When I first read Genesis in the Bible, I was curious about the giants and the people who lived to be a long age. Someone explained to me that the people who lived beyond five hundred years were not individual people but families. Still, the notion of living to a very old age was inspiring. We see around us trees that survive human beings and live to be well over two thousand years old. How?
Recently, the odds have improved that a few people may live to an age that staggers the imagination. Again, one needs to ask the questions how and what is the evidence. Most people I talk to about the issue say that living so long is not attractive. They site the loss of friends and immediate family as their biggest concern.
Who says that people can live much longer? We know that Ponce de Leon searched Florida for something that would allow long life and he appears to have failed. What sent him on the mission and have the odds now improved because companies and research groups are beginning to understand how the body actually works rather than what works on the body?
The Washington Post recently ran with a story about Aubrey de Grey, a 'young' man in California, who has just published a book on ending aging. They report on a competition amongst biologists to assess whether the idea is completely implausible or whether there is a possibility. The odds are stacked up against a person, even one in the future, living beyond one hundred years, but what are the real determinants of the possibilities? If you have one thousand dollars to give each year for 25 years, you can join a group that seeks the science of curing aging.
The Determinants of the Aging Process
The determinants can be organized into many groups of determinants:
1. what you eat, drink, and consume that strengthens or weakens your body's healthy normal functioning
2. what you breath and how well,
3. how often you exercise your whole body,
4. how well you tend to all your senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch,
5. whether you have a mate and regular exchanges of a meaningful and intimate nature,
6. how well all your body systems function, especially respiration, digestion, immune, neurological, physical, and cognitive systems,
7. how well you function within your support groups,
8. where you live and engage with other people,
9. how well endowed you are with the right genes,
10. how well financed you are,
11. whether you are under stress,
12. whether you are happy and feel in control,
13. how easy it is for you to be motivated to create and engage in activity that is pychologically enhancing,
14. what systems can be put in place to help strengthen those systems in your body that fight disease, that resist aging, that heal and promote a sense of well being,
15. how well you fit into your community,
16. how quickly the sciences needed to support your anti-aging programs are put into place,
17. How well you can sustain a positive attitude and initiative to continue with life and life strengthening activity,
18. whether your community and you can protect itself against those forces of nature that would increase the risk of dying abd contamination,
19. whether there is international peace and shared prosperity for you and your neighbours,
20. whether the intractible issues of poverty, disease, hunger, lack of shelter and clean water can be resolved,
21. whether you and your neighbours can develop spiritually,
22. whether nature's systems survive along with you and strengthen,
23. whether there is sustainability and balance in your environment for the widest variety of people, animals, plants, and the earth ecology,
24. whether the supportive natural, physical and social sciences supporting longetivity are developing at a sufficient pace,
25. whether the depressing problem of debt can be eliminated.
What is the Score?
Whether you achieve a high score or not, you will begin to realize how interconnected we are to other people and the many natural and geophysical support systems of our planet. We house an extremely complicated world, and it is not getting any simpler. If we are to increase the odds of living longer, it needs to be a community effort and we cannot leave out the plants and other systems that sustain life support. If any key system fails, such as the ability to share clean fresh water with plants and people, then the goals of longetivity also fail.
In my model Wuh Lax world, it is working 'cum alliis, pro alliis', 'with others, for others' that will ratchet up our survival possibilities.
Science of Not-Aging
In 1975, I interviewed many heads of research in pharmaceutical companies in the UK. Some of them related their interest in the financing of basic research into the aging process and what it would take to slow it down. That was thirty years ago and some of this basic / fundamental research is just beginning to show favourable results. The science of understanding the aging process is still very much in its infancy, but the results are amazing.
Scratches to Sketches
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Why Didn't Some One Tell Me?
When might you ask or exclaim, "Why didn't someone tell me?" Perhaps, just perhaps, someone did tell you, but you were not listening, or you could not interpret what they were saying.
In our world of advertising, we are constantly bombarded with information, or messages, in forms that are intended to distract us from thinking broadly about things. We are being loudly guided in our thoughts towards relatively narrow solutions. That is the role of advertising and most forms of paid communication. If the messages are too loud or the solutions favouring some particular group, we think of them as propaganda.
Nevertheless, we are constantly being bombarded by messages that we may not be equipped very well to receive. These are the messages that require the knowledge provided by a form of Rosetta stone experience or science. The facts are that you may need to get off your backside and search for the Rosetta stones yourself and then for the messages that you will be able to interpret. This is partly what continuing education is all about.
Once you have learned enough to make a living, you may find it advantageous to go back to school to learn enough to make life meaningful. Earning a living and meaningful existence may not be the same activity, so you probably need to determine whether they are.
In our world of advertising, we are constantly bombarded with information, or messages, in forms that are intended to distract us from thinking broadly about things. We are being loudly guided in our thoughts towards relatively narrow solutions. That is the role of advertising and most forms of paid communication. If the messages are too loud or the solutions favouring some particular group, we think of them as propaganda.
Nevertheless, we are constantly being bombarded by messages that we may not be equipped very well to receive. These are the messages that require the knowledge provided by a form of Rosetta stone experience or science. The facts are that you may need to get off your backside and search for the Rosetta stones yourself and then for the messages that you will be able to interpret. This is partly what continuing education is all about.
Once you have learned enough to make a living, you may find it advantageous to go back to school to learn enough to make life meaningful. Earning a living and meaningful existence may not be the same activity, so you probably need to determine whether they are.
Religion as Models of What Should Be and of Fairness
The purpose of a religion would seem to be that of giving people an ideal towards which they can direct their energies. We can search for the source of the inspiration of the 'messages' that enable a religion to form, or an individual to become receptive to an ideal or pattern within oneself or between oneself and the cosmos. It is this search process that forms the basis of the notion of pilgrimage.
What happens is that some one tells some one else that they should go somewhere and if they do, they will be inspired by either the journey to that place or by the place itself. Often, it is the very act of trying that makes the search meaningful.
Its like trying to experience sex for the first time. One tells you that you get a wonderful thing happen to you if you have sex. They prescribe the ideal conditions in which sex is to be performed. Until you actually try to have sex or someone intervenes and shows you what sex is all about, you are ignorant as to what sex is all about. The fact is that within each person there is a potential for having sex.
There is also a potential within each person for having inspiration. This potential for inspiration is strongest when one is not yet ready for sex being immature to the normal bodily functions that make sex a normal function. There seems to be a progress of development in the human being that moves in stages and being inspired occurs before being sexually active.
In a very real way, it is probably possible for people to move in the direction of seeking inspiration and away from seeking the sexual experience, just as there may be a way to avoid eating as a pleasure for the sake of exercising one's other faculties.
Development of Our Senses
We have the sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. From these senses, we derive sensations that inspire, awe, please, disgust, attract, repel, and so on. There is a normal pattern to the development of our senses, but we may or may not be in control of this pattern.
Religions tend to try to control the pattern in order to create meaning out of experience. In this they may or may not be successful, the potential differences between development situations being enormous or gargantuan.
Religions Interpret the Cosmos in Ways That Define Order
To the religious mind, there is an order within the cosmos that can be tapped by the individual following rules that the religion presents to its followers. The big issue is whether the rules of a religion are fair to 'newcomers' to the religion.
Fairness to Newcomers as a Measure of Grading the Value of a Religion
A religion is unfair if newcomers to that religion are not treated in an even handed way. There is no room in the cosmos for disparity of treatment within a religion. Biased treatment of newcomers to a religion predisposes the religion towards a destructive exclusiveness that is harmful to an intelligent community.
For example, if a religion were to say that every fifth child joining the religion were to be killed and the blood drunk by a select group of the other members, we would say that the religion was unfair to the child who was killed. We would say that almost irregardless of whether the drinking of the blood allowed the other members of the religion to have eternal life.
Or, for example, if a religion were condone the practice of killing non-members, we should grade the religion as being unfair whether or not the religion gave eternal life to members of the religion. Taking of the life of 'infidels or outsiders, or potential newcomers to a religion is unfair.
Many Unfair Religions Go Unrecognized As Unfair
We often hear that the world is unfair. "Get used to it," some people say. "Be Real," others say.
No!
We Need to Deal With Unfairness Within the Scope of Religion
When we see, hear, smell, taste, touch a process that is unfair, we should all as human beings sense repugnance with that process. If a religion is to have any value whatsoever, it needs to be constantly on the watch that it promotes fairness to potential newcomers, the so-called infidels and outsiders. A religion that is fair, is also one that is inclusive, and is seen to be inclusive by potential newcomers, or the sponsors of potential newcomers to the religion.
When a religion is fair, it is open to newcomers and to new ideas that define it as a religion. If a religion remains a constant in its refusal to provide an even path of entry for newcomers, it is unfair and should be rejected by present participants of the religion. Inclusiveness is the standard by which religions should and need to be judged.
Ineffective or Temporary Religions
A religion might be regarded as being ineffective if it has only a temporary message or if its message requires that the world stand still for the religion to survive. Potential newcomers to a religion need to be aware of whether the religion is capable of coping with the challenges of many new people joining it. An effective religion is one that develops the capacity within its membership of inspiration, good living, or good works.
What happens is that some one tells some one else that they should go somewhere and if they do, they will be inspired by either the journey to that place or by the place itself. Often, it is the very act of trying that makes the search meaningful.
Its like trying to experience sex for the first time. One tells you that you get a wonderful thing happen to you if you have sex. They prescribe the ideal conditions in which sex is to be performed. Until you actually try to have sex or someone intervenes and shows you what sex is all about, you are ignorant as to what sex is all about. The fact is that within each person there is a potential for having sex.
There is also a potential within each person for having inspiration. This potential for inspiration is strongest when one is not yet ready for sex being immature to the normal bodily functions that make sex a normal function. There seems to be a progress of development in the human being that moves in stages and being inspired occurs before being sexually active.
In a very real way, it is probably possible for people to move in the direction of seeking inspiration and away from seeking the sexual experience, just as there may be a way to avoid eating as a pleasure for the sake of exercising one's other faculties.
Development of Our Senses
We have the sense of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing. From these senses, we derive sensations that inspire, awe, please, disgust, attract, repel, and so on. There is a normal pattern to the development of our senses, but we may or may not be in control of this pattern.
Religions tend to try to control the pattern in order to create meaning out of experience. In this they may or may not be successful, the potential differences between development situations being enormous or gargantuan.
Religions Interpret the Cosmos in Ways That Define Order
To the religious mind, there is an order within the cosmos that can be tapped by the individual following rules that the religion presents to its followers. The big issue is whether the rules of a religion are fair to 'newcomers' to the religion.
Fairness to Newcomers as a Measure of Grading the Value of a Religion
A religion is unfair if newcomers to that religion are not treated in an even handed way. There is no room in the cosmos for disparity of treatment within a religion. Biased treatment of newcomers to a religion predisposes the religion towards a destructive exclusiveness that is harmful to an intelligent community.
