Inventions

 Foot dryers for malls and shopping centers.

Books by AJ Naseem

Amazon.com: AJ Naseem: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle

Read Artemesia by AJ Naseem

Time as it relates to Historic Events

 

Let’s analyze fixed properties of time as it relates to historic events. Such as Columbus sailing the world or Alexander the Great marching into the Indus, or Napoleon conquering Europe. How do these events relate to fixed properties of time? Let’s take a deeper look. When historic events take place, it is known that they have in fact occurred and are part of a historic record. The events such as Columbus sailing the world become known by the record-keepers and the progenitors who live out such a legacy. So how does that relate to fixed properties? We can say, definitively, Columbus sailing the world is a unique, singular event that took place in recorded human history and is in fact true. So it is the same with Abraham Lincoln’s inaugural address or the American Revolutionary War. But what if there was an alternate timelines such as in the paradox that two events can exist at the same time with altering results. How would that impact our perception of time?

For instance, if the American Revolution took place how would it be different if the British won? Would America exist today? Or if Napoleon was defeated at Austerlitz would he have gone on to become a great general. We would have to look at it both ways. If Columbus sailed the ocean and had landed in India, we can say that the future of the world would surely have been altered. But he did not. He landed in the Americas and that in turn, changed the fate of a large part of humanity. Thus, his trip was predestined in a way and is fixed in terms of its point of view. If he landed in India, the same amount of time would have passed since his landing if it had otherwise not been so, and the results would have been drastically altered. So why does this paradox exist and why does time relate to fixed events if they are seen in retrospect?

Let’s examine further. If Kennedy had not taken that ill-fated trip to Dallas, could it be that he would never been shot? Would the course of history been altered? But he did take that trip, and he did ride in the motorcade that eventually led to his assassination and a great human tragedy took place. The course of history would never be the same and it seemed predestined. Was it preordained for Kennedy to die that day or even Lincoln? Could a slight variation have changed the course of history? How would the impact be felt?

If I lost a dollar while walking to the subway, it might have some small effect on me- I might not have enough fare or have to walk or turn back. But the effect would be slight and my will would overcome the choice of the dollar being lost or saved. Hence, if some bigger historic event occurred such as the sinking of the Titanic, it might be felt more greatly but the greater pathos would prevail and would eventually subsume that loss. So if the Titanic did not sink or sank it would not matter in the greater course of things since a single event does not define all of human history. In the same way, fixed properties of time relate to our immortality in that the slightest variation in the course of historic events does not change the essence of our being and hence, only changes our perception. We can overcome loss, rebound, resist and prevail if our will is strong enough. Thus, even the greatest, ill-fated histories can often be overcome with faith, the power of healing and love. It seems in the scope of fixed properties, we can change our destinies.

So from an existential point of view, we can outlive historic events for good or for bad due to their relationship with fixed properties. If we have the will we can find a way, so to speak. So even the most traumatic events or tragic loss can be reverted and redeemed if our will to see the truth and act accordingly is carried out. Thus, history as it relates to our fixed properties is only a matter of seeing the glass half full or empty.  

The Human Want Principle

The Human Want Principle

What are human wants? Let’s look at human wants as they relate to fixed properties. Human wants or desires are inherent to all human beings and relate to what we want or desire. Our desires can be exponentially greater than our needs. Why is this so? To understand the significance of human wants, we must closely examine the nature of the question. A human want can be as simple as wanting a nice car to as complex as wanting to go to the moon. Essentially, human wants are things that we all crave but have no set boundaries. For example, wants are different from needs. Wanting a nice car is different from buying a car or driving a car for the purpose of not walking. If we want a Porsche, a car that is well-known and prestigious, we desire to have a car for the reason that it is a luxury car and not just meant for driving. Essentially, our want is greater than our need since wanting a Porsche is a desire that exists irrespective of the fact that we own a Porsche or not.

I can desire many women or one woman but if I desire all women and marry just one woman, perhaps, my need is only as great as wanting one woman but not all women. Hence, the want principle is greater than its need. I can marry one woman but marrying all women may be impossible simply because it is not physically possible. That means if I like women, I can only marry one but wanting all women is still a paradigm of the want principle as it applies to all men. To resist wanting all women is to accept that I can only marry one woman and be faithful to just that person. If I am hungry, I may be hungry all the time and not so only when I have eaten. To be hungry or to crave food, is a natural human obsession that is linked to the want principle. While a meal satisfies us, it may not satiate our infinite desire for food that is not temporal. But a humble meal may be just as satisfactory as all meals combined since our appreciation for that one meal is subjunctive to our widespread desire for food. Thus, the want principle seems to fall in line with the fixed properties.

