Won Yo Revisited. . . The Why.

I dream sometimes of the past lives of Won Yo, one dream shifts into the other easily and readily.  A stoic life of mysticism and study branched out with lifetimes of complete chaos and war.  Once one forgets all (as a King must), one remembers that there is all to learn (as a High Priest must).

Some consider Won Yo the predecessor apostle to Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism.  Won Yo is considered an equivalent apostle to the Buddha, by Buddhists.  And is sacred to my soul, and my lifetimes as a Paladin, of the East or the West. . . the bastion of good, integrity and high morals.  Descended from the Farseer line, I also draw focus, and meditation, and many lessons in the sea, and seeing of visions available to one on the most holy of paths.

One day when I was asked to teach some of the new initiates of Tae Kwon Do, ITF, this pattern it was with a reverie that it seemed overly-simplified.  Quotes from a duel between temples where the 8th and 9th degree master made up their new Olympic grade patterns for that day, and that moment to win victory in the hearts and minds of their school.  And probably never in any other school -- so it goes.

This seems something more akin to what Won Yo himself might teach.  Also he is thought to have had a high weight most of the times he appeared in temples in his early years.  This might help one understand the on position kicks. . . and how to weight their poses, to be efficient and rapid.  And never to be easy or repeated many times in a day.

This renewed composition draws from two styles of martial arts, and uses at least 3 theories of power.

Can you imagine it in your mind?

Won Yo Revisited

Starting Stance when Gong sounds

Face left
High L-stance Left foot

Inside block
outside knifehand

Inside block
(outside double knifehand)
(repeat second side)
Right leg in.
Center to starting point
-- Centerpoint --

TurnRight
High L-stance

Inside block
outside knifehand

Inside block
(outside double knifehand)
(repeat second side)
Left leg in.
Center to starting point
-- Centerpoint --

--practice point--
Right Center Kick on point
reverse spinning center kick on point
Right Center Kick Right punch hold

to

L-stance Outer block (two-hand)
Step into left L-stance knife-hand outer block (two-hand)
Step into walking right stance knifehand piercing block
Left Center Kick Left punch to

L-stance Outer block (two-hand)
Step into left L-stance knife-hand outer block (two-hand)
Step into walking right stance knifehand piercing block

-- Centerpoint 2--

--practice point--
Left Center Kick on point
reverse spinning center kick on point
Left Center Kick Left punch hold

-- Centerpoint 2 --

TurnRight
Left hand High L-stance

Inside block
outside knifehand
outside block
(outside double knifehand)
(repeat second side)

step into right walking stance
chest and throat (inner) double punch
pick up heal, on position
shoulder to shoulder (outside double punch)

Step into reverse (outside block)
Kneeling (inside block)
up and left leg in.
Center to starting point
-- Centerpoint 2 --

TurnRight

Right-hand L-stance

Inside block
outside knifehand
outside block
(outside double knifehand)
(repeat second side)
step into right walking stance
chest and throat (inner) double punch
pick up heal, on position
shoulder to shoulder (outside double punch)
Step into reverse (outside block)
Kneeling (inside block)

up and right leg in.
Center to starting point

-- Centerpoint 2 --

Upper kick front spins to

Side kick, double punch

Slide in from left, face right

Front kick, slide into sliding press kick

right step into right walking stance outer block

Inside block right-hand
Inside block left-hand
Slide lower into low king fu horse stance
Inside block right-hand
Inside block left-hand

Left Step forward into left walking stance outer block

Inside block right-hand
Inside block left-hand
Slide lower into low king fu horse stance
Inside block right-hand
Inside block left-hand

L-stance Outer block (two-hand)

Step into left L-stance knife-hand outer block (two-hand)

Step into walking right stance knife-hand piercing block

Left Center Kick Left punch to

--Centerpoint 1--

--practice point--

Left Center Kick on point
reverse spinning center kick on point
Left Center Kick Left punch hold

--Centerpoint 1--

Face left

High L-stance Left foot

outside block
inside knifehand block
outside block
inside double knifehand

step forward
outside double knifehand
inside knifehand block
wide double block

reverse turn
inside double punch
outside double punch

step-into high stance upper cut

--Centerpoint 1--

Face right

High L-stance Left foot

outside block
inside knifehand block
outside block
inside double knifehand

step forward
outside double knifehand
inside knifehand block
wide double block

reverse turn
inside double punch
outside double punch

step-into high stance upper cut

-- Centerpoint 1 --

Right leg in.
Center to starting point

Face front : step into low stance double uppercut

Beats of drums and thunderous applause, maybe.

Second gong sounds.

The Very Christian Sphere (Revised)

The point where hard Mathematics and solid Philosophical and Physics Theory meet!  I like to think about this solution, it is a lot of fun!

We typically had 8 minutes per question, (40 questions in 2 hours), and we were not told what that meant.  Nothing beyond that.  I assumed they were from 8 to 20 points each like most of our marks, so decided to go really into the deep end on one.  I spent 20 minutes on this one. . . in 2 parts.  One for math, one for the farrows, and then some final notes.

4 questions correct was average for a grade 12 Math Genius.  They were all marked from 0 to 1 in the end.  I got an 8 overall (but 4 were half marks) in grade 11, so a +1.  Even if 4 points were half points, and I got a solid 0 out of 0 on this one, I can assume.  BUT. . . I went for the 1 out of 1.

Even if the weird math about it that you can come up with is not remotely correct, and begs alternate possible universe questions.  I think its also very Religiously and Metaphysically sound.  In Grade 11 I was asked to represent my school in an intervarsity (between school) math contest.  One of the Questions blew my mind, so I sought the spiritual advice of an angelic being, which consulted with me on this matter in my head.  To phrase and frame an opinion sometimes one wishes to step out of their own soul and form the opinion that an alien race might, when posed with questions which become framed far too ordinarily and do not reflect the knowledge wisdom and depth and breadth of our existence, and our intellectual education that can come in from completely unexpected fronts.

The editor of this test called this, "The most Christian way to possibly define a sphere."  I came up with this strangely Zoroastroan and Judaic form of describing the area within a sphere.  I have always liked that!  Occasionally I have had calls from other universities calling me the "Christian Mathematician!"  An on-file favorite exam, they say!

