tiny houses of our own making…

Spread the love

We are creatures of habit. When we do anything, it is based on exposure to life – our experiences, the influences around us, those we hang out with.

Those habits are the building blocks of who we are. They are the foundation upon which our house of characteristics is built.

Too often, we build very narrow foundations. As a result, our view of life, the walls which are built upon that foundation, are very small. Those walls keep out those other people and ideas that do not agree with our opinions and beliefs.

Small foundations…

A house cannot be built without a supporting structure beneath it. The structure must be made of strong materials so that the building will not sway or shift if strong winds blow or high tides reach it.

When a foundation is tiny, the house cannot be larger than the structure that it sits upon.

If the foundation of a person’s inner core is made up of narrow viewpoints, the likelihood of having any meaningful conversation or discussion with them will be pointless. They will not change their minds. There would be no room for others to enter their dwelling.

Growing the foundation…

But if a person has a tiny foundation, yet is willing to learn, the chances of them expanding that foundation grows in relation to their willingness to learn all sides. If they grow the foundation, their building will be able to grow. And if it grows, it can embrace an increased number of people within its walls.

Without growth, what will the person become?


What does it mean to become something? It means to move toward it.

We can expand our minds, our outlooks, our perspectives, our opinions, our beliefs. In turn, we also expand our relationships.

But we must be careful. Having the willingness to expand ourselves, we must not lose perspective on what is important. We cannot simply throw away everything that makes us who we are, nor what we believe, for the sake of expanding.

Objective and subjective…

Certain things in life are objective. That means that they are unchangeable. They consist of such things as the law of gravity, the understanding of physical beings, the Natural Law, and so on.

Other things are subjective. They are subject to the opinion or view of someone. Such things as the color of a house, the desired feel of fabric, or the type of car you drive are all subjective.

Some of our beliefs are built on objective truths. They will never change.

We cannot circumvent gravity, for example. If you dive off a cliff deciding that you are a bird, you will fall. Certain things don’t care about what you think. It is an objective truth.

One person may have a very strong belief in their religious beliefs. They base it on observation as well as continuously supported facts. It doesn’t matter if someone else rejects these things because inside of themselves, there is no reason to change.

Unless you can give a stronger reason. It is a subjective truth.


Today, we are tossed about with everyone else’s opinions. Those are subjective truths.

Problems occur when those opinions cross over into the realm of the unchangeable.

Natural Law…

This is considered a “theory” by many today. But the understanding of Natural Law came about through the teachings of great philosophers throughout the ages. They did not develop randomly as some might suggest.

Early philosophers, such as Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero understood the Natural Law by observing their environment. This was the original definition of “science”.

Back in the day, when man actually lived in close proximity to nature, he was part and parcel to all that it had to offer. Changes in seasons, consistency in the circuit of the stars, the orderly way in which nature took its course were all part of what they understood were unchangeable.

Age of “Enlightenment”…

During the Age of “Enlightenment”, man was unhappy with the constraints that Natural Law applied to their lives. They began to discuss ways in which man could live outside of those laws, skirting the reality of centuries of observations. “Science” became defined as creating an explanation of a phenomena in nature with a theory, then observing nature to see if it fit the explanation.

Man had become removed from his natural environment on an increasing basis. It soon appeared that the better way of living would be to control nature instead of living with it. The idea that the new scientific process was superior to the philosophical one. And it was able to be monetized with the excuse that this new approach to nature would improve the lives of men.

As a result, we find that today, the very notion of whatever is considered an objective truth is rejected soundly. Anything but what is happening on the natural level is on the table for exploitation.

What comes of all this?

The end result in all this usually does not improve the conditions of either the environment or the organisms within it.

Man has redefined health to reject natural healing and only include artificial methods. He has decided that if someone decides they are a cat instead of a human being, that’s okay. Certain groups have felt the need to interfere with the very structure of organisms in order to “improve” them by altering their DNA or adding inorganic DNA structures to the living cells of plants, animals, and even humans.

Modern scientific experiments…

Starlink Corn is a good example of this. Garst Seed company, now part of AstraZeneca, decided that it was a bright idea to alter the genetic coding within the corn seeds to include the gene from Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer (glufosinate) plus a variant of Bt (Bacillus thrungiensis Cry9C). The company thought they could create a genetically modified corn plant that could grow and resist the spraying of the weed killer. It also thought that it could produce automatic insect control without the use of additional pesticides.. (This same weed killer that has recently been found to cause cancer.)

