This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Hello, Who Are You?
Welcome, Brother and Sister. Peace be unto you.
So a while ago we finally had a chance to meet, strike hands and exchange pleasantries, after all this time of crossed schedules and missed opportunities. Chumba has been busy with the trials and tribulations of personal apocalypse. Indeed, we shall all experience our own revealing in one way or another, and sooner rather than later, perhaps sooner than you expect, or want.
Let us sit down now at the table. I'll bring out the board. It'll take some time to set up all the pieces and explain how each operates. After all, if one is to engage in a contest, it is only fair that each player know the parameters of engagement.
CONTEST. To make defense to an adverse claim in a court of law; to oppose, resist, or dispute the case made by plaintiff. To strive, to win or hold; to controvert, litigate, call in question, challenge; to defend, as a suit or other proceeding. - Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, p. 391
Indeed, the Court of Chumbawamba is always in session. But don't mind your first insinuation. This is not as serious as it may seem. You haven't been accused, but you are being challenged.
Or if you prefer, we can use an alternate paradigm to describe this engagement. Instead of a gameboard we can call it a stage, and instead of pieces we shall instead have characters. In fact, just bring your own paradigm. This spectacle can and will be observed in any number of familiar constructs, all featuring their own nuanced perspective that altogether bring a fuller understanding of that to which I am to minister. Pick the one best suited for you and go with it; I'll be a gracious host and adapt to your preference. Think nothing of it, Arabs are typically like that.
Keep in mind that no apocalypse is the same twice, so a lot of this is going to be new for me as well. In fact, I expect to learn as much from you as that what I am going to proffer.
Now, before we discuss the structure and semantics of this engagement, I should first start with the most important aspect here, which is you.
Who are you?
Do you remember?
Do you remember where you are and why you're here?
...
Let's do an exercise. Take a moment now, and quiet your mind. Remove unnecessary distractions. We're going to meditate on this. Close your eyes and relax for a moment.
Now, open your eyes, and look around you.
What do you see?
I guess that really depends on where you are. Most of you, my dear cohorts, are inside a man-made structure somewhere, likely surrounded almost, if not entirely, by man-made objects. And if you thought about it for a moment, all of the things you use on a daily basis--your bed, your clothes, your house, your car, your roads, your place of work--basically everything, is man-made.
If you're like most people in the developed world, you might go your entire day without touching anything made naturally. Think about it. Even much of the food you stuff down your gullet is processed, man-made. Short of the purely plant and animal products you might consume, like a salad or a bowl of fruit or a steak or some chicken, much of your food these days is artificial, processed meats and vegetables.
Unless you're blessed to be living in a "country" environment, in your world, nature is merely the backdrop or garden adornment of your man-made worldly universe. Yours is a world almost entirely made by man. Your concrete walkways stingily allow for some meager foliage to protrude into the tidy man-made world, and perhaps you're blessed with front and back yards where you allow a lawn, some flowers and shrubs, and perhaps a few trees to exist, tidily maintained and confined to your preferences.
But the vast majority of your landscape, I'm guessing, is the creation of the hand of man. And it just sits there generally, not doing anything. It's all dead. Even the things that do something, like a clock, or a radio, or an oven, are just neat boxes that perform magic tricks based on properties of the physical universe that man has learned to master, but each of those objects ends in and of itself. In order for there to be more clocks or radios or ovens, and in order for there to be even working clocks and radios and ovens, requires the constant presence of the hand of man.
Now, I interject here my apologies to those who are reading these words on a farm, or a mill, or in the woods, on the beach, or just somewhere outside. Here, I am not primarily speaking to you.
But for the likely majority of you, contrast your likely setting with, say, a healthy forest. There, you have tall, lush trees. Creatures like birds and squirrels are zipping about; bugs flit here and there. There are flowers, an array of shrubs, aromatic grasses. In other words, there is an abundance of life all about you. Everything you see in such an environment is alive in the truest sense of the word.
