This evening on the 6:30 p.m. "NBC Nightly News" Brian Williams announced the teaser, "Hospitals that are embracing the idea that the body is indeed attached to the mind!" Turns out NBC Nightly News is kicking off their week of a series special of "The Mind-Body Connection" In bridging the subject of integrating non-traditional means of health and healing as opposed to "just traditional medicine" - a misnomer here - he's calling allopathic medicine - the infant of medicine, traditional. Homeopathy was the dominant form of medicine practiced in "civilized" America in the 19th century and was taught in medical schools alongside allopathy into the 1950s. This is an illustration of how irrational, unscientific bias creates ill-formed, widely held societal points of view. Williams then asks, "What about combining the two?" followed by "According to the NIH, 36% of American adults use some form of what's called 'complementary alternative medicine'." They progress to stills of a person meditating, then people lying on mats in yoga poses. Brian turns the audience over to NBC's Chief Science Correspondent - that Science in his title means his point of view is unquestionable and inherently accurate and superior. A waterfall of unscientific terms - meditation, massage, biofeedback, acupuncture, healthy meals and exercise, rain down on us. We are told that Duke's Integrated Medical Center supports and provide these practices because they have been "proven" acceptable, but they discourage patients from using "unproven" treatments - like herbal supplements. These new integrated medical center have become the proponents of a "system" of health.
In 1994, Philosopher Mary Midgley provided sound evidence supporting the insoluble relationship of mind and body in “The Ethical Primate: Humans, Freedom and Morality.”
I am impressed that 14 years after being published, her theories on the nature and origins of ethics have not been scientifically disproved. It is interesting to note, however, that the numerous competing theories espousing the dualistic nature of humans, the separation of mind and body, which Midgley rationally and soundly excised in her book, remain the culturally dominant accepted theory.
Hopefully, tonight's news will challenge viewers to question their points of view on the historically accepted, ill-conceived notion of mind-body separation. Perhaps it is a reflection of our society's progress towards what Midgley seeks, "to move us to a more integrated notion of ourselves.”
Monday, May 5, 2008
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Final Q & A
In a literal sense, this assignment was created by and only achievable within the human construct of written language. This is a system of formerly-arbitrary, formalized and currently uniformly understood symbols created to enable intelligent communication of thought and sense between human beings sharing a particular language in common, or who possess the ability to acquire a translation of the assignment symbols into their own language. Therefore, carefully considered in the strictest sense, all these terms must be considered and categorized as entirely and only human constructions.
However, if one considers the conceptualized definition of these symbolic terms as accepted and understood by their representational language, other possibilities of categorical organization arise.
Electrons, the color red, apples, and the concepts on which we have reflected then assigned the terms the number three, time, and music are all things that exist outside of and independent from human context. Conceptualized in terms of human language they exist entirely as a human construction, and only partly as a human construction because they also exist in reality absent human construction.
I lack sufficient resources to determine whether or not our human definition of war, i.e. conflict, active hostility or contention exist on the subtler, sub-atomic planes. Having no knowledge of its existence there, I will currently accept that war is partly a human construction, because war as a concept can be seen on earth, in other non-human societies.
I also believe that science, broadly defined as the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, exists in other non-human societies.
I would locate morality in the same category as war and science, with the caveat that I firmly believe that other superior beings who may or may not exist, always or ever as corporeal beings, also possess what we define as morality.
God is the tricky one. Something exists outside of humankind that drives humans to seek an explanation of it. However, I do not believe that the human definition of God is an apt or accurate definition of that which exists and is commonly known as "God."
I do believe that there are beings superior to human beings. How they exist, what they exist as, their purpose for existence, and whether or not they exist in an intentional, purposeful relationship with other species - including humankind, is far beyond the scope of my knowledge or capacity to ascertain, at least in my current form in this present time. But if there be Gods, I most fervently pray they be moral gods.
However, if one considers the conceptualized definition of these symbolic terms as accepted and understood by their representational language, other possibilities of categorical organization arise.
Electrons, the color red, apples, and the concepts on which we have reflected then assigned the terms the number three, time, and music are all things that exist outside of and independent from human context. Conceptualized in terms of human language they exist entirely as a human construction, and only partly as a human construction because they also exist in reality absent human construction.
I lack sufficient resources to determine whether or not our human definition of war, i.e. conflict, active hostility or contention exist on the subtler, sub-atomic planes. Having no knowledge of its existence there, I will currently accept that war is partly a human construction, because war as a concept can be seen on earth, in other non-human societies.
I also believe that science, broadly defined as the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, exists in other non-human societies.
I would locate morality in the same category as war and science, with the caveat that I firmly believe that other superior beings who may or may not exist, always or ever as corporeal beings, also possess what we define as morality.
God is the tricky one. Something exists outside of humankind that drives humans to seek an explanation of it. However, I do not believe that the human definition of God is an apt or accurate definition of that which exists and is commonly known as "God."
I do believe that there are beings superior to human beings. How they exist, what they exist as, their purpose for existence, and whether or not they exist in an intentional, purposeful relationship with other species - including humankind, is far beyond the scope of my knowledge or capacity to ascertain, at least in my current form in this present time. But if there be Gods, I most fervently pray they be moral gods.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Carefully Considered Construction
Meerkats organize themselves in large family groups, called troops.
These troops wage war regularly with neighboring troops both in defense
of their home territories, and when they are seeking to acquire more
territory – usually forcibly taken from another meerkat troop.
This occurs when either their territory has become insufficient due to
weather,or the population of the troop has increased beyond the capacity
of their homeland to to adequately sustain them.
As in human-waged wars, death occurs frequently during and after
battles. Meerkats and humans die slowly and painfully from battle
wounds. Defeated troops suffer the loss of shelter and food.
Carefully considered and strictly speaking, these meerkat behaviors
fall under the human definition of patriotism as devoted love, support,
and defense of one's country. Love is defined as a feeling of warm
personal attachment or deep affection. Country is defined as the land of
one’s birthand any considerable territory demarcated by topographical
conditions by a distinctive population.
