reading plato nomoi stumbled upon following phrase . Nomoi book X 15 last sentense . “if he left children that can be useful for the state so shall the government agancy responsible for care of orhphans also take care of these orphans as like other orphans from the day on their father has been sentensed”

of course plato talking in this discourse about bigotery how people questioning the gods should be sentensed and put to death and how it should be dealt with their remaining children. however the point of interest for us is here the words orphans and government agency responsible for care of orphans.

unfortunately plato did not mention or write more about the subject for us to figure out if there is already an agency for taking care of orphans or wheter it should be established in his utopia. however the taking care of orphans after the execution of their father due to blashpemy or questioning gods is an interesting point. it already talks about an issue that is established in our modern society with the establishemnt of social services previous times under the care of the churches. however a secular government agency taking care of social services in ancient greek seems a very modern thought (service).

lately i painted all my wood panels white. can´t tell where the urge came from. however it enlightend my my perceiption of the world completely. previously all wood panels where in their original natural state. unpainted unglased. it gave me a warm fuzzy feeling however never had the pleasure to feel modern. it was always natural. feel like lifted into a new century part of the modern world. i got rid of every natural place in my house painted everything plain wood with white paint and never want to go back to the natural look again.

Plato Nomoi book X last sentence: “let´s aks us if we have done enough to explain the deniers of gods that there are gods or if our explanaition was not enough.”

a simple sentence from plato within the platonic dialogue a common phrase nothing unusual but for the exploration of the ancient world a huge treasure.

it is the simple phrase “to explain the deniers of gods” what bothers us. he says the deniers of gods and by that he gives us great information about the ancient world. there were deniers of god. at last when plato lived. plato knew deniers of god. he doesn´t tell us if they were public like today or hidden only talking in closed groups like the symposion plato often attented to. he doesn´t tell if the deniers of gods were able to speak publicly about their deniyal or have to be a secret society like in most islamic or catholic societies today.

however the statement alone gives us a very important hint. questioning the existence of gods is not an issue of secular modernity it was a topic of dispute in early times already.

Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal. ~ Friedrich Engels

at first sight you might agree. it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling. you have that bad state that wants to do some good and makes bad. however at a close look it seems different.

primarily the word crime is misused in this statement. it works with a generally accepted concept of crime and goes on. after that he says the state is more criminal than the crime it wants to curbe. and with that it uses a second time a generally accepted concept of crime to accuse the state to violate in order to fight the first concept.

however that´s the point where we disagree. the concept of law and crime. crime as a behavior opposing a behavior statet in a script defined as law. or better behavior described in a script as violation of law or as not accepted behavior. punishment given for behavior described in law or behavior opposed described in law. both ways acceptable for our concept.

our point starts with the description of law. history of law shows a permanent change of accepted behavior and punished bavior.

even in time we contradict the concept of law. what is lawful in this country is unlawful in that country.

we see that that concept above stated by engels can´t stand a trial of critical overview.

if we turn to non written law, the codex generally accepted by humans in time as acceptable and unacceptable we come to the same conclusion.

who defines written law and who defines unwritten law. that is a very complex issue. generally law is given by a parliament a tribal leader a religious leader or a similar council be it elected or not however stated and undisputed or marginally disputed but generally holding the power and rule of the state or similar organisation. they write down a law or similar statements oral or formal in a written codex however they define law in our description above.

so if the state writes the law the statement “Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal.” looses it´s intention. since law is something by description and not by itself a behavior can´t be called criminal. this statement based on the concept of immanuel kant: categorical imperativ. he takes morality and ethics as a undisputed concept a priori before every experience. concept questioned by nietzsche and will not be further disputed in this script. i refer to that author to question the categorical imperativ concept. since law and morality is a posteriori we can take the behavior of state curbing crime as more criminal only in a concept of written down law that is violated by organisations of state during curbing crime.

can a law be criminal that is our next point. a law can only oppose a already written law. in that statement it will become unlawful. depending on the existing legal codex. most constitutions have a law preventing opposing of a new law an already existing. mostly they have constituitonal courts covering these events where these laws can questioned and disabled without a new parlamentary hearing and sitting. unless in our case laws curbing crime don´t oppose already written down existing law a law can´t be criminal be it cruel as it might be or be it a limitation of private property or freedom as it might be. law becomes criminal only by violation of written down law.

today i had the task to mow my lawn not a big yard still mine and as all good citizens i used my lawn mower to cut the grass in my yard during this task i was plagued by the intense heat covering the world these days burning through my t-shirt and giving me an unpleasurable feeling during my task however the burning sun can´t take me from my task of cutting the grass in my backyard so it comes i cut through my grass row for row to the hedge side of my lawn there it hit me small bits of my trees nature through gentilely to the ground went through my lawn mower and hit me right were you hit your enemy under your knee caps to make someone hurt very much and so did nature with their wonderful gift of plant and made me cry in pain loudly to curse the event then cutting my lawn woke up a small ant hill in my harmonious with the nature backyard destroyed their building angry as they were they swarmed out to hit everything they can hit in their anger unfortunately i was the only person around they could hit in their anger and they did so gentiley biting through my legs i cried out in another source of pain and hit them with my bare hand where i got them and made them give up eating my legs the fight and intese heat left me sweating the guts out and so it came horse flies must have taken notice of me or was it the long nature grass i cut this day and used as a hide out for natures creatures between my cuts or is it the near by river that made them to nest hear even it could be neighbors barn what ever it might be they nested there and when i fought off ants and tree droppings and sweating during this fight under the sun they must have sensed me in a way only horse flies can sense a poor soul under the sun fighting of natures two delights tree droppings thrown out by a lawn mower and a family of ants and so they took an aim for me and hit me as only horse flies can hit a man in pain one in my leg one in my arm one on my neck others flying around me in search for an easy target for this poor guy fighting lawn mower dropping tree droppings furious ants and the sun so they hit me where ants left un used places of my bare skin and they hit me as only horse flies can hit a man already in pain

do i take assignments as a photographer is the question and the answer is under condition i am not eager to take anything since photography is an artform not a profession for me however if the subject fits to me i am glad to take over an assignment and carry it out i am a central europe based photographer i will always prefer assignments within a short distance you hardly find me traveling the world for an assignment since i go after a regular days work in the office and have to carry out those chores

we had intelligent people ruling the world we had stupid people ruling the world we had religious people ruling the world we had non believers ruling the world we had moral people ruling the world we had immoral people ruling the world we had rich people ruling the world we had poverty ruling the world we had philosophers as kings and we had jerks as presidents not much left to try out