So, uh, who made it? In your (“your” again being the majority of you) world, someone somewhere made your stuff. So, who made the forest and the trees and the birds and bugs and flowers? You see what I'm getting at here. I don't believe stuff like that “just happens” or is “just there”. In my Earthly experience, nothing just shows up without someone, or something, putting it there. Though they seemingly appeared out of nowhere overnight, someone put those Georgia Guidestones where they are. They had a maker. No one will dispute that. No one is going to argue that four slabs of granite self-assembled and spontaneously expressed a philosophy of global genocide and universal control of the world's population through some heretofore unobserved process of momentary sentiality of a previously inanimate substance.
Getting back to the forest and its contents, one might say that it was created as a result of “natural processes”. Ok, fine: natural processes. But who set those natural processes in motion? Somebody, or something, somewhere, had to have initiated it. Forgive me, but the “big bang” explanation just does not satisfy me or anyone who actually thinks for a moment and considers the proposition.
At this point there is none to arguing this either way. I beg you, my beloved guest, simply to accept and agree, for the time being at least, that we answer the inquiry as to who made the forest and all that is in it thusly: "It is natural", where "natural" has the meaning "made by nature". Let us just agree on this definition. Definitions are important, and to communicate effectively, it should go without saying we must agree on them. And if you plan to stick around, that is the definition I intend to use...for now.
So in conclusion, I pray we can agree that everything we can observe, and beyond, all of what we can see and touch and taste and smell and hear, natural or otherwise, has a maker. Cool?
Good.
There is a point to this. A major one. One that we must continue to explore later, after you have acclimated to our now agreed upon propositions above.
As for me, the Kingdom is presently under seige, and Chumba is dispossessed of his lands. A battle to turn the tides is in the making; plans must be lain and provisions garnered. And so with this I must take leave to my chambers. I shall return, and I pledge, in an expeditious manner.
In the meantime, make yourself comfortable, relax, close your eyes, and remember who you are...
I am Chumbawamba.
»
- advertisements -
It's a major point, but not the only one. We are still establishing a foundation. The purpose is to educate. With that in mind, Wikipedia is not going to be involved here.
Awww...
* Cries and bangs rattle on the floor *
Okay. I'll lurk.
Those are arguments, silly. This discussion is about who you are - no arguments here. Regardless of a {ben, mal}evolent God in the sky creating you or not, you are something, and your brain is an analog processor. Analog systems know true infinity.
"But who set those natural processes in motion? Somebody, or something, somewhere, had to have initiated it."
Why couldn't it simply always have been?
Just like the Georgia Guidestones, I guess? If you weren't there when they were erected, then as far as you're concerned, they've simply always been. Like the pyramids in Egypt (and elsewhere)?
Naw, that's just not satisfying, I'm afraid.
"Just like the Georgia Guidestones, I guess? If you weren't there when they were erected, then as far as you're concerned, they've simply always been"
Not at all, I asked you why the 'natural processes' in which they exist could not simply have always been.
Apparently it's because the idea doesn't give you any 'satisfaction'.
Close ENough!
No, its not. And that sets one on the quest.
There's substances in you, me, them that are not man-made. Someone created them,
Since then, we made things. So we're created to make things. Co-creators...
but we also destroy things. That sets us apart from our creator(s), No?
...and we are separated from our creator(s) in order for us to destroy, no. We co-create, so must learn the rule of the cosmos so we can be a better co-creator?
There is but one simple rule. So learn it we must.
And I trust that Chumbawamba has more in store for us. I will patiently wait...
What makes you think our creators have not destroyed? Creation is, with its partner Destruction, a continuous dance. Each of us, creator and created, traverses this cycle constantly, whether we realize it or not. We can't have life without death, for there is no death without first(?) life. Ergo, likewise, before there can be creation, there must be destruction, and vice versa. There is correspondence.
But that's duality.
I am aligned with the source that is One.
No birth no death, only creation for expansion of knowledge and limitless.
There is always a but.
But then the creator(s) created us is not THE source now by definition, no?
perhaps we should define "us". What is? And who are we?
In transition, perhaps?
Before we take that journey inward we would all do well to first look outward just to get some reference points.
The universe is just an infinitely large place chock full of wonder.