Meerkats possess systematic knowledge of their physical world, which
they gain through observation and experimentation. Additionally, every
meerkat kit is the pupil and responsibility of every elder relative in
their troop.Depending on which definition of science one chooses, one
could claim that meerkats practice science.
If pregnancy is the result of an unsanctioned liason, the imprudent
female meerkat is normally forcibly expelled from her troop. Shunning
follows expulsion. Miscarriage or the death of her young are the
expected reality for the unchaste female meerkat.If the troop continues
to shun her after she has lost her kits,then her survival chances become
virtually extinct.
Morality can be defined as conformity to the rules of right and
virtuous conduct, and chastity.
Under these definitions of human construction, I can see that meerkats
are practitioners of science and strict morality; they are patriotic beings
that participate in inter-troop wars; and that human beings construct
categories to organize that which they have observed into a humanely-
relational framework.
These troops wage war regularly with neighboring troops both in defense
of their home territories, and when they are seeking to acquire more
territory – usually forcibly taken from another meerkat troop.
This occurs when either their territory has become insufficient due to
weather,or the population of the troop has increased beyond the capacity
of their homeland to to adequately sustain them.
As in human-waged wars, death occurs frequently during and after
battles. Meerkats and humans die slowly and painfully from battle
wounds. Defeated troops suffer the loss of shelter and food.
Carefully considered and strictly speaking, these meerkat behaviors
fall under the human definition of patriotism as devoted love, support,
and defense of one's country. Love is defined as a feeling of warm
personal attachment or deep affection. Country is defined as the land of
one’s birthand any considerable territory demarcated by topographical
conditions by a distinctive population.
Meerkats possess systematic knowledge of their physical world, which
they gain through observation and experimentation. Additionally, every
meerkat kit is the pupil and responsibility of every elder relative in
their troop.Depending on which definition of science one chooses, one
could claim that meerkats practice science.
If pregnancy is the result of an unsanctioned liason, the imprudent
female meerkat is normally forcibly expelled from her troop. Shunning
follows expulsion. Miscarriage or the death of her young are the
expected reality for the unchaste female meerkat.If the troop continues
to shun her after she has lost her kits,then her survival chances become
virtually extinct.
Morality can be defined as conformity to the rules of right and
virtuous conduct, and chastity.
Under these definitions of human construction, I can see that meerkats
are practitioners of science and strict morality; they are patriotic beings
that participate in inter-troop wars; and that human beings construct
categories to organize that which they have observed into a humanely-
relational framework.
More Nature and Nurture
For both humans and animals, I wonder how much of the overall feeling of well-being comes from the body's biological response to, and interchange with the vibrational component of music. How much of that feeling comes from a mind/consciousness/spirit's creative act of making music. Are their limits to the potential creative change occurring within the being as a result of being exposed to another's music?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Music - Nature or Nurture
Music, however we define it, significantly impacts us and our experience of life. Can you imagine a life lived without any music? Is it even humanly possible to live without music? What is the function of music biologically? What is the evolutionary relationship between humans and music? Between all sentient life forms and music? Is human music really so unique from other animals music?
Whales, birds and other non-human beings are obviously not using music to increase sales, or, as far as I know - to overtly worship their Gods. I think that some create songs as tools to motivate themselves, or make music purely for pleasure, and often, to increase the odds of successfully mating - just like we humans do. Is there an absolute difference between how humans and some other animals use music, make songs, or is it only a matter of perspective? And how do we define or differentiate between music and songs - birds, whales, and wolves all sing, but their songs are not composed of linguistical lyrics.
Research shows that certain musical activity produces endorphin surges. Brain scans show that the feeling of euphoria you get when listening to music is accompanied by activity in the same parts of the brain that respond to the rewards of food, sex and psychoactive drugs. Is expressing and/or experiencing music such a vital component of human life because of the way it makes us feel? Are other sentient musically potent beings also experiencing neuro-biological music feedback? Do we all make music because it feels so good?
Erich Jarvis and Duke University Medical Center colleagues published a study in 2006 (Journal of Neuroscience, vol 26, p 9010. They found "increased dopamine levels in male songbirds when they sang. The levels were especially high when the birds sang to a female. Dopamine, the "feel-good" neurotransmitter, is important for learning. It is not yet clear what role it plays in birdsong, says Jarvis, but he suspects that its primary function is to induce reinforcement learning and that its secondary function may be to create a feeling of euphoria."
Some wild apes are known to regularly drum on naturally resonant objects. Some researchers think that, like whales, chimpanzees groups have distinct cultural practices of drumming and vocalising. Cognitive scientist Josh McDermott's study of monkeys, they choose lullaby-like songs over techno music. The research shows that this had more to do with a general response to tempo than any discernment of style. When offered the choice between a soundtrack of 60 clicks a minute and one of 400 clicks per minute the monkeys opted for the low-tempo track. For wild animals, potentially life-threatening fights, storms, vehicular encounters, etc. occur in nature as rapid sequences of sound. So were the monkeys' choice of lullaby nature or nurture?
I think it is pretty clear, that for us and other beings, music is both nature and nurture. Until empirical evidence can prove which came first, and how much of our attachment and response to music is nurture, and how much of it is nature, it remains a question for the philosophers.
Whales, birds and other non-human beings are obviously not using music to increase sales, or, as far as I know - to overtly worship their Gods. I think that some create songs as tools to motivate themselves, or make music purely for pleasure, and often, to increase the odds of successfully mating - just like we humans do. Is there an absolute difference between how humans and some other animals use music, make songs, or is it only a matter of perspective? And how do we define or differentiate between music and songs - birds, whales, and wolves all sing, but their songs are not composed of linguistical lyrics.
Research shows that certain musical activity produces endorphin surges. Brain scans show that the feeling of euphoria you get when listening to music is accompanied by activity in the same parts of the brain that respond to the rewards of food, sex and psychoactive drugs. Is expressing and/or experiencing music such a vital component of human life because of the way it makes us feel? Are other sentient musically potent beings also experiencing neuro-biological music feedback? Do we all make music because it feels so good?
