"From the darkness, sleeping light." Formerly luminus dormiens. Lux pacis, light of peace.

Quote: "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." --Bill Watterson, cartoonist, Calvin and Hobbes


So interesting that though I profane and profuse actions and words so full of sounds and fury of the non-existence of God that I still discuss the "End Time." Although I am still ambivalent to whether the Almighty Being exists and for what beliefs, creeds, modes of living life He supposedly stands, I cannot help but to feel a sense of hopelessness if we fragile human beings have no souls and are but a sum of all the beeping electronic impulses of our brains. We are chaotic only because chaos is within our function to be so. How else can we adapt to a changing world, while the computer cannot handle a simple request for which it is not designed. Because we are continuously growing, a collection of protein-making cells, tissues, and organs, we are capable of seeming consciousness.

Why is there no souls? Because there is explicit evidence that once you die, your heart stops, and your brain is deprived of oxygen. What happens then at that moment that your brain cannot function? I suppose some people imagine that a soul is leaving the body. What if that was not, could not be the case? The brain . . . just dies. It ceases its actions, stopping chemical reactions that require oxygen, and stopping electrical impulses that enables responses. I understand that many people simply refuse to believe that a brain without a soul could be capable of comprehending the concept of "I." Though my brain dies, it is but a brain, "I" still live on, unbounded by my mortal coils.

Clearly no one can resolve this issue. It is something we shall never know, but still I feel that the truth is self-evident and we are all just not comfortable with it. The truth is that we have no soul. Our brain is just complex enough to evolve an understanding of abstract concepts and ideas. We also find ourselves unable to come up with new ideas because of the limitation of our brain. This either means that we are biologically incapable of thinking more unless people like Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison come about to revamp our thoughts and we have no souls OR that our souls do not consider such intellectual pursuits to be important. Inventions and ideas are simply the biological basis of our brain. Our souls are considered to be something else.

Without our biological impulses, what are souls? It cannot be that there are dead sexual predators swirling among us on earth, in heaven or rather as Christians and other moralists believe, in hell. It cannot be because sexual predators exist based on the biological functions of their bodies. For some reasons, which are becoming clear in the years ahead, some brains are "turned on" by certain stimuli. Why? Are the reasons truly that souls are themselves perverted? Or can they be found within the complex ladders of the DNA? If the answers are in the double helix, they will deal a double blow to both the idea of souls and the ethics of modifying a person's DNA to make him less perverted.

Another answer may be discovered in how the environment affects a person's perception. If the DNA does not truly makes someone perverted, but simply more predisposed to have such thoughts and actions, then what can be done in the environment to remove or minimize such a dangerous predisposition from arising?
Perfect, we now are demonstrated by the incompetence of the President of the United States of the fact that many U.S. troops will die before the end of the war. One life is enough. To have so many lives lost on both sides of the war is making me feel pretty darn hopeless.

Well, I give my wholehearted support to the U.S. troops who are simply following the order of an aberrant president. I'm afraid I'm one of those swing voters. Sometimes, I feel that President Bush is a good man who wants to protect us by engaging in pre-emptive attack on a backwater nation. Other times, I feel that President Bush, and the people he hired to "advise" him, are morons for completely upsetting a carefully placed equilibrium that all the government officials of the world have been working so hard to preserve after WWII. Sure, technologies change, but it just feels so lonely to have the entire world seething venoms at the dangerous United States, which is supported by only few nations.

I understand that if it wasn't for the U.S. troops defending the foundations of the United States, we would not be so free to criticize the President and his actions. That is why it is so hard for me to write this blog. Maybe I represent the silent majority that understands the needs to do righteous things. After all, America is still so innocent that the nation cannot believe a person would be so cruel as Saddam Hussein to butcher so many people for expressing a human need to vent anger for respite.

But still, must we be so alone? Must we truly try to usher in a Pax Americana? A peace of a thousand years before the End in Coming? Wouldn't we rather have Pax Mundus? A World Peace, not an American one.

What I fear is that after this war, America will find itself in a state of decline. All resources will be depleted, and the cycle grows again with China taking over the world as the newest in superpower. We must be prudent, calm, quick to respond, but in affection, focus on wealth and philanthropies.

It is depressing that four soldiers could be so trusting as to come toward an Iraqi man in the car, only to find themselves killed by a suicide bomber. Clearly, America is still innocent if it does not truly understand the cruel rage that all the Arab nations and their Muslim fundamentalists are directing at us.


We are really seeing some advances in science that fortunately came after the civil rights movements that recognize all individuals that whatever their aberrations might be that they will be considered equal to the full extent of the law and cannot be discriminated against. The African American Movement pioneered this radical concept of treating people as equal not in social class, but in colors of the skin. This Movement spawned many other movements of races, including the American Indians. Eventually, the GLBTQ Movement took hold to bring ideas that gay people are people. Afterwards, the Deaf Movement came about with the media coverage of the Deaf President Now movement at Gallaudet University, the premiere federally-funded university that cater only to Deaf people from all over the world. Even if the number of deaf people were placed at only 0.1% of the world-wide population, that is still a lot to consider. I must not forget to include the Women's Movement, which is also very important. It started in the late 19th century, or the early 20th century when new technologies gave women more free time at home, and more times to think and suddenly realize that they have no freedom to participate in world politics. So they campaigned for the right to vote, but failed to take advantange of that right, failing even now. They campaigned for Women's Rights again after the Civil Right Movement to allow women to divorce, and to gain custody of their children when the fathers might not be capable of taking care of them.