Between 1999 and the ensuing lawsuits throughout 2003, the economic and physical impacts were enormous.

During that time, it was observed that the Monarch butterflies were dying an unprecedented rates from exposure to the milkweed that had been contaminated from the pollen. Japan found, to their horror, their corn was contaminated with the gene modification because the jet stream had carried the pollen to their once-pure crops. They had a strict environmental policy not to use such modified seeds.

The StarLink corn was used for animal feed and human consumption. But it was soon discovered that the modified Bt (not the same chemical make-up of the Bt used on organic crops) remained in the digestive tract longer than other Bt proteins before breaking down. 51 people reported problems to the FDA after eating the corn. Nearly all the cases were considered irrelevant or not provable.

Still, StarLink was allowed to be used for animal feed in 1998. The human consumption side remained in place until a major lawsuit from Kraft corporation, which owned Taco Bell, came against them.

The seeds were then pulled from the market.

But by that time, what was the defining cost to the environment or living organisms?

Other examples…

A few years ago, a wealthy individual decided to pour tons of fertilizer off the west coast of Canada. He thought that by increasing the algae in the oceans, it would reduce the carbon the oceans and improve conditions to raise salmon.

Instead, it produced a spectacular red algae bloom that concerned quite a few scientists on the effects of the ecosystem, acidification of the ocean waters, and creation of dead zones. It was also illegal per international law.

In 2018, another intelligent idea was to put 6G radar in the Atlantic ocean. The project is called “The Internet of the Underwater Things”. Living things are affected by electromagnetism. When the system blasts frequencies in nearly the entire hearing range of dolphins (7 kHz to 170 kHz), the effect on sea animals is enormous. Affecting more than merely losing their sense of migration directions, the smallest of sea creatures suffered high mortality rates. Without the zooplankton, the food chain is disrupted and large sea creatures will die off as well.

But DARPA and WEF, among others, are pushing forward with their experimentations. The long term effects has not been seriously taken into consideration.

I won’t go into great detail on these other brilliant ideas that free thinkers in our scientific community enacted. Suffice it to say that what has been attempted during this Age of Enlightenment has not proven to be for the benefit of humanity.

So when is it acceptable to expand the foundation?

It is the right time to expand the foundation of our little houses when we bump up against something that will improve who we are and what we think. If the end result is positive, then it might be possible to embrace it. It the end result leads down dark or questionable paths, it must be denied.

Being willing to embrace new things does not automatically mean you should have an “open mind” to everything. That only creates confusion.

By definition, to have an “open mind” is to accept all things equally as true. But a rational human being cannot believe two antithetical truths. A cat cannot be a non-cat at the same time. Anything that is true cannot at the same time be not true. One of those things must be a lie.

You must be selective. And what you openly incorporate into your foundation must include object truths. If it is relative, then the purpose for its existence must be proven to be reasonable before accepting it as a part of the base structure.

Firm foundations…

To be fully human is to fully embrace what makes a human being unique. The thing that sets humans apart from animals is his creativity and his ability to reason .

We must base the foundations of our own beliefs upon that which does not change. An organism born as a male of its species does not change that gender (unless it is something like a flounder and no females exist). Nature understands that to procreate, there must be a male and a female to make that happen.

Up is not down. Blue is not yellow. Right is not wrong, Left is not right. Objective truths do not change.

Study and evaluate…

If you want to expand your horizons and understand what is outside your viewpoints, then study them. Do not embrace what the world tells you is true just because everyone believes it to be so. To accept those ideas is to build your foundation shifting sand.

One only has to look at the scientific evolution of the existence of black holes to discover that the certainty of man’s scientific discoveries isn’t that stable.

Instead, embrace the concept that others may have different viewpoints. Accept that they have the right to believe those things.

But when it bumps up agains truths that do not change, it doesn’t mean you need to incorporate those questionable concepts into your viewpoints or belief system.

Build firm foundations on things that don’t change. Compare the opinions and discoveries of others around you with what you know to be unshakeable. But be not swayed by the majority of others.

Great, just men have fought against the tide throughout history. Often they were found to be right.

Many followed evil ideas because everyone else did. Their ideas became narrowed to the opinions of those around them.

Follow your own path. Follow your own dreams.

But first, seek what does not waver. Only then will you be led rightly, and be able to build on a solid foundation.

people silhouette during sunset
We love people!

Don’t miss new blog content!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

%d bloggers like this: