Greek philosophy Human Rights Islamic Mysticism Middle East politics Occupy Science Suggested Reading Thesis

Never work for money

People always say,”whatever you do best, don’t do it for free”. I disagree with that because if you do it best, you do it for reasons than money. For example, I have a deep knowledge of Star Trek the next generation. I also love 90s rap and anything related to religion, politics or cultural. I think those things, like helping people, should be above limitations of money. This might be very ideal. And I am. But also the problems we face are not to be overcome with spending. For Arabs and Israelis to live together, or shoplifting to decrease, or seniors to have food and shelter assistance, this will require the national conscience (including elites at the New York Times, senate, White House, governors and attorney generals and sheriffs and judges across the country) to come together across the country and solve problems , like stopping mortgage foreclosure and finding housing and employment and medical care for people. As hospitals shutter in poorer neighborhoods, they open up in richer ones. Free clinics are needed to replace the lack of coverage in those communities, why not take the equipment and offer the hospital conglomerate a tax break because the rich people surely wouldn’t mind all new equipment in their hospital? Cops need to stop arresting homeless people and pot smokers. Protesters need to stop being violent, but it would help if the cops weren’t rough whenever a camera wasn’t looking. suburbanites need to stop eating so much food. We should ban high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated fats. We go to church (or respective equivalent) free, we volunteer for sports or music, constantly dedicating ourselves to projects which will get us into monetary loss, like knitting, or Pilates , or train collecting. We hoard books, movies, or tv shows. We are fascinated and endlessly feeding our imagination. So when someone tells me not to do something unless its for money, my rule is usually, “never work for money”.

God is bigger than money. Either you believe that or you don’t. (Atheists can replace that with humanism.)

Christianity Greek philosophy History Islamic Mysticism Judaism Mysticism Occupy

Spiritual Gifts of the Believers

So I’ve been avoiding commercials and been watching alot of Catholic TV, and it’s interesting because it’s something that’s not after you fiscally (not as much, anyway). A commercial came on (OK, it’s somewhat commercial, but it was an infomercial approved by the Catholic Church.) I would not want people to buy this man’s books, so I will give for free the mo’ajza and karama he discusses in the following book:


  • What are the spiritual gifts?
  • How do I know what gifts I have?
  • How can I use them?

What Mr. Herbeck offers to sell you is simply mystic doctrine, the simplest ideology which predates Christ or the Church! What are the spiritual gifts? The spiritual gifts are divided into two categories, mo’ajza and karama in Arabic. Mo’ajza are true miracles and are only performed by prophets (with God’s permission). Karama are the charms, the minor miracles that occur to the saints every day. Coincidences, food from heaven, water at the moment of dehydration, resources from seemingly nowhere, even little ironies experienced in life are a sign the Creator is talking to you.

Protestant Christianity is where I learned this from, but apparently, Catholicism believes this as well, as does mystic Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, early Christianity, Manicheanism, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, etc.; All the believers are saints.

The first spiritual gift is immortality. The belief actually goes back to the ancient Greek rites at Eleusis, celebrating the descent of Persephone into the underworld and her mother Demeter plunging the Earth into winter until her daughter returns, upon which she restores the Earth to spring. The secret meaning of these rituals was the eternal life of the human soul, and initiation into the Mysteries, which granted one entry into Paradise. (Simply believing in Platonic ideals and yourself as having a soul [a Platonic ideal of oneself], granted one entry into Paradise).

Socrates refers to Heaven as the “real world”, and I like that description more. In the real world/heaven, ideal forms exist unto eternity. Mathematics and music are approximations of these idealized forms in the Platonic realm. Religion’s sole message is that we are beings of spirit before we were made flesh, and to the spirit realm is our ultimate return.

Notice Christianity copies this: Jesus Christ offers you eternal life and you enter heaven just by believing in him. Qur’an proclaims a theory which all mystics (i.e. Platonic idealists) are descended from lineages in every nation (prophets and saints). None of us have the good deeds to get into heaven on our own, so we attach ourselves to a higher person to gain entry into heaven. Even the most monotheistic of texts concedes this.

