Core Principles

• Impermanence (Mujo): Recognizing that all things are temporary, change is constant, and aging is natural.
• Asymmetry and Flaws: Valuing irregular shapes, rough textures, and unpretentious natural forms over factory-made perfection.
• Appreciation of Time: Honoring the marks, cracks, or patina left by use and history rather than hiding them.

My Thoughts

• Nothing is ever finished or complete (ever changing)
• Nothing is ever perfect. That is humbling and what makes us and everything around us unique and worth appreciating.
• Nothing last forever. Enjoy and cherish every moment!

The Living Force: This is the energy generated by the “here and now” of biological life. Every plant, animal, and sentient being produces this energy through the act of living. It represents localized empathy, raw life-force, and instincts. Jedi who focus heavily on the Living Force (like Qui-Gon Jinn) prioritize the immediate present, trusting their instincts and focusing on saving the lives directly in front of them.

The Cosmic Force: This is the “big picture” macro-verse. It is the vast, overarching wellspring that binds the entire galaxy, space, and time together. It possesses a grand, unified consciousness—the literal “will of the Force” that orchestrates destiny and guides galactic events. Jedi who focus on the Cosmic Force are more prone to experiencing visions of the future and dealing with grand prophecies.

The eternal cycle

The relationship between the two forms a literal spiritual ecosystem:

1. Generation: Living organisms live out their lives, actively generating the Living Force.
2. Transition: When an organism dies, its individual life energy doesn’t disappear; it passes away and feeds into the grand wellspring of the Cosmic Force.
3. Communication: The Cosmic Force then speaks back to the physical world. It communicates its macro-intentions to living beings influencing the Living Force to correct imbalances.
4. Rebirth: New life is continually sparked from the energy of the Cosmic Force, restarting the cycle.

Understanding the distinction is also exactly how Qui-Gon Jinn discovered the secret to becoming a Force ghost. By anchoring his consciousness securely within the connection between the Living and Cosmic fields, he learned how to retain his physical identity even after his individual life-force had dissolved back into the cosmic whole.

Jedi factions argued over which aspect to prioritize because their choice directly dictated a Jedi’s moral duties, political alignment, and daily actions. Choosing one over the other completely alters how a Force-user interacts with the galaxy.

The ideological divide

The debate split the Jedi Order into two distinct philosophical camps, creating major internal tension:

• Living Force advocates (The Mavericks): Jedi like Qui-Gon Jinn argued that prioritizing the present moment was the only way to do true good. They believed that by focusing too much on grand cosmic destinies, a Jedi becomes detached from reality, missing the suffering and needs of individuals right in front of them. To them, the future is always in motion, so fixing the immediate present is what matters most.

• Cosmic Force advocates (The Traditionalists): The Jedi High Council and Grand Master Yoda (prior to the Clone Wars) leaned heavily toward the big picture. They argued that without focusing on the Cosmic Force, a Jedi is blind to overarching galactic imbalances, dark side conspiracies, and long-term consequences. They believed that micro-actions in the present are meaningless if they inadvertently lead to a macro-disaster in the future.  ( “It doesn’t matter if an action seems good right now if it ends up causing a much bigger problem later.”)

The tragic consequence

This philosophical argument had catastrophic real-world results for the Jedi Order:

• The Council’s blindness: Because the Jedi Council was hyper-focused on the Cosmic Force—watching for grand prophecies and massive shifts in galactic politics—they became politically rigid and emotionally detached.

• Palpatine’s exploitation: Darth Sidious easily exploited this detachment. The Council was so busy trying to decipher the grand future that they failed to notice the immediate, living suffering of citizens, cloning conspiracies, and the emotional collapse of Anakin Skywalker happening right under their noses.

The classic Just-War Theory has its origins in Christian theology. Saint Augustine is usually identified as the first individual to offer a theory on war and justice. Augustine referred to the Bible and regarded some wars as necessary to amend an evil. Saint Thomas Aquinas revised Augustine’s version, creating three criteria for a just war: the war needed to be waged by a legitimate authority, have a just cause, and have the right intentions. The moral justifications for a war are expressed in jus ad bellum; whereas, the moral conduct of the war is expressed in jus in bello. The Just-War Theory is a set of rules for military combat.

