We may have not invented the universe, but the universe is our invention alright.
Anything we understand of this world, e.g. that water is H2O, that no speed is greater than the speed of light, that e=mc2 etc are not absolute and eternal truths valid everywhere, any time in the universe, trillions of years before and trillions of years after today. The known and measurable conditions we see in our universe are the result of how we think. This is why views change over time: because our perception changes.
When a simple man, who is not an expert, says today that the sun rises from the East and sets in the West, he is not lying. Nor does he call Copernicus, who believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth, a liar. Both simple and scientific views are the product of thoughts and thoughts depend on perception. We see the universe the way we do, because this is the only way we can.
We don’t have a choice really. It is impossible to get out of the limits of our selves, as it is impossible to get out of the universe and observe it. Our view is inevitably anthropocentric, but this is not arrogance per se. What is arrogance is the conviction that our idea of the world is the world; to believe that e.g. mathematics and geometry, which we have invented, were there prior to our existence. To trust that what we believe today (which is different from what we believed yesterday and in all likelihood from what we’ll believe tomorrow) has universal validity. How on Earth can we claim that our thoughts are the world or that they should be taken for the world? That’s audacity. At the same time, that’s why being aware of our finite abilities and abundant limitations is humility.
2010-04-28
2010-04-21
The God gene hypothesis
Some characteristics are common and shared between tribes, civilizations and eras. One of them is the conviction that God exists. Every single civilization has a word ascribed to God, special places for His worship and a literature about Him.
According to Jung, the study of archetypes in the collective unconscious leads us to the conclusion that there is a religion component built within the human, that affects him in much the same way as e.g. the sexual instinct. Primitives were as involved in the expression of this component, e.g. by creating special symbols that connote it or even religions, as they were with the cultivation of land, hunting, fishing or meeting of any other basic need.
The faith in God is so deeply rooted in humans that today many scientists believe it to be nothing short of a reflex: we believe in God same as we shed tears when in pain or laugh when we rejoice. We have the ability to believe in God, just like we have the ability to speak or to write or to understand and compose music. There is then a strong possibility that faith in God is actually a matter of genetics, i.e. integrated in our DNA, thus in our central nervous system.
The founders of a new scientific branch, neurotheology, believe that faith in God was incorporated in our genes, in much the same way as our ability to understand and produce language was. This happened, they say, in order to help as come to terms with the issue of death: if God exists or if a reality other than the physical one exists, then our essence is its extension and not subject to decay and death, as our physical body is. Such ideas are discussed in great depth in books such as Matthew Alper’s “The God Part of the Brain”.
But what if this is not so? What if nature’s laws are not blind and what if it was not coincidence nor natural choice that put the God gene inside us? What if it was God Himself who wanted us, in our oblivion, to be able to cling on to who we really are? Questions without a chance of receiving a definite answer ever…
According to Jung, the study of archetypes in the collective unconscious leads us to the conclusion that there is a religion component built within the human, that affects him in much the same way as e.g. the sexual instinct. Primitives were as involved in the expression of this component, e.g. by creating special symbols that connote it or even religions, as they were with the cultivation of land, hunting, fishing or meeting of any other basic need.
The faith in God is so deeply rooted in humans that today many scientists believe it to be nothing short of a reflex: we believe in God same as we shed tears when in pain or laugh when we rejoice. We have the ability to believe in God, just like we have the ability to speak or to write or to understand and compose music. There is then a strong possibility that faith in God is actually a matter of genetics, i.e. integrated in our DNA, thus in our central nervous system.
The founders of a new scientific branch, neurotheology, believe that faith in God was incorporated in our genes, in much the same way as our ability to understand and produce language was. This happened, they say, in order to help as come to terms with the issue of death: if God exists or if a reality other than the physical one exists, then our essence is its extension and not subject to decay and death, as our physical body is. Such ideas are discussed in great depth in books such as Matthew Alper’s “The God Part of the Brain”.
But what if this is not so? What if nature’s laws are not blind and what if it was not coincidence nor natural choice that put the God gene inside us? What if it was God Himself who wanted us, in our oblivion, to be able to cling on to who we really are? Questions without a chance of receiving a definite answer ever…
2010-04-09
One
“Pye, how many aspects of us are there, anyway?” I asked.
She laughed, looked out the window to the patterns below. “How many can you imagine? They are countless.”
“All these patterns are us?” Leslie asked stunned. “As far as we see, as far as we fly, these patterns are our choices?!”
Pye nodded with her head.
We haven’t started yet, I thought, and it is already beyond believing. “What about everybody else, Pye? How many lives can there be in one universe?”
She looked puzzlement at me, as if she didn’t understand my question. “How many lives are there in one universe, Richard?” she asked. “ONE”.
From Richard Bach’s book, “One".
She laughed, looked out the window to the patterns below. “How many can you imagine? They are countless.”
“All these patterns are us?” Leslie asked stunned. “As far as we see, as far as we fly, these patterns are our choices?!”
Pye nodded with her head.