I came in first place by the way, which put Campbell Collegiate ahead of everyone.  We swapped out our grade 12s for the geniuses because Minot was involved for some very strange reason, and this was the cold war era.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Question

In traditional math the distance from the center of a circle to the outside is its radius.  (pi)*r^2 is the classical definition of the area of a circle in 3-D space.  What do you think is the area of a sphere in Four dimensional space?

Quick and Dirty Version:

A = (pi)*r^2

(2(pi)r^3[pppp])/3.  

Roof Dooyen says that the inverse derivative of the area of a circle

is the volume of a sphere.

(2(pi)r^3[pppp])/3.

And if you read his math it is a little like this.

Sometimes he multiplies by 2 for 2 dimensions or 2 angles.

So you might assume I got a zero on a 1/1 answer meant for Post-Graduate Math Scholars.  But the marker decided that a farrow could be a one.  I forgot the two

on the front so  (pi)r^3 became multiplied by 4/3 and I got 1/1.  Or a 0 of 0 because they could not understand me and never could?  :-{

There is a Rooph (French for Ralph)!  There was a real article, the marker did read it too! But.. . no!  So either in the end Rooph is just wrong, as he tends to be from those he has met.

[Editor's End Note: A traditional answer is that time is an additional dimension, and thus has no effect on the area of a sphere, which is (4/3)*(pi)*r^3.  One could waggle about and describe a circumference and the infinite triangles. . . yadayada.  But this is not what was asked.  Was this test leading me into Pythagoras land and the world of infinite pink triangular trees. . . no let's not go there.

A less traditional computer science answer would be: In 3-dimensional space the area of a sphere would be (4/3)*(pi)r^3.  Using Cartesian Coordinates, it's points when calculated extend across a computer screen with height, width, and depth (usually in real time on a computer only the surface will be calculated but you could do it this way to be weird).  A cube is formed from these points, the center point is really relative.  And a weird way, but a common way to do the math.   These points extend into 4-dimensional space, the difference would be that this space is record across a grid that is 4x4, and includes height, width, and depth, and time (as a timestamp).  That means each point is there at that point in time.  And thus it must have the same area. . . as each point moves similarly across time and space until some physical effect is applied to it.

My initial thought is that the inverse derivative ((dx)(dy))^-1 is the area of a sphere in four dimensions. [!]

Evident Proof:

This is because the derivative of the area of a circle is 2(pi)r.  And the area of a circle is 3(pi)r^2.  This also happens to be its inverse derivative due to a recent proof by Rooph (Ralph) Dooyen (in Scientific American, September or October of 1991(1992?)).

Think about how you would solve this problem perhaps, before continuing.  Don't think of the text book answer at all.  Can you think how you might solve this problem in terms of a matrix universe, quantum computing, string theory?  [It might make my goofy and charmingly young yet original math that much more interesting in the plus or minus column.]

{My original answer was a bit off} Answer: 4*(pi)*r^3 [pppp]

(pi)r^2= the area of a circle, the textbook answer. 

{Editor's Note: Rooph Dooyen was known to be a bit of a wild and difficult to understand character who went off about things.  So taken literally his math states that the inverse derivative of the area of a circle is the area of a sphere, but it doesn't quite line up.  That is perhaps the thing that has most kept me thinking about this equation for so long.

Thusly the inverse derivative of the quantitative area of the sphere is: (2(pi)r^3[pppp])/3.   This is the cartesian area of a sphere in 3D space. 

{!!!Editor's Note:  The minus C takes some classes to learn. . . highly advance stuff, and a bit theoretical.  You learn this in your 6th University class or you take Physics 100 where everyone is a genius and everyone drops out!  This is the area of a sphere. 

V = (2(pi)r^3[pppp])/3 -C  But 4/3*(pi)*r^3. 

-C must somehow create a situation, or be explained mathematically in a way that emulates. . .  the front.  So it needs to multiply into times two.

I don't think these weird farrows are nothing either. . .

The point in my head is not to describe metaphysics in 4 dimensions and forget about light etc.  It is to use a flat mathematics way to describe the intracasies of physics,

and actual working relativistic physics in a mathematical model, and lend weight to

the idea that wild and crazy math can work.  As Roof would agree, and all mathematicians and physicists if a formula doesn't work you can just work

it and work it until it does.  And you can even convince yourself that something

works that doesn't and then you'd better stop.}

I will go through my proofs, and do the math altogether at the end.

My initial thought is that the inverse derivative ((dx)(dy))^-1 is the area of a sphere in four dimensions.

This is because the derivative of the area of a circle is 2(pi)r.  And the area of a sphere is 3(pi)r^2.  This also happens to be its inverse derivative due to a recent proof by Rooph (Ralph) Dooyen (in Scientific American, September or October of 1991(1992?)).

(Editor's note:  A quick proof is that the derivative of 3(pi)r^2.  (Would be  (2r^2) / (2r) = r)  (Classic!)  Thusly (dx)/(dy) 3(pi)r^2 = 3(pi)r^2/ 3(pi)r (-C) = r. . . which questions the fundamental basis. Where is -2(pi) but it is close. . But you need to read the theorem, it is very beautiful and does work out.)

As those who have mastered university math and computer science know that math doesn't really work out sometimes.  And underlines the fact that further problems must occur if one is to inverse the theorem precisely.  Anything to do with Sine has become suspect as Simon Dyck, of the University of Calgary writes.  As do many university authors.)

This therefore makes progress interesting and decidedly theoretical.  What is time exactly and dimensionality?  Einstein writes that time is "a universal constant" and has been constantly criticized for so saying.  Heat is an expression of time, as we all known.  Time speeds up as electrons and subatomic particles accelerate.

What the fourth dimension is requires five proofs to prove.

I will define a proof as the symbol: ∴

It would be too easy to say three dimensions of area are the same.  Within a four point matrix, the matrix will not remain constant, but assuming that the universe was on a flat grid, as on a compute memory chip, it will need a fourth pointer.   What each point here is and means varies greatly across the ever-moving-ever-evolving (growing more than shrinking currently) universe.

