"Perfectly" friendly may have been a little bit of an overstatement — fine rhetoric, some truth potentially to it. Is some kind of millenium possible to be perfected as we go ? One could prophecy anything at all from what is known nowadays.

Note "I was right!", exclaimed the monk on having trampled a bug. I owe this anegdote to Mr. Aleister Crowley. He had a sort of sense of humour, he had a wicked wit : which only meant very clever.

The evillest men in the whole world had taken this man A. Crowley for a sort of cover-up or scape-goat : of or for other evillest men in the whole world.

The whole spectrum can be somewhat qualified : one common misconception (an 'unconscious', unexamined assumption) may have been the notion of "good people" and "bad people" — it possibly implying some sort of 50/50 distribution between such categories.

The variations on such a theme could be numerous, it usually reducing to something like, we are good people, and "they" (somebody or other) are not. (Etc.)

A 20th century American author had observed something like the following : about 80% of the human kind mainly want to get along, somehow ; some 20& may be not certainly relied upon, whereas about 2.5% cause all the trouble ever was. Said 20% of the former being mainly influenced by said 2.5% of the latter.

This reported "in my own words" ; I am quite sure of the figures, how were these computed I do not know ; this seems to agree with everyday experience.

It may be that of the troublesome 2.5% only few are capable of causing some real mischief ;

How to spot the key troublemaker may be the most vital question of them all ; one would normally, perhaps "naturally", expect of such the most thorough attempts at covering their marks, sometimes by any means (confer the Russian author Bazhanov — who had seen some such. There also was a Bolshevik general in Spain the 1930's who had deserted Communism and told quite much about it. Can you read, America, etc. etc. ?).

There have been some 'masters of deceit' (J.E. Hoover) operating in the USA etc., during the 20th century — some had never been noticed. (It can take time, for somebody to realise they had been hoaxed, a something one might not naturally want to admit).

Is the Mankind (or some large parts thereof) to have some more un-sane strife because someone had lied some time ago (long time ago in some cases) ?

(P.S. or 'post scriptum', entered at a later date. There are some 'masters of deceit' operating presently. Evidence : your daily newspaper* ; the newest publication by some "respectable" house, some of such at least — unless the whole Mankind had drastically reformed since yesterday —

* I am not proposing that every writer for every newspaper is only trying to deceive his readers ; though such are visibly too numerous for one to feel much social security being present abroad. The statement as above is demonstrably true in that the reports found in your newspaper would almost invariably have something to do with some works by some 'masters of deceit' having operated somewhere.

First, panic not : so long as there be something within your view you could hang onto with certainty.

Second, outrage does not pay. This can be, so far as I know, attributed to F. Nietzsche but I do not vouch for it. Whoever did or did not say, 'outrage does not pay', the proposition might apply to some of the data produced on this page.)

* * *

On Un-dividing the Household

By somebody's report, which seemed credible to me, Martin Luther had in his later years regretted having caused a split or schism within the Roman Church.

To the true Scholar, be it one newly literate :

If Martin Luther had in fact regretted having caused a split or schism in the Church, which seems possible, then there may be his own exact statements to some such effect preserved somewhere, and this would then be probable.

Keep an eye on anything of that sort, please.

Such fact as M. Luther's having regretted something may be not as important to-day as some interpretations of his own words — which could cast at least some side-light on some of the long-range issues, or 'issues', since many a non-existent 'problem' could be found in the records of all these discussions.

His 'religion' may be not the question, but rather, what to do with the various traditions associated with it. "Can't we all just get along", which I have heard at times, might do some 1% or 2% good on occasion, possibly at the expense of seeming silly. This could be made more specific, for example : Why should people keep being divided over things somebody had not quite understood in the 16th or 17th century (or at any date).

One is a Lutheran (etc., etc. ; more technicaly speaking, one 'is' a 'Lutheran', etc.) owing to having been born in a certain family ; and not to any other reasons — for the most part, numerous exceptions not here considered.

One can note that some 'religions' (plural, because there is no such a thing as 'religion' found anywhere in the world which would not consist of some particular group of people and their customs) had taken their names from their founders, and some from some other notions.

The Catholic meant, and should, it seems, mean something 'whole', all-compassing (cata - 'whole', or some Greek term like it).

Arguably the most conservative institution in the history of "the West" so-called, almost synonymous with it at times, the Roman Church was yet not always quite immune to innovations :

The Dutchman Erasmus, or the Pole Jan Zamoyski (ones known to me, there may have been many others) had argued for reforms within the Church (and not somebody's going their separate ways). Some of their arguments may be more relevant to-day than much of the discussion had been in the meanhile produced on such subjects.

In these issues keenly interested was also Leibnitz ; one presumes, many others. Far from being an expert on such subjects, one could eventually decide to think on them by himself — for himself, possibly use to some others if any interested.

Why so bold : you could just as well have read a thousand 1,000-page long treatises, by the mighties masters on these subjects, and conclude that you knew just as much as you had known before you had ever started on such a study. Sometimes, you may have learned some one or two things from them, this could justify the reading all the rest ; here one enters on the questions of the method (confer Des Cartes, etc.).

On the Nazarene's Religion — without conversion.

Do not worry — just sin no more.

This much can be distilled from the literature, which it seems could stand to reason by any way of reckoning.

One problem of the criminal may be some actual terror of being "found out". One problem of "justice" may be some advertised emphases placed on harsh penalties ; which tend terrorise everybody without distinction — whereas all may be needed could to be put a stop on some (relatively few) people's actions.

Personal Opinion on 'Religion'

a) Build no temples (except where certainly wanted),

b) Raze no temples.

To this one could also add, fill up the existing temples (whoever interested in such visions) — thus moderately siding neither with 'religion' or any anti-religion. (Which "side" to such questions may have been more bigoted could seem an open question).

To the atheist one could suggest that some comparative religion studies do not imply anything in the way of personal commitment ; and to get into trouble because of other peoples titanic struggles ("my Prophet is bigger than your Prophet" type) could be sometimes easily prevented, simply be finding some purely rational parts in their schools (which is really nothing new but the works by some of the best men on such subjects may have been often obscured).

A Remark on Idealism and on the Trinity

Unlike some of my notable precedents such as the Bishop Berkeley I (for on) have not problem in principle with the Atheist.

Please note that the distinction, 'atheist' and 'theist' is purely verbal. Should anybody claim otherwise one would need some kind of explanation (but this I know nothing about at this writing).

a) Idealism
b) Realism
c) Nominalism

Now, it seems that every one of these would make quite good sense if considered together with the others. Even the Atheist, if pressed, could argue ; you would not tell me that your God had no idea what he was doing, while the notion of 'idea' does not imply anything particularly mystical or mysterious.

Idealism clearly belongs somewhere with God, the "Father", howbeit approached or undersood. I have heard about the 'German idealism' (whatever the difference) ; Monica Gardner wrote a text titled Polish Idealism (which I have not seen ; but by what I have seen in the American public library the reader could do well to keep an eye on that title, and especially care about any verisons thereof being authentic, consisting of what the author M. Gardner did actually write). The distinctions between the 'kind' of idealism appear to be secondary, here may be one of the keys to some new understandings, to some actual progress in the human affairs (which is not only somebody's slogan).

Following here Count Korzybski : 'revise not the language, but the structure of the language' (when needed, that is). This also has to do with some other parts of his work, etc.

Insofar as one be 'speaking about speaking', the nominalism would take precedence before any one of the above. But there has been the history of arguments over these ; some 'pure' nominalism would amount to some pure mathematics and these do not tell one much (fit for amusemenet, perhaps, like a game of chess, observed an English author). It is, when you consider what, apparently, that would work on these lines.

* * *

---

Picking Among the 20th-Century Rubble

Whose works may have been of some potentially lasting value ?

On Vitalism and Mechanism

Of somebody to tell you that there has been anything "wrong" with 'vitalism' would amount to somebody's telling you that there is something wrong with your being alive ; the Latin vita, life, implies just that and it cannot imply any other.