For example, if a religion were to say that every fifth child joining the religion were to be killed and the blood drunk by a select group of the other members, we would say that the religion was unfair to the child who was killed. We would say that almost irregardless of whether the drinking of the blood allowed the other members of the religion to have eternal life.
Or, for example, if a religion were condone the practice of killing non-members, we should grade the religion as being unfair whether or not the religion gave eternal life to members of the religion. Taking of the life of 'infidels or outsiders, or potential newcomers to a religion is unfair.
Many Unfair Religions Go Unrecognized As Unfair
We often hear that the world is unfair. "Get used to it," some people say. "Be Real," others say.
No!
We Need to Deal With Unfairness Within the Scope of Religion
When we see, hear, smell, taste, touch a process that is unfair, we should all as human beings sense repugnance with that process. If a religion is to have any value whatsoever, it needs to be constantly on the watch that it promotes fairness to potential newcomers, the so-called infidels and outsiders. A religion that is fair, is also one that is inclusive, and is seen to be inclusive by potential newcomers, or the sponsors of potential newcomers to the religion.
When a religion is fair, it is open to newcomers and to new ideas that define it as a religion. If a religion remains a constant in its refusal to provide an even path of entry for newcomers, it is unfair and should be rejected by present participants of the religion. Inclusiveness is the standard by which religions should and need to be judged.
Ineffective or Temporary Religions
A religion might be regarded as being ineffective if it has only a temporary message or if its message requires that the world stand still for the religion to survive. Potential newcomers to a religion need to be aware of whether the religion is capable of coping with the challenges of many new people joining it. An effective religion is one that develops the capacity within its membership of inspiration, good living, or good works.
Do Random Events Happen?
One way to consider random events is by seeing them as events arising where there is no intervention. In the world of mathematical statistics, we have the possibility of a mathematical equation or system of equations that seemingly creates a series or wave forms that one could consider random. People even patent such generators. In the real world, and especially if the cosmos could be considered as a ginormous calculator, we have 'something or somethings' that seemingly generate what appear to be random events. Such random distributions are even said to be normal.
When Being Abnormal is Normal
The science of statistics makes extensive use of the concept of the 'normal' distribution of events that exhibit randomness against which other distributions can be compared. If such a distribution is normal then why or how do we exist? We find that in the normal world, it is perfectly fine to discover events that are not normal. Individually, our very existence is 'not on the chart of cosmic normality." But, then we all realize this.
The Relativity of Normality
What we find is that normality is relative. Within the world of human beings that have lived on earth over the past two thousand years, we may think that we are relatively normal, but is that true?
Randomness
To get a random distribution in statistics we collect numbers from some source and we then classify the numbers as somehow meaningful or alternatively is random and without a specific meaning if the pattern or scatter of the numbers against a vector to measure differences produces or does not produce a recognizable 'bell shaped' distribution. When we say something is random, what we usually mean is that we cannot say that there is some relationship between two entities that produced the numbers. This is because we tend to work with associations. We say that there is no relationship between the two entities that is statistically significant. The relationship appears to have no discernible meaning in a statistical sense.
A is associate with B. There appears to be no relationship between A and B as far as a particular characteristic is concerned because we find that the distribution of measures of this characteristic on our frequency number chart is entirely random. We know what random is because we have in mind a statistical formula that produces frequencies that we would consider random.
Fooled by Randomness
The fact is that two things or events might appear to be entirely disassociated and random relative to each other, yet be connected in a meaningful way. We use the world meaningful to describe a relationship of a causal nature whether directly causal or indirectly causal.
The problem is that a relationship can exist between two entities that we have not captured because we are not really looking at the true relationship at all. We are blind to the relationship that exists, just as certainly as a blind and deaf person may be unaware of someone sitting on a wooden stool at a bar near them.
To pick up relationships, one needs a lens or something that can detect the waves or relationships between entities.
In our world of sight, sound, smell, taste, feeling, intuition we have an array of tools that measure some but not all of the waves. Our lenses may not detect relationships because we do not see the fields that exist between things or link them. We may not be aware that the relationships come in and out of existence into or within our cosmos following a pattern.
Meaning
We say something has meaning because we know of a relationship. Our next door neighbours may not know of this relationship and would have to admit that the same something has no meaning for them. This is not the same as coincidence, but in coincident events an interpreter or observer might say that several events provide the basis of meaning. Another interpreter may say that the same events have no meaning.
Language of People and the Language of the Universe
For a long while the language of the Egyptians had no meaning to scholars. They tried to understand the hieroglyphs, but could not make sense of them. Suddenly, someone discovered that by using another language found on the Rosetta Stone, it would be possible to gain a meaning of what would otherwise appear to be random scratchings. Well, we knew that the scratchings were not random, but we had no way of interpreting them without the help of the Rosetta Stone.
The Rosetta Stone Puts Meaning into Nonsense or Randomness
In order for one to attain meaning, one needs a Rosetta Stone situation that allows for a translation of seemingly random or nonsense events into patterns that can be read and understood.
Very little is Random
In the Wuh Lax cosmos, there is nothing that is random. What is needed to understand the cosmos are lenses that interpret the waves that exist between things.
When Being Abnormal is Normal
The science of statistics makes extensive use of the concept of the 'normal' distribution of events that exhibit randomness against which other distributions can be compared. If such a distribution is normal then why or how do we exist? We find that in the normal world, it is perfectly fine to discover events that are not normal. Individually, our very existence is 'not on the chart of cosmic normality." But, then we all realize this.
The Relativity of Normality
What we find is that normality is relative. Within the world of human beings that have lived on earth over the past two thousand years, we may think that we are relatively normal, but is that true?
Randomness
To get a random distribution in statistics we collect numbers from some source and we then classify the numbers as somehow meaningful or alternatively is random and without a specific meaning if the pattern or scatter of the numbers against a vector to measure differences produces or does not produce a recognizable 'bell shaped' distribution. When we say something is random, what we usually mean is that we cannot say that there is some relationship between two entities that produced the numbers. This is because we tend to work with associations. We say that there is no relationship between the two entities that is statistically significant. The relationship appears to have no discernible meaning in a statistical sense.
A is associate with B. There appears to be no relationship between A and B as far as a particular characteristic is concerned because we find that the distribution of measures of this characteristic on our frequency number chart is entirely random. We know what random is because we have in mind a statistical formula that produces frequencies that we would consider random.
Fooled by Randomness
The fact is that two things or events might appear to be entirely disassociated and random relative to each other, yet be connected in a meaningful way. We use the world meaningful to describe a relationship of a causal nature whether directly causal or indirectly causal.
The problem is that a relationship can exist between two entities that we have not captured because we are not really looking at the true relationship at all. We are blind to the relationship that exists, just as certainly as a blind and deaf person may be unaware of someone sitting on a wooden stool at a bar near them.
To pick up relationships, one needs a lens or something that can detect the waves or relationships between entities.
In our world of sight, sound, smell, taste, feeling, intuition we have an array of tools that measure some but not all of the waves. Our lenses may not detect relationships because we do not see the fields that exist between things or link them. We may not be aware that the relationships come in and out of existence into or within our cosmos following a pattern.
Meaning
We say something has meaning because we know of a relationship. Our next door neighbours may not know of this relationship and would have to admit that the same something has no meaning for them. This is not the same as coincidence, but in coincident events an interpreter or observer might say that several events provide the basis of meaning. Another interpreter may say that the same events have no meaning.
Language of People and the Language of the Universe
For a long while the language of the Egyptians had no meaning to scholars. They tried to understand the hieroglyphs, but could not make sense of them. Suddenly, someone discovered that by using another language found on the Rosetta Stone, it would be possible to gain a meaning of what would otherwise appear to be random scratchings. Well, we knew that the scratchings were not random, but we had no way of interpreting them without the help of the Rosetta Stone.
The Rosetta Stone Puts Meaning into Nonsense or Randomness
In order for one to attain meaning, one needs a Rosetta Stone situation that allows for a translation of seemingly random or nonsense events into patterns that can be read and understood.
Very little is Random
In the Wuh Lax cosmos, there is nothing that is random. What is needed to understand the cosmos are lenses that interpret the waves that exist between things.
Monday, 7 January 2008
The Wuh Lax Diet: Groping Along in a World of Food Confusion
Right now, I am saying how fortunate I feel to be able to ditch wheat and flour from my list of preferred foods. Gone are the donuts, the cakes, the breads, the sandwiches, the gravies, the junk food of fast food houses. I can't eat in restaurants any more without searching deep into the menu for safe foods that do not contain the products of wheat flour that in foods is almost everywhere.
My challenge of eliminating wheat from my diet arises so that I can clear up my complexion. For years and years, I have suffered from something in wheat and wheat flour products without being aware that I had an allergy weakness or something about these foods was hurting me. The symptoms of my food issue went well beyond complexion, but I am no food scientist and if I had to list them, I would produce a note several chapters long, believe me!
How many other people have the same or similar issues with wheat, I wonder? The effects are not so noticeable that you would immediately spring into action. In fact, I used to work in the world's largest food processing center in North America under one roof. I never had issues with wheat then!
Now, I get a deeps sense of awareness of my own stupidity. Why in hell did I not realize that wheat was not good for me? It took an event to bring about this awareness.
My soul mate, Anne, prepared a huge quantity of home made bread. Ah, was the bread ever delicious! Something to die for! Yes, and seriously, I think I was dieing from it without being aware. Eating wheat products to me now is akin to smoking cigarettes.
You may have an issue with wheat and if you do, you may do it at pain of death. But, no one tells you that unless you have a serious condition called celiac disease!? My friend was the one who enlightened me. She realized that my health was being impacted by something she lovingly prepared.
You may also have a wheat issue without being aware. If you are over your healthy weight, you should certainly research the possibility.
In my own way, I try to come to terms with the DNA factors that may have predisposed me to my wheat issues and come up with the idea that perhaps wheat was not common where my ancestors lived which was in the north and in forests. I have no issues with oats and would have no problem telling people that oats are less likely to cause a food issue. I am no expert, but switching to oats away from wheat seems a sensible idea. In the time of Wim and Wuh, oats would have been the food to eat.
My challenge of eliminating wheat from my diet arises so that I can clear up my complexion. For years and years, I have suffered from something in wheat and wheat flour products without being aware that I had an allergy weakness or something about these foods was hurting me. The symptoms of my food issue went well beyond complexion, but I am no food scientist and if I had to list them, I would produce a note several chapters long, believe me!
How many other people have the same or similar issues with wheat, I wonder? The effects are not so noticeable that you would immediately spring into action. In fact, I used to work in the world's largest food processing center in North America under one roof. I never had issues with wheat then!
Now, I get a deeps sense of awareness of my own stupidity. Why in hell did I not realize that wheat was not good for me? It took an event to bring about this awareness.
