| Author | Message | ||
     Emergent Universalism |
Emergent Universalism.  (interactive -Image: Prometheus movie) Masters of the Universe This is a continued development of ideas first offered in Natural Universalism (10 January 2014), what may overall characterize philosophy of how had evolved from its inception Human Cafe. We are connected in our minds to a universal order part of a Universal Mind, one we project into the world by what we believe. In short, humanity has evolved from a gang warfare, oppressive mentality to a culture of non-coercion and social agreement, of contract by rule of law, administrated by democratic constitutional government to protect our natural freedoms, our human rights of freedom of thought, freedom of belief, and freedom of speech; and freedom from coercions for all people equally. These reciprocal, protected freedoms have brought us great accomplishments in science and arts, economic productivity, general social well being, and great achievements in technology and medicine. We are now, though not universally, driven by principles of agreement manifest in agreed upon social values, market exchange systems, and due process of law. In a Simple Universe these freedoms materialized naturally for us, which have given the world levels of civilizations never seen before. As natural and free human beings we manifest in our personal realities the conditions that define for us our being, this is Who we are. And as Natural Universalists, we enter a new emergent domain of a Conscious humanity driving our global future. This is the futurism of an Emergent Universalism that will define our place in the universe, the 'Who we are', that future generations will present to all living beings, both on Earth and all the living worlds. We are all interconnected in an infinitely interrelated reality of being, in a universe that can both work with us or against us. When we master this consciously, in a healthy and productive projection of our reality, our Who, we then take our place as Masters of the Universe, with respect and compassion, goodwill for all life. Then we may have fully acquired the universal consciousness of a planet no longer ruled by coercive force and violence, but one that has evolved as a world fully conscious. This is what was meant by Habeas Mentem, a collective future fully conscious as humanity. Then the world will have known a true Peace. ...to be continued. Also see: The Portal - whence came human knowledge | ||
| Giving |
Giving, when it feels right. When were first penned, some thirty years ago, the words in Ch. 23 of Habeas Mentem, We are Conscious: We Give, it said: It was then understood that this simple act of 'giving' already puts us in a higher hierarchy within our existence in Earth's animal kingdom. We have minds that can choose to give, something not usually found in animal minds, though not necessarily true of all animals. Acts of kindness or forgiveness, also a form of giving, is a uniquely human trait, though not all humans are naturally endowed with this. To a larger or smaller degree, it is also learned. We choose to give, when it feels right for us, without compulsion or any coercions to do so. That sets us apart, when we can give. Also then said: This act of giving may have been the first step, like storytelling, music, decorative arts; along with making tools and fire; of what made us enter a new human consciousness, what first defined us as human.  But such giving can never be demanded or restricted, as it cannot be coerced from us. We give of our own free will, whether for charity and helpfulness, or merely to please. Giving is a totally voluntary act from the spirit of giving, and to restrain it on any level, whether to demand it for institutional purposes, or any prohibitions to how given, or to whom, negates the spirit of the gift. It is in the nature of our humanness that we give freely when we can, or wish to. It is this freedom that elevates the gift to a truly human act. And when given in the spirit of love and joy, then it is an act of mastery over our lives. This is the energy of mind, of humanity, that has elevated us from servility to a natural universalism given only to human beings. This is the power of consciousness, what defines for us the powers of Masters of the Universe. In that chapter also was said: When we give, and do good works, we are so much more. Our future is so much greater when we finally understand the powers of mind we have in us. We can be more, consciously choose to do so. This is what we are as human beings, because we can give. Accept the gift with grace, and be more. … more to follow. | ||
| Magisteri Ludi |
Magisteri Ludi.  Game of Life The Game of Life starts with sets of three, where cells either live or die. In an infinitely interrelated universe, Life began from emergent conditions of reality defined by the totality of such interrelations. The rules of the game is continuity, to stay alive and pass on the art of life to the next generations, since the dawn of time in perpetuity. In human life, this art is simplified as 'intelligence', what is in our mind. More conscious in our minds, the more we are in the game, more the masters of our fate in the game of life. But this is not a board game with a final goal and win. Life is endless, even when we die, and the game continues on, ad infinitum. The Game is played at many levels, by all people, and many different ways, each according to one's life circumstances and abilities. We are all positioned in the game at birth. Followed by natural events and human nurture, we naturally manifest our reality by how the mind responds, and from such we create our lives. As our lives proceed from early childhood, we are fashioned by this interaction. In the process, formed between life's hammer and anvil, we over time forge those principles and beliefs that will guide us in how we play. We bring to the game many talents, some inborn, others learned, that will characterize those personal traits, the Who we are, fashioned from all our life experiences. All these must be encouraged from very early age to develop our life skills, which like a strong body must also form a strong mind. Inclusive must be study to strengthen the intellect, artistic developments per our abilities in music, drawing, dance, and literature, character building in courage and clarity of mind, to have faith in ourselves. All these help us greatly in the game. But most important is development in those psychological areas of emotional sensitivity, awareness, focus, humility, gracefulness and elegance. This is how we score points in the game. A successful player will have poise and compassion in the game. A failing player will display sloth and arrogance. Paramount in this universal game is also truthfulness, which scores high points; deceits take points away; so how played is immediately evident how a person's social environment forms around them: Are they harmonious and agreeable, or are they discordant and miserable? Life scores high for those harmonious, but fares poorly for the brutish, those coercive. Remember, this is a game of continuity, so no 'one off' scores really matter. It is the consistency of guiding life principles, and accuracy of mental acuity, of total awareness, that in the Game of Life mean most in the end. And as there is no 'end', the scores tallied carry off into the interrelated fabric of the universe to infinity, a universal realm of which we are still but dimly familiar, but one that hugs our existence at every moment of time. We are never separated from that existence, even in death. Though we have left the body, our identity in the Who continues eternal. The game goes on. We are what we believe, and the journey that takes us through life is played as how we have come to believe. This is a critical process determined by both the subjective mind, the Who we are, and objective mind, the reason that guides us. All is ultimately guided by the principles embodied in the, still emergent for us, universal mind that forms for us our reality. We are all intimately and infinitesimally interconnected. There is no part of the game where we can truly escape this interconnectedness, which is interrelated throughout all reality to infinity. Our life is as much part of the universe as the universe is a part of us. In short, the natural duality of our existence is an illusion, and the game scores on how well we can overcome illusion in our search for the truth. And there is the ultimate score of the game, that we find the truth, and then we live by it. When we do, we then enter the realm of the infinite in our lives, and we score as Ludi Magistri, masters of the Game, where the Universe works with us. The universe is mathematical, and makes sense, so in the end it is simple to understand. However, the universe is also beautiful, and its forms of beauty are like living fountains for us to drink from, with love for all life. How thirsty in life must be those who revel in the ugly, the depraved, and cloaked in fear of life. They miss out on the beauty! If they shrink from the elegance of life, and instead fall into self abuse, escaping into drugs or alcohol, slaves to unrestrained sensual pleasures, if they are loud and ungraceful, mean, how sad their lives though they may think themselves superior. They are failing the game, and in time the game will fail them as their unhappy self destructiveness drives them into the lower depths of life. They may need to be there, and that is what they have come to believe of themselves, but the beauty of life is now lost on them. No matter how they may rationalize it, thinking themselves victorious, they are losing the game. Life always wins, so either we score to win or score to lose. The Game is ambivalent, as it is our play, so either is acceptable and it does not judge. But a winner is easily spotted: it is the person with poise and beauty and calm around them. And in their social network forms a natural universalism that graces all who come in touch with it. They project onto others a natural joy and ease that is pleasing to be near. We live in a simple universe where our human consciousness connects with all on many levels. All those levels are the levels played by the Game, from mathematics and sciences to music, to culture and freedom and grace, to beauty of the arts, where the highest scores go not to the most powerful, for they lose points; but winning score goes to the most gracious and humble, the most pleasing. Seek them out, find them, for their reality will be a happy place. And there you will find the winners of the Game, the true Magisteri Ludi. …more to follow. | ||
| Love, Unconditional |
The Strange World of Love, Unconditional.  Love is a strange thing, that it is so simple and universal, and yet so complex. All sentient beings display some form of love, whether nurture of their young, choosing a mate, or showing affection. This love could be as simple as friendship, or as complex as intimate relationship between two people on all levels, of caring, romantic sensuality, sharing life together, or simply wishing good will. All love is formed in a bond that sustains them in their hearts and minds, where we are drawn to the other as they are drawn to us. From a total stranger can come full richness of love, mysteriously and incomprehensibly, but that is the reality we find ourselves in. How wonderful, and yet how frightening such love can be, especially if it is so complete as to become unconditional, that we love the other no matter what. The strangeness of love is its commonality, that it is so universal to humans, and at some level to all sentient beings, that it is normal. No one needs to be taught to love, it is as natural and common for us as the smile on our face. Love simply is, and perhaps it is this commonality that renders love almost invisible to us, where we may take it for granted. If we live in a universe that strangely manifests love in its sentient species, then is this not remarkable beyond comprehension, in that it elevates love to a complexity we can only dimly understand? Yet, it is something we all have the capacity to feel, whether deeply or in passing, that we can love another, and expect another can love us too. Is this not miraculous? Taken down from the universal level and brought into our personal experience, love is as powerful as we let it to be in our lives. For some it is too painful, so is kept out or suppressed. For others it is embraced fully, and they do not fear basking in love's turbulent beauty, where the joys and sorrows of love are accepted unconditionally. Why is that so strange? As mysterious as our human consciousness, there is no one place in the body where love resides. It is common to ascribe love to matters of the heart. But that may be more a popular notion stemmed from the fact that love can make the heart palpitate. Its center in the brain is equally mystifying, same as the seat of consciousness. It may be that the whole body organism, including the full nervous system, is involved in the feelings of love, right down to individual cells. It is in our DNA as much as all functions of the body. It is especially connected to our sexual, reproductive biological physiology, as love plays an important part in how we conceive new life. The female of the species carries that life in her, and then both rear their children, at least ideally, where the male provides care and safety. Women are the bearers of that love passed onto their children in ways special that men can only mimic, where the mother is perhaps more intimately bonded to her children. But both are needed to nurture new life into existence. And though it may be that women are more open to loving, especially on the personal level, it is also given for men to love, if at times in strange ways where his may appear more aloof or virtual. It is all love nevertheless, all love from the same source. Perhaps not from inside us, though it feels that way, but from some greater sentience that permeates all reality of the universe. Think of the intensity we feel when we fall in love. That person may have been unknown to us until then, virtually a total stranger, but now has entered our love consciousness deep down into our soul. Where did that come from? Where did the person come from? Where did the moment of falling in love come from? Could it be that in every thought, in every hope, we are moving vast forces of our being bringing together, in invisible and mysterious ways, the yearnings in our heart to mutual fulfillment when the two lovers meet? It is as if the whole universe conspires to make love happen, in all its turbulent and beautiful manifestations. It is not only pheromones that drives falling in love, though their chemistry plays a part. More likely it is a connection that pre-existed the moment, same as the person encountered already pre-existed their meeting, and more likely the special emotional connection resulting from such meeting already pre-existed their falling in love. Each one a separate universe of reality, a Who, come together, no matter how distant their origin, no matter how unlikely. Whether suddenly, or gradually over time, two beings come together in an intensity of feelings that we call love. How often do lovers say "I feel like I've always known you!" And how strongly felt is that feeling of "oneness" with the other, their face so familiar, so beautiful? Once in love, if we are free to love the other, no matter their sex gender, their meeting of body and mind, and heart, will make their love grow and flourish in intensity, and at times in unexpected, beautiful ways. If it is real, then that love will bond them together in ways as real as anything in their lives. Two souls, two bodies, two universes, meeting together in love is a very powerful life event, one to be cherished because of its pre-existing improbability. Strangely, it happens. We fall in love. Love in all its passions is intense. Who had not both thrilled and suffered for love? The feelings can be so joyful, so delightful, and yet so disturbing. Love is perhaps the greatest challenge to our ego. We love from deep inside and expect the same from the one we love. But if this love is unrequited, or perhaps somehow betrayed, we can be thrown into a deep depression, or anger and want to hurt back. There is this intense challenge to our ego, that we feel betrayed, might even want revenge. But is this love? True love can rise above such negative emotion. We are all human in how our emotions play us, and such feelings of hurt are natural for us. When we open our hearts to another, we also bare our ego to them. This is a fragile thing, and hurt from both loving and being loved is a natural human response, especially when love for another is so intense, and complex. When so hurt it is not easy to forgive. It might even drive us to acts we will regret, sometimes irreversible, where psychotic behavior can turn to violence. In retrospect, we may find it was not worth the cost, and hurt reverberates all our lives with great depths of sorrow. But think how more healing is forgiveness when love is hurt. Unforgiving, our love is then conditional, in that we have expectations that must be met. But unconditional love rises above the pain, and it opens the future for deeper feelings than restricted by our conditions. Love can then flourish in rich and unexpected ways, for both lovers. When the ego is taken out of the equation of love, it rises to a higher level, and we see our loved one in a new light. Imagine for a moment your loved one has but one day to live. How would you love them then? Would it not be stripped of all suspicion, all anger? Loving unconditionally is like that. It may be strange to feel such depth of love, but it is the most satisfying love of all, for both lovers. No one really wants to hurt, or be hurt, but it happens, and we must accept that as our human condition. To consciously rise above such hurt is the ultimate achievement in love. It is the love of angels, above the ego, where all is forgiven, always. Strange thing, but it can happen! How infinitely richer, from the depths of space and time, is such love. Unconditional love is transcendent, and in it the other is never a stranger. Rather, true love is when our loved one and self are as one. When we meet, that is how it was meant to be. Then the ego is truly reigned, when love is without preconditions, and real. This is then from the infinite, a universal Love. ...there is more. | ||