The actual problem on these lines of research may have been that to isolate, define, apprehend some principles of life, in some scientifically organised fashion, had sometimes amounted to fumbling after some elusive entities or concepts.

The subject of the research is at the same time the object of the research. This also has to do with the lower forms of life (and the entire food-chain, on which the human life does ultimately depend).

One does not need to care much about the term, 'vitalism' ; there have accrued some rows over it ; of somebody's to push an -ism of some kind or other has been already usually found counterproductive.

When some body of data has been termed 'vitalism', one had rather consider the data itself and not the title, usually somewhat arbitrary, it has been given by the author — which could have been different.

One detail seems worthy some clarification : the opposition between vitalism and mechanism, stated explicitly in the works of some 'vitalist' authors — (if the texts I have seen were authentic) — appears to have been too vague.

To wit, life as we know it, has also to do with the particles of matter, of which the bodies of any living things do consist. ("Observing the obvious" here).

Now, no vitalists had ever denied that ; but the distinction of 'opposition' to 'mechanism' posed some two as-if differing modes to approach, each of them too narrow. The clear statements on such question, and there have been some, could thus get buried in masses of 'discussion'.

Man does not live by bread alone, this has been a well-known proposition (saying, in other words).. It can be observed that without the bread (or some other food) man does not live either.

But the action by the man, of eating the bread, does not originate with the bread. On this count one could assert the truth of the proposition on thoroughly scientific lines.

The bodies of any living things could be considered in some nearly purely mechanistic manner ; why (or how, or what language to use that could answer) do they "have life in them" has been, more or less, the subject-matter of 'vitalism'. The attempts may have been often not sufficient ; the critics could have been a host : who yet had no sort of knowledge to offer of their own, organised in some scientific manner on this subject-matter.

On the nature of the 'logical' error involved in the 'controversy' one could comment so : it does need both the wheels and the frame, to make a bicycle. The analogy is only partical, but the stupidity of some anti-vitalist writers would be no less than that of some discussion, should one ever happen, on the essence of a bicycle.

The mechanist has got a choice of metaphor probably to his liking, in the preceeding. The mechnistic type of analogy occurs on the level of the language alone, and can ever be attempted, as it has been ever since the first statments on any such questions have been formed.

Did the attacks against an 'ism have anything to do with science ? It seems that science was seldom the actual object of any such. Any one want to perish because of some lying writers about such questions, out there ?

Any one could, for the opposition to vitalism usually teamed up with some grossest 'materialist' fallacies. Any one who can read should be able to find some such, in many a 'scholarly' publication.

On Money

Please mind the Pole Copernicus and the German Hjalmar Schacht.

---

On Some Class-enemies of the Mankind

DEFINITION : class,   a number of individuals (persons or things) possessing common attributes, and grouped together under a general or 'class' name (Oxford English Dictionary, 6. a).

Item : the corrupted psychiatrist — or, "medicine" gone berserk (some parts thereof).

The "catch" is, as soon as one begins to question any of this stuff one might incur the risk of having his own sanity questioned.

It might need no 'specialist' literature to gain some insights, some understanding. A novel by D. Diderot in France titled "Jacques the Fatalist" contains a description of a concerted effort by several individuals of driving another out of his mind. The story might be a fable, but where did the author (Diderot) get the idea of the type of action ?

A figure of some appreciable significance in another novel, by A. Crowley, has been a "German psychiatrist", "eminent" — who looms like some archetype in the murky background of this all. By Crowley's own report, some people had been made ill by the reading of that text.

Could the "science" itself of this subject lead to some similar reactions ? One could bet it could. I am not trying to assert much here, this would probably vary very broadly with the individual author.

(By the way, who exactly was "mad" is actually at issue within this section. The cited Mr. Crowley was capable of some exceeding feats when amusing himself at the expense of his readers, those who would fail to appreciate his sense of humor. But he was not the one much to be blamed for anything at all, some dubious or visibly corrupt writers to the contrary.
  However, his writings in some "wrong hands" or otherwise abused could bring problems of some magnitude.

Mark well the reader : if you do not like Mr. Aleister Crowley or his work (by me, you do not have to), you can be assured you would dislike the influence of his work emanating from some "wrong hands" even more.

He may have been partially responsible for some of the misconceptions in the psychedelic movement so-called in the USA, etc. ; but so was the myrrh mentioned in the Holy Scriptures, or the wine therein (confer TRINK).

Please also mark this very well ; there was something that some of his truest followers (such as T. Leary) did not know : to wit, the Communist (the former USSR) contributions to that movement ; "the Sixties" fads and ideals, etc.

How do I (this writer) know they did not know : it was not until 1986 that some most highly secret (in the USSR) materials had been published in the USA ; this in part thanks to a Czech deserter by the name of Jan Sejna from the Communist racket.

There had been some input by some psychiatrists to that psychedelic craze. How was a Timothy Leary to know who of those might have been only hoaxing others, to some 'devious political ends', as one apparently non-corrupt psychiatrist warned us in the early 1950's ?

They simply did not know, a few things. Some of those things did come to light in the meanwhile :

By any standards, Mr. Crowley would quite properly belong with such a field as English philology. No mean a wordsmith, by any standards (beside his own), one of the best-informed people of the period, on his exceeding independent studies arrived at some simplicites of entirely universal application ; that all this was none too serious should not mislead one onto hasty conclusion based on some incomplete consideration.

Not summarily to condemn any and every 'psychiatrist' — who might have floundered into the specialty by some accident, or on some true interest in the questions of the human mind, sometimes only to conclude, "I have been duped" (American psychiatrist Lee Coleman, The Reign of Error). May the posterity be grateful to the one* who had actually admitted the fact, hoping hereby that not everybody will have been duped as the years go by.

  * The reign of error : psychiatry, authority, and law / Lee Coleman. Boston : Beacon Press, c1984. [Los Angeles Public Library]
    The critics have been far more numerous, including other officially recognised members of the profession ; notably Drs. Szasz, Breggin, in the USA.

Has there been but one individual on the planet who had not been in some way duped during the 20th century ? The famous mathematician Einstein had been "surrounded by people who were deceiving him" (as documented by the General Leslie Groves, in Now it can be told).

It has been told, sometimes years after the fact ; and it often went unnoticed — or not noticed broadly enough for some average person to be able to form some opinion of his own, based on the facts and not on some "pundit" discussion.

Please note : General Groves did not know it all. Apparently, it was outside his "subject", such things as the conspiracy by one G. Brock Chisholm and one Alger Hiss, etc. Nor did the critics, no few in number, of 'psychiatry' know it all. The connecting the dots could be only done in the face of the most vicious schemes ever conceived by man.

What do you think of such ideas as : the people who are supposed to cure "insanity" are often half-mad themselves ?

If you do not believe this find out about some more recent "scientific" literature on this 'subject'. (Only do not immerse yourself in any such a study ; that is one way the insanities spread around). Of some of the things found in said "literature" I would not even know how to mention without personal revulsion such as could also affect the reader ; if one should happen on such one might understand exactly what I (for one) mean right here.

Item : the confounded pervert —

A class which should be "neither persecuted nor tolerated" may have been the clearest proposition I for one have seen on the subject.

Such a group (seems a sort of foolish fashion, or another cult — somebody had some sort of a problem with the Mama which had never been resolved, or maybe with the Papa ; and/or had been leaned heavily upon by some other pervert) ; those should be among the less dangerous (why should one or another care about somebody's hanky-panky ?)

One seemingly actual danger of all this may be : it might seem "funny" ; just a funny as a bullet straight into your teeth — by some other person's merest mistake, who had been distracted.

The less needed any such "issue" might be, the more irksome the idiocy could become by some of those "rightists" — sometimes the victims themselves of some 'specialists' in confusion, sometimes the perpetrators of the same.

So far as I know, there has never been a couple of men able to produce a child, or a couple of women able to to so. So far as I for one can estimate, there will never be such, not by any stretch of "science".

Why do you countenance any such mockeries, America ?

What does this tell you about some "anti-American" sentiments in some parts of the world ?

