What is the Mohorovičić Discontinuity?

The Mohorovicic Discontinuity, or "Moho", is the boundary between the crust and the mantle. The red line in the drawing below shows its location.

Image of Earth's internal structure by USGS - Mohorovicic Discontinuity (red line) added by Geology.com In geology the word "discontinuity" is used for a surface at which seismic waves change velocity. One of these surfaces exists at an average depth of 8 kilometers beneath the ocean basin and at an average depth of about 32 kilometers beneath the continents. At this discontinuity, seismic waves accelerate. This surface is known as the Mohorovicic Discontinuity or often simply referred to as the "Moho".

How Was the Moho Discovered?

The Mohorovicic Discontinuity was discovered in 1909 by Andrija Mohorovicic , a Croatian seismologist. Mohorovicic realized that the velocity of a seismic wave is related to the density of the material that it is moving through. He interpreted the acceleration of seismic waves observed within Earth's outer shell as a compositional change within the earth. The acceleration must be caused by a higher density material being present at depth.

The lower density material immediately beneath the surface is now commonly referred to as "Earth's crust". The higher density below the crust became known as "Earth's mantle". Through careful density calculations Mohorovicic determined that the basaltic oceanic crust and the granitic continental crust are underlain by a material which has a density similar to an olivine-rich rock such as peridotite.

How Deep is the Moho?

The Mohorovicic Discontinuity marks the lower limit of Earth's crust. As stated above it occurs at an average depth of about 8 kilometers beneath the ocean basins and 32 kilometers beneath continental surfaces. Mohorovičić was able to use his discovery to study thickness variations of the crust. He discovered that the oceanic crust has a relatively uniform thickness while continental crust is thickest under mountain ranges and thinner under plains.

The map below illustrates the thickness of Earth's crust. Note how the thickest areas (red and dark brown) are beneath some of Earth's important mountain ranges such as: Andes (west side of South America), Rockies (Western North America), Himalayas (north of India in South-central Asia) and Urals (north-south trending between Europe and Asia)

Thickness of Earth's crust by USGS - since the Moho is at the base of the crust this map also shows depth to Moho.

Has Anyone Ever Seen the Moho?

No one has ever been deep enough into the earth to see the Moho and no wells have ever been drilled deep enough to penetrate it. Drilling wells to that depth is very expensive and very difficult because of the extreme temperature and pressure conditions. The deepest well that has been drilled to date was located on the Kola Peninsula of the Soviet Union. It was drilled to a depth of about 12 kilometers. Drilling to the Moho through oceanic crust has also been unsuccessful.

There are a few rare locations where mantle material has been brought to the surface by tectonic forces. At these locations, rock that used to be at the crust - mantle boundary is present. A photo of rock from one of these locations is shown below.

Intuition (knowledge)

Intuition is the apparent ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason.

“The word ‘intuition’ comes from the Latin word 'intueri', which is often roughly translated as meaning ‘to look inside’ or ‘to contemplate’."^[1]

It is "the immediate apprehension of an object by the mind without the intervention of any reasoning process"^[2] Intuition is controlled by the right hemisphere of the brain.^[3][4][5]

Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot necessarily justify. For this reason, it has been the subject of study in psychology, as well as a topic of interest in the supernatural.

Claims

Law enforcement officers often claim to observe suspects and immediately "know" that they possess a weapon or illicit narcotic substances. On such occasions, these officers are unable to articulate their accurate reactions that may represent building blocks to reasonable suspicion or probable cause indicators. Often unable to articulate why they reacted or what prompted them at the time of the event, they sometimes retrospectively can plot their actions based upon what had been clear and present danger signals.^[6] Intuitive abilities were quantitatively tested at Yale University in the 1970's. While studying nonverbal communication, researchers noted that some subjects were able to read nonverbal facial cues before reinforcement occurred. ^[7] In employing a similar design, they noted that highly intuitive subjects made decisions quickly but could not identify their rationale. Their level of accuracy, however, did not differ from that of nonintuitive subjects.^[8].

