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?”

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."

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:

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?

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

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.

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.

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.