My soul mate, Anne, prepared a huge quantity of home made bread. Ah, was the bread ever delicious! Something to die for! Yes, and seriously, I think I was dieing from it without being aware. Eating wheat products to me now is akin to smoking cigarettes.
You may have an issue with wheat and if you do, you may do it at pain of death. But, no one tells you that unless you have a serious condition called celiac disease!? My friend was the one who enlightened me. She realized that my health was being impacted by something she lovingly prepared.
You may also have a wheat issue without being aware. If you are over your healthy weight, you should certainly research the possibility.
In my own way, I try to come to terms with the DNA factors that may have predisposed me to my wheat issues and come up with the idea that perhaps wheat was not common where my ancestors lived which was in the north and in forests. I have no issues with oats and would have no problem telling people that oats are less likely to cause a food issue. I am no expert, but switching to oats away from wheat seems a sensible idea. In the time of Wim and Wuh, oats would have been the food to eat.
Saturday, 5 January 2008
Evolution? A Cause or an Effect of Environmental Change?
In my opinion, anyone who does not think evolution is relevant both religious and non-religious contexts needs to have their head examined. There, I said it without using the forbidden word!
Associated with the concept of evolution is the relevant notion of survival of the fittest. That's all very well as a model, but does the model itself fit. In many ways, it almost seems to beg the question. If a species survives, then it is the fittest. But, is this the case? How does one relate evolution to social change and the human species?
There are evolutionary models of society such as those of Herbert Spenser, Karl Marx, and Joseph Schumpeter that attempt the challenge. In our present day context, we need to encorporate ideas that promote the survival of the planet within the context of its evolution, and hopefully, its survival, which is now up to mankind.
Obviously, some species survive and others don't. Is there any criteria that is relevant other than survival in the now and through space-time as by means of the arrow of time?
There are strange things that emerge from studies of actual human DNA, such that we find community where we thought that there was division.
Evolution of Life, Mortals or Matter?
In a universe in which we observe more than the now, perhaps survival is something other than it seems. Maybe survival needs to be looked at in a wider context. For example, if there were a heaven and eternal life and one was confined a mortal existence, then survival would not mean survival as a mortal being, but survival as an immortal being. Is that all? No!
In Search of the Miraculous
Another example would be in a case if everything survives in its own space-time/space, as in a universe that is recurring, which is what we know many of the stoics believed. There are those such as Ouspenski who believed that that was what Jesus Christ was trying to communicate.
Another way of looking at evolution may be to examine it in the context of needs. If a species survives, it has all that it needs. If a species fails, it somehow has much less than it needs. How are the needs for survival determined? Are these needs, things that come from within the species as an expression of its nature or are the needs imposed by the environment in which the species is surviving?
Does the species have any say in what it needs to survive? Is survival of a species even necessary to assess that it sees itself as having met its purpose or role within the context of the environment in which it finds itself?
Goals of Species as a Means to an Unknown End
One is tempted to assume that the goal of life is to survive until an end is achieved. However, we know that human nature has a way of specifying its needs through choice based on immediate goals and preferences for processes to achieve those goals.
In the Wuh Lax model of evolution, the world has many of the properties of light, which as we know from the exploratory scientific work of Feynman and others is capable of making choices.
If light explores all channels of existence prior to physical processing in any one dimension of existence, might not other entities based/feeding on light do something similar?
Goal Oriented Survival
Perhaps, survival contains more an element of choice than chance, but most probably both are determinants. The survival of a species is not entirely due to randomness, but to very specific decisions made by participants in the species. These specifications by members of a species may derive from internal rankings of preferences as much as from outside interventions, whether random or not, from the environment. Possibly, a very real question to be asked is whether there is freedom to choose. For example, we know that smokers have not survived as well as non-smokers. In our environment, those that prefer to smoke have the odds stacked against them.
If there is a genetic basis for preferring to smoke as compared with not preferring to smoke then the preference to smoke is determining the survival of a large group of people. If, however, there is a group that is deliberately poisoning cigarettes and targeting vulnerable groups of people, then the survival of those that prefer to smoke is being controlled by those that wish to do them harm. This is certainly not a random process.
Being Selfish as a Means of Survival
What we know about life is that species feed off each other in a highly competitive way creating more space for their own survival at the expense of others. Is this the way, the selfish gene comes to dominate, or is there something larger going on? Obviously, competition is one model and cooperation is another. Both are relevant to the story of evolution!
If humans care for trees, love them, then they will survive better than if they cut them down and kill them. Trees are helpless against human beings. The reason trees will survive at all, if they will as a species, arises if man specifies that he prefers to have trees in his world. It is a choice of man to have trees that enables man to survive because man ultimately needs trees even though he may not realize why. It is the act of compassion by mankind for other species that allow man to survive. Is this always the case?
Obviously, man is on a planet that may not survive. How is man going to survive? Man is going to love the planet earth and care for it, otherwise the earth will die. It may even be in the hands of mankind to save earth for a life approximating eternity. We do not know. But, if man as a species has any purpose at all, it is to love the planet earth and to see that the planet earth survives.
Associated with the concept of evolution is the relevant notion of survival of the fittest. That's all very well as a model, but does the model itself fit. In many ways, it almost seems to beg the question. If a species survives, then it is the fittest. But, is this the case? How does one relate evolution to social change and the human species?
There are evolutionary models of society such as those of Herbert Spenser, Karl Marx, and Joseph Schumpeter that attempt the challenge. In our present day context, we need to encorporate ideas that promote the survival of the planet within the context of its evolution, and hopefully, its survival, which is now up to mankind.
Obviously, some species survive and others don't. Is there any criteria that is relevant other than survival in the now and through space-time as by means of the arrow of time?
There are strange things that emerge from studies of actual human DNA, such that we find community where we thought that there was division.
Evolution of Life, Mortals or Matter?
In a universe in which we observe more than the now, perhaps survival is something other than it seems. Maybe survival needs to be looked at in a wider context. For example, if there were a heaven and eternal life and one was confined a mortal existence, then survival would not mean survival as a mortal being, but survival as an immortal being. Is that all? No!
In Search of the Miraculous
Another example would be in a case if everything survives in its own space-time/space, as in a universe that is recurring, which is what we know many of the stoics believed. There are those such as Ouspenski who believed that that was what Jesus Christ was trying to communicate.
Another way of looking at evolution may be to examine it in the context of needs. If a species survives, it has all that it needs. If a species fails, it somehow has much less than it needs. How are the needs for survival determined? Are these needs, things that come from within the species as an expression of its nature or are the needs imposed by the environment in which the species is surviving?
Does the species have any say in what it needs to survive? Is survival of a species even necessary to assess that it sees itself as having met its purpose or role within the context of the environment in which it finds itself?
Goals of Species as a Means to an Unknown End
One is tempted to assume that the goal of life is to survive until an end is achieved. However, we know that human nature has a way of specifying its needs through choice based on immediate goals and preferences for processes to achieve those goals.
In the Wuh Lax model of evolution, the world has many of the properties of light, which as we know from the exploratory scientific work of Feynman and others is capable of making choices.
If light explores all channels of existence prior to physical processing in any one dimension of existence, might not other entities based/feeding on light do something similar?
Goal Oriented Survival
Perhaps, survival contains more an element of choice than chance, but most probably both are determinants. The survival of a species is not entirely due to randomness, but to very specific decisions made by participants in the species. These specifications by members of a species may derive from internal rankings of preferences as much as from outside interventions, whether random or not, from the environment. Possibly, a very real question to be asked is whether there is freedom to choose. For example, we know that smokers have not survived as well as non-smokers. In our environment, those that prefer to smoke have the odds stacked against them.
If there is a genetic basis for preferring to smoke as compared with not preferring to smoke then the preference to smoke is determining the survival of a large group of people. If, however, there is a group that is deliberately poisoning cigarettes and targeting vulnerable groups of people, then the survival of those that prefer to smoke is being controlled by those that wish to do them harm. This is certainly not a random process.
Being Selfish as a Means of Survival
What we know about life is that species feed off each other in a highly competitive way creating more space for their own survival at the expense of others. Is this the way, the selfish gene comes to dominate, or is there something larger going on? Obviously, competition is one model and cooperation is another. Both are relevant to the story of evolution!
If humans care for trees, love them, then they will survive better than if they cut them down and kill them. Trees are helpless against human beings. The reason trees will survive at all, if they will as a species, arises if man specifies that he prefers to have trees in his world. It is a choice of man to have trees that enables man to survive because man ultimately needs trees even though he may not realize why. It is the act of compassion by mankind for other species that allow man to survive. Is this always the case?
Obviously, man is on a planet that may not survive. How is man going to survive? Man is going to love the planet earth and care for it, otherwise the earth will die. It may even be in the hands of mankind to save earth for a life approximating eternity. We do not know. But, if man as a species has any purpose at all, it is to love the planet earth and to see that the planet earth survives.
Friday, 4 January 2008
What is Freedom and Time?
An aspect of our present world is that we seem to be able to extend the present instance both forward and backward in time. The obvious derivative question is whether or not this trend can continue so that in the future we will have a significantly larger present.
For example, we now have the capability to record events and characteristics of events more accurately than ever before. We have access to huge amounts of storage capacity so that it is increasingly possible for more and more of aspects of the present moment to be retained for the future. Likewise, we now have a greatly increased capacity to compute and calculate what might happen, as say in elections. We can take a sample survey and within minutes project what an election result may be.
The reach of the present moment into the past and into the future seems to be growing with the development of science and technology. Our present moments are enlarging, or are they? If we move faster do we perceive more? If we are running, human beings are relatively slow compared to other animals. As we age, many of us lose mental speed and age ever more rapidly as a result. A year becomes a relative month. Would that we could alter our brains processing speed to lengthen the now, the present. This would take exercise?
What if we could get our brains to operate more quickly within each segment of our present moment?
The Dilution of Time and One's Vision
In my earlier blogs, I assume that the universe was like my construction of the Wuh Lax world of 50 AD in which the perception of time and the flow of events was very different. We some times forget that the mind has many capabilities and one capacity is that of being able to deal with stress. People under stress perceive time differently from people who are not under stress. I think!
We see an aspect of this when we use our peripheral vision and look sideways at a rotating fan. I, at least, perceive that the fan rotates slightly slower when I view it using my peripheral vision. What if all my vision were operating at the speed of my peripheral vision?
The big question is whether time would be significantly increased were I able to speed up the processing of all my vision to the speed of my peripheral vision. What is going on in my brain?
Now if I can speed up my vision, could it not be possible to speed up all sorts of other brain activity and would not my perception of time be significantly altered?
Gaining Time
A characteristic of the human mind is that some processing seems to be going on relatively slowly, such as seeing, while other processing is proceeding at such a fast rate that we have no awareness that it is happening at all. If we can perceive more rapidly, perhaps we can gain subjective time.
How Fast are We Capable of?