Item : the deluded "socialist" — or, a Godzilla contra Hedora (so to speak).

Apparently, have been exposed to mountains of false 'knowledge'.

Example : somebody's "bright idea" in the Red-infested US government the 1930's had been to pay the farmer for not growing some certain kinds of crops.

Please note that in any society which is not-yet-quite-insane the farmer (barring some miscalculation) would not grow any crops that would not sell ; in other words, any produce which would not find buyers, somewhere.

If it would not sell the farmer could lower the asking price ; so as at least to minimise his losses. How does the farmer know what would and what would not sell ? Usually he does, somehow. In theory, he would try to estimate what other people might want from him ; the tradition of farming was not new in the US 1930's.

All this had been (some 10-20 years later) by a noted Chinese Communist mistaken for some "ills of Capitalism", or something like ; whereas it was in fact one of the Communist-driven attempts at subverting the American society.

In whose exactly interest it was that the farmer would not grow some certain kinds of crops ? I for one do not know the "explanation". There is certainly some more to this one story ; but the rebel (somewhere) could do well by trying not to mistake the Communist subversion in the USA (etc. etc.) for some "ills of Captalism" even though the difference may be sometimes not obvious.

Item some crooked 'capitalists' — or, the Godzilla contra Hedora re-considered.

The only thing has ever been actually wrong with 'capitalism' may have been some predatory lending practices (so-called) ; a legislation against such had been introduced in the USA sometime in the 19th century, so far as I know.

There has never been any such thing as the 'capitalist' system anywhere in the world except insofar as the term can apply to the (relatively limited) sphere of activities such as lending (or borrowing) money on some certain interest ; and there is in principle nothing wrong with such transactions provided they be transparent (on fully informed agreement between some parties).

The cult-like "socialist" presently sometimes seems quite sincere in his disagreement ; but may be hitting exactly nowhere, or against some wrong targets.

It may be not quite unfair, or very incorrect, to state that the idea of 'socialism' had been murdered in 1917-18, when Russia collapsed into the hands of a band of "radicals", some of them part misguided, some of them plainly criminal.

A sort of world-wide struggle ensued, stemming from some misbegotten notions — the leadership of the USSR so-called turning increasingly criminal or barbarian, arguably in the exact tradition of that famous Genghis Khan in the days of yore. (He, in his own view, was the Emperor of the whole world — looks relatively benign in comparison. He would rip some taxation off his subjects wherever he could find them — but he at least would not try to fool them with any pretenses of "progress" having been achieved thereby).

It has rather been the 'common sense' (T. Paine) which prevailed during the 1980-90s, in Poland, Russia, and the Soviet Bloc so-called — and not somebody's "capitalism".

In the meanwhile the planet had been often polluted with false treatises, "theories", literature, etc., often in the name of "justice", a good idea but when too vague error becomes arch-easy.

Note It is hardly my business, to advise the 'socialist'. On some off-chance that this might do some good somewhere, one could propose : find some other standard (and not 'socialism' — which idea had been murdered ca. 1917-18, one could fairly well contend).

Illustration : the Prince Kropotkin with his "anarchism". His choice of 'ism' may have been his only cardinal error —

Some honest rebel somewhere may be reasoned with. Some crook somewhere presumably cannot ; while either sort would often ply this one 'ism' or another ; A's delusion (usually because of false 'knowledge') could be a convenience to B's fraud.

Man is naturally a social being ; this much can be fairly well contended. The human societies (not to be confused with some ant 'societies' or the like in the name of bunk "science") and Man amount to well-nigh one single concept. "So far so good" ; then, by somebody to plaster an 'ism' to such a term — and then insist on some rigid dogmas, some of which had been actually proved not to work (as in the early USSR so-called, when Lenin et al had been by the economic realities forced into some "new economic policy") could be abandoned in favor of something more promising of the private or public well-being.

Item the murderous 'materialist' — usually in the name of bunk "science".

Has there ever been any human society which had failed to notice some differences of quality between the animate and the inanimate objects ?

Examples of 'inanimate' objects : stone, man-made brick, truck, computer, etc.

Examples of 'animate' objects : any plants (begonia, sequoia, etc); any brutes (an ant, a fish, a bird, etc) ; and any people.

Item any authors of 'studied misrepresentation of perfectly friendly peoples, one to the other' (H.E. Buchholz, as at the top of this page).

Further, any authors of studied misrepresentation of anything at all, one can fairly contend. (Some issues may be more important than others : this is exactly where some 'specialist' would try to to interfere.

And this is, naturally, where one's opinion precedes any Authority on any subject in the end : if informed, you can win, the reader, if not, the consequences may be negligible or weighty.

When such places as the USA become, from all appearances, the arena for several half-mad outfits trying to out-lie one another something had rather been done about it.

By the 'several half-mad outfits' I mean the items as listed above ; this might be not exact enough, or complete enough. The evidence of there having been something "fishy" going on sometimes can be found in most any printed materials found lying about.

The most blatant forgeries have been seen by me in the public library. The most outrageous statements have been attributed to authors who had never made them, etc.

* * *

Was there ever such a thing as semi-Scripturalism ? It was not, and was, and is (John : somewhere).

Do not fall into the trap of 'science' opposed to 'religion'. The mongers of any such a "conflict" are either incompetent or plainly lying about important issues. Either term is a Latin word ; 'science' has to do with differentiation ; 're-ligion' has to do with re-aligning something, re-using some values or sets of values.

Did the Greeks Have a Word for It.

One is operating within the confines of the Latin vocabulary as it were — and not legislating about essences. As I wrote these articles it occurred me — what was the Greek term for 'religion', or some equivalent.

(It may have been 'gnosis', which is more or less equivalent to the English 'knowledge').

It could not have been "the same thing" as the Roman 'religion' or religions.

 

On some Polish Germans, German Poles, Polish-speaking Germans, German-speaking Poles, etc.

 

* Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), the Torunensis.

* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716), or, Lubeniecz.

The version Lubeniecz seen by me in the most creditable German sources. By some reports there had been a connection with the Polish family Lubieniecki. Is there any um out there worthy of such a name, to notice such matters and to commit some attention to them ? (Before some more 'discussion' on everything else develop ?)

1)The sources seen (Internet) agree on that the surname was Slavic and yet say he was of the German ancestry. Whence a Slavic name, then ? Out of somebody's fancy to no purpose ?

2) He once reportedly wrote on the probability of some certain candidates to be elected the King in Poland. What I have seen in the Internet on this one looked very questionable though.

Did he ever publish any anonymous tracts ? Anybody could do so : then some university professor or something informes you, a tract "attributed to" somebody and this passes for a "historic fact". Had rather been well attested.

So far as I have gathered, for a time Leibnitz and Newton worked on similar mathematical problems ; there had been some information flowing between one and the other via one Oldenburg, a German in England (so far as I know) ; the two had eventually each produced similar mathematics but by different methods.

There was no question then that the work by one and the other had been created largely independently, and the final formulations were entirely independent one from the other. The first publication by Newton contained an acknowledgment of the work done by Leibnitz which could seem ample or even generous.

Did Leibnitz have any reasons to object against Newton at the time of the first publication by the latter ? I for one do not see why he should.

Why the subsequent controversy ? One could rather ask, who were some "third party" who had added articles which did not belong — provided that any such findings would not lead to another extensive discussion (over another idle issue).

WHAT IS NEW : In the meanwhile : a forged (falsified) edition of letters between Leibnitz and Newton, mediated Samuel Clarke and moderated by the Princess of Wales, could be found in an American public library. (Recent).

Then : a text about the famous American mathematician John Nash (Nobel laureate, not that long ago) published in the USA contained no mention of Leibnitz in a section referring to the mathematics hereto cited. (It contained other inaccuracies too). That text has in the meanwhile disappeared, strangely enough. If you should happen on a copy, somewhere, it listed four (4) "mathematicians" as experts that had been consulted. Some other "experts" have been named in that text. Named, mind you. anybody who could read.

* Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844?1900), or, von Nietzky, i.e. Nicki.

 

---

The Pole and the German had lived side-by-side for over 1,000 years by now (this could be reckoned as up to 1,500 years but the earlier records are scarce). The famed 'push to the East' by the German more often than not consisted of entirely peaceful migrations, often into regions that were sparsely populated where settlers could be a something which was rather needed than opposed.

The Slav had originally been present in the entire area extending West to the Elbe river. The ancestors of the present day Germans were known as Franks, and were then found in some territories further West, some times under the Roman rule and influence, some times sovereign. (From them derives the name of France.)

So far as I know the term 'Frank' must have meant something like, 'open and honest' ; which remains as a word in English with just such a meaning. It was one form of a term of broad Aryan (Indoeuropean) distribution. Confer the Norse goddess Freya (presently invoked every Fri-day). This was akin to the terms 'free', 'friend', eventually 'franchise'. The form in Polish being 'przyja-', confer the Sanskrit priya.

This did mean something that can be actually experienced, i.e. the presence of other human beings around, of favourable disposition towards one.

(Some derivations I have recently seen in the Internet, from some javelins or the like seemed highly doubtful. If such phenomena be neglected, the Academia, then you never again blame anybody for anything at all ; somebody's 'studied misrepresentation' on such super-general issues is the responsibility of anybody with any scientific pretenses at all to handle).

The Pole had individuated circa 500 A.D., as a more or less distinct group among the Slavs. The written mentions of his first appearing circa the 9th or 10th century A.D. (so far as I know), the Bohemian (Czech) and the Slovak had been noted abroad some time earlier than that.

I find that Meissen was the earlier name of the Saxony (which seems to have been a Slav place-name, Misnia. This I found in the Internet. More certain is that) both Dresden and Leipzig (Lipsk or Lipsko) were originally Slav place-names.

Braniborz, or Branieborz was the original (Slav) form of Brandenburg. The entire area was indigenuously Slav, thus, this looks probable.

In the Internet. June 2008, I found some "derivations" of the term wich seemed absurd. Note well : the linguistic research has been going on for some three centuries by now, and "that was old" can often be the surest mark of somebody who would want to obscure many lifetimes of work by many scholars in many places with somebody's newest meisterst&#uuml;ck so to speak.

The Slav term for the German was 'miemiec', eventurally changed to 'niemiec' (the family-name Nimitz seems a form of just this word). This was originally echoic, and meant, 'the people of an unintelligible speech'. This word had been borrowed by the Greeks.

It did not mean 'the mute ones' (a confusion with another Polish word, 'nie-mowa', 'niemy', which is a compound superficially similar to the echoic 'miemiec' or 'niemiec'). This foolish error had been recently repeated in a "Cambridge History of Poland" I found in a USA library. (Was it really published by the Cambridge University Press ?

The history of the term may be very interesting one. A 'people of an unintelligible speech' could mean anybody whose speech would not be understood. not necessarily Teuton. I found that there had been a Nemetskoye selo in Moscow sometimes the 17-18th centuries, where the Dutchmen, Scots may have been just as numerous as the Germans. Could that mean, 'stranger's quarter'.

* * *

Circa 1,000 there had been some military actions done by the Pole Boleslaw (Chrobry), these were clearly resented by the German writer Thietmar. It must be noticed that the opinion by one writer of the time, and within a relatively short span of time, should not be taken for the entirety of the attitudes present (an entire interpretation of history only based on one source might occur, inadequate).

Boleslaw had eventually come to the best of terms with the German Otto III, the Holy Roman Emperor. In agreement with the latter in 1,000 A.D. had been the archbishopric in Gniezno established, only dependent on the Pope.

That period could be considered as the beginnings of the "modern Europe", more or less — (considering also the contemporaneuous developments in Hungary, Kiev, also Denmark etc.) — for a number of the centuries called "the 16 countries of Europe". (This did not include Kiev because of the religious division which had also influenced the political reckoning).

The idea was present then, of extending the Christianising missions further East, notably among the Prussians — they were a people most closely related to the Lithuanians and the Latvians (these three forming a group most closely related to the Slavs).

There seems to have been some general agreement on the matter between Otto, Boleslaw, Stephen of Hungary, and the noted saint Adalbert (Wojciech, Woytek, etc.). The last one did actually go among the Prussians, only to be promptly murdered by the heathen (who for some reasons did not appreciate an idea of being saved).

A steady influx of the German settlers followed, largely unventful — so far as I know (I do not know it all).

On one hand, there would be some truth found in some statements on the civilising influence by the German in the East (barring any allness sometimes implied etc. by some writers). On the other hand, the knowledge had been initially got by the Teuton themselves from (a) the Roman and (b) from the Semite in the Holy Land (with some partially independent influences of the Celt, connections with the Etrusc and Greece ever present, if more or less remote).

The knowledge having then been emanating mainly from Rome, it would be promulgated step-by-step.

"Names ending in itz, ik, nik, tsch, ow, enz, are of Slav origin, as in the cases of Leibnitz, Bulow, Nostitz, Rauschnik etc." Others, as in the cases of Lessing and Zinzendorf, have been completely Germanized."

* * *

After 1,000 Poland had been soon separated into a number of principalities (the practice may have been borrowed from the Teuton). The idea of Christianising the heathen (mainly the Prussians) continunued, there were other factors, and a religious Order, mainly German, had been invited to that purpose by Konrad of Masovia in 1226.

The Order had been furnished with a papal Bull, granting them prerogatives of some sorts presumably in the interest of the Pope. Unless the principal was Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, as some sources say. In such a case, that would have been one of the rare instances of some comity by this one Emperor and the Pope.

Frederick was based in Sicily. When not practicing falconry, he would engage in the scholarly studies. He had been excommunicated by the Pope three or four times (the truth told, it seems to me that one excommunication should have sufficed, but then I for one do not know much about such things). The crowning achievement of his life had been his becoming King of Jerusalem, which had been won not by sword but by his eloquence in Arabic. He may have been among the first in Europe to be familiar with Aristotle, whom he had criticised — whose work was probably known to him from the Arabs. None of this connects much with the Order and its mission to the Prussian lands.

I have been informed that the Order was not exclusively German and about 1/3 (1/4?) of its members were of other nationalities, a number of Poles among them — if I am not seriously mistaken. Howbeit, the Order had moved among the Prussians and Christianised, eventually developing into a relatively autonomous political entity.

The Order of the Blessed Virgin, which seems to have been its official name — an item which it may be really worth find out and clarifying — seems extremely unlikely to have been at the time known aas the 'Teutonic Knights'.

The Prussians, which then (1231), again, meant an autochthonic people in the area who had not an iota of the German (Teuton) in them, were not exactly welcoming and rather the contrary. I am told about some revolts and strife. It seems that the Prussians (a) were no sweetness and light themselves, their raids having been on reason for Konrad's of Masovia interest to begin with ; (b) they could not get the idea of the Christian salvation — because of some semantic blockages (this had been also seen in many other parts of the world) and (c) the Order may have been not exclusively engaging in Christianising but also in some sorts of impositions.

How harsh the conflicts may have been I (for one) do not know enough to guess. The natives were however not "exterminated", as some writers say (since the ancient Prussian language could be found to be still spoken during the times of M. Luther, as evidenced by some Lutheran catechisms mentioned by some scholars, in that ancient Prussian language).

I find about "the foundation of Königsberg in 1255, the removal of the head-quarters of the Order from Venice to Marienburg (1309)—the fortress of their Divine patroness—the absorbtion of Pomerellen and the culminating acquisition of Danzig (1311)", etc. (J.A.R. Marriott, The Evolution of Prussia, Oxford (1915) 1953, p. 46).

Was not Gdansk (Danzig) one of the early Viking settlements, one wonders. Since I have not yet seen any historian tell me, the merest guess : could the name have been some Gedanske, which could mean a 'Danish' settlement, such ca. 1,000 extending along the shores of the Baltic as far East as the Novgorod.

