YOU MUST READ MY BOOK!!
"Only My Imagination"
YOU WILL NEVER BE THE SAME AGAIN!
What is reality?
The culmination of a lifetime of thinking, writing and honing, "Only My Imagination" is the fascinating debut from John Lundberg.
Covered within are an amazing range of topics, from Religion to Politics, Evolution to Astrophysics, and Spirituality to the meaning of life. This whirlwind journey of thought provoking musings is uniquely designed to leave you with more questions than answers about aspects of human existence that you had previously taken for granted through accepted convention.
Where have we come from? Where are we going?
From the first page to the last, you are informed and challenged. Including such chapter titles as "What is Music?" and "Jesus on the 22A Bus", this is a book unlike any other you will ever read.
Outrageously challenging the old norms and prejudices that still exist. How is it that if you go for a walk in the park naked, you will quickly be arrested and subjected to mental examination. You will never be the same again. Yet a famous photographer can get 3000 naked people of both sexes to lie on grass in full view of the public and nothing happens?
How can 3000 naked people in the park be right but one naked person be wrong? Is it possible that we are all insane? An advanced visitor from another planet might well think so.
Is it Art!!!
Or is it wacko??
SEX
Can any of us really be defined as 'sane'?
If not, why don't we say so?
To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me say that the following comments refer only to adults and adult behaviour, and not to any exploitation of children.
The massive international phobia that apparently exists, with regard to what is termed “pornography”, is revealing, in relation to human rational thought processes and responses. Naked people frolicking around in response to their inbuilt pre-programmed powerful sexual desires, and/or the desire of billions of people to access this type of entertainment, has created a vast industry dedicated to stamping it out. Or at least there is the presumption that the Anti Porn movement is a vast industry. Maybe it's not as big as we might think. What exactly are the dangers of pornography and to whom? To the extent that there are such dangers, what progress in actual fact are the supporters and providers of porn blocking services making? To what extent are they succeeding in their mission?
Is there an argument to be made, that the sum total of all this endeavor is entirely wasted? That the proportion of the human race that is determined to cater for this method of satisfying their sexual desires, is too significant to be effectively thwarted?
Is there any evidence to the contrary? Is there any evidence that the vast number of people seeking porn, are having any difficulty in accessing it? If not, is the apparently massive effort by would-be morally correct purists not entirely a waste of resources?
Can any of us be realistically be defined as 100% sane?
If not . . . . . . . .
Another thought just occurred to me. I read in the 'Google' book, by David Wise, that 'one out of every four requests for information on Google and other Internet search engines involves pornography, according to a 2004 study by Family Safe Media, a watchdog group'. It would appear from the viewpoint of Family Safe Media and others, that sex is highly dangerous, even when indulged in by an individual in private. But a question struck me – is the Sex Is Dangerous brigade actually a significant minority of the population of the planet? I suspect that this may be the case. In which case, what about the rest of the population, what about the majority? And another thought struck me. If the Sex Is Dangerous brigade is socially significant, why does their electorate not figure in general elections? Why is it not a major general election issue? Why is there not a strong and popular Sex Is Dangerous Party sweeping into power?
Could this possibly be an example of an actual minority seeking to impose their viewpoint on the majority? Out of curiosity, I just did a bit of legal research on this subject. I can't say I was surprised by the results. In the Google book, it said that 'pornography, within limits, is protected by the First Amendment in the U.S.' Naturally I found this a fascinating statement. I searched for 'First Amendment' and discovered that it was basically about freedom of expression. Probing further I looked at this Amendment and noted that, among other things, it distinguished between things that are 'obscene' and things that are merely 'indecent'. Here we go, I thought. I looked up 'obscenity' to get a dictionary description. These searches can get a bit complex, as you'll know if you did any.
From www.thefreedictionary.com
Obscenity is:
1. The state or quality of being obscene.
Here we go again, as Ronald Reagan famously once said (actually he said 'there you go again')
Obscenity is the state or quality of being obscene. Wonderful. As clear as mud.
2. Indecency, lewdness, or offensiveness in behavior, expression, or appearance.
Indecency is here used as an extension or equivalent of Obscenity, whereas specific instances that produced laws defined by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment, distinguished between 'merely indecent' and 'obscene'.
Can you believe this stuff? Let's move on a bit, as there is no point in stretching out this 'Research'. If I did it would take me to my waiting grave, and there are other things I would prefer to do instead.
3. Something, such as a word, act, or expression, that is indecent or lewd.
My final throw at it:
Indecent or lewd.
I searched for both words. From Wikipedia: 'The terms indecent and obscenity, have wide application in English law, but are not defined in any legislation' (!!!!) Are you getting the drift here? Would you love to be a lawyer?
“In R. v. Stanley in 1965, Lord Parker attempted to differentiate indecency from obscenity”. The learned judge stated that “The words indecent or obscene convey one idea: namely, offending against the recognised standards of propriety – indecent being at the lower end of the scale and obscene being at the upper end of the scale” Where did the learned judge get this stuff from?
How does he decide which of the two words is at which end of this 'scale' of his? It reminds me of our own home grown hero, Daniel O'Connell, The Great Irish Liberator, who claimed with justification, that he could “drive a coach and horses through any Act of Parliament”
I hope you are enjoying this, since I am not. There are other judges quoted giving different interpretations and how all this gives rise to 'good law' is beyond my simple understanding.
BUT AT THIS POINT I AM CALLING A HALT, AS I AM GETTING TOO OLD.
4. Something that is offensive or repulsive to the senses: "What had once been a gentle hill covered with lush grass turned into a brown obscenity of bare earth and smoke" Tom Clancy.