One has an idea of how quickly the human eye processes information because of development in digital camera technologies. There is probably a measurable normal speed of visual processing and probably a variance between individuals as to their normal speeds, as for example created by the relative distribution of rod and cones in the eye, rods being much faster, but processing motion more than colour. Suppose we only saw things in black and white. This raises all sorts of questions.
New Questions to Consider ... I am Getting a Head Ache Just Thinking about Them
Would or could we see things at a faster rate? If so, would the present now for that individual expand indefinitely? Is it possible to create a human being that sees things so fast that he perceives the world at a very different speed from everyone else? Could such a human creature have so much time within what we perceive as several seconds to be capable of understanding much more than normal human beings and then having the capacity to do the infinite? Or would such an individual be content with just perceiving, and forget about our world of motion and time?
What is Evolution in the Modern Context of Bio-engineering?
Are human beings evolving or going to evolve in a way very different from the theory of evolution as presently put forward by Dawkins and Darwin? The Intelligent Design theorists seem to think so, and claim that the DNA stories alone are inadequate to explain the myriad aspects of evolution. By raising the evolution issue in a heavy handed way Dawkins has manged to encamp two opposing groups of thought so that emotional bias is presented by both as reasonable bias.
The problem is that whatever you think was evolution in the past will be inapplicable for the future should future man take an active role in engineering evolution, as now seems very probable.
Obviously, as a human being, you are aware of the intelligent designs created by human beings. What if one of these designs were to speed up the rate at which the eye processes information? This new design for the human being would add a hitherto undeveloped capacity to the list of human capacities and obviously would be a major step in evolution. One may ask whether the list of alternative technologies to bring about this evolution would be confined to biology.
For example, we now have the capability to record events and characteristics of events more accurately than ever before. We have access to huge amounts of storage capacity so that it is increasingly possible for more and more of aspects of the present moment to be retained for the future. Likewise, we now have a greatly increased capacity to compute and calculate what might happen, as say in elections. We can take a sample survey and within minutes project what an election result may be.
The reach of the present moment into the past and into the future seems to be growing with the development of science and technology. Our present moments are enlarging, or are they? If we move faster do we perceive more? If we are running, human beings are relatively slow compared to other animals. As we age, many of us lose mental speed and age ever more rapidly as a result. A year becomes a relative month. Would that we could alter our brains processing speed to lengthen the now, the present. This would take exercise?
What if we could get our brains to operate more quickly within each segment of our present moment?
The Dilution of Time and One's Vision
In my earlier blogs, I assume that the universe was like my construction of the Wuh Lax world of 50 AD in which the perception of time and the flow of events was very different. We some times forget that the mind has many capabilities and one capacity is that of being able to deal with stress. People under stress perceive time differently from people who are not under stress. I think!
We see an aspect of this when we use our peripheral vision and look sideways at a rotating fan. I, at least, perceive that the fan rotates slightly slower when I view it using my peripheral vision. What if all my vision were operating at the speed of my peripheral vision?
The big question is whether time would be significantly increased were I able to speed up the processing of all my vision to the speed of my peripheral vision. What is going on in my brain?
Now if I can speed up my vision, could it not be possible to speed up all sorts of other brain activity and would not my perception of time be significantly altered?
Gaining Time
A characteristic of the human mind is that some processing seems to be going on relatively slowly, such as seeing, while other processing is proceeding at such a fast rate that we have no awareness that it is happening at all. If we can perceive more rapidly, perhaps we can gain subjective time.
How Fast are We Capable of?
One has an idea of how quickly the human eye processes information because of development in digital camera technologies. There is probably a measurable normal speed of visual processing and probably a variance between individuals as to their normal speeds, as for example created by the relative distribution of rod and cones in the eye, rods being much faster, but processing motion more than colour. Suppose we only saw things in black and white. This raises all sorts of questions.
New Questions to Consider ... I am Getting a Head Ache Just Thinking about Them
Would or could we see things at a faster rate? If so, would the present now for that individual expand indefinitely? Is it possible to create a human being that sees things so fast that he perceives the world at a very different speed from everyone else? Could such a human creature have so much time within what we perceive as several seconds to be capable of understanding much more than normal human beings and then having the capacity to do the infinite? Or would such an individual be content with just perceiving, and forget about our world of motion and time?
What is Evolution in the Modern Context of Bio-engineering?
Are human beings evolving or going to evolve in a way very different from the theory of evolution as presently put forward by Dawkins and Darwin? The Intelligent Design theorists seem to think so, and claim that the DNA stories alone are inadequate to explain the myriad aspects of evolution. By raising the evolution issue in a heavy handed way Dawkins has manged to encamp two opposing groups of thought so that emotional bias is presented by both as reasonable bias.
The problem is that whatever you think was evolution in the past will be inapplicable for the future should future man take an active role in engineering evolution, as now seems very probable.
Obviously, as a human being, you are aware of the intelligent designs created by human beings. What if one of these designs were to speed up the rate at which the eye processes information? This new design for the human being would add a hitherto undeveloped capacity to the list of human capacities and obviously would be a major step in evolution. One may ask whether the list of alternative technologies to bring about this evolution would be confined to biology.
Is Stupid a Word that Should Not be Used?
Logically, for me at least, the words smart and stupid are closely connected. What I have come to realize is how inexact the use of such words can be. I have a friend who advises me never to use the word stupid with reference to a person. The same friend constantly reminds me that whatever I say in any event is only my opinion.
What is Stupid?
Perhaps, nothing is stupid except in reference to something else. I can regard a statement by someone as stupid because I have heard a different statement from someone else that I would regard as smart. The distance between the two statements is in my mind great enough that one is so significantly different from the other that the statements belong to two recognizable groups, a smart group and a stupid group. My grouping of the statements is probably subjective, but may not be.
For example, if a person who has had three glasses of vodka decides to get into a car and drive, I might say that the person is stupid. I don't necessarily mean to say that the person is permanently stupid, but that the alcohol has affected his brain and the person does not reason correctly according to some social wisdom about drinking and driving. The same statement may, however, be construed differently in that I am merely commenting that the act of driving when having drunk three glasses of vodka is stupid.
What should bother me is that the stupid person, who is drunk and getting into a car to drive it, may actually be smart. Its just that an issue has arisen, a drunken state, in which his thinking and his actions are stupid, or so I assume.
Why Referring to Some one's Behaviour as Stupid Confuses People
When one looks for the word stupid in the English and American dictionaries one gets a very different impression of the social aspects of the term. The dictionaries give examples using other words that are, perhaps, as offensive as referring to someone as stupid.
For example, someone who is boring may be thought of as stupid. Someone who is foolish may be thought of as stupid. Someone who is senseless may be thought of a stupid. Someone who is unwise may be thought of as stupid.
In any event, use of the term stupid with reference to behaviour or characteristic is fraught with problems because it is something that repels people away from the individual in question. Politicians often think their rivals are stupid, but they rarely say so. The reason is perhaps that reference to one's fit within a context is a measure by which others will act.
Saying some one is stupid is a negative advertising for that individual, and is something that person may or may not know how to deal with. If the person is really inadequate, we don't often use the term stupid, and that is because the term is pejorative and demeaning.
The Unwelcome Rebound
Use of the word is likely to rebound back on the individual who uses it. Thus the very act of using the term stupid is stupid, at least for the present!
We use other words instead. We find the phrase 'shameful' an improvement on 'stupid'. One can say openly that a person's behaviour in driving while drunk is shameful, but we don't say the behaviour is stupid. Are we making a mistake? Is there such a thing as stupidity? What do you think?
What is Stupid?
Perhaps, nothing is stupid except in reference to something else. I can regard a statement by someone as stupid because I have heard a different statement from someone else that I would regard as smart. The distance between the two statements is in my mind great enough that one is so significantly different from the other that the statements belong to two recognizable groups, a smart group and a stupid group. My grouping of the statements is probably subjective, but may not be.
For example, if a person who has had three glasses of vodka decides to get into a car and drive, I might say that the person is stupid. I don't necessarily mean to say that the person is permanently stupid, but that the alcohol has affected his brain and the person does not reason correctly according to some social wisdom about drinking and driving. The same statement may, however, be construed differently in that I am merely commenting that the act of driving when having drunk three glasses of vodka is stupid.
What should bother me is that the stupid person, who is drunk and getting into a car to drive it, may actually be smart. Its just that an issue has arisen, a drunken state, in which his thinking and his actions are stupid, or so I assume.
Why Referring to Some one's Behaviour as Stupid Confuses People
When one looks for the word stupid in the English and American dictionaries one gets a very different impression of the social aspects of the term. The dictionaries give examples using other words that are, perhaps, as offensive as referring to someone as stupid.
For example, someone who is boring may be thought of as stupid. Someone who is foolish may be thought of as stupid. Someone who is senseless may be thought of a stupid. Someone who is unwise may be thought of as stupid.
In any event, use of the term stupid with reference to behaviour or characteristic is fraught with problems because it is something that repels people away from the individual in question. Politicians often think their rivals are stupid, but they rarely say so. The reason is perhaps that reference to one's fit within a context is a measure by which others will act.
Saying some one is stupid is a negative advertising for that individual, and is something that person may or may not know how to deal with. If the person is really inadequate, we don't often use the term stupid, and that is because the term is pejorative and demeaning.
The Unwelcome Rebound
Use of the word is likely to rebound back on the individual who uses it. Thus the very act of using the term stupid is stupid, at least for the present!
We use other words instead. We find the phrase 'shameful' an improvement on 'stupid'. One can say openly that a person's behaviour in driving while drunk is shameful, but we don't say the behaviour is stupid. Are we making a mistake? Is there such a thing as stupidity? What do you think?
Thursday, 3 January 2008
The Richard Dawkins' Viewpoint of God as Delusion as a Phenomena
Some people like to be at the center of controversy. Posit one absurdity and someone will refute it with another absurdity. Take the extreme of an argument and the response against that argument will probably be extreme. Develop an extreme science that posits an extreme view of reality and others will posit alternative extremes.
Going to the Edge
It is a very human pattern of behaviour that we tend to want to see an ultimate manifestation of something or other. If there is a volcano, it is very human to want to see into the heart of the volcano. This is a very human activity and we call it exploration. Take a concept and one wants to go as far as that concept will lead even to the edge of reason.
What may happen is that the science or reality that creates an invitation for exploration may be a trap, a total waste of time, a place that has nothing of real interest. The journey to that place, nevertheless, takes its toll on those that would journey to it and those that observe the exploration taking place and make judgements.
What is the Direction of your Science or Technology
My experience is that few people understand the notion of direction when it comes to something as complex as the abstraction we call science. If science is a field, there are areas of that field that we can explore. What science is not connected to is technology.
Technology has fields like science has, but technology is not the same as science. We can have lots and lots of science, but very little technology, or vice verse. It is a mistake to confuse technology with science.