Definitions

“Intuition is a combination of historical (empirical) data, deep and heightened observation and an ability to cut through the thickness of surface reality. Intuition is like a slow motion machine that captures data instantaneously and hits you like a ton of bricks. Intuition is a knowing, a sensing that is beyond the conscious understanding — a gut feeling. Intuition is not pseudo-science.” Abella Arthur

In personality assessment

Intuition is one of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung's four 'psychological types' or ego functions. In this early model of the personal psyche, intuition was opposed by sensation on one axis, while feeling was opposed by thinking on another axis. Jung argued that, in a given individual, one of these four functions was primary — most prominent or developed — in the consciousness. The opposing function would typically be underdeveloped in that individual. The remaining pair (on the other axis) would be consciously active, but to a lesser extent than the primary function. ^[9] This schema is perhaps most familiar today as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

In psychology, intuition can encompass the ability to know valid solutions to problems and decision making. For example, the recognition primed decision (RPD) model was described by Gary Klein in order to explain how people can make relatively fast decisions without having to compare options. Klein found that under time pressure, high stakes, and changing parameters, experts used their base of experience to identify similar situations and intuitively choose feasible solutions. Thus, the RPD model is a blend of intuition and analysis. The intuition is the pattern-matching process that quickly suggests feasible courses of action. The analysis is the mental simulation, a conscious and deliberate review of the courses of action^{[citation needed]}.

An important intuitive method for identifying options is brainstorming^{[citation needed]}. According to the renowned Neuropsychologist and Neurobiologist Roger Wolcott Sperry though, Intuition is a right-brain activity while Factual and Mathematical analysis is a left-brain activity.^[10]

The reliability of one’s intuition depends greatly on past knowledge and occurrences in a specific area. Someone who has more experiences with children will tend to have a better instinct or intuition about what they should do in certain situations. This is not to say that one with a great amount of experience is always going to have an accurate intuition (because some can be biased); however, the chances of it being more reliable are definitely amplified. ^[11]

Justice

Justice by Luca Giordano

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. A conception of justice is one of the key features of society. Theories of justice vary greatly, but there is evidence that everyday views of justice can be reconciled with patterned moral preferences.

Concept of justice

Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. As a concept it has been subject to philosophical, legal, and theological reflection and debate throughout history. According to most theories of justice, it is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls, for instance, claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."^[2]: Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity or compassion. Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need" ^[3]. Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequality aversion may not be uniquely human."^[4] indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.

Variations of justice

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.

Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally-correct and fully deserved. The law of retaliation (lex battalions) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."^[5]

Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things - wealth, power, reward, respect - between different people. A number of important questions surrounding justice have been fiercely debated over the course of western history: What is justice? What does it demand of individuals and societies? What is the proper distribution of wealth and resources in society: equal, meritocratic, according to status, or some other arrangement? There is a myriad of possible answers to these questions from divergent perspectives on the political and philosophical spectrum.

Oppressive Law exercises an authoritarian approach to legislation which is "totally unrelated to justice", a tyrannical interpretation of law is one in which the population lives under restriction from unlawful legislation.

Some theorists, such as the classical Greeks, conceive of justice as a virtue—a property of people, and only derivatively of their actions and the institutions they create. Others emphasize actions or institutions, and only derivatively the people who bring them about. The source of justice has variously been attributed to harmony, divine command, natural law, or human creation.

Kinds of justice


Justice as harmony

In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice which covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person’s soul has three parts – reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a quack, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one’s city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what’s good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship’s course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.^[6]

Justice as divine command

Main article: Divine command theory

Justice as a divine law is commanding , and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command. Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished what should be done? There is a famous paradox called the Euthyphro dilemma which essentially asks: is something right because God commands it, or does God command it because it's right? If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. Some Divine command advocates respond by pointing out that the dilemma is false: goodness is the very nature of God and is necessarily expressed in His commands.

