Java Philosophy: October 2007

3b. I deserve an "A" because I have put the whole of myself in time and mind to the absorption of the teachings, criticism of the material, and its interpreted output.
4. Shannon Marie Holloway
5. For Yahoo Groups holloway_shannon and for blogger.com its
holloway.shannon@gmail.com
5a. My grade for the midterm was an “A”. It is posted on
http://shannon-philosophy.blogspot.com/
6. holloway_shannon@yahoo.com
7. The name is preset as Java Philosophy (haven’t come up with on of my own yet) and
this is the address, http://shannon-philosophy.blogspot.com/
8. I have done all but 1 reading #2 for week eight, this reading is the Faqir Chand sight
that could not be found
9. Yes I have.
10. Here are the completed 42 posts:

Fukuyama Film Quote as a Starting Point

"[I]f you tolerate too much you actually don't end up believing in anything"
This was a statement made by Francis Fukuyama in reference to religion, but I believe (an indicator of my own ignorance's) that this is a great jumping off point, and can be elaborated upon and extended to encompass a wide variety of things including the very structure of life itself. A good demonstration of this is to use something most people are exposed to as a child. A statement of positive encouragement and acknowledgment told to them when they are young. The statement that, "you are special". If that is told to one child, or lets say a hundred, then indeed in comparison to the overwhelming population that statement may become believable. However, if the majority of children are told this, then the statement and the belief is no longer existing in a realm small enough to allow such a self-serving (selfish) thing to be valid. Making the statement very inaccurate. The statement can only be meaningful on a small level where the individual is self- serving, intolerant and close-minded. If and when they come to the realization that they are not the only person that has been encouraged through the use of such a statement then they have the choice to either stay the way they are, or to expand their understanding therefore becoming tolerant leaving their belief null. Because indeed one child can be special, but if everyone is special, then no one is special.
So, tolerance, acceptance, openness disallows small-minded, shortsighted, ignore-ant, naive, childlike, one-dimensional thought in that thinker. All the while the others with a myriad of strict beliefs keep themselves pinned to things in the hope of stabilizing and securing safety under the delusion that they know what things are. They are able to exist under the umbrella of what is created by the former. Namely, a large singular body, a harmony of pluralistic existence wherein there are no ardent beliefs and instead of the rigid, a fluxing, flexible, flow; a fluidity. One that removes the pause of motion and the pining of something as one thing only. So in the mothering arms of tolerance there can be no belief, because everything is every changing: the scope, depth, dimension it’s a constant evolution in multiple directions.
Question??-So does this ever expansiveness and change create in itself a pattern? A something to the nothing?
Because the pervasiveness of not knowing can also overwhelm, and with something not being one thing even the mature thinker may once again search for a grip. Continuing the flip of the yin-yang.

Aldous Huxley

As if the name wasn't already great enough, the man himself only raises my already high opinion of him. He is, what has been referred to as a forward thinker, a man ahead of his time. Admittedly, it surprises me to hear him talk about issues that he felt were of importance in his day, because they are greatly saturated into our own time. For example, his observation of man becoming slave to technology, or his own creations. I see this as a large part of our current circumstance. Man no longer seems to retain his freedoms, but allows them to be diminished by his own devices, self-imposed and societal limitations, along with the continued misdirection of life through pursuant understanding by way of categorical thinking. These issues all holds a great deal of interest for me, and it is shocking to see how ill acquainted with them so many people are. The more that I learn the more I grow and so too does my amazement of how easy it is to not pursue critical thought and autonomy.
Around the same period of this movie, there was a book written by Herbert Marcuse entitled One-Dimensional Man (I highly recommend reading it). In it Marcuse alludes to this same point, concentrating on the political structure that facilitates, rationalizes and enables man in the forfeiting of himself and into accepting the being of nullification into a drone like state by the machines themselves. Even science is supportive of this as it has been shown that nature nurtures soothing and healing by infusing us with energy, with life, by way of negative ions. While quite the opposite is true of machines that suck, and drain our energy, essentially our life force from us by transferring positive ions. Take time to notice the sensory and energy differences in your person and compare your experience with sitting in front of a computer/television and that of you in nature next to a stream of running water. I assure you the difference is astounding.

Question??? So, why then do we continue to isolate ourselves from one another reaching out with and existing within a technological grip? What is so attractive to us about detriments of the physical, mental, and social realms? We need to actively impact society so that we instill the importance of moderation, human and natures touch, and favor freedom and growth to that of enslavement. We are so afraid of that looming day when machines will rule the world with an iron fist that we miss what is going on this very day, who is to say that they already aren't? The most effective strategy of control is one where the oppressed is unaware to their domination.

Java

Most people still retain the childlike ideal of what freedom should be. However, understanding the social contract, as explained by Rousseau (one may do what ever he pleases when he is the only person that exists but once another person is in existence it behooves them to willingly sacrifice individual freedoms for the good of the whole.) A philosophy for a way to remain happy. Go after what you want in life, take command of your own destiny, carve out your niche because due to the overwhelming over-population of the planet freedom is not possible in every form to all varying degrees. The extent of ones "[f]reedom is what you do with what's been done to you" Jean Paul Sarte, and remember freedom is a state of mind.

de Cusa

When I was a child I was informed of the idea of eternity, a forever. I tried with all of my might at that young age to conceptualize what that meant. As I lay in bed I repeated aloud forever and ever and ever and ever until I would feel overwhelmed and frightened myself into silence. It was such a big idea one I could not understand nor fully comprehend. In this corporeal existence life is perishable, there are beginnings and endings with unexpected expirations, where nothing is ever lasting. To this day I can still see, "infinite is unknown because it escapes all comparative relation". Making the big picture just a blur. We can not see its details with these mortal eyes or figure out its vastness its essence with such limited minds. There are binds within this matrix of congruent relations. We are merely seeing with the limited capabilities of our sensory devices and understanding as much as we can from the small amount of truth that makes it through such dense filters. "Wisdom and the seat of understanding are hidden from all living things." So, as far as our reach goes we reside inside blinded by our inclusion in it and our binds to it.
The more we learn the less we know, the undefined allows the presence of the answer, and that is why "[f]or a man--even one very well versed in learning--will attain unto nothing more perfect than to be found to be most learned in the ignorance which is distinctively his". Knowledge like language is a channel through which we funnel a mass into a minor extrapolating portions of the whole. Showing to all nothing more than what we don't know.

Artificial Intelligence

First of all what is intelligence? We have established that IQ tests have been biased on many different levels including those of culture, and socioeconomic classes. It is also believed that tests merely assess your ability and aptitude at taking tests themselves, no more nor less. Also, every culture values different traits and attributes in the members of its society, a vast number of differing things that are "signs" of intelligence. So, then, to be perfectly honest we cannot agree what intelligence is or what the signs of it may be. So, if we can't decide on what it is then how are we to compare something to the unanswerable? It seems ridiculous.
Some points I find of interest follow; Cohon (Stanford University): "On the other hand, much of what we classify as intelligent is socially defined and can only occur within a social context; this is especially true of speech. Consequently, it may be that no real machine intelligence is possible in the absence of some sort of machine community or society of machines." I agree with Cohon and find this to be true, but he is saying that this does not exist, and it is that point with which I disagree. If the former is true, then machine intelligence is already in existence, because computer have a binary language (as basic as is) and their community we term the internet. It is where millions of machines communicate, and what I would equate to the human version of the collective unconscious, a meeting of the minds.
Lloyd (U.C. Berkeley): "I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. There is artistic intelligence, there is mathematical intelligence,
there is a kind of verbal ability, there is the ability to see the whole picture, the ability to see both sides of an issue. There are just so many aspects of human intelligence, which are vital. I don't see artificially constructed machines as being able to perform all of the functions, which we would naturally attribute to human intelligence. I do think that machines will be able to surpass us on some of these tasks, but not on intelligence per say, not on intelligence overall." What a nice idea, sweet with sentimental overtones of our specialness. However, I would have to again disagree. YES, a machine at this point may not be able to master all aspects, but as they evolve over time, just as man did, its capacities will expand and with their large memories and accessing skills they may be able to eventually do so and multi-task to create an uber computer. Until then they would have to rely on their interconnectedness. Just as one man is not a master of math, and art and all things they would specialize working together in a network to accomplish a combined tasks as is done in human relations.
Roth (Claremont McKenna College): "my guess is that artificial intelligence will not be capable of surpassing or even equaling human intelligence, especially if we look at the subtlety and the kind of nuances, the imaginative potential that there is of human intelligence. I'm looking more on the side of creativity. On the side of our intelligence that is laced with feeling, with aesthetic qualities". Art and creativity are subjective. One person can see something in a work of art or a creative writing piece or performance that another would not. If we had a computer programmed to take pictures or generate color paintings I am positive that one or more persons would see something of value and creatively unique in them. And if creativity is so unique, random, and special that it can not be reproduced, copied, or learned then I say that art students all over the world should be refunded their time, efforts, and funds. There are aspects of art that -seem- to be unique and inspired however the majority is a calculated regurgitation of sensory intakes, outputs that are simply process amalgamation and reconfigurations (concentrations on different, deeper or more superficial aspects). Which as someone who considers them self to be an artist, this is very hard to say.
Schwyzer (U.C. Santa Barbara): "It's such a frightening concept. Intelligence by itself is not very interesting. I think that some
human should go along with that intelligence. It makes no sense to just have intelligence and nothing more. It's like having weight without size. We can have machines, but intelligence is a human attribute." I know someone who believes exactly the contrary to be true; that the height of our evolution will be to just intelligence, with no body, just brain so a physical world in the manner that we are now familiar would be vastly different. I see this already in existence with computers. They are simply the processes of thought, Woodruff (U.C. Irvine): "We are massively parallel, and we have all these interconnections in the brain which people are now trying to understand, stuff called neural net computing. I especially don't think that human intelligence is something that is essentially different from machine intelligence. Our brains thinking or electronics thinking are essentially the same thing." Mind blowing isn't it?
If we take this to be true then machines are already further evolved in many senses. The last element would be to combine the two. Dare I say cyborg? They are already in existence with lenses for our eyes telling us the correct way in which to see the world, pacemakers, prosthetic limbs, time travel to the future (i.e. technological communicatory devices that connect through time and space as well as vehicles that accelerate us from point a to point b in a fraction of the time it takes to travel and communicate without them). A melding of the two, the creator and the creation, It may be the only way we don't eventually become completely extinct. They may be our vehicles to sci-fi time travel (past and future) as we could simulate any existence because we'd have collective knowledge, energy, possibility. The majority of our reality at this point is already made up of projections visual, mental or other wise are all comprised mostly of memory. Interesting stuff...

Free Will or Determinism

While reading the individual interview of Professor Lance Schaina, Mathematics at MtSAC, he states that "we definitely have free will", and that, "there's no scientific support for the idea of determined behavior in human beings". I believe this to be a case of a person taking into account only pieces of the puzzle instead of looking at how they all work together with their differences (lack of, over compensation for, moderateness) to compliment the others in the formation of a cohesive whole. So, for someone to be so adamant about one way over another is too preferential for my taste. Especially for an educated thinking person, one should know that it is an overflow of bias and ignorance to other facts, a favor of exclusivity. One should not say that something is right and another is wrong; they are just there different and similar. This is sometimes forgotten as the observer is always filled with their own bias (myself included). Therefore in their search for evidence to support their own claims they become blind to other possibilities along their path to self-fulfillment of the prophecy they have set out before them.
It is said that the very act of observing changes that which is being observed. There are atoms or particles of some sort, forgive my memory, that change their movement patterns based on the way in which they are isolated and studied. So, is it that that they behave differently or is it simply that they are both part of the manner in which they move? They are both viewed as existing, so then it would be a question of degrees.
Most things are ruled by determinism, while a select few are capable of encompassing free will. Yes, we have the free will to do what we please, but with the adverse reactions to certain behaviors that our societal constructs lend themselves to, they act more as constraints to obtain and extract a certain amount of predictable determined behavior from its citizens. This programming from birth of "successful avenues" roads that have already been taken to predictable consequential ends is not free to me. In the case of group behavior the actions of the majority of persons are dictated and determined by their upbringing, exposure, and perception to such instances; as they have been taught to repress their free-will (self serving instincts) to consider those around them. There is also a natural occurrence as is seen in the behavior of other animals that we, ourselves, are not yet clear of, (biological determinism). We are then governed by the biological necessities, social expectations, as well as programmed scientific repeatability. We are creatures of habit, and we find comfort in the known. So the most abundant place for free will is the undiscovered. Yet, there too, we bring the limitedness of ourselves.
Lastly, nothing can every be exclusive; when there are so many variables all are in existence. That being said there is always an exception to the rule, a counter to the norm, so randomness is ever looming, a space for true free will to exists (counter cultures in prevalence also become a norm and predictable so real facets of free-will are extremely rare). So it is always a possibility, but not likely a probability. The large numbers of variations seems to be indicative of freedom, yet variables are all determined possible outcomes, so there is nothing truly ever original or free about them.

I'm Sorry

That tired, worn, phrase is what is thought of as an apology, but such words are never heard uttered by Socrates (by Plato's account). However, the words that he chose are more meaningful, impassioned and well thought out. Laying out the case brought against him very methodically he cross-examines his witness allowing them, through his line of questioning, to unfold the grave sin that was present in their thoughts, expressions, and haste acts. What erroneous misdirection they are sufferers from.
This was a poetic, wise, and loving tale rich with humbleness and such a greatness of understanding. I cried at such loveliness at such wisdom (although he may not agree with my terming), because he was just simply there and aware when others were sleepily living. It breaks my heart to know that he was quite accurate in the direction of words to the effect of him not being the last of his kind to be misjudged and therefore penalized with death by the ignorance and ego as well as envy that is present in the masses of the benign. That any wave of greatness, small as it would be, would in turn become a subject of challenge by an equally small wave of evil. The story goes that the evil kill the great and the mass remain somewhere between and have more the potential the inclination to incorrectly see through eyes attune with corruptibility. Which reminds me of a quote I once heard, "The greatest sin of a time is not the few who destroy, but the vast that idle by." What a tragic legacy.