Creation of Science and Technology have Different Agendas
Some people, like Richard Hawkins may be exploring technologies and confusing such explorations with science. Rather than being judgemental, I would just throw that out as a proposition. Its a lovely abstraction that can distinguish between different stages of a cycle of activity.
For example, Darwin's discovery was new science, but Dawkins' discovery was new technology. The difference arises because of the motivation behind the exploration. Science that is technology invention has a direction which is orchestrated in ways that science as science is not. We think of science as being basic or developmental. Basic science is one thing. Fundamental science is another.
I realize that English limits my selection of words to describe the processes, but I think my message is clear. It is quite one thing to receive a prize for new science that is basic to promoting the interests of all mankind, but quite another to receive a prize to promoting a development or technology that biases the value towards a specific interest group promoting an agenda.
Exploration may, however, bring about a major explosion of activity and interest. Richard Dawkins may discover something that is valuable to those promoting religion, or he may stimulate a response from the religious community quite unlike anything he expects. What his explorations of dangerous ideas do, however, is produce a notion that such exploration is safe for society rather than destructive.
The North West Passage
Being in Canada, I am awed by the explorations that sought the North West passage, but I am also aware of the injunctions by the then managers of the Hudson Bay Company not to invite people to undertake the exploration into the North West. There are risks for society of exploration, especially in the world of competitive ideas. The North West of Canada and the United States, Denmark, France, Russia and the Netherlands, is now being opened up in ways that environmentalists really do find scary.
The rewards of exploring the North West passage today are so enormous that we could end up in a war situation. Man has had a history of secret competitive alliances and agreements that produce absolute destruction in their wake. Is this what we want from science or is it science at all?
Its not hard to see how the technological or informational results of science are potentially more socially divisive in many more ways than religion.
Activities of exploring, such as science and invention, that create new knowledge or technology may be socially destabilizing, and in science as in economics, as any central banker knows, one should maintain 'economic' stability above all else otherwise you are like to get instability, social upheaval, irrationality and war. Change and new science is wonderful stuff if the organism that seeks it and the society that must sustain it are sufficiently mature to cope with the results.
This is of course where uncertainty begins, but again to use the central banker analogy, it is not good economic or scientific management to create instability to quickly otherwise one just gets a big confrontation and destructive change, the Hegelian process of explosive change rather than the more gradual process of evolutionary change.
So, Richard Hawkins' exploration of the frontiers of dangerous ideas promotes rationalization, we must become aware that the results are not so predictable as to lead to gradual improvement in religion or science. They might just result in explosive confrontation and a badly managed exchange of respectable opinions and well worn positions.
At the Edge
One has to wonder what being at the frontier of religion or science actually means. To some there is the idea that creationism is an activity that seeks to provide a mythology for religion, a vehicle for completing with the strengths they see in science.
As an alternative to the notion of religion as being evolutionary, it might better be described that religion is at the edge of risk taking. That seems strange, but possibly religion is a group response to being burned by exploration in technology that goes bad and the change brought about by such exploration.
Hawkins dangerous ideas really do destroy valuable and important aspects of our beautiful world until the science and technology and religious fervour are redirected towards stabilizing solutions. It's as though, the first attempts at coping with new social problems are catastrophic and society as a whole has to learn from its really bad mistakes, its monstrous errors of judgment that destroy people and the beauty in the world.
Much, but not all religion, may arise as a result of the mass trauma produced by war and the individual trauma at the realization of death and destruction. The rational exploration for solutions arises as a method of coping with overwhelming change. What emerges as a social solution in the form often of religious fervour and commitment is not rational in the long term, even though at the time it seems rational.
Religion as a Means for Groups Coping with Massive Irrationality in the Living Environment
Seen in this way, religion is a method of groups coping with trauma and the inevitability of uncontrollable destructive change, such as the slaughter of innocents whether as a consequence of destructive forces of nature or the acts of competing warlike peoples. Judaism arose in a period of extreme trauma. Christianity arose in a period of extreme trauma.
For example, consider the rise of religious fervour during the New Deal period of the 1930's in which the socially destructive forces of bad economics and lack of stability resulted in a search for comfort and solutions in the immediate. For some groups, there was no time for considered solutions. In the USA, while Harvard academics went crazy for the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, they ignored the more relevant but long term science of their own local professor Joseph Schumpeter in favour of short term technology to find an immediate solution.
The Economics of Religion and Science Stimulated in Periods of Trauma
Both Keynes and Schumpeter realized that an ineffective banking system was at the heart of the economic dilemmas that faced all societies at the time. Peace required a new technology. The problem was that the new technology was not put in place soon enough and the world sank into war and the Jews were trapped within a monstrous period of irrational so called 'problem' solving.
In Canada, Major Douglas, a deeply religious engineer in Alberta, came up with a new religious economics and the idea of the A plus B theorem. Douglas's science was flawed but the direction of his technology was correct. Why should there be poverty in the midst of plenty. His society grappled with the destructive forces of starvation in a time when it was obviously unnecessary.
Keynes technology for the short term was better than that of Major Douglas, but both were going in the same direction, and if Alberta had been a country, Douglas's ideas might have worked better and longer. Schumpeter's science explained what the real underlying problem was while Keynes methods provided a means to grapple with the dynamics in a meaningful way.
In the end, Schumpeter provided the real long term science, but Keynes provided the immediate and necessary technology. Economists lost sight of the Schumpeterian vision of the creative destructive forces built into capitalism because of new technology and went for the religion of absolute truth as presented by John Maynard Keynes, the rationalist speculator.
Alternatively, consider the strength of the rise of Nazism after the great inflation in Germany. The religious fervour of Nazism is easily explained as a consequence of trauma as people sought irrational solutions to what seemed an irrational situation. Nazism as a religious response is not so easily digested unless one considers that religion is often a result of traumatic experience. It was not that Jewish people were the source of the trauma, but that people incorrectly thought that they were.
The real problem was the bad economics of the peace settlement of the first World War. Had France, at the end of World War one, not demanded that Germany pay for the war destruction and had the world reconstructed Germany and France into thriving economies, then the second war may not have happened nor would the Jewish people have suffered as much as they did. Isreal would probably never have been created and the mess in the middle east that we see now would probably not have been initiated. What is the Arab-Isreali war but a flawed solution to an old problem that was the result of a flawed solution to an earlier older problem? The science of peace has been terribly exploratory and the technology employed by France to create peace at the end of World War One was seriously flawed, so flawed that it destroyed much of the world as a result. Its both the science, the technology and the religion that are flawed. When and where will this madness end!
What Context for Religion and Science
Placing religion and science within a social context is not easy, but it is necessary for understanding. Religion is not so much an evolutionary process as a reasoned and rational response to trauma. Reason and religion have common social and natural roots and are not all that different in consequence.
Going to the Edge
It is a very human pattern of behaviour that we tend to want to see an ultimate manifestation of something or other. If there is a volcano, it is very human to want to see into the heart of the volcano. This is a very human activity and we call it exploration. Take a concept and one wants to go as far as that concept will lead even to the edge of reason.
What may happen is that the science or reality that creates an invitation for exploration may be a trap, a total waste of time, a place that has nothing of real interest. The journey to that place, nevertheless, takes its toll on those that would journey to it and those that observe the exploration taking place and make judgements.
What is the Direction of your Science or Technology
My experience is that few people understand the notion of direction when it comes to something as complex as the abstraction we call science. If science is a field, there are areas of that field that we can explore. What science is not connected to is technology.
Technology has fields like science has, but technology is not the same as science. We can have lots and lots of science, but very little technology, or vice verse. It is a mistake to confuse technology with science.
Creation of Science and Technology have Different Agendas
Some people, like Richard Hawkins may be exploring technologies and confusing such explorations with science. Rather than being judgemental, I would just throw that out as a proposition. Its a lovely abstraction that can distinguish between different stages of a cycle of activity.
For example, Darwin's discovery was new science, but Dawkins' discovery was new technology. The difference arises because of the motivation behind the exploration. Science that is technology invention has a direction which is orchestrated in ways that science as science is not. We think of science as being basic or developmental. Basic science is one thing. Fundamental science is another.
I realize that English limits my selection of words to describe the processes, but I think my message is clear. It is quite one thing to receive a prize for new science that is basic to promoting the interests of all mankind, but quite another to receive a prize to promoting a development or technology that biases the value towards a specific interest group promoting an agenda.
Exploration may, however, bring about a major explosion of activity and interest. Richard Dawkins may discover something that is valuable to those promoting religion, or he may stimulate a response from the religious community quite unlike anything he expects. What his explorations of dangerous ideas do, however, is produce a notion that such exploration is safe for society rather than destructive.
The North West Passage
Being in Canada, I am awed by the explorations that sought the North West passage, but I am also aware of the injunctions by the then managers of the Hudson Bay Company not to invite people to undertake the exploration into the North West. There are risks for society of exploration, especially in the world of competitive ideas. The North West of Canada and the United States, Denmark, France, Russia and the Netherlands, is now being opened up in ways that environmentalists really do find scary.
The rewards of exploring the North West passage today are so enormous that we could end up in a war situation. Man has had a history of secret competitive alliances and agreements that produce absolute destruction in their wake. Is this what we want from science or is it science at all?
Its not hard to see how the technological or informational results of science are potentially more socially divisive in many more ways than religion.
Activities of exploring, such as science and invention, that create new knowledge or technology may be socially destabilizing, and in science as in economics, as any central banker knows, one should maintain 'economic' stability above all else otherwise you are like to get instability, social upheaval, irrationality and war. Change and new science is wonderful stuff if the organism that seeks it and the society that must sustain it are sufficiently mature to cope with the results.
This is of course where uncertainty begins, but again to use the central banker analogy, it is not good economic or scientific management to create instability to quickly otherwise one just gets a big confrontation and destructive change, the Hegelian process of explosive change rather than the more gradual process of evolutionary change.
So, Richard Hawkins' exploration of the frontiers of dangerous ideas promotes rationalization, we must become aware that the results are not so predictable as to lead to gradual improvement in religion or science. They might just result in explosive confrontation and a badly managed exchange of respectable opinions and well worn positions.
At the Edge
One has to wonder what being at the frontier of religion or science actually means. To some there is the idea that creationism is an activity that seeks to provide a mythology for religion, a vehicle for completing with the strengths they see in science.
As an alternative to the notion of religion as being evolutionary, it might better be described that religion is at the edge of risk taking. That seems strange, but possibly religion is a group response to being burned by exploration in technology that goes bad and the change brought about by such exploration.
Hawkins dangerous ideas really do destroy valuable and important aspects of our beautiful world until the science and technology and religious fervour are redirected towards stabilizing solutions. It's as though, the first attempts at coping with new social problems are catastrophic and society as a whole has to learn from its really bad mistakes, its monstrous errors of judgment that destroy people and the beauty in the world.