Erich Jarvis and Duke University Medical Center colleagues published a study in 2006 (Journal of Neuroscience, vol 26, p 9010. They found "increased dopamine levels in male songbirds when they sang. The levels were especially high when the birds sang to a female. Dopamine, the "feel-good" neurotransmitter, is important for learning. It is not yet clear what role it plays in birdsong, says Jarvis, but he suspects that its primary function is to induce reinforcement learning and that its secondary function may be to create a feeling of euphoria."
Some wild apes are known to regularly drum on naturally resonant objects. Some researchers think that, like whales, chimpanzees groups have distinct cultural practices of drumming and vocalising. Cognitive scientist Josh McDermott's study of monkeys, they choose lullaby-like songs over techno music. The research shows that this had more to do with a general response to tempo than any discernment of style. When offered the choice between a soundtrack of 60 clicks a minute and one of 400 clicks per minute the monkeys opted for the low-tempo track. For wild animals, potentially life-threatening fights, storms, vehicular encounters, etc. occur in nature as rapid sequences of sound. So were the monkeys' choice of lullaby nature or nurture?
I think it is pretty clear, that for us and other beings, music is both nature and nurture. Until empirical evidence can prove which came first, and how much of our attachment and response to music is nurture, and how much of it is nature, it remains a question for the philosophers.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Human and Economic Statistics of Iraq War
Massachusetts Taxpayers pay $3.9 BILLION for cost of Iraq War in FY 2007.
For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
1,132,002 Adults with Health Care
or
419,065 Scholarships for University Students
or
1,416,290 Children with Health Care
Global Poverty Facts:
•12% of world’s population uses 85% of the world’s water.
•51% of world’s wealthiest bodies are CORPORATIONS.
•225 of richest individual's combined annual income equals 47% of world’s wealth.
From: MCLA 2007 Hunger Banquet
The U.S. spends $16.67 BILLION in Iraq EVERY MONTH.
1/6th of war expense would provide 50+ years of stable U.S. Social Security System - without cutting benefits or raising contributions of individuals.
U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office.
$2 TRILLION higher as result of war.
$800 BILLION increase under Bush before the war.
U.S. troops injured in Iraq is 15 times the number of fatalities.
52,000 returning veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
40% of 1.65 million troops already deployed owed disability compensation from U.S. government.
Combined health-care & disability costs exceed $600 BILLION in present-value terms.
FOR IRAQ:
Death statistics from first 40 months of war estimated between 450,000 - 600,000.
150,000 classified as violent deaths.
Total population of 28 million.
4 million displaced.
2 million fled Iraq.
50% of Iraq’s doctors killed or left Iraq.
Unemployment at 25%.
Baghdad has less than 8 hours of electricity a day.
From “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.”
Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, professor of economics at Columbia University.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/12/7634/
For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:
1,132,002 Adults with Health Care
or
419,065 Scholarships for University Students
or
1,416,290 Children with Health Care
Global Poverty Facts:
•12% of world’s population uses 85% of the world’s water.
•51% of world’s wealthiest bodies are CORPORATIONS.
•225 of richest individual's combined annual income equals 47% of world’s wealth.
From: MCLA 2007 Hunger Banquet
The U.S. spends $16.67 BILLION in Iraq EVERY MONTH.
1/6th of war expense would provide 50+ years of stable U.S. Social Security System - without cutting benefits or raising contributions of individuals.
U.S. national debt was $5.7 trillion when Bush took office.
$2 TRILLION higher as result of war.
$800 BILLION increase under Bush before the war.
U.S. troops injured in Iraq is 15 times the number of fatalities.
52,000 returning veterans diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.
40% of 1.65 million troops already deployed owed disability compensation from U.S. government.
Combined health-care & disability costs exceed $600 BILLION in present-value terms.
FOR IRAQ:
Death statistics from first 40 months of war estimated between 450,000 - 600,000.
150,000 classified as violent deaths.
Total population of 28 million.
4 million displaced.
2 million fled Iraq.
50% of Iraq’s doctors killed or left Iraq.
Unemployment at 25%.
Baghdad has less than 8 hours of electricity a day.
From “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.”
Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in economics, professor of economics at Columbia University.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/12/7634/
Monday, April 14, 2008
Mass Transportation, an American Possibility?
Effective implementation of a mass transportation system must be a priority in any plan to reduce global hydrocarbon pollution.
My vision for America's clean, reliable, economic, and efficient mass transportation system includes:
1. Self-sustaining small communities provide their own food and energy with easily
accessible centrally located population hubs.
2. Mass transportation systems provide access between self-sustainable population
hubs and small communities.
3. Local hydroponic and organic food production replace mega-agribusinesses.
4. Each community would draw from one or more power sources, efficiently designed to maximize the potential of each micro and macro-environment.
Wave powered energy, solar energy from Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, tidal energy, geothermal energy, wind power, passive and active solar systems, combined solar-hydrogen energy production, photovoltaic cells, hydropower, biomass energy, the Tesla Coil, compressed air engine and other alternative energy driven transportation vehicles are known commodities that could flourish in a supportive environment bolstered by proper public and private policies and funding.
We must acknowledge the connections between regressive policies, unsustainable behaviors, global environmental changes and threats to planetary health and security.
A biocentric world-view could address these problems through rapid implementation of policies that provide tangible economic incentives for choosing environmentally sustainable products and services.
My vision for America's clean, reliable, economic, and efficient mass transportation system includes:
1. Self-sustaining small communities provide their own food and energy with easily
accessible centrally located population hubs.
2. Mass transportation systems provide access between self-sustainable population
hubs and small communities.
3. Local hydroponic and organic food production replace mega-agribusinesses.
4. Each community would draw from one or more power sources, efficiently designed to maximize the potential of each micro and macro-environment.
Wave powered energy, solar energy from Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, tidal energy, geothermal energy, wind power, passive and active solar systems, combined solar-hydrogen energy production, photovoltaic cells, hydropower, biomass energy, the Tesla Coil, compressed air engine and other alternative energy driven transportation vehicles are known commodities that could flourish in a supportive environment bolstered by proper public and private policies and funding.
We must acknowledge the connections between regressive policies, unsustainable behaviors, global environmental changes and threats to planetary health and security.