| Will we Know Them? |
Will we Know Them when they Come?  When we meet a stranger, are they already known to us? In an interrelated universe, the meeting is not by 'chance', since they are there with you. At some level, the meeting was going to happen to bring both your beings into proximity. But do we Know them? This is a question that transcends space and time, where all the possibilities and probabilities of your encounter must be tabulated, to infinity, that would bring such a meeting. Though we had not met formally to date, the possibility of such future meetings with distant star travelers is a eventual reality we will have to face. And when it happens, whether or not we 'know' them will be a civilization changing event that will determine our place in the universe, one we must be prepared for. Will we know them as Masters of the Universe, or something else? Who will we be then? How can we know Who they are? We do not live in isolation. In time we will encounter others who will affect our lives. This is a natural law that applies to all living things. We are never fully alone, nor can we remain perpetually lonely. Such loneliness is unhealthy, for both mind and body. This is as true of our personal lives as it is for all life in the universe. Eventually we will meet. Isolation may not be a natural state, but it can be a condition created for our existence, at least for a time. If conditions of our meeting are still latent, then such meeting will be postponed until they are right. On a personal level, such isolation may last until our internal mental state, in both the subjective mind and the universal, is ready to receive the other. On a universal level, a collective existence may create a parallel effect, where encounter on a universal scale may not happen until we are ready for it. Even if ready, it is not to say such meeting would be without adversity, as the natives of the Americas found when come in contact with European explorers. Things changed, heavy costs were incurred in the meeting. The same could be expected if Earth's people were to encounter beings from other intra-galactic civilizations, that unwanted costs may be incurred. We may not be ready for them as they may not be ready for us. And if so, then meeting will be delayed until conditions are right for us, reciprocally. Until then, we remain in a kind of dormant isolation, where we even doubt such encounter could ever happen. This is where we are now, still doubting it universal to find life everywhere. This galactic encounter transcends technological limitations, though it is paramount that we will not meet until we have the technical ability to do so. Our current state of knowledge, and known physics, rules out such meeting, as our rocket technology is incapable of spanning galactic space. Other civilizations may have already progressed beyond these limitations and have discovered technology that can take them at super luminal velocities in space. Because we still do not have this means of travel, nor likely to except theoretically traveling at (faster than light) speed of gravity employing its force (not yet done), our space travel is limited to a very small planetary environment constrained by rocket, rather than inertial drive, physics. If Modified Vector Dynamics ever proves viable, for example, then continuous high acceleration in space could take us to other star systems, which could make such encounters possible. Though we do not have this technology yet, it does not mean others have not found it. So at this time, it appears encounter is more likely from external approach rather than ours. But that is not all. The conditions for such galactic meeting must also be satisfied at another level, transcending technical know how. It must also satisfy conditions of our mental readiness for such encounters. On this matter, our condition is still dormant, only latently possible as we slowly wake to our larger planetary consciousness. It may be we are holding such intra-galactic meeting at a distance, if we are not ready. We may not yet be ready for meeting them, and they may not yet feel ready to meet us. Both have their conditions of consciousness on a mass scale to satisfy natural conditions of our encounter. It may be they are even aware of this on some level, or perhaps not: and it may be we are more aware of this consciously than them. Either way, until our collective consciousness creates conditions attractive for our meeting, we may remain in isolation, as is Earth today. These would constitute a check list of questions for both parties of such intra-consciousness meetings necessary on a universal scale, as well as personal: 1. Establish agreement protocol for how such meeting should take place, where and on what terms to suit both parties equally? 2. Exchange of gift-giving on first encounter, as a show of humanness and goodwill? 3. Examine how the other party responds to possibly perceived hostilities, whether with dialogue and understanding, or with force? 4. Examine whether the other party exhibits poise, elegance, and humility, or is it with arrogance? 5. Expect they are looking for the same signs from us, that we are masters of our destiny and they of theirs? These are telling signs of Who it is we meet, both for us and for them, because they gage the level of our consciousness in the Game. The fact that such meeting had not taken place, or lost to memory, shows we are not ready. If other worlds are able and ready but avoid us, then they may be more ready than us, and so bide their time. True meeting at the intra-galactic consciousness level can only take place among equals, for as equals they are the Ludi Magistri, the true Masters of the Universe. And it is only as equals we will be drawn together, if we are consciously seeking this, or else it inevitably will lead to hostility and mistrust, for one could oppress the other. To date this has not happened, and some guardians had perhaps watched over us with the good grace to leave us alone. But now we are just awaking, so must stay alert to break the loneliness rightly. The next step will be important, a defining moment in the human evolution of our species as true Universal beings, of whether we are fully conscious as a planet. Otherwise, without full conscious awareness, such meeting would be a mistake. This can only work for us as universal equals, equal players in the Game. Then we will Know them when we meet. Roma Also see: Petri dish world | ||
| Universal Universalism |
On Universal Universalism  Universal co-Existence 6+3~7! 19 ØC* C* 6+3~7! 19Ø ØC*6 + 3~7!19 19 ØC*6+3~ 7! 7! 19Ø C* 6+3~ 3~ 7!19Ø C*6+ + 3~7!19ØC* 6 The rules of the Game are that no one belief system can dominate another. The prime directive is all seek to find agreement in a universal coexistence respecting others reciprocally, where domination by force or deceit is condemned universally. We are all in this existence together equally, whether on a personal level or galactic, inclusive of all cultures as they had evolved in their own time. We are all different and yet united in this quest for life consciousness, what defines universal humanity. When this rule is violated, the universe will manifest for us what devolves consciousness. We then fail the Game, and fall short of our place in the universe as Magisteri Ludi. The universal Consciousness is indiscriminate, non judgmental. In response to our actions, it will deliver what we enact. This natural universal response mechanism is a function of an infinitely interrelated reality. On a larger, collective social scale, the same will happen. If we revel in actions that are odious, then our social reality will respond in kind, where our society becomes odious. If torture or oppression, hatred and vengeance, or killing of women, and self destructive suicidal acts prevail, these will manifest from reality that same oppression in kind. Societies can suffer as much as individuals, where their manifest collective reality is grim and painful, and suffering rules. The universe does not judge, for in its infinitely interrelated totality, it is all of what we can manifest. It is too big to judge. It is unconditional, the supreme forgiveness. What appear moral values to us are negated or zeroed out at infinity. The Universe merely is. But as an infinite Consciousness, it then either manifests more of itself for us, or less. We choose, we play the game. It impartially tallies the score. Which would we want? More universal consciousness, or less? Our choice. Therefore, co-existence is the right choice. If we as a planetary world seek to join in friendship all other conscious planetary worlds, we too must play by the rules all such worlds play. In the Game these are the rules all accepted as true, what entered them as Universal Universalists, Masters of the Universe. By finding our paths to co-Existence, we then too enter that reality in the Game to join in. Then the infinite Love of the universe also can enter our lives, unconditionally. It is not perfect, and many struggles and trials will ensue. But we then will not be alone. A much larger universe of humanity, of all life, will open up for us. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'ism, Spiritual Universalism, and Islam; all these are inexorably interrelated, all united in the Game of Life. Co-Exist, in peace. The gift of love follows naturally. Spiritus Sanctus is universal for us all. ...Ø Also see: The Kingdom of God is secular | ||
| Deconstructed Universalism |
Universalism Deconstructed. What if Universalism is wrong? The whole body of this universalist philosophy is built on the principles evolved from 'interrelationship'. So if this basic premise is wrong, then perhaps the whole resulting construct could be wrong with it. This is a serious self searching question, one which could deconstruct the whole body of Universalism. Written earlier in Magisteri Ludi: If we are naturally positioned in the 'universal mind', then it proceeds naturally that the universe manifests for us its reality, what is our personal reality, in terms of Who we are in our mind, is as defined our being in infinity. This too is predicated on an infinity that is interrelated instantaneously at both the micro and macro levels of our existence. But if this is not so, that such interrelationship is not instantaneous, or the interrelationship definitions are somehow incomplete, then the whole structure of our defined being, our Who, likewise falls apart. And if so, then the concept of 'universal mind' perforce falls apart. These are the basic conditions of necessity embodied in Habeas Mentem, what justifies our right to being in the mind, our free and naturally legitimized Who of our existence; why we are free as conscious human beings. Failure to prove these basic notions would also invalidate the whole body structure of a Simple Universe, which is inherently derived from such interrelationship fundamentally. In effect, the whole body of Universalism would be thrown into doubt. So if Natural Universalism is to be acceptable as a whole body, as a natural human creed, then it must be provable at all levels, starting with the original premise of interrelationship as the basic fabric of how is constructed and operable our universe. Anything less than such proof would relegate Universalism to an article of faith. On today's modern worldview predicated on reason, though we may find comfort in it, such blind faith is less than fully acceptable. Therefore, it is imperative to deconstruct Universalism on all levels, starting with the concept of interrelated informational instantaneity; if proven, then proceeding to the concept of universality, that what happens at the micro level translates into the larger macro universe, and that this effect is not merely a locality but fully extendable to infinity. This is important fundamentally, because without such universality of interrelationship, the defining system may close itself off (that it is in error, thus false)*, so the identity definitions are less than total, in effect less than infinite; then the legitimacy of our right to being 'Who we are' is thrown into doubt. Faith alone in our human rights is insufficient, as it can be negated to relegate us back into subservience to man made social systems, where our natural rights are trespassed. We know the deleterious consequences from human history. The challenges Universalism must overcome, why it must be deconstructed, is that the model of the universe is complete if, and only if, it is totally and instantaneously interrelated to serve as a legitimizing vehicle for our right to being Who we are. This is no idle challenge, as it may force out some currently 'proven' and acceptable models of cosmology. (For example, if information in the universe is not constricted by light speed limit, but instantaneous instead, much of current thinking based on Einstein's cosmology may be invalid, or at least less than fully relevant, viz. the birth of the universe may not be a Big Bang, and gravity not a universal constant.) Science will always probe its premises and hypothesis, but how these are resolved intimately affects how we see ourselves in the universe. This is by default. So if we perceive ourselves in a duality relationship with all existence, in a Cartesian sense of us versus reality, then we can find no deeper connection with existence except what we define in our minds as a man made intelligent order; man is then something apart. But if the model is one of total inclusion, to infinity, and one that totally self defines itself with intelligence, then man is a part of the whole, the One, in every aspect of being. Though we may not be physiologically equipped to see this, and it is only an abstract idea (we don't actually know what an 'infinite interrelationship' looks like, nor can we really understand it), it is one that is deconstructable as a test of our Universalist model of being. How do we prove it? And if proven, that basic premises are correct, have we evolved in our thinking beyond acceptance as an article of faith? How else can this universalist model be deconstructed? Every step of the way must be tested, if it is to be true. What happens if it is true? Then everything changes. Our human interrelationships change, so the laws of agreement now dominate, and coercions are minimized. More importantly, what the universe manifests in our reality, both personal and collective, now reflects this newly emergent universalism, so all benefit from it. It is not automatic, and is still needed much effort and intellect, but we will find ourselves more empowered by our existence, and less handicapped by unnecessary adversities. The universe is a hard task master, but when fully conscious of it, it works with us more than against. So proving Universalism, deconstructing its basic premises, is paramount to our future success, or failure, in how we manifest our world. Of course, this is only one step, a beginning first rung, and other models will follow. It is also, by default, an emergent proof of our evolving planetary human consciousness, if so. This is why we must test. *[There is one condition where 'interrelationship to infinity' may fail: it would be if at infinity it cancels itself out to null. When all possible interconnections are taken in toto to infinity, they may zero out, leaving us with no result. But this condition must incorporate three factors: the fact that large complex systems are emergent; the emergence of the universe's order is able to create life; and this life in the infinitely complex emergent order has exhibited evolution, not only in the multiplicity of species but also of evolving consciousness. Were it not for these three factors, it could have been possible to postulate a nihilistic hypothesis that at infinity all interrelationships cancel out to zero, but obviously they do not. Interrelationship to infinity is an interrelationship definition from infinity, and thus is a valid argument for defining our human consciousness, for each one of us Who we are. We are as infinite beings if so.] IDA Also see: Why there is something rather than nothing - a discussion This is how things are - discussion Time in a relativistic variable G universe | ||