Canaanite (or other) Gods in human or other form floating around the cosmos?
Not so much.
The God of Abraham was/is an astronaut floating around the cosmos.
Some Ancient saw a "chariot" (their word for vehicle) fly up towards a "wheel in the sky" (we call them "saucers" nowadays). The Bible holds several texts whereby a celestial being floats around on a cloud. Rockets do that. Rockets rise up and fly on a cloud.
That God has a plan for us. As soon as his spaceship returns, he will save us. (assuming he is still alive...)
(assuming we are still alive...)
I didnt know you were Arab. I like you, but I wont be coming over to your stinky house for games.
I didnt know you were Arab. I like you, but I wont be coming over to your stinky house for games.
Most muslims are very clean, in my experience... cleaner than most of the Christians I know, in fact.
Of course, just because Mr. Chumbles is an Arab, doesn't mean he's a Muslim. But most of them are. So chances are better than even he doesn't have a stinky house.
Well, I couldn't invite you if I wanted to (and believe me, I do). Right now Wells Fargo claims it as their own. Actually, they're trying to fence it, which is understandable as when you have a hot item, you want to convert it out of your hands as soon as possible, take the money and run. But I'm not making it easy for them. A simple Cease & Desist notice was adequate to put a scare in the poor schmuck they hired to sell it. He's at least exhibiting signs of intelligence, as oppose to the bank's attorneys, who have decided that flailing wildly is a legitimate and effective strategy for countering my attack.
I will enjoy burying them. Each shovel of dirt will be as joyously placed as those that will sow the seeds of sustenance when I am returned to my land.
Hi Chumba.I am sorry to hear about your situation.
I read your article at lunch...I really liked it.Well done.
I am biased I suppose...I like your posts as a general rule, especially your somewhat gonzo style.
This piece was very different and excellent.
I hope you prevail my friend.Peace to you and upon your house.
And may you be delivered from the hands of the wicked.
Peace my friend.
Great to see you!
So you've been dispossessed of your property and you're expecting to "bury them"? Sounds like you're a few losing battles into this already...
Also, given the fact that one can't assign any interest greater than one has, I'm not sure "fencing" the property is going to limit their liability in any material way... should they have any. Now, depending on the circumstances, you might not be able to get the property back as to a bfp, but there may be damages.
They have years of practice in the use of their Terms of Art. They had the obvious advantage, so yes, early battles were lost...but not the war.
I only more recently realized that a sledgehammer is a more efficient method of exiting their House of Mirrors. Now, I'm coming for them, with the sledgehammer.
pulled over for license plate N1663R
http://freedomfromgovernment.us/pulled-over-today-with-no-license-licens...
This is a made up story by some idiot in the soverign citizens movement (or equivalent). How do I know?
"This is where I was surprised, the Officer said “hey, we never read you your Miranda rights, so anything we use against you in court is not admissible.”
They don't need to Mirandize you. You can talk and answer all the questions you want, even an admission of guilt, without being Mirandized and it will be admissable. Cops have a lot of training in this area, and never would* have said this. In my state, this would have been a felony pursuit, and he would have been ordered out of the car at gunpoint after backup arrived.
* Actually they could have, because they are allowed to lie. But it would have been to obtain further admissions of guilt, not to let the guy go.
Doubtful. The quip seems likely to have been made in jest. Something seems to be afoot in California. We are the most populous state. We are also one under some of the most draconian laws in the country. It therefore makes sense that we would have the most people running around with their balls flapping in the wind and screaming I'M AN AMERICAN! The LEOs here are getting educated and learning what their oath and bond is all about. I'm about to teach my local sheriff, who seems to have forgotten whom he serves.
Failure to stop is not a crime, especially considering the cop had no probable cause to suspect a crime was committed. Infractions are not crimes, as the California Appellate court instructed the public officers in the 1987 case of People v. Sava. So no matter if the guy was speeding, rolling through stops or not signalling turns, as long as he did so without causing actual injury to a third party then he committed no crime, and the officer had no authority to arrest.