Principles of Just-War Theory

1. Last Resort
   • A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered. The use of force can only be used as a last resort.
2. Legitimate Authority – Jus ad bellum
   • A just war is waged by a legitimate authority. A war cannot be waged by individuals or groups that do not constitute the legitimate government.
3. Just Cause
   • A just war needs to be in response to a wrong suffered. Self-defense against an attack always constitutes a just war; however, the war needs to be fought with the objective to correct the inflicted wound.
4. Probability of Success
   • In order for a war to be just, there must be a rational possibility of success. A nation cannot enter into a war with a hopeless cause.
5. Right Intention
   • The primary objective of a just war is to re-establish peace. In particular, the peace after the war should exceed the peace that would have succeeded without the use of force. The aim of the use of force must be justice.
6. Proportionality
   • The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered. The nations involved in the war must avoid disproportionate military action and only use the amount of force absolutely necessary.
7. Civilian Casualties – Jus in bello
   • The use of force must distinguish between the militia and civilians. Innocent citizens must never be the target of war; soldiers should always avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are only justified when they are unavoidable victims of a military attack on a strategic target.

St. Augustine’s just war theory outlines conditions under which war might be considered morally permissible. He believed that war should be a last resort, undertaken to achieve peace and to punish evil, rather than for the sake of war itself. He emphasized that the desire for peace should be the primary motivation, and war should be waged only when necessary to restore order or prevent greater harm.

Here’s a more detailed look at St. Augustine’s key ideas:

• Purpose of War:
  • Augustine saw war as a means to an end, specifically the establishment of peace and the punishment of evil. He believed that war could be just if it was waged to punish sinners or to return the world to a state of peace.
• Just Cause:
  • A just cause for war, according to Augustine, could be self-defense, defending the innocent, or punishing those who have broken the law.
• Legitimate Authority:
  • War must be declared by a legitimate authority, such as a state or leader, not by individuals or factions.
• Right Intention:
  • The intention behind the war must be to seek peace and justice, not to gain power or territory.
• Last Resort:
  • War should be a last resort, only undertaken after all other peaceful means of resolving the conflict have been exhausted.
• Proportionality:
  • The use of force must be proportionate to the harm being inflicted, and the potential consequences of the war must be weighed against the benefits of peace.
• Reasonable Chance of Success:
  • There must be a reasonable chance of achieving the objectives of the war and bringing about peace.
• Divine Will:
  • Augustine believed that war could be seen as just when it aligns with the divine will, even if it is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

St. Augustine’s just war theory has had a significant influence on the development of just war theory in Western thought, providing a framework for evaluating the ethical implications of war. His emphasis on peace as the ultimate goal and the need for just cause, legitimate authority, and right intention remains relevant in contemporary discussions about war and peace.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

Core principles

Modern liberalism supports a blend of classical liberal ideas with a broader social and economic role for government. Key tenets include: 

• Individual rights and freedoms: Emphasis on human rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and the press.
• Consent of the governed: Governments derive their power from the people through democratic processes.
• Rule of law: The idea that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to the law.
• Equality of opportunity: While all liberals believe in equality before the law, modern liberals also support government intervention to address obstacles to equality, such as poverty, disease, and discrimination.
• Market economy with regulation: Liberals generally support a market-based economy but believe government regulation is necessary to correct market failures, prevent corporate monopolies, and protect the public interest. 

Evolution and variants

The meaning of liberalism has shifted, especially in the United States, leading to distinctions from earlier forms. 

• Classical liberalism: Emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries in response to monarchies and aristocracy. It advocates for a limited government and laissez-faire economic policies, often aligning with modern American libertarianism.
• Modern liberalism: In the United States, this variant took shape during the 20th century, particularly influenced by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. It combines an emphasis on civil liberties with support for government intervention to promote social justice and a mixed economy. This form is typically what is meant by “liberalism” in the US today.
• Neoliberalism: A more recent variant that emphasizes free-market policies and globalization. It has been criticized for exacerbating inequality. 

Key issues in the 21st century

In the modern day, liberal ideology continues to shape debates on many topics. 

• Social issues: American modern liberals have been strong advocates for LGBT rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, and affirmative action.
• Economic issues: The ideology supports increasing taxes on the wealthy to address income inequality and backs a social safety net that includes expanded access to healthcare.
• Criminal justice: Modern liberals support reforms to address issues of police misconduct and disproportionate impacts on minority communities.
• Environmental policy: The ideology supports government action to address climate change and other environmental issues, as seen in support for measures like the Paris Agreement. 