| Transition towards New World |
Transition towards a New World Awareness.  World consciousness emerging (This is a follow up to On Universal Universalism, and Passing of an Age.) The transition to a new awareness of our humanity in the universe is an emergent change, where each person in his or her time, in their own way, become conscious of their place in an infinite, interrelated reality that defines for them Who they are. It is a personal journey, like a pilgrimage we each must make in life. There is no mass social movement, no surge of great acknowledgment, nor of impending change. Rather, it is a silent revolution, of a gradual undercurrent that slowly permeates society, almost without general notice. People change, one at a time, until one day there is a global awareness that something new has arrived, that humanity is consciously aware of itself as it had never known before. And conscious, they are now masters of their lives in a new way, pleasing and capable, so the world changes around them to reflect this new existential awareness. This is the power of being still. This is how it must be. The greater the change, the greater the potential social disruption. The potential change from a planetary awakening is monumental. In past mass awakenings, such as the teachings of Buddha, for example, the world changed peacefully; not so for other mass movements, where violence accompanied the followers of self proclaimed leaders of a new order. Any change in human consciousness can lead to confusion and personal dislocations, which on a grand scale can become socially damaging, even catastrophic if coercions win out, where egos rule. Such mass dislocations must be avoided, if the new awakening is to be peace, not war. For this reason, a planetary consciousness awakening can have no leader, no popular spokesperson to proclaim change. It must take place in near total silence, where individually, amongst friends, with a quiet knowing attention, a new world awareness of universal values takes hold in our hearts. No one points a finger, nor calls out names. This is the least damaging change of all, where we individually, personally connect with our Universal mind, with minimal disruption to our normal way of life. As Masters of the Universe, we know who we are, and who are others, because we are masters of our minds. It all happens naturally, because this is how works the universe. As we individually connect with our greater being, positioned within the infinite matrix of our personal identity, where honesty and goodwill dominate over avarice and deceits, where the 'given word' is honored, the world changes of its own. Without flags and banners, without hostility, this change is just a quiet transition. It may take years for some, decades for others, or centuries, but we patiently wait. The universe of human consciousness already operates on these principles, those which make us functionally more human and aware, universally. Our better world's order thus merely falls into place of its own, where all life celebrates. Then, and only then, do we join with universal humanity. And then love, the gift, the game, and planetary awakening, all in due humility, follow naturally for all. It is the better way. Also see: Pilgrimage Journey People is people | ||
| Sufism, Monotheism, and the ONE |
Sufism, Habeas Mentem, and Monotheism - it is all in the ONE.  Sufism - interactive In A. Kerim Soley's Sufism as an Existence Philosophy, it says Sufism dates back to perhaps Ancient Egypt as a philosophy of life founded on the concept of One God, same as are other world religions, from the Judeo-Christian religions, including Islam, and all their extensions, Baha'ism, Yazidism, Ishmaelism. Kerim says: The same mystical tradition can be found in Hinduism's Brahman, or Buddhism's Dharma, which strive to explain all existence as an expression of the ONE. The same concept is foundational to Habeas Mentem, where an infinite interrelationship defines our human identity, and consciousness, in terms of the totality of that interrelationship; it all defaults to the One. Whether we call it God, or Existence, or the Universe, it is all of the ONE, the totality of all existence and life within it, the universe in which we as consciously alive human beings live in; the world we universally seek to understand. What all these belief systems have in common is their reflection of humanity's endless curiosity of its existence. From when our ancestors hundreds of thousand years ago first gazed up at the Milky Way and wondered, or first scratched by the fireside a notch on a bone, or carved it into a flute, we had been asking: What is it all about? And over those thousands of years we had told ourselves stories, of creation, of powerful forces, stirred by gods, of the unknown explained in ways that gave us comfort, or pause. Humans are curious beings endowed with an intelligence to ask, and in its own way it answers. This search for meaning led is down two paths. One was a gnosis with the divine, where mystical revelation and inner enlightenment reveals for us the truth of existence; the other is a formalization of what we are to believe, such as revealed by prophets and teachers, all organized into religious order that prescribe for us right beliefs and actions. These two modes often overlap, but at times come into conflict with each other. For example, according to this description of Islamic Sufism (Wikipedia) it states: Where original Sufism was seen as a spiritual practice, where its theological adaptation ties it to the practices of a religious belief system, however, and its mysticism strays from these religious beliefs, it then becomes a form of heresy subject to religious persecution. In effect, religious dogma runs counter to the open ended spiritual search of the individual if it fails to comply. When this conflict occurs, the religious powers constrain it. This could be said of any religious system, where a spiritual quest may be constrained by accepted, and imposed, religious dogma. Why does this happen? The answer may be a function of our human nature of duality, though the ultimate goal of spirituality is Oneness. There are two sides to our human nature, often overlapped, in the open search for answers: One is the ability of taking risks, of pursuing our quest of the unknown personally without a structured certainty; the other is where the support of religion offers a structured framework within which we find confidence and belief certainty. This is the duality of assuming risk or seeking absolute certainty, which is found in all human endeavors. But where uncertainty is by definition without structure, certainty demands. So between these two worlds is an existential conflict, and one where structure is dominant, because it needs to control. This is the role of organized religion, especially as found in the three Abrahamic faiths, that the uncertainty of seeking spiritual gnosis with God, or the One, is overpowered by the certainty a structured, organized religion offers. Therein lies the conflict, because certainty can tolerate no dissent; its dogmas must be absolute if it is to remain certain, and thus all must comply with it. The corollary to this is that it must impose its belief system on others if it is to dominate, something religious orders must do to validate their certainty. Without religiously dominating, it runs the risk of tolerating uncertainty, especially the risk of error in belief, which undermines it. The duality of our human nature, therefore, is what hinders our Oneness with the infinite, or God, so the quest for a Sufi merging with the ONE is undermined a priori; the goal of mystical Oneness with creation is therefore impossible, because religious dogma cannot allow it. The Unity of Existence, such as shared by all monotheistic belief systems, is thus unachievable while one seeks to dominate another. By default, though they overlap, at present organized religions are largely antithetical to free spiritual pursuits. Like dogma, certainty demands control. It all comes down to dominance versus openness. In an open system, all approaches to the One are possible, the universe as open to us all in infinity; in a closed system, the openness is constrained by obedience to its order, since it must enforce its certainty to eliminate risk. This is a dilemma which the concept of Habeas Mentem (by design) strove to avoid; each human being conscious has the right to be Who they are, reciprocally, so none may dominate the mind of another. But neither is it a religious idea, nor mystical, but a fully secular idea protecting our human right to be Who we are in the One. Dominance is unnecessary if the system is open ended. So when Kerim writes: Indeed, the Unity of Existence must be something beyond religion, beyond certainty. The One is beyond all three, because it cannot be defended with force; it must come totally sincerely from within us, without any compulsion. Like love, Sufism, or any spiritual seeking of the meaning of existence in the One, cannot be constrained. God is open ended. IDA Also see: One vs. Two | ||
| Virtuous Pursuits |
On Virtuous Pursuits.  Virtues and Vices Risk is what is encountered on any venture assumed, that we do not know the outcome in advance. When the gambler assumes risk, the goal is to gain profit without commensurate effort, a quick win to satisfy some internal need to win. But when risk is assumed for a more virtuous venture, where work, diligence, and patience, with just virtues in mind, then the ambient environment of such pursuits fall within the interconnected reality within which such pursuits are sought. Whereas gambling may be pursuits from less noble motives, a negative risk, virtuous pursuits are sought from a higher ideal of benefit for all involved, thus more connected with motives that are supported by positive human needs. The outcome of such noble pursuits may not be assured, but they may be more supported by an ambient reality where a positive outcome is sought, hence a more positive risk. This positive-negative duality is encountered in all human ventures, where our ambient reality either supports the venture, a positive risk, or is unsupported, a negative risk. The two are clearly not the same, thus flavoring it with a positive or negative bias. The gambler 'hopes' to win, whereas the positive venture has a program to win. It is the same with the reality based support mechanism of our ambient reality, that a positive risk defines it as virtuous, but where the negative risk is outside the greater support reality, what leaves it without virtue, a vice. That is not to say the gamblers cannot win, for clearly there are times when they do; but given enough time they will either break even or lose, hence gains are trivial. Unlike the gambler, whoever 'gambles' on a positive given venture, there is hope the outcome will be favorable and, given reality support in its success, will enjoy the gains' longevity over time. Therein lies the difference between both risks, that one has longevity, is constructive, whereas the other is ultimately doomed to fail. Therefore, whenever we launch ourselves into any enterprise, it is good to assess from what motives we do it. They will determine the choices we make. Is it from trivial motives, or more noble, virtuous motives? Both, given time, can have positive results. But where one will prove success lasting, the other will prove it illusive. Hence a self definition of what is a virtuous pursuit. The outcome is determined not by our will, but by hard work and humble virtues of what is pursued. Dream, launch yourself into the universe, and your dreams may come true. But not in pursuit of vice, for those ultimately must fail. Virtuous, your dreams are more likely to affect your choices, that they will be realized. That's how works the universe, why virtues are universal. When free of coercions, the rest takes care of itself. IDA Also see: Our 'Truth Compass' In a Society of Individuals Evil dies hard | ||
| Truth Compass |
What is a 'Truth Compass'?  Morality 'truth compass' (interactive) I believe we are all born with an inner 'truth compass' that guides us through life, whether or not we are actually aware of it. This is inherent to any self-organizing system, that what results in the time-aggregate of its development is what is 'true to it', since this is the necessary outcome of its organization. The same is true for 'how Life began, as a timeline aggregate product of organizational interrelationships, on a cosmic scale, so that the end-product of such life, such as ourselves, have that organizational construction built into ourselves. Mostly, it is a survival imperative, that we know how to survive. But it is also a morality imperative, that we in our minds know (consciously or not) how to choose between 'right and wrong'. I also believe that we can get in touch with that inner 'truth compass' rather easily. One way is through sincere prayer. Another is to "talk to angels", or to our higher self in some Astral plane of existence we are part. But in all honesty, I believe it is simply a matter of 'seeking' the truth, to be sincere. Be honest in your search, be honest with yourself and others, stay free of confused ideologies, and that 'truth compass' will serve you very well. But beware of those who are untrue, who seek to deceive, for they will dull your Truth Compass, and with that dulled compass will also damaged your 'morality' compass. I believe this ability is universal and inborn in all of us, whether or not we are conscious of it, because that is our human identity, the Who we are. It is also in the Power of Love that we find our interconnection to everyone, and everything, including all Life. So is it in truth, that love awakens in us a love of truth, its beauty and magnificence, as a gift endowed us humans to seek and perceive. It was the love of all sages, all spirituality in religion, meditation, same as it is the Eros felt by lovers. Such love points our compass towards compassion and understanding, and empathy, forgiving others' shortcomings, loving them for the beauty of their being. Love is a mysterious Cosmic force we still cannot understand. But it is a Truth that permeates all reality. To find truth, we need merely seek it with love, and the grand design has already gifted us with it. Love life and the truth will reveal itself to you. Imagine if all human beings from infancy were encouraged and nurtured in the mysteries and beauties of our truth compass universally. What would the world look like, if all of our 'morality' compasses pointed the same way, all facing 'true north'? What higher moral plane can the world reach if all did this naturally? Is this not the goal of all religions, but not necessarily the result? Rather than a polished, pure north load stone compass, we find human beings lost, all turned around in confusion and chaos? But is this not what human consciousness is really yearning, to achieve that perfection of pure morality? Think about it. Ultimately, if you are a conscious human being at the highest levels, you of necessity begin to activate your 'love' compass, same as your truth and morality compass. And that is the ultimate goal of all Life, in my belief, that we All begin to Love one another, and all life, throughout the universe. These are universal values. Ask your angels...  Also see: Working the Subjective Mind On Virtuous Pursuits Ivan | ||
| New Universal Tool |