You don't know what you're talking about. People v. Sava does say "infractions are not crimes" but the rest of what you hang on that is nonsense. Everyone can read the decision here https://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/190/935.html
Ok, I'm your huckleberry.
Penal Code 836 gives a peace officer authorization to arrest without a warrant upon probable cause that a crime has been committed.
"Crime" and "public offense" are synonymous.
The court in People v. Sava held:
Penal Code 689 tells us that no one can be convicted of public offense/crime without a trial by jury:
The California Constitution is pretty clear about the right to a trial by jury in criminal proceedings:
And for good measure, there's this:
So with that foundation, it is a simple matter of pointing out that in California, one accused of a traffic infraction is not afforded the right to a trial by jury. The Judicial Council re-classifed traffic offense as "non-criminal infractions" not entitled to a trial by jury in 1968:
So tell me, if a traffic infraction is a crime, how come one is not entitled to a trial by jury in defense of such when the Constitution states pretty explicitly that trial by jury is an "inviolate right"? The only answer, taking People v. Sava into account (and the case law it references), is that INFRACTIONS ARE NOT CRIMES.
One last thing: when one is stopped by a peace officer for a traffic violation, one is under arrest. In People v. Hubbard (9 Cal.App.3d 827) the California Appellate court held:
There is no authorization in either the Penal Code or the Vehicle Code for a peace officer to stop (arrest) someone without warrant for a non-criminal offense. Therefore, when an officer stops (arrests) you for committing a traffic infraction in his presence, he is acting without authorization and in fact he himself is committing several crimes, not the least of which is false imprisonment.
The ball's in your court, Johnny Cochrane.
Now if you applied that kind of rigour to your arguments about god I would be far more impressed.
my license plate (in a non-English-speaking country) is PU5551
nobody's ever seemed to have noticed anything.
Is that supposed to mean something?
Ha!
That also happenes to be the tail number of a 1974 Cessna A185F Skywagon.
Ha!
That also happenes to be the tail number of a 1974 Cessna A185F Skywagon 185.
You ask a lot of questions, my friend. Most of which I cannot answer but have pondered myself. The conclusion that I have drawn is not one for the ages: I'm agnostic. Don't have a clue. If I could successfully answer a minor number of your queries I'd be god him/her self. And that is not the case.
You are as close as you can be without taking that final leap of faith, my friend.
I have often said that of all the options to call myself, 'agnostic' would be on the bottom of the list.
agnostic = literally one who "knows not"
I used to be an agnostic but lately I am not sure.
On a serious note, Chumba has come around and his intellect appears to be intact. What I find difficult in this awakening, is that while gurus are available for those who seek the number of those who seek is diminishing to the point of extinction.
I do believe that most ZH's have their own unique philosophy about life and the cosmos in general as they are of the higher IQ persuasion.
Nonetheless, Chumba's attempt is noble. I love to read some more Chumba. Your effort is not wasted
Cheers mates.
Could be. I've decided at my ripe old age that fretting over imponderables is a waste of my time. That conclusion only comes after already having wasted quite a bit for that exact exercise. With the time I have left I'll just stop to smell the flowers, as they say. Where they came from I'll leave to others with more computing power!
"fretting over imponderables is a waste of my time."
Pondering the imponderables is something that sets mankind apart from all the rest of creation. It is never a waste of time, and the fruit of such an endeavour is seen all around, both in the material and spiritual aspects of life.
I get accused of this everytime I sign on to ZH -- which is only like 10 or 15 times a day.
(and maybe once or twice at night)
Pondering imponderables is not the same as fretting over them.
BTW, +1 for no apocalypse is the same twice, Chumbawamba.
I know what Chumba asks each of us. It is the oldest question of all.
I know who I am. I know that all of the observed and theorized datapoints this species has collected does not cover even a fingernail's scratch in the complexity of true infinity. God is an abstract idea. Infinity is an abstract idea. They are one and the same. Since I know who I am, I am able to see where I stand against infinity. Perhaps age will teach me that infinity and I are one and the same.
As a friend of mine, an excellent human says, "I don't care what your name is. I care about who you are."
A pity then that the universe is finite...