Justice as natural law

Main article: Natural law

See also: John Locke

Justice as human creation

In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans.

Justice as authoritative command

Injustice by Giotto di Bondone

According to thinkers including Thomas Hobbes, justice is created by public, enforceable, authoritative rules, and injustice is whatever those rules forbid, regardless of their relation to morality. Justice is created, not merely described or approximated, by the command of an absolute sovereign power. This position has some similarities with divine command theory (see above), with the difference that the state (or other authority) replaces God.

Justice as trickery

In Republic, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strong—merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people. Nietzsche, in contrast, argues that justice is part of the slave-morality of the weak many, rooted in their resentment of the strong few, and intended to keep the noble man down. In Human, All Too Human he states that, "there is no eternal justice."

Further information: Republic (dialogue), Master-slave morality

Justice as mutual agreement

Main article: Social contract

According to thinkers in the social contract tradition, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’.

Justice as a subordinate value

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those which tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another’s place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.^[7] Utilitarianism.

Theories of distributive justice

Allegory or The Triumph of Justice by Hans von Aachen

Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

1. What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of these things?
2. Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single society, nations?
3. What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression?

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from non-coerced interactions or transactions (that is, transactions not based upon force or fraud).

This section describes some widely-held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.

Egalitarianism

Main article: Egalitarianism

According to the egalitarian, goods should be distributed equally. This basic view can be elaborated in many different ways, according to what goods are to be distributed—wealth, respect, opportunity—and what they are to be distributed equally between—individuals, families, nations, races, species. Commonly-held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity and for equality of outcome.

Giving people what they deserve

In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the basis for deserts. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice—and theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with some popular theories of the second type.

According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs-based theory on some readings of Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."^[8] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.

Fairness

Main article: A Theory of Justice

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance which denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don’t know who in particular we are, and therefore can’t bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls’s two principles of justice:

• Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
• Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
  • to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
  • attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.^[9]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls’s theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) liberties and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).

Property Rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history

Robert Nozick’s influential critique of Rawls argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds:

1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and

2. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).

If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called pareto efficiency. A pareto efficient transaction is one in which at least one party ends up better off and neither party ends up worse off. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone by coercion.

Further information: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Libertarianism

Welfare-maximization

Main article: Utilitarianism

According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone’s good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.

Theories of retributive justice

Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions:

1. why punish?
2. who should be punished?
3. what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

Utilitarianism

According to the utilitarian, as already noted, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore can’t be good in itself, for the utilitarian. But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice which maximizes the overall good in the long term, in one or more of three ways:

1. Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed threats might lead people to make choices which maximize welfare.
2. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that ‘bad person’ can mean is ‘person who’s likely to cause bad things (like suffering) ’. So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things.
3. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm.

So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.^[10]

Retributivism

Main article: Retributive justice

The retributivist will think the utilitarian's argument disastrously mistaken. If someone does something wrong, we must respond to it, and to him or her, as an individual, not as a part of a calculation of overall welfare. To do otherwise is to disrespect him or her as an individual human being. If the crime had victims, it is to disrespect them, too. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. Retributivism emphasizes retribution – payback – rather than maximization of welfare. Like the theory of distributive justice as giving everyone what they deserve (see above), it links justice with desert. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.^[11] Despite this criticism, there are numerous differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial, has a scale of appropriateness and corrects a moral wrong, whereas the latter is personal, unlimited in scale, and often corrects a slight.

Further information: Deontological ethics

Institutions

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court with President George W. Bush, October 2005

Main article: Law

In an imperfect world, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice, however imperfectly. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards — consider the institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal which the world fails to live up to, sometimes despite good intentions, sometimes disastrously. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law.

Another definition of justice is an independent investigation of truth. In a court room, lawyers, the judge and the jury are supposed to be independently investigating the truth of an alleged crime. In physics, a group of physicists examine data and theoretical concepts to consult on what might be the truth or reality of a phenomenon.