A New Tool for Examining the Universal Reality - Consent.  (interactive) Arab astrolabe A century ago the world was presented with a paradigm shift in how we saw the universe with the introduction of Einstein's Relativity, where all events were now seen through the prism of how, at near light speed, relativistic observations were defined by this new paradigm. It was a new tool with which to examine reality, especially cosmological observations, or at the quantum level, where time and space became interrelated functions, variable in relativistic terms. But in a new cosmology defined by a deconstructed universalism, observable events are now seen as an interrelated reality that is in real time, its total complexity instantaneously interconnected down to the Quantum level, and saw all observations now understood within the context of universal simultaneity, what is true of reality in terms of its interrelated self existence. This is a new idea, a paradigm shift in how we examine the reality of the universe. So if we factor in the relativistic observations modified by 'variable' time, we can deduct from this, when time adjusted, for the real time of the events observed, which made relativity a useful tool observing universal reality. The same principle applies to the universal concept of an instantaneously interrelated reality, that it defines existence in terms of how it defines itself. But this concept is likewise applicable to the human condition, that how the universe defines our personal being in terms of itself, what in effect gives us our human identity, is how we can immediately define when this identity, our personal and universal Who, is either validated through mutual agreement or violated through coercions. This in effect is the definition of Habeas Mentem, that what we are in the Universal Mind is Who we are within the self-definition of an interrelated infinite universal reality. This in turn validates our existence relative to the existence of others, whereby if we reciprocally validate each other's existence by agreement, we materialize in our personal reality the universal existence of each other; coercions destroy this mutual universal existence definition, and thus fails to materialize our universal definition, what is our existential reality. This is a powerful tool for examining how we are in the universe, that we are either positioned within our defined universal reality, or we are outside it. It is immediately observable, in effect, when a person is coerced against his or her will, that they are violated of their Who existence in reality, both personal and social, so their existence suffers. The ramifications of this are immense. We now have a tool of instant recognition to gage whether or not a person is living within the definition of their being, or outside it, with all the social and psychological consequences this entails. Happiness is achieved by being Who we are, in universal terms, whereas our happiness is denied when we are forced, coerced both mentally and physically, from our being. So is it with reference to our Truth Compass, that we are either within our Universal Reason or outside it, which becomes the lode stone of our conscious existence, our love of the truth and how we choose to live our lives, what makes us in real terms Who we are. This can be understood in scientific terms, where an error is immediately intuited and we search to correct it with better observations and hypotheses, or in mathematics, where an algorithmic error, for those well versed, is immediately realized. In both cases, the truth is discovered with work and intelligence until the error is corrected; the converse is the error persists and takes on an aura of dogma, one that cannot be argued without reprisals, hence coercions. This is as well applied to real life, where to argue against social errors, for example, to argue against social doctrines of Fascism or Communism, or religious dogma, leads to social coercions, punishable for those whose 'consent' is forced upon them, that they are forced to submit or suffer the consequences of failing to obey. This is an immediate error, one that leads to much suffering and unhappiness in the population subjected. The power of consent is a powerful universal tool, which when violated leads to serious detriment for all involved. When consent fails, the society is sure to fail. Truth will not be denied in real terms, and only through force can error and deceit be enforced, with negative consequences. For this reason, democratic governments that insure our freedoms and human rights, when freely chosen, are far more efficacious than repressive tyranny or theocracy, where the right to choose by our mutual consent is denied. For this reason modern governments have a separation of state and religion, to not repress our freedom of conscience and expression, if they are to be successful. Repressed societies fail. Therefore, in universal terms, society defaults to consent, and science defaults to correct hypothesis and falsifiable examination, if they are to work true. These are universal principles that cannot be subverted without suffering negative consequences. It is just how works the Universe for our human condition. The more consciously aware we are of this, the better the results. This all relates back to 'interrelationship', that the universe is structured such in real time, what defines for us Who we are. Examining this reality defaults to these universal values, what makes them a powerful new tool of self-examination in real terms. But once understood, there is no return to the previous state of affairs. We are simply Who we are in an infinity of 'all that is' reality. The future then self-changes to reflect that new human social reality. IDA | ||
| Humanism Free Inquiry |
Humanism and Free Inquiry.  Snoopy says... A Secularist Humamism Declaration (1980) What do Humanists believe? According to The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism, their belief is an open ended inquiry with intelligent reason and perseverance of the questions universal for humankind, both secular and religious, or ethical, of how we can be free from dogmas and aspire for a more tolerant and better world. This aspiration does not sacrifice ethical behavior that is agreeable to humanity, what we as humanity agree upon by consent, but it does eschew dogmatic moralism common to most theological beliefs and social ideological beliefs, where failure to believe or to disobey the ideological dogma is punishable, at times severely punished, in violation of our right to free inquiry. In the Humanist Declaration it states:
This declaration is clear and commendable, that it supports free inquiry with tolerance of others. However, a corollary to free inquiry is what we believe true, or what we are opposed to in the beliefs of others. Then it gets more complicated, because what we have come to believe, and disbelieve, takes on an ideological cloak covering how we interact with others. Such interactions are then of necessity colored by what we came to believe, or disbelieve. So in the case of Humanism, the beliefs that religions are fundamentally anti-freedom, thus repressive, necessitates an equally dogmatic belief as what was being criticized, where the humanistic opposition to religions and all their control issues baggage becomes in itself a kind of dogmatism, one hostile to religions. So if we sacrifice tolerance of free inquiry, we are back to the rigidity criticized. Further in the Declaration, it states:
So in turn, the Humanist beliefs are believed superior to those whose religious precepts they disagree with and are opposed to. But this then makes the humanistic argument parallel to that of religious dogmatists, that they too are intolerant of other beliefs. This is a conundrum only to a point, however, because though Humanists may be involuntarily guilty of the same dogmatism as religion, they do not have the power to coerce and punish; the religious and socially ideological powers do have this power, and at times in history have used it. So it is the power to punish 'dis-believers' that sets the Humanists aside, because they do not exercise such power, nor ever have to date. But if the underlying fundamentals of dogma are latently present even in humanistic beliefs, then how are they different? Attacking any religious belief, or attacking Catholics reverence for their Pope, or in Orthodoxy their Patriarch, or some of the un-humanistic, intolerant Koranic texts, it is still an attack of intolerance, with the same latent dogmatism humanists are opposed to. So at bottom, is Humanism but another belief system, a 'de facto' religion, without the power to coerce or punish? Tolerance of coercion, which is against humanist values, is not the same as tolerance of religious beliefs, which is a humanist fundamental. There is no question that commands and threats of punishment are unnecessary for an advanced humanity. But nor is there need for overt criticism scoffing at others' belief systems, which can be a deeply personal, human experience. If Humanism hopes to rise above such petty pursuits as attacking the beliefs of others, no matter how wrong or superstitious they appear, they then had not progressed beyond those who are kept back by their dogmas. It is human to err in our pursuits, why tolerance and compassion are important. As stated in their Declaration: "...it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy." In effect, objective reason leads to greater morality than religious dictates. This is a given. But as an intolerant attack on others' beliefs, it is a step backwards for humanistic ideals, one that of necessity contradicts their avowed tolerance. Though there may be cause for condemning the religious commands to coercion present in certain belief doctrines, both theological and secular, they need not be criticized as a whole, if there is even a remote possibility that there is a journey of spiritual discovery for some in their belief, especially beliefs that encourage deeply human values of compassion and mercy. Not all atheism has to be anti-religious (see below). To believe otherwise is to close off all possibility of such personal discovery, of free inquiry, which in itself becomes a force of dogma. It does not seem this is a future Humanism would want to pursue if it is to be truly reflective of human pursuits, even spiritual pursuits, what makes their humanistic philosophy fully human. If they pursue this religious antagonism as stated, that their beliefs are deeply opposed to religion, what many find worthy for deeply personal reasons, then they default to becoming what they oppose, a cold dogmatic belief system intolerant of others' beliefs. If so, then it becomes a contradiction of terms. As such, Humanism becomes a dogmatic philosophical, social and secular movement; and for all its good points, it becomes devoid of true humanism it professes, for it fails this important test of tolerance and compassion, both deeply human ideals. These are universal values. Humanism devoid of compassion falls short of itself. IDA Also see: Does Atheism have to be Anti-religious? - BBC | ||
| Do we have Free Will? |
Do we have Free Will? -- Yes.  We have a universal right to choose freely, one of the fundamental pillars of modern human freedoms. But it can be argued that if the universe is deterministic, that an interrelated infinity of energy and matter can in its totality pre-determine the outcome of any set of forces set in action, then can we have 'free will'? In effect, right down to the subatomic level, all events can be determined, at least in theory, to what will be the outcome. Taken further to human determinism, such an infinite set of interrelationship must of necessity invalidate free choice, as the events the mind perceives and reacts to will be predestined as to their outcome; so choice is meaningless. But is this strictly true, or is there another factor of interconnected reality, to infinity, that leaves room for living minds to exercise free will? In the Boltzmann version of the Second Law of thermodynamics, the order of any system will over time decline into disorder, so the outcome of such order will be determined by the conditions existing in it. Therefore, on the surface, it would appear that this law would forbid changing the eventual outcome of the predetermined conditions from changing what they will inevitably become. If so, then any choice or action taken is still constrained by the inevitability of the system's decline into disorder, where the order becomes stable at some base zero level; so the mind's choices are already factored into the resulting outcome. This means that even our thoughts and actions are already locked within the framework of an infinitely interrelated reality, that they are no more than mere reflections of that totality stability into which they come to rest, and stop there. And if so, then the choice taken was inevitable, as it was already programed in the totality system. But this may not be true. The more modern interpretation of the Second Law is that there is an overriding principle of emergence, which means that any large complex system will be greater than the summation of its parts. In effect, such a system 'grows' in terms of its interrelated totality, so a new and unpredictable condition is factored in; where now the Whole reorders itself, in effect life's 'evolution'; this in itself disproves the 'disorder' thesis of the Second Law of thermodynamics. Therefore, in addition to the 'uncertainty' principle of Quantum theory, there is the 'unpredictability' thesis of Emergence, which thus leaves a basis for indeterminism at the totality levels of complex systems. The universe is a totality complex system in the extreme, where at the limit nothing is outside this system, which includes all life, itself a part of the universal system. By this reasoning, life has a built-in thermodynamic 'unpredictability' factor within the complexity of its existence; which is the same from the smallest cellular DNA to the hierarchy of intelligent beings. To the best of our knowledge, we are at the top of this chain of intelligent mind evolution, and conscious of it. So this puts us squarely within the 'unpredictability' factors of how our minds behave, either consciously or unconsciously, in the choices we make. But if done consciously, then such choices are 'emergent' in themselves, in that we make choices that will alter, for better or worse, the conditions of the realty interrelationship within which we exist. So with each choice ripples into reality the effects caused by such choice; and this cause and effect is at bottom unpredictable, which makes strict determinism meaningless; strict determinism is a fallacy. And if so, then it can be said that we acted not in a predestined manner but by default, though heavily influenced by our neurons' response to our reality conditions, of our own free will. Now, if this is true, then 'free will' is not only possible in the choices we make, but an inevitability. If the universe's internal complex structure overrides thermodynamics' disorder principle with emergence, and a self structuring life, including the evolution of intelligence, then any choice made by that intelligence, especially conscious, adds another factor of unpredictability to the universal existence. This may be by design, or what some would call Intelligent Design, if you will. So it is inevitable that we have freedom of choice, and the responsibility that comes with it, because of necessity, we in fact do have free will. Then it is up to us to choose to use it. IDA Also see: Godel's theorem proves free will Free Will made easy | ||
| Petri dish world |