Much, but not all religion, may arise as a result of the mass trauma produced by war and the individual trauma at the realization of death and destruction. The rational exploration for solutions arises as a method of coping with overwhelming change. What emerges as a social solution in the form often of religious fervour and commitment is not rational in the long term, even though at the time it seems rational.
Religion as a Means for Groups Coping with Massive Irrationality in the Living Environment
Seen in this way, religion is a method of groups coping with trauma and the inevitability of uncontrollable destructive change, such as the slaughter of innocents whether as a consequence of destructive forces of nature or the acts of competing warlike peoples. Judaism arose in a period of extreme trauma. Christianity arose in a period of extreme trauma.
For example, consider the rise of religious fervour during the New Deal period of the 1930's in which the socially destructive forces of bad economics and lack of stability resulted in a search for comfort and solutions in the immediate. For some groups, there was no time for considered solutions. In the USA, while Harvard academics went crazy for the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, they ignored the more relevant but long term science of their own local professor Joseph Schumpeter in favour of short term technology to find an immediate solution.
The Economics of Religion and Science Stimulated in Periods of Trauma
Both Keynes and Schumpeter realized that an ineffective banking system was at the heart of the economic dilemmas that faced all societies at the time. Peace required a new technology. The problem was that the new technology was not put in place soon enough and the world sank into war and the Jews were trapped within a monstrous period of irrational so called 'problem' solving.
In Canada, Major Douglas, a deeply religious engineer in Alberta, came up with a new religious economics and the idea of the A plus B theorem. Douglas's science was flawed but the direction of his technology was correct. Why should there be poverty in the midst of plenty. His society grappled with the destructive forces of starvation in a time when it was obviously unnecessary.
Keynes technology for the short term was better than that of Major Douglas, but both were going in the same direction, and if Alberta had been a country, Douglas's ideas might have worked better and longer. Schumpeter's science explained what the real underlying problem was while Keynes methods provided a means to grapple with the dynamics in a meaningful way.
In the end, Schumpeter provided the real long term science, but Keynes provided the immediate and necessary technology. Economists lost sight of the Schumpeterian vision of the creative destructive forces built into capitalism because of new technology and went for the religion of absolute truth as presented by John Maynard Keynes, the rationalist speculator.
Alternatively, consider the strength of the rise of Nazism after the great inflation in Germany. The religious fervour of Nazism is easily explained as a consequence of trauma as people sought irrational solutions to what seemed an irrational situation. Nazism as a religious response is not so easily digested unless one considers that religion is often a result of traumatic experience. It was not that Jewish people were the source of the trauma, but that people incorrectly thought that they were.
The real problem was the bad economics of the peace settlement of the first World War. Had France, at the end of World War one, not demanded that Germany pay for the war destruction and had the world reconstructed Germany and France into thriving economies, then the second war may not have happened nor would the Jewish people have suffered as much as they did. Isreal would probably never have been created and the mess in the middle east that we see now would probably not have been initiated. What is the Arab-Isreali war but a flawed solution to an old problem that was the result of a flawed solution to an earlier older problem? The science of peace has been terribly exploratory and the technology employed by France to create peace at the end of World War One was seriously flawed, so flawed that it destroyed much of the world as a result. Its both the science, the technology and the religion that are flawed. When and where will this madness end!
What Context for Religion and Science
Placing religion and science within a social context is not easy, but it is necessary for understanding. Religion is not so much an evolutionary process as a reasoned and rational response to trauma. Reason and religion have common social and natural roots and are not all that different in consequence.
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
A Vision of Continuously Improving Science and Religion
In the Wuh Lax world that I envisage, the control of errors is accomplished by continuously improving on the methods of solving and coping with challenges. We sometimes forget that our world is constantly changing, that all existence whether physical, ethereal, spiritual or formal, is subject to change because everything is as an aspect of process.
Continuous process as a descriptor of everything
In such a world, there are no laws, no constants, no ultimate barriers. The goals of science, the God or gods of religion, the forms of religious or spiritual experience are processes. Nothing really is but is by process. If there is no process there is nothing.
A Vacuum has No Process
A vacuum is a vacuum by virtue of its having no process to characterize it. Introduce a process and the vacuum is no longer a vaccum.
Process as the Only Law
Everything is being processed and everything processes. Even what seems not to process is processing. This is the only law of the universe. All other laws are subject to process and change. We may not measure the change but there is change and process, nevertheless. We may not measure the evolution in the process, but processes evolve and we may never know the direction by which they evolve or devolve.
As humans, we may share processes and compare experiences. Our respective realities are to others, however, virtual and unreal, like people playing in a computer simulation.
In Science and Religion There are Errors
Yes! Indeed, we do not have the perfect science nor the perfect religion. Man is not even rational, and rationalism is a pipe dream invented by people being irrational about reason. In any event, we need to improve on our science and our religion. It is only by continuously improving these that we will overcome the many errors that both embody.
Continuous process as a descriptor of everything
In such a world, there are no laws, no constants, no ultimate barriers. The goals of science, the God or gods of religion, the forms of religious or spiritual experience are processes. Nothing really is but is by process. If there is no process there is nothing.
A Vacuum has No Process
A vacuum is a vacuum by virtue of its having no process to characterize it. Introduce a process and the vacuum is no longer a vaccum.
Process as the Only Law
Everything is being processed and everything processes. Even what seems not to process is processing. This is the only law of the universe. All other laws are subject to process and change. We may not measure the change but there is change and process, nevertheless. We may not measure the evolution in the process, but processes evolve and we may never know the direction by which they evolve or devolve.
As humans, we may share processes and compare experiences. Our respective realities are to others, however, virtual and unreal, like people playing in a computer simulation.
In Science and Religion There are Errors
Yes! Indeed, we do not have the perfect science nor the perfect religion. Man is not even rational, and rationalism is a pipe dream invented by people being irrational about reason. In any event, we need to improve on our science and our religion. It is only by continuously improving these that we will overcome the many errors that both embody.
On the One Hand, but On the Other Hand
At this moment, I feel very much like Larry David, when he holds out two hands. He is weighing what appear to be two alternatives, either the prescription from his doctor or the advice of his pharmacist which proposes an alternative prescription. The world is so made that we have alternatives, and it was my luck that I chose at a university age the science of alternatives, economics.
In this hand I have this alternative, but in this hand I have this other alternative
If you are not trained as an economist you perhaps will not appreciate what science there is in economics while at the same time appreciating what science is missing from economics. My bad luck was that I tried, in my own small way, to make economics less of a linear exercise and more scientific. The problem is that the whole field fails when one introduces science and technology. Most economists won't admit that there is a very serious problem, but there is a very serious problem with the notion that economics is a science. I found the science of economics to be more like a religion than a science despite its mathematical 'certainties.'
If you ever become an economist, you will appreciate what I mean when I say that the field is now esoteric and probably as esoteric as any religion. This is not to say that there are not practicalities in the economic field, its just that there are very few certainties. Where economics as a practical science succeeds it does so because it is able to incorporate the economic lessons of the past, make use of economic history, measure economic trends and economic potentials using statistics and econometrics.
Verification is all important in any scientific field, and in a field where there seems to be too much theory, too many assumptions, and too many conditions of an if then nature, more verification is like an act of God. Very few economists can verify all the ifs of their problem set. They can conjecture with maybe this or maybe that, but don't really know how to handle all the ifs.
Certainties and Uncertainties
What started me down this train of thought is the juxtaposition of two very important selected clubs of experts in modern society. One is the Group of Elders , the men of world peace, which includes such wonderful people as Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela, and the other is the Reality Group, the men of inventive science, which includes such speculative science people as Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies. So in my hands, I am weighing these two groups, one seems religious and one seems speculatively scientific. There are other groups that appear to be just brilliant.
As an economist, I could do the Larry David thing and think that on the one hand, we have The Elders and in the other hand, we have the Reality Group. Related to or embodying the Reality Group are the third culture people or The Edge people, which seems to include people like Lee Smolin, and then there are The Digerati that includes people like Bill Gates and Esther Dyson.
Fortunately, I realize that most people interact with many types of people, those with great heart, those with verifying minds, those that are doers and those that are thinkers. What an amazing mix the world of people is!
In My Non-Linear World, the Light World that I Occupy
On the one hand I am in control, but on the other I am not. It's a strange world.
On the one hand I must be like God, but on the other I must be nothing like God. I am amazing and yet I am insignificant. I am large and yet I am small. Who and what am I?
I did not choose to be born the person I am. I am fortunate to be born into the body that I possess, but don't really control, or if I do I must be a creature of light. I am grateful that I have so many fiends in the same boat as I am in, who did not choose to be born, but who are grateful that they were.
I am not sure that it matters whether I think this or that because I am what I am and I do not think that I have much choice in my reality, nor do I think many people have much choice. I do not think that my actions change my reality even though I am deluded into thinking that I experience a world which I can't possibly experience unless I am as fast as light. Maybe I am light. Wow! Me, a photon? Are you one too?
In this hand I have this alternative, but in this hand I have this other alternative
If you are not trained as an economist you perhaps will not appreciate what science there is in economics while at the same time appreciating what science is missing from economics. My bad luck was that I tried, in my own small way, to make economics less of a linear exercise and more scientific. The problem is that the whole field fails when one introduces science and technology. Most economists won't admit that there is a very serious problem, but there is a very serious problem with the notion that economics is a science. I found the science of economics to be more like a religion than a science despite its mathematical 'certainties.'
If you ever become an economist, you will appreciate what I mean when I say that the field is now esoteric and probably as esoteric as any religion. This is not to say that there are not practicalities in the economic field, its just that there are very few certainties. Where economics as a practical science succeeds it does so because it is able to incorporate the economic lessons of the past, make use of economic history, measure economic trends and economic potentials using statistics and econometrics.
Verification is all important in any scientific field, and in a field where there seems to be too much theory, too many assumptions, and too many conditions of an if then nature, more verification is like an act of God. Very few economists can verify all the ifs of their problem set. They can conjecture with maybe this or maybe that, but don't really know how to handle all the ifs.
Certainties and Uncertainties
What started me down this train of thought is the juxtaposition of two very important selected clubs of experts in modern society. One is the Group of Elders , the men of world peace, which includes such wonderful people as Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela, and the other is the Reality Group, the men of inventive science, which includes such speculative science people as Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies. So in my hands, I am weighing these two groups, one seems religious and one seems speculatively scientific. There are other groups that appear to be just brilliant.
As an economist, I could do the Larry David thing and think that on the one hand, we have The Elders and in the other hand, we have the Reality Group. Related to or embodying the Reality Group are the third culture people or The Edge people, which seems to include people like Lee Smolin, and then there are The Digerati that includes people like Bill Gates and Esther Dyson.
Fortunately, I realize that most people interact with many types of people, those with great heart, those with verifying minds, those that are doers and those that are thinkers. What an amazing mix the world of people is!