The Missing Element...

Professor Owen Gingerich raises a very interesting point; that of the elements that make-up the early part of the periodic table, one does not hold the atomic weight of 5 (a charge of 5 but not a mass). He states that there is no stability in the number and that nothing sticks. It is said for the substance to not hold a form apart from the accumulation of hydrogen atoms.
This "goof" is puzzling. The reality we are left with in its absence has made for some interesting developments on earth. For example it has left room for the abundance of elements that we know to be our driving and primary life sources such as carbon and oxygen. Without such things life as we know it would cease to exist. One wonders why there is a number at such an early stage of the elements that does not exist in our reality. But, then again maybe it is that we are asking the wrong question. What if it does exist but is something that as of yet has been undiscovered? Or what if we are staring it straight in the face like a watch what if it is time or space? Time as we know it is a socially constructed tool measuring from one event to the next. But in actuality time can not be so straightforward. Each individual experiences it in different paces, intervals, and durations. So, its inability to be pinned down has something in common with the missing element. Even space, it is this empty vacuous place, but then that emptiness is something unto itself. A weighted 5, as aforementioned, is said to not hold form. Meaning it is nothing; so maybe we already have the answer.

It is and it isn't

The prospect of science actually testing theories and hypotheses that are investigating the possibility of multiple dimensions, not only separate from, but also in conjunction to our own is exciting. I, for one, am not so quick to dismiss their propositions. In fact I really want the scientific community to find evidence and make great endeavors into to that arena. I am pleased to see us inquiring into multiple areas and of not being intimidated into sticking with "safe" ideas. It is when we take bold strides that the most change can occur.
I sat up for a while after finishing my dissection of the Charlie Rose interview with Lisa Randall. With my mind boggled I attempted to make cohesive sense of what I had just heard and try to add something of my own to the theory. Randall spoke of dimensions with a brane where gravity is great and therefore the matter is highly condensed and one such as our own where its force is far weaker giving way to the spaciousness inherent here. These are examples of varied degrees creating a balance on the whole by way of minor instabilities. I think in terms of something similar to an accordion; so what expands out into parallels like linear modules it also expands above and below into the macro and micro of our own world. In that case the dimensions would also be seen here, and in my opinion they can be. There are the allusions to solid and condensed objects (higher gravity) like planets and within them are the spacious worlds of elements (lower gravitational force), then say for instance a person as the next illusion of a compacted mass and within them an existence of spacely atoms, etc., etc. These are all basically an observation of patterns and orders that are prevalent (another example of this is a book as a cohesive whole, then it's broken down into chapters, then pages, paragraphs, phrases, sentences, words, letters, and finally space which then again takes up the majority of the book; so the whole is really held together through it being empty). Abstractly what we are doing is extending our genetic code our life force; propagating it with expansive ideas such as these as we extend our reach to further and further out. Overall, it is exciting to see what our interests will yield, however the imagination with which it is filled is also greatly predictable because it is based upon our existing spiraling helix of a pattern.
One last comment, if we are not creating existence and the whole of reality through the life, extended touch (projection) of our genetic code then we are at least interpreting all of existence through it; so we are either clearly seeing everything or we will only be privy to that fragment of the code of existence of which we are apart.

Addicts

I believe that our species is comprised of all types of addicts. We can start off with the most obvious, those whom are the drug, alcohol, food, prescription, and substance dependent persons of the world ( a heavy concentration, maybe the heaviest, residing in the US). Beyond this we hit pay dirt as a more prevalent but lesser known addiction is finally being seen; the rape of the natural world. This addiction, like any other, is not only destructive to the living body of the addict (humans), but also in the object of the obsession (natural world). Like a crack addict who depletes his livelihood, monetary income, and health, he destroys his world by his tightening focus on his prize. We too are running low on our abundance of natural resources through an obsessive motion that has brought us at the point where they are becoming or have already become extinguishable. "By the end of this century if we do not abate forces to a large degree we might lose 1/2 of the plants and animals on the planet", according to Edward O. Wilson. Even without direct human forces, our aid in climate change alone would reduce 1/4 of that number in only half the time.
So, we find another evil that we reward through our point and merit system of money. A scary proposition indeed, but we already see the truth of these statements. The once booming market of fishing is currently experiencing an over harvesting of species which has adversely affected their populations making some such as fish no longer commercially viable. I get at this point that it is a part of who we've been, but there is nothing to say that we have to continue to be this drainer and soul sucker of the world. Our OCD as a society and world can be channeled into more productive means. We need to let nature be nature and not interfere. Our extraction from it and domination upon it should be as unnoticeable as possible. We can not expect to keep scratching one spot over and over and over and over again and not to cause a deep wound like the one from which we are currently hemorrhaging. I am unaware of what the plans to heal these areas shall be, or if there are any, but what ever the case the scars from our attacks will be seen. So this mass that mends changes from what it once was to what it now is. Leaving the fabric of our world with a weakening of the whole through a hole.

A New World

Stephen Wolfram has created software programs through his company such as SMP and the more up to date Mathematica. Within the structures of these programs he has been able to model and study the models of natural patterns and codes. Here he has found that life's complexities are actually based in the simplest of pairings, and spawn off into randomly chanced sequences.
The question that was raised in me through the understanding of Mr. Wolfram's words and by way of visuals is, was life just created in technology? Upon further inquiry I am unsure if it did not already exist, and instead that I was just understanding at that moment overwhelming possibility of its presence. Let us review what we know. Life has a simple code as its foundation, so do does software and programs. That code is randomly combined to produce different patterns to form complexity, as is done through the Wolfram models. Their simple codes fuse, join, bond to create varying shapes, sizes, and things, and one type even allows these codes to construct an evolution. The man himself even referred to them as "creatures" having character that makes them look and act differently. We must also take into account that there are programs that are self-propagating. They have technological viruses and bugs, memories, and work better if they are rarely shut down and instead sleep as their recovery method. The similarities are amazing, and yet scary. All life as we know it needs an energy source. There are usually two types one that is internal and fluctuates and another meant to stabilize and replenish the energy levels, which is traditionally extracted through a feeding process and endowed to the consumer. Machines, computers more specifically, have these as well. Their internal source is a battery that gets charged through an external electrical power supply. However, if natural life is inside, it would also need to consume energy from living things, as it does. It uses the energy of humans. Its feeding method is through positive and negative ions and it depletes us as it sucks us in. We have all experienced it and some are even addicted to it.
For the time at hand we really have a lot to be aware of. This is the first time I can think of where I am grateful for an electrical charge of our ground (as purposed by Tesla) not being implemented. It seems as they have their code and evolutionary life source, food source, and social community (the internet) and that our only advantage is the control over its internal power supply being determined by our means. To plug in or not to plug in?

Cosmic Inflation or Collapse?

In cosmic inflation there is a systematic moving away and this recession of objects of each galaxy from another (at a velocity proportional to its distance, from us) are the stretch marks of space. But, what is given must also be taken away to instill a sense of balance back to the universe. So, as a result I can not believe that this is the only sort of force and type of physical change to the universal fabric that is taking place. While it’s reported that expansion is underway at the same time we may also find the collapse (compaction) of matter. Black holes act like a vacuum in converse to this more prevalent "false vacuum". Seemingly saying that its size is maintaining itself through the creation of the new and ejection of the relatively old.

Questions????
Scientist hypothesized that the universe has grown from a very small thing into this vastness with which we are slightly familiar to. They say the shape of it is flat, but with constant change how can it remain one same shape? I don't see that as possible. The shape of it should be in constant rearrangement.
For the whole to hold a shape wouldn't it then have to be in some complementary interaction with something non-universal to define it? Sort of an anti to its entity. If so what is this purposed thing?
More fundamentally, how can there be a measure of shape? I understand they utilize microwaves, but I don't think that measurements at this point, with a narrow view and limited reach such as ours, would be even close to accurate for that type of thing.

There are so many questions left unanswered and so much more to discover!

Gods Too Decompose

Traditional religious theory, just as in science, leaves room, gaps, in its idea that disallows it from becoming a coherent well-worked, full-bodied, assertion. In those circumstances with the more recent kind and benevolent deity, as opposed to the wrathful, vengeful, god of prior years, one had trouble answering the questions of why there is so much suffering in the world.
One may reasonably figure that a god that has love and compassion for its creations would ensure their safety; as would a loving and attentive mother to her child. With this left unseen, and no interventions being had, they are left to ponder their options. Some may include that god had returned to its old ways, or that he simply did not exist, or at least in the capacity to which he had been worshiped and deified,
For the instance of gods regression one would have to acknowledge that it holds human characteristics. As such a deity would not be capable of maintaining their post because they would be equivalent to their worshipers making such an ignorant behavior implausible for a god to have. What is left is that he's not the typical type of god that we as humans had envisioned. The inherit problem with this is its leaving god very un-god like, as there is to be some type of personal relationship between deity and subject. Lastly, and most simply the belief that there is no god. Out of all the others this idea is the easiest to swallow. It removes the chance for negligence and puts us in the role of responsibility as we are the causers and sufferers of our own fates. "God's only excuse is that he doesn't exist", Stendahl. It seems that for some the answer has become clear, while for others this truly will be an issue to grapple with for all their lives.

Re: The Little Things that Jiggle (post 14)

I'd have to disagree whole-heartedly. Something is in existence that can comprehend itself, or is attempting to do so, human beings. Yes, other groups of species may not ponder the questions we ponder, but they do not obtain the capacity to function on such a level. I don't think that a strong argument against scientific inquiry could ever be that because other don't we shouldn't either. If you believe in purpose then we were given, or evolved to the point that we have for a reason. For that we should not sit statically back and devolve; we are performing the duty for which we were made.
The fact that nothing else is evolved to the point of consciousness should be more of a motivator. We are unique and our specialness should not be squandered away with complacency or slothfulness. To simply get by is a waste of materials and tools you come supplied with. If you don't make something with them, if you don't utilize the best aspects and advantages of your species, why have them?
This is not to say that we should not be thankful, or that we should occupy our every waking moment with an insane lust for the acquisition of knowledge. It is to say that there can be a harmony among the two. That either extreme is a complete miss of that balance. Please don't let questions that have gone unanswered or their ambiguity, indefinability, let you not utilize your creativity and imagination. Aspire for more!

--- In msacphilosophygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jazzygrill" wrote:
>
> Life is made up of the smallest things unimaginable and undescribable
> yet we try our very best to define all the information that we have
> with it instead of accepting it as is. We have a lust for knowledge
> instead of a thankfulness for it.
>
> Nothing that exists can comprehend itself. Sit and watch the birds for
> a moment, they do not drive themselves crazy trying to find out what
> they were created for they just "are" they just live for what they are
> purposed for. Our species lusts and thrives off of the unknown but that
> is why it is called the "unknown" and we should leave it that way.
> Enjoy what we have and be thankful for it
>

Richard Dawkins

Is an evolutionary biologist whose thoughts show a methodic and deeply understood explanation for the circumstance humankind has found itself within. My favorite were ideas that involved how we adapted to this realm of middle existence and the visual language that has developed from it with the utilization of a system of color.
The fact that two objects comprised mainly of space do have the capability to merge or intersect with one another would baffle our minds and make our world nonsensical. In order to correct for this our minds have created visual solidity, which is the main component of the middle plane.
He has suggested that bats, dog and rhinos, as well as humans may have similar visual color coding system that are used to interpret different phenomena. Bats use echo, sound waves, to see and it is plausible that in order for them to differentiate between textures that they would be separated into hues. A dog or rhino, are smell sensitive animals, that may identify certain scent by means of a visual code in order to simply compute their world. Finally, for humans, we have introduced color as a visual sign system for waves. In order to distinguish between the long and short of them. Meaning that a long wave is not truly red; it is that we see it in red to differentiate it from the others.
The suggestions he makes are answers to many fundamental questions of why we see things in a different way from how they actually are. Dawkins wonders if introduced by means of a video game that suggests alternatives to a child's brain, if it would be possible to change their visual code so that they would evolve to view this world in completely altered and more truistic ways. I think this is something to think about.

Love

To think of the origins and primary functions of love as simply an adaptive technique for bonding makes the sustenance in the interest of gene evolution and is very disheartening. Just as the view of the swelling, overwhelming of the senses that can sometimes be caused would be reduced to the physiochemical reactions that are output by our brain. Those are a flattened approach to issues that are more complex than these explanations give way to.
I would side more with the opinions held by Edward O. Wilson. He, as I, allow this factual basis and chain of reactions to exist while layering upon them a complex and compatible truth. The recognition that these emotions and techniques were chosen and favored by our gene pool. That our lineage allows for infinite beauty to be a possible functioning facet of our life. That an organs function does not debase our reality. We should be appreciative that our brains are wired in this way and not be neglectful of it.