The Petri Dish model of a 'quarantined' world.  (interactive) Petri dish - art The Petri dish is used to grow microbial cultures, where in an agar base is grown through a mix of introduced variety of ingredients to develop various cultures under controlled conditions. This can be applied, in theory and fancy, to any large population of living cells, or their aggregates, to study how they will respond to different conditions. In the case of a world analogy, the Petri dish would grow its life cultures in the base minerals and water present, so it would in time become teaming with life. Seen from outside, a universal observer would see a planetary world very much as the one we know today, with the ability to evolve great life complexity. But what if an alien culture, say a civilization a million years ahead of ours, were to introduce ingredients into this Petri world? Would we even know it, being on the inside, while they manipulate the world's life cultures from outside? Probably we would not be aware of it, and imagine ourselves alone in the universe, or perhaps a 'quarantined' world that had been left entirely isolated and alone. Therein lies our dilemma, that if we had been manipulated as living cultures, we are not able to see how. But let us take fancy to another level, that through introduced agents into our world by means unknown to us, we had been subjects of an ongoing millennial experiment of which we had been excluded. So we are the 'microbes' and were kept in the dark as events unfolded around us, with what appeared superficially to be totally natural events, or in our conceits that they had been events of our own doings. Now imagine that some 2 million years ago, our distant ancestors at that time more humanoid than human, there were many competing lines of species vying for survival, some already using simple stone or bone tools, much as would a modern chimpanzee use them to break nuts or scoop ants for food. The Petri world was still largely untouched, but some advanced species took an interest in this virgin world and introduced fire. Then they pulled back and watched, which of the species would adapt it? The answer came over millennia, that those humanoids using fire not only for warmth and light, or to ward off predators, but also for cooking developed an adaptation advantage over their competitors; they were able to concentrate their food through cooking, breaking down fiber to make it more digestible, and their brains grew. That larger brain combined with better use of tools, and with greater mobility, became dominant over their competitors, and other animals. This must have been a satisfying experiment, one that yielded over time a dramatic growth in the new emerging species. Later came other experiments, the introduction of agriculture and husbandry, and the former hunter gatherers spontaneously developed city states, kingdoms, conquest, and ultimately empires. These were still highly active in the eras of Ancient Egypt, or Rome, or on the Asian continent China's empire, or the Mayans. Shortly after, in millennial time, with the use of printed writing and electricity, came our modern civilization. How would this highly advanced human species introduce ingredients into our Petri world? There could have been direct contact early on, but later introductions would have had to be hidden, so to not influence the outcome. This hidden contact could have been done through other means, once the humans had developed sufficient capacity to start exhibiting elements of mind. The first element of mind is our subjective mind. This is where we tell ourselves stories, where we have a sense of self, and where we weave our myths. By the time of the Greek philosophers, there was already a mix of subjective and objective mind, where ideas were defined and tested, such as mathematics and science. But it was the universal mind that would have been instrumental in bringing new conditions to our Petri world, done in such a manner that the subjected population under study would not have suspected they were influenced by new ingredients; hence our 'quarantine'. Though humans had not yet evolved the ability to manipulate this universal mind, the species a million years ahead of us had; the result is that they could now leave markers for our still vestigial, weakly interacting mind to connect with it at times, those rare moments of genius. Whenever any mind is truly focused on a task, thinking deeply of it, they unconsciously connect with that universal mind in ways that seem mystical to them; but when it happens, something new is introduced, the culture exhibits change, and the Petri world now has a new ingredient to work with. The highly advanced observers are patient, working on millennial time lines; but for us in the world, effects are only seen in retrospect, that something changed in the world. For example, when the world's great religions came into being some 3 thousand years ago, there was a collective connection, though at times mystical, with the universal mind markers left behind. This gave the rise of collective consciousness, but still on the story telling level of the subjective, so it did not yet advance humanity into a greater universal consciousness; the criteria for this is how humans interact; as long as we continue to fight and kill each other, the universal mind remains illusive. This also gives justification to maintain secrecy and Petri world quarantine, as the subjects had not yet reached full consciousness. That will doubtless come later, unless they first self destruct, as happened on other worlds, when the conditions of collective consciousness, however weakly, are allowed. This experiment may already be in progress, where some religions focused on spiritual enlightenment, like Buddhism or Sufism, while others on charity and forgiveness, like Christianity. But the Petri world had also connected to the universal mind's darker side, where total coercion and destruction rules. The universal mind does not judge, it merely is, but how we connect with it is of our own choosing. So if the ingredient introduced, for experimental purposes, is total submission to power, and a whole ideology connects with this coercive force at every level, the result will test our collective human will, to see whether or not we succumb to it. Many had, same as in Communism or Fascism, to play out their unconscious side of coercive power. The test is interesting because it shows how good is the longevity of this regressive force, one that keeps us from reaching universal consciousness, in the world where it was introduced. Examiners work on millennial time lines, so a mere 14 centuries is within the time frame expected, unless they had expectations that it would be short lived; so this may be a surprise. Within that time frame were also introduced in the Petri world elements of personal sanctity, elimination of slavery, laws of agreements, presumed innocence, and equality before the law, some of these dating back to Roman times, so they would run in competition with the forces of submission and coercion. In fact, it should be noted these ingredients were introduced on a new continent and written into constitutional law, in opposition to the tyranny of ancient kingdoms. So we will see, in time, which species will prevail in humanity's race towards universal consciousness, and which species will die out. So this is an important test for our times, and one that is very contentious at present from Ukraine to Somalia. Which species will succeed? Medieval war lords or progressive rule of law insuring our human rights? The examiners are patient as the Petri dish works out its cultures. The path to universal consciousness may have started with using fire to cook our food, but if the culture fails, it may end in cataclysmic wars and disasters; with nuclear weapons, no matter how smart our science, the 2 million year Petri world experiment may come to an abrupt end. This means we never rose above the first circle of consciousness, so never achieved the ability of universal consciousness. There are millions of such Petri worlds in quarantine, each progressing in their own way, at their own pace, and the observers are patient. They think in millennial terms, and will rejoice with success only when one of these worlds stops fighting and joins universal peace consciousness. We may think deeply on this, but the time is not yet. IDA | ||
| 'End Game' violence |
When the 'end game' turns to violence. The world is changing. There is too much information, whether good or bad, available today in various media around the world to more people than ever before, especially through the medium of the Internet. The world is now an open book, whether through social media or blog opinions, reporting daily to millions who seek news, knowledge and ideas. What had in the past existed in secure isolation is now exposed to scrutiny, to travel, to reports of what is done, all a welcome change from past secrecy and ignorance, even from misguided superstition. This in historical terms happened suddenly, but not all are happy with it. For some this new access of open information, whether true or not, is anathema. It is too much, so they rebel against it. Now imagine an ideology, or belief system, finding itself suddenly exposed and examined as never before. Imagine also that in this ideology is a foundational belief that it is 'unchanging', that it had been established for 'all time', and any intrusion into its sacrosanct ideology is an intolerable heresy, one punishable with severity, even death. This paradigm shift of universal information is therefore a threat to its existence, a perceived 'enemy' that must be rooted out at all cost. The existence of this informational threat affects not only its dogmas and teachings, but also behavioral changes in its practitioners, so there is a destabilizing social factor that is especially threatening to them. What had always been believed is now thrown into doubt, the people are demanding change, perhaps progress, so the whole society is undergoing a paradigm shift, especially among its younger members. What are the elders, or guardians of the faith, to do? If it is their duty to preserve their unchangeable ideology, to purify it from the outside influences scraping at its foundation, should they not marshal opposition with education and tighter controls? Is this not the usual response of challenges to dogma, that the members who are 'infected' must be purged of the 'errors' of mistaken belief? It appears that history repeats itself again, that 'deviants' from a dogmatic ideology will be purged, at least re-educated, at worst brutally punished, or killed. The historic response had been to counter change with more religion and stricter adherence enforced with more draconian punishments. Is this not the response by Islamic literal fundamentalists today? Yet, this ultimately ends in failure, especially if the social failures suffered are themselves products of a failed belief system. Is this not what happened under Communism? But that too changed. When faced with the prospect of change, the 'unchangeable ' is forced to change. And if the ideology's dogma does not allow for change, it can turn brutally violent. This is its 'end game', that it will force compliance on its members. No matter how large the population, violence becomes its last resort to prevent change. It must require incredible feats of fanaticism to convince young men and women, who are impressionable and susceptible to distorted mental influences, to sacrifice their lives in suicide bombings to kill those whose beliefs do not adhere to theirs. It goes against every natural human instinct, what an unbelievable waste of life! And yet we witness this today nearly daily, where the 'end game' is turning to most heinous crimes, crucifixions, amputations and beheadings, rape and enslavement of women, all crimes against humanity, to preserve their belief system. Where is the universal outcry? But when ideological dogma rubs against reality, it is the reality that wins out. This has always been a universal truth, that reality wins. And no matter how brutal the reaction, change will occur. In a changing world, of exposure and information, the guardians of faith turn to desperate measures. They will educate or plead, then if this fails they will punish or purge. The violence that follows is a natural response, often with draconian measures to enlist fighters who will be used to force dogma on populations, all in response to the 'unchangeable' nature of the faith. But that is also its weakest link, that the 'unchangeable' when faced with a new reality must change. The desperation that follows must therefore always end in violence. Whether religious or secular, the dogma faced with a changing reality will force itself on the people, even if not members of its belief sect, so many will suffer. It all ends in purges and genocide, ethnic cleansing or severe restrictions on social norms, closed borders, all in violation of our human rights; and in the end it is all for naught. Change inevitably comes, as it is inevitable that all human beings must find their own way in life. This is universal, that in the end it is human freedom of thought, of conscience and belief, and freedom of choosing how and where we live, transcends all ideologies. That is the way of the world, things change, and a desperate suppressing of change with violence in the end will fail. Reality is greater. IDA Also see: 'Out of Context' paradox Passing of an Age This just in: 'Islamic State': Raqqa's loss seals rapid rise and fall - BBC | ||
| The Silent Path |
The Silent Path (M.J. Eastcott), a meditation - On the power of being still. (continuation of We live in a Living Universe - why we worship it)  In the end, we project ourselves into reality by how we reflect in it, in meditation, in our work and creation, and meditating on all the beauty of nature, or just silently being ourselves. There is a perfection to this when done right with conscious intent, when we find excellence and do it with mindfulness, even on a simple walk, that we ride the center of our living, universal Self. As William Blake wrote: To see a World in a Grain of Sand Or Browning's: Earth's crammed with heaven So we are at the center of our Being in all we think and do, each step, each word spoken, each wish. Think: This is Life! Mystic Rabindranath Tagore wrote: In the music of the rushing stream sounds the joyful assurance, 'I shall become the sea'. It is not a vain assumption; it is true humility, for it is the truth. So is it with our human experience, first that we are all humanity, but greater that we are all existence. This is Who we are. And when we find this truth in ourselves, humbly, compassionately, with grace, we merge deeply with the greater Universal Self. Then, and only then, we become our true Self, as Masters of the Universe. And of necessity, change is imminent for all humanity, for then it is true worship, when we worship all Life. Or in the words of Kahlil Gibran: He to whom worshipping is a window, “As muddy water is best cleared by leaving it alone, it could be argued that those who sit quietly and do nothing are making one of the best possible contributions to a world in turmoil.” - Alan Watts Also see: The Lord's Prayer, new universalist ”Know thyself” is Who you are | ||
| New universal World Language |
A new universal World Language. This is a follow up to Simplified world language posted earlier. We then wrote: This idea can be augmented by adding words to any language that have a universal 'anagram' characteristic, where auxiliary words be added to the language because of their universal appeal. We already have new words added to modern languages, like radio, computer, telephone, stop, post, wi-fi, etc. But if we select words that have multilingual anagram characteristics, they too can be added as auxiliary words to local dialects. For example, taking a word like DONE. It can be anagramed into NODE (English), or ONDE ('Wave' in French, Italian, Spanish), or ODEN ('One' in Slav), so it lends itself to the ear in multiple ways. The preferred usage defaults to ONDE, so in English, 'Onde' or 'Oden' can be auxiliary words to 'wave' and 'one', if one chooses it. (Conversely, 'done' could be an auxiliary word for its equivalent in their usage for French, Italian, Spanish, Slav, etc.) This does not invalidate the original but merely offers a substitute for an international common language, so the world vocabulary is enriched. In time these auxiliary words would settle into common style, where some words become more common in world usage, while others drop out. Isn't this how languages evolve naturally? In some countries there are thousands of dialects, especially in Africa or Asia. But there usually settles a common usage language all can understand. Likewise would this 'auxiliary' world language settle over time into common usage, so all could speak it. The hard work is to identify which words, based on their anagram commonality, will have the greatest practical and poetic appeal, so over time they would fall into common usage. This is no easy task, though programmable, but if such words are added to native vocabulary as auxiliary words, in all dialects, over time they could be the foundation, as happened in English from its ancient and Medieval roots, for a common world language. The grammar should then default to what expresses with ease the logical structure what is being communicated. The ease of English had already made it dominant, but that too could be modified over time. Language is a growing thing, one emergent based in people's usage and needs. The new World Language could be just as easy, once it evolves commonly for all the people of the planet. All is needed is an auxiliary vocabulary grown organically out of anagramic commonality to merge gradually with the native tongue, over time. With some effort, we'll all be speaking the same emergent language, naturally. IDA | ||