A biocentric world-view could address these problems through rapid implementation of policies that provide tangible economic incentives for choosing environmentally sustainable products and services.
Blackwater Stats
Continuing from today's discussion - Notes from congressional report on Blackwater October 2007
“A top Army sergeant is paid $51,100 to $69,350 a year in salary, housing and other benefits, a Blackwater contractor (often a retired sergeant) receives six to nine times as much. The U.S. government pays Blackwater $1,222 per day for one Blackwater “Protective Security Specialist...amounts to $445,891 per contractor” per year.
“Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., noted that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ annual salary amounts to less than half of what some high-ranking Blackwater security officials in Iraq earn.”
Robert Scheer, The State Dept.’s Murderous Guardians
“A top Army sergeant is paid $51,100 to $69,350 a year in salary, housing and other benefits, a Blackwater contractor (often a retired sergeant) receives six to nine times as much. The U.S. government pays Blackwater $1,222 per day for one Blackwater “Protective Security Specialist...amounts to $445,891 per contractor” per year.
“Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., noted that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus’ annual salary amounts to less than half of what some high-ranking Blackwater security officials in Iraq earn.”
Robert Scheer, The State Dept.’s Murderous Guardians
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Legislators of the World
"The acknowledged legislators of the world take the world as given. They dislike mysteries, for mysteries cannot be coded, or legislated, and wonder cannot be made into law. And so these legislators police the accepted frontiers of things."Ben Okri
Evolution of "Patriotism" Discussions
"Politics is the art of the possible; creativity is the art of the impossible."Ben Okri
How can the individuals, who compose the American majority, legitimately gain and exercise control over the policies and actions of the entity (political-corporate machine) masquerading as the country known as the United States of America?
Does the possibility for the rectification of “American” misdeeds exist?
How could it be accomplished?
Can we create a globally species-tolerant, humanitarian, ethical America?
How can we swiftly, legitimately correct the U.S. Constitution from its current imbalance and co-mingling of the supposedly “separate” executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government?
Iraq and Q & A #9
The magician and the politician have much in common: they both have to draw our attention away from what they are really doing.Ben Okri
I believe the “powers that be” (The American-political-mega-corporate machine) want dominance over Iraq because its strategic location provides easy access to neighboring oil and water resource-rich countries. Iraq was the easiest of these middle eastern countries to conquer. Once conquered, it will provide a good platform from which to stage/wage war against her neighbors.
According to A.K. Gupta, the Iraq War is all about oil - with a few Machiavellian reasons for launching the invasion thrown in. Bush and his cohorts used the war to assert a "new and improved" world order based on absolute might. They demonstrated how easily the Bush administration could defy international and national laws, norms, institutions, treaties and diplomacy. The American-political-mega-corporate machine thus notified rising powers China, West Europe, and Russia, and any other governments who might dare consider defying the U.S., that "America" is the "Big Boss" of the world.
For the Bush Administration and its American “patriots," a successful conclusion to the Iraq War would be the annihilation of the ethnic, religious and political dissonance within Iraq. It would require “neutralization” of any Iraqi resistance to a degree which would eliminates the possibility for any future resurgent resistance. It would create the open-ended occupation of Iraq by the United States political machine. This would endow the Bush supported mega-oil corporations with de-facto possession and expansion of Iraq’s oil resources. Control of all other Iraqi resources would be transferred to the mega- corporate interests dominating the U.S. political and judicial systems.
American war "success" over Iraq would look like the oppression of the Iraqi populace, occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq, and domination, possession and control over all Iraqi resources by the United States.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Roots of Patriotism
In Wednesday’s class, DK said, “One’s love for country is an accident of birth.
It is an ingredient within the human condition that we attach ourselves to locations and to emblems, or symbols of those locations. We can recognize the universality of our emotional attachment to these symbols - they mean the same thing to each of us. This is an example of unity within diversity. The universal inclination to valorize certain symbols. It is natural, recognize it for what it is and do something constructive with it. Use it to unify the peoples of the planet.
I believe attachment to one’s locale, one’s country, and its symbols are simply manifestations of the natural, biological imperative of the human-animal to survive. It is the pack mentality that drives human beings towards territorial dominance and the instinct to preserve their territory by whatever means necessary, including warring on neighboring “packs” if our need for resources outgrows our current territory; or if we consider a neighboring “pack” a threat to our existing territory/resources or future resource requirements.
I look upon these now biologically limiting drives as the basest in the nature of the human-animal. It is the foundation of all that it is negative and dehumanizing in the concept of patriotism, because it fosters “otherness” at the expense of our humanity. We should be utilizing our minds, our consciousnesses, our souls and our spirits – our ethics and morality – to solve all the problems that spring forth naturally as diverse, potently-unequal populations strive to share unsustainable and sustainable resources in the single environment we call planet Earth.
Perhaps this is what DK meant when he addressed the fallacy of internationalism - I’m going to love your mother as much as I love my mother. I am going to empathize with you as a mother-lover, or lover of my country.
“’Unity in variety’ is nature’s plan in the evolution of the universe, and that only by harmony and brotherhood among religions and and by mutual toleration and help can the mission and destiny of humanity be accomplished.” Maharaja of Khetri. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume III. p. 202
It is an ingredient within the human condition that we attach ourselves to locations and to emblems, or symbols of those locations. We can recognize the universality of our emotional attachment to these symbols - they mean the same thing to each of us. This is an example of unity within diversity. The universal inclination to valorize certain symbols. It is natural, recognize it for what it is and do something constructive with it. Use it to unify the peoples of the planet.
I believe attachment to one’s locale, one’s country, and its symbols are simply manifestations of the natural, biological imperative of the human-animal to survive. It is the pack mentality that drives human beings towards territorial dominance and the instinct to preserve their territory by whatever means necessary, including warring on neighboring “packs” if our need for resources outgrows our current territory; or if we consider a neighboring “pack” a threat to our existing territory/resources or future resource requirements.