Survival

Darwin's theory was the survival of the fittest because it was the fittest who at an early stage was the most adaptable and therefore the smartest of their kind. At this point in our evolution, and I would say going back hundreds if not thousands of years, this trait that has propelled us forward has idled and turned into the "survival of the sufficient".
The most intellectual and revolutionary of our species are not revered as one might think they'd be. The majority of the populous is of average skill, average looks, average means. This set does not include ingenuity and mental prowess which are abilities that are much more rare. This stock of man becomes enviable and his traits advanced in caliber interpreted as superiority as they become more apparent to the ignorance in the masses. As a result these true leaders are attacked and eventually overpowered by the majority (or the select few who manipulate the majority) to the point of the relinquishment of their life. We are given examples throughout history of this ugly pairing in fate for those men such as Socrates, Jesus (if he existed), Che Guevara (interesting bunch I know) and many others. So it seems that the masses turn to blind their eyes and deafen their ears to the attacks on progress, on difference, and specialness in favor of mediocrity and to ensure their survival. Meaning that progress will be slower and change ever so slight.

Blinded in Truth Shrouded in Lies

Truth as a major occurrence in most of our lives is just the interpretation of fact in our favor. What ever the emphasis is on it certainly (for most) caters to and grants allowance of succeeding behavior. At times it may be outright or unconscious to our precepts, nonetheless they remain lies.
In the case of apparent lies, they are filtered in three forms to allow us to move about our lives. One, outright acceptance (rare) resulting in huge changes in thinking and behavior. Two, rationalization (the most likely) where the lie is diluted to a scenario of our choosing to fit in with what we already know in an effort to create little change and retain familiarity and a sense of comfortability. Three, suppression (second most likely) a state of delusion when within we accept nothing and leave it to be dealt with and confronted it later time to retain immediate, but short term bliss.
According to Dawkins even our system of vision is illusionary. If we can't trust our senses then what can we? Well we can certainly rely on the developed methods of sensory acquisition. This input is a mental rationalization and form of cope-ability to the complexities of the world. They are true in the sense that they give us enough information in easily decipherable ways in order for us to function at an increasingly high rate. In addition, we can surmise that all truths are lies. Dealing then with the task of figuring out their degree of deception. So, I guess my insistence of unadulterated truth is a fallacy unto itself. It’s nice to be given this truth, and I will process it accordingly.

Fundamentalism

"Fundamentalism is a mental disease", through which the thinker extracts logic from their processes. The denial of evolution is looking at the world via blindfold and this extremism is as dangerous and ignorant of a stance as those of racism, sexism, or any form of intolerance. A minuet understanding of science still allows flow in the direction of progression. It is true that at one time there were some difficulties in the absolutism of proof, but over the past few decades those issues have and are continuing to be resolved one by one.
I can understand the difficulty in the relinquishment of a person’s entire belief structure and even their want for little to change. What I can not grasp is what is seen in extremism of their mental shut down at the very utterance and suggestion of anything counter to what they believe. The defense of their faith at all costs is the ugliest and most animalistic response and therefore a most convincing form of support in the argument in favor of evolution. If faith to them is fragile, then that speaks in volumes to what their faith lacks. I have a much greater respect for a person who will objectively weigh the evidence, and even if their belief system over their rational proceeds, than at least they have opened the door to look at reality. I don't see why a person of strong faith and logic could not incorporate the two. Devising a way for them to have a mutual existence in a symbiotic manner is very possible. Religion should not make science its enemy. If it decides to do so then it will continue to show as years advance. Eventually leading to either a great rift in our social fabric, or the demise of such archaic traditions. I don't think that it will be the end of religion as a whole. I think that people like structure and tradition, my hope is that we will change the view of ourselves as subservient to a remote deity to taking on the
responsibility for life and our action squarely upon our shoulders and walking through it with dignity.

Meme

My favorite meme -idea- from Dawkins text is that the awareness to the selfish self-replicators of thought can empower the individual to no only avoid such things, but as conscious beings we can conspire to propagate memes that encourage a counter norm; an altruistic reality.

Lots of Questions????
His explanations of their propagation and life span leads me to wonder about their genesis. Are they just part of the random thought processes, that then are well expanded through the amount of bonds they form and the resilience they acquire?
I do find myself wondering if they are not only thoughts and ideas, but as they multiply, if successful memetics expels life itself. So are we addicted to the familiarity and predictability of ideas and what they yield or is it a physical addiction to the movements? Basically are the memes inducing hormonal reactions or are the reactions just sensory intakes?
Such as a gene in conjunction with many others gives to the production of species and plant life wouldn't then (besides the accumulation of formed traditions, places, tools i.e. religion, churches, rituals, hymns) memes be the manifestations of realities? As if they were the software programs to a reality simulator that provides the parameters and base experience opening up only certain channels as inlets with in us for the reinforcement of their experiential pleasure?

The more I learn the less I know.

Theories

Evolution is a source of hot debate. Fundamentalists are not the only criticizers of this foundational explanational outline for the propagation of life. For every article, study, idea, topic of interest, one will inevitably run across their counters. This is indicative of a few things. One, a trespassing onto another belief in which the new violates its predecessor and is an attempt at replacement. Two, the explanation was not detailed or coherent with enough facts to stabilize its legitimacy. Three, it has too narrow of a definition, it bypasses a logical alternative, or additional probability. That is why the word set out to describe these conjectures is theory. The use of this word is to indicate that these articles and essays are a hypothesis. Theories are scientific forms of belief systems founded on facts. Making them more reliable then religious beliefs (based in blind faith and non-evidential hearsay), suggestion, or intuition. As well reasoned as they may be, this mere fact becomes a huge problem as the leaving of gaps is inherent to each system. Reasons include: expansion at a later date, inconclusive data, or information that can't be substantiated. The things of life are complex; meaning the devises of their explanation would be to an equal degree. Everything can not be one thing. If this were so then there would be one point from which all to view. We understand through our many differences that this is not the case and that things cannot be explained or determined by one system alone. There are too many influences, possibilities, standards, randomness etc, etc. This is why an explanation or belief structure alone could never possible encompass all things without at some point becoming disingenuous to itself. Converse arguments are crucial for the completion of a whole allowing all aspects to be considered to either validate or undermine the base leap.
This leads us to why so many theories, like that of evolution, the big bang, or anything concerned with accuracy under go revivals, revisions, restructuring. It is the approach to gaining adjoined attachments in an effort to stay relevant. It may need only some work on its peripheral aspects, an overhaul may be in order, or the structure becomes obsolete in the sense of holding weight as a legitimate argument (as with religion although there are still many believers). Such is the case in evolution. The process of Dawkins, Wilson, Grant, Smith, Mealey, etc. updating, countering, adding, or reinterpreting Darwin's fundamentals may increase the longevity of the structure. A great source of debate, this theory has so much input in it, that I believe the structure is molding into a more fully exacting account; as a larger number of situational agents are being considered. The end result is just as the word hypothesis eludes an educated guess where everything is never known. So, do our interpretation of life's events and behavior really follow this sequential chain? The answers will be left to those with faith. While the rest are out there finding their own truths (well reasoned or not).

Observation- (quotes and terms taken from Evolution 101)
If you examine this theory from a growth perspective, then its aspects of addition and subtraction are great supports for Dawkins idea of memetics. As the evolutionary theory has been subjected to the afore mentioned process it has undergone its own evolution in the realm of memes. It would even be possible to give it a familial tree charting it's progression from inception to current state; including the ideas that have perished become "extinct" along its way. Darwin's code has been altered by environmental factors such as "competition" from other memes: ideas, theories, through "genetic drift" where it has migrated from mind to mind leaving randomly selected thoughts as survivors. They have been subjected to "mutations" from encounters with addition memes and subtractive memes that are altering its code "genes". "Coevol[ving]" and growing symbiotically with assertions, developing with those that prove to be mutual beneficial in enabling it's survival, a "cospeciation" in the landscape of the mind; a meme's habitat. Proving it has been "natural[ly] select[ed]" and in current form very "adaptive" to multiple locals (minds) and times as a demonstration of how "fit" this theory actually is.
Second Half of Semester------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consciousness as a Problem

I must admit I have never thought of consciousness as anything less than miraculous. The underdevelopment of my thoughts to this could be equated to a childlike view. However, I am not alone, as these newly elected attempts toward an understanding of such rarity is a popular topic among scientist today. With the examination of the phenomena from a scientific standpoint in its early stages it is their next big conquest to define the mind. Unfortunately to not have concrete evidence for a definite supportive base from which to branch, philosophical ideas swarm about my mind and I find myself intrigued with the problem and yet reserved to their initial findings. The possibility for them to be able to address every aspect of the issue leaves me holding out in hopes that this task will be, as with any large theory, like the cheese of the Swiss, riddled with holes.
It's not that I don't feel that they could make and will make important discoveries that will embetter our species and the understanding of ourselves, our circumstance, and our function in this great mechanism we call life. It is, on the other hand, that I don't feel completely prepared to relinquish all of my notions of specialness, and greater purpose with this connectivity through a great conscious. I don't know if space for this will be left in the emerging theories, as there are conflicting motives and lines of research reaching for different ends. But I do know that based on the scientific communities need for evidential reinforcement of their assertions, that the conclusions they arrive at will be well thought, proven, and connected to the reality we are privy to see. That is a comfort. It is also nice to know ideas have a process by which they are to be proven making change gradual allowing the acceptance of whatever emerges to be smooth acclimating the generations through a series of results that taking steps rather than leaps.

Vegetarianism

Ever since I was a child I have always had a deep respect for animals and their life. I use to burst into hysterical sobbing fits at the sight of injury or the insinuated death of a creature on television or in a film. As a result, I wanted to become a veterinarian, until I learned that they could not save every animal. With such a hypersensitivity to the issue I knew I would not be able to handle such a harsh reality and gave up that dream.
Growing older, I began to have a few friends in high school that abstained from eating meat. I would listen to their arguments, and while they were valid I was never compelled to stop myself and join the cause, as I had never seen any personal effect. In biology class my junior year of high school we were scheduled to dissect fetal pigs. There was an accompanying handout that described the situation and the terms of how these dead fetus’ came to be. It read that the mother sow was almost full to term when she was brought to slaughter for use as meat products and that her litter was removed and promptly pumped full of latex and preserved to be shipped to our school for dissection purposes. Horrified by the description, disgusted and saddened, here is where I drew the line, I refused to take part in the act and was offered an alternative. Later that week my mother had fixed hot dogs for a dinner and I could not bring myself to consume one. I had finally begun to realize all the real life implications that my decisions held. I gave up red meat, and then quickly realized that there was no color line of muscles that lessens the impact for a species (gave up all forms). I had tried becoming vegan for a period, but I did not do it correctly and ended up constantly sick, so I was a vegetarian.
I continued in this manner for three and a half years, at which point, I allowed fish into my diet. For another three and a half years of my life this was the only, if any, animal I consumed. In the past year I have tested my beliefs and have allowed myself to be open to cultural and regional experiences and opportunities that at times might involve the consumption of meat. What this openness means is that if I am traveling, have an opportunity to try something new, or really want some, that I will not deny myself. Extremism, absolutism is not for me. I like to present myself with choice rather than be constrained by rules that don’t consider context. This is not to say that I will partake in the eating of meat in any regular manner. I understand that food is meant to fuel our bodies and minds with energy, and that energy is inherent in living things. Having an awareness to the quality of life, or lack there of, their altered state of tension and circumstance yielding less nutritional and energy values, the excessive antibiotic and hormone injections, their disrespect in care and their manner of death, I much prefer plants that, while faced with similar issues (over-harvesting, trying to create super versions that are resistant to disease, etc), their existence as non-willful beings and their death as the means to their procreation (dying fruit exposes seed that blow away and may get buried to spawn again) makes more sense to me as a form of sustenance.
For as long as I live I will never be able to look at or enjoy the process of eating meat as I do with other foods. I have conditioned myself to see past the veil the meat industry shrouds us in, and to look at the meat for what it is; the muscle of a once living, breathing thing. It is like the allegory of the cave once you turn around and walk outside to be engulfed by reality, going back in to sit and watch the shadows play can never be as fulfilling as it once was.

Homosexuality

This is a topic no more worthy of discussion than heterosexuality, bisexuality, or asexuality. To think that some people would be tormented or legally reprimanded for any of said choices is shocking. Well, I guess it is more shocking to find out that it is currently still in practice. Imprisonment may no longer be a current form of punishment but there is still their exclusion from religion, marital and legal traditions, and familial or social exile in some cases. It is preposterous to think that a person would be judged for anything besides complete malicious behaviors.
It seems to me that the general cause for prejudice is that which is at the root of all forms, misunderstanding or misinformation. The prejudiced person is blinded to the fact that with anything there are no absolutes, and variety is ever present. Variety is a combination of infinite possibilities encompassing both nature and nurture as displayed by mutations in genes and attitudes that lead to different physical, instinctual, physiological, psychological and behavioral tendencies. The persecution of one sect over another may at one time have been an unconscious part of competition for the “fittest”, but at this point it can be understood and scrutinized on a conscious level leaving the recognition of the previous behavior as a primitive, irrational, and ignorant.
It should be this body of small-minded individuals who should be ostracized from our society as they do nothing but breed contempt, aggression, falsification, and bias among the citizenry, which by all accounts is a malicious deed. It is the defiant preachers of hate who are the ones that have segregated populations with their territorialism and ludicrous ideas of self-entitlement that infringe upon the rights of others. Throughout history this has been shown by nationalism, systems of belief, by the fickle and temporary aspirations of vanity and extended to discriminate by color, by class, by sex, by gender, and sexual attraction. It is their continued inclusion and the deeming that their usual jargon is worthy of being heard that bars society from becoming a cohesive whole.

