happy to simply accept the best scientific thinking on the subject, these people are forcing us to actually get involved in the issue and evaluate it for ourselves. Conservatives are doing the same thing about global warming. The scientific establishment is no longer an impregnable fortress. It seems ludicrous that people can attack science on it’s own turf in defense of what is obviously irrational and childish. And, yet, it is happening.
The scientific establishment is not only challenged from the Right. As alluded to in the second paragraph, people challenge the standard American diet (SAD), they challenge medicine’s remedies. Different versions of wholistic medicine have shingles out. The great debate about vaccination is far from over and doesn’t look like it will be any time soon. Yet governments want to force everyone to get vaccinated as if there were really consensus on this subject.
Then there is GMO which many of us fear like a plague. The moneyed interests and their government lackeys steadfastly refuse the simple expedient of labeling food products so the public can make an educated choice. They obviously fear that an educated public will reject GMO and profits will be lost.
Anarchy and Chaos
One might think, with all the headaches we have in areas that lack consensus, we would welcome the consensus that we have. But, as Robert Frost said, “Something there is that doesn’t love a wall.” Our very humanity demands we carve out space for ourselves instead of always submitting to authority. Sure, we do need laws requiring the accurate labeling of products. But we also need to retain the autonomy to make the final choices as they affect us. It is good that those who don’t accept the consensus, for the most part, still have the freedom chose our own paths. Where the state insists on controlling out personal decisions, for example in vaccination and choice of pharmaceuticals, the laws should change. Unfortunately, most of the public is too complacent to take charge of the government.
A grandiose person knows s/he’s superior. That’s not even in question. But grandiosity doesn’t have to limit itself to a state of being. It can be a state of aspiration. What does the word
The movie, Limitless, is the story of a man who discovers a way to become a far superior version of himself. A drug called MTZ 48 turns him into a genius by enabling access to his entire brain. Possibilities open up to him he hadn’t ever dreamed of. As intoxicating as the idea can be, it can also be scary. To be so much better also means we will demand so much more of ourselves.
People warn that they don’t know what the long-term effects of Provigil are. Do I even care? It’s like in the movie, Bladerunner, “replicants,” androids manufactured to be “more human than human” are like people except they have superior intelligence and endurance. But they are deliberately manufactured to only “live” for four years. Naturally, these replicants, created to be slaves of man and to only live four years rebel against such injustice. One of them confronts the manufacturer who says, consolingly, a candle that burns the brightest, burns out the soonest. Better to burn bright than have a long a mediocre life.
In the Harry Potter world, there is a potion called Felix Felicis. Harry takes it and “slowly but surely, an exhilarating sense of infinite opportunity stole through him; he felt as though he could have done anything, anything at all . . . and getting the memory from Slughorn seemed suddenly not only possible, but positively easy. . .”
I now have Provigil in my system. I don’t feel the urge to crack Wall Street. I hadn’t thought I would want to do that before I tried it. I wanted my focus. I am not disappointed. First thing I noticed was calmness. I approached problems rationally and effectively. When I went out among people, I found communicating with them more interesting while I had preferred to ignore them until now. I came back and re-wrote most of this blog. I read a book without dozing off (a problem I had been having). It’s evening. I’m still all there.
They are given cell phones and notebooks so they can always be reached. Leisure is no longer a right. In a way, it’s exciting to be jacked in, unlimited, on the fast lane. But I don’t want to do this to make someone else rich. I want to move fast and effectively for my own purposes. So many tools that had potential for self-enhancement have become corporation-enhancing instead. Once the everyday use of Provigil becomes accepted, will there be even more pressure to always be on the job? Does society exist for us or do we exist for society?
Da ist nun einer schon der Satan selber
Der Metzger: er! und alle andern: Kälber!
Der frechste Hund! Der schlimmste Hurentreiber!
Wer kocht ihn ab, der alle abkocht? Weiber!
Das fragt nicht, ob er will — er ist bereit.
Das ist die sexuelle Hörigkeit.
Der glaubt nicht an die Bibel, nicht ans BGB.
Er meint, er ist der größte Egoist.
Weiß, daß wer’n Weib sieht, schon verschoben ist.
Und läßt kein Weib in seine Näh:
Er soll den Tag nicht vor dem Abend loben
Denn bevor es Nacht wird, liegt er wieder droben.
So mancher Mann sah manchen Mann verrecken
Ein großer Geist blieb in ‘ner Hure stecken!