* * *

In the meanwhile Poland had by a marriage of the princes united with Lithuania. The Order, who, it seems, had provoked it, had lost some decisive battle in 1410 against the Poles, Lithuanians, and Ruthenians led by Jagiello (King of Poland, the Lithuania, etc.).

After the peace of Thorn (Torun) in 1411, "The towns, headed by Danzig, revolted from its [the Order's] authority and placed themselves under the crown of Poland, and the High Master was driven from Marienburg." (idem, pp. 56-7).

Apparently, the Order would be found problematic not only by the Prussians. By the Second Peace of Thorn (Torun) in 1466, "The land was divided in two parts. The eastern half, with Königsberg, was conceded as a Polish fief to the Teutonic Order ; the western half, called Royal Prussia, which included Danzig, Elbing, Marienburg, Culmland and the bishopric of Ermeland, was absorbed into the kingdom of Poland", etc. (idem, p. 57).

It seems that the mentioned Royal Prussia was also sometimes called the Polish Prussia, which would be entirely accurate of the certain period (it should not be confused with any other periods). The other part (a fief to the Order) was also called the Ducal Prussia, and was also deemed to belong with the Polish Crown but with some, perhaps considerable, autonomy.

'In 1511 Albert, Margrave of Ansbach, and a nephew through his mother to King Sigismund of Poland" (id., p. 57) was chosen as the Grand Master of the Order. Mark well, the reader : had some other person been elected the Grand Master of the Order there might be no connection made with the Brandenburg and the entire history could be quite different.

(Can anybody think at all, at those History Departments everywhere — who would project the more recent events onto the earlier ones, confound causes with the effects, infer somebody's intentions from the subsequent events — while the chances could vary very broadly, of what the one could have to do with the other if anything at all, etc.).

The man was half-Polish, anyhow. "In 1525 he married a daughter of the king of Denmark and was invested by the king of Poland with the secularised duchy of East Prussia" (id., p. 58). It may be interesting to find out when exactly, or at least, more or less when the term 'East Prussia' had appeared. The statement quoted clearly refers to the duchy that was then technically part of Poland with some local autonomy (as distinguished from the Royal Prussia part of Poland).

(I suspect that no such term as 'East Prussia' may have been part of the language then, circa 1525 (?). It was only when the term 'Prussia' had been extended to cover the Brandenburg such an expression would be needed).

Albert turned the land to the Lutheran religion. (Note that the Reformation was then very much present also in Poland, until 1660).

The Ducal Prussia were not uniformly in favor of the Brandenburg leadership. "The elector [of Brandenburg] would govern them from Berlin and would drag them from their isolation in the north-east corner of Europe into the vortex of German politics. They were, therefore, prepared to resist, with the aid of Poland, and resist they did." (id., p. 59)

One key figure was Frederick William in the Brandenburg who, incidentally, "knew French, Latin, and Polish" (id., p. 78).

His reason for learning Polish may have been grossly misinterpreted by some authors, who suppose it might have something to do with some designs on Poland. The record of his early career as the Elector of Brandenburg suggests nothing of the sort, Frederick would have preferred to stay entirely neutral in any kind of strife, although this had eventually proved untenable.

Howbeit, for comparison, in Muscovy of the time "the languages of the educated classes were Latin and Polish", as told by a historian of Russia. The latter language was rather popular at the time in a broad area, including Moldavia etc.

In the 1650's. Poland had been invaded by the Swedish troops. The factors (public or private) seem to have been numerous — but the perennial struggle in Europe was then between the "defenders of the Protestant faith" and the "defenders of the Catholic faith", and this was not absent in this one case.

The Swedish (Protestant) troops were greeted with open arms by everybody* not a Catholic then in Poland. At stake was one's eternity in Heaven — or in Hell — depending on the soundness of the Theology applied, and those things were usually considered quite in earnest then.

    * Any such rhetoric allness must of course be qualified ; the denominations then active in Poland were numerous and could sometimes differ in their attitudes one from the other. It seems that the presence of the Swedish troops had eventually turned into a burden even to some of those people who had initially supported it.

Frederick William of Brandenburg had been reportedly involved ; there were also some other parties with their axes to grind. The Swedes were eventually repelled, or maybe just left, and a clause of the peace treaty had it that the Ducal Prussia was to be entirely abandoned by the Polish Crown in favor of the Brandenburg.

Or — the Ducal Prussia was to remain Protestant, or , anyway, to retain the religious liberties for which Poland had previously been famous abroad — and be joined with the Protestant Brandenburg ; Poland during that period gradually becoming a bastion of the Society of Jesus, and eventually turning entirely Catholic.

This seems to have been a sort of watershed year, 1660, marking (a) the banishment from Poland of the Socinians (Unitarians)* ; the other Protestants soon to follow and (b) the loss of Prussia to Brandenburg. The religious controversy was certainly a factor then and may have been the most fundamental issue of them all.

    * ( Before some 800 more treatises on some 101 topics be produced, of some thoroughly inconclusive import ), Professor :
    The Socinians, called also Unitarians, are mainly known in Poland as 'Arians', and inaccurately so. That was a term of disapproval, used in the polemics by writers hostile to them. Bando na Ariany (the ban on the 'Arians') for example had been published ; and the numerous mentions of some 'Arians' in the Polish literature invariably refer to those early Unitarians.
    The term 'Arian' had eventually gained currency due to habits, or custom, it had never meant anything other than what has been in other languages called Socinian or Unitarian. (Confer also an essey by Voltaire on the subject in his Letters on England. The term 'Unitarian' had been earlier coined in Transylvania where part-linked part independent developments took place).
    In the Latin known as Fratres Polonorum, there had been a considrable number of Germans among them. Notably, J. Krell, M. Ruar ; Völkel and Smalcius had been co-authors, with Moskorzowski, of the noted Catechim ('Rakovian'), originally produced in Polish, soon translated into the German by Smalcius and into the Latin by Moskorzowski.
  Imperfect as that work might be, it has proved mighty influential, notably on John Bidle (Biddle), "the father of the English Unitarianism" — whose own "Twofold Catechism", for the most part an independent work, alludes at some places to said 'Racovian' Catechism of the Polish Church (as it had been sometimes called). J. Bidle had also translated into the English the works by the Pole Samuel Przypkowski and the German Joachim Stegmann (both being short tracts anonymously published in Latin) ; and Life of Socinus by a Polonian Knight (i.e. Przypkowski).
    As a matter of the History of Ideas, this one slender thread, unmistakably connects Joseph Priestley (the discoverer of oxygen, by the way) — whose religion had been eventually accepted by T. Jefferson in America and by many others.
    This is arguably one of the trends in the actual progress of the Humanity (whatever imperfections could be come across in the works of the individual writers). If this slender thread be overlooked — what do we get ? the Historian ?

Thus a new political entity had been established in 1660 by Frederick William of Brandenburg, a moderate Lutheran — who knew Polish ; the governor in Prussia being the Lithuanian Pole Radziwill, a moderate Calvinist.

Some latter-day Polish authors who wrote from the Catholic perspective may have been inexact in their interpretations of those events. The "Northern War" considered had very strong religious components in it, and was not some kind of patriotic-national war, as it could seem to a Catholic who had in the meantime got used to the idea of Poland with no Protestants in it. It was not so in the course of the 17th century.

In 1701 Frederick I crowns himself King of Prussia. Thus the term 'Prussian' had been transferred onto the Brandenburg and could be eventually associated with anything emanating from Berlin. Strangely enough, a people of some once-remote corner gave name to what had eventually become a great power ; the subsequent developments could look involved.

On Some Certain Heads of Some States

There have been already some critiques made, by A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzche, of the things German. A most sympathetic 20th century observer, Lord d'Abernon had (partially) followed Niezsche on some observations regarding the influence of the language on a people's ways.

Not probing for any immutable 'national characterists' or such fables or half-truths. It simply occurred me : at some times :

* Albert of Saxony becomes King of Poland : the country collapses within a century.

* One of the house of Hanover becomes King of England : the country loses important parts of the overseas possesions within a century.