I look upon these now biologically limiting drives as the basest in the nature of the human-animal. It is the foundation of all that it is negative and dehumanizing in the concept of patriotism, because it fosters “otherness” at the expense of our humanity. We should be utilizing our minds, our consciousnesses, our souls and our spirits – our ethics and morality – to solve all the problems that spring forth naturally as diverse, potently-unequal populations strive to share unsustainable and sustainable resources in the single environment we call planet Earth.
Perhaps this is what DK meant when he addressed the fallacy of internationalism - I’m going to love your mother as much as I love my mother. I am going to empathize with you as a mother-lover, or lover of my country.
“’Unity in variety’ is nature’s plan in the evolution of the universe, and that only by harmony and brotherhood among religions and and by mutual toleration and help can the mission and destiny of humanity be accomplished.” Maharaja of Khetri. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume III. p. 202
Creating Harmony
I found the class discussion relating the analogy of music to reference harmony as it could pertain to solving international dilemmas a satisfying sensory scenario.
Harmony informs the elements of diversity, thus it entails a multiplicity. Whereas unity illumines a unified singularity.
The United Nations seeks to promote unity within diversity. To triangulate the commonalities that all persons share. Unity within a robust diversity – not a mindless pursuit of Diversity or its opposite Unity.
Creating Harmony
Extend the harmony to create a tension. We can build upon the tension between nations as we do with musical chords. Differences can’t be random, they need to be relative to some degree.
An existential commonality within all – could this be what humankind considers “God?”
Harmony informs the elements of diversity, thus it entails a multiplicity. Whereas unity illumines a unified singularity.
The United Nations seeks to promote unity within diversity. To triangulate the commonalities that all persons share. Unity within a robust diversity – not a mindless pursuit of Diversity or its opposite Unity.
Creating Harmony
Extend the harmony to create a tension. We can build upon the tension between nations as we do with musical chords. Differences can’t be random, they need to be relative to some degree.
An existential commonality within all – could this be what humankind considers “God?”
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Robert Jensen,“Goodbye To Patriotism”
I agree that at least since 9-11, the American administration and many American citizens have defiled and misappropriated our original concept of patriotism. Jensen provides us with the Administration's daily use of implied, insinuating misdefinitions of “patriotism.”
For a rational, intelligent discussion and understanding of Jensen's talk, it is crucial to first remember and acknowledge the true spirit, origin and definition of the term “patriotism.” I find Webster's definition, "devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country,and love of country,” closest in spirit and essence to the original concept of patriotism. It incorporates the ideals of public welfare, virtue and inspiration in its definition.
Both the word and concept of "patriotism" are archaic and inapplicable in the current market-based, globally-dominated world of mega-corporations. It is unusable in our blurred bordered world.
The Administration and the other immoral persons of the world have perverted the word "patriotism" into propaganda to create and maintain personal/corporate power and wealth. The ignorant flail the word about in a pack mentality that subverts the estimable ethics of humankind. The fearful and the weak bandy the Administration’s term about in recognition of their powerlessness, their loss of freedom, rights, and democracy.
As Jensen states, this is not merely an academic argument over semantics. It is nonsensical to want or try to redefine the term patriotic. Like Eugene Debs, "I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world."
For a rational, intelligent discussion and understanding of Jensen's talk, it is crucial to first remember and acknowledge the true spirit, origin and definition of the term “patriotism.” I find Webster's definition, "devotion to the welfare of one's country; the virtues and actions of a patriot; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country,and love of country,” closest in spirit and essence to the original concept of patriotism. It incorporates the ideals of public welfare, virtue and inspiration in its definition.
Both the word and concept of "patriotism" are archaic and inapplicable in the current market-based, globally-dominated world of mega-corporations. It is unusable in our blurred bordered world.
The Administration and the other immoral persons of the world have perverted the word "patriotism" into propaganda to create and maintain personal/corporate power and wealth. The ignorant flail the word about in a pack mentality that subverts the estimable ethics of humankind. The fearful and the weak bandy the Administration’s term about in recognition of their powerlessness, their loss of freedom, rights, and democracy.
As Jensen states, this is not merely an academic argument over semantics. It is nonsensical to want or try to redefine the term patriotic. Like Eugene Debs, "I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world."
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Morality of Omnivorism
In researching our assignment in defense of meat-eating I landed on the Beef Quality Association site. I found their information educational, disgusting, and in light of the recent expose on forcibly torturing sick cattle into meat grinders, quite unbelievable.
The American Beef Associations sites tell us:
I was intrigued by their concept of expectations for eating characteristics. It sounds like their target audience eats primarily for pleasure, not health and sustenance. I wonder to what degree sensory or emotional pleasure factor into one's choice to eat meat or eat not-meat.
One can get much more protein from smaller amounts of meat than similar amounts of not-meat. Meat products from ungraded carcasses are relatively cheap. How much of a factor is poverty in one's choice/non-choice to eat meat or eat not-meat?
I have some expectations for eating characteristics of my own. I often ignore my hunger rather than eat food that I do not like or postpone eating until I can get the "right" stuff. My mind, my spiritual self, and my body prefer to eat only organic unprocessed, not-meat food. My emotional self enjoys good chocolate in various forms. I first became a vegetarian in 1978 for health reasons. While pregnant or nursing, I ate fish and chicken. Then I returned to vegetarianism. During times of significant ill health, if my body craves meat, I fulfill the craving, but always return to vegetarianism.
What percentage of a person's decision to eat meat is morality-based? For how many people is it an economically-based choice or non-choice? For how many is it simply the continuation of one's cultural or religious norm - where consideration of omnivorism or vegetarianism is inconceivable; or would result in ejection from, or rejection by one's family and peers? For how many is it a health-based rather than moral choice. How many people choose to be omnivores because they find it more sensory pleasurable or emotionally satisfying than vegetarianism?
The definition of morality is one's beliefs regarding appropriate behavior - an individual's comprehension of morality and the capacity to put it into practice. Should we view omnivorism and vegetarianism as a choice/non-choice arising from individual or social morality? Or, is one's choice of omnivorism or vegetarianism the expression of one's personal ethics or social ethics? Is it a moral issue for some, but an ethical issue for others?
