World Map W/ Antarctica @ Center.

[MarathonTmatt]

Chin,
Below I have posted a link of a world map with Antarctica at it's center. This map also shows ocean currents, but it was the only map of it's kind I could find on the Net.

It is also important to note that the United States Navy (and probably other Navy's) use maps just like this, with Antarctica at the center. I do believe that by putting Antarctica in the center, the map shows a more accurate "bird's eye view" of the world we live in, rather than the maps we mostly use today, which have it's origins from European Colonialism, and seems to compartmentalize everything.

A few things become apparent when looking at this map-
#1) There is only ONE world ocean, things like the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, etc. go back to that compartmentalized mentality. Again, one world ocean.
#2) The tip of South America is close to the Antarctic.
#3) All of the continents are really just one continuous broken-up land mass.
#4) Antarctica can be seen as the natural naval, or center, of the world.
Here is the link:

http://rightbasicbuilding.files.word...ng?w=450&h=465

[MarathonTmatt]

Below is a link to the Wikipedia article concerning penguins. It is important to note that penguins do not strictly live in arctic zones. Indeed, there are species of penguin that live around the equator in South America, Africa and the Galapagos Islands.

I know other people may criticize me once again (while others will be as intrigued as I am/asking questions), but could the penguins living in Antarctica have at one time been tropical birds, like the rest of their species, who adapted successfully to a colder climate? If so, what does this say about the climate of Antarctica before the last Ice Age? (roughly 12,000 years ago.)

And here is where I address one of the same questions I had in my last thread (possible cultural links between Polynesian, Asian and American peoples): Could there have been a great, trans-continental human civilization before the last Ice Age? (more than 12,000 years ago.) I reject the evolutionary theory that our ancestors were brutish animals. But maybe people needed to start all over again. Think about it- if 90% of the population were wiped out, and say, the only human survivors were the members of this forum, we obviously couldn't live as we once did.

Anyway, I am certainly no professional. At the same time I have never been institutionalized or indoctrinated by the dominant culture, so I can look at this stuff with an open mind. The info on penguins is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin

[Faux Newbie]

Total amateur here. I like the idea that it is possible that civilization has ebbed and flowed, and certainly we are dependent on only what evidence can survive to today. The first examples of Chinese writing are of a completely developed language, but we know that was not the language at its beginning, it is just that the earliest examples come on materials that could survive (tortoise shells, bronze).

Additionally, we associate civilization and civilizing as a moderating process, when all evidence says it does the opposite. We have always grown more capable to express greater cruelty (generally speaking). The modern human's society has either expressed greater cruelty on their neighbors, or exported it even more greatly to distant neighbors. There is some reason to say that, when populations were smaller, groups had less reason to implement cruelty locally or distantly.

[Syn7]

Additionally, we associate civilization and civilizing as a moderating process, when all evidence says it does the opposite. We have always grown more capable to express greater cruelty (generally speaking). The modern human's society has either expressed greater cruelty on their neighbors, or exported it even more greatly to distant neighbors. There is some reason to say that, when populations were smaller, groups had less reason to implement cruelty locally or distantly.

I disagree. I think, over time, we have grown to be more capable to express anything. With that comes the good and the bad. So yeah, we found new and horrible ways to do harm, but we have also found new and amazing ways to do good. Human nature is rooted in self interest. When it serves ones interest to be good, they will. When it doesn't, they won't. The more capable we are, the more capable we are to assess what is good and bad for us. Turns out that we are better off when we work together, as a whole, but in keeping with our nature, we exploit that cooperation to our own benefit. That exploitation can have good or bad consequences for ourselves and others.

[Faux Newbie]

I disagree. I think, over time, we have grown to be more capable to express anything. With that comes the good and the bad. So yeah, we found new and horrible ways to do harm, but we have also found new and amazing ways to do good. Human nature is rooted in self interest. When it serves ones interest to be good, they will. When it doesn't, they won't. The more capable we are, the more capable we are to assess what is good and bad for us. Turns out that we are better off when we work together, as a whole, but in keeping with our nature, we exploit that cooperation to our own benefit. That exploitation can have good or bad consequences for ourselves and others.

Strictly speaking, you just agree, but feel that other expressions went through the same effect.

However, one could say that expressions of good are limited by what the civilization is dependent on, and, in fact, defined by them. Where we need overpopulation, good is "tending to the poor and starving," which is not the same as changing their conditions. One could certainly make the case that this good is dependent on, and limited by, the cruelty, and that it always lags behind it. That this is a more genuine or profound expression of good is questionable. I am not particularly aware of a moral thought unique to the modern age. The moral foundation of the world is predominantly ancient.

We feed the starving because we have fuel to move food, aided by artificially favorable access to fuel, fueled by conditions in certain countries where the few necessary to look to the interests of outside countries over their own cannot hold power domestically except poverty and authoritarianism.

People at the individual level can be moral, I'm not suggesting otherwise, but at the level of a civilization, one's actions are constrained by the civilization. I don't tend to see this producing a morality greater than that which existed before.

[Faux Newbie]

To clarify, I believe strongly in the tendency of any individual towards positive behavior, but I suggest that it is always limited by the requirements of their civilization, and the stronger their civilization, the more that their morality has moral costs, externalized to those not in power or those in other localities.

This is not a Luddite refutation of civilization, that would be an irrational refutation of the hegemonic power of civilization. It is merely an argument against morality as a technology that has improved due to civilization.

If we find more sustainable power (not meaning wind and solar, as they cannot fill the place of oil on their own), it would be interesting to see what ensued. Since infinite power would hold little profit capacity without artificial constraints, the economic changes could be sizable, which would remove some constraints on morality that we all accept as unavoidable.

[Syn7]

Strictly speaking, you just agree, but feel that other expressions went through the same effect.

I hear ya. Sorry for the late response. I don't have time to give you the response your words deserve, so I'll just say that we may not be on the same page, but we're on the same chapter. Peace

[SoCo KungFu]

Below is a link to the Wikipedia article concerning penguins. It is important to note that penguins do not strictly live in arctic zones. Indeed, there are species of penguin that live around the equator in South America, Africa and the Galapagos Islands.

I know other people may criticize me once again (while others will be as intrigued as I am/asking questions), but could the penguins living in Antarctica have at one time been tropical birds, like the rest of their species, who adapted successfully to a colder climate? If so, what does this say about the climate of Antarctica before the last Ice Age? (roughly 12,000 years ago.)

And here is where I address one of the same questions I had in my last thread (possible cultural links between Polynesian, Asian and American peoples): Could there have been a great, trans-continental human civilization before the last Ice Age? (more than 12,000 years ago.) I reject the evolutionary theory that our ancestors were brutish animals. But maybe people needed to start all over again. Think about it- if 90% of the population were wiped out, and say, the only human survivors were the members of this forum, we obviously couldn't live as we once did.

Anyway, I am certainly no professional. Oh that's quite apparent.
At the same time I have never been institutionalized or indoctrinated by the dominant culture, so I can look at this stuff with an open mind. Says the one that would rather follow the vomit of a barely cogent theologian as opposed to objectively validated science. You're an idiot is what you are.
The info on penguins is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin

So you come here asking questions yet reveal you have absolutely no value for evidence based on your dismissal of evolution. Nice box of contradictions you are. You are aware, of course, that those penguins you speak of are not one species. Of course you don't, you don't believe in evolution. You are also unaware that only one such species lives "around the equator," the Galapagos penguin. I know you are unaware of this because you don't seem to understand where the equator actually lies. You also seem to have no idea on ocean currents, land mass features, and water temps. See above on plate tectonics. Really, this isn't a hard matter to understand. You should have learned this in grade school life sciences. I'll give you a hint, up-welling currents are freaking cold.

And I'm not even going to go into how you contradict yourself by invoking a backwards idea of evolution, while at the same time denying evolution...

[MarathonTmatt]

So you come here asking questions yet reveal you have absolutely no value for evidence based on your dismissal of evolution. Nice box of contradictions you are. You are aware, of course, that those penguins you speak of are not one species. Of course you don't, you don't believe in evolution. You are also unaware that only one such species lives "around the equator," the Galapagos penguin. I know you are unaware of this because you don't seem to understand where the equator actually lies. You also seem to have no idea on ocean currents, land mass features, and water temps. See above on plate tectonics. Really, this isn't a hard matter to understand. You should have learned this in grade school life sciences. I'll give you a hint, up-welling currents are freaking cold.

And I'm not even going to go into how you contradict yourself by invoking a backwards idea of evolution, while at the same time denying evolution...

What makes you think I have no concept of where the equator lies, or ocean currents and land mass features? (At least with land mass features, I would say I pride myself in understanding more than most people.) Please back up your evidence for this claim with the available information on this thread. If not, I have to assume you are trying to discredit anything I do. You are the same person who started putting words in my mouth about UFO's (that is a subject you will never see me touch) in one of my last threads, even though I never posted anything about such things. In threads like this I am trying to take a closer look at human civilization and the world we live in. Until recently I had never seen an alternative map of the world before, and I am sure most other people hadn't either so I was inspired to share it, along with some other intuitive thoughts I had about Antarctica. Nothing wrong with that, and if you are going to put down a meek person for asking questions then you are an *******. Also it is time to understand that the world ocean is one body of water. The map I showed does a great job of pointing this out. Also, there has to be something to that map (Antarctica at center) if the US Navy ones like it.