We haven’t started yet, I thought, and it is already beyond believing. “What about everybody else, Pye? How many lives can there be in one universe?”
She looked puzzlement at me, as if she didn’t understand my question. “How many lives are there in one universe, Richard?” she asked. “ONE”.
From Richard Bach’s book, “One".
2010-03-31
The eighth day
In the Old Testament’s Book of Wisdom (1:13-15) it is written: “For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might be: and he made the nations of the earth for health: and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor kingdom of hell upon the earth. For justice is perpetual and immortal”. This is the reason why, according to Bible scholars, the passion for life and immortality is deeply rooted in our souls.
Who can deny, however, that we live in a world penetrated by death, which comes in sharp contrast with our passion for life? What then can this world possibly be? It is the world of the eighth day, the day after the seven days in which Creation was completed; the day in which deviation from the originally intended, lack of love and death are allowed. It is also the day of hope for beating death; the day we learn how to love from the beginning; the day that the Spirit touches the Earth bringing enlightenment to all of us.
Who can deny, however, that we live in a world penetrated by death, which comes in sharp contrast with our passion for life? What then can this world possibly be? It is the world of the eighth day, the day after the seven days in which Creation was completed; the day in which deviation from the originally intended, lack of love and death are allowed. It is also the day of hope for beating death; the day we learn how to love from the beginning; the day that the Spirit touches the Earth bringing enlightenment to all of us.
2010-03-26
The big questions of life
In not so many words, the only way that essence can manifest in this world is through the personality. One might think then, OK that's why I have to try and make my personality/character better, uproot the evils therein, promote the bright sides etc. Sorry to spoil it for you*, but this is barely how it works. This way of thinking only adds to the confusion. It is the essence manifesting (and fully embraced when it does) that will do the job, not you. I can of my own self do nothing, as written in the Bible (John 5:30). Personality cannot change itself; it is the essence that changes it.** We know that essence changes the personality, when inspiration shines forth and memory is at one with the moment, creating small marvelous eternities, as ersi wrote in a comment the other day.
In plain words: trying to control things is essentially not trusting that God can do it. It has underlying it the false belief that without you, God or the universe won't make it, which is self-flattering and egotistical.
This essentially leaves us with only one thing to do: leap empty-handed into the void of the unknown, in full trust or, rephrasing it, allow our heart to break. The bulk of the drama we experience in everyday life comes from our constant effort and agony to stop our heart from breaking. But it is just a habit; nothing more. Can we allow this habit to rest? Can we rely on radical trust instead? These are the big questions of life.
* Surprisingly when you come to think about it, most people (myself not excluded) find consolation, some even a sense of “personal mission” in taking up the role of the martyr or the victim or … or …
* In other words: don't try to change yourself. Simply, gently, let it be. The only thing that the self wants is to be accepted as it is. This creates peace inside. Psychological mechanisms (defense mechanisms in their most part) are put in motion when we try to change ourselves. The effort for the targeted change then occupies all the space within, leaving nothing for the essence to manifest. I know it sounds unorthodox, even paradoxical. But that's how it is. And after the how, the what. Do you know what it is? It is pure LOVE. So, this is the meaning of "to love myself" (= not trying to change myself).
In plain words: trying to control things is essentially not trusting that God can do it. It has underlying it the false belief that without you, God or the universe won't make it, which is self-flattering and egotistical.
This essentially leaves us with only one thing to do: leap empty-handed into the void of the unknown, in full trust or, rephrasing it, allow our heart to break. The bulk of the drama we experience in everyday life comes from our constant effort and agony to stop our heart from breaking. But it is just a habit; nothing more. Can we allow this habit to rest? Can we rely on radical trust instead? These are the big questions of life.
* Surprisingly when you come to think about it, most people (myself not excluded) find consolation, some even a sense of “personal mission” in taking up the role of the martyr or the victim or … or …
* In other words: don't try to change yourself. Simply, gently, let it be. The only thing that the self wants is to be accepted as it is. This creates peace inside. Psychological mechanisms (defense mechanisms in their most part) are put in motion when we try to change ourselves. The effort for the targeted change then occupies all the space within, leaving nothing for the essence to manifest. I know it sounds unorthodox, even paradoxical. But that's how it is. And after the how, the what. Do you know what it is? It is pure LOVE. So, this is the meaning of "to love myself" (= not trying to change myself).
2010-03-24
The inevitable "I"
Based on my various readings from time to time, I have come to understand that most of us identify, in a more or less automatic way, with any experience we have in connection to the moment (a sentiment, a feeling, a thought, a fantasy etc.). This identification causes us to lose contact with our being or essence and to tie ourselves down to the cognitive level (i.e. our conscious mind, which gives rise to the sense of I).
This conscious mind, then, becomes the most powerful executive operation in us, creating a strong sense of who we believe we are ("I"). The more we identify with it, the longer we steer away from being, in a vicious circle. We then stop knowing who we really are and the sense of I that our conscious mind has created becomes dominant.
