Germany has reached a bifurcation point. Required is a visionary decision about our future path. Do we Germans wish to migrate to pasture, or do we wish to remain an industrial nation? Regrettably, we are collectively lacking the necessary understanding, wisdom and determination to beneficially meet the challenge of this decision. Our thinking and doing are drowned out by the noise of endless, urgent everyday problems, and it’s so much more convenient to scream out our indignity about these problems – particularly vocally – in the (a)social media.

However, the development of energy costs for industry compared to partner countries sends a clear message – just, apparently, not to some politicians.

Here is a picture of Germany’s gas prices…:

… and here, of the electricity prices:

A long-term trend to raise our energy prices for industry to a level that is significantly higher than that of partner countries can be clearly seen. One could hold German economic policy responsible for this, but that’s not all. The primary responsibility lies with the voters, not the politicians. We, guilty, why?

Learning, from the daily news in Germany, how many people feel slapped in the face over and over again, and how they in turn are thunderously boxing others’ ears, one can certainly conclude that Germany sports an exemplary democracy. By comparison, consider ancient German custom: „… und willst du nicht mein Bruder sein, dann schlag ich dir den Schädel ein!“ (translated with poetic liberty as: „You’d better wish my brother be, or I shall bash your brains for thee!”) Democracy means that political responsibility vests in voters.

With their votes leading to excessive energy costs, German voters have made it clear that they reject industry and would rather migrate to pasture.

It is has also become obvious that we no longer believe in the myth of happy cows, and are unhappy about their harm to our (not the cows‘) climate anyway. The Cranky Philosopher borrowed a great idea from Ireland. It had become a hot topic for them having to slaughter so many cows in Ireland, just to help save the climate. No worries – German industry, and stables husbandry based on the German model, could come to the rescue. Basically it would work like this:

• Keep the cows in stables instead of out on pasture;
• Fit the stables with extractors for methane gas;
• Pump the methane gas into storage, and sell it to the industry.

So, it would be best if we shipped our industry and cows from Germany to Ireland, switched to vegetarian (naturally vegetarian, and not vegan pork schnitzel produced by environmentally harmful chemical industry), and finally moved on to the tempting green pasture ourselves. The modest power that we would still need without industry, could also be obtained from our own farmhouse roof. After all, who would want a wind turbine in their backyard, or towering above their eagle’s nest?

For doubters, the Cranky Philosopher has found a picture that speaks more than a thousand words about what the German people are really yearning for.

The Cranky Philosopher fully understands this. Although not quite vegetarian yet, he lives mainly on salads, vegetables, water and wasa. However, this also has a disadvantage. Whenever the lawns get mowed at the housing estate where he lives, he experiences symptoms similar to those for which Pavlov and his dogs became famous.

It is overdue for our politicians to understand the people and respect their wishes. The lack of such understanding leads to serious conflict. Their policy still requires us to recruit skilled workers abroad. However, out on pasture, and without industry, we no longer need these. On the contrary, they could lead to further pressure on the already scarce and expensive pasture land, even if we regreen former industrial sites.

Here’s just one example of how we could do without industry. By the way…, this also addresses the public outrage about the transport sector not meeting its climate targets, and that the “yellow light” of the “Ampel” (“Traffic Light Government”) even stands accused of having “softened” these targets. Admittedly, The Cranky Philosopher had to gather the data for this example from fragmentary publicly available statistics from several years back, as he unfortunately does not have the necessary deep pockets to be able to buy the latest data from commercial providers.

Almost 25 billion litres of non-alcoholic beverages were produced in Germany in 2020 (Destatis -Industry, Manufacturing, n.d.) – populist label: soft drinks; in plain language: sugar water and carbonated water bombs. Of course, we all have to drink water, especially so with climate change already causing cuddly warmth here in Germany. The problem, however, is that ready-made sugar water:

1. firstly, must be produced by industry, by energy-intensive processes – hello, climate change; and
2. secondly, it has to be transported to consumers at the full water weight, by CO2-puffing trucks – hello, climate change.

The weight of this water is not insignificant: 25 billion litres of (sugar) water correspond to 25 million tonnes of load, annually. We’re not even reckoning in the weight of the plastic bottles in which the water is transported. The environment has to reckon with this in a different way, depending on where the plastic ends up. Let’s just assume that the average route length for a trip is 138 km (Destatis – traffic volume, n.d.) – forward trip, without any assumption about the return trip, as trucks do not only drive in one direction, and empty runs cannot always be avoided. That makes a “cool” 3,450 million tonne-kilometres of freight. Let’s also assume that the average CO2 emissions are 118 tonnes (Federal Environment Agency, 2012) per million tonne-km. Makes “uncool” 407 thousand tons of CO2, annually. So, what does this number mean? That’s the annual CO2 emissions of about a hundred thousand fossil cars compared to electric cars, assuming we could charge the latter with 100% climate-friendly electricity.

This does not even include the amount of CO2 that the industry produces, or pumps to the surface from “naturally sparkling mineral water sources” instead of leaving the CO2 where it – thank God – already was and should have stayed. All this, just so that we can pump our bellies full of CO2 and then return it to the environment with more or less noisy compliments – hello, climate change. But if we have already produced the CO2 as a by-product, as the industry could easily claim, it would definitely be wiser to pump it underground instead of into our bellies. Not to mention the amount of sugar that is completely superfluous for nutrition, which also has to be produced by highly energy intensive industry. Let’s just reckon that of all soft drinks about half each consists of sugar water and carbonated water bombs, and that each litre of sugar water contains about 100g of sugar (by the way…, which is already twice the recommended daily maximum). With even just 10 billion litres of sugar water, that’s 1 million tonnes of sugar – hello, climate change.

By comparison:

The Cranky Philosopher prepares his beverages from tap water, using a simple, cheap and highly effective water filter from China. A great drink, prepared from four parts of water, transported by water pipe instead of by road, and diluted with one part of natural juice, without added sugar, transported by road. A cool 80% in transport savings, potentially almost 100% in sugar savings, and no CO2 pumped first into the belly and then back into the environment! Other advantages: a large part of German industry would become redundant, fewer “sugar bombs” who only still manage to move by car, fewer cars on the road, more healthy people on bicycles, and corresponding progress in achieving the transport sector climate goals. Would our populist-oriented politicians be able to achieve this, in the face of undoubtedly indignant reluctance of voters? Unfortunately, we no longer have Mrs. Merkel as our Chancellor, with her firm belief “wir schaffens” (“we can do it”).

Is traffic really “the guilty dog “, or is it just “the dog”, which to beat is the most populist? At least if you look at Germany’s “Letzte Generation” (“Last Generation”), you could get the latter impression. If we seriously wanted to stop climate change, we would first and foremost have to drastically change our individual and thus collective consumer behaviour. Blaming traffic for climate change is about as intelligent as blaming our blood for our atherosclerosis. The latter is primarily a consumption problem. It is surely noble that some people are already experimenting diligently on how to in future feed at least us “rich” here in Europe on healthy, climate-friendly algae, but for the world’s population this will not offer a solution in the foreseeable future. Most of them can’t even afford meat, not to mention vegan pork cutlets industrially manufactured from algae. The global consumption problem is far more complex than we “rich” here in Europe imagine. Elsewhere, there are many people who, for completely different reasons, fear that they might be “the last” generation. Inexpediently, however, it is precisely the overproduction and overconsumption of the “rich” that provides many “poor” with not only their daily bread, but also the hope of a better future for their children. (Hot tip: formerly developing country China.) By the way…, this requires trade, which requires transport, and thus helps those who are less well-off than the “Letzte Generation”, to not themselves becoming “the last” generation.

But, what’s the point. We Germans are migrating to pasture, each within its own snail shell. Yes – snail shell – because if we want to have enough pasture, we won’t be able to afford more than a snail shell dwelling. In any case, we’ll easily meet our climate targets if we buy everything from others. No problem – everything we need, we can buy from China; so, we don’t need industry, we just need enough money. If The Cranky Philosopher listens to the Greens and the Leftists, we could solve all our problems swiftly and easily by simply drowning them in money. In addition, we could elect the AfD (“Alternative für Deutschland” party) into a coalition government. They are also in favour of us retreating into our snail shells, and – even better – promise to replace the euro in Germany with the new Deutschmark. So, we could at last print enough money to satisfy both our needs and solve all our problems. Enough…, that’s another topic.