| Universal World Peace |
The Most Great Peace.  Water is the softest thing, yet it dissolves stone - Lao Tzu (78) The universal irony is that it will take war to bring a universal peace. Also called the Most Great Peace, it had been prophesied for millennia a universal world peace. As centuries of war have shown, the teachings had been insufficient to sway the world away from war. War is institutionalized coercions manifest as violence of human beings against each other. This had been universally true throughout the globe for centuries, millennia, until now in the 21st century the world is once again embroiled in full war against a malevolent force claiming religious sanction for brutality at its most odious, such as committed by combatants of the so-called Islamic State (IS). Their war atrocities of murder, intimidation, rape, kidnappings, beheadings and torture, daily dominate world news, and this is the reality of how far removed we are from a universal peace. The world is at war. Surprisingly, as it was beyond dialogue and negotiations, it took a world war to stop the atrocities of Nazism. The world united against Hitler and his malevolent philosophy of violence and coercion. The same is faced today, where the world, of all religions and secular powers, are uniting to fight against the atrocities. This is not a 'religious war', though they would have us think it is. Maybe for them, not for us. Rather, this is a war against a philosophy of coercion and violence, which they think is religiously sanctioned, where the gains of civilization elevating the beauty of humanity are targeted in their hatred for our natural freedoms and success. Their discontent with our modern civilization marks their own failures, so they would drag us down to their barbaric level. But despite all our faults, faults we acknowledge while they deny theirs, thinking they are supreme spokesmen for God, we are centuries ahead. Our accomplishments of social gains and charity, our medical and science achievements, our protection of the weak from exploitation, and our freedom in the arts and expression, all these are lacking in the demonic philosophy that powers their belief system. Now, same as we have united the world to address climate change, all to contribute what is in our power to arrest the damages done to our planet environment, by all governments regardless of religious beliefs, so must we unite against this malevolent violent cause. This is the universal unity needed to stop war. Teachings are not enough. The Prophets may have had good ideas, but until there is action to stop endemic coercions, their teachings will fall as seeds on barren ground. To stop war we need to unite against those malevolent forces who would bring us war. Like how was defeated Nazism, so will the world unite against a common foe who would coerce us into violent submission to their evil creed. This not a question of if, but of when. We are at war to end wars, and the only acceptable outcome is total defeat of those whose violent coercions oppress innocent human beings into a state of terror for their barbaric ends. United as a world, we can win, and a universal peace, that Most Great Peace, is achievable in our time. From this there is no escape. For in conscious human beings, it is so, universally. Make it Peace. Also see: The Lord's Prayer, new The End of War | ||
| New universal Café Society |
A new universal Café Society.  Cappuccino  Caffe terrace, Vincent Van Gogh As the name implies, the Café Society originated in Europe's coffee culture of the 18th-19th century, where young bourgeois men and women met to socialize and drink coffee, or wine and liquors. But these had already been predated in the Arab world of coffee shops and water pipes, men lounging around drinking and talking, even in 14th century Turkey. One could say same from olden times in Europe where taverns were common meeting places, over beer or wine served, as original cafes. But the true café society formed in European capitals as places to meet and discuss, later adopted in the Americas, now worldwide.  Toulouse Lautrec at Moulin Rouge  Parisian bistro painting In these cafes ideas were discussed, revolutions plotted, perhaps over coffee were the first seeds of the universal Rights of Man. Coffee is a mild stimulant that loosens the tongue, as does wine, but unlike wine it sharpens the mind so ideas flow more freely. One can imagine the same for young aspiring physicist or economists gathered at cafes to discuss their latest theories, or artists comparing styles during Impressionism. So café society is a kind of forum for discussion of novel ideas.  Girl at Paris cafe  Caffe in Rome's Trastevere Today we gather at cafes and pubs as always, but where then over the din we talked across cafe tables, we today are engrossed by our hand held smart phones and tablets, or portable computers at Starbucks or McCafé. And in these we talk, or write, across the world, or the person down the street. It's a new world of ideas, or as had always been idle gossip, except it reaches globally, in Facebook, Internet discussion forums, or Face to Face chats. The Cafe idea endures, only the medium changed. But cafes are still the place of minds meeting socially and talking over a good cup of Java. And perhaps they are places where yet novel ideas are shared, and formed?  Arab coffee shop  Anywhere in the world at Starbucks "It's on the house" ;-) | ||
| Cooperative Individualism |
Cooperative Individualism.  Nearly a decade ago we discussed "Free minds see more", where we said:
The prime prerequisite for individualism is 'free will', that a person has the inalienable right to determine their lives voluntarily as they will. The lives of slaves do not have this prerequisite, as they are totally dominated by their master, so no voluntary actions are permitted. They must obey in submission to their masters. Their cooperation is mandated by their servitude, whether to another human being or to a dominant ideology, even an ideology allegedly mandated by God. Slaves have no free choice to exercise free will. In a tribal society, this free will is severely restricted by the demands and norms of the tribal structure, first with allegiance to the chief, or sheikh or lord who rules over them, or by the restrictions demanded by conformity to the tribe. Members of a tribe do not have the freedom to pursue their lives as they will, but must remain subservient to the rights and rituals, and beliefs, of the tribal members, from the chief on down to paternal figures of authority. It was not until the advent of ideas of individual freedom that a man, and woman, had the right to determine their own lives without constraints on their right to free will. In some early societies, within tribal parameters in the Northern European, Anglo-Saxon cultures, or Greco-Roman societies, there was some respect of the individual, for those who were free men, where their honor was protected and respected by law. But these too had the overshadowing conditions of society at large, where their freedoms as individuals were severely constricted by a culture of conformity and obedience, that they must accept norms of society, or the state, as a matter of necessity. Ones social obligations overruled ones desires, so choices and actions were largely dictated by the social matrix in which they lived. Allegiance and obedience overshadowed personal choice, if one wanted to live without pressure and punishment by those who ruled. It was an unquestionable condition, same as in a tribe, that to belong to society necessitated one obeys all its laws and norms. This predominated all human society until the advancement of personal 'human rights' sometime during the Age of Enlightenment. Until then, individualism did not exist in any meaningful form, as obedience was the paramount condition of human existence. What changed this primordial state of affairs was a new understanding of the world, that existence has its own conditions, such as discovered during the scientific revolution and Age of Reason, that man-made authorities, even allegedly from God (religious authority), did not and could not overrule the real conditions of how worked the world. This was a monumental discovery, that what was true, proven true scientifically and empirically, was greater than what was dictated by authorities of any man-made social order, or holy writ. What determined truth was not scripture, or the king, nor religious dogmas, but as proven to be true through tests and trials from real life. That was what was to be obeyed, individually, of our own free choice, to live our lives as those truth dictated. This was a new idea. And when it was understood, everything in human society, where this truth was realized, changed on how human beings would interact with one another. This is where in the modern, largely Western, world we are today. The rights of the individual are protected by (man-made) constitutional laws, enforced by elected representatives in government (elected of our own free will), to administer society by a 'rule of law', to ensure a functioning and cooperative human existence. We call it Freedom, where each human being, man and woman equally, has the right to choose their actions and beliefs as they will, as long as such freedom of choice is reciprocally respected of one another. This is the guiding principle behind our modern freedoms, such as are protected by our rules of law. These freedoms are not mandated by religious laws or tribal authority, or all powerful central government, but by how the world works in reality. Then we are free to choose our actions, to come to agreements and exchange freely, ideas and things, as the reality will allow us, that we interact cooperatively as individuals with free will. When we do it right, the world works, and the masses of humanity enjoy their benefit; when it fails, the masses suffer. Such is the scientific and empirical reality of the world. But not all agree with this modern condition, for it is also what is being challenged in our times by those who feel threatened by it, and reject such freedoms; they would relegate our world back to a tribal society. In their (tribal) viewpoint, freedom is not an inalienable right, but a right of 'consensus', what the tribal consensus, or government, dictates what it is to be. (Explain that to inner city youths reverting back to violent tribalism, where differences are not settled with rule of law - nor bow and arrows and spears - but with sophisticated modern semi-automatic weapons.) But this is not freedom, merely another form of tribal subservience. And there lies the conflict, that there are those whose idea of modernity is a tighter tribal control on our freedoms. In fact, fighting for our freedoms may be the next Great War. This war is between our natural human rights and tribalism. When human beings interact individually in a cooperative manner, by agreements free of coercion, respected reciprocally, Freedom shines a new light on the world. But such individualism can only work if a population is alert and understands its freedoms, consciously educated, hard working, desirous of excellence, and culturally aware of its liberties; it will not work if the people are slothful, tribal, ignorant of how the world works, and cloaked in a mantle of victimhood, whether real or imagined; then individualism fails as a culture, where freedom of personal choice is abrogated by institutionalized servitude, regressing back to tribalism and mass violence. It is how the world works, and where freedom prevails, cooperative individualism yields benefits still scarce in the world. The failures in the world are not colonialism, not Americanism or Europeanism, but where atavistic tribalism still rules over the masses, where human beings are not free. Their reality in the world is regressively impoverished, and the masses suffer. To relieve their sufferings, they will need to reject tribalism and embrace Freedom. Not self centered, ego centric individualism, but 'cooperative' individualism chosen of our universal own free will. We are not slaves but free individuals, free men and women, and there shines the light of a universe that rewards humanity with the bountiful beneficence of a true world. IDA Also see: Golden Rule revisited Politeness and common courtesy Presumed innocence and the rights of the individual | ||
| The End War |
The End of War - Will Alexander once again rout Darius?  We don't eliminate war by wishing it away (i.e., "what if they gave a war and nobody came?"). This is especially true if the war is ideological, to eliminate a way of life that is threatening to either party. Those are civilizational wars, bitterly fought to preserve ones culture and identity threatened with eradication by the enemy. These are wars fought to the end without compromise, in effect an "end of days" war where only one victor can remain. Such are conditions today, that a way of life based on the sanctity of the individual, a naturally free human being, with equality before the law and freedom to choose their life, is being challenged by a way of life dictated by those who claim to be representatives and enforcers of 'God's laws', with the power to strip humanity of its natural human rights, replaced instead with laws dictated by ideological, religious beliefs. This conflict is not new, already present when Alexander the Great fought Darius of the Persians, a war between Greek ideals of democracy and free philosophical inquiry against a slavish submission to absolute power. This ideological battle replayed in the Age of Reason, and in the Enlightenment era revolutions against oppressive monarchies. And it is about to be replayed again, this time on a world scale between ideals of universal freedom and democracy and secular rule in the West, and religiously inspired absolute authority over the submission of humanity in the East. Which will people choose? If the war comes, as it will, between these two fundamental civilizational forces on Earth, every person alive will choose one or the other. Empowerment is failure to choose. Will Alexander rout Darius again? It is the War that could spell the 'end of days' for one or the other. Who will be the masters of our planet, freedom or submission? In the end, it will be Earth's monumental battle for all time. Anonymous PeoplesBook2000 (8 December 1999): Also see: What if “war” was ‘abolished’? - Discuss Trump Threatens To Attack 52 Iranian Targets - Huff Post WHY WAR? | ||
| Education in the Clouds |