Challenges to liberalism

Despite its historical influence, liberal ideology faces contemporary challenges: 

• Erosion of social trust: Populist and authoritarian movements are exploiting social media to stoke division and erode trust in liberal institutions and pluralism.
• Inequality and populism: Criticisms suggest that the emphasis on individual rights and capitalism can lead to significant economic inequality, fueling populist backlashes.
• Questioning of institutions: Some on both the political right and left argue that liberalism’s emphasis on rules and procedure can hinder decisive action.
• Inadequate response to modern problems: Challenges like technological change, globalization, and climate change have raised new questions that inherited liberal political institutions are struggling to address effectively.

He was Greek and lived in Alexandria, in the Ptolemaic Kingdom. He was Scholar Mathematician Astronomer.

He likely moved to Alexandria, and he was a student of Strato of Lampsacus, who later became the third head of the Peripatetic School in Greece. According to Ptolemy, he observed the summer solstice of 280 BC. Along with his contributions to the heliocentric model, as reported by Vitruvius, he created two separate sundials: one that is a flat disc; and one hemispherical.

Aristarchus was influenced by the concept presented by Philolaus of Croton (c. 470 – 385 BC) of a fire at the center of the universe, but Aristarchus identified the “central fire” with the Sun and he arranged the other planets in their correct order of distance around the Sun.

Like Anaxagoras before him, Aristarchus suspected that the stars were just other bodies like the Sun, albeit farther away from Earth. His astronomical ideas were often rejected in favor of the geocentric theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy. Nicolaus Copernicus knew that Aristarchus had a ‘moving Earth’ theory, although it is unlikely that Copernicus was aware that it was a heliocentric theory.

Aristarchus estimated the sizes of the Sun and Moon as compared to Earth’s size. He also estimated the distances from the Earth to the Sun and Moon. He is considered one of the greatest astronomers of antiquity along with Hipparchus.

Wikipedia

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Favor humility over pride and curiosity over conviction, […] Look for reasons why you might be wrong, not just reasons why you must be right.

Think Again, by Adam Grant

We don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman, “O me! O life!… of the questions of these recurring; of the endless trains of the faithless… of cities filled with the foolish; what good amid these, O me, O life?” Answer: that you are here; that life exists, and identity; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse; that the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. What will your verse be?

Yes, you can prove a negative:
Logical equivalence
You can rewrite many negative claims as logically equivalent positive claims. For example, “No person taller than 5’6″ was at the party” is logically equivalent to “Everyone at the party was a 5’6″ or shorter”.
Negative proof
You can prove a negative by showing that the opposite is not true. For example, you can prove that there is no Loch Ness monster by draining the loch.
Scientific proof
You can prove a “universal negative” in the scientific sense. For example, proving Einstein’s theory of relativity is true also proves that there aren’t any spaceships anywhere in the universe accelerating to faster than the speed of light.
Inductive reasoning
You can use inductive reasoning to establish the plausibility of a negative claim based on observed evidence. For example, you can prove that there is no Bigfoot by searching the world for Bigfoot and finding no credible evidence of its existence.
The phrase “you cannot prove a negative” is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic. It’s also a negative claim that would not be true if it could be proven true.

Google AI Overview ¹

I changed an example above for something more generic, keeping the meaning and context intact.

A principle of folk logic is that one can’t prove a negative. Dr. Nelson L. Price, a Georgia minister, writes on his website that ‘one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative.’ Julian Noble, a physicist at the University of Virginia, agrees, writing in his ‘Electric Blanket of Doom’ talk that ‘we can’t prove a negative proposition.’ University of California at Berkeley Professor of Epidemiology Patricia Buffler asserts that ‘The reality is that we can never prove the negative, we can never prove the lack of effect, we can never prove that something is safe.’ A quick search on Google or Lexis-Nexis will give a mountain of similar examples.

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using probably valid rules of inference.

[…]

Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

[…]

If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate perceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.

THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE²
Steven D. Hales

Thinking Tools is a regular feature that introduces tips and pointers on thinking clearly and rigorousl

1. Gemini AI questioned “can you prove a negative” ︎
2. THINKING TOOLS: YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE by Steven D. Hales ︎
3. Empirical: em·pir·i·cal /imˈpirək(ə)l/ adjective
   based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
   “they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument” ︎