But since we have already digressed from migrating to pasture to complaining about climate change, what would the Cranky Philosopher suggest instead of, like the “Letzte Generation”, just looking for a “dog to beat” populistically?

Perhaps our government should expect our people to assume greater personal responsibility in order to achieve climate goals in an economically balanced way. Instead of the government issuing grandiose dictates, how about letting our fellow citizens vote with their wallets?

Echo

Stefanie sent the Cranky Philosopher some photos from Ireland, which persuasively convince him of his wisdom in suggesting that Germany should ship its cows and industry to Ireland.

At this sight, the Cranky Philosopher deeply sympathises with the Irish feeling chilly towards the idea of slaughtering their cows just so that others don’t become overheated.

Also, German industry could be helpful in cases such as these.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025

The Cranky Philosopher’s imagination having been set alight, prepare for enlightenment. But, contrary to what you might have been told in the past, the light won’t be red.

The world’s oldest profession is: trade. A cranky assertion, no doubt; so, please allow the Cranky Philosopher to shine some light on it.

The dictionary (Oxford Languages) definitions of trade and profession are, unsurprisingly, human-focused ─

Trade: “1. the action of buying and selling goods and services; 2. a job requiring manual skills and special training.”

Profession: “1. a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification; 2. an act of declaring that one has a particular feeling or quality, especially when this is not the case.”

These definitions serve our everyday needs well enough, and also justify the popularly held conception of “the world’s oldest profession”. Cranky philosophers, however, relish in delving deeper beyond what pops into the eye. Let’s consider what a doyen in the study of trade had to say – Adam Smith, who in his seminal 1776 tome on economics, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, saw trade as having emerged from the division of labour. The Cranky Philosopher has emphasized certain parts below.

“This division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature, which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another. Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given, or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to inquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts.”(Smith, 2002)

Before discussing the other emphasized parts above, let us take note of the quote “common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals”, which Smith further illustrated by the following statement:

“Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog. Nobody ever saw one animal, by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that.”

Whilst Smith’s statement was most likely true at his time, it behoves us to make a reassessment today in the light of advances in science and technology a quarter of a millennium later. For example, with the aid of artificial intelligence driven Microsoft Designer, it took the Cranky Philosopher only a few seconds to see one dog make an exchange of one bone for another with another dog.

Now, this doesn’t come as a surprise to the Cranky Philosopher, after having shared part of his life with several Siamese cats. Occasionally, one of them would trundle up to the Cranky Philosopher with some freshly caught prey in mouth, and drop it at his feet. The cat would then look up at the Cranky Philosopher, utter a pleading meow, pick up its prey and drop it again. This behaviour was remarkably reminiscent of barter at a bazaar, where a trader would address a prospective customer, pick up some of his or her wares as an offer, and put them back again. The language of trade has remarkable similarities across species. In the case of the cats and the Cranky Philosopher, the trade always proceeded favourably. The cat received a huddle and got to eat its prey.

The Cranky Philosopher might be rapped over the knuckles for his personal experience not constituting scientific proof – fair enough. Nonetheless, he feels encouraged to delve deeper into whether trade, in some elementary sense of “… [to] exchange one thing for another”, does not perhaps extend back to beyond the emergence of the human species. To again quote Smith: “… not originally the effect of any human wisdom…”, but: “… one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given …”. Note the use of “… in human nature …”, which allows speculation about a propensity that might predate the human species, and has been inherited through the course of evolution. An ominous foresight, considering that Smith’s insights predate Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century.

Enter Joshua Lederberg, with his astounding discovery that bacteria exchange DNA, the genetic code of life-forms. In brief, the study of the genetic code shows that cells need proteins to operate, and that the code for making proteins is stored in DNA and RNA. This store of the code of living forms also permits the transmission of that code from one generation to the next. However, such generational transfer was not the subject of Lederberg’s experiment, but a phenomenon that he termed bacterial conjugation (http://www.dnaftb.org/18/index.html ).