The American Beef Associations sites tell us:
Consumers can feel good about loving beef because the protein in beef is a powerful nutrient that strengthens and sustains their bodies.The BQA repeatedly refer to beef from carcasses that consistently satisfies customer expectations for eating characteristics, with strict government inspection systems that ensure safe, wholesome, correctly labeled and packaged beef products. However, beef carcass quality grading is voluntary. Therefore, not all carcasses are quality graded.
I was intrigued by their concept of expectations for eating characteristics. It sounds like their target audience eats primarily for pleasure, not health and sustenance. I wonder to what degree sensory or emotional pleasure factor into one's choice to eat meat or eat not-meat.
One can get much more protein from smaller amounts of meat than similar amounts of not-meat. Meat products from ungraded carcasses are relatively cheap. How much of a factor is poverty in one's choice/non-choice to eat meat or eat not-meat?
I have some expectations for eating characteristics of my own. I often ignore my hunger rather than eat food that I do not like or postpone eating until I can get the "right" stuff. My mind, my spiritual self, and my body prefer to eat only organic unprocessed, not-meat food. My emotional self enjoys good chocolate in various forms. I first became a vegetarian in 1978 for health reasons. While pregnant or nursing, I ate fish and chicken. Then I returned to vegetarianism. During times of significant ill health, if my body craves meat, I fulfill the craving, but always return to vegetarianism.
What percentage of a person's decision to eat meat is morality-based? For how many people is it an economically-based choice or non-choice? For how many is it simply the continuation of one's cultural or religious norm - where consideration of omnivorism or vegetarianism is inconceivable; or would result in ejection from, or rejection by one's family and peers? For how many is it a health-based rather than moral choice. How many people choose to be omnivores because they find it more sensory pleasurable or emotionally satisfying than vegetarianism?
The definition of morality is one's beliefs regarding appropriate behavior - an individual's comprehension of morality and the capacity to put it into practice. Should we view omnivorism and vegetarianism as a choice/non-choice arising from individual or social morality? Or, is one's choice of omnivorism or vegetarianism the expression of one's personal ethics or social ethics? Is it a moral issue for some, but an ethical issue for others?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Alternative Thoughts
For those interested in pursuing alternative literature (untested ideas) - I would recommend the following:
“Consciousness and Quantum Behavior: The Theory of Laminated Spacetime Re-Examined” Barbara Dewey, 1993. Bartholomew Books,
"The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality" by Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau, 1990. New York: Springer-Verlag
"The Holotropic Mind:The Three Levels of Human Consciousness and How They Shape Our Lives." Grof, Stanislav, and Bennett, Hal Zina. (1992). San Francisco: Harper Collins.
"Space, Time and Medicine", Larry Dossey, M.D., Shambhala, Boston & London, 1982
"The Holographic Universe" By Michael Talbot, Harper Collins, 1991
“Consciousness and Quantum Behavior: The Theory of Laminated Spacetime Re-Examined” Barbara Dewey, 1993. Bartholomew Books,
"The Conscious Universe: Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality" by Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau, 1990. New York: Springer-Verlag
"The Holotropic Mind:The Three Levels of Human Consciousness and How They Shape Our Lives." Grof, Stanislav, and Bennett, Hal Zina. (1992). San Francisco: Harper Collins.
"Space, Time and Medicine", Larry Dossey, M.D., Shambhala, Boston & London, 1982
"The Holographic Universe" By Michael Talbot, Harper Collins, 1991
Blogging Time
I think there is a unified vibrational field of energy that co-exists in all things, all places, and all dimensions as the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy. I believe that everything exists because it holds a specific and distinct vibrational pattern that remains connected to, and powered by, the original source pattern of frequency (vibration) - the template of origin from which it emanated. I find this worldview compatible with Barbara Dewey’s “Consciousness and Quantum Behavior: The Theory of Laminated Spacetime Re-Examined” and Rob Bryanton’s "Imagining the Tenth Dimension: A New Way Of Thinking About Time, Space And String Theory."
All else that is distinct from the base or original pattern of existence exists distinctly as an incorporation of a modification to that base pattern, which continues to source the modification while maintaining Its own purity of energy pattern (frequency).
All this exists in movement – which I believe is a pre-requisite for frequency existence, and that time is the product of any modification (change) to every pattern of energy. That is, shifts in continuums of energy patterns create time.
I believe that the distinctness or separateness can be eradicated by consciously shifting focus from the modified pattern of original frequency to the contents of its umbilical cord - the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy, and then uniting with that originating energy. By adapting intent after union, it is possible to “jump” to a dissimilar template (pattern of energy) including dimensions, even time.
Some templates of distinct frequencies can create other vibrationally distinct templates (how ideas are created). Patterns of energy possess greater or lesser form – depending on their frequency, which may or may not be testable by current scientific or technological modalities. This does not preclude the possibility of their existence, or the reality of their existence.
In support of my untestable and less accepted take on reality I go to DKJ’s post on The Daily Phlog, (CR) "My Take on RC", from which I have liberally extracted his words and hopefully, correctly represented his ideas.
#8.“…Our thoughts are true when and if they correspond to the way things are.”
#10. “…Given the arbitrariness and diversity of our conceptualizations, the world determines but never guarantees our access to truth. We may rarely, if ever, be right about the world…”
#11. “Appeals to science and commonsense…are used fallibilistically and hypothetically to provide evidence in favor of a more robust realism that posits the mind-independent existence and nature of the many objects and relations of everyday experience.”
My worldview is the result of my perceptions and experiences, many of which are untestable by current scientific methods – a fact that, of and by itself, does not necessitate the diminishment of, or require the relinquishing of, my worldview. Being of sound mind, I can not in good conscience automatically presuppose science tests, or lack thereof, are superior to my perceptions and experiences, therefore I can not grant greater credence to their incapability to test over my capacity to perceive, experience and wonder. New experiences or perceptions (including scientific evidence) can shift my worldview if, and when warranted.
All else that is distinct from the base or original pattern of existence exists distinctly as an incorporation of a modification to that base pattern, which continues to source the modification while maintaining Its own purity of energy pattern (frequency).
All this exists in movement – which I believe is a pre-requisite for frequency existence, and that time is the product of any modification (change) to every pattern of energy. That is, shifts in continuums of energy patterns create time.