  1. No one (regular believer) has the good deeds to go to heaven on his or her own.
  2. Prophets and saints are alive in the grave, can answer prayers, and will intercede for you on the Day of Judgement.

Your guru or master, it is very important for you to pick a legit one because you will go where he goes, regarding heaven or … that other place. But suffice it to say 99% of people will go to heaven because of that confirmation at age 9, or random Ash Wednesday at age 15, or bat mitzvah at age 13, or a prayer by Lao Tzu or Confucius, or whomever the Platonic ideologue is — just make sure it’s a righteous man and not a Jim Jones or Charles Manson-type.

So, if minor miracles can regularly be done by saints, and secretly somewhere, WE’RE ALL SAINTS, then almost all of us are saved and bathed in God’s love, so long as we do good to our fellow human beings. The most important act in religion is feeding the poor, God can even forgive having an unrighteous Master if you feed the hungry, widows, orphans, etc. But He cannot forgive your economic cruelty even if you follow the highest and most righteous of saints.

Would you like to see a miracle by one of the righteous servants of God? This video shows a debate between a rabbi and an atheist. Start watching 58 minutes in, and note where the rabbi states his belief that his opponent has a soul, “When I look at you right now, you may assume what I see is material, but that’s not what I see, and that’s not what I believe. There’s something in you that’s more than what you believe.” He’s clearly discussing Platonic ideas, but the atheist is perplexed by what the rabbi means.

The atheist has a PhD in philosophy, but the rabbi is running circles around him with Plato and Socrates.


How do I know what gifts I have? How can I use them? Your gifts are innumerable, but to get started, I would determine your Jungian archetype (MBTI quiz) and examine your functional analysis. But most people will not understand such dense mystic doctrine regarding spiritual temples and saintly intercession, but this Platonic mysticism is at the core of every religion — all of theology begins and ends with Plato and his Master, Socrates (peace be upon him!). To use your spiritual gifts would be to sublimate your character flaws in the service of God & humanity.

Greek philosophy Suggested Reading

Great quote

‎”In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.”
The Society of the Spectacle

Greek philosophy Mysticism Suggested Reading

Amazing Socrates quote

"Only those who have lived an evil life hope that death is the end of everything for them. This is perfectly reasonable, for it is in their interests that it should be so. However, I am convinced that the souls of the wicked wander desolately through the lower world of Tartarus. Only those who have lived good lives will be admitted to the Real World." – Socrates (peace be upon him)

from Paul Strathern, Socrates in 90 Minutes, p. 53

Greek philosophy Suggested Reading

Socrates in 90 Minutes by Paul Strathern

After several years of boycotting libraries, I decided to check out a book “Socrates in 90 Minutes”. Much to my furor, the man disparaged Socrates and Plato as holding back human civilization for two thousand years in mysticism and unscientific thought. I decided to violate my principle of not writing in books (even ones that I own), and added my commentary/corrections to Strathern’s thinking.

And then uploaded it to Scribd.

View this document on Scribd
Greek philosophy

Description of Relativism/Sophistry

“Vol. III, A history of Greek philosophy: Socrates”, p. 111, by WKC Guthrie

“One feature in the thought and speech of his contemporaries seemed to Socrates particularly harmful. Whether in conversation, in political speeches, or in the oratory of the law courts, they made constant use of a great variety of general terms, esp. terms descriptive of ethical ideas- justice, temperance, courage, arete, and so forth. Yet at the same time, it was being asserted by the Sophists and others, that such concepts had no basis in reality. They were not God-given virtues but only “by convention”, varying from place to place and age to age. Serious thought about the laws of human behavior had begun with a radical skepticism, which taught that it rested on no fixed principles but each decision must be made empirically and ad hoc, based on the expediency of the immediate situation (kairos).”