Justice is one of the four cardinal virtues in classical European philosophy and Roman Catholicism. It is the moderation between selfishness and selflessness.

The just man renders to each and all what is due to them, which are their moral and legal rights to do, possess, or exact something. This is equal insofar as each one receives what he is entitled to, but may be unequal insofar as different people may have different rights: two children have different rights from a certain adult if that adult is the parent of one of them and not of the other.

It is closely related, in Christianity, to the practice of charity, because it regulates the relationships with others. It is a cardinal virtue, which is to say "pivotal" because it regulates all such relationships, and is sometimes deemed the most important of the cardinal virtues.

Polyphemus

by Ron Leadbetter

Polyphemus, the son of Poseidon and Thoosa. He was a Cyclops (plural Cyclopes) in Greek (Kuklops) meaning "round eye", a mythical semi-human monster of huge proportions, with a single eye at the centre of his forehead, usually described as a one-eyed giant. The island where they are thought to have dwelt is a remote part of Sicily, where they lived in caves and eating raw flesh of any kind (including human), and also keeping goats and sheep. They led a fairly solitary existence.

Polyphemus is best remembered for the role he took in Homer's epic poem the Odyssey when he captures the Greek hero Odysseus. The story unfolds as Odysseus and twelve of his crew, on their way home from the Trojan War, land on the island of the Cyclopes in search of provisions. Odysseus and his men came across the cave of Polyphemus, and went inside hoping to steal food while Polyphemus was away tending his flock. Being inquisitive, Odysseus wanted to see what a Cyclops looked like, so they hid in the cave until Polyphemus returned.

That evening, Polyphemus herded his flock of sheep and goats into his cave and, for safekeeping, rolled a huge boulder across the entrance, not knowing the Greeks were inside. On seeing the one-eyed giant. Odysseus and his men gasped in disbelief, giving away their hiding place. Polyphemus rushed forward and killed two of the men, then devouring them both for his dinner, he then fell fast asleep. Odysseus relished the thought of killing Polyphemus, but knowing full well he and his men could never remove the boulder from the cave entrance, conceived a plan on how to escape. On waking the next morning Polyphemus caught two more of Odysseus' men, and ate them both for breakfast. He then rolled back the boulder, allowing just enough room for his flock to get out, then rolling the huge rock back into place, leaving the Greeks inside ready for his next meal.

Odysseus set his men to work on sharpening a stout pole, which they did, and then hiding it ready for that evening. As dusk grew close Polyphemus returned, again rolling back the boulder and letting in his flock. He then caught two more Greeks, killed them and ate them raw. After consuming both men he spoke to Odysseus asking, "what is your name", Odysseus' reply was "Outis" (in Greek this means "nobody"). As part of the plan, Odysseus offered Polyphemus a full goatskin of wine and when he had finish the last drop, and feeling a little drunk, Polyphemus fell fast asleep. This was the time to take action, Odysseus and four of his men brought out the pole, which they had sharpened, and with one great thrust plunged the point into Polyphemus' eye, pushing it deep, to ensure it made him totally blind. The agonizing pain made Polyphemus scream out, so loud in fact that it brought the neighboring Cyclopes to see what was wrong. "Who is hurting you" asked the other Cyclopes, Polyphemus screamed "nobody is hurting me", (which is why Odysseus said was his name was "Outis"). Tthinking his screams were a punishment from the gods, the other Cyclopes went away.

At daybreak Polyphemus rolled the great boulder from the mouth of the cave to let out his flock, but being totally blind, and knowing the Greeks would try to escape, he felt each animal as he let it pass. Odysseus and his men held on to the belly of a ram, and, one at a time escaped from the cave. They quickly ran to their ship, taking with then part of the flock. Once aboard, Odysseus taunted Polyphemus by telling him his true identity, and Polyphemus, realizing he had been tricked hurled rocks at the ship, trying to smash its hull to pieces. When Odysseus had made his escape, Polyphemus prayed to his father asking him to send a curse, and throughout the rest of Odysseus' journey home Poseidon was his enemy.