The first proof is the proof of time.  This is the fourth dimension and our quantitative jump forward.  And yet dimensions are not created because they exist.  I will provide proofs of this combination effect which leads to the creative process of a fourth dimension.

There is no Descartian God of dimensionality.  There is the existence and its substrate and a constant-ness within the ether which combines and recombines.  The universal substrate does not suddenly elicit a form which evolves forward, and creates a universal lightning without a push, that combines and recombines forms beneath this substrate.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

∴ 1

I will define as the principle of a single dimension and its quantitative complexity as a farrow, or a sheave, (I use Egyptian heiroglyph sometimes), or the pawn symbol here: p

p

There is a single backbone projecting the existence of dimensionality that is eternal, yet unchanging.  Without movement, or motion, or growth.  A creation, but not a realizable one without interaction.

(Editor's Note= With one p the dimensions are mad.  There is no dimensionality merely an absence of dimensionality.  We are sort of missing the Null Set [] Samosud.  Which you are not allowed to say in ancient Judaism, so that's okay, maybe.)

pp

One existence multiplied by another existence.  There is a dual existence that is penetrated, what was immortal is now intrinsically intertwined and flawed.  It dies almost the moment it is born without additional context and clarity.

ppp

Three existences multiply into a creative quantity, and create a motion, movement and modality, which moves outward, yet is destroyed.  Perhaps eternally.  [All that is created exists and fails over a universal constant of time, yet time is a partially created structure, sutured into the modality of an infinite moment of birth and death]

pppp

Four existences move the perceptive illusion of a solidity of time, space, and the shadows, and perspective of other dimensionality and their interference wave points.  All creation is at war with destruction.  [We create the illusion, yet a fragmented and displaced one of a non-constructed infinite universe which will in time fail.  Its expansionary and destructive, strings and superstrings (or your version/vision of them) begin to manifest and change shape.  Is light real or illusory?  Black exists.  What else?]

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note:  Why stop at 4?  I guess a time limit.  [[4[p]]] is easily describable to a human being yet does not fully describe the fourth dimension.  There are further nuances that must be substituted in and factored out.   I have since realized that it would probably take 120 volumes to describe the [[8[p]]]?  Maybe the best way to describe that would be to have optional (farrowed sections).  It would be interesting to describe the rest of the proofs.  This is where we are just getting into it and it ends.  What about [[16[p]]]? 

 

∴ 2 The Concept of Area In Space

A circle is defined as a point with a center, around it are equidistant points, these describe a sphere in three dimensions.  [Editor's note: possibly in any four dimensions, but not pharoahs].  The area of a sphere is the space < or equal to those points.  As Rooph Dooyen points out, it is infinitely probable that another race or entity could view a sphere from an entirely different way of viewing, perhaps having access to 5 or 7 dimensions of evolved, dimensional, senses or scientifically constructed gear to assist said senses.  And yet it would still appear to be a circle because of its unique even-ness.

  Why does gravity love a sphere so?  You could define it that way.

   I am going to define it as a construct of the background existences improbable, yet infinitely active way of interaction.  And later on maybe I will sort on a subtractive constant to these forces.  Either way the fourth dimension is very tragic for math.  Computer science blew away all the traditional theories of its structure in the 60s or 70s so lets make some new math for the new era.

[Editor's Note: Either way the main point is that all dimensions are not even, and not constant across the universe.  Yet could be created evenly for this area of space.  And calculated evenly within that vicinity. . . when we study string theory.]

 

∴ 3

So quickly, the math is here:

This is because the area of a circle is 2(pi)r.  And the area of a sphere is 3(pi)r^2

3*(pi)r^2= the area of a circle.  Thusly the inverse derivative of the quantitative area of the sphere is: (4/3)*(pi)r^3[pppp]

[Editor's note: is that where is the -C is?  When we learn third derivatives in our fourth or fifth year of studying calculus in multiple university and other studies (3rd year for me)...  we learned that adding C in inverse derivatives at the end of an equation in highschool Calculus was a waste of time.   Immediately that section which is not calculated emerges as the constant.   As if magically...  maybe far easier to learn down the line.   I didn't think so at the time.  ((4(pi)r^4) + 3(pi)r^2)[pppp]

[Editor's Second Note: Earlier on I thought (3r-8) should be divide out. . . [pppp] .  Is (3r-8)^-1 = [pppp] .  Or its expression on this level of dimensionality???]

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

It is interesting to note that in the first version of this mathematical discourse I did not mention string theory or the curvature of the universe, or that the universe might one day not be expanding in our relative area.  Also the relativity and structure of time and universal constants was rather bold.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Post Anthropologic Definition Of Culture

Really, Culture is too difficult and complicated to define, it would take 5 volumes to really get into it, and then you would spend half your time defining terms. To Philosophers it means one thing, to Religion it means something else, to Anthropologists who say they are the real definition; in studying them we will find the real world definition (that their definition has its own phonemes, ganglion, and terms anyway).

But for the sake of it, I'll take a stab at it anyway. “Culture” has most often in my experience, been defined as, “The views and beliefs that a Tribe (a group that lives together) holds that defines how it relates to the world, and how it views the world, and altogether holds their unique terms in a state of perfection idealized by its people.” Together, the collective whole has spent generations creating errors that differentiate this new collective human group soul as separate, better, and more privileged in all of its varied ways than those around it.

“My cow is my temple,” is an old saying. The old golden cow of definition, is to say that, culture is an expression of faith and a manifestation of the law of the land. Really what starts where? Is a definition of itself a definition, in and of itself. Or a pat answer that avoids philosophy, and defines the prophets and priests of our state as the legal system. Where there is a perfect analysis of the one only and most popular view of things. Or a perfect amalgam of the top 3? How many then?

Really we should evolve theism of any sort as a definition of state (excluding perhaps the atheism of communism). It can be held in high regard, yet it came as a result of consequences over thousands and not hundreds of years in many cases. And the idea of legal rules being the sole, agreed on manifestation, of the ideas, ideals, and soul of a people is wrong.