Education in the Clouds.  American education may have reached an impasse. While literacy is nearly universal, where all children are required to learn basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, their proficiency levels are largely uneven. In some schools educational achievements are at very high levels allowing their students to continue on to higher education, while in other schools, particularly in impoverished sectors of American inner cities, their levels of educational achievements are dismal. Why would schools in wealthier and better educated populations yield markedly higher scholastic achievements than in their neighboring schools composed of mostly black and Hispanic students showing lower performance? In my neighborhood mixed with white and Mexican students, the school ratings are relatively low, while a neighboring city with a mix of white and Asian students has their ratings substantially higher. Shouldn't achievements in universal education be proportionally more equal if the same syllabus is given for both? Alas, the answer is no, that it is largely unequal in results. One would expect, given same educational resources given to both, more equal results, but it does not seem the case. So there must be another factor at work. Most likely, in final analysis, it is that educational achievement is driven by culture. If the students' culture is one of parental encouragement for scholastic achievement, the students of such culture tend to excel, while those of parental indifference tend to underachieve. Children of educated parents, of scientists and engineers, for example, normally outperform children of single welfare mothers. This is not a statement of bias, but one of observation. It is also an observation that unequal cultures will produce unequal educational results. Nor can it be blamed on racial bias. I have African-American friends who are scientists and engineers, or fellow stockbrokers, who excelled in math, even as volunteering math tutors for underprivileged students, so there is not a problem of learning ability. Their children also excelled in school. Rather, the criterion for a good education is the environment in which children learn. If school is run more as an armed camp, trying to protect children and teachers from drugs and armed gangs violence, their scholastic results will be dramatically different from schools where there is a love for learning, safety and scholastic excellence. Giving both equal resources will nevertheless yield unequal results. But can this be fixed, or are we doomed with inner city children drastically lagging their outer city peers in learning and achievement excellence? This same can be observed globally, where mathematics excellence, so important to our technological society, is more evident in Eastern European and Asian classrooms than in other regions of the world. This too may be largely cultural, as those societies value math more than others. It may be normal for the inventors of algebra and our numbering system, both from India, to produce superior high tech and software engineers, but what would explain the same for Chinese or Japanese technological achievements? It has to be more than our learning adaptive changes in DNA that produces math and technological achievement. So if it is environment, especially cultural and educational, how can we make it into a more level field to boost scholastic achievement in those who lag without sacrificing the results of those who excel? The answer may be in the Clouds. A novel development of modern technology available universally is the invention of informational Clouds accessible to all via computers, tablets and smart phones. Whether Microsoft's Cloud or Apple's iCloud, structured learning modules can be made accessible to all who use these gadgets. Learning programs can be designed to be available to all who participate, structured to teach at their own pace, in their own time. All students can adapt it to gain learning skills, with dedicated programs, to gain knowledge needed to become proficient in any subject desired. We already have online universities. Why not extend it to all learning? Basic knowledge of the three R's, such as taught in elementary schools, would give students equal access to greater knowledge over time. We all learn differently, endowed with different levels of intelligence, so these learning modules should be designed with this in mind, that faster students can learn in accelerated formats, while slower students take more time, without judgment other than completion. If this is emphasized, advertised continuously as they browse their tablets and smart phones, making it 'cool' to learn, then we open to a whole culture without prejudice to gain this knowledge. This would be open and free, both to remote under developed rural children and inner city youth, as well as children more privileged in the developed world. The key is to make it fun and easy, so all children who have a desire to learn are encouraged to learn at their own pace, in their own time. This is the most democratic education possible without strictures of school disciplinary or intimidating scholastic competition. All who wish to learn, and are encouraged to learn, can be exposed to universally available knowledge, from math and literature to history and economics, without compromising their curiosity and thirst for knowledge. Young minds want to know, and what they choose to learn is a factor of their personal preferences, of Who they are. Once this new kind of personalized learning is made popular, as popular as following their favorite sports or music stars, it could then become as infectious as video games to a whole population of children, and adults, to better themselves in ways that makes them successful in an increasingly technological world. Tutors can still volunteer to aid those who have difficulties in grasping subjects, perhaps enhanced with live discussions and AI prompts; but now the tables are turned, where students and not teachers are in charge of their learning experience. These 'Education in the Clouds' must be available progressively and universally as a new educational culture paid for by funding from private and public sources, so all could benefit. And from these base roots students can advance to higher learning at university. No child need be trapped by the circumstance of their birth or the malevolence of their environment. Each child should be encouraged to rise above circumstances not of their doing to advance the chances in their lives. These are cultural, progressive, fundamental principles of an advanced civilization, that no child is left behind if not of their own doing. We all must have equal opportunity to become all we can be in search of our personal lives and happiness. So no matter how poor, or of what color, or how beaten by unhappy circumstances, of war or violence, or abusive family, each child can learn and rise up against the odds to make a better life for themselves, and ultimately for their children. These are basic fundamental rights to life, same as clean air and water, and a clean environment, those elements of life endowed to us by nature as freely as our shining sun. Education in the Clouds, learning for life, where the sky's the limit. IDA | ||
| Teaching how to think |
Teaching students how to think, rather than what to think.  Urban school There is a fine line between educating children 'how to think' rather that 'what to think.' That same fine line applies to how we think as mature adults: are we stating a principle of reason, or are we stating an opinion of belief? Young minds are less prone to understanding the difference between the two, so may be swayed more easily to accept opinion as fact. That, however, is the fine line of distinction between knowing how to think, rather than what to think. Any educational system must make clear this distinction when addressing young minds who are impressionable and eager to learn, if it is to be viable for teaching children to think as mature and independent adults. Teaching students 'what to think' has historically been the domain of 'indoctrination'. Mostly these indoctrinations are of political origin, where the prevailing government ideology seeks control of young minds through the education process. The Communist Soviet era was a good example, where Marxist-Leninist ideology was universally taught in schools. There the process of intellect, how we reason, was dominated by interpreting all socio-economic topics and history through the lenses of Marx and Lenin, et al. To reason outside this doctrinal prism was forbidden, liable to persecution, labeled 'counter-revolutionary' and an 'enemy of the people', which was severely punished. So what people were allowed to think was tightly controlled to further the cause of the Communist Revolution. The same principles were applied in other Communist states, from China to Cuba, where students and adults were taught 'what to think.' This same control of 'how to think' is also evidenced in religious doctrine education, such as witnessed in madrassas, where young children are taught to memorize religious text, and little else. But memorizing is not the same as thinking, so these students are discouraged from reasoning outside the tightly controlled religious doctrine. Other than what is acceptable, as tightly 'reasoned' within context of religious texts, there is little independent reasoning of how to think, which in effect leaves children indoctrinated but largely uneducated. Thinking is an open ended process, where all knowledge is examined through reasoning to unlock ideas and principles that describe our universe. Indoctrination, on the other hand, is a closed process, where all cause and effects are defined within a closed circle of established doctrinaire 'facts' and ideology. The criterion of truth in one is never complete, as more questions are revealed by inquiry. But there is no sense of inquiry outside the accepted, or revealed, doctrinaire universal ideology of the other. To step outside this circle is taboo, and often punished. For this reason, it is important in teaching students how to think, rather than what to think, if education and learning are to be open ended, as opposed to closed. Teaching subjects like mathematics, logic, scientific principles unlocks pathways to unlocking truths. This is opposed in belief based ideology, based on accepted but unproven doctrines, where the truth is locked in within the context of ideology. There the process of 'reasoning' is circumscribed by the need to 'prove' the ideology, as opposed to questioning it, under penalty. In the (above linked) article on thinking, it says: It is the last, "to make predictions", that qualifies reasoned thinking in the modern sense, as opposed to faith based thinking. Claims on the truth must be testable and falsifiable. All ideologies will make this claim, but to be proved in a predictive sense is largely unachievable by them. If the claim that following religious teachings, for example, will let you enter Heaven or Paradise, can this be proven? No, it is accepted only as an article of faith, same as having prayers answered. The truth is then illusive, as its predictability is unverifiable. In a socio-political sense, the same applied to Marxism, where the class warfare and people's paradise on Earth failed to deliver as predicted. In fact, it was the opposite, where society suffered want, and where even buying a bar of soap became a luxury, not to mention social fear generated by arbitrary arrests and the Gulag. It was not until large segments of Marxist thought were scrapped, an economy by diktat replaced with functioning market-exchange systems and private ownership, as opposed to collectivization, that their socio-economic lot improved, both in Russia and China. When people were allowed to think outside the tightly controlled ideological model created by Marx et al, their minds were freed up to think more freely and productively. However, North Korea and Cuba are glaring exceptions, as their Communist model had not been discarded nor modified, and the predicted grand society described in their ideology never came to bear fruit. Thinking in reasonable and open terms would have signaled these socio-economic failures, had they been allowed to do so. But in their closed ideological circle the truth was punished. In the West, thinking and teaching how to think as an open ended process has since the Renaissance yielded immense technological, economic and social advancements. Embraced in their ideas of a classical education was the fundamental principle that students should study everything with critical reason, and question everything. This was a liberating idea that bore fruit, and social abundance, though not without its problems. When political ideology was dominant, such as during the Fascist and Nazi eras, societies turned violent and suffered the consequences of social coercion. The truth was no longer an open ended pursuit but a closed system defined by their ideologies. Are we facing this threat once again, where children are taught ideological precepts, of 'what to think', rather than the liberating principles of 'how to think'? Think of questions on social welfare, immigration, racial issues, gender issues, climate change, crime and punishment, democratic elections, constitutional government, and a whole universe opens to ideological abuse in teaching young minds how to think. Reason is not some white-male-dominated oppression of the masses; rather it is how we discovered the universe works, in a predictable fashion, understood by educated and intelligent people. The converse is voodoo-magic superstitions and a twisted view of our universal reality. What can be predicted from this new state of affairs is that when young minds are failed in their thinking, their social environment will begin to fail and deteriorate. Teaching students what to think, as opposed to how, in academe is a recipe for future disaster, no matter how good the intent, as it takes away their freedom to discover and explore. It shortchanges their minds, same as past ideological doctrinaire and theocratic thinking shortchanged them, so what is left is a parody of how works the universe, and our part in it. And if so, once again coercion wins out and human freedom loses. Marx was wrong, same as Hitler was wrong, but uncritical minds were unable to reason this because their tools were taken away from them. They were taught 'what' to think, as opposed to 'how' to think. Then the education they received, and their natural intelligence, failed them. Also see: Teaching critical thinking Internet Censorship Designing the future IDA | ||
| Superior Excellence |
Superior Excellence - not supremacism.  Einstein's last equation ("Einstein: his life and universe" by Walter Isaacson, pg551) We are all superior in some way, finding where we excel, sought with passion and purpose. Some of us are superior mentally, working out mathematical equations or solving problems, others artistic, seeing life and the world with the eyes of soul in beauty, and still others are superior in their physical bodies, gifted with strength and agility seemingly defying gravity. We are all excellent in something, often as a gift of birth, but also a result of hard work. Our excellence is what sets our superiority rising beyond the common pale. This excellence shows in our works, whether designing an iPhone or building a fence, when it is done with intelligence and passion and precision. What we put into our works is reflective of Who we are. Are we enthusiastically pursuing our excellence, or are we lazy and careless? It shows in our writings, in poetry, in the arts we produce, our music, how we speak, grammatically or slothfully, and in our satisfaction. It all reflects our personality, how we are built as a person. The superior person does all this well, the slovenly poorly. How much care do we put in all we do? These are the marks of superior excellence. We are judged by our works because they reflect our being of Who we are. This always works for individual human beings. But it falters when applied to groups. Are men superior to women? No, of course not. We have different capabilities, men are physically stronger, but not necessarily smarter. Can one race be called superior to another? Naturally not. We are all human beings, where some of us excel better than others at our particular talents, but not as an overall group. Within each group, whether political, religious, scientific, artistic or social, there will be those who excel and are superior to others in their skills, but it does not define the group as a whole. We are always individuals first, the group is a distant second. Perhaps statistically some groups may be defined in their superior excellence. Italians wrote beautiful operas; but so did the Germans, Russians, French. Chinese may be better at math, statistically, but so are English, East Indians, Germans, Scandanavians, and mathematicians of all ethnicity. Perhaps some Chinese are very poor at math, while others work very hard at being good at it. There is no broad brush that can paint any group one way or another. We are all individuals, and in that individuality is reflected how much care and work we put into it. The superior excellence is evident on a broad statistical level only in retrospect, that it is polished by the effort we put into all we do. Within any group will be individuals who excel at their task. Whether a sports player who practices his skills earnestly and earns his accolades in sweat, or the pianist who diligently practices hours each day, the results are the superiority of their excellence, not the broad characteristics of their group. Supremacism, conversely, is a power political term used to justify dominance of one group over another, whether black, white, or brown. This however is not indicative of superior excellence, a-priory, because it violates the rights of individuals with a regressive ideology of supremacist dominance, which is coercive at its core. Coercion destroys our right to agreement, and thus it nullifies human goodwill. Superior excellence is not ideological or political, but is equally accessible to all. We all have the right and ability to earn our excellence, if we strive hard enough for it. It comes at a price, sometimes at great personal sacrifice, but it cannot hide behind the curtain of supremacist ideologies. For then its legitimacy is compromised and nulled of excellence. In short, supremacism is mediocrity. Only as sincerely striving individuals can we achieve superior excellence, whereas we fail to achieve it as a power play political force, for that supremacism is coercive and destroys it instead. We are all capable of seeking and ultimately achieving our excellence. Each one of us has the right to seek our superior excellence to the best of our ability, as nature had gifted us with talents, and as our will drives our passions and intelligence to achieve this excellence. That is the definition of 'superior excellence'. This is universal. And it reflects Who we are as superior beings. IDA Also see: Cooperative individualism | ||