* One Fraulein Zerbst (sort of latter-day Jesabel, so to speak) becomes head of Russia : the country lapses into turmoil in less than 1.5 century.

There have been some ambitions, even the despot might flatter herself with an idea of being a "just ruler" or the like. Some contributions to the Russian civilisation could not be denied. Some "shameful deal" with that warped monarch, Frederick of Prussia, has been a point of singular inconvenience. Some statements by this Catherine (an assumed name) which have been reported by some historians, look disingenius enough. Some parts which had been then ripped off Poland had no Orthodox (Greek or Russian) Christianity there ar all — which had been claimed to have been defended on that occasion. The woman had also been reported to have inventend non-interference ; which seems to have meant that her interfering with others should not be interfered with (an idea which later re-appeared in England 1920 when one Ernest Bevin was objecting, albeit indirectly, against interfering with the murders by the Bolsheviks).

Her exploits may have been a source of pride to some of the Russian military. To-day, it seems that the Pole is just as un-interested in there having been any problems with "the Russians" as the German might be. Barring some troublemaking business by some special parties, there may be chances that somebody's relatively puny goals lead to no further mischief, of unforeseeable consequence.

* * *

On the Relevance of the Polish-Russian Relations

These could be reckoned to be in some ways even more important than the Polish-German relations. The latter appear to have been far more numerous, ever since circa 1,000 A.D. part of the written records — this being one good reason for having begun with the latter.

What is pan-Slavism. The term merely means, 'of all the Slavs', and this cannot say any other than 'of all the Slavs'. Any more specialised definitions have been or can be only arbitrary.

Any arguments over such a notion (and there seem to have been many) can be shelved somewhere, for further consideration if necessary : and what could be necessary on such a field would be determined by its capacity for lessening fictitious 'divisions'.

Of the German Walter Rauschning some personal greatness could be predicated more readily than of many another ; why did he favor pan-Slavism ?

Among any of the factors historically present the following have been quite certain :

a) The linguistic unity among the Slavs. I gather that the two monks, Cyril and Methodius could freely communicate in any of the Slav lands which they visited. The languages might sometimes differ at many details but the fundamental bases can be discerned in any of them.

b) The religious division between the Roman and the Greek churches. (Also, the Protestants had never entirely disappeared from the Western Slav countries, even in Poland some could have ever been found, more so among the Czechs and the Slovaks. There is also a small number of Slavs of the Mohammedan faith presently).

The two above data are quite certain, the scholar, etc. etc. (if any who can read). Any other factors, political, economical, 'racial', military, etc., seem not as certain as the two above. Thus it could stand to reason that the two as above can be bases to some solutions, to some true progress in the inter-national relations.

The linguistic unities are natural.

The religious divisions are artificial, although often quite real. These date from the early years of the 11th century.

* * *

Some Remarks on the Theological Issues Historically Involved

Proceeding here from an arguably unbeatable position, of an advantage based on nearly total ignorance of the issues involved (which means a mind largely unclouded by the consciousness of the multitudinous threads, trends, schools, sects, factions etc.).

Personally, I have had a period of rebellion against Christianity. I am to some greater or lesser extent familiar with the works on the subject by such authors as T. Paine, F. Volney, P.B. Shelley, A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, A. Crowley, etc., and have found some of their arguments convincing.

On a more mature (or say, practical) consideration one sees : the Christian Church is there, it is one of the facts of life, whatever one might think of its doctrines. To pretend it is not there might not do for anyone aspiring to be informed well on what is really going on abroad ; strongly to object against it would only motivate reaction, of some not always predictable nature (considering also the presence of various "specialists"   religion having become one of the favorite fields for sabotage by some, strange as it might seem when noticed).

Somewhat influenced by the Slovak Osusky, I have re-examined the subject-matter and concluded as follows :

a) There is some truth in the Christian religion. (Please note that this is merely a conservative way, so to speak, of expressing something which does not contradict the most zealous Evangelist. The difference, if any, may be in that what the latter would assert I for one might choose not to speak about).

b) There is enough truth in the Christian religion for it to keep going the next 10,000 years, etc.

It is not, "what is the problem", it is "what is the solution" that needs to be considered, as I have learned from an American author. This my fumbling has been preceded by Descartes, T. Jefferson, in some ways ; I would not pretend I will have done better than those men had, but it seems possible I might have happened on some articles which, when not noticed only form parts of the written texts on the subject ; if noticed, might open some ways to some better understandings.

There have been arguments made and on record, over the nature of Christ (an apellation often given the Nazarene himself ; although many of the statements found in the Scriptures suggest it really meant something more general, perhaps a term given some certain function, by one, or by many).

These seem usually to have included ones on the Trinity, the anti-Trinitarian, some 'dual nature', some 'triune God', some 'ditheists', some 'tritheists', etc., etc. Personally, those arguments I have seen usually seemed one just as good as the other — and I have but seldom gained much understanding of any of them.

"Do not tell me it is true if you cannot show it to me in the Bible", I have once heard from someone with my own ears. As some sober approach to the facts of life, that proposition did not necessarily have to do with the origins, the authorship, the exact provenience, the coherence of the structure, the fidelity of the representations, with some given interpretation, etc., of the text : it simply means that in order to convince the man to something you have got first to find it in the cited text, and then show it to him.

Some parts of the text I for one cannot make anything of ; the fault could by some be presumed to lie with me and not with the text (unless it be the translators). This may be one (approximate) definition of what has been sometimes called the Scripturalist position.

By what I have found so far, 'He is in me and I am in Him' (speaking of God, who is a spirit). I also find, ".. ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you" (John 14:12).

This was reportely proclaimed about 2,000 years ago. The "ye shall know" implies some time after the statement had been made.

It says, "ye shall know, etc.", and, "ye shall know, etc."

Could it be that many a difficulty have been purely verbal. "Ye in me, and I in you", and several similar statements.

A Parable   some passenger of some liner drops a glass with water into the ocean. The glass (the vehicle) goes down to the bottom. The contents of the glass disperse, say, get "lost" in the water of the ocean. The contents are certainly in the ocean now, but since they did not differ in nature from the rest of the water it would be idle to investigate, what happened of that exact portion of water — formerly in the glass, which is now in the ocean.

As a thought experiment : suppose a particle of water, in some ocean somewhere, is trying to teach other particles of water — about water. How do you compare, what do you compare to what, in such circumstances ?

Fancy, he "knows", somehow, about H₂O (the scientific formula, or the actual analysis of the compound water). Could he call H₂O "the Father" ? This might be somewhat justified. In such a wise the whole ocean could be called the Man ; and he, the Son (an individual).

I am not proposing this is the exegesis and this could be stated, approximately, in several different ways ; but it seems that some understandings could approached along some such or similar lines.

The substance considered above (water) is a chemical compound. Speaking about spirit, one would rather think of a simple substance.

When looking about the written statements found in the literature, the 'incorporeal', the 'immaterial', the 'spiritual' look synonymous. However, the two former terms are purely negative ; the spiritual as if skirts over onto the 'material' ; it is derived from the Latin spirare, breathe.

Some authors found difficulties with 'immaterial substance', or substances. Perhaps some statements of such a form could have been too vague, etc. Looking on the facts of life : Plotinus, for example, spoke about the "union of the seeing and the seen" (for example : the reader there and the thing read by him, agreed or not).

That expression has two terms, and it seems not to differ fundamentally from the more nearly modern "joint phenomena of the observer and the observer".

There must be some observer present, somewhere, in order for one to speak about any observation at all. No less, there must be something observed. The observed would often be something "material" ; it could be another observer, this might the the crux of the matter.

Could it be that many a difficulty, "scientific" ones especially, can be got rid of with one clean sweep : but supposing the observer to be an immaterial entity.

At the lowest rungs of anything observable one finds the dead matter (bricks, stones, sand, etc.). Those substances do not perceive anything at all (by the human standards. That some chemical affinity could be thought to amount to some sort of perceptions, as some pantheists would have it, seems a question not necessarily considered within the range of the human understanding).