Tribes war with the tribe over, regardless of law. They measure their steeples and whoever wins in the polls, not in the seats of the MPs, (or other heads of state) rules over all. Cult is of course an important, and defining part of our individual human experiences on earth, but can change suddenly and savagely, and has more to do with race, ethnicity, and personal identity, and modern needs for social change, than a true Group Identity.

It is really funny to get into a definition of Culture, and leave behind your baggage at the door. That is why it take so long to define the background argument, the phrase and structuring of the central statement. And in the end we are fighting as much with colleges, and faculties, and who and where definitions were defined within a school of study... in so much as getting on with a clear analysis. I think we have to give Anthropologists at least a nod here, as the terms they define their field of study as: the study of culture.

In the past, culture has been defined by a shock of other tribal groups, that are more rustic, and one might say “red neck” than other tribes. (The term “redneck” comes from sunburn often seen as a lower class rite of passage to work in the sun, combined with “red” which is to mean, Indian, or in this case, partly tribal.)

As such I find it easier to get into the stream of a conscious flow and rendering of an item, if I can realize visually, exactly how such a thing was created, and the structure that it was created in. A belief in culture, is a belief intrinsically related to the value whereof where 90s Anthropology really went off a cliff with terms like: Enculturation: when a member of lesser tribal culture joins a new culture and relearns all that they have learned before. Often this creates a dual culture philosophy, and can in fact lead to brain damage and insanity. It is difficult to learn to change... etc.

How about Ethnocentricism: a belief in the cultural superiority of your people over someone else's. Possibly this could be one culture over any culture.

Now that we've determined the stumbling points, a path forward is a path through. And along these structured lines I will throw out the idea, that Culture is as much a Fantasy, as it is a Phallacy. In a world of infinite possibilities, let's all focus on one possibility, because not only would that be sane, and the very definition of sanity, amidst a world of complex and meaningful, but difficult to grasp constant re-definition. We make these choices, and we plant our banner here. I believe that a wasp is good, but we must avoid them, because I hate how I feel once their nest is disturbed. Chimbawahue had a problem here. But Terrence D'arby was okay with it, as was “Pink” Floyd. I personally love every animal, and could entertain the value of good. But I find personal problems with being able to avoid flies, and feel that this must bring a terror to my tribe, particularly when they eat outside, and engage in pick-nicking activity. The flies are not really the life of the party either, but we don't avoid flies... maybe swat at them.

So thus the tribe has decided. 3 out of 4 supporters is not bad. Let's not lean on the geniuses here, they have the rest of the generation, and their generation of great ideas may one day challenge our beliefs. But speed, and brevity are of the essence. If the group does not have quarum it must go, towards madness, and the dark. It loses points when it can not decide. And everyone who is wrong will lose social points every time they debate with each other. Let's just throw a party... and not avoid the wasps is therefore a heresy and one day we may against someone who keeps wasps or bees as pets. And move to stone someone at the gate (the traditional pre-Israelite place of trade and sacrifice) just in case. The beekeepers union has the most to lose with this law. Especially as in this tribe the term “Fhon-e” is used to denote any yellow and black creature flying creature, including bees of all varieties, wasps, or even “yellow jackets” (as wasps are called in America).

How can the Beekeeper Bob take off. He has a friend named Burt, but he lives miles away, and everyone he comes North of their tribal border someone tries to stave poor Burt in the eyes. Last time he lost one of his three wives, even if it was his sister which is against the tribal customs of Beekeeper Bob, he does not want to piss off Burt, and his union anymore. So call's up weird Uncle Al. And he agrees to invest, but only if he finds a replacement from Burt. After all this his society has now moved to the next stage and enculturated a religious law into their text “The Black Book of Doom” and in there, it states in a newly minted edition that, “None may pass the gates of the city who carries a Wasp on them.

For weeks Bob beats himself up in the mirror. He looks at himself not as a new man but as a prisoner of a mistaken culture. He can not change this culture. He could talk to the priests, but he has already been stoned twice. And this might perhaps be viewed as a pivotal imperfection. And he could loose his wife Penelope, as well as material goods.

Instead of invoking a class struggle, Bob decided to follow the law and stake out something in a small community. There is a mayor he can wine and dine. He will probably allow him to set something up nearby. They can not challenge religious law, but if he is wealthy, perhaps Bob can afford to have a son who is a priest, who will be successfully able to change the laws of the land before da-da-da. Legal structures take over and take this bizarre local custom of hating bees to the next level and pass a law over all the people of the tribe.

Fortunately the local magus is in. And in a good mood. They have a few drinks, and attend a popular local “Ga-hafta” at high noon, where all ritual dueling takes place.  After that they retire out to the hills. Where Bob shows diagrams and designs about his new craft, and leaves out sweet items until both wasps and honey bees appear. Yes! Not bumblebees, or African bees, or anything else! All is well, permission is approved.

After 50 years Bob's son Mopo, is stoned outside the gate for challenging another religious law: partaking in the act of moping about. He does not grow up to be a priest. But the practice of Bee-keeping has been made popular in the region, if illegal. Everyone loves the taste of this new nectar, the sweetest of all: called honey. And they don't want to hear or see how it's made, but it does catch on, and becomes used over sugar cane in many recipes.

Eventually the Beekeepers guild challenges the law. And thus religious law caves after an additional 20 years.

Thus we see how culture is a product of great and many heinous errors, and in its way some of these errors will be caught and changed at great travail. The entire work of changing culture in a way that will not enrage the locals and threaten, in a very real sense, to make the tribe of humans insane will work its way through the many systems which take place within the framework of that culture and all surrounding cultures.

It is difficult to fathom through this framework how an alien system can ever make perfect sense to our own. Also we quickly see the intrinsic problems with an error-based system, that can correct all errors in time, but does not have the general will or interest to do so. A high IQ in this time and error, will not be necessarily, merely an encumbrance when dealing with a highly antiquated tribe that preserves terrible philosophies and ideas more quickly than it will ever accept a tried and true methodology. As things change slowly, systems of change change even slower.