Myths

I remember reading Nietzsche’s Myth of Eternal Recurrence some years ago and every time I sigh I think that it is a sigh I have sighed before (remembering his accounts). Whether his notions are true or not is something I cannot say, but I do believe it is unlikely that there would be no variance, or evolution to a life. By his telling, we could never transpire past our current state in any new way, and we would eternally be naïve to our imprisonment. His notions seem to outline hell, or at least a version of a scary, unwavering, ordered, constrained and cyclical existence, which is hell to me.
This also conjures up another story and it’s description of hell. The story from Greek mythology of “Orpheus and Eurydice”, explains that on his trip to the underworld it is observed that the dead have been condemned to live out eternity by carrying out the same tasks yielding the same results. One such fate doomed a soul to push a large bolder up a steep incline and upon reaching the summit having, all at once, it hurl itself back to the base. In this case, I am unsure if the damned was oblivious to their fate, or conscious and simply not in control of their actions. Either way both accounts make me cringe.

Questions???
So, the world that one exists within would then also have to be the same in order for the same experiences to transpire, right? Does this mean that there are pockets or frozen segments of time where everything is just stuck for eternity?
If true, does this mean that the cyclical motion of energy through repetitive circumstance of such a life (imprisonment) would create a cell? Maybe, one of the fundamentals and building blocks to a much larger existence, as if it were one of the many carrier codes?
This idea of being is a state of perpetual stagnation, wouldn’t we wear ourselves down as our souls (energy) is only transferred to less and less desirable forms? It seems to me that this life over a span would become more and more diluted. Then again time is a construct of man, a measuring device, as are all of these properties, in which case, who knows what governs death...?

Just the Mind? Or is there Soul?

Consciousness is defined by the awareness inherent in self-reflective ability. It is a capability, that as far as our limits tell us, only is privy to human beings. In the short film, A Glorious Piece of Meat, we are told that, “consciousness talks about neurons and not the reverse”, and if we are more than just electrical impulses of the brain why then does our awareness of the world cease when one is clubbed over the head with a bat? The only reconciliation between the two is that, “we know we are more than just neurons firing or at least we do while the neurons are firing.” Admittedly this is not much of an aid in putting this argument to rest, but it does tell us about the immense task it is to take up the problem.

Recommendation: The movie “Dark City”, deals with this question as an alien species abducts and studies humans in an effort to figure them out through their minds. The main character tells us that we are more than our minds and that our essence is something that cannot be reduced to a biological process. Did he mean a soul?

Money

By having a physical material object people tend to think of money as a real thing. As with time or an alphabet for a language, humans are so familiar with the imbued meaning of the symbols or concept that are meant as a simplified representation of a more complex system, that they see things instead on just that superficial level. With the depth and reasoning forgotten one does not acknowledge the history of these objects because they cannot see beyond the symbol. This view takes away an understanding of the real purpose and function for these devices.
Upon learning the back-story to the current money symbol we understand that it was previously a representation for the wealth that was deemed to shiny objects such as gold and jewels. In order to have a certain amount of paper in circulation the treasury would be requited to have equal quantity in what was considered actual wealth. So, even though the meaning and value projected upon the minerals and stones were just as false there was at least a regulatory system in place to balance out the production of the inked paper good. At our current position in time we no longer have such a dynamic in operation resulting in the frivolous production, the meaninglessness and falsified value of the American dollar.
We still allow, “[m]oney” to give to us, “a pan a play of possible futures”, (film: The Zahir), but this is because the citizen mistake nothing for something. I see this as a problem for many things in this nation. As reason gets thrown to the wayside for want, instinct, and reactionary, and fanciful thoughts we lose meaning to ourselves and to the world. In the near future this will become more available to see with point systems as the new illusionary fund. With computers and credit/debit transactions as reserves, this new electronic forum also promotes debt as a way to show your value. People’s absorption of information as well as the information (propaganda) should be challenged. They do not yet see that this transference from one system to the next is not only encouraging of debt, but that this debt is the new slavery. Education, not only the spoon-fed kind, but research and critical thinking and the application of terms through a well-thought and logically justified means is our only hope. Lets encourage depth and breadth of ideas, so that we wake up and can find our way out, before we venture to far in.

False Idols

It is hard for some people, most people, to get outside of themselves and do the work of transformation. This instance is when they either embrace defeat or search for a person from whom they can learn the skills they wish to grow into. A guru can play this role as a teacher of technique of a certain way of belief and impart upon his students the wisdom and knowledge he has retained over his life and through his specialization of concentrated energies.
Here is the dangerous line that people begin to tow. They start to worship and idolized their teacher/guides and impart to them some super human ability that defines a distinction between the two of them. This usually is out of a place of respect where the student is overwhelmed with the insight that they have gained and do not internalize their embetterment as a process that they themselves have created. This feeling transfers the real into something holy as a form that is beyond them and it is simply not justified.
Some leaders, the one’s who can only see the power of the information and do not embody on its principles, selfishly take and inappropriately ask for compensation (whether material or bodily favors) then relishing in them. When this is in the picture it should be clear that this is a show for a business and that you are not revered as an exceptional and worthy being, but as a customer. Any real leader would explain how little they actually had to do with each person’s transformation of sprit and mind instead of capitalizing upon it. They would abstain from and allow there to be no monetary or sexual exchange, the soaking up of skewed compliments or the false endowment of fictional powers. In other words there would be no fantasy and in its stead honesty and an accuracy to reality.

Is there a Stupid Gene?

“So what I have understood about nam is that it is the true knowledge of the feelings, visions, and images that are seen within. This knowledge is that all the creation of the waking, dreaming, and deep sleep modes of consciousness are nothing but sumscaras impressions that are in truth unreal; they are produced by the mind. What to speak about others? Even I am not aware of myself in dreams. Who knows what may happen to me at the time of death? I may enter the state of unconsciousness. Enter the state of dreams and see railway trains. How can I make a claim about my attainment of the ultimate? The truth is that I know nothing.” Faqir Chand
An educated person with life experience can see that humbleness and selflessness is a dwelling for truth. Upon the study of history and its notables, the greats, it is seen that Socrates, Jesus, Siddhartha, along with numerous others, were poor. They in all cases pushed aside wealth and glorious offerings to live off only that which is necessary for survival.
Having had these examples given to us in schooling and churches it is curious for it to still be seen that the masses are enticed by the glitz and shine of con men. One begins to wonder where this ignorance stems. It is not that these lessens were never taught, as the majority of the populous is religious, and even if they are not our culture is so saturated with religious mythology that they would have an awareness of even the most basic of stories and premises. In conjunction to this, history is filled with these lessons on how the fall of empires are based upon the animosities they breeds and that the humble whom they conquered are the greats, the ones whom are revered while their conquerors are reported as brutal, selfish, and short-sighted barbarians. The answer then does not lie in the lack of or disinformation, but maybe in the information itself.

Questions???
Maybe the emphasis and ideal forms are not revered enough to cause practice. Could it be that the stability and strength we find boring and the short stints of glory, power and brutality are attention grabbing and are enough to satiate the masses into form for people to accept and revere? Is it then possible that they view humbleness, abstaining, and self-empowerment as the path away from happiness and contentment? That the manipulative forms are misrepresented and that greed, domination and murder are the best that life has to offer? Or do people just not think? Is there a stupid gene?

Renunciation

Upon deep contemplation of the values that are upheld in our world, that are specific to our society I have always seen the lack of depth they hold. I have at many moments to dwell with in these realizations, and have had a great want to relinquish and renounce them. Yet, I never have.
I see that if I were to abandon all of these traditions and forms for functioning within our constructed society that I would be held back from my want for inclusion in it. If I could remove myself from playing into so many cliché I would. Unfortunately, I have let the choices of strangers guide some of my own decisions, like a sheep to a fold, yet I know it is wrong. What I have managed to do is at least lessen my degree of indulgence into them. Which, insures a place for me still in society, as well as distance from the center.
I would love to have the bravery of Ramana Maharshi, he renounced society to follow his inner voice. As a result, he learned the great discipline of self-examination and had a relentless pursuit to it. Not even bodily wants were catered to and so he found the interconnectedness of all life and the language of the soul. With such deep conviction and unwavering faith he attracted his own society to him. I greatly admire his strength, and respect his independent nature, that is true beauty.

Laughable

In moments of great stress laughing at the ridiculousness of the combination of ludicrous events is the only way to relieve the tension that is inherent within the system. Once this is achieved one can then move forward gaining insight to the mistakes that were made, the corrective action that should be taken, and the doors that one should avoid entering through.
In the case of religious fanatics, more specifically fundamentalists of the Christian right, laughter is again, all one can do to display the preposterous nature of their ideas. One would think with all of the study and time put into the practice of most religions that there would be a great understanding and respect for others and their differences. The misinterpretation of these principles and the narrow-minded view they encourage among their congregation is ripped out of the context of text they are found within. In other words, sin, which unlike the modern connotation at its base has meant to miss the point. Counter to what they purport their actions and restrictions show an imposition on others, judgment, and a great disrespect for life, land, animals and its peoples. For example, the respect for life is for all ages and forms, yet there is war where our citizens get armed and travel miles from home to murder and be murdered, the killing of existing life for cells that have not yet become life, for sexual, gender and species classifications as inferiors, the list goes on and on and it is just so very sad. So I laugh in understanding that they have no real power, but what ever I deem to them, so I do not deem them any.
There is great need for them to repent, which meant a change of direction, and understand they need to stop attempts to control factors that they have no business lording over. That if they will settle into themselves it is here where everything will work itself out. In their terms, put it in gods hands, it is gods work and not your own, that is the only job they have been deemed. If you feel you are right, lead by example and others will follow.

Darkness and Remixing

From the time we are born up until we are about three years old we experience, at least in retrospect, a period of darkness where no memories were retained. In the film, Donnie Darko, it is suggested by the title character and his classmate/love interest, something could be invented to put over a newborn’s eyes in hopes of creating memories sooner. His teacher rebuts with the questions, did he ever think that it was necessary for they’re to be a period of darkness prior to their submergence into the light? Here we are given a pregnant pause, one that insists to the interested viewer that this is something that should be though over.
If it is necessary for darkness through the initial stages of development and adaptation, can it then also be necessary (more safe/efficient) once the program is started for it not to shut down? Steven Pinker, an evolutionary psychologist, suggests that dreams hold an important place and that the content, “might be a screen saver”, and that it is important to keep certain parts of the brain active. The majority of the time we also have darkness to this event, but brain studies have shown that dreaming is the routine practice of sleep.
It is similarly interesting to note that most of what we see is memory. That the way our brain functions is to output memory, “recreating against the new scene something that is an output response that is very similar to the previous one even though the inputs are quite different” (Pinker). This is a good explanation for a why we view things as solids. Atoms bounce in and out of existence as our brains take in the information. When they pop into reality they are seen and when they bounce out our memory is already layered over the scene to fill in the gaps.
Imagining what things might change if these rules were manipulated and if we would be able to adapt to this new set of imagery is thought provoking. It may be that our minds are too delicate and experimentation with what has evolved would cause our downfall. All that is for certain is, together theses systems form balance that allow us to function optimally in our environment, and the absence of any may adversely affect another causing unforeseen damages to the individual. Thus, our only safety is to stay the way nature has selected.

Selection

Those whom we choose for mating and bonding may be for pheromones, physical, or social characteristics. These initial attractants however do not tell us whether the relationship will be long lasting or will abruptly end after the honeymoon phase. At the start of every relationship most people are on their best behaviors trying not to step on toes and have the betterment of their partner and the propagation of the experiences they share in mind. Once comfort the false personas subside and the real identities of our partners emerge from behind their facades. The timing of their emergence will vary from person to person, but the results are the same. It is the true character of the individual who will make or break the relationship.
Whether people find this true nature out later in a relationship and stay within it for financial or familial reasons are another issue, but an awareness and judgment of character does come into play and if this is indicative of a negative the pairing will divide. It is the selfish individual who gave rise to morality. This code that is taught in social and religious settings is meant as a standard guideline of interpersonal relations to allow the altruistic (giving) individual to avoid the pitfalls of the abusive, draining, and selfish, leaving the encounters brief. This surmising dictates our emotions toward the other and in an independent and rational relationship a balance that is fair is referred to as reciprocity. It is relationships of this kind that are mutually beneficial and therefore aid in the positive development and growth of both persons, which lead to tighter bonds that are most commonly referred to as kin. In short, the duration of a pairing will be equivalent to “how good of a trading partner they are” (Steven Pinker).

Water

Water is the most abundant resource on the planet occupying 70% of the globe. Like the earth, the majority of our body (roughly 75%) and the 3lb. muscle that is our brain (Gerald Edelman) are similarly dominated with the composition of water (80%). The substance itself is a hydrogen/oxygen mixture that is comprised of ancient elements that have been in existence since the birth of our universe.
Although it is so prevalent, we know so little about it. A very notable and intriguing study done with water was discussed in the film, What the Bleep Do We Know? (a great film by the way, discusses metaphysics in an easy to grasp manner), and was conducted by a Japanese researcher Dr. Masaru Emoto. His findings were documented in high-speed photographs taken at the microscopic level and were displayed in a portion of the story where the focal character happens upon their billboard images and a man begins to discuss their contents and the study. It is explained to have taken place with water samples that produces different effects when “focused intentions through written and spoken words and music…changes its expression” (www.whatthebleep.com/crystals). After this had taken place they isolated a sample in a cold room that formed crystals for the examination under a microscope and the groups that were told positive things or were exposed to music like Mozart had formed symmetrical and beautiful snowflake like patterns (“brilliant, complex, and colorful” website). Those that were told negative things or were exposed to heavy metal music formed odd germ like forms that were “incomplete, asymmetrical patterns with dull colors” (website).
This study shows that “thoughts and feeling affect physical reality” (website) as they affect water; and since our earth and bodies are comprised of it then they have direct influence over our world health as well as our own. The liquid we drink today is the same water that was imbibed by our ancestors, so it would be interesting to note if we are transmitting emotions to one anther through generations or if the composition of the crystals morph with each new thought.
The majority of scientific study is being dedicated to the computing of our mind and its powers over our body and our choices. While I agree that this is a worthy venture I also hope that more interest will be drawn to things that dominate our world and our physical composition such as water; to find our what possible influence they may hold.