Let’s look at it another way. I might desire to be a lawyer but if I became a lawyer the universal desire to be a lawyer is not negated by the fact that I have become a lawyer. My want is greater than my need. My desire to be a lawyer exists irrespective of the fact that I am a lawyer but practicing the law in an honest and virtuous way does justify the want to be a lawyer universally. Thus, when are talking about the want principle, we must recognize it in correlation to fixed properties of time. When fixed properties of time are considered, we realize that fixed portions of time allotted things are necessary to balance out our lives. The doughnut hole is filled by the batter. When we appreciate the direct correlation such as having a nice car makes me feel good, having some money and not being the most richest man is sufficient, or marrying a decent woman, are all factors of humility and judgment within ourselves. We must always pay homage or as they say not take life for granted.

The want principle exists it seems only to make us respect the limitations of our human capacity to achieve those wants as they are universally but to have appreciation for those wants individually as a matter of transcendental love. When we have transcendental love, we can accept our limited wants as commensurate to our unlimited desires that bisect each other. Simply, because God gives us free will he also removes the possibility of wanting everything if only to make us fitted for the immortality of the soul. To live as an individual is essentially different from supernatural wants, thus interwoven in the grand scheme of things that enable the immortality of the soul. To desire or want something more greatly than what we can ever have, is an anomaly that can only be explained by our willingness to accept our gains as much as our losses and be satisfied somewhere in between. Thus, the human want principle is inextricably linked to the fixed properties.    

Law of Contradictions and Fixed Opportunities of Time

Today, let’s study the law of contradictions and the fixed opportunities. What is a contradiction? A contradiction is something that can be defined as contrary to something else. For example, black is contrary to white or blue is contrary to red. But a contradiction is not entirely the opposite of something. A contradiction can occur when someone wants to go out to eat and they can’t agree on where to go. It can also occur in our religious beliefs, way of dress, mode of living and habits. You might be Jewish and I might be Muslim and our way of life might not conform but we are still practicing a form of religion. A contradiction can also be a feeling.  I might not like that joke but you thought it was funny. America in all its diversity is full of contradictions where as other countries that have a uniform way of life may not seem all that contradictory. In a country like Iran for example, where all women where a veil and it is required, the sameness makes it less contradictory. But in a country like the US where there is freedom of all religion and not all things are alike, there may be more contradictions. Thus, contradictions that occur in our daily life are perceived notions of how we should look, feel, behave and act.

Physical contradictions are less distinctive than emotional ones. For example, there are all kinds of sickness in the world. But we can’t die of all the same thing but that is not considered a contradiction. However, our way of dress, style of clothing, way of life and preference for one thing or another is contradictory.  It is not a contradiction that someone should be in a wheelchair and the other person can walk. The physical aspects of our lives such as sight, smell, touch and taste are more uniform than the emotive side. We sympathize with our physical state but are discriminating in our tastes and lifestyle choices. Why is this so?

For example, someone might like to eat pancakes for breakfast and the other person might like eggs. They are both hungry and the act of eating is the same to satiate the hunger instinct, but the preference of one over the other is the contradiction. So when we are sitting at a restaurant and watching other people eating, we know it is based on choice. If someone eats something due to a restricted diet or weight consciousness that may not be a contradiction in itself but the preference to eat anything else would be contradictory. When we visit other countries, we might notice people drinking tea after every meal where other places may not have the same custom. The preference for tea whether it is abundant in that country or not, does not negate the desire that the act of drinking tea in a customary way and habitual way is in fact contradictory to everything else and to all places since drinking tea is a conscious choice. Hence, a contradiction occurs at a universal level when we engage in acts that are distinct. Tea drinking in Afghanistan may be customary and widespread due to people’s tastes and regional considerations but the overall act is contradictory if universal choice is considered. So bowing to your parents in India or China may be a religious modicum but it might not occur everywhere else. Hence, a contradictory behavior occurs when the universal choice is present.

That brings us to fixed opportunities. To look at it another way, consider a friend who likes cars. Your friend might like to drive a sports car rather than anything else but you might prefer to take the bus. A contradiction may occur when you see your friend driving the sports car when you are not too fond of it. But where sports cars are a trend or geographically sound, you might see everyone driving a sports car and the contradiction may seem less stark, but would still exist in your mind. Driving a sports car no matter if it is sufficient or a choice, does not negate contradictory behavior by itself. The choice to drive a sports car rather than anything else is still a contradiction in the perceived sense. Potatoes might grow in one place and may be consumed at a higher rate than carrots that grow somewhere else and define cultural food habits, but are contradictory in and of themselves. When we engage in contradictory behavior, we must realize that contradictions are important in our analysis of fixed opportunities.

The matter of choice exists precisely because we are given an opportunity to achieve uniformity in our actions. Communism, for example, is a form of government that promotes sameness or equality in all of our actions. Democracy, on the hand, enables choice. Both leave the law of contradiction open. When we strive to achieve uniformity in our actions that we all should dress the same way, or talk the same way, or greet each other the same way, we are working towards uniformity and hence the equality of contradictions. However, when our actions are contradictory to our overall good such as eating chocolate when it might be bad for our teeth, we are straying from the path of good and teetering on contradictory, negative behavior. Contradictory behavior is only accepted when it is working for our overall good. So when someone prays or goes to church and we are agreed that such actions are for our best interests it is no longer contradictory but universal truth. The more we can subdue our innate desires to achieve uniformity in our thinking and actions, the more we become less contradictory and more accepting in the eyes of others. So if the choice is present and we are charged with such a task, we must always think what is best and not what is most expedient.