Definition of expediency- the quality of being suited to the end in view

“From this theoretical soil grew the pride of youthful rhetoric in its ability to sway men to or from any course of action by mastery of the persuasive use of words. In such an atmosphere it was not surprising that there was much confusion in the meanings attached to moral terms. Socrates noted this, and disapproved of it. If these terms corresponded to any reality at all, he thought, then one meaning must be true and the others false. If on the other hand, the Sophists were right, and their content was purely relative and shifting, it must be wrong to go on using the same words for different things and they ought to go to out of use. He himself was convinced that the first alternative was true, and that it was illegitimate and unhelpful for an orator to exhort the people to adopt a certain course of action as being the wisest or most just, or for advocates and jury to debate whether an individual has acted well or bad, justly or unjustly, unless those concerned were agreed upon what wisdom, justice, and goodness are. If people are not agreed on that, but though using the same words mean different things by them, they will be talking at cross-purposes, and their discussions can make no progress either intellectually or- when ethical terms are in question- morally. Here, Socrates was raising for the first time a fundamental question of philosophy, the question of by what right we use general terms, including all nouns but proper names, and what is the factual content of such terms, and Aristotle was right to see that this was so. At the same time, as Aristotle also recognized, he did not see it as a logical or ontological question, but simply as an indispensable requirement for what to him was much more important: the discovery of the right way to live.

In Socrates’s opinion, then, if order is to be restored to thought on the rights and wrongs of human conduct, the first necessity is to decide what justice, goodness, and other virtues are.”

Instances of peity or justice are gathered for examination of a common quality which binds them. If they do not share a common quality, the same word cannot be used to describe them. (Footnote quotes in Greek: “We must learn to distinguish good from bad, useful from harmful, in order to follow the one and avoid the other.” Cf. The Qur’an exhorting the believers to “enjoin the good and forbid the evil”, which Salafists employ to discourge Muslims from assimilation in foreign societies, but actually shows the Qur’an as part of a library of universal wisdom, which the Book itself claims to be part of.)

“This common quality is the Essence, or “Form”, of peity. It will provide the definition of peity, abstracted from the accidental properties of time and circumstance which differentiate individual cases falling under it.”

View this document on Scribd
Culture Greek philosophy History Suggested Reading

Defintion of Tyranny

“The rule of men with their consent and according to the laws of state was monarchy, but rule over unwilling subjects, not according to law but at the whim of the ruler, was tyranny.” — p. 92, Socrates by WKC Guthrie

— The root of the word tyranny is “terrible”, ive realized running my life according to my own whims is terrible.

Greek philosophy

Socrates, by W.K.C. Guthrie

I have been blessed, possibly because I have been praying lately, with a digital copy of a voluminous work on Socrates, originally titled “A History of Greek Philosophy”, by W.K.C. Guthrie, Volume III, Part 2 of which is devoted to Socrates.

I discovered it by following a bibliography of a book on Socrates I did not like (“Socrates in 90 Minutes”, by Paul Strathern), and saw the list of sources mostly populated with Oxford and Cambridge University Presses from the 1970s; this is from a terrible  book on Socrates published in 1997 and originally sold for $5.95, which dismissed Socrates and derided Plato on every page. It nonetheless lead me to some really good academic works, all of which I added to my Wishlist on my Amazon account.

All of these books are over 200 pages and sell for upwards of $40 (used) on Amazon. Much to my joy, I found one of the books on a filesharing site, and on Scribd. I downloaded it to my Kindle Fire, and I’ve read 80 pages (40% of the book) in 24 hours. The wisdom and scholarship have fulfilled my soul, all thanks to a stupid book which I plan to refute in full.

Here’s where I am now:

“But in fact this eros in us is a spiritual force, and by shunning its lower manifestations and learning its true nature, we may allow it to lead us upwards (as Socrates is made to expound it in the Symposium) from passionate desire for a particular body to an aesthetic enjoyment of visible beauty in general, from that to beauty of character, higher still to the intellectual beauty of the sciences, until by persevering to the end we are granted the sudden vision of beauty perceived not with the bodily eye at all, but with the eye of the soul or mind. On this ultimate, indeed divine level, beauty and goodness and truth are one, and the vision of this supreme reality, says Plato through the mouth of Socrates, is only possible to the man who is by nature a lover, for the power which leads to it is the power of eros. That, says Socrates, is what is meant by initiation into the final mysteries of ta erotika; and that is a fundamental doctrine of Platonism, a philosophy to a large extent inspired by Socrates himself.” — p. 76, Socrates/A history of Greek philosophy, Volume III, Part 2, by W.K.C. Guthrie, Cambridge University Press, 1971