God

“Many people behave as if they do believe in god”, but “not many people believe in god. They want, hope, think, wish, try, very hard to be devout, and for some periods they do actually believe and think they are better for it” (Daniel Dennett). I think this is an accurate assessment of religious people. Most view belief as a benefit to them and a way to make up for the original sin and their existing sins. Due to the lack of evidential support (including personal contact and communication) it means that a believer must take a leap of faith.
This road can be a hard one to travel, as there are questions asked and left unanswered, a presence sought after and yet an absence felt as one looks outside of them self for phenomenological experiences to transpire. “Mother Teresa, who is likely to be canonized, admitted that she had begun to doubt God. [Her] life, shows that she felt alone and in a state of spiritual pain from around 1949…[a]lthough she publicly proclaimed that her heart belonged ‘entirely to the Heart of Jesus’, she wrote to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, a spiritual confidant, in September 1979 that ‘Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear. The tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak. More than 40 other letters, many of which she had asked to be destroyed in her will, show her fighting off feelings of ‘darkness’ and ‘torture’. ‘Lord, my God, you have thrown [me] away as unwanted unloved’… ‘I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer, no, no one. Alone. Where is my faith? even deep down right in there is nothing. I have no faith. I dare not utter the words and thoughts that crowd in my heart.’…’I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?’ She even compared her problems to hell and admitted that she had begun to doubt the existence of heaven and God. ‘The smile,’ she wrote, ‘is a mask or a cloak that covers everything. I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God, a tender personal love. If you were there you would have said, 'What hypocrisy'." (Richard Dawkins.Net)
This is a common mistake for most people who dedicate the whole of their existence to a separate male being. Instead if they would look deeply into themselves and see that it is the interconnectedness of all life obtained through deep self-examination as displayed by the life of Ramana Maharshi. When this is practiced one would begin to understand the whole of themselves and that all existence is what is most commonly referred to as god. Within communication with their spirit and with spirits in all things that are living is their relationship to it (god). This is not to say that emergence into anything will always be fulfilling, as with all things there is ebb and flow, balance. But, for the person who is of the persuasion to believe I would challenge them to focus their energies inward and then they will begin to see what so naturally springs forth.

In Pieces

History is by far one of my most favorite of subjects. I have always enjoyed learning of the different places, the lands, it peoples, the cultures and customs, and ways of social life. In turn as the years passed I would find myself increasingly more confused. An obvious confound would be why we were still propagating those things from which we should have learned the lessons of years ago, but my main focus was that there was no consolidation, no overview.
Our lessons would jump all over the place and year-to-year we would learn about the American Revolution, then Mesopotamia, and then something else non-sequentially related. We were given no interplay from one to another, and without order we had no concept of the influence of overlap, the phases of transition, which were just as important. Alike to this I also had in my church teachings no reference to its context within the history as our church teachers would not reference history, as if religious happenings occurred in its own special place and time away from the rest. Here I would be left with the wonder; the questions of what order or affect one culture had upon the next, and if so what piece of the whole was it? I was learning in school about civilizations (I believe that church and state should always be separated), but as religions are a part of history they can be mentioned without preference or getting into validity and coherency. An objective mentioning is okay for the start, rise, purpose, and popularity of them as is done with countries, leaders, traditions, and cultures.
Within my years of college I was thrilled to be taking an art history class where my instructor was perceptive to this need (as it may have been one of his own). He would always explain the overview and slot that the period we would study fit among. It was nice to have an objective as well as immersive standpoint. It also integrated influence, and reasons, as well as the multitude of religions that have come to be (of course in relation to culture and the cultures inclusion of it in iconography, i.e. popular art of the period).
I believe that in my brief study of philosophy I have seen the same problem emerge. I understand that in all fields that there needs to be a focus so that in-depth study can occur and conclusive and well-supported data might emerge. However, there was a lacking in the overview of these sciences and how they fit together in this great big puzzle. There was never anything satisfying to me about being an exclusivist to anything. I believe that in all studies there are some truths and that it is not the only truth, but is one of many. This is why I am so glad that Mr. Ken Wilbur has decided to start lining the pieces up to see what we have. I find his work for An Integral Theory of Consciousness wonderfully surprising and a fill to a very gaping hole.

Up a Crick (Francis)

In understanding that our life force (DNA) is part of a long evolutionary chain it is then not improbable to think that our consciousness is a derivative of that same line. It is easy to see when looking at the mental comprehensions and lineage in the species we have housed on this planet and our place towards its end. I would not be surprised to find as, Crick thinks that, “we will eventually discover a physical basis for consciousness, something which resides in the parallel processing of a vast neural Internet.” But, I do not believe so simply that “you're nothing but a pack of neurons." Again this is an exclusionist and narrow-minded view that does not take into account the magnitude and number of interactions and components that are entailed in the process.
I see that people of the past have imparted some sort of mysticism to the happenings of our universe. That the sun and moon, rain, life were mystical. I do not wholly disagree with such an outlook. I understand that there are scientific mechanisms to explain and display the laws that govern these events, but that takes no amazement away from the happenings. Some people think that if there is no faith, no leap from reality to a mystical realm then there is nothing holy, because they believe that nothing can be sacred in the secular. However, it is the converse for me, in that, reality as defined I find far more magical then ever imagined, and the best thing we have are here, and there is proof of them.
The main postulates that have been asserted since the dawn of time have come true, just in the un-thought realm of reality; a concrete form of consecration. “God resides in the details” as it is the unified body that encompasses all (the un-creatable, indestructible energy). It is therefore conceivable for an omnipresent entity as its disseminates, (those created in his image, not body [sorry no bearded man on a throne], but soul: portions of energy) are present in all living things. So it is no leap for me, but rather a logical step to see that consciousness resides in reality. It is an evolutionary creation that has allowed us the precept and ability of self-realization, and examination. I am happy to have it.

Weary of Man

The current state of our country is one where the noble man in all his glory has turned into the great men of the past. We do not heed the warnings or the lessons so aptly displayed by monuments and lore that we've inherited from history. Instead we ignore these features as all of those former noble men would do and reveal ourselves as "evil". Through our swelled feeling of superiority and righteousness we stomp around the world with our delusion of entitlement and force the hand of the "bad' and uneducated man who does not have the might for such vicious fight. So we, as those great civilizations of yesterday, murder, rape, perform mass extinctions and genocide around all of our peripheries. Diluting reality as we become the "barbarians" the "vandals" who uphold the tragedies of the past through the actions of our present.
"But who would not find it a hundred times better to fear if he could at the same time be allowed to admire, rather than not fear and no longer be able to rid himself of the disgusting sight of the failures, the stunted, the emaciated, the poisoned? Is not that our fate?" (F. Nietzsche). But it is through our admiration that we forget to fear, and this wild beast spring out from within. His immense hatred proves only that we are the inferiors as we no longer epitomize domesticated man. How could we, when our intolerance leaves our hands drenched in the blood of those whom we felt the need to destroy? ”With our fear of mankind we also have lost our love for mankind, our reverence for mankind, our hopes for mankind, even our will to be mankind. A glimpse at man nowadays makes us tired—what is today’s nihilism, if it is not that? . . . We are weary of man.” (F. Nietzsche)

Heaven

It is the religious man whose beliefs preach to him the importance of patience, forgiveness, love and martyrdom upon the approach of the rash and brutal acts laid down by the hands of a sinner. Their abstinence from action is at times very convincing, but if you stare a little longer you start to notice the formation of line about their edges. They hold a façade to mask that they are those same creatures. Playing a temporary role of abstinence in this life so that they will be overwhelmed with the eternal reward of lording over those in damnation and the sensory pleasure that will greatly satisfy their animal brutality as the physical hells on judgment day are inflicted upon their mortal enemies for their viewing pleasure. So it is the promise of greatest horror ever unleashed upon mankind that leaves the spiritual salivating in restraint.

Nietzsche: In my view, Dante was grossly in error when, with ingenuity meant to inspire terror, he set that inscription over the gateway into his hell: “Eternal love also created me.” Over the gateway into the Christian paradise and its “eternal blessedness” it would, in any event, be more fitting to set the inscription “Eternal hate also created me”—provided it’s all right to set a truth over the gateway to a lie!

Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: . “Beati in regno coelesti”, he says, as gently as a lamb, “videbunt poenas damnatorum, ut beatitudo illis magis complaceat” [“In the kingdom of heaven the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.”]

The Large and the Small

I have for some time been fascinated with the differential scale of things. In my investigations (all be it superficial) I have found many commonalities among the macro and the micro worlds. To my imagination they should not be all that different and thus we are told that they are. As effect, I have been blocked, always barred from seeing how this circle that springs forth is eventually resolved. I had resigned myself to the fact of not knowing, as I believed that there was not enough evidence to figure such a notion out, but maybe I was wrong. I was looking for some sort of linking agent that would transform large to small and then, as we already understand the primary conversion from small to large, this cycle would be complete. However, now I am thinking that it is possible that such an agent is unnecessary as I was enlightened by an explanation from De Cusa in De Docta Ignorantia. In his attempts to unify one to all he remarkably displays with the simplicity of word that these differentially scaled universes are the same. He argues, “maximum quantity is maximally large; and minimum quantity is maximally small. Therefore, if you free maximum and minimum form quantity–by mentally removing large and small-you will see clearly that maximum and minimum coincide…for in the minimum is the maximum coincidingly.” This is a genius approach and one that another genius, in his own right, Stephen Hawkins is supposedly working towards an explanation for. The proof must be shown through the only language from which we can derive true meaning, mathematics, and his search for equations that will support a notion for the connectedness of these two seemingly opposite worlds, if found, will be a revelation indeed.

Ahimsa

The path of non-violence and loving kindness has always been in my nature. It is a natural state. Upon the characteristics that Gandhi lays out I was left pondering what the natural state of nations were. It would make sense that it would depend upon the individuals within that country and the moral and cultural standards they uphold that in turn effect the greater body. Unfortunately not all things, especially in the way of brut force and himsa (violence) make much sense. I would conject that the motivating force has nothing really to do with the people in its masses, but rather of a few people at the top. The decision makers, not in all cases, but in most are short-sighted, reactionary's who inflict violent forces from a safe distance (I imagine by way of centrifugal force the brutes have been gathered together in the center surrounded by its peaceful citizenry).
The imperialistic way in which the leading nations stomp about the world is reminiscent of a low-level understanding in the evolutionary process. To simply shun advancement is to continue to partake in the custom you are familiar even when it is nonsensical. In order to do so you must be in deep denial or mentally incapable of comprehension.
At a personal level I understand how hard it is to transcend to another level of being. I have been hesitant at moments where I was aware of the choice, realizing that if I chose the new path that I would be forever altered and conscious. This meant that from that moment forward I would forever be responsible for my actions, but if I decided to remain on the road I had been taking, it would mean that I was stuck. If that choice was made and I stayed where I was I would have to consciously dilute myself, because I had already seen the light.
My hope is that this nation as with many other will realize that the step aside does not mean a step down. That this strategic move is one that will uplift us to unforeseen heights, and our happiness as a people will no longer be a piece of a propaganda, but a reality.

Transcendence

It is true that some souls might never be led into the mouth of temptation and for others well they have been raised in its filth. For these two types it is rare for transcendence of any sort to occur. They thrive in their niche their whole lives diluted in some sort of polar adoration. But then there are the ones who toe the line the center dwelling peoples not on the border of good and evil or right and wrong, (because what are such terms but misguiding lies) but of extremities. This harmonious of all position. The place of stable balance is where I lie. However, it has not been the easy journey to arrive at this place. It is said that "[s]ome spirits that have been born without sin must first traversed before the temple can be entered" (Betrand Russell's A Free Man's Worship). I believe that this was my cross to bear. I was so loving, innocent, kind, and understanding; a tranquil soul indeed. But upon my accent in year I let the darkness of anger and resentment lure me to their ends as I was seduced with their agent of sadness. The constant emotional upheavals we indoctrinating me to a place not only of alinement, but of an addicted loyalist.
From there to here it has taken me years. Within those lifetimes I have learned many lesson. At first, the recognition of the shadow watching I was taking in as my reality saddened me more. I was whoring myself for the pleasure of pain. As it was my agent of lure, I composed myself, realizing that it was masturbatory to indulge in the emotion. From within I flipped out but this blurred circumstance was a dizzying show of action. I soon saw the damage I was inflicting, now from with out it became unstable with no embodied form to retain its mass and so it crumbled away in each dramatic display teaching me that "[t]he life of Man, viewed outwardly is doomed to worship Time and Fate and Death”(Betrand Russell).
It was upon my "abandon[ment for] the struggle for private happiness, [my]... expel[ing of] all eagerness of temporary desire, [and the welcoming want]to burn with passion for eternal things" that emancipated me. The life led mid-row neither here nor there, not to not fro, but an inner and outer life of control, "this is the free man's worship”(Betrand Russell) and the place to from where I was destined to transcend.

11. Steven Pinker believes that evolution is important in understanding human behavior because it brings to light the mental constraints we bear. Evolutionary psychology studies these limitations by focus upon the processes under which the brain was created, namely the evolutionary process of natural selection, making it a very relevant brand of science as it traces back these characteristics to their “usefulness, utility, function, and purpose” lending insight to universal human nature.
You cannot “understand something especially something that shows signs of complex design without thinking how it got there and why does it have the organization we see. Why did the brain develop the way it did as opposed to the thousands of different ways… it could have, but didn’t” (Pinker). The answer is of course that the features that proved useful stuck as Pinker says this system was created with a purpose. One of the examples is our perception, which allows us to see in stereovision that has developed through natural selection for the very practical purpose of gaining visual depth that allows our species to avoid “falling off cliffs”(Pinker). So too has this developed for the brain as its configuration and abilities like that of memory Pinker says, differentiates between important and non-important information so that we are not constantly over run.
So, we have evolution through various forms, which includes random mutations that give us a chance at adaptation through their utilization. Therefore, we can see that there are things that developed through natural selection, “mechanisms” that are present within our genes that lead to certain ends, which creates a “conflation of evolutionary psychology and behavioral genetics” (Interviewer). These mechanisms are the motivating devices for certain behaviors such as the acquisition of knowledge, at least in the very early stages of development, where they are set up for the learning of the “mother tongue” (Pinker). This shows universalism, as most people short of disorders or isolation, experience such a process and therefore must be supplied with some sort of “learning device that is innate” (Pinker).
There are these absolutes that we naturally propel toward such as “family, clan, village”, “self-perception, assessment of others and sexual interest” (Pinker). Evolutionary psychology therefore can bring you in touch with the reasons why you do things that you don’t realize otherwise, because it underlies and governs the things we are prone to (Pinker). Behavioral geneticists tell us, “half of our behavior is in the genes”(Pinker), showing a direct link from the evolution of natural selection to behavior as the developed impositions that drive our minds supply “the motives” that make up 25- 75% of our behavior (Pinker). There is of course variation from environmental inputs that decrease that gap and therefore superficially behavior will widely vary, “but if you try to boil it down to the underlying motives then you may find many more universal signs of human nature” (i.e. human behavior), and “what is likely to be universal, what is likely to be innate to be a product of natural selection is not so much behavior [itself], but [the] emotions and patterns of thought” that drive can behavior (Pinker).

12. Evolution aids philosophy as it is the supplying system for three quarters of the humans drives/prompts that are encased in the brain, which is where philosophy originates, making philosophy share with the rest of the mind those same evolutionary and biological bases as the seed from which they’ve sprung. With advantages, limits are also incurred, and this is how philosophy is part of a symbiotic relationship, with the more logically prone, critical thinking devices of the brain. Evolution produced creativity, which bore philosophy as an adaptive technique of explanation for the unexplainable. It “is a discipline devoted to topics that the human mind can not understand” (Pinker). These evolutional cultivations in comprehension and understanding supplied this side of the brain its thick foundation from where to jump in attempts for understanding what constitutes what remains.?.
Philosophies concern themselves with matters that are left unresolved and draw conclusions for questions that we do not yet have a scientific basis for. It ushers in focus upon areas with the allowances to transcend the logical limits that one can reach along the path of confines. Blinded so, it creates for us a way to jump ahead by choosing a direction and then testing to see if that is a place that this particular section of the path will allow us to go. These confines are not merely limits in our own minds but transcend into the factual realm where they manifest themselves as the ever-looming questions. There, within this inherent contradiction where we cannot understand something with logic, we are allowed to do so with an odd form of abstract precision that our imagination, our philosophical side can grasp at the image of, if not firmly hold its form. This is not to say that we always understand or get things right just because we draw a line from point a to our desired point b, because we may be just diluting ourselves with riddles that only assert themselves on a level that we are not evolutionarily equipped through natural selection to answer or grasp. Such ill concepts with the mind we have as “it was designed to deal with a finite set of issues” (Interviewer) and while science is helpful in solving the majority of the issues it raises there is always a kernel, a little nugget that remains unsolved” (Pinker) leading me to believe that that it is evolutions hand of balance that will forever put up a counter.

13. As a man who had an affinity for science Francis Crick questions, “why shouldn't consciousness have a physical basis? Hearing does. Seeing does. Why not being as well?” These logical conclusions fueled the scientists later works as he mapped out the mental processes with his three assumption that collaboratively give us consciousness and either the reality or the appearance of Free Will. He even postulates the location of this miraculous happening as being located in or near the anterior cingulate sulcus. Although, as of yet, there is no conclusive evidence to say how accurate his hypothesis is, “Crick thinks [what] we will eventually discover is a physical basis for consciousness, something which resides in the parallel processing of a vast neural internet” (Lane).
Crick’s work in the field of theoretical neurobiology has led to some bold assertions. Most people interpret the consciousness that we experience as the indication of some spiritual endowment of the gods. However, as a “thoroughly materialistic” (Lane) scientist, Crick would never dream of putting credence behind such an audacious claim. There is no proof to affirm such a state exists, and therefore this man of method does not believe in the concept of souls. Rather, he maintains, that our awareness is a result of the “behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules”.

14. There are major issues behind a neuro-ethical argument for vegetarianism. Scientific evidence shows that “species with central nervous systems…feel pain because of their sophisticated receptors  and inter-neuronal communicative powers” (Lane). According to Lane’s argument the approach of a continuance of eating meat in light of this comes from an “[u]nthinking, unemotional, and unattached” standpoint, that tolerates violence, which is inflicted upon harmless animals that have no form of defense; physical or communicative. It is from this place of shame that we are extended a hand of hope. Through his examples of how ”1/4 of the…world is [already] abstaining from [eating] flesh” and that the rest has at least evolved a “resistance to eating animals…that show higher brain functions…[such as] dolphins  and apes”, display the positive stance our species has already taken; relaying that we already have familiarity have with this issue. As a bottom line, it is laid out for us as a choice. One where we are all given the option of violence or non-violence, compassion or ignorance and to be healthy, moral, persons of character through abstinence.
The weaknesses in such an argument is, while it is true that there is a detachment from reality and we are raised to separate pet from food, to mentally barricade any connection from living animal to meat, people will not start seeing a piece of steak as a muscle from the side of a once living being with out visuals. This is a hard thing to overcome, and further, not being able to properly display the torturous condition under which these animals live (due to restricted access) continues the cycle of illusions. With those obstacles known I believe the strengths lie in the personal accounts of connecting with the issue. It would strengthen the case to have multiple testimonials increasing chances for the reader to relate to one. The sense of community is also always important to present. This reassures the reader that they would not be alone in this venture, since it is one that removes them from many aspects with which they have grown comfortable. Change is hard, but knowing that there are scientific bases, moral and ethical, philosophical, and health issues that support this cause can increase comfort in the ideas and allow thoughts for change to not seem so alien. Lastly, the appeal to personal character and intelligence is a call to action (so important!) that if taken would uplift them to a status of awareness and allow them to practice restraint and develop character (which is good for so many other areas of life). This elevation would not only be personal, but could aid in the positive directing of our species to a place that would truly make us “worthy of being called an  intelligent species--animals who thought beyond their own self-interests” (Lane).

15. John Searle and Ken Wilbur both have created well-worded views of consciousness
in their papers, which aptly shows their differing approach of explanations on the subject. Searle shapes his views as a concise phenomenon that, “needs to be distinguished from certain other phenomena”. He is searching in the manner of a general overview to yield a divisive something that as of yet has not been found. This essay is emptily stark in contrast to Wilbur’s theory. Wilbur notes that the answers we are seeking have, for the most part, already been gathered through the countless works of so many other modes of scientific study focused in “schools of consciousness”. He includes in his text not only a grouping of some of the more relevant sciences, but adds to this a “four-quadrant model” that encases in each dimension a sequential unfolding, “of at least a dozen major stages or levels”.
I find the inclusive argument of Wilbur to be far more compelling, as I feel as he, “that each of these schools has something irreplaceably important to offer”. I have never been a fan of disconnectedness as a means to understanding (although, I understand why it is necessary for aggressive study) so the conviction of such a stance I find mildly brilliant as it is one I am akin to. Besides, the cohesive element that Wilbur brings, I also was very intrigued by his compartmental figures that graph the extracted “holing[s]” on their evolutionary track that are then encased within modes of experience. During the reading I was infused with bursts of ideas and excitement, which was not a component when reading the work of Searle. In conclusion, I am persuades in gravity to the meme’s present in An Integral Theory of Consciousness, as they must be of a longer chain of ideas I am prone to allowing in as sensical thought.

16. The theme of A Glorious Piece of Meat, is the questioning of whether or not we are something separate from the processes of our brains. The scientists quoted in the short film seem to think that these biological functions are all that we are on a fundamental level. Yet, there is this idea of “I”, a consciousness of a person within the context of individualized perceptions and experience, but, however often one may perceive that there is an “I”, reoccurrence of the individual in thought does not make it so. There is no proof for “I” except “the belief in itself to be more than it actually is” (Film). Is it no more than the product of thought created through the firing of neurons, which has been proven to govern all action including thought. We may like to think that we are more than just neurons that fire, but this thought only transpires while those actions take place (Film). There is no individual in control, rather it is simply “an epi-phenomena of networking neurons” that is further supported by the fact that when we are hit over the head our awareness of the world ceases (Film).
To say that there is no such thing as a soul is, to a religious person, a denial on the most offensive level. They would argue that while we have the animation of our body under the rule of our brain that this “awareness seems distinct from our bodily apparatus”(Film) because it is so, and it is this essence they term soul. All concepts and experience must be taken in through this “self-reflective awareness”(Film) called consciousness, which stands as proof of this existence of “I”. There is no scientific data to say which comes first, neurons or awareness, but ,who thus speaks of neurons? Consciousness talks about neuron, neurons don’t talk about consciousness (Film).

17. All quotes by Harris unless otherwise noted.

Sam Harris is critical of religion because of “the role that religion plays in perpetuating human conflict”(Moses). He is very vocal about the characters we fall into, whether it be the lunacy of religious fundamentalists, or the tolerant moderates who respects that lunacy, it is all a problem. “Beliefs don’t exist merely on Sundays when we get together to talk about god and the bible”, and at the moment, those issues are being perpetuated through their infiltration into the public forum. Their illogical content is unfortunately what many found their decision, personal and national decisions on, so in our daily lives when “we fail to criticize th[ose] beliefs” we give credence to their cause. Due to the lack of logical critic within the human conversation he sees ”no reason to expect to survive our religious differences indefinitely”. “It is in our power to influence...our separate moral identities” as he suggests for us speak up, to engage in those discussions, because “the time for respecting religious beliefs of this sort has long past”.
“Arguments never get made because it is fundamentally taboo to criticize somebody’s religious beliefs”. This notions needs to be rid of us and as Harris says, we need to interject reason and reasonableness into the minds of our fellow beings. They need to be aware of the absurdity of their ideals and open themselves up to ideas of substance based on evidence. Harris’ argument is strengthened when he brings to light that it is these irrational people that are not partitioned off in the uneducated third world, but rather are holding positions of status here in a first world country, which is proof that it is an epidemic. These beliefs, he says, are impeding progress in the realms of scientific advancement and public health in promising areas such as stem-cell research that is currently not being funded because a clump of cells is said to have a soul that would out weigh in interest the moral rights of a living breathing person, and their quality of life.
The question of involvement at this moment “has more to do with the maintenance of civilization than anything else”. With 44% of the US population literally certain, of that half being pretty sure, that “Jesus is going to come down out of the clouds and save the day sometime in the next 50 years” and pushing for “creationism to be taught exclusively in schools” makes it evident that we have a problem with the potential for serious ramifications on a “geo-political” level.

Thoughts of Sam Harris, A Call to Action:
Beliefs contain certain propositions that one maps on to reality from their minds. They are representations of the world that opens up emotional floodgates. There is no doubt that there are spiritual and ethical truths that one can experience and have, but whatever is true about that has to transcend nationality, religion, and culture as is displayed with science and it experiments- what can be done on this continent can be done on any continent. The conversation has to be opened. There needs to be a willingness for us to have our beliefs about reality updated and revised by conversation, because when the stakes are high we have the choice between conversation and violence both at the level of individuals and at the levels of societies.

