What About Existence

The thinking man, a universal subliminal message hidden in the ether of collective consciousness. Why am I?

Faith, belief that there is meaning.

Art, search for meaning.

Philosophy, art of meaning.

Consciousness, the primary tool of life, the primal matter of existence.

Choice is the creator of time, without choice there couldn’t be change, without change no life.

Living through choices we create experiences, which through awareness expand our consciousness. But aren’t all experiences created equal by definition?

The existentialist dream.

That would create meaning in the experience within itself, at the same time killing the meaning of choice. Though if the choice has no meaning the “I” is dead too, and without the I there is no choice in the first place, therefore a paradox is created.

So the only option is to nullify the assumption that consciousness can be expanded.

What if consciousness could be only experienced ?

Our choices being the pulses of a labyrinth of infinite experiences, vibrating at various frequencies flowing back life into consciousness, keeping it “alive”.

Giving the “I” a chance to get stuck in the labyrinth as well as to discover several layers of being and not only the existential worldly one.

“How could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?”
? Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

Sadok Kohen

In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable




The Right to Vote

One of the biggest problems with democracy the way its run today is who gets to vote?

I think that having a say on any matter should be something to earn. How can anybody vote without first understanding what is it that is debated. Shouldn’t at least the voter prove that he has at least a level of understanding that would allow him to?

I am not saying only doctors should vote on health care for example, i am saying that whoever wishes to have a say in the matter should prove that he knows enough of the current policies, the options around, the different opinions with their reasoning and then be allowed to vote.

Can you imagine a courthouse where each jury member is allowed to come as it may, ask for brief summaries about the court case at random from somebody in the courtroom and then give his vote based on that? How is this different from the way politics are run today?

Sadly well informed citizens have equal influence to the clueless and politicians ride on that.

Plato said:

Philosophers [must] become kings…or those now called kings [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize

But it takes a philosopher to vote for a philosopher king so this is my quote:

philosophers [must] become VOTERS…or those now called VOTERS [must]…genuinely and adequately philosophize

Sadok Kohen
In truth, without deceit, certain and most veritable