Yes, I've been exposed for creatively arranging ideas everyone else has taken for granted. Not so bad, as far as I'm concerned.
Newton's laws are easy enough to communicate to a high-school freshman, but I'm afraid the various meanings of those laws are not conveyed very well, as my geometry text disproves three of Newton's laws, plus alters his gravitational law. The implications of these laws were meant to be pondered much more deeply than people do today.
As far as glass houses are concerned, I'm fairly sure that people who inhabit them throw more stones than usual considering that glass houses are not humane dwellings, and are specifically built for breaking by the the throwing of stones..
Glass houses don't shelter from light, and therefore the dangerous elements of the day, and are cruel instruments of manipulation and crucifixion, which are figments of past times but have outlasted their reasonable uses and position via the reasonableness and progress of society. Show me a tribal, or primitive culture, and I'll show you a glass house. Show me unreasonableness, or "reasonableness" not adapted to present circumstances and I'll show you a glass house
So should people in glass houses throw stones? Do they care if, they, or anyone, shatters their glass houses? Do they without sin throw the first stone, or are they people used to throwing stones and having them bounce off glass walls for so long that by the time they break the walls of their glass houses they have no idea the difference between a person and a type of glass wall.? Is murder perpetrated by someone seeking to shatter his own glasshouse as much as that of another which might have contours and thicknesses of walls differing from the glass walls of the first, but yet are still glass walls??
Or take it another way. A good order of life, is that those who build glass houses, or can recognize the glass walls surrounding others, could wait to catalyze reactions between people, who are living in glass houses, and this is the sort of manipulation most feared by those tenants of glass houses. Those who remind others of the glass walls around them and tempt the inhabitants to anger, and to break their glass walls, throw gas on the fire of this fear of manipulation. Most people coming off the cross would kill first those they thought spit on them, much like the breaker of a glass house would want to throw rocks at the perceived builders of their glass houses.
Fear of manipulation is key here, because builders of glasshouses hope to spit on their unlucky tenants without the knowledge of the partially crucified, and then, later on, direct that anger toward their own ends. Hence stones are thrown, the glass house broken, the unlucky inhabitant breaks free, and more stones are thrown at what the initial glass house breaker blames for his initial experience via a glass house, as well as those who taunted him before he could break the walls.
Scapegoats become apparent. This is why I lean more towards, not a faith in Christianity as it is, but what it was meant, historically, the time of its creation, I think. Newton, now that was quite the builder of glasshouses, unfortunately. But the mystery of the Trinity, perpetuated by Catholicism, is the much thicker glass house Newton broke free from, which allowed him to set up a thinner walled glass house for people afterwards to break with smaller rocks - allowing, ideally, less manipulation of people and the more reasonableness of society.
The reason why children have no privacy should be because parents live with the children inside a house, but it can never be a glass one, or else why need a parent live with a children if they can be seen from afar. Parents living in a glasshouse cannot govern their children because the children can too easily see that their parents are not free. Society breaks down. Yes, the parents cannot be parents if they live in glasshouses.
And so, after a long exploration of this metaphor which every small child has heard of and yet doesn't know at all the implications of, nor bothered to explore the implications thereof, I draw this post to a close, and consider OneEyedJasper someone who already knows these things but is taunting me while I abode somewhere he considers glassy.
I can only presume that One Eyed Jasper is, or is the instrument of, someone who sees me as living in a glass house, and fit for the sort of taunting which leads to manipulation of some sort. And to that, I say, he's exposed himself for what he is, or is an instrument of, and perhaps, sadly, will go live a life somewhere where people think this sort of manipulation is really possible and doesn't flow against people's natural ability to reason and adapt behavior to their actual surroundings, which includes the small minded One-Eyed-Jaspers of this world dotting the scenery and the Newtons and the Pope and Slate and whoever is surreptitiously, and without my permission, adding their insults to their own unintentional and unwitting injury.