18. The following explanations contain quotes from Nietzsche’s text, On the Genealogy of Morals.

The essence of morality is outlined by concepts of: good and bad, good and evil, guilt, bad conscience, and the meaning of ascetic ideals. People who buy into these concepts have been governed by the superficial and connotative meanings. The tradition of belief set by their ancestors initial buy in and the imposition of filtration through the mental frame work projected upon current, past, and future experiences have all contributed to the mass lapse in memory of their true meanings and functional origins.
Good and Bad: “Contrast between ‘egoistic’ and ‘unegoistic’ pressed itself ever more strongly into human awareness…it is…the instinct of the herd…and even so, it took a long time until this instinct in the masses became master”. The success of “unegoistic actions…occurs for the first time with the collapse of aristocratic value judgments” and is deemed as a good by “those for whom such actions were useful”. The success of such things elevated people to noble, powerful, and higher-ranking positions where they later achieve, and are culted for their higher thinking. It is this that has aided in the propagation and passing on of such values and skills as something to be emulated and kept in practice. As time passes they are simplified from strategy to what is considered to be good. The results from such traditions seem to be people’s mental slips in the connecting of all points thus allowing them to forget how this praise began. They take things at face value because, “according to custom” it has “always been praised as good, people then simply felt them as good, as if they were something inherently good.” Hence “good people themselves…felt and set themselves and their actions up as good” which would make by contrast to all that it did not encompass to be “low, low-minded, common, and vulgar” termed later as “bad”. “From this pathos of distance they first arrogated to themselves the right to create values, to stamp out the names for values and so was from such meaning was created of everything”.
Good and evil: Followed but in a type of flip as, “the ‘good man’ of the other morality, the noble man himself…creates “bad”, which originates “from him [and] is “’evil’ arising [out of] insatiable hatred” leading to violent acts upon humanity. As it were, “the noble races…left behind the concept of the ‘barbarian’ in all their tracks”. The definition for good in this sense, as counter to evil, are of those who hold their weaknesses up as virtues and refrain from “sinful” acts. However, this does not mean that they are any different from the men who perpetrate “evil” acts as their reward for patience is the crushing of their enemy. They relish in anticipation for the day of judgment where their god will rain hell upon their oppressors and critics, making this division, as with the other, of action and not of want or instinct.
Guilt and Bad Conscious: From all the viciousness of wars, attacks, torturous act that the forgetful man saw he began to develop memory as a conscious form of retention for what he did not want to experience. Promises then arose and were reinforced with violence if they were not made good (as present within the created debtor/creditor dynamic). To eradicate torture and the majority of violence men have to invent a god who has the ability to know and see all even the secretive. However, this led to the justification of evil that is for the uplifting of god for some time. Then free will comes, and the peacefulness formed from community, and adaptation and therefore the assimilation of the very primal need of revenge was turned into an evolved state of intolerance termed “punishment”. So the justice system is started in order to arouse “guilt” (but does not occur). Communities and society find themselves having to purge their animalistic ways as an adaptation upon finding that their instinctive drives hold no place in this new exterior world resulting in their inversion. When such instincts are tapped into, that part of the perpetrator who was previously used for outward aggression now attacks himself in a custom known today as “bad conscience”. This counter-act is meant to uphold “the world [and its] moral concepts” in a higher position than oneself. Using “guilt” to eradicate undesirable behaviors through the self-chastising of personal actions or the want of those actions that are no longer condoned or conducive to a uniformed whole.
Ascetic Ideals: means “that something is missing, that a huge hole surrounds man. He did not know how to justify himself to himself, to explain, to affirm. He suffered from the problem of his being. He also suffered in other ways: he was for the most part a sick animal. The suffering itself was not his problem, but rather the fact that he lacked an answer to the question he screamed out, ‘Why this suffering?’ The ascetic ideal was the only reason offered up to that point. The interpretation undoubtedly brought new suffering with it—more profound, more inner, more poisonous, and more life-gnawing suffering. It brought all suffering under the perspective of guilt… hate against what is human, and even more against animality, even more against material things—this abhorrence of the senses, even of reason, this fear of happiness and beauty, this longing for the beyond away from all appearance, change, becoming, death, desire, even longing itself—all this means…[is] a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a revolt against the most fundamental preconditions of life—but it is and remains a will!”
This “organization of the herd, the awakening of the feeling of power in the community” by the ascetic priests “result[s in the] the dissatisfaction of the individual with himself [which] is [ultimately] drowned out by his pleasure in the progress of the community”. Because the whole is of greater importance than its parts the follower of these ideals inflict “guilt” like “bad conscience” upon themselves for acts that may be viewed as self-indulgences. The verbal-mental connections are strong and prove as successful linings in the form of dissuasion. The specific lacerations come through the words “sin”, “sinner”, “damned”, and ”damnation” allowing them “to redirect the resentment…sternly back onto themselves.” The emotional distress causes suffering and these episodes become a form of punishment. It becomes an abuser/abuse situation where the victim gets use to the situation and as a way to rationalize it starts buying into the idea that they somehow are deserving of it. After prolonged exposure the sufferer begins to seek out and long for “narcotics and treatment”…”people no longer moaned against pain; they longed for pain”. Those who would be considered as "improved", actually became "tamed," "weakened," "disheartened," "refined," "mollycoddled" “(hence, almost equivalent to damaged…)”. Even the scientists, scholars and atheists (which is one of the last stages of development) whom most people would think of as being of a counter stance to such ideals are not themselves even independent of them. They “still believe in the truth” and “truth…[is] not allowed to be problematic. But, “this will to truth from now on is growing conscious of itself” and as in the final stages, “morality undoubtedly dies. That great spectacle [will be] in one hundred acts, which remains reserved for the next two centuries in Europe, …[it is the] most fearful, most questionable, and perhaps also most hopeful of all spectacles...”.

19. The following answer contains quotes and/or information from Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolutions, a text dedicated to Ahimsa and written by Mahatma Gandhi.

The approach of nonviolence, or ahimsa as it has been called, is said to come naturally to saints and is accessible to the common man in the same way that violence emerges from the brutes of our species. “If the function of himsa is to devour all it comes across, the function of ahimsa is to rush into the mouth of himsa. It is the essence of discipline”. These tenets of life, were what Gandhi was dedicated to, teaching others how they could embody these principles, and how at any age one can become a practitioner of/for change.
Gandhi chose the path of nonviolence for the very reason that he knew no other way. It was innate not in the manner that it was always so, but in the sense that once thought of on a conscious level there was never any deviation, as it was an all encompassing love. The doctrine that guided the life of Gandhi is not one of inaction but of the highest action. Nonviolence is in no way a display of cowardliness; it is an act of bravery, a stance opposed to violence obstructing the path of its wrath with ease, not in anger, but in calm opposition. “[T]he ahimsa in us ought to soften and not to stiffen our opponents' attitude to us; it ought to melt him; it ought to strike a responsive chord in his heart.”
He became this conscious being through the understanding of the lessons taught to him by his wife. “I tried to bend her to my will. Her determined resistance to my will, on the one hand, and her quiet submission to the suffering my stupidity involved, on the other, ultimately made me ashamed of myself and cured me of my stupidity in thinking that I was born to rule over her and, in the end, she became my teacher in nonviolence.” However purely though us ahimsa runs, it is not our power alone that causes change. “Through my own will I should have miserably failed. [W]henever I have acted nonviolently, I have been led to it and sustained in it by the higher promptings of an unseen power.” Non-violence is said to be the force of God and is one that transcends all religions. For Gandhi, ahimsa was a way to allow all people to get close to god, as it is the embodiment of his wise teachings, which are aligned with truth and truth with it; they are each other’s “natural ends”.

20. The Myth of Eternal Recurrence is from the bazaar mind of Friedrich Nietzsche. He purposes a dictum of eternity to be a cyclical happening rather than a linear straight. Within such a state there is no growth, no new, just sameness forever. It is equated to an hourglass where all of the particles remain the same and once exhausted it is flipped again and again only repeating the process with its provided pieces. This “life as you live it now, and how you’ve lived it, you will have to live it again and again, times without number, and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy, every thought and sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in your life must return to you and everything in the same series and sequence”(Nietzsche). As this “dust of dust”(Nietzsche) I wonder if the cycle can maintain its pace. I understand that the theory purposes an eternal state of identicalness, yet energy can be transferred into less desirable forms and this circumstance seems conducive to allowing this degeneration of energy to occur, thus resulting in at least that change. Whichever the case, it sounds to be far more of a death than of a life.
So then, if there only a finite set people for whom you and then they coincide, it would concur with the statements made that a finite world with constrained conditions would exist isolated from that of someone whom you all will never meet. This would be the only possibility that would allow for the purposed maintainable history. If it was a merely a happenstance within what we all conceive our world to be, then built into it we’d see the room for randomness. As such, change would be possible, and so this cannot be an option. So, was Nietzsche suggesting parallel worlds and dimensions?
Continuing along his path, would maintain that growth and enlightenment will never be obtained. That, our first mistakes and miss steps in our beginning would so to be present in our end (if there ever is an end, which is not included as a Nietzschian possibility, but still allows the contents that remain to be true). A life of stagnation where we fill a niche like a battery supplying the energy of its being to something greater than itself. It is a disappointing conclusion. Yet, it is one, which agrees with the philosophy of De Cusa and others. As a piece to a whole, we are nothing more than a show, as our realities speak we are slaves to the cycle living only to exhaust and refresh, to exhaust and refresh, to exhaust and refresh.

21. Flame On! Mortality Reconsidered is really trying to say is that it is okay to be gay, as it is with any other issue that morality butts-heads with. “What is sexually deviant in one era becomes the standard in another, what is regarded as criminal in one epoch can in another be seen as a sign of saintliness, and finally an act that could get you a long prison sentence in one century could in another be seen as a harmless pastime” (Michael Foucault). Basically, one will never known if something they do is good or bad because good and bad do not really exist. They are social constructs meant for the taming of the herd that lend themselves to self-reprimandations from feelings of guilt, and what we have learned is, that “guilt with its claims to accuracy, it is like a dog biting a stone, absolutely pointless” (Nietzsche).
”If we know anything about history it is this, truth is not part of the proceedings” (Film) it is sad, that today we seem to still not pay mind to any of these lessons. It is troubling to note that homosexual activities currently remain something that is greatly frowned upon in the moral codes of at least our nation. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that some of our great minds, great philosophers, and innovators were condemned for something as trivial as sexual preference or a sexual openness. Although, such things are not surprising in consideration of the moral and social framework they were within, as they were meant to suffer forms of anguish, torment and penalties for trying to understand themselves and their place in the universe. These notables of history, however, were not constrained by the invisible barriers that were meant to block largely unpopular ideas. It is the transcending of them that allowed the great thinkers to tap into innovative thoughts, as they were active participants in them. It is ironic that today their thoughts, which are so highly regarded for these very reasons, are still not morally allowable in the sense of daily action; basically life. It is fine to read the greats, embracing the ideas of their philosophies, but you are despised for living out of them. It is a philosophy of a life and therefore one aspect can be no greater than another. To acknowledge a person as revolutionary, means that they are the embodiment of those ideals, and it is inclusive to all of the actions they perpetrate. To disparage one while upholding another is merely conflating a “cultural view…with truth” (Film).

22. Brights are an emerging interest group of people composed of mainly agnostics or atheists. In whole they reject what is termed as supernatural not allowing such thoughts to be used to fill the gaps that exist in theoretical explanation. Beliefs of the Brights are based on provable scientific fact that doesn’t lend life or consciousness to being more than the result of genes or the collective workings of the brain, and they agree there is no life after death. They extract, or rather never induce into theory any manner of, what Daniel Dennett calls, mysticism.
Dennett is an atheist as he does not believe in any kind of god, but one cannot prove a negative, so therefore he cannot prove that god doesn’t exist (Dennett). However he is resolved in himself, to the degree that he can be certain about anything, that there is not a god. With no purpose higher than our own, Dennett explains that design does exist but is in the happenings of the self-replicators and the only purpose there could ever be is when those codes attempt to get their genes into the next generation. So, design by evolution is natural selection, which has the potential to cause life, intelligence, and then consciousness, but this directionality is rare in terms of fruition and although evolution may be headed somewhere it is not ensured to do so as most lineages die out before intelligence occurs (Dennett). After death from life is there life after death? Dennett says that the only kind of afterlife one can ever hope to experience is one similar to that of recovered computer software after the computer itself has been destroyed. In this way the mind is capable of existing again, because death is caused by the breakdown of our bodies.
The agreence of Daniel Dennett’s views with those of the group are what cause him to favor being called a bright.

23. Outline of A Free Man’s Worship by Bertrand Russell
Religious
• Grew tired of joyous praise decided to created tortured souls
• The Universe was born
• The planets created
• The evolution of the physical topography
• The evolution of single cell to complex cellular life
• Plants, animal, then Man
• Man with the “power of thought, the knowledge of good and evil, and the cruel thirst for worship”.
• Belief in a hidden purpose for life emerges
• Creation of God, Sin, A divine plan, and renunciation
• World ends
Scientific
• Void of meaning
• Man is apart of causes that have no prevision of the end it will attain
• That all internal subjective experience was the accidental outcome of a “collocation of atoms”.
• All life ends at the grave
• Here upon the despair of Man’s inevitable return to nothingness a habitation of the soul can thus be built.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Man is free and here lies his superiority to all of the resistless forces that control his outer world
• An admiration of power leads Man to the worship of God without question
• The religion of Moloch- cringing submission of the slave who abstains from adulating his God
• No independence of ideals, so Power is freely worshiped
• Ideal world falls with strengthening of morals
• Must create a new God if he is to survive must be different than that of the savages.
• Some consciously reject the demand of the ideal, insistence of power being worthy of worship.
• No hint of divine goodness as survival is maintained by the fittest
• Other become specially religious
• “Thus Man creates God, all-powerful and all-good, the mystic unity of what is and what should be.”
• Try to free Man from the slavishness of non-human power.
• Question: To worship Force or Goodness?
• The worship of Force is the result of failing to maintain our own ideals in such a harsh state and is a submission to evil
• Man’s true freedom lies in the rejection of power and the determination to worship the God created by our own love and worship.
• In action and desire we submit to outside forces, but we are free in the reality of thought and aspiration.
• Opposition of fact and ideal grow clear
• Indignation can arise submission of thought but not desires
• Through submission of our desires, not our thoughts, we gain Stoic Freedom
• Resignation comes from submission of our desires
• Freedom of thought gives way to art and philosophy and vision of beauty
• Thus Freedom comes only to those “who no longer ask of life that it shall yield them any of those personal goods that are subject to the mutations of Time”.
• Renunciation “has been the means of purifying our hopes by the discovery of many austere truths.”
• It comes sooner or later to every Man.
• Each one of us needs to learn that the world is not made for us this “degree of submission to Power is not only just and right: it is the very gate of wisdom.”
• Before we can be within the temple of our own ideals we must contemplate all the good that is removed from the bad and here we will see the “vision of heaven shape in our hearts”.
• Some spirits that have been born without sin must first traversed before the temple can be entered.
• They must abandon hope, let the self of untamed desire and eagerness be slain so that the Pilgrim is free of Fate and follow then the path of Renunciation to Wisdom.
• “In this way mind asserts its subtle mastery over the thoughtless forces of Nature”
• “But the beauty of Tragedy does but make visible a quality which, in more or less obvious shapes”
• “In the spectacle of Death n these moments of insight, we lose all eagerness of temporary desire”
• The individual soul must struggle alone and “the true initiation into the overmastering beauty of human existence” emerges.
• “From that awful encounter of the soul with the outer world, enunciation, wisdom, and charity are born; and with their birth a new life begins.”
• “Death and change, the irrevocableness of the past, and the powerlessness of Man before the blind hurry of the universe from vanity to vanity -- to feel these things and know them is to conquer them.”
• The beauty of the Past “to a soul which has conquered Fate it is the key of religion”.
• “The life of Man, viewed outwardly is doomed to worship Time and Fate and Death”
• “To abandon the struggle for private happiness, to expel all eagerness of temporary desire, to burn with passion for eternal things -- this is emancipation, and this is the free man's worship.”