I looked at your profile and it said that your interests were ecology, conservation and behavioral evolution. So then what are your interests in calling me an idiot? Why so hostile? Because it looks to me that you have an interest in discrediting anything I do, Mr. "Behavioral Evolution".

Grade school? I was a high-school drop-out. Life Sciences? Man, I don't even know what you are talking about. I don't know what that is. Sounds like something that has to do with the establishment that I should hate.

[MarathonTmatt]

SoCo,
I am going to put the strong language aside. I would rather respect other people for who they are and any insight they can offer, but respect is a two-way street, it works both ways. I would like to give you some real-world examples of a few things here, to back up my perspectives and maybe you will understand the angle I am coming from a bit clearer.

My kindergarten teacher recommended me for "special education." My parents did not want to place me there and in first grade I was in a normal classroom. In second grade I was placed in special education, although when they tested me I was at a 9th grade reading level (in 2nd grade) and everything else was probably normal, except maybe math. I think this is because I did not have patience for it. So my placement in spec. ed. had nothing to do with my test scores and IQ, rather it had to do with my behavior. (My parents did not allow them to give me any drugs, even today at almost 30 years old I can still count on one hand the number of times I have had any pharmaceutical medicine, even a tylonel or an Advil. I do not go to the western doctor's office, never have before, never gotten a shot and wasn't born in a hospital either, but one of my Tai Chi teachers is a Chinese doctor.) I would day-dream in class. When my parents first met w/ the kindergarten teacher he was saying I must have a learning disability. Well, I was there and my mother said "tell Mr. Green what you have learned." And I started rolling off about everything I had been learning in the class to the T, and the teacher was so surprised. So the lesson here is I am not stupid, I am a different kind of a learner than other people are. So as you can see, this kindergarten teacher was wrong.

This same kindergarten teacher also recommended I get a pair of glasses. My vision is okay, but not the best. Today, I wear them maybe 50% of the time, but I can function just fine in regular situation without them, I would not be a good sharp-shooter without my glasses though. One of my eyes was normal, the other would wander. It wasn't being cross-eyed, there is another word for it. In the traditional Native American culture (and other traditional cultures in the world) this feature is actually considered to be a mark of beauty and wisdom. In fact, I remember when I was young my grandfather would look at my birth marks and tell me I was special because of my marks (yes I have Native American ancestry.) Now, there was an eye doctor who at one point in my youth reset my eye so I no longer have that particular mark of beauty.

Anyway, starting from when I was a teenager I would not wear my glasses so often and I would try to strengthen my eye-sight naturally. I would stand a certain distance from a tree for instance and try to count all of the leaves on the tree. The next several times I went to the eye doctor he would prescribe a weaker and weaker prescription for me. I mentioned the leaf counting off-handedly, but did not tell him that was what I was doing. He scoffed at the idea, saying that kind of thing does not work (although I knew this is how my eyesight had slightly improved.)

Now, the moral of these stories is that the majority can sometimes be wrong about something. Even in the field of established science. Remember how we were taught that people supposedly used to think that the Earth was flat? Or how about what science knew about the planets 100 years ago compared with today. Science is always changing, and people come to new understandings. One thing about scientists though is that they have to follow a strict doctrine which is sometimes counter-productive to better understandings of things. I do not have a source for this, so this may not actually be the case, but I heard somewhere that Darwin, in his later life, rejected his own theory of evolution. I will have to see (or maybe someone else) if that can be sourced/validated.

Whether you know it or not, when you resort to name-calling and say I am an idiot, then you are no better than those eye doctors or that kindergarten teacher. Grade school is nothing more than an intensive 12-step program to indoctrinate people at a young age, and then it continues when they go to university in their college years. You need to ask yourself if that kind of schooling is true knowledge, or the knowledge somebody else wants you to know/think a certain way. I am lucky in a way that I did not fall prey to their programs and can think clearly for myself. Even if I am not on mark about some theories/insights/data, sometimes I am in the ballpark, so to speak.

People these days worship the intellect. But that is a bad thing, actually. It is good to have an intellect, but it is only a tool, it is also good to have a heart and a soul. Instead of thinking with your mind, try to think more with your heart.

Have a good day.