Und die’s mit ansahn, was sie sich auch schwuren —
Als sie verreckten, wer brgrub sie? Huren!
Das fragt nicht, ob er will — er ist bereit.
Das ist die sexuelle Hörigkeit.
Der hält sich an die Bibel! Der ans BGB!
Er ist ein Christ und der ein Anarchist!
Am Mittag zwingt man sich, daß man nicht Sellerie frißt.
Nachmittags weiht man sich noch ‘ner Idee.
Am Abend sagt man: Mit mir geht’s nach oben.
Doch bevor es Nacht wird, liegt man wieder droben.
Da steht nun einer fast schon unterm Galgen
Der Kalk ist schon gekauft, ihn einzukalken.
Sein Leben hängt an einem brüch’gen Fädchen.
Und was hat er im Kopf, der Bursche? Mädchen!
Schon unterm Galgen, ist er noch bereit.
Das ist die sexuelle Hörigkeit.
Er ist schon sowieso verkauft mit Haut und Haar.
Bei ihr hat er den Judaslohn gesehn.
Und er beginnt nun zu verstehn
Daß ihm das Weibes Loch das Grabloch war.
Und er mag wüten gegen sich und toben —
Doch bevor es Nacht wird, liegt er wieder droben.
Now there’s a man
Ihr Herrn, die ihr uns lehrt, 
Ihr lehrt uns, wann ein Weib die Röcke heben
STIMME
Macheath:
Meine Herren, heute sehen Sie mich Gläser abwaschen
Meine Herren, da wird ihr 
You men always see me washing this glass,
And a ship with eight sails,
An email appeared in my inbox which led to a page called
I thought the answer was that when people are “saved,” they get a “new heart” and want to do good. But Mr. Ferguson finds something more seriously flawed by their failure to answer that challenge.
I would think “getting saved” would be the most important consideration since it affects ourselves but I guess that’s just my selfish psychopathy speaking. Ferguson sets our priorities straight by saying,
I find the above offensive on a number of levels. So Jesus is “the perfection of humanity” and “with Jesus on the throne we are to become perfected with him.” I don’t think I have seen such a statement since Dostoevsky. Most of us know better than to think it’s all about Jesus. Dostoevsky thought you had to be Christian to be a good person. We now live in a pluralistic society where myriad religions are practices and where atheists live morally.
So non-christians are not human and become increasingly inhuman. God, who is omniscient, knows some of his creations are going to reach this sorry state. He makes us “human” so we can become inhuman. Well, as a psychopath, I am used to being called inhuman. Whatever…
“Co-exist with evil?” Try creating evil. After all, everything that exists was created by “god.” Therefore, if evil exists, “god” must have created it.
Again, never mind “preventing” evil. Why create it in the first place?
good. But “god” mustn’t have this handicap.
Several points need to be made here. If man can’t help sinning, which must be the case if all men are sinners, he already doesn’t have free will. If “god” really wants man to have free will, he would eliminate the condition in which we can’t help sinning. Wouldn’t he? Now, as far as the goal of creating “creatures with the ability to make morally significant choices,” there is still the stubborn problem of “god” creating people “he” knows are going to choose evil and not “get saved.” The deck is stacked against such creations. They can’t choose good without “god’s” grace and they (as “god” already knows in advance, being omniscient) won’t love “god” enough to get this grace. So, in order to built this morally mature human being, “god” creates beings fated to be eternally tormented in hell. “God” punishes these people simply for having been created by the same “god” who is doling out the punishment. If cops do it, it’s called “entrapment.” Shouldn’t “god” be held to a higher standard than a cop? Not a lower standard?
The rest of the article is about positing some really stupid arguments made by their hypothetical atheist and then refuting the arguments. I’m not going into this. I posited my own objection and won’t entertain other arguments until mine is answered. It has not been answered as far as I know anywhere at any time by anyone. Jason Turner comes up with a whole bunch of silly alternatives for “god” to create a universe without evil and makes it really complicated. The reader is free to look at this part of the blog.
My opinion of “god” is that, if our universe had really been created by someone omnipotent and omniscient this creator deserves the utmost condemnation for creating sentient beings whom “he” knows “he” will damn and torture for all eternity but going ahead and creating them for some “greater good” of evolving beings with advanced conscience to make decisions about good and evil. If these conscience-driven people make decisions the way “god” does, I can not credit their existence as worth while. The world would be better without them. The “god” these Calvinist theists worship is pure evil. They might as well worship the devil.
CLUSTER B 