In My Non-Linear World, the Light World that I Occupy
On the one hand I am in control, but on the other I am not. It's a strange world.
On the one hand I must be like God, but on the other I must be nothing like God. I am amazing and yet I am insignificant. I am large and yet I am small. Who and what am I?
I did not choose to be born the person I am. I am fortunate to be born into the body that I possess, but don't really control, or if I do I must be a creature of light. I am grateful that I have so many fiends in the same boat as I am in, who did not choose to be born, but who are grateful that they were.
I am not sure that it matters whether I think this or that because I am what I am and I do not think that I have much choice in my reality, nor do I think many people have much choice. I do not think that my actions change my reality even though I am deluded into thinking that I experience a world which I can't possibly experience unless I am as fast as light. Maybe I am light. Wow! Me, a photon? Are you one too?
Friday, 28 December 2007
Being Mindful About What and When You Are Thinking
I have stressed the importance of thinking. What I have left out is the need to be mindful of our thinking. Being mindful of our thinking helps us to achieve a balance between thought, our physiology, and emotion.
Can it be that we need to be shown how to think in very specific ways?
In thinking, I seek to create as a form of journey. Without the act of creation, I can not say that I have made the journey. Nevertheless, there are pitfalls to making journeys, just as there are to climbing mountains because they are there.
Can it be that we need to be shown how to think in very specific ways?
In thinking, I seek to create as a form of journey. Without the act of creation, I can not say that I have made the journey. Nevertheless, there are pitfalls to making journeys, just as there are to climbing mountains because they are there.
Thursday, 27 December 2007
The Now as a Work Concept
World famous guru speaks and writes about being in 'the now'. Philosopher listens intently being an expert in 'the now'. Guru says that people need to disassociate themselves from matters that coddle ego and distance them from being in 'the now'. Philosopher ponders idea of 'the now'. In 'the now', what is, is.
The problem with you, philosopher or scientist, is that you are not in 'the now'.
People who are not in 'the now' cause the wars and problems that the world has seen throughout its history. Guru claims that in the new world when people are all in 'the now' a wondrous new age begins. Is this Zen and has America moved towards 'the Now'?
I am reminded how similar the now is to remembering oneself. There is an art to the enlightened master of meditations. It is helpful to realize that the journey of meditation occurs over several of one's lives.
As you mature and have a partner, use the methods that have been successful in love and intimate relationships.
The problem with you, philosopher or scientist, is that you are not in 'the now'.
People who are not in 'the now' cause the wars and problems that the world has seen throughout its history. Guru claims that in the new world when people are all in 'the now' a wondrous new age begins. Is this Zen and has America moved towards 'the Now'?
I am reminded how similar the now is to remembering oneself. There is an art to the enlightened master of meditations. It is helpful to realize that the journey of meditation occurs over several of one's lives.
As you mature and have a partner, use the methods that have been successful in love and intimate relationships.
Form Madness - Please Enter Zip Code
Wishing to purchase Apple iTunes software expert is asked to complete form. He is told country is United States, but has entered information for UK. He tries to change country but finds that it is the only element in form that cannot be changed.
He goes back to beginning and enters information starting with United KIngdom as his country. He is able to save Zip Code, but when he tries to save data an error message pops up. Email address is already in use. No way to begin to purchase iTunes because UK address and US email address and UK Zip and US form!?
When is world international, software expert wonders?
He goes back to beginning and enters information starting with United KIngdom as his country. He is able to save Zip Code, but when he tries to save data an error message pops up. Email address is already in use. No way to begin to purchase iTunes because UK address and US email address and UK Zip and US form!?
When is world international, software expert wonders?
Install New Software No Problem
Computer guy has paid for and downloaded software from internet. He clicks on execute icon to install program and enters name, company and product ID when asked. Installation program wizzes into action and blue lines cross over computer screen as files are copied across. Suddenly, there is a beep. The installation has paused and query pops up.
There is a problem installing c++ files, do you want to continue? "OK! Please continue!" More blue lines across screen and a second beep. "Error! B-1618. Cannot install program until another program has completed its installation!"
Money paid, but neither program is installed!
There is a problem installing c++ files, do you want to continue? "OK! Please continue!" More blue lines across screen and a second beep. "Error! B-1618. Cannot install program until another program has completed its installation!"
Money paid, but neither program is installed!
Little Boy Big Dog
Little boy is three years old. Big dog is three years old, a loving golden lab. No one around! Little boy wants to get from garage to living room, but big dog is in the kitchen and the kitchen is in front of the living room. Little boy has to pass big dog if little boy wishes to arrive in living room!
First time little boy attempts to get by big dog, tongue comes out and big dog aims tongue at little boy's face. Little boy is terrified and runs away back outside. "Help! Someone help! A montrous big dog is chasing me," yells little boy. Man outside hears yelling. "What's the matter, little kid," he asks? "A huge giant dog is trying to get me," shouts little boy. Man thinks about this and realizes the problem.
"I'll help you," he says, thinking that he can get little boy past big dog, easy as pie! Dog sees man. Tongue comes out. Dog runs at man and knocks him over. Dog sits on man licking his face. Little boy runs by big dog and man shouting, "Thanks!"
First time little boy attempts to get by big dog, tongue comes out and big dog aims tongue at little boy's face. Little boy is terrified and runs away back outside. "Help! Someone help! A montrous big dog is chasing me," yells little boy. Man outside hears yelling. "What's the matter, little kid," he asks? "A huge giant dog is trying to get me," shouts little boy. Man thinks about this and realizes the problem.
"I'll help you," he says, thinking that he can get little boy past big dog, easy as pie! Dog sees man. Tongue comes out. Dog runs at man and knocks him over. Dog sits on man licking his face. Little boy runs by big dog and man shouting, "Thanks!"
Tuesday, 25 December 2007
Dealing With Pollution in Your Own Neighbourhood
It would seem to me that in a global environment in which the issues of pollution and recycling come ever more into the open, we will see the emergence of environment watch groups. Instead of the usual types of criminals, we will increasing focus on crimes that affect our environmental balance.
It seems logical that we will establish neighbourhood watch groups to catch out people who do not observe the emerging rules of being environmentally conscious.
One aspect of the power of these localized groups will be the enormous power they will possess for examining their local environment by satellite. It will be possible to look into the back garden of one's neighbour and search for a sticky polluting mess. So powerful will be these new technologies, that we will be able to catch out the source of light pollution that obstructs our view in the evening of the stars. It won't be necessary to have a camera watching over your local parking lot. You will be able to use your own iPhone and keep an eye on things back at the car while you are shopping. If some one steals from your vehicle you will have a recording of the thief from the air.
Once a neighbour has been reported the local 'green' watchdogs, very much like pollution policemen can raid the house in question and enforce the local ordinances with regard to CO2 emission.
Satellite technologies will be the great enabler for the environmentally conscious. It will be possible to look directly into the private spaces of people. The use of fences to keep messes from view will no longer work. The person on the computer will also see how much heat your dwelling is losing per hour. In fact, there won't be much information about you that the satellite traveller from China or anywhere in the world won't have to observe you at home. We are moving into the global fish tank age in which all will be revealed.
This is how I was able to observe the pollution going on along the borders of counties in England. As long as you do your polluting on the borders it seems that you can get away with it. Not any more because now we can all see what is going on!
Can you imagine how easy it will be to follow spies!
It seems logical that we will establish neighbourhood watch groups to catch out people who do not observe the emerging rules of being environmentally conscious.
One aspect of the power of these localized groups will be the enormous power they will possess for examining their local environment by satellite. It will be possible to look into the back garden of one's neighbour and search for a sticky polluting mess. So powerful will be these new technologies, that we will be able to catch out the source of light pollution that obstructs our view in the evening of the stars. It won't be necessary to have a camera watching over your local parking lot. You will be able to use your own iPhone and keep an eye on things back at the car while you are shopping. If some one steals from your vehicle you will have a recording of the thief from the air.
Once a neighbour has been reported the local 'green' watchdogs, very much like pollution policemen can raid the house in question and enforce the local ordinances with regard to CO2 emission.
Satellite technologies will be the great enabler for the environmentally conscious. It will be possible to look directly into the private spaces of people. The use of fences to keep messes from view will no longer work. The person on the computer will also see how much heat your dwelling is losing per hour. In fact, there won't be much information about you that the satellite traveller from China or anywhere in the world won't have to observe you at home. We are moving into the global fish tank age in which all will be revealed.
This is how I was able to observe the pollution going on along the borders of counties in England. As long as you do your polluting on the borders it seems that you can get away with it. Not any more because now we can all see what is going on!
Can you imagine how easy it will be to follow spies!
Monday, 24 December 2007
Remembering Christ at Christmas
Jesus said that whenever two people met in his name, there he would be also. Another thought to remember is that when you love someone, Jesus loves you both.
Sunday, 23 December 2007
Remember Its NOT How Much You Eat But How Well
One of the biggest mistakes that people make these days is to confuse quantity with quality when it comes to what they eat. The only way to get over this misconception is to actually experience the difference. My observation is that by eating quality food you will actually eat less food, and you will be better off for it. But, how do you begin?
Given the nature of the profitable food industry these days, you are probably being conned left and right to eat more of the same boring stuff because there is the fact that eating is seen as a means to get over hunger. If your eating habits are determined by a poor provider, whether mother, restaurant or grocer, they will normally follow the easy route of bulking you up, giving you more, rather than satisfying your need, by giving you what you really need.
The chef nearest you probably has a lumberjack chef mentality, which is to potato up the client. Almost everyone in the food preparation business is into the same game. If you doubt me, ask yourself the question whether you have eaten a really good meal lately that was half the size of your regular feed. I would claim that you are probably being fed tasteless rubbish. Its time you had a really good meal. You will know it because you will be satisfied and you will eat less than half of what everyone else is eating.
Given the nature of the profitable food industry these days, you are probably being conned left and right to eat more of the same boring stuff because there is the fact that eating is seen as a means to get over hunger. If your eating habits are determined by a poor provider, whether mother, restaurant or grocer, they will normally follow the easy route of bulking you up, giving you more, rather than satisfying your need, by giving you what you really need.
The chef nearest you probably has a lumberjack chef mentality, which is to potato up the client. Almost everyone in the food preparation business is into the same game. If you doubt me, ask yourself the question whether you have eaten a really good meal lately that was half the size of your regular feed. I would claim that you are probably being fed tasteless rubbish. Its time you had a really good meal. You will know it because you will be satisfied and you will eat less than half of what everyone else is eating.
Friday, 21 December 2007
A Snake and Ladder World, Apples and Gardens of Eden
We live in a snake and ladder world. By analogy, we experience life as a series of experiences in which we ascend and descend along the pathways that we have chosen as our preferential pathways.
We prefer certain things,certain experiences, certain combinations, certain activities. The more we make these preferences specific the greater the combination of aspects that we rely on to make them possible. To become ever more specific we built supports that give us the specificity we desire.