In the Hellenistic age, Theocritus the Sicilian Greek poet, wrote two poems (circa 275 BCE) set in the time before the Odysseus legend, a tale of how Polyphemus fell in love with the sea nymph Galatea. Polyphemus was also one of the Argonauts names, from the legend of Jason and the Argonauts, but bears no relationship to "Polyphemus the Cyclops".

Here I see the rising of EVE, in Ohio

Here I see the rising of EVE, in Ohio

Yet, you ask for whom the (Ma) Bell tolls

IT TOLLS FOR THE E

See Sally Khun's Smithsonian sfumato

Jamahiriya : The second GOing of radical Islam

AURANGZEB (1618-1707). In the 200-year history of India's Mughal Empire, which was founded in 1530, Aurangzeb was the last great ruler. A warrior-statesman, he was also a zealous follower of the religion of Islam. His fanatic intolerance of other religions gave rise to tensions that eventually led to the dissolution of the empire after his death.

Born on Nov. 3, 1618, Aurangzeb was the son of the emperor Shah Jahan. His given name was Muhi-ud-Din Muhammad. Early in life he showed military and administrative abilities and was given a number of troop commands by his father. When Shah Jahan became ill in 1657, Aurangzeb defeated his brothers in the war of succession that followed. His father, meanwhile, was confined to the palace from 1658 until his death in 1666.

Aurangzeb crowned himself emperor in 1658, with the title Alamgir (world holder). His reign fell into two parts. Until 1680 he consolidated his power in northern India by war and shrewd politics. He patterned himself after his great-grandfather, Akbar, by reconciling his enemies and placing them in his service. Much of the second half of his reign was spent trying to subdue rebellions in the south of India. His wars exhausted the imperial treasury, and he began to lose control of northern India.

The most unfortunate aspect of his reign was his severe persecution of the majority Hindu population. His attempt to force Islam on the people weakened his whole kingdom. Aurangzeb died on March 3, 1707. The failure of his successors to cope with the problems he had created led to the downfall of the Mughal Empire.

The SculPTor (1776-1867)

MONA LISA IS CENTRAL SIAL STAR OF MONESTARY ....AND MONEY

The Media's dual monastery of city Zen Cain

The focal point of Zen Buddhism is the monastery, where masters and pupils interact in the search for enlightenment. A newcomer arrives at a monastery with a certificate showing that he is a regularly ordained disciple of a priest. He is at first refused entry. Finally being admitted, he spends a few days of probation being interviewed by his master. When he is accepted he is initiated into the SIMA community's life of humility, labor, service, prayer and gratitude (to the MOHO MASTERS), and meditation.

Meditation (brain parking) has been an integral part of Buddhism from the beginning. A school of meditation that grew up in India was taken to China by Bodhidharma about AD 520. When the meditation school arrived in China, it had a strong foundation on which to build: Taoism, the ancient Chinese religion. This religion is based on the idea that there is one underlying reality called the Tao. Taoists, like the followers of the meditation school, exalted intuition over reason. This Taoist tradition was easily absorbed by the Chinese meditation school, the Ch'an.

Zen gained an enthusiastic following among the Samurai warrior class and became in effect the state religion of Japan in the 14th and 15th centuries. In the 16th century Zen priests were diplomats and administrators, and they enhanced cultural life as well. Under their influence literature, art, the cult of the tea (eta/ota etc.) ceremony, and the "Noh drama" developed. (Noh: also see Noah, Noé, and Noaa)

Zen, therefore, has its basis in the conviction that the world and its components are not many things. They are, rather, one reality. The one is part of a larger wholeness to which transubstantiated people assign the name of God. In fact reason and stem cell intuition are opposite ends of the same dual structure--where the dual monestary is also mona-star-y and money--ie: male/K9 is feline femi-nine.

ABFARADS ~ PTAH's FAT ARMAGEDDON PHALANGE !