| 'Je' micro-mind universal Mind |
'Je' Consciousness, how our micro-mind connects us to universal Mind.  Micro-mind universal Something interesting happens when I think of 'micro-mind': it takes me into thinking with my micro-mind. This is no casual remark, but rather has deeper meaning than appears on the surface. It takes me into the myriad possibilities my micro-mind represents, where thinking of mind answers its own question of itself, as its interaction with mind. As had been discussed earlier, mind creates its own reality. Our subjective mind is a complex place, where in final analysis it creates for us what we believe. This process of belief driven creation places within our personal identity of Who is our Self in the greater interrelationship of how is structured the universe. As an infinite interrelated totality, we connect, though unbeknownst to us, to our universal Mind, what defines our personal being within universal reality. But we are not yet equipped biologically to connect with that universal Mind, or so it seems. But there may be a pathway to this connection with our micro-mind, something we could theoretically engage with. When I look into my micro-mind, or what I think it is, I get a series of impulses as to what that mind is for me. There I see an interactive, emergent biofeedback universe manifesting my reality, and over time opening its secrets slowly, a tiny morsel at a time, itself a mind in reverse answering to my questions of itself. This is a natural interplay between mind and its curiosity of itself. It is a place where my self identification as 'I' is somehow incomplete, since it is merely a subjective sense of myself. But at that level of inquiry of mind by mind is a much bigger place. So I will call it 'Je' (for the French 'je suis') as a better representation of that mind on mind interaction. Je, in this case, is where I enter my micro-mind to have it tell me about itself: Je Consciousness is my awareness at some intuitive level of micro-mind. Embedded within this interactive emergent reality of micro-mind awareness is a concept of summation of infinitesimals; or conversely, reality's totality as a sum of its infinitesimals. Think by analogy, for example, of single bacteria as approximating infinitesimals, but their conglomeration into living colonies as their summations. Per this model, each bacterium is inconsequential except for processing its own being existence, but in their totality, they represent a living self-interacting colony surviving its ambient environment over time. Whatever decisions are made at the bacterium level is unconscious of its potentials and outcome, whereas decisions made at the whole colony level, though likely (for us) unconscious, takes on the responsibility of the survival and growth over time of the total bacterial biomass, hence their total colony. So individually, at the micro level, there is little in the form of achievement other than being, whereas collectively as a summation of micros there results a purposeful and emergent development. Now imagine this model for the largely unconscious micro-mind, made up of myriad components of infinitesimal thoughts, brain patterns and impulses at the micro level, to come together into larger ideas in their totality, what ultimately comes together as a conscious thought. This is what the Je is processing, without our awareness or conscious involvement, but active at the micro level totally independent of us, of our self awareness. Except there is a catch: the Je is not independent of its ambient involvement of the reality it inhabits. There, at the universal level, it is highly interactive. The smaller the units of micro existence, the more they are resembling the infinitesimals that make up our totality reality. At the same time, the less conscious are these infinitesimals, the more integrated they are into their emergent interrelated totality of existence, which makes them increasingly interactive with their ambient totality, what is their reality. So in the end, their totality of unconscious behaviors takes on the interactive general consciousness in the aggregate, what they collectively become at totality. That is where their unconscious micro existence gains the interaction with and connects with a greater conscious macro existence. In effect, per this model, myriads of micro impulses are joined together interactively into a totality that perpetuates their existence in an emergent manner, where the whole is more complex than the sum of its parts. In Je, micro-decisions manifest into a totality of macro-decisions, or what powers our ability to think and do. Ultimately, this process leads all the way up to consciousness of consciousness itself: "Je suis." What is here being described is a mind talking to itself. At the micro-level it is unawares of itself; but at the aggregate summation level of micro-impulses, it becomes a mind aware of itself. Just like a bacterial colony, it is greater than the sum of its parts. But it gets better than this: at the micro level it connects to all the other infinitesimals of existence, what is interrelated from the subatomic to galactic dimensions. Here is where their joint realities meet, so the totality emergence of an infinite totality is interacting with our micro-mind components at every moment of time. The micro-mind has no awareness of this, but the resulting effects of this interaction is that it connects to the universal consciousness of which it is part. And that changes the whole game. Though we are not aware of how this is so, how it works, it nevertheless reflects in every instant of time in our existence. The micro-mind's myriad decisions are connected to a much higher order of things, so we are afloat in a very vast sea of consciousness to which the micro-mind connects, and within which we individually exist in our being. There, perhaps there, is where we can break the micro-mind's unawareness and discover our awareness connection at the highest level of mind, the Je of our universal Mind. Think of this with your micro-mind, like taking an inward journey. Look into your mind and ask it what you will. The answers may surprise you, as it has me. Everything you see and think is already happening at the non-thinking micro level, independent of your awareness, but processed in reverse order, where the micro-impulses are connected through their interrelationship with the mega macro-universal organization of the universal Mind, so order and thought comes from there. (Think your micro-mind as infinitesimal terminals to a great universal computer.) You only think you are thinking with your brain, while in fact you are thinking with your connection via your micro-mind Je to the universal order that defines you at this moment. That is not so different from the bacteria model, where the individual bacteria are unawares of the greater process that forms their organized colony, but in toto their colony is organized in an intelligently emergent manner. Something similar is what happens in human society. We do not individually run the economy or build the infrastructured reality of the city; but together they morph into the vast and organized functioning human totality that works. This is the work of Je consciousness, that the infinitesimal summation at its emergent totality renders the unawares mind into an intelligent composition that reflects in itself, and is intelligent. This happens universally to all of us. We are driven by our micro-mind unawares, but it results in achieving what we sought with our intelligence, because of how are its structures for us in the universal Mind. This is an important point. That though we may not know how we achieve our goals, what we desire and dream for, the mind is actively working at the Je level, connecting micro-mind with universal Mind, to bring our needs into fruition. And there is no one simple path to this achievement; there are as many varied pathways as there are ways for us to seek it. We do Je in every step we take, in every breath, in prayers, every hope and dream, in meditation, in just truly desiring it, in seeking it with excellence, with total focus, seeking to do with perfection, with intimacy, with goodwill towards others, and seeing it done; all these communicate our micro-mind Je to the universal Mind, and how they are processed there returns for us the answer to our quest: True, wish granted, or False, wish denied. So though we are not aware of using the universal Mind in our consciousness, in fact it is active in us via the Je micro-mind, what may for some be intuition, for others a flash of genius. Is this not where music and poetry, where all the arts come from? It is not even important to be aware of this Je consciousness, as it operates independently of us. But to become aware enhances it. We become better positioned in our lives when so aware. With mindfulness, with care, with better evaluating risk, with clearer understanding and deeper appreciation for all things in reality, especially all life, all fellow beings with whom we are connected, and generally just aware that this process is ongoing in everything we do, how we learn, how we think, the choices we make; how we love; it already places us closer to our working with the universal Mind. The more we practice this Je mindfulness, the closer we come to making its mysterious mind work for us universally, regardless of race or religion, level of civilizational advancement, or gender, or intelligence. It is that universal, we are all equal before it. Yet, this will not guarantee an error free existence, however. The universal Mind does not judge, so we are still free to make errors, of our own free will. Of course we will make mistakes. But the universe corrections that follow should become easier for us to decipher, thus we learn. But once learned in Je awareness, our micro-mind connected consciously with our universal Mind, it all falls into place. Then the universal Mind works with us rather than against our existence. We may not be biologically equipped to think with the universal Mind at this time in our evolution, but we can edge a little closer by understanding how the Je micro-mind automatically connects us to the universal Mind, and then be aware of this. That awareness already calms the mind to better listen to its universal reality, to observe and understand, and work with it both intuitively and with reason. It is a new sensitivity, of joy and happiness, and a new sense of wonder, of love for our universe, and our existence in it. Humanity may not be biologically equipped as yet to read the universal Mind, but once it is attuned to its self awareness of the Je micro-mind, we are one step closer. Perhaps evolution will surprise us once our awareness becomes globally universal. Or perhaps we will become a collective awareness of Who we are as a world, a Mind world consciousness? This could, and likely will happen. How much more wonderful when we can do Je consciousness together as one, and be connect to the Universal Mind! This is our next step. IDA (Discuss) Some possible points of discussion: For more discussions see: List of Discussions | ||
| Joy and Goodwill |
In the spirit of Joy and Goodwill.  The season of Christmas comes upon us once again, as it does every year near winter solstice. There is merriment in the air, Christmas carols singing, festive lights, bells are ringing, the smell of roasting chestnuts and mulled wine, all to dispel the gloom of coming winter. It is a time when friends and families gather in a spirit of joy and goodwill in remembrance of those things most important to us. As the born Christ reminded us long ago, we need but love one another to bring peace and happiness into the world.  On this day (1998) we launched this site as an test to see if we could add a small fragment of all our human efforts to bring something new into the world, with awareness of love and respect for all things. We hope our travels and travails had given us that, perhaps offered insights when needed, or showed at times wisdom, and forgiveness, helping those less fortunate than ourselves. From our Universal being we are all given hope that one day, often swimming against the tide, we will mature as a world, and be proud of our humanity. We are but a tiny fragment of the whole, no more than a spark. But on this day we pray we had lighted a small flame, and one that one day will be brilliant, to warm the world with love and all the beautiful things of Who we are. <<MERRY CHRISTMAS!>>  | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Centering our whole being.  The ancient Egyptian concept of soul, the Akh, was composed of five parts, two of which, the Ba and Ka, they believed was reunited every night in sleep, but curiously separated during the day. The Ba was seen as our personality, while Ka was the person’s vital essence, together forming their personal identity. They believed the two were united when living, but were separated upon death. Not to conflate death with sleep, but could they have been mistaken about the Ka and Ba, that they were only reunited in sleep? Perhaps sleep is more like the separation of being and personality, but once consciously awake, the whole person was made one again. That seems better sense than what the ancients believed. Think when waking from sleep your mind wanders, perhaps remembering dreams, or where you are, thinking of the day ahead, things what need doing. They are those nebulous moments when the mind is trying to reunite with itself with who you are. It is as if in sleep they had gotten disengaged, flying off to their separate realms with work to do, but brought back into our selves to become re-centered into our whole being upon waking. The mind newly conscious reasserts itself in this reality, finding the threads of our existential existence once more. Think of it as a kind of mental centering, when it works, where we reposition ourselves within the matrix of our existence as we are about to face the day. Our personality and being, or the vital essence of our being, our identity, are once more brought together in a working whole. But not just mentally, for in this re-centering, we are also re-centering ourselves within the interrelationships of our being physically. When we remember ourselves on waking, all the things we need to be this day, we are actually metaphysically repositioning ourselves into the center of our being. Then we rise and are ready to face the day in our whole being. Perhaps the ancient Egyptians got it right upon death, that the Ba and Ka fly separate ways, though not lost into our infinite interrelationship identity, so we are not lost in Who we are. But they may have been wrong about sleep, if this is what they believed, that they come together again, but separate on waking. Sleep and death are separate, but where the Ka and Ba come together awake, they may be separated in sleep. Same as death may separate our minds from our bodies, and their personality from identity, likewise upon waking, or newly born, they are not separated, but the opposite, where they are reunited with awakened consciousness. This makes better sense, that awake consciousness is our whole being, while in sleep we travel the infinite realms. Then when we wake, in those moments when the fog of sleep clears, we bring that whole being once more into its center, to be physically and mentally the Who we are. Then we are centered. IDA | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
A New direction for the World.  When we stand back from nearly twenty years of Humancafe writings, a pattern seems to unfold that may be, at least subliminally, heading the world in a new direction. It may not be obvious at first, but in the aggregate separate ideas explored link together into a recognizable whole, which in turn redefines it component parts. This is in effect a basic part of interrelationship, that all things are interconnected into a whole, which in turn gives each thing a meaning in terms of the whole. So if it is all connected, and if the ideas of two decades have morphed into a whole, then from that whole emerge some new directions that may not have been apparent before. Starting with recent articles summarizing our works on Humancafe, such as A new Universe, the book, followed by the form of Truth, and subsequent The inequality of ‘Equality’, and Not my Enemy, we see an evolution of thought leading us towards a new awareness of how works