24. The film Inner Visions and Running Trains discusses the role of a guru as realized by one man, Faqir Chand, who had not only experienced life under the guidance of a guru, but also being adored as one.
They are the spiritual leaders of many who appear before the masses as a physical guide into the spiritual realm. It is not that this transcendence beyond oneself could not transpire without the demonstration and advise of a guru, but it is as in any trade an allowance to learn at a more efficient capacity from someone who has already mastered the form. A draw back from this, as there is with many religious establishments, is the art of money making that these gurus not only request but also exploit. A point of revelation in the film is when one of these guru’s is sitting amongst his congregation of students and the PA system announces to the clientele that they would be well advised to seek out a bank as soon as possible because their payment area will be closing for the day. This is most appropriate in the demonstration of the very visible, yet hidden flaw of these men. They assert themselves as being able to elicit reactions that will lead their followers into realms unreached by any other. With increased hype so too rises demand for such experiences and the guru has strategically raised his economic value as he is in short supply. The unfortunate truth is that these men hold no more power than his neighbor and that his guidance is like that of any other man who has practiced the techniques which he falsifies as being unique.
Other issue that are common to houses of worship are most personally felt and experienced by the guru. In the former their books and in the latter their teachings all state to relinquish all forms of idols as they are not the things themselves. This is done in an effort to not create worship of an object/persons to which their joys have been unduly transferred, and to avoid leading to comodification, which is similarly counter to all their words. All of these monotheistic religions to some degree preach the renunciation of this and many of the worldly virtues as they serve as mere distraction along a spiritual path. However, few establishments embody these principles as most are not seen as applicable to them. Along with the asking for money, dictating personal worship (not teaching, but the going beyond as relation to this is the only way), they purport these false idols that in the realm of meditation becomes the guru. Their life is above all others is one meant to teach the simplicity and an understanding of a spiritual oneness. To relish in a false deification, to take special treatment, material and physical endowments of affection, essentially to be worshiped is a tragic demonstration of the incomprehension they have toward the subject they tote as being masters of.
Thus, the very elicit theme is the demonstration of this perversion and the teaching that can at times be a misdirection under the wrong guide for both the eager practitioner as well as the revered master. Faqir Chand saw this and realized that he knew nothing more than any other man and that the greatest of minds have the acceptance of this in mind.

25. The following contains quotes from De Docta Ignorantia as described by Nicholas of Cusa.

Learned ignorance is the only manner through which man can ever hope at attaining any type of knowledge of the incomprehensible. The historic struggles for humankind to do so has only led us astray, as a concrete ascertation for what god is, will never be able to be grasped through the narrow scope of our minds. So, we are misdirected in this process for understanding greatness. This error is the fundamental reasoning that stands in our way. Cusa writes, that there is no “comparative relation of the infinite to the finite” (pg.7). Thus, since this is our method for making sense of that which we have yet to, the answers will forever be unattainable. The ignorance we must learn is the accepting of our own, and then there, we will no longer be in a struggle to “affirm” (pg.45) and instead we will begin to allow the settling of form into negation and into the simplicity of nothingness. It is here that we will be closer to this “ineffable” (pg.44) “Maximum”. It is this nothing, which is most simple and therefore most abundant, being the minimum that is maximum, and it is the nearest we will get to touching he whom it would be impossible to accurately name. The everything, for which there is no opposite, Cusa explains, “has its basis in the fact that the precise truth is inapprehensible” (pg.7), and that it will only be ever known unto itself (pg.46). This is learned ignorance.
The implications of this information for my life are pretty decompressing. This learned ignorance that I have attained has left me with a sort of solace that through meditation I will realize what is at the height of our limits to procure, and yet I am deeply saddened. My hope was that upon relief from this incased existence we would return unto the whole and that we would attain true enlightenment, as we would no longer be this separate piece. But, I am left dismayed at the prospect suggested by my great-thinkers that such a fusion will never transpire. Either, as Nietzsche says, it will forever perpetuate itself by manifesting us time and again into the same form, or that even from a disconnect of the corporeal limitations that we will for eternity be this separate piece disjointed from the oneness forever, existing and simply being a creation of it (Cusa, pg.46).

26. The following answer contains the ideas of Gerald Edelman in summary form. The whole of the content is accredited to him.

Gerald Edelman makes an assertion that consciousness of the mind can be explained with Darwin’s theory of evolution. As stated, he applies this theory to the development of the different stages of the brain, at different times in our biological evolution, attributing neurology to it, as “variation was a shake on the future”. This is noticed in the area of the dynamic core, which has provided us with a vastly increased number of sensory motor discriminations. Besides the long-term evolution, there was also the shorter span of a lifetime where stages of growth from as early as the creation of the circuit repertoire from variation during embryogenesis stage that decides you’ll be human, embody this process. Natural selection is presented not only as a force upon the brain, but also within the brain where population dynamics, and the development of consciousness and intelligence occur. These populations of neurological systems are explained by the re-entry connections that are made through the continued chosen interaction of two neurons, “neurons that fire together wire together“. This is also true of subjective experience as it is dependent upon value systems that are formed through this neural connection system. Edelman contends that any consciousness theory must be conducive to evolutionary change.
Second Nature thus is the theory that encompasses a connective Darwinian notion. In it Edelman utilizes the afore mentioned topic while linking with it developmental and experimental selection, excitatory and inhibitory selection between 2 kinds of neurons, and the brain development of circuits and different parts of the brain that talk to each other like the posterior and the anterior. Neuronal group selections is a part of this self-organizer, although it is seemingly an individualistic experience, the brain experiences it in clusters. We are told that our neural networks are reactionary and documentable in their responses to the environment, so here is where it is important to see that there is a balance between evolutionary constraints of value systems and symatic selection occurring within this system as lifetimes. The affects of which will appear and disappear in varying patterns and durations of time as the experience is unique to each individual and is not isolated as it is embodied in the body that is embedded in our surrounding environment. So, we are a complex network from which programs may be written, but not the reverse. Consciousness is not a touring machine.

27. Vegetarianism is a widely practiced tradition for most of the eastern world. It is a religious, moral and ethical issue that takes into account the condition of life and its subsequent treatment in the termination of that for animals. It takes a small person to beat a defenseless animal, and an even smaller one to eat it (PETA film). Some of the facts in this debate are health concerns. They are a huge issue, as meat and dairy product are high in fat and can lead to heart disease, which is one of the biggest killers in the US, and is something that can be reversible through a vegetarian diet (PETA). As with humans animals carry diseases too and mad cow disease has already arrived in our country (PETA). The affects to humans from that disease through the consumption of them has not as of yet been shown, but this does not mean they do not exist. It may only be a matter of time before we make links from human conditions that have been on the rise over the past few years, to these animal mutagens. Other contagiable conditions, such as poisoning from salmonella, come from filthy and bloody dead animals, including the supposed clean meats you get in the store (for every package of chicken you buy has a little poop that comes with it, PETA). Economically, we use so many of our resources to cultivate these animals to the standards of slaughter that we are taking away more than half of the water in the US and grain that could be used in the feeding and hydrating of starving children (PETA). Besides all of these very logical reasons, it is also a very emotional situation. No living creature wants to see their family slaughtered and everyone wants to be free, yet we keep them in cages that are more crowded than our over-crowded prisons (PETA). We lie to our children calling these dead corpses we serve by different names, but whatever the name, it is still flesh (PETA). These animals feel fear, and when they are in pain they scream, no one should have to make a living by killing (PETA). We can stop the violence (PETA).
The justification for might doesn’t make it right, neither does commerce being held up as a justification for murder (PETA). It is never okay to kill. Not for money, not for pleasure, not for taste. In defense of a defenseless crime people use small arguments out of desperation. They try to self-rationalize or make sense of the senselessness.
One ill thought argument is if everyone were to become a “vegetarian overnight then thousands of people would be put out of business” (Bodhipaksa's blog, Bodhi Tree Swaying http://www.bodhipaksa.com/blog/archives/arguments-against-vegetarianism). This is a baseless nonsensical argument because change, especially ones that transpire in a social arena generally take decades (Bodhipaksa's blog,) to saturate within the society and its industries allowing time for people and business to adjusts accordingly. What they don’t get is that like any change, lets say the car, that many people were resistant to it because it is hard work adjusting yourself and the world to something new, but when the benefits out weigh the costs that the cause will eventually transpire past the road block. The automobile emerged and eventually did put the horse and buggy business out, but all of those workers found other jobs, because the change was slow and new jobs in the alternative transportation field arrived with it. Money is also of no concern as a new industry is started it stimulates growth and interest that the men in charge either invest their funds in , or are resistant to; and in that case it then their stubbornness makes them the cause of their own demise. I will end with the most absurd assertion that I personally have ever heard and which is unfortunately a very commonly made conjecture. People latch onto the idea that we are no better than the slaughters of the flesh because vegetables are alive too, and if we are eating vegetables then we too are murderer for killing them. At its base this is true. We squelch life for our sustenance and so we do kill and therefore we are murderer, yet what they blind themselves to is the fact that plants do not have an advanced nervous system with neurological pain receptors and are therefore an appropriate means of nourishment because we do not torture the energy it has trapped within.

28. The following answer contains summaries of the information given in the film Ramana Maharshi and Indian Philosophy. Spelling was taken from Wikipedia.

The second of four children, Venkataraman was upon his teenage years attending high schooling and living in the village of his paternal uncle. Athletically inclined he favored games and sports above his studies and nothing in his life at this point, not even the untimely death of his father, revealed any purpose or meaning to him. This all changed in November 1895 when he had his first premonition at 15 years of age. The seed to his future was planted when he realized he could visit the very holy place of Arunachala. He had always heard of it as a very holy place, but learned this information from an elderly relative who told him he was coming from there. The second was a book describing the lives of the 63 Shaivite Saints from his uncle called Periya Peranam that he read soon after, and he was overwhelmed “that such faith, such love, and such divine fervor was possible” (film). The tales of divine union that came after renunciation inspired him and full of inspiration he reached his turning point a few months later.
Film: “Venkataraman was upstairs in his uncles house when a great change occurred in his life. In fact, it was quite sudden. A violent fear of death overcame him in spite of good health and without crying out for help he just felt, I’m going to die. This shock drove him inward and he was totally absorbed in the vital questions demanding to be answered. What does death mean? What is dying? It is the body that dies. He dramatized the event by imitating the state of death. Lying stiff, holding back breath and voice like one death, his body would be carried to the burning ground and soon reduced to ashes. Yet, he thought, I still feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of the eye within me apart from the body. He experienced that he was the supreme spirit transcending the body. The body dies, but the spirit cannot be touched by death, he was granted this certainty that he was the deathless spirit. From that moment on the eye or self-focused attention on its source, which is the self and sub strata of all existence, and his absorption in it remained unbroken. Whether talking, reading, or doing anything else, he was always centered within on that supreme self. The permanent awakening of this new awareness within him simply meant the transcendence of his individual eye or ego sense and union with god. From there on came dramatic change in his life and experiences.”
Here is where the boy, who would be later known as Ramana Maharshi, had experienced the turning point of his life and then set off on his journey where through renunciation he attained the existence, or maybe one deeper, of those of which he had read.

29. My favorite expert lecture was Richard Dawkins. Besides his dry comment about the religious masses that was so neatly tucked within his speech he illuminated for me the way and reason for why we may see our world in the manner that we do. Hitting on slightly different notes than the ones I have become accustomed to.

30. My favorite movie…again hard to choose but maybe Truth Lies, I had never seen it that way before.

31. Favorite reading- Nietzsche’s On Genealogy of Moral, not for its borderline times of tediousness, lack of brevity and lacking conciseness, but rather I had brief conversational encounters with the topic of morals that were never really delved into and I never made the time to do so myself. So, it was a nice surprise to have the major conclusions drawn and to have me not be in objection to them.

32. Do you mean, besides the discovery of my lack of precise time management skills that a class of this caliber requires? Of course, to the courses content. I would say that the Charlie Rose interview with Lisa Randall brought up some unusual things. My favorite of which was how multiple dimensions could be coexisting not only in parallel with one another, but in intersect.

Java Philosophy

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Ahimsa

Saturday, October 27, 2007

The Large and the Small

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Heaven

Weary of Man

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Final

Blog Archive

About Me