Edward Tatum had made in his laboratory mutations in the bacteria, Escherichia Coli (E. coli), to further study the “one gene, one enzyme” phenomenon, and in 1946 he was joined by Joshua Lederberg. The bacterium E. coli can normally synthesize all the nutrients it needs. For example, E. coli has enzymes that bind and convert precursor molecules into essential nutrients like the amino acids methionine , proline , and threonine, as well as the vitamin biotin. The mutant strains Tatum had made, however, were unable to synthesize some of these nutrients. For example, Mutant#l had two genetic mutations that made it unable to synthesize the amino acid methionine or the vitamin biotin. It was still able to make all the other amino acids and vitamins. On the other hand, Mutant#2 had two genetic mutations that made it unable to synthesize the amino acids proline or threonine, but could still make the others as necessary. The two mutant strains were allowed to grow together for some time on a plate that was supplemented with the nutrients that each the crippled mutants, respectively, required to survive. Thereafter, individual bacterial cells were isolated and allowed to grow on a bacterial plate without any supplements. The survivors reproduced and established a visible colony on the plate, and must therefore have had all the genes needed to make all their required nutrients. Effectively, the two mutants must have exchanged with each other those DNA molecules that each of them respectively possessed, whereas the other did not and was in need thereof.

The Cranky Philosopher would call this a fair trade.

Hang on, you might ask – what about the “profession”? Well, here we’ll also have to look beyond what pops into the eye at first sight. Did the bacteria do something they were paid for? Not in the regular sense as understood by the human species – but, they were “paid” with their survival. Regarding “training” and “qualification”, let’s try to change our perspective from that of a human to that of a bacterium, and try to “see” things its way.

Let’s learn from Prof. Robert M. Hazen about his journey right back to the origins of life on Earth (Hazen, 2005). At the conclusion, he extols “the remarkable power of emergence to drive increases in the complexity of natural systems. The theory or emergence argues for an inexorable evolution of the cosmos, from atoms to stars to planets to life. Such emergent step arises from interactions among countless agents. Each emergent event produces an outcome that is much greater than the sum of its parts. Each emergent process is reasonable and sequential, and each step increases the degree or order and complexity.” Some remarkable steps on this journey are outlined hereafter.

In 1989, David Dreamer published results from his research on ancient lipid molecules, which led Hazen to the conclusion:

“David Dreamer’s great discovery taught us that one of life’s most basic requirements – the separation of the inside from the outside – appears to be an integral part of the fabric of the universe…Even before the formation of planets … essential raw materials for life were abundant in the deep freeze of space. The universe is littered with lipid molecules that are poised to organize spontaneously into cell-like structures.”

From this, the Cranky Philosopher would further conclude that the emergence of the “I” appears to be an integral part of the fabric of the universe, by far predating Descartes’: “I think, therefore I am.”

With non-philosophical sobriety, life may be defined as a chemical process with three definitive abilities: (a) to grow, which requires the ability to metabolize; (b) to evolve; and (c) to reproduce. Clearly, all of these are only feasible within the controllable confines of a cell. There exists some controversy about whether life emerged in cells that were first able to metabolize, or those that were first able to build a genetic code facilitating evolution and reproduction. The truth is very likely a cooperative chemical phenomenon, arising between metabolism and genetics. Whilst this would require the parallel emergence of two chemical systems, it stands to reason that a cooperative coupling of metabolism and genetics emerged early in the history of cellular life. The emergence of complexity, instead of progressive chaos, is hardly imaginable without cooperation as a necessary factor – when considering “cooperation” in a very elementary sense underlying the complexity of our current understanding thereof.

The Cranky Philosopher wishes to rest his case with the above. From the viewpoint of a bacterium, “looking” back to its origins, its progenitors have trained extensively to qualify themselves to exchange DNA. With the benefit of hindsight a quarter of a millennium after Smith, perhaps trade didn’t so much emerge from the division of labour than from just simply – “elementary, my dear Watson” – cooperation.

The Cranky Philosopher hopes that politicians, who generally don’t like to think the way economists do, will take note.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025

Yes, it’s him, the famous ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes (about 404 – 323 BCE) – the one who lived in a barrel. He also used to walk around in broad daylight with a lit lantern. When questioned about this cranky habit, he is said to have responded that he is looking for a man. Some claim that he meant to be looking for an honest man, others claim that he meant to be looking for a human being. Considering that he was known to have lived as a beggar despite, or in support of, his fame as a philosopher: if you were a beggar, wouldn’t you too be looking for human beings? You take your pick about what Diogenes was looking for with his lantern.