The problem is that we experience life as a series of periods when we can rise up towards goals, and periods when we slide down away from them. We try to predict the snakes ahead that take us away from our goals, but this is exceedingly difficult as we follow pathways that are increasingly dangerous. Some times we are not even aware of the dangers that some pathways portend.
The problems of our snake and ladder world is a very old one. Every day, you will have experiences that show you how brutal a world the snake and ladder world can be.
This is not to say that there is sin in pursuing goals, which represent our ladders, but rather there is a risk attached to all goals. The world game is a game of snakes and ladders. The more you try to achieve goals, the more you have to research the potential downside risks, the snakes than will take you down. The higher the goals the greater the downside possibilities. The more we achieve goals, the more we may suffer as a result when we leave off our effort, or relax, thinking mistakenly that we are above the downside risks. Why is this? It is because the world is a snake and ladder world.
The Wuh Lax Physical Law of Light and Energy
The Wuh Lax physical law of light and energy is that there is a tendency of all lines from light to be equidistant between the source of light and the ultimate goal of light. Since the path of light is an enormous circle, we will always, for ever, be subject to the laws governing it.
This means that there is a tendency within our Wuh Lax universe for all lines of existence or being to even out over the longer term. In other words, no matter how high you or mountains rise, there is an active opposite tendency for you to fail or mountains to fall or wear down. This is a physical law of the Wuh Lax universe.
Wanting something is not the only thing involved in getting the something you want. While you may temporarily follow the light and rise to achieve your preferences and desires, you will eventually fail and fall to your ultimate level. How far down, you fall depends very much on how high up you rise. There is a tendency in the universe for these to balance out over the long run.
Ladders
We tend to focus on the ladders because it is they that take us to our highs and safe areas far away as possible from our low points and regions of danger. We try to distance ourselves more and more from the lows and in so doing we create higher and steeper ladders to climb.
We construct our fortresses and malls for our communities and we build our castles and homes for our families, our towers and vantage positions in the landscape for our colleagues to oversee the realms that we have created and the domestic and commercial domains over which we rule.
Today our efforts are increasingly digital in a digital age as we move from operations carried out in the very large and local to operations in the extremely large and diffuse and extremely local and intense.
Rules Govern our Ladder Building and the Use of Ladders for Elevation
Increasingly, we see that the use of ladders can actually be a dangerous means of protecting ourselves from what lies below or for attaining the high up spots for repairs and viewing advantages commensurate with high faulting observation.
When we distance ourselves from the lower regions and peoples of the low lands, we bring about separations that increase risk. As we go higher, we tend to lose sight of what it takes to support the edifices we construct, and in so doing we create an additional risk of crashing ladders as well as sliding down the 'snakes' or pitfalls of our neglect of our real environment.
The ladders of our landscape give us the tree tops, the mountainsides, the points of high vantage, while the snakes like rivers in the landscape flow downward into the valleys and the crowded nether regions of our societies existence. With the lower regions we construct ladders to give us relative vantage points.
One rule of using a ladder is that it is dangerous to walk under the ladder. This is because ladders are biased towards falling down should there be any errors in their placement. Like a house it is often best to place a ladder on stone rather than soft sand.
In placing ladders it is wise to select a ladder length that will give stability. We are advised to move from lower to higher levels gradually, which greatly reduces the risk of a ladder falling.
In the modern age, we are guided to use platforms rather than ladders because platforms are more stable. Within platforms there are ladders, but it is assumed that we achieve higher levels more gradually and do not expose ourselves to great risk. The platforms themselves become ladders and we find that the incidence of toppling over is greatly reduced.
The Relevance of the Snakes
We see it in the early books that guide us how to live. The old story of the garden is the story of our passage towards our preferences, the high up apples of our existence. The danger of such gardens lies in the snakes, those slides that we experience when we take risks like going after the apples in the tree. Snakes represent failing while apples represent goals and the temptations that bring us to those goals.
The story of the garden is a not story that we should not seek apples
The story of the garden is a not story that we should not seek apples, but quite the opposite. We should always seek apples. The essence of the apple story has been misconstrued by those wishing to crush enthusiasm for life and living life to its fullest. It is horrible to suggest that we have or embody original sin. We may have to endure the consequences of our parents pursuing goals for which they did not understand the risks. An example is smoking. In the Wuh Lax world, the notion of original sin as portrayed by some is blatantly illogical and irrelevant to our respective realities.
What the story of the garden seeks to tell us is that we need to take account of our mortal risks. The apple story that is given as a warning about seeking rewards in a world in which there are risks. We all live in a garden of apples, and we all live in a world of snakes and ladders.
We need to research how to eat those apples in full recognition of the risks that eating entails, the snakes of our world, or the failings that pursuing goals without knowledge of risks.
What we may not comprehend is the relevance of the snakes in our landscape and the garden story was not to tell us about our sins of eating apples, but our sins, the failings of not learning and gathering knowledge about the garden and the risks that the garden, our wonderful world, entails.
We need to be aware of the snakes in the garden and the ladders that fall when we use ladders to gather apples from the tree. So it is that the ignorance of the parents can be handed down to the children, but it is not inevitable.
We prefer certain things,certain experiences, certain combinations, certain activities. The more we make these preferences specific the greater the combination of aspects that we rely on to make them possible. To become ever more specific we built supports that give us the specificity we desire.
The problem is that we experience life as a series of periods when we can rise up towards goals, and periods when we slide down away from them. We try to predict the snakes ahead that take us away from our goals, but this is exceedingly difficult as we follow pathways that are increasingly dangerous. Some times we are not even aware of the dangers that some pathways portend.
The problems of our snake and ladder world is a very old one. Every day, you will have experiences that show you how brutal a world the snake and ladder world can be.
This is not to say that there is sin in pursuing goals, which represent our ladders, but rather there is a risk attached to all goals. The world game is a game of snakes and ladders. The more you try to achieve goals, the more you have to research the potential downside risks, the snakes than will take you down. The higher the goals the greater the downside possibilities. The more we achieve goals, the more we may suffer as a result when we leave off our effort, or relax, thinking mistakenly that we are above the downside risks. Why is this? It is because the world is a snake and ladder world.
The Wuh Lax Physical Law of Light and Energy
The Wuh Lax physical law of light and energy is that there is a tendency of all lines from light to be equidistant between the source of light and the ultimate goal of light. Since the path of light is an enormous circle, we will always, for ever, be subject to the laws governing it.
This means that there is a tendency within our Wuh Lax universe for all lines of existence or being to even out over the longer term. In other words, no matter how high you or mountains rise, there is an active opposite tendency for you to fail or mountains to fall or wear down. This is a physical law of the Wuh Lax universe.
Wanting something is not the only thing involved in getting the something you want. While you may temporarily follow the light and rise to achieve your preferences and desires, you will eventually fail and fall to your ultimate level. How far down, you fall depends very much on how high up you rise. There is a tendency in the universe for these to balance out over the long run.
Ladders
We tend to focus on the ladders because it is they that take us to our highs and safe areas far away as possible from our low points and regions of danger. We try to distance ourselves more and more from the lows and in so doing we create higher and steeper ladders to climb.
We construct our fortresses and malls for our communities and we build our castles and homes for our families, our towers and vantage positions in the landscape for our colleagues to oversee the realms that we have created and the domestic and commercial domains over which we rule.
Today our efforts are increasingly digital in a digital age as we move from operations carried out in the very large and local to operations in the extremely large and diffuse and extremely local and intense.
Rules Govern our Ladder Building and the Use of Ladders for Elevation
Increasingly, we see that the use of ladders can actually be a dangerous means of protecting ourselves from what lies below or for attaining the high up spots for repairs and viewing advantages commensurate with high faulting observation.
When we distance ourselves from the lower regions and peoples of the low lands, we bring about separations that increase risk. As we go higher, we tend to lose sight of what it takes to support the edifices we construct, and in so doing we create an additional risk of crashing ladders as well as sliding down the 'snakes' or pitfalls of our neglect of our real environment.
The ladders of our landscape give us the tree tops, the mountainsides, the points of high vantage, while the snakes like rivers in the landscape flow downward into the valleys and the crowded nether regions of our societies existence. With the lower regions we construct ladders to give us relative vantage points.
One rule of using a ladder is that it is dangerous to walk under the ladder. This is because ladders are biased towards falling down should there be any errors in their placement. Like a house it is often best to place a ladder on stone rather than soft sand.
In placing ladders it is wise to select a ladder length that will give stability. We are advised to move from lower to higher levels gradually, which greatly reduces the risk of a ladder falling.
In the modern age, we are guided to use platforms rather than ladders because platforms are more stable. Within platforms there are ladders, but it is assumed that we achieve higher levels more gradually and do not expose ourselves to great risk. The platforms themselves become ladders and we find that the incidence of toppling over is greatly reduced.
The Relevance of the Snakes
We see it in the early books that guide us how to live. The old story of the garden is the story of our passage towards our preferences, the high up apples of our existence. The danger of such gardens lies in the snakes, those slides that we experience when we take risks like going after the apples in the tree. Snakes represent failing while apples represent goals and the temptations that bring us to those goals.
The story of the garden is a not story that we should not seek apples
The story of the garden is a not story that we should not seek apples, but quite the opposite. We should always seek apples. The essence of the apple story has been misconstrued by those wishing to crush enthusiasm for life and living life to its fullest. It is horrible to suggest that we have or embody original sin. We may have to endure the consequences of our parents pursuing goals for which they did not understand the risks. An example is smoking. In the Wuh Lax world, the notion of original sin as portrayed by some is blatantly illogical and irrelevant to our respective realities.
What the story of the garden seeks to tell us is that we need to take account of our mortal risks. The apple story that is given as a warning about seeking rewards in a world in which there are risks. We all live in a garden of apples, and we all live in a world of snakes and ladders.
We need to research how to eat those apples in full recognition of the risks that eating entails, the snakes of our world, or the failings that pursuing goals without knowledge of risks.
What we may not comprehend is the relevance of the snakes in our landscape and the garden story was not to tell us about our sins of eating apples, but our sins, the failings of not learning and gathering knowledge about the garden and the risks that the garden, our wonderful world, entails.
We need to be aware of the snakes in the garden and the ladders that fall when we use ladders to gather apples from the tree. So it is that the ignorance of the parents can be handed down to the children, but it is not inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
YOU HAVE REACHED WOOH'S STREAM
The Internet User's Best Kept Secret
Sketches from scratches is a provocative blogspot that has grown out of the Wuh Lax experience. It is eclectic, which means that it might consider just about anything from the simple to the extremely difficult. A scratch can be something that is troubling me or a short line on paper. From a scratch comes a verbal sketch or image sketch of the issue or subject. Other sites have other stuff that should really be of interest to the broad reader. I try to develop themes, but variety often comes before depth.
... more!