I don't see a lot of perfection in this model, and the idea that I have often heard of America being the Greatest Nation in the world, or at least in NATO, has always missed the mark. But at least we can be honest and say some people will not think that our nation is not the penultimate pinnacle and the adoration of all masses worldwide globally interplanetary and forever.

The greatest errors made, are in fact the greatest perfections. And we should all follow that idea idealistically and never question it ever, or be thrown in jail, Allah or Great Jove, or St. Benedict, or someone forbid it. Someone please forbid it? I'm all alone in here! I'm stuck in a tribe, please someone help me not to make up constant rules incessantly, help!

The Definition of Good Art, I Mean Really Good Art

The Definition of Good Art, I Mean Really Good Art

PENGUIN ACRYLICS·SUNDAY, APRIL 14, 2019

A day in the life, of a life. To live, to die, to repeat, yet to come into a world without understanding, and to leave it also understanding their place in the world, yet in a state of complete mystery is the state of all humans. The artist must strive to be above this place, and have a will to godhead that other humans try to defy, reason against, and must submit to the urge of the human will to power, to be more than mortal. And achieve in a way that is not human, while being human.


One might consider art to be something above an animal, though some have said that to be an artist is to seek out the divinity in the natural world that we see all around us. The greatest geniuses when I started on my journey to become a visual artist were all saying that art is imitation. Perfection maintained through mirrors, is the central premise that Socrates, one of the founders of Western thought, wrote about, in what of his legendary writings maintain, from “The world’s first Democracy”,in Athens Greece in the 4th Century BC.


There is an eternal feature to art, particularly really good art. The kind that wonders what one’s place is in the world, and seeks to study it, and somewhere in the forming of a belief and its structure, is the dissemblance of all else. A disbelief in the real and the now, is central to many phases and forms of art... Art seeks to critique and to poke fun at, simply by its state of being.


Plato, a contemporary of Socrates, writes that it is possible to fully know something, yet this is only maintained by dreams and ideas, which form our ideals. A chair is never really a chair, it is the imperfection of the thought compared to the “platonic ideal” chair. A chair, even in its makings has certain flaws and conditions, even when painted and laquered properly it exists in a state of decay that increases this deviation from the ideal norm with time. Thus the world exists in a state of decay. Yet humans outlive all equipment, which is readily seen walking out past an old farm, or a cabin you once visited as a child.


Between the faded Kodachrome images, and the distorted view of our mind that all humans deliver up... there is a questioning of what is real and what is perfection. In Classical times there was a belief in an absolute, and that all created art must be the most perfect form of some idea... which Plato would love. Yet this state is one that defies human understanding, and no photography and form was ever really up to the true ideal. Ideals change and as they do so dose the critique, analysis and import of an artistic creation.


Somewhere in this all we find true art, spiritual art, living art, that cares about the times and its ideals, its fads, its quirks, and its styles of the moment. Finding ones art in this is a little tricky, one who completely dedicates him or herself to ones style finds that style might quickly evolve past them, or they past it. Especially we find accelerated change in the time of the new forms of digital art, which include photo-manipulation, digital photography, digital tablet painting, and full 3D rendering, along with the more classical fractal art.


Thus, it is important for a contemporary artist to change, to move through and to create in different styles, yet maintain an artistic truth through these styles that speaks to platonic ideals and deeper meanings. A ghost that touches on and flits through meaning and definition to seek greater meaning, and does not dwell on the edifice and the concrete moment. In its lack of reality, it finds a higher understanding in its new Fauvin realism.



--- Prince Admiral Mike Katzberg, April 14, 2019

Geeks Of Love -- Democracy And Its Fallacies --- A Speech From The Queen

The light flickers on... the TV screen rolls up... A prince at all times likes his position however may it be in supposition that is in opposition to the Queen's position upon this position.  So today we will talk today with the Queen Of Our Great Country Canada... I think it is Canada?  Yes, yes, it is.  Right now... to the Queen from her place in London, uh, no, no in London England.

"Thus it is upon our arrival that it is that we agree about this place that is Canada, that it is.

Hereupon now with and henceforward and forthwith backward and around a bit and forever shall it be known that I herself, am the rightful Queen of Canada, as a Democracy. Being born as such a man, I do henceforward and forthwith and backward and around a bit I do apologize forsooth for being suchly born, and equipped. Not perhaps in a way that offends men, for I aptly like their bits a bit, yet perchance I will not eulogize for the sake of moreso offending the woman than the man. As it is a Democracy and we have voted upon the pole, the only pole that I will mention ever again, we have chosen this path, as it were because the women were the only ones with any strong opinion to the question of should the ruler be a man or a women. As perhaps almost all the women, except an 8, a merely 8 percent upon the vast and sanguine sheet and score, what chains upon the sky what wort am I that I might be born en-manned, such now it is the law, the law that I must be the very whim upon the earth a man. And such am I cast and knavely shorn, but not of the cockles of my soul, though madly shriven and cast upon the earth in such a pickle that even the madrigals of madmen who caterwaul about the men instead of the woman and castigate cat-glances against those that caterwaul drunkenly inside... save one. I might have hope, I might have day! Entranced am I but of this earth, this worth, of worldly loam. Thus must I dress forever more and foreword as a woman, forever whipped into place by the auspices of my betters, that being the many and no more the few. The hay is mine inside the gay no place to stay outside the gay.... may Democras-ism ever be here to stay, within my loins ever to be... voted by Democracy. The earth, the banks, the buttocks, and the peniss ever more shall we erect the foundry of our tradition upon the earth, and seminal words shall lick our lips like the praise ever upon the buttocks of the bold, the powerful, the brave, ever to be lost in the bottle, never to find the words for hope forever after. Save Democracy the powerful the she-dragon of the apocalypse, who shall bring back religion undivided from the state, and with each failure impress the world with its heresy that never would they vote for. And let us say that is un-Democractic and wage war now that our Nelly of a mother is out of the house, we will all play dress up, and an nay, and a nay, and a nay, a nanny nay!

The Anti-Feminist Review: A Review of Feminism

Vol. 1                                                                                 Mar. 2019

The Anti-Feminist Review

By Sir Francis Rake

Edited by Sir Michael H. Katzberg

With the full and very ample support of

The Loyal Schoolboard of Anti-Feminists­

The Last Vestiges of the Government of Canada

The Best of the British Royal Family

The United States of America Armed Forces Union

And Your Father

And His Buds From The Hall

But Not Any Nancies.

Well Maybe a Few

No Womyn-- Stay Out!

I am about to set forth an intellectual dialogue against the problems we have had with the dark stain on our times which this new cult of “Feminism” has brought to the earth. As such I refuse to use Feminist nonsense terms, and prefer the older terms of “man” and “mankind” over “humanity” and other depressing bullshit references that dick-less wonders who feel empowered by their lack of hu-”man”-ity want me to use. Also please learn to spell there is still the word “man” in “humanity” even if their is no humanity left in you... There will be no more gender neutral terms in my writing henceforward. I was once a feminist and am now redeemed.

On the occasion of the birth of the Christ of the early Romans, it is said in poorly kept up, and often sabotaged (on the admission of scribes) and banned christian holy book they now call “The Bible” , but its current text as such will be unknown in a future age. If I go out on a limb and say... well... it could be around in a hundred years, with some unwitting luck. That this Christ fellow was gifted at his birth with three manly items, fit for a King it has been stated therein, however questionable the source is. Although born in a manger, an inauspicious place to be born, even for a peasant who it sounds like was being hunted like a bastard to the King (King Herod the Roman King over Israel)... this impotent King of Kings, this rebel with a very righteous and revolting cause (as the Romans were to soon find out) did find as his gifts. Brought no less by three kings in the present version, although of course they could have been imposters was given three burial goods, instead of anything worthy of a King.¹ Even a paltry King of Jews, who didn't even have the Leprosy on him they were looking for... perhaps to execute him because he was after the only decent job in the end. An unenviable position, nevertheless. If they had let him take it, but they didn't and so the story of the world, that resulted in this New World Order, and the debacle of Feminism has been on the outs with keeping it real ever since.

Those of us who were born in recent times have noticed that with the advent of a newer, stronger, more powerful feminism, that this time will not take your liqour... we have seen a downfall in the rights of man, while women have walked off with the cash. Often in my country they have taken children away, and have gone so far in popular media, and increasingly less popular religions gone on to say that the very right of a man to have a child does not exist. A woman should be owned as chatel, might be taking it too far. But at the very least it is about the time to let them all sleep on the couch for a few days and if they act like the dunces of the world we are supposed to worship... perhaps then the tool shed.

As it turns out in the end the Leper Messiah they were looking for was in another castle, anyways... but at least these charlatans, supposedly in the robes of Kings were not looking for anything proper. Or in any way carefully.

Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh as we have found do not do anyone who is living any good anyways. These are burial items, to contradict the village priest or the the praying praetor. I have earned my right to govern through blood, and the sword, and my own indomitable spirit. Not pacifism and peace... in this way we must turn away from the path of Christ himself. That path is death, and the path of a prophet is not for everyone, even we sages of the New Era of Mankind must decide how far it all goes... we have our place in the world, and we must stand up for it. In life as in literature. The pen may be mightier than the sword. But in combat I still prefer a sword. Or occasionally a gun, a gun can work wonders too.

In this way I would like to clear up, firstly the current problems with literature, and secondly the world, if I have the time for that. Not that anyone notices I have been taking out the trash since the age of three for the New World Order anyways. Democracy has its ups and downs and ins and outs, and I have taken advantage of many of these... howeve in my exploits and travels to allow others to exploit the world more savagely than I have, and perhaps in a wealthy and gilded way. Worthy of a King. And worthy of a man.

It can not be argued against the fact that all men should live as Kings. What we have argued about is how to get there, and what we do when we get there for so long, that when we have come to a time when all of us would refuse a bed of furs in favour for fine linens or perhaps sheer satin. Satin for those, who like to get kinky, and don't care about lengthy survival and things like permanance.

As such we have arrived on that destination finally, and without recourse to past ages, or their salvation. Or can we glean from the past, that which the future held to our ancestors? A sense for survival it seems was not enough, once slaves were banned all of europe seems to have gone mad, and attacked each other. The working civilized person it would seem, unlike the slave, seeks to live in a shorter world. The repititions we go under eventually wear us out, and while hours, and work weeks grow longer the reverse was true at the beginning.

Our day is one of evolution and revolution. And we seek out man himself to be our new christ. Yet we have Feminists stealing from us, robbing us, putting men in power to rags, and causing all men of my generation to lose hope, and to cease caring. The statistics are according to statistics Canada, 2004, that for every divorce one of those divorced goes insane, often permanently. That is a lot to rob a man of, a life worth living to the full... stripped from us by these filthy words that have brought us such destruction, these harlots of discord, the enemy of all that is good in the world: all that man can build.

It seems abour 350 years after Marcus Aurelius, the stoic philosopher, became the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire, having converted to Christianity around 88 AD, and brought much of his empire with him. The fur certainly flew then, and more when all slaves were freed, under Christ's banner. A mission, in visions I have heard, brought from his freeing of the slaves, and salvation and acceptance under John the Baptist. It was popular in their day for a new cult leader to sacrifice the new cultist. But John the Baptist, once an outsider saw the growth of his belief system and his fame in the life of this New Christ of the Jews. Many had come before and said they were he, but did not bear the manner and bearing of a King. As Christ saved this man who had been sent assassins by the Jews that had said they would support him if his group killed off the Romans, and spoke out against them. But in their meeting these men, you can imagine sought compromise, and shoke hands and broke bread together. After Jesus washed the feet of John the Baptist. A term often used to refer to homosexual acts of oral copulation, but in this instance, must be taken in full seriousness, to mean a physical act of reverence for the other. One might as well have washed the other, but in order to grow, Christ had to accept his humble pardon... in order for the faith to grow. And for Baptists to join with the Christians. Previously they had been a heretical sect associated with the cults of Dionysus, later deemed to be cannibals, but were anything but. Those that do not seek material worth, were often labeled cannibals in that time. If you are opposed to materialism as group... yes they will call you many things if they hate you. But none so hateful to themselves as what they follow that condemns them.

When the system of slavery fell... in fact slaves fell, and at the time rising as high as 200 slaves to every free man Rome fell, this much is true. Their system of production, which is so important in a materialist state, even for those of us who do not condone it.

We are told by women that men are “good” if they have value. And the only valuable man is a rich man. Then they set up a system of divorce that creates mad men. The problem with women is that they have a problem with men. And wish to marry and then divorce all... this awful modern witch hunter of men. I have no problem with women being woman. Why do they have a problem with a man being himself, a fully independent being until married for life. We are men, we love we live, we have problems, we find solutions as we may. And do not need this sabotage in our lives. I have no problem with them doing their own thing, as long as they respect that men are their superiors, and that men will always believe themselves superior to women. Women have had their day and have ruined it... and brought problems to our society. The type of problems Rome saw when slavery was banned. And it took years to fix a system that had entirely broken so far, as to enoble(2) and allow slaves to have more power than those free Romans that had allowed their freedom, and then send their fortunes destroyed. And having fallen from the greatness of a kind of elite, something of a middle upper class, approaching our current upper class... We all know none wish to have heirs or continue if their world has gone down the ladder, and the world they were born in was destroyed... for them.

Men become priests and do great things in this sort of situation. In this world we have all been divorced, and often had long term relationships where we never married, and found ourselves the benefactors of a union which bore no children, and no wealth. And as such when boring became a broken bond, in first nations called a dead circle... a gang with no hope of rebirth or renewal. No life, only death can be caused by this union. It is a curse for all those who follow it.

And the only thing worse can be taking a child from a man who wishes to be its Father, but one day in an act of ignorance, perhaps succumbing to a momentary madness, or a permanent one from the lack of a union, in which he provided well. And then told that women could provide and stripped to half the pay our parental father's would make to feed one whole family in the 70s... thus forced into starvation and deprecation, if he continues to work... what a madness this is to be divorced as a man.

We are tough as iron, and do not let our emotions show. And I feel that we have all been judged for this, and by this we should break bread, and wash each others feet. By the sacred bond of those divorced without reason, and forced into gangs without a serious need for them by women... and the need for more than one. We have been coerced into looking badly by a less serious world that treats women as the gold, and the men as the frankincense and myyrh.

Now perhaps my high IQ, has regaled you, and entertained you, and I hope inspired you. I will now get to the point, which is the thesis of my statement, however stated earlier perhaps you would think I am madder than I am now for challenging these view points that have become such a vile and villainous part of our autocracy of Democracy. Perhaps now the spot light has revealed hints of hurts and pain, and those you have seen hurt and harmed in your life?

It would be a wonder and a delight to hear your stories and your pains. And how and why feminists have hurt you, and what rights must be done to defeat this injustice that has come through the modern world since the 1920s and Women's right to vote. The whole idea of female emancipation has been taken too far again... this time we have different problems, and the whole wheel of injustice has been pushed too far. We need to go back and break it down, back to basic. Use the words you like, and empower the world you like. Don't hesitate to put down women who are unjustly mean to men. The word Woman can be broken down phonetically to Old English prefix “wom”-- or our word for“the womb” plus the suffix --“man”... at the time this would mean something more like the word “guy” is used today. Together womb + man.  Nothing in there that's bad about men or women, just another lie they use to defile a man's rights.

I will also add that the phoneme also known as the contraction for a possessive case: " 's " is short for "his" not "his or hers."  There was no problem with a female being called "Gwenyvere his rood", when they owned a cross.  If we were ever to be reasonable as feminists in the old days... well no one wanted to hear about that.

I would like to refer to the social landscape I have grown up in as a positive place that nurtured some of us rather than a social war zone that targeted all men, where none in the end could be free. And in which women had learned that to torture men with unfit models and social roles hurt them also, as a woman will never be friends with those former lovers she has divorced.... often many have killed themselves, or suffered horribly. And in the case where a woman left them because of the loss of one of their jobs, she created a vacuum in which he could not pay for child support. In the 1970s this was not an option, and a divorced man would earn more than a divorced woman. In the 1990s it became and increasing problem as weak men, and those taken advantage of were taught by an increasingly gyno-centric society to shirk their moral structure and avoid lifelong monogamous relationships -- which are our natural instinct – for more frivolous and eventually destructive proclivities of those wrapped up in a conscious or unconscious need for a destruction of men. A culture seen as “patriarchal” and over-bearing is in fact a good one for men, and happens to be a good one for women who can learn to compromise or go back to their barbarian roots.

A gang culture of wasted lives and relationships forced on us, went further than the tattoos and awfully over-done peircings, and name-calling, and ridiculously short hair styles did not fix any of that either... Merely a birth rate with more men has meant more victims on the meat market for an increasingly greed-obsessed and woman obsessed society. Death to Femenism. It is a new form of fascism that must be destroyed and wiped from the world.

If I ever hear about a culture that is so obsessed with the word “cunt” again. With the word “feminine” renaming the fucking tampon aisle to “feminine hygeine” to “feminine paper”. I don't want to hear about the stupid shit radio ads about your stinky pussy smegging everywhere every five minutes on the TV ever again, thank you. We have won a fight for men everywhere by getting these terrible advertisements off the air.

There will be no more gender neutral terms in my writing henceforward. I was once a feminist and am now redeemed. Please write to me your poems and writing of propagandha against this dark “fymenism” that has taken over the real urges and needs of our society. I wish to hear in writing how it has hurt you, and how freeing it is to just say “I am not a feminist”. “I wish to move forward in my life without hearing about this woman-obsessed cult that is obviously now hurting men.”

I think other men, and some women can be inspired by our words of social change. Activism is a big word, and I don't need you to swallow that all in one gulp. Just think change, and society and don't be afraid to speak out when you see what is stinking and point it out.

I would also like to hear what the Feminists think, consider their actions to be, and if they are willing to repent for ruining the lives of men everywhere? Do they admit full responsibility? And why they thought they could change everything that ever existed about men and women and their role in the world and get away scot free. Without any study... or any attempt at it.