It seems that we know very little about Diogenes, other than that he became famous as a philosopher already in his lifetime. He might nevertheless have been forgotten by now, had it not been for the legendary encounter between him in his barrel and Alexander The Great, Ruler of the World at that time. The Great was allegedly so enthusiastic about meeting this famous philosopher, that he kindly asked if there was anything he could do for Diogenes. Legend has it that Diogenes just as kindly responded: “Yes, thank you, Your Majesty, if you’ll kindly just move out of the sun for me”. (I mean, you wouldn’t want to get into the bad books of someone Great, would you? If you do, then you might want to contemplate the fate of the Grand Old Party of Great America ever since the year 1 TE). Legend has it that Diogenes’ second encounter with The Great didn’t go quite as well. Observing Diogenes poring over some human bones, The Great quizzed him about this. Now, philosophers can become quite cranky when disturbed in deep transcendental thought, and Diogenes was no exception. He responded, not so kindly: “I’m trying to see the difference between the bones of one of your ancestors and those of a slave, but I can’t find any!”

Whatever little we know about him, Diogenes seems to have been a ‘smart cookie’. Indeed, almost two-and-a-half thousand years ago, he seems to have divined the emergence of a specific modern fintech development. Yes, I’m referring to the debasement of currency by means of the recent development of blockhead currencies going by phantasmagorical names reminiscent of words such as ‘bitten coin’, ‘doggy coin’ (allegedly the favourite of Elon Musk of Tesla fame), ‘ether room’, and what-have-you. He was apparently raised as a banker, but then he ‘bit the coin’, debasing it in the process. Allegedly, there are still some coins among collectors with his ‘bite marks’ on them. He fell into disrepute, was sold as a slave, and after having been freed, he became a famous philosopher. In the process, he became a humble man of modest needs, which he was able to satisfy through begging and living in a barrel. Unfortunately, such a modest lifestyle has its disadvantages; such as, masturbating in public. Remember, this was at a time when staying in the closet was far more fashionable than coming out of it, and so he was severely scolded by his compatriots for this indiscrimination. It is said that he wistfully replied: “If only I could as easily satisfy my hunger by simply rubbing my belly”.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2021

I seek the meaning of life by creating it.

Is thought a form of energy?

A Spirit Warrior is one who has grasped that the mightiest weapon is neither the sword nor the word, but providing one’s counterpart – don’t call it the opponent or enemy – with the opportunity to defeat him- or herself; thereby becoming his or her own master and a prime servant among servants.

For intention to unfold its power, it requires a stable basis that is created by faith in oneself and trust in the other.

Only s/he who has grasped how important the “I” really is, can also know how unimportant it actually is.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025

The need for a vision arises, if nothing else, from “Gaia” suffering a clearly evident immediate circulation problem (water circulation) and slowly choking to death due to long-term reducing levels of carbon dioxide.

The long-term tendency is not the same as the short- to medium-term phenomenon of carbon dioxide increase due to (relatively short-lived) fossil fuel exploitation and the resultant global warming, which we are currently getting so excited about. The long-term reduction is largely due to carbon dioxide being trapped in rock, which due to the reducing volcanic activity as the earth core continues cooling down, is being recycled ever less. High carbon dioxide levels, which now lead to global warming, also result in faster permanent trapping of this indispensable ‘food’, without which life as we know it cannot exist. This means that we need to cut carbon dioxide levels down to the pre-industrial era levels, because this is where nature had found a level of long-term balance, and keep them there. This in turn means weaning our energy production off the use of any form of carbon, including “bio-fuels”, as an energy carrier.