AFAR~Djibouti
FAITH
FAMILY
FATHER
BROWN FAT
FARM
FAILURE
DEFAME
FACE
FADS
FATIMA
FAIRY
FAGGOT
FAHD
FAKIR
FALL
FALSE
FANNY
JAFFA
FARCE
FAROUK
FARSI
FASCISM
FATHOM

far‡ad n. Abbr. F The unit of capacitance in the meter-kilogram-second system equal to the capacitance of a capacitor having an equal and opposite charge of 1 coulomb on each plate and a potential difference of 1 volt between the plates.

ab‡far‡ad n. The centimeter-gram-second electromagnetic unit of capacitance, equal to one billion farads.


THE SCULPTOR

Zoro~Astrianism!

Zoro~Astrianism!

According to the material I have read and the codes I have deciphered, Matrial Clan Societies were fully functional in Eritrea/Ethiopia (Abyssinia) for at least 140,000 years. Then, (58,800 BC) pedophiles were forcibly evicted from the clans and they resettled in caves of mountains adjacent to the coastline of the Red Sea, in what was later called The Land of Punt (Somalia).

From there these predator pedophiles preyed upon the matrial clans, while eventually perfecting the arts of sailing and stone-cutting (mining); many among them also became addicted to local drugs (myrrh/soma/opium).

Designating themselves expatriate Ma~sons and "High Priests", they began to expand their vast tunnel complex underground which, eventually, led them over many millinea, and by tracing rats through the cracks and spaces that separate the plates of the earth, first to resurface on Gulf islands, and much later, at Mount Sinai.

Again later, over thousands of years, they made their way underground, passing through the Levant and on to Mount Ararat. The Priests who dressed as women established their first permanent outposts at Sinai and Ararat.

Much later, but prior to the last ice age (24,000 BC), they set up permanent command and control headquarters on the continent of Antarctica (Atlantis), where they developed a secret plan to take over the planet in a step-by-step manner; in preparation for the day when they would eventually lift~off from earth and explore the stars (rats written backwards). This is when they formulated Zoro-Astrianism as their ARMY called RE~LEGION.

To begin their infiltration back into surface clan society, they then genetically modified humans spies (to be their eyes), by cleansing their skin colour and later introduced these Sons of Gods slowly (males only at
first) styled Aryans, into the Caucuses region, at the end of the Ice Age.

Command and Control remains in Antarctica, while the entire planet is linked underground in a geodesic web of tunnels whose main openings are centered on Assyria (Syria~Iraq~Iran), Korea and Thibet.

The SculPTor

Y TU MAMA nominated for Academy Award~!

Remember Y2K? Get ready the HERMAPHRODITE is coming!

Y TU MAMA received an open source coding Oscar nomination.
It is Freemasonry's code for

Y = 2 in 1
TU = 2
MAMA = Mother

Announcing: 2 in 1 second mother.

For those among you who may not have grasped the open source coding which is used by Freemasonry please look at your watch. You will notice that a second is the smallest unit of time. Have you ever questioned why it is called a second and not a first?

In Masonry #2 is always #1. A Chief Financial Officer (2) always has more power than the Chief Executive Officer (1). The Queen on the chess~board has more power than the King.

Likewise, when Masons give a date, such as they did for the birth of Jesus, the public is told the year of birth was zero, however, the story was not even written until the second century. The alpha symbol for this concept is depicted by the letter Y, which means 2 into 1.

Therefore, when Basque Masons predicted Y2K, what they were saying to each other was : in the second year (Y) of the second millineum (2001) we will act on 2 K. Now, place 2 letters K mirrored back-to-back to each other and you will see that the pictogram created now resembles a letter X along with a one running down the middle. This new pictogram made with X and I is the Masonry symbol for the Roman numerals 9 and 11 (IX~XI).

On 9/11 0f 2001 the World Trade Centre's two towers in one project were demolished at the expense of 3000 lives. Masons now want you to believe that nothing happened because of Y2K.