[Syn7]

[SoCo KungFu]

SoCo,
I am going to put the strong language aside. I would rather respect other people for who they are and any insight they can offer, but respect is a two-way street, it works both ways. I would like to give you some real-world examples of a few things here, to back up my perspectives and maybe you will understand the angle I am coming from a bit clearer.

My kindergarten teacher recommended me for "special education." My parents did not want to place me there and in first grade I was in a normal classroom. In second grade I was placed in special education, although when they tested me I was at a 9th grade reading level (in 2nd grade) and everything else was probably normal, except maybe math. I think this is because I did not have patience for it. So my placement in spec. ed. had nothing to do with my test scores and IQ, rather it had to do with my behavior. (My parents did not allow them to give me any drugs, even today at almost 30 years old I can still count on one hand the number of times I have had any pharmaceutical medicine, even a tylonel or an Advil. I do not go to the western doctor's office, never have before, never gotten a shot and wasn't born in a hospital either, but one of my Tai Chi teachers is a Chinese doctor.) I would day-dream in class. When my parents first met w/ the kindergarten teacher he was saying I must have a learning disability. Well, I was there and my mother said "tell Mr. Green what you have learned." And I started rolling off about everything I had been learning in the class to the T, and the teacher was so surprised. So the lesson here is I am not stupid, I am a different kind of a learner than other people are. So as you can see, this kindergarten teacher was wrong.

This same kindergarten teacher also recommended I get a pair of glasses. My vision is okay, but not the best. Today, I wear them maybe 50% of the time, but I can function just fine in regular situation without them, I would not be a good sharp-shooter without my glasses though. One of my eyes was normal, the other would wander. It wasn't being cross-eyed, there is another word for it. In the traditional Native American culture (and other traditional cultures in the world) this feature is actually considered to be a mark of beauty and wisdom. In fact, I remember when I was young my grandfather would look at my birth marks and tell me I was special because of my marks (yes I have Native American ancestry.) Now, there was an eye doctor who at one point in my youth reset my eye so I no longer have that particular mark of beauty.

Anyway, starting from when I was a teenager I would not wear my glasses so often and I would try to strengthen my eye-sight naturally. I would stand a certain distance from a tree for instance and try to count all of the leaves on the tree. The next several times I went to the eye doctor he would prescribe a weaker and weaker prescription for me. I mentioned the leaf counting off-handedly, but did not tell him that was what I was doing. He scoffed at the idea, saying that kind of thing does not work (although I knew this is how my eyesight had slightly improved.)

Now, the moral of these stories is that the majority can sometimes be wrong about something. Even in the field of established science. Remember how we were taught that people supposedly used to think that the Earth was flat? Or how about what science knew about the planets 100 years ago compared with today. Science is always changing, and people come to new understandings. One thing about scientists though is that they have to follow a strict doctrine which is sometimes counter-productive to better understandings of things. I do not have a source for this, so this may not actually be the case, but I heard somewhere that Darwin, in his later life, rejected his own theory of evolution. I will have to see (or maybe someone else) if that can be sourced/validated.

Whether you know it or not, when you resort to name-calling and say I am an idiot, then you are no better than those eye doctors or that kindergarten teacher. Grade school is nothing more than an intensive 12-step program to indoctrinate people at a young age, and then it continues when they go to university in their college years. You need to ask yourself if that kind of schooling is true knowledge, or the knowledge somebody else wants you to know/think a certain way. I am lucky in a way that I did not fall prey to their programs and can think clearly for myself--[Oh if you only could grasp the scale of the irony here...]. Even if I am not on mark about some theories/insights/data, sometimes I am in the ballpark, so to speak.

People these days worship the intellect. But that is a bad thing, actually. It is good to have an intellect, but it is only a tool, it is also good to have a heart and a soul. Instead of thinking with your mind, try to think more with your heart.

Have a good day.

Sweet, also irrelevant. So what we've learned from this long-winded bag of emotion drivel, is that you don't know the difference between near vs farsightedness, your parent's are responsible for your irrational fear of anything medical, you further affirm you have no respect for evidence, you cling to that which comforts you rather than what is validated (the tai chi teacher that feeds you unsubstantiated TCM), and you have the audacity to invoke the prattle about an always changing body of scientific understanding while so arrogantly defying the very mechanism from which this body of knowledge is derived (and seem to be willing to take full advantage of when suits your needs, like the computer you are typing on). You are a hypocrite. Funny though, a high school drop out seems to think he has a clue of what goes on in academia. Also pathetic; you've switched your brain off.