Could it then be supposed that an ability, by some entity, to observe, computes in some reverse relation to the quality of a thing being material ?

What do you know of an inspired poem, for example ; what do you know of an enthusiastic group somewhere : this could occur because one of the members had a son born the other day : the other had some other happy end ; the weather has been the best ever that day, etc. Any such items might to an extent explain, why so much en-thus-iasm in the air : but, can you replicate the conditions on that day ?

To an extent, perhaps, by some ones of some fundamental understanding (e.g. Ben Franklin, confer some of his remarks on the influence by a speaker on his audience). Whether any such enthusiasm ever present be different in nature from the Holy Spirit could be an idle question.

This is a fundamentally simple issue, noticed over and over — and usually confounded, whether deliberately by somebody, or by some sort mass-folly, to wit, the statement 'mind over matter'.

Somebody had once started the converse, some "from matter to mind" : a 'pathologically reversed order of consideration'.

Some of the 'materialist' could make some sense, in that such would want to know, what one is exactly speaking about, and a piece of matter is usually a something one can examine and measure many a way around. But the action of measuring does need some intelligent agent, however you look on this.

In the case of immaterialism, as here understood, the relations (verbal-stated) between the subject and the object belong to one entity.

Let one suppose there may be a reader somewhere, of these words here. Do I need to know anything about the gray matter in his (or her) brain, to produce something possibly intelligible ?

Does the reader need to know anything about my brain to make some sense, perhaps, of some of these words here ?

On What is That "Thing" Called Spirit.

Part of the answer may be in that the term 'thing' can be reserved for any thing material (corporeal). This I have seen in several authors, it does 'make sense' to me (for one).

(It is I who is making sense — or not, sometimes — of any of this : if I can relate some words to some experience I could say I am able to make some sense of them — in case some reader did not know what 'making sense' might mean).

Any sources of anything alive anywhere seen could be one definition, of spirit. That is the plainest observation one can make : some bodies one can see round one have life in them, or to them, some have not.

To examine some contrary notions (thought experiment) : can you explain a refrigerator by its contents ? (As 'physicalist' a notion as one could ever want, for the sake of making sense). — No : you cannot explain a refrigerator by any possible contents of one : this would totally reverse the order of the things, as can be seen in the world. One has merely invented an idiocy — in order to illustrate another sort of idiocy : one frequently masquarading as "science" : any 'explaining' the sources of life by way of the lifeless 'matter'.

The contents of the refrigerator are something added to it. But life is not something 'added' to the matter : this was a frequent source of confusion, beginning with Descartes himself — whose unextended (extensionless) substance was said to have a fixed location (within something that has extension, it being one of the glands in this one instance). This sort of error is frequently seen in the Christian literature, in the form of "your soul".

What is "your soul" : it means you, I have heard a Christian preacher say : a one who had some understanding (in my opionion) amounting to more than reciting some patter or other from a habit.

There has been a verbal split found in the literature, of some sort, between 'you' and 'your soul' ; this had mystified and sent many a thinker astray ; over a most basic simplicity.

The 'soul' can mean what one is (and not a something one 'has', as if a "something" added to one). This is presumably even simpler than the few statements I have uttered here ; a something that might even be "too simple" for some 'philosopher' or other, but it seems to solve the verbal by-ways and labirynths, seen no less frequently in many forms of Theology as in many a "science".

On 'Superstition'.

The Latin word is a compound : 'super-stition', something super-added, super-imposed, something extra, or extraneuous — to the gist of the matter under consideration.

This could apply no less to many a form of religion than to many a "science". Is it science, the reader, when you are facing a treatise containing a zillion of "complexities" — in some cases I have seen stemming from the stated assumption that the subject-matter "cannot be understood" anyway ?

Is it science which is in fact a formulation that has no known means of being proved ? Any writer may be free to phantasise as he would : but to impose anything of the sort as 'science', on the general public, could be the merest hoax, to some hidden motives, perhaps. Is that any better than some excesses of Theology ? (there having been numerous complaints on record against such).

An idea of his habitual patterns of speech being the merest non-sense could drive some people uneasy, perhaps insane. (That still would not justify the entire Mankind's being hoodwinked).

"He who really thinks hath a train of ideas succeeding each other and connected in his mind ; and when he expresseth himself by discourse each word suggests a distinct idea to the hearer or reader ; who by that means hath the same train of ideas in his which was in the mind of the speaker or writer."

(Is that always so.)

The Trinity Re-considered

One notes that the term 'trinity' is not found in the Scriptures pertaining to this discourse (so far as I know). There are some statements found in it which do resemble some systematic formulation such that had eventually given rise to a whole range of controversies.

One who thinks some expressly 'anti-Trinitarian' authors important needs not endorse any particular animadversions, with which such controversial literature has been sometimes replete.

An idea that some kind of 'trinity' it might be worthy the Christian consideration had been borrowed from or at least influenced by one Hindu scheme (Brahms, Vishnu, Shiva) — according to some authors and this seems highly probable. (I have also seen it in print being attributed to Plato but I cannot be sure if the text cited was authentic).

The introduction of the 'trinity' into the Church had occurred amidst the most heated theological disputes. What had survived the controversies may have little to do with their actual origins.

The row has been "with us" for some years by now. Simply to reject the Trinity might not always help (although of some statements found in some texts thereon I for one could not make anything at all, not even under the threat of the Hell or the like).

This much seems arguable : there must have been something valid (which is a Latin word, it roughly translates into the English as, something strong) in some parts of some of those propositions. Else, there would have been no controversy.

Could there be some more clearly persuasive interpretations possible ? A presumably imperfect attempt by me follows.

(a) The 'theist' notion of God (the 'atheist' might choose not to dwell on this one),

(b) The Holy Spirit,

(c) The Son (an embodied spirit).

One notes that to define God at times involved a rather plain contradiction : the de-fine implies there being a finis (Latin), somewhere, an end, to a being which is otherwise often presumed to be infinite.

(In some more abstract terms, one could perhaps say, an active principle ; this seems neutral enough in reference to numerous arguments over some sort of viewpoint or other — just not to leave this one altogether unaddressed).

It could be observed that a human individual (such as I or some presumed reader) looks on the world as if from within. The ('theist') God ought to be presumed to be able to look on the world as if from without —`; or plainly, 'from without'. It was He, they say, who had maketh it all. The maker of something is not the thing he has made, as a matter of some philosophical grammar.

In the 'materialist terms'.

Imagine, for an argument's sake, that we know there exists a shop, somewhere ; a business, a corporation, possibly in some distant and far away land. All we know, they do exist and are fairly successful (by some average standards). They might be making shoes, or TV sets, or anything at all ; but we do not know what, nor do we know anything about the size or scope of their operations.

If we do know this much with certainty (somebody is in business somewhere), we also do with near certainty know that they must have some kind of income (else they would not be in business). However great or small ; whether they do or do not multiply and increase their business, such a notion as the grand total of their income within some period of time seems necessarily applicable.

The idea of this grand total does not depend on the species of exchange they get for what they do and is entirely general. It seems to me that some such mechanism has been giving the fervor to some arguments on the much larger (cosmic) scale.

Say, we do know that the shop in question has beem making some figure, and this much we know with (for this arguments sake) certainty. (But since we do not, so far, know anything more about the shop it would be idle to wrange over any particulars.)

On the Degrees of Holiness.

"Holier than thou" seems (to me) a fairly common expression in the English language.

There have been numerous acknowledged saints (Latin sanctus), in many cultures, the holy men. For the Christian, the Nazarene apparently has been the number one saint among them all.

It seems inevitable to conclude that the holiest of the holiest is the God himself. The Father and the Son formulation had led to some uncertainties as to the relation between the one and the other.

The say, the 'holiest of the holiest' is not a meaningless proposition. However, this is just so much you could say in these terms. Else, you might be actually making an 'atheist' somewhere.

All this hanging on some certain Scriptures, those texts have been said to have been inspired (in some way or fashion. Who had actually penned this part or that part may be not "the same thing" as its being the Word of God. One might hope that the vagueness of some such proposition would not always be made up for by the ferocity of assertions made in their favor).

I for one had, after some score of years, looked in the Scriptures again and would concede that I found some passages contained therein inspiring. An actual definition of 'religion' found somewhere in Paul, for example. It begins the part about the widows and orphans — which is plain common sense, the idea of one's assisting another in the times of distress, which could be thought some non-noxious 'socialism'. It also states, 'living in an unpolluted world'.

Could a quality as unpollutedness in any respect differ from such a quality as holiness ? It seems that these be merely exquivalent expressions. Whatever was the exact form of the original statement in the original languages, the 'diversity of nomenclature' had been, over and over, mistaken for diversity in the nature (as J. Bentham had acutely isolated the sort of problem.)

The Latin sanctus has been translated as the English 'holy'. The English term is akin to the word 'silly' (confer those "silly buckets", which meant empty buckets, as A. Crowley shrewdly remarked somewhere).

Was not the sanctus akin to sanus (clean) ? Anyway, it seems that to live in a perfectly unpolluted world would be an unattainable ideal, but the expression may be clearly suggestive of some course or direction. "Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" needs not mysterious interpretations ; most of these remarks here are not original with me, perhaps none of them are. The possibleness bringing this Earth to some more Heaven-like condition has been seen (by me) expressed by, for example, the Czech Comenius and the Chinese Doctor Sun Yat-sen — who as a sort of "outsider" (an eventual convert) had interpreted his Christianity in the common-sense Chinese fashion.

(An 'atheist' definition of the "God's Will" hereby tentatively proposed) : anything demonstrably right. Where the place the credit for any such possible condition of some scene could a question of secondary importance.

Such proposition could be prone to misinterpretations (the notions of Heaven could vary with the individual of withs some school or other) : but something less Hell-like could just as well be considered.

On the Natural Order of Things.

A parable : say, you put your socks on, then your shoes. The "first things first", an instance of. This presupposes there being in existence some entities such as your shoes, your socks, you leg, and yourself — who has performed the operation after having decided on it. The natural order is rather reverse of the one in the preceding statement.

Such things are known intuitively, probably in any human culture one would deign to look into. The "first thing first" can be argued to be one fundamental principle of any science there ever has been or could be.

The noted American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce arrived at some such formulation as, the firstness, the secondness, and the thirdness. Mark well, the reader, Peirce's writings had not been broadly published before the 1930's. The man was in some ways far in advance, probably even of the Europeran schools of his time — but this was not generally known to anybody outside some small circles (such as Wm. James, J. Royce, C.J. Keyser, some few others).

(In the meanwhile oceans of bunk by some other authors had been published, too — including numerous instances of studied misrepresentation, by one writer of another, etc. The American, or, should one say, "American", libraries are littered with such, perhaps 1/3 of materials therin found could looks suspect, bunk "science" as if in competition with corrupted 'religion'.
    At least some parts of all this sabotage by man of man can be certainly traced to the Kremlin Politburo-controlled (ca.1918-ca.1980) actions aimed against America, "and its neighbours on both sides".

Some "American" 'specialists' have been active in the Latin America ; blame has been sometimes placed on "the Imperialists", but without much discrimination on who (individually) and in what exactly role was active — at undermining these societies, here or there — now, some "system" fitting some wannabe dictators could be palmed off on the peoples in the process of ruining everything at all, maybe ; some deluded maniakcs with some true but misunderstood grudges could wreak havoc out of proportion to any actual problems there have been or might be present).

(Was the firstness, secondness, thirdness correctly attributed to c.S. Peirce ? : At this point one should be skeptical about anything at all before analysing as many facts, probable or improbable, as possible. Could there have been such things as a "scientific" pious fraud ? Somebody spoke about being "clever". There may have been some individuals way too 'clever', even for their own good in the long run.)

Howbeit : could it bee that those early Christians had, somehow, connected some idea of the natural order of things with what they had found in their Scriptures ? An hypothesis : the idea of the Trinity must have originated somewhere (else there would have been no arguments and no Trinity on the books). It could have been suggested by some outside schools (such as the Hindu, and this seems probable). This could be reinforced by the natural kind of intuition, 'the first things first', which is plainly seen and sometimes plainly demonstrable.

What versions of the Scriptures had been belaboured then I for one do not know. One supposes it was rather similar to the present-day renditions (this, one could verily say, God only knows, such a detail).

The final produce of all those holy assemblies has been a sort of group-think. One could assume that there had been some valid points made by some of the disputants ; eventually some sort of compromise had been made which in the end did not satisfy everybody interested.

Presently, one could suppose that any arguments, whether for or against the Holy Trinity could be somehow obviated. The anti-Trinitarian, if any, is faced with such facts of life as there being the Holy Trinity Church somewhere. Many another institutions bearing some such names.

To abolish them all would not be the solution. What do you do with some other reported facts of the history ?

The Trinitarian (if any active) could maybe be granted his concept provided it be made somehow more intelligible, in some ways.

As the old Jew mythology has it, the God had left the names of the things as a sort of Man's privilege, or prerogative. (Some other Scriptures have been reported to have it somewhat otherwise ; whether accurately or not, this seems one of the key items for some clarification and some such clarification seems imperative. Allies can be found under any denomination, too narrow interpretations of this or that may the only apparent obstacles on the way to some more understandings, beyond accusations or actual proofs of who had done what wrong to whom.)

If it be the names of the things which had led us to so much trouble (all the controversiorum theologicorum, all the rows about this one 'ism' or that one), them some pruning of or within said names may also lead to some solutions. This is not anything new ; but various blunders have been repeated over and over, by many a 'philosopher', whether due to wants in discernment or because of the works in studied misrepresentation by some criminals under some guise or other.

If it was not 'mental weakness' then it was a fraud. Whose formulation was that, the reader ? If you do not know, then you probably have been exposed to both. When in perplexity, keep on reading, has also been observed by somebody.

Can the Trinity be salvaged, not as a dogma but as a sensible scheme ?

On the Atheists, the Skeptics, some of "the Infidel", etc.

Whence the pure mathematics?

Some authors, notably Alfred North Whitehead, have pointed out that the unique part of the European science has been the ability to formulate hypotheses in the mathematical language. In addition to the notions of observation and experiment, got from the Arabic sources, this has been the main strength of what is now commonly called 'science', or the "Western" science, and to an extent truly so.
    No such notions have been found anywhere outside the Europe, not even in China, where there has been some sorts of mathematics, and some sorts of practical technology, at times far in advance of Europe ; but no pure mathematics in some such sense as formulating consistent symbolism which could eventually be tested on some actual entities by way of some actual experiments.

This might be somehow unfair to the Indian mathematics — and I simply do not know. Why not ? Because avalanches of bunk about "science" have been published during the 20th century and the facts have been obscured often beyond any recognition.
    As a more general remark : some watershed years or periods can be seen, to wit : the early Chinese studies in Europe, notably by Leibnitz, seconded in this one respect by George Berkeley ; and the early Indian studies, Sir William Jones notable among the scholars.
    Could it be that the Indian mathematics became influential at that time ? A.N. Whitehead had not mentioned this in his text I have seen, but this could have been a mere oversight. Or, his, one of the most notable mathematicians of the period, having been already somewhat underinformed. The theories of evolution, which were part of the Hindu 'religion' and became hotly contested in the context of the European 'science', sprung in Europe, most notably, it seems, in France and in England, at just about the time the Hindu (Veda) texts became available ; these had also influenced A. Schopenhauer in Germany. The mathematics by LaPlace in France may have had much to do with these.

At some point the pure mathematics becomes applied mathematics. If it has not been capable of being applied to anything, it remains "pure" ; usually either some kind of application or some kind of error in "it" will have been found, sooner or later.

Some authorities' opinions on 'pure mathematics' :

(In my own words) :

(a) Nay : except when found capable of being applied (to something). (J. Bentham).

(b) Yea : provided it be capable of being applied (to something). (A. Korzybski).

* * *