Full identification with the I (the personality) leads to the false belief that this I is the only reality there is, creating a narrow box we put ourselves in and the false certainty that there is nothing more to seek for or see. Thus, the most important part of life is missed out.
Now, this view is arguably true. But it doesn't in itself translate into a need to escape, degrade, disregard or kill our personality, as many modern "gurus" suggest.
Personality is built on two pillars: memory and imagination.** It can be likened to a software programme, intended not only to help us humans navigate through the world, as it is commonly supported, but to actually make the world what it is.
My previous two posts were intended to prove the inevitability of these two pillars and consequently of personality itself. This comes in straightforward contrast with popular views such as Bronte Baxter's* with whom I have argued in the past over the issue. Bronte maintains that extraterrestrial beings are after our Iness and that we surrender it to them when eg we hum mantras, etc.
Our personality, our Iness is a fact we can't escape, let alone surrender to someone or something else. Probings, as aforesaid, to escape, degrade, disregard or kill it are nothing but fallacies constructed by people who haven't bothered to think any deeper. The only achievable thing there is, is to create space inside.*** Life, essence or being (name it as you wish) will then flood in to cover the vacant space. The only valid choice we have is to unconditionally embrace and accept everything that arises within us, every single manifestation, weaving it in the tissue of our very personality. In this way nothing will be left unattended and all realities of Life will be able to unfold and reveal themselves with every step we take.
*http://brontebaxter.wordpress.com
**This is not to say that the functions of memory and imagination are exhausted in personality. It's the other way round: personality uses these two functions to structure itself.
***This can only be achieved by seeing the box we have closed ourselves in from outside. I have proposed a way to do this: by being Space.
This conscious mind, then, becomes the most powerful executive operation in us, creating a strong sense of who we believe we are ("I"). The more we identify with it, the longer we steer away from being, in a vicious circle. We then stop knowing who we really are and the sense of I that our conscious mind has created becomes dominant.
Full identification with the I (the personality) leads to the false belief that this I is the only reality there is, creating a narrow box we put ourselves in and the false certainty that there is nothing more to seek for or see. Thus, the most important part of life is missed out.
Now, this view is arguably true. But it doesn't in itself translate into a need to escape, degrade, disregard or kill our personality, as many modern "gurus" suggest.
Personality is built on two pillars: memory and imagination.** It can be likened to a software programme, intended not only to help us humans navigate through the world, as it is commonly supported, but to actually make the world what it is.
My previous two posts were intended to prove the inevitability of these two pillars and consequently of personality itself. This comes in straightforward contrast with popular views such as Bronte Baxter's* with whom I have argued in the past over the issue. Bronte maintains that extraterrestrial beings are after our Iness and that we surrender it to them when eg we hum mantras, etc.
Our personality, our Iness is a fact we can't escape, let alone surrender to someone or something else. Probings, as aforesaid, to escape, degrade, disregard or kill it are nothing but fallacies constructed by people who haven't bothered to think any deeper. The only achievable thing there is, is to create space inside.*** Life, essence or being (name it as you wish) will then flood in to cover the vacant space. The only valid choice we have is to unconditionally embrace and accept everything that arises within us, every single manifestation, weaving it in the tissue of our very personality. In this way nothing will be left unattended and all realities of Life will be able to unfold and reveal themselves with every step we take.
*http://brontebaxter.wordpress.com
**This is not to say that the functions of memory and imagination are exhausted in personality. It's the other way round: personality uses these two functions to structure itself.
***This can only be achieved by seeing the box we have closed ourselves in from outside. I have proposed a way to do this: by being Space.
2010-03-22
Without imagination
The world would seem flat and colourless. Repetition would be the only reality and everything would translate into an algorithm: always the same steps leading to identical results, in an effectual sequence. Language would stop taking leaps, everything intended to make our lives beautiful (music, dance, literature, painting, poetry, sculpture to list a few) would cease to exist. Figures of speech, like simile or metaphor, that make understanding easier and add depth to thinking would only be perceivable literally, losing their meaning. Life could never be an "as if", in Hans Veihinger's* sense, and thus would seem always unknown and frightful. Abstract meanings and ideas would have no framework to manifest in and would exist no more. (…)
* Hans Veihinger, philosopher, is the author of "Die Philosophie des Als Ob". In his view, man is made to act; his mind was bestowed to him not in order to seek the truth, but to act. In this task of his, distortions and fallacies serve him better than certainties. Mind, Veihinger tells us, most of the time works on (semi-)conscious fallacies. In his work, Veihinger uses plenty of examples to show the immense methodological importance of fallacy in a number of disciplines (mathematics, mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc).
* Hans Veihinger, philosopher, is the author of "Die Philosophie des Als Ob". In his view, man is made to act; his mind was bestowed to him not in order to seek the truth, but to act. In this task of his, distortions and fallacies serve him better than certainties. Mind, Veihinger tells us, most of the time works on (semi-)conscious fallacies. In his work, Veihinger uses plenty of examples to show the immense methodological importance of fallacy in a number of disciplines (mathematics, mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)