[SoCo KungFu]

blah blah blah

Grade school? I was a high-school drop-out. Life Sciences? Man, I don't even know what you are talking about. I don't know what that is. Sounds like something that has to do with the establishment that I should hate.

That line right there. That thermonuclear level of stupidity is why I will never give someone like you respect. It is stupid. You aren't ignorant. Ignorance is excusable. You are simply stupid. Because you willfully disregard the hard earned expertise of those far more capable than you, in favor of your bat guano stories that appeal to you fragile little emotions. In your little brain, you actually think what you are doing is noble. In reality, it makes you a moron. And while others here may feel some need to coddle your imagination, I find it disturbing. You come in here asking for answers yet so nonchalantly trash the very process from which those answers are derived. You have absolutely no respect for evidence. You certainly have no respect for the years of work that goes into the things you so lightly disregard. In your little, myopic worldview, you can't even understand how utterly revolting you are, how utterly disrespectful you are. So take your "anti-establishment" mentality and cram it.

[MarathonTmatt]

That line right there. That thermonuclear level of stupidity is why I will never give someone like you respect. It is stupid. You aren't ignorant. Ignorance is excusable. You are simply stupid. Because you willfully disregard the hard earned expertise of those far more capable than you, in favor of your bat guano stories that appeal to you fragile little emotions. In your little brain, you actually think what you are doing is noble. In reality, it makes you a moron. And while others here may feel some need to coddle your imagination, I find it disturbing. You come in here asking for answers yet so nonchalantly trash the very process from which those answers are derived. You have absolutely no respect for evidence. You certainly have no respect for the years of work that goes into the things you so lightly disregard. In your little, myopic worldview, you can't even understand how utterly revolting you are, how utterly disrespectful you are. So take your "anti-establishment" mentality and cram it.

Maybe I simply typed that line spitefully. "Hate" is too strong a word. You are trying to look for any excuse whatsoever to shut down any thoughts on this matter. I should expect people like you to jump down my case for this, but somehow it is still surprising. This does not make me a moron. I am not trying to be noble either- I am simply pointing my finger at a global map I saw, with one of the magnetic pole ends at the center (which makes logical sense to do) and saying "hey guys, check this out, it makes a lot of sense in understanding the unity of the One World Ocean (or body of water as you call it) and understanding the true placement of the continental land masses, and therefore the world we live in. What a relief from the compartmentalized flat maps we are used to seeing!"

Everything is a circle, this is both a common sense, natural law knowledge and confirmed by science. The molecules in our body are circular, the Earth is a globe. So we have the microcosm which is ourselves, and the larger macrocosm of the stars, planets, astrology, etc. So this post is about harmony, something that you do not understand. Your job is obviously to disrupt harmony, you certainly got me going. But from now on I am not going to let you get under my skin, I will direct my point of attention and therefore my power, into more positive ways.

And another thing. I failed to inform you that I got my act together and attended college for awhile. You played the "I'm a high school drop-out card" to call me uneducated and uninformed, thus to try and dismiss my case. I know you have to defend your doctrine and the integrity of your scientific model, and I feel sorry for you. Your science is nothing but a religion and is a political, commerce-driven cult. You suppress alternative cancer treatments (plant based for example) so that billions of dollars can be poured into a monopoly known as cancer research (which is trademarked and copyrighted), and then milk the money from the sick and dying as they go in for their radiation-based treatments. You people make me sick. Go ahead, keep defending your precious science, and maybe one day it will hit you over the head that it is a monetized cult funded by political interest and commerce.

[SoCo KungFu]

Chin,
Below I have posted a link of a world map with Antarctica at it's center. This map also shows ocean currents, but it was the only map of it's kind I could find on the Net.

It is also important to note that the United States Navy (and probably other Navy's) use maps just like this, with Antarctica at the center. I do believe that by putting Antarctica in the center, the map shows a more accurate "bird's eye view" of the world we live in, rather than the maps we mostly use today, which have it's origins from European Colonialism, and seems to compartmentalize everything.

A few things become apparent when looking at this map-
#1) There is only ONE world ocean, things like the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, Indian Ocean, etc. go back to that compartmentalized mentality. Again, one world ocean.

No. "Ocean" is a categorical term designating arbitrary boundaries. It is a human construct. There are many oceans, but one connecting body of water

#2) The tip of South America is close to the Antarctic.
#3) All of the continents are really just one continuous broken-up land mass.

Tectonic plates would like to have a word with you

#4) Antarctica can be seen as the natural naval, or center, of the world.

And so could Dothan, Alabama. Its irrelevant.
Here is the link:

http://rightbasicbuilding.files.word...ng?w=450&h=465

123456789**