<a target="_blank" href="https://www.vexels.com/vectors/preview/529/heraldry-and-flourishes"> Heraldry and Flourishes </a> | Free vector by <a target="_blank" href="https://www.vexels.com/">Vexels</a>

1. 1(Matthew 2:11, The Bible: WEB, KJV, WEY, ASV, DBY, WBS, YLT, NAS, RSV, NIV) “They came into the house and saw the young child with Mary, his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Opening their treasures, they offered to him gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
2. Enoble.  O.English, L.Latin.  1.To make noble.  2.To bring out the best in something or someone, or bring light to as a form of truth.

Life Vs. Art

 When we have seen all there is to see, haven't we then we set ourselves up to see something else that is new and brilliant, and completely unforeseen? Down the old road we have walked before, many times we wonder why Death is so prominent in art, which by most manifests on artistic merit seems to be about the best things in life, and that which gives it meaning. Although it flies in the face of whims and fancies about the nature of beauty, Death is a part of life so can not be apart from life, I would surmise. And it retains its own merit, and sense of beauty, if mostly in contrast.

I'm not sure why I am so attracted to this subject, perhaps because of its emotional intensity, but over the past months many times I have found myself thinking on this issue many times. Why would someone hang themselves right before their exhibit was launch in a 1997 exhibit (that shall remain nameless until I find accurate sources), in Regina, Saskatchewan? The mood was dark, outside the inner room, there were excerpts from The Marquis De Sades journals blown up and still on display, yet in the next room all was dark and the rest of the show was off limits, and remained so until its close. The faint scent of death lingered in the air, and all was black if you peered beyond the barrier. The sign read “Staff Only” like a curse. I'm not saying this is more than just a rumour but I heard through the grapevine that it was. The artist in question had problems with life, stresses, mental illness even. Perhaps it was only about herself.

But there are areas in art, particularly in the field of photography when these stresses build up in the sense that Life has a certain intrinsic value but one must question how one views the importance of Art in the world. Every war photographer who was placed in Vietnam (or other later wars) with a unit, and I do mean everyone with a camera had to pick up a gun and defend themselves, and in doing so kill someone just to stay alive. It is an air and a poise to think one can be on the battlefield of war and not involved directly in it or its consequences. The question has come up over the years, over the virtues of this type of photography when a girl trapped under debris from a volcanic lahar drowned over 60 hours. The National Geographic field reporter was Frank Fournier, who took a series of photographs of Omayra Sánchez Garzón in 1985. The girl died, but the photograph gained much praise, and won several notable awards. This is the photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omayra_S%C3%A1nchez

Also the placement of two rotting sides of beef in the National Gallery in London behind glass, which I can not find references to, but is said to have occurred in the early 90s as a reference to Francis Bacon's work “Figure With Meat, 1954”. Bacon had recently died, in 1992, and his art sold for more than any other living artist at the time. This iconic work, perhaps because of its profound emotional effect on many, created many references and nods in art. It can be found here with some of his other works: http://theredlist.com/wiki-2-351-861-414-1293-1237-1292-view-figurative-painting-profile-bacon-francis.html

Among those that reference this material is Nine Inch Nails video for Closer. And the German art movement, among them Joel Peter-Witkin that inspired this inspiration also reminisces on Death and the goriest parts of living frequently.   Bacon's art also shows us, the viewer, something very dark is very revealing about our inner nature. It was the most controversial piece the gallery hosted in years, however, I would say it could be outdone by later generations. 

The question in the end is how much value does Art have? If it can save a thousand lives and enlighten the world to bring in the kind of change required to improve the plight of a group of people, can the price be more than that of life.

Hotly contested is the series of art pieces in... involving a dog being chained up in a gallery in Nicoragua. The exhibit by Guillermo Vargaz Jiménez was composed of a chained up dog that was by some reports allowed to starve to death while gallery visitors walked by. Most do not mention that 175 pieces of crack and one ounce of marijuana were allowed to burn in the exposition. Outside on the streets hundreds of dogs were starving all the time. There was no organization or agency to deal with them, and this exhibit showed the need. Was it an immoral thing to do? Was art really worth the life of a dog, a very slow animal... if you had explained its role in life would it understand? Isn't killing a dog synonymous with killing a young child? In North America we don't use dogs as food, outside of the Inuit and Eskimo peoples in the far north, and are generally disgusted by this art that one terrorist/artist found appealing enough for his most note-worthy installation.

More questions arise than answers here, also.   Death in art is not always intentional in the harsh Northern reaches of Canada either.  While taking pictures of a newlywed in her wedding dress, in part of a lake in 2012, the photographer, Louis Pagakis, was startled to see Maria Pantazopoulos go out into deeper waters, and have the young lady from Rawdon, Quebec (north of Montreal) drown in the heavy weight of her dress, despite his efforts to pull her out and save her. (Montreal Gazette 12.21.2012) Pagakis was floored. On his facebook page he writes that his favourite quote is: “We shall be students till death”. And sometimes of Death, it would seem.

I would say to every person, artist or not there is a certain wavering line that can not be crossed in terms of deeming death as art. This sort of questioning can not be avoided, yet remains a frightening prospect for the future based on previous lassé faire appraisals that we all know lead from upright to corrupt, good to bad, Monarchist Democracy to Communist sentiment. Under the past ideology it would be okay to walk into a gallery and for them to show footage of an artist killing themselves, or partaking in an act of murder. I would think that some guidelines should be drawn up for this sort of thing. Although over-generalizations are of no help to anyone, some thoughts on the moral correctness of this behaviour towards death, and whether the public really wants to be exposed to visions of death and murder need to be addressed.

In the end Life and Death are subjective in value to the beholder, yet placing too much worth in one can devalue the other, which are inexorably linked. But the value of one's own soul is in the beholder's hands. If you don't like ultra violent activities then don't support this sort of thing, and join with the 4 million who wrote in to oppose Guillermo Jiménez. Support your own world and your own life, by taking part in activities that expand your consciousness, and open your horizons to the world. If you do like the Gothic darker side of life, you are probably in the right place if you live on the prairies, and you should experience that topic in art more. Please don't go out and kill someone because you think it is art however. Then I would have to kill you.