Fixed Opportunities and the Time Parallel

 

Fixed Opportunities and the Time Parallel

Today let’s analyze the problem of fixed opportunities and the time parallel. What is a time parallel? A time parallel occurs when two entities are defined by the same fixed opportunities at an intersecting time. That means that time is distinct for each entity due to its needs. Let’s look at it another way. Usually, at any given time two entities can be doing different things. For example, during the afternoon, I might have plans to go for a walk and you might be going out with a friend. Hence, while both these opportunities are fixed they are working at intersecting points.

Let’s look at it another way. Typically, this can be a direct parallel or an indirect parallel. That means, if you are late for a meeting, the individuals at that meeting are expecting you at a certain time, but when you show up late there is a conflict. This is indirect. A direct parallel would be that while the meeting is taking place, a delivery truck parks outside the building. These opportunities are varying at the same time. This usually occurs when we are frustrated because “we have to wait on others”. Why does this occur and what are parameters? Let’s look at this closely.

Intersecting time is all around us and is in every part of our lives. It is a factor of age since all around us there are old people, young people, children and small babies. All these entities are comingled but distinct. How do these entities interact? For an example, when an older person may be going to the doctor, a young child might be going to school. Thus there is a direct time parallel. Why is it that time intersects and that at any given time many things can occur separately or at once. The answer lies in the fixed opportunities. So when an older person may be going to the doctor at a fixed time and a young person is off to school at the same time and both opportunities are fixed but distinct, what makes them unified is that they are fixed in nature. Time elapses in the same way when a kid is going to school as in an adult who is visiting the doctor. Why is this so? Because time is measured in the same way but both events are taking place at a different place and in unique situations. So they are intersecting. The kid going to school has nothing to do with the person going to the doctor albeit the kid may grow up to be a doctor, but it still would not solve the time parallel at that given moment. The child may have a good day or a bad day at school and the adult may have been tired or weary at the doctor’s. It is all very unique. So while time is intersecting it is still functioning in a concentric way. All things seem to be orbiting in the same time parallel.  

When we are asking a friend to meet us in the city at 2 pm we are both on a trajectory. Our friend has to be there at 2 pm so do we. Even though our paths may vary, each person has to be there at 2 pm. So this is fixed. We can’t be somewhere else at 2 pm since we promised our friend that we’d be there at 2 pm. If we were somewhere else, then our plans would intersect and no longer would this opportunity be fixed but intersecting. However, at 2 pm, while we could be anywhere else, it still would not belie the fact that it is 2 pm no matter where or what we should be doing. Only that if we miss our date, the other person may be angry with us or hurt. So while we must honor our word, we realize that time may in fact intersect in case we got sick or had to tell our friend that we are late. The time would not change only the expression in which it is told. The fact is that at 2 pm you are still the same person that you are at any other time, so while it might intersect for you and someone else, you and that other person are still the same person at that given moment. Your individuality does not change only the conformity of your expression. When we attend a meeting for example, it may be to promote our work, and if we miss the meeting, our work suffers. So direct time for the sake of human advancement feels necessary during fixed opportunities and irrational when it is adjourned.

If fixed opportunities never change, then why does the time parallel exist? Why is that sometimes, some things are important to do and not others? What is the relevance? Someone could be doing something mundane at 5 o’clock in the afternoon while someone else might have an important rendezvous.   We are always capitalizing on time. Socialism for example may require all people to do the same thing at the same time. But when we capitalize on time, something may seem minor and something else more relevant and the offset may seem impartial or unfair. Why is this so?

Because time opportunities are always related to the work of God or good or a higher power. Something important like prayer may be considered more relevant than taking a dog for a walk since one may be viewed as a higher good. To establish the sense of perfect time, we might have to pray to make the best use of our time and neglect something else like watching our favorite TV show. We might have to take the kids to school, or go to the doctor, but the relevance over the one or other is the competitive nature of time that lies in the question of what is the best use of our time at any given moment.

For any fixed opportunity to be true it must be directed towards a higher good or qualitative time so to speak. If we are whittling our time away, doing nothing, it may be the devil’s workshop. But if we are striving towards perfect time, we are always striving to make our situation better and achieve uniformity and conformity with perfect time. The time parallel exists in the same way as our free will. When we opt to do something at any given time over something else we are making a conscious decision to allocate our time in a specific way when something else may be more necessary. When two things intersect, they are better ordered courteously than rudely, as helping an old person or stepping out of the way for someone else, or holding the door. These are all ways where the universal nature of fixed time equilibrium is played out on a social and human level to tell us what is good and rightly and our best use of time for the good of all.