I believe that the distinctness or separateness can be eradicated by consciously shifting focus from the modified pattern of original frequency to the contents of its umbilical cord - the base (originating) vibrational pattern of energy, and then uniting with that originating energy. By adapting intent after union, it is possible to “jump” to a dissimilar template (pattern of energy) including dimensions, even time.
Some templates of distinct frequencies can create other vibrationally distinct templates (how ideas are created). Patterns of energy possess greater or lesser form – depending on their frequency, which may or may not be testable by current scientific or technological modalities. This does not preclude the possibility of their existence, or the reality of their existence.
In support of my untestable and less accepted take on reality I go to DKJ’s post on The Daily Phlog, (CR) "My Take on RC", from which I have liberally extracted his words and hopefully, correctly represented his ideas.
#8.“…Our thoughts are true when and if they correspond to the way things are.”
#10. “…Given the arbitrariness and diversity of our conceptualizations, the world determines but never guarantees our access to truth. We may rarely, if ever, be right about the world…”
#11. “Appeals to science and commonsense…are used fallibilistically and hypothetically to provide evidence in favor of a more robust realism that posits the mind-independent existence and nature of the many objects and relations of everyday experience.”
My worldview is the result of my perceptions and experiences, many of which are untestable by current scientific methods – a fact that, of and by itself, does not necessitate the diminishment of, or require the relinquishing of, my worldview. Being of sound mind, I can not in good conscience automatically presuppose science tests, or lack thereof, are superior to my perceptions and experiences, therefore I can not grant greater credence to their incapability to test over my capacity to perceive, experience and wonder. New experiences or perceptions (including scientific evidence) can shift my worldview if, and when warranted.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Origin of Human Ideas
The generally accepted assumption that all human ideas are created from the human mind was mentioned in class. I acknowledge the possibility that that construct could hold true at least some of the time, and for Western cultures I would agree that it is probably perceived as true most of the time. However, I do not believe the human mind to be the sole source of human ideas.
There is the belief that certain ideas exist in the astral realm and are "discovered" by a person after an aspect of their consciousness (mind) connects to pre-(their human)mind-existing thought. The person then assumes ownership and credit for the thought as their own idea. This is how some inventions are believed to have been brought into existences and considered human ideas.
Would we consider thoughts/ideas coming from the mind of a person in an altered state of consciousness as always coming from their human mind? Is a person in an ecstatic state communing with ideas from their mind or another being's Mind, or the One Mind? Are the sources of inspiration - artistic, creative, or natural, confined to the limited containment of a human mind? I hope not.
Taken in the context of a universe that is holographic in nature, as posited by physicist David Bohm, who "associates the existence of 'holomovement' with laws describing an implicit level of reality in an 'implicate' order that is hidden below our experience with the 'explicate order'"("The Conscious Universe:Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory," Kafatos/Nadeau)there exist many humanly unknowable variables, of which space,time, and thought are just a few.
Should we limit ourselves just to that which can be tested against, and by, human created tools of scientific design? There is so much in existence that can not be humanly subjected to disclosure employing current western human-mind theories or experiments.
I prefer the construct comprised of the multiple, simultaneously-existing versions of a single universe, created from, bound together by, and always, at all times, communing through a unifying, singular light/sound frequency. Which calls into question the origin of thought - human or other-being, as well as the concepts of space, time and spacetime.
There is the belief that certain ideas exist in the astral realm and are "discovered" by a person after an aspect of their consciousness (mind) connects to pre-(their human)mind-existing thought. The person then assumes ownership and credit for the thought as their own idea. This is how some inventions are believed to have been brought into existences and considered human ideas.
Would we consider thoughts/ideas coming from the mind of a person in an altered state of consciousness as always coming from their human mind? Is a person in an ecstatic state communing with ideas from their mind or another being's Mind, or the One Mind? Are the sources of inspiration - artistic, creative, or natural, confined to the limited containment of a human mind? I hope not.
Taken in the context of a universe that is holographic in nature, as posited by physicist David Bohm, who "associates the existence of 'holomovement' with laws describing an implicit level of reality in an 'implicate' order that is hidden below our experience with the 'explicate order'"("The Conscious Universe:Part and Whole in Modern Physical Theory," Kafatos/Nadeau)there exist many humanly unknowable variables, of which space,time, and thought are just a few.
Should we limit ourselves just to that which can be tested against, and by, human created tools of scientific design? There is so much in existence that can not be humanly subjected to disclosure employing current western human-mind theories or experiments.
I prefer the construct comprised of the multiple, simultaneously-existing versions of a single universe, created from, bound together by, and always, at all times, communing through a unifying, singular light/sound frequency. Which calls into question the origin of thought - human or other-being, as well as the concepts of space, time and spacetime.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Mind, Perception, and Reality?
In an effort to adequately digest "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" I spent hours investigating terms, that were to me, unfamiliar, or unclear. Reference.com and the whole "www" failed to provide me with an understanding of "sirfiple units"(Phillips, p.7)
Frequently there are varied and often competing definitions for the same term in philosophical posturing - oops - that's positing right? DKJ noted on Q&A 2 that the meaning of MIR was dependent on the context.
In Johnson's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" there are references to Muller's O-D view and his O-D position. I was uncertain what "O-D" was representing in this work. After days of attempting to construct some sense of an acceptably-inclusive reality out of competing, exclusionary theories - as constructed by von Glasersfeld, Phillips, Johnson, et al., "Reality," as perceived by my mind, arrived at my best guess conclusion that O-D meant "Other-Dependent Reality". Though I struggled mightily, I was unable to find any reference to Herbert Muller, O-D or Other-Dependent Reality on the web to validate my supposition.
Therefore, I propose to subjectively support the possibility of the existence of an O-D as Other-Dependent Reality using DKJ's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" and Phillip's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The theory of Other-Dependent Realism finds support in social constructivism especially in the views offered by feminist epistemologists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino. (Phillips p.7).
