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.

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!

Theories of Knowledge

Von Glasersfeld’s "An Introduction to Radical Constructivism” is well seasoned with wit and "isms". I appreciated the basic nature, simplicity, and logic of many of his ideas. I effortlessly agreed with those that I have long held, intuitively and innately, though not cognitively – previously never having thought about them in that manner.

Dominant beliefs in my personal philosophy of life that I have often pondered are:

“The only aspect of that "real" world that actually enters into the realm of experience, are its constraints.”

“Any cognitive structure that serves its purpose in our time, proves no more and no less than just that it has done what was expected of it. Logically, that gives us no clue as to how the "objective" world might be; it merely means that we know one viable way to a goal that we have chosen under specific circumstances in our experiential world.”

“It tells us nothing -- and cannot tell us anything -- about how many other ways there might be, or how that experience which we consider the goal might be connected to a world beyond our experience.”

“The proponents of an idea, as a rule, explain its non-acceptance differently than do the critics and opponents.”
Simple, Logical and True.

“Our knowledge is useful, relevant, and viable - if it stands up to our experience and enables us to make predictions, to bring about, or, avoid certain phenomena.” Simple, Logical and True.

“Because our ways of experiencing are what they are, we cannot possibly conceive of an unexperienced world.”

I have never been able to conceive what is inconceivable to me, without first being exposed to the possibility of its potential existence. It is my experience that communication of an idea by another - through the exchange of thoughts, use of senses, or exposure to stimuli always occurs prior to contemplation of what had previously been unimaginable.

“The epistemological problem - how we acquire knowledge of reality, and how reliable and "true" that knowledge might be” certainly troubles me. We use thoughts (some resulting from experiential exposure) to construct ideas, and ideas to construct knowledge, and knowledge to construct reality. Since reality is fabricated out of (sometimes competing) individual or group constructs, how do we determine whose reality is the true reality? And what if the true reality is as yet inconceivable?”

Presently, we know with certainty, of the existence of “the unknowable.” Knowledge is a prerequisite for defining reality. Therefore, it is presently impossible to suppose any definition of reality to be true.

I agree with von Glasersfeld, “Our knowledge can never be interpreted as a picture or representation of that real world, but only as a key that unlocks possible paths for us. A key fits if it opens the lock. The fit describes a capacity of the key, not of the lock.”

“If we take seriously the evolutionary way of thinking, it could never be organisms or ideas that adapt to reality, but it is always reality which…inexorably annihilates what is not fit to live. In nature, a lack of fitness is invariably fatal; philosophers, however, rarely die of their inadequate ideas.”

Could this be why there are so many Philosophical Schools of Thought and so many philosophers?

After reading this article, I know for certain, that I am not a metaphysical realist. I can embrace some of the components of radical constructivism’s theory of knowledge. However, at present, I lack sufficient data to consider limiting myself to any one "ism" or category philosophical.

Zoos and Humans

I had never considered zoos pornographic. After reading Acampora’s article, I agree that many, but not all, zoos can be viewed as pornographic. I see some significant differences between the nature of erotic (porn industry) and biotic (zoo industry) entertainment. There is a certain “economy of desire” which exists human-human in the porn industry, and human-animal in the zoo industry - relationship shortcuts.
The presumption of mastery and control occurs in both industries. For this reason, some zoos can be classifed as pornographic. However, I am unwilling to classify all zoos as inherently pornographic. At times, profound, fulfilling exchanges, however brief, can occur between humans and animals in zoos, even those meeting certain criteria of pornography.

Human-animals have dominated and radically altered the environment of “wild” animals in their “natural habitats,” precipitously so, since the industrial revolution. Acampora claims that in zoos, “The very structure of the human-animal encounter is disrupted, and the interaction that is sought—encountering the animals—becomes impossibility as the “real” animals disappear and the conditions for seeing are undermined.” I would posit that industrialization, globalization, human poverty, and human greed have curtailed opportunity for true interaction between humans and “wild” animals. Their “natural habitats” exist only in the most remote, humanly –inhospitable environments. Remoteness offers no protection to the animals, or their habitats, from human-created alterations, like pollution and global warming. Doesn’t this also create structural inauthenticity - despite the best intentions of humanity? Couldn’t we also consider the proclivity of human beings to alter habitats of nonhuman beings within the structure of possessive consciousness?

Acampora stated that his argument focuses on what the institutions of animal-keeping, particularly the zoo, reveal about us and our possibilities for relating to other human and nonhuman animals alike. Does it reveal the same, or different possibilities/limitations for relating to other human and nonhuman animals as the human domination of the environment?

How can we ethically argue against the structural inauthenticity of zoos, and the consideration of live beings within the structure of possessive consciousness, without applying this same logical morality to the reverse stewardship perpetrated by some humans against all living beings?