However, to resolve the (water) circulation problem, we will need an abundant and cheap supply of energy – energy to restore and increase the circulation to ensure for Gaia a healthy life. We cannot afford to continue with our current irresponsible leeching on this circulation by damming up rivers and pumping underground reservoirs dry. We will need to restore the circulation by obtaining water from the sea – the very same source from which nature ultimately feeds Gaia’s circulation. But, because we need more water than nature can provide by its own means, we need to boost the circulation by desalination. And, to really improve the circulation to healthy levels, we need to claw back from the deserts one of nature’s main means of keeping up the circulation – forests. To be able to do so, we need even more water – that is, even more energy.

So far, we have lots of (fragmented) plans for energy and water supply, which all lack real vision, even less so a coherent one.

It is true that we must engage in saving energy and water as a short- to medium-term necessity, because we need time to build up to the energy and water supply capacity that we REALLY need – however, this is NOT a vision. ‘Saving’ would ultimately be a recipe not for saving, but for killing, Gaia.

Ultimately, not having to save requires an abundant supply of clean, but ‘dirt cheap’, energy. Ultimately, we are likely to find that for this purpose we will have to tap into the limitless energy coming to us from the sun. This is so, because in the longer term the only energy source that will prevail in carrying us forward to our vision is that which we can exploit at the lowest marginal economic cost.

To procure the energy and water supply that we need from the lowest marginal cost source, capital outlay should be the least of our concerns. Capital is getting ever cheaper, and with the right policy measures, we can ensure that it will get a lot cheaper in future, particularly in developed countries. For one thing, particularly in the latter countries, the population is fast ageing, requiring them to push the cash returns that they need from their investments for retirement further into the future. We need to get to a realisation that future cash flow returns are the justification for making an investment now.

There is still a vast scope for efficiency improvement, which means vast economic growth potential. We have just begun “pumping” brain power around the world with the WWW. We have to grow our economies through efficiency and sustainability, not by artificially inflating prices on stock markets with their capacity for new investment being extremely limited due a lack of political vision for growing that investment potential through expansive public policy. This would include sweeping aside the snivelling “savers” and “poverty alleviators”. What we need is growing prosperity, for the sake of the whole community of life on Earth, not myopic views of ‘saving’ and ‘alleviation’.

So far, we live off the energy of the Earth. Now we must switch to using the energy of the sun – see the visions of Michio Kaku for future generations, whose advancement is measured by their capacity to harness energy.

Now we must create a WWW of energy and “pumping water into the sky”, to claw back a healthy water circulation for Gaia. Clearly, thus, energy and water supply must become a coherent long-term strategy. This would have vast potential for creating new jobs and new wealth, but old attitudes must die first.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025

Perhaps, I should begin by stating that beginning and end are merely concepts of the mind – concepts, which constitute some of my tools for lifting a corner of the veil covering my consciousness, so that the “discovered” part of my consciousness may become my awareness.

Taking my inspiration from the mystics who wrote the books that have become Christianity’s Holy Bible, I shall begin at the Genesis, literally meaning “birth”, from Source.

At Source is the Timeless Breath of Consciousness. On the exhaling Breath, Consciousness flows forth from Source; on the inhaling Breath, Consciousness flows back to Source.

I am part of the Wholeness, and the Wholeness is part of me. Wholeness, being whole, contains within itself ALL knowledge, ALL consciousness. But, being pure BEING, Wholeness cannot experience itself, other than through the manifested individual I. Thus, in the field of infinite potentiality, Spirit draws a circle to delimit the finite infinite, since only the finite infinite can be the womb of the Manifestation of Spirit. And, in the middle of the circle, Spirit plants a point, since the zero-dimensional point, which can only exist in Thought and yet becomes expressed in Manifestation, is the primal seed of the manifest “I”. From the point, Spirit extends two lines in the form of cross to meet the circle: Time and Space. And, at the point of intersection of Time and Space, the first sound arises; and this primal sound is the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This vibratory force underlies all of Manifestation, the “I” and its unity in the “We” and it is only on the cross of Time and Space that it could come into existence. And so, four-dimensional Spacetime is the holy dimension of manifestation, and this shall forever bear the signs of the circle, the point and the cross.

I, as an individual spirit, receive my Divine Spark through the Sun, the Moon and Earth. The Sun is my Bride, the Moon my Higher Self, and the Earth is my Child.

© The Cranky Philosopher 2025

The unexamined life is not worth living …

Image courtesy of Ambro at FreeDigitalPhotos.net