Other-Dependent Reality gains distinctive support as it is affirmed within our denial of solipsism, an obviously indefensible theory. Realism demands our necessarily constructing "Others" to bring some sense to our epistemological reality stories. Otherwise, we could be forced to wrestle with combining words like "object" and "dependent", creating the fantasy term "Object-Dependent Reality" which we would then morph into "O-D view" or "O-D position".
The accomplished communication of ideas and inquiries are the purpose of the philosopher, with Logic the philosopher's tool in this endeavor. The use of linguistic language suffers from often inherently vague and ambiguous terms and structure, therefore it is prone to frequent, understandable misinterpretation by a mind at some time, maybe all minds at one time, possibly some minds some times. Is not now The Time for our minds to construct a mutually understood and agreed upon perceptual toolkit, with which we might pursue the Reality Quest without wasting time (relatively speaking, of course) and Life-force - our's or an Other's, whether human, noumenal, or universally shared?
All puns aside, I suffer a continuous shortage of time. Therefore, I propose that all of philosophical ilk who insist on sharing their philosophical notions in an other-dependent real way, assemble a clear, concise, adequately defined list of terms used in common, and attach it to their work, where it will be available as an addendum to any other's work, in which their work appears. By providing their view, which to an other's mind, or other perceptional, interpreting, or organizing tool, might be potentially vague or ambiguous, we can eradicate philosophically-induced misunderstandings, confusion, as well as the over-use of reference.com and panic-spawned email to philosophy and logic professors.
Frequently there are varied and often competing definitions for the same term in philosophical posturing - oops - that's positing right? DKJ noted on Q&A 2 that the meaning of MIR was dependent on the context.
In Johnson's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" there are references to Muller's O-D view and his O-D position. I was uncertain what "O-D" was representing in this work. After days of attempting to construct some sense of an acceptably-inclusive reality out of competing, exclusionary theories - as constructed by von Glasersfeld, Phillips, Johnson, et al., "Reality," as perceived by my mind, arrived at my best guess conclusion that O-D meant "Other-Dependent Reality". Though I struggled mightily, I was unable to find any reference to Herbert Muller, O-D or Other-Dependent Reality on the web to validate my supposition.
Therefore, I propose to subjectively support the possibility of the existence of an O-D as Other-Dependent Reality using DKJ's "Make-Believe Metaphysics" and Phillip's "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". The theory of Other-Dependent Realism finds support in social constructivism especially in the views offered by feminist epistemologists Sandra Harding and Helen Longino. (Phillips p.7).
Other-Dependent Reality gains distinctive support as it is affirmed within our denial of solipsism, an obviously indefensible theory. Realism demands our necessarily constructing "Others" to bring some sense to our epistemological reality stories. Otherwise, we could be forced to wrestle with combining words like "object" and "dependent", creating the fantasy term "Object-Dependent Reality" which we would then morph into "O-D view" or "O-D position".
The accomplished communication of ideas and inquiries are the purpose of the philosopher, with Logic the philosopher's tool in this endeavor. The use of linguistic language suffers from often inherently vague and ambiguous terms and structure, therefore it is prone to frequent, understandable misinterpretation by a mind at some time, maybe all minds at one time, possibly some minds some times. Is not now The Time for our minds to construct a mutually understood and agreed upon perceptual toolkit, with which we might pursue the Reality Quest without wasting time (relatively speaking, of course) and Life-force - our's or an Other's, whether human, noumenal, or universally shared?
All puns aside, I suffer a continuous shortage of time. Therefore, I propose that all of philosophical ilk who insist on sharing their philosophical notions in an other-dependent real way, assemble a clear, concise, adequately defined list of terms used in common, and attach it to their work, where it will be available as an addendum to any other's work, in which their work appears. By providing their view, which to an other's mind, or other perceptional, interpreting, or organizing tool, might be potentially vague or ambiguous, we can eradicate philosophically-induced misunderstandings, confusion, as well as the over-use of reference.com and panic-spawned email to philosophy and logic professors.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Intro to Rad Constructs
I found von Glasersfeld’s article stimulating. I particularly enjoyed the comment that the unanswerable question whether, or to what extent, any picture our senses "convey" might correspond to the "objective" reality. I was delighted to discover that this is not taken as “fact,” that it is still the crux of all theory of knowledge. What properties objects are assigned by our senses – how real, how accurate are these sensory stipulations? It is not at all obvious that sense-defined determinants do not possess other properties beyond our stipulative definitions, properties that are not perceived by the senses of the stipulators in general (Western majority). Wondering what I might be missing – what might be beyond the capacity of my senses to perceive is a major focus in the journey of my life.
Neuroscientists Trey Hedden and John Gabrieli of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research recent study provides the first neurological evidence that cultural difference extend to brain activity patterns. “People from different cultures use their brains differently to solve basic perceptual tasks. They saw a difference in higher-processing brain areas, not in the parts of the brain involved in early vision. People from different cultures don’t see the world differently, but they think differently about what they see." American brains had to work harder at relative judgments, while East Asian brains found absolute judgments more challenging. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22729220/
If cultural perception is the basis of one’s composition of knowledge, what will be the unifying element for universal “truth”? Whose “truth” becomes “The Truth”?
And then came Kant, shifting our experiences relative to time and space – challenges our senses, our perceptions, and our minds. Perception, interpretation, knowledge, constructs, Truth.
Philosophy - I’m loving it – its definitely not boring!
Neuroscientists Trey Hedden and John Gabrieli of MIT's McGovern Institute for Brain Research recent study provides the first neurological evidence that cultural difference extend to brain activity patterns. “People from different cultures use their brains differently to solve basic perceptual tasks. They saw a difference in higher-processing brain areas, not in the parts of the brain involved in early vision. People from different cultures don’t see the world differently, but they think differently about what they see." American brains had to work harder at relative judgments, while East Asian brains found absolute judgments more challenging. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22729220/
If cultural perception is the basis of one’s composition of knowledge, what will be the unifying element for universal “truth”? Whose “truth” becomes “The Truth”?
And then came Kant, shifting our experiences relative to time and space – challenges our senses, our perceptions, and our minds. Perception, interpretation, knowledge, constructs, Truth.
Philosophy - I’m loving it – its definitely not boring!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)