But I digress . . .

Many decades ago, before there were enough people who might be considered the "permanent minority" including gays and lesbians as well as deaf individuals to form "critical mass" that would change the the societal landscape of the United States, the GLBTQ, the deaf, the blind, and the disabled communities were considered unnatural and experimented on. Countless numbers of cruel experiments were performed on the permanent minority in hope of eliminating the pathologies of homosexuality and deafness.

On the gay populace at large, the "scientists" performed lobotomy (usually "reducing the frontal lobe of the brain to a hemmorhaging pulp" _from The Atlantic, a publication magazine accessed March 26th), shock therapy, castration, hormonal infusion, in crazy and idiotic attempts to cure homosexuality.

On the deaf populace, the teachers of the "oral methods" deprived them of language, of communication, deprived them of, indeed, the ability to give names to things so they can control them. Everybody understands that names help to understand feeling and actions. If there was no names for sexual abuse, women could not outright find the means to explain their guilt and overwhelming feeling of helplessness when their fathers sexually abused them. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the deaf people were experimented on like the gay population, this time in the mouth and the ears, surgical methods to make them talk. How painful it must have been, and without an ability to protest! The process of surgery still continued, but this time primarily in the ears, with advances made in cochlear implants. Yet, for much of the 20th century, the oral methods took hold. While oralism was a noble goal, for the deaf people who cannot hear a SINGLE sound, who will not know what sounds sound like, is there one iota of evidence that without sign language, the deaf can learn to speak, can learn to communicate?

As we can see, oralism works only for people who are hard-of-hearing, like me, who can use residual hearing and lipreading skills to understand what people are saying. But still, sign language remains the only reasonable noble language of choice and communication for all individuals with hearing loss. Is it reasonable for them to struggle with lipreading, which is nightmarishly difficult for a language such as English, where words look the same. (Try it yourself, plug your ears and see if you can learn.)

I digress again . . .

The point of this blog was to say that it is fortunate the medical advances that could have removed the permanent minority completely if we hadn't reached the critical mass with which we could protest for rights and against discrimination. Otherwise, genetic information would allow us to remove "gay gene" or "deaf gene" babies or to modify them so that they would grow up "straight" and "normal."


Testing Comment Link, 1, 2, 3 . . .
If I am offered sexual advance online from a man who is much older than I am. Should I take the chance? I haven't met him, but my desire to lose my virginity may be so strong that I will toss responsibility to the wind and let wantonness take over me for a day.

If anybody has any idea of how to add a link to allow people to add comments, please let me know at luminus310@hotmail.com.



Yay! My dad has set my personal computer for Wireless LAN, meaning I can access the Internet from the comfort of my safe and private room.

Of course, being a little "dirty," I can suspect what everyone reading this must be thinking that I will invariably do with this newfound freedom . . .

"Hair" The Musical
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?

Masturbation . . . can be fun
Kama Sutra . . . Everyone.

[Edited 20050531--again, privacy, and to keep people from fainting in nauseation.]


I hung out with Furby today. I changed his name. Not so bad, I could feel myself being friend with him, without all those sexual overtones that I desperately want to get rid of. I saw his girlfriend today. She seems really nice, for all he says of being in love with her.

Went to Ronaker's, not a bad place, considering we had been planning to go since the last Daylight Saving Time switched to an hour earlier.

I'll post something from my journals soon. I don't have as much expertise in mass communications as many other blogs I know, but I hope they'll do. I'm not sure if I want to hope for an audience to grow, because I feel a little embarrassed to know someone knows me from the blog.
I once read an article, and I'm agreeing with a sentence of theory presented by the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis that "Thoughts create language to extend thoughts, and having done so, language in turn limits thoughts." I believe that's true . . . Look at English. No matter how hard we try to create new substitute words to replace all those biased words, we always find ourselves trapped within their boundary. If language was truly limitless, there would not be such difficulty trying to change a language so that it would be less hurtful, less harmful psychologically to many minorities.
This week was Finals week for me, consequences of the quarter system at my college. Not so bad. I got 153 out of 200 on my Chemistry test, but everybody got 119. So I have hope. :-)


I am proud to be a deaf person. Deafness for me does not signify a disability, but a special kind of existence. Although I wear hearing aids, and depend on them as well as my eyes (to lip-read) to communicate with the hearing people, I know that I will never be hearing. I am always deaf. What can science do but with terrible conviction proceed to cure us of deafness with machines that all too easily break, that need continual replacement of batteries, that cannot be worn when you want to engage in F-U-N activities?

"You have to be careful not to get wet. Your hearing aids are not waterproof!"
"Take off your hearing aids before going into the pool." (But I can't hear without them.)
"If you want to roughhouse, take off your hearing aids so they don't fall off or get broken because someone hits you too hard."

Need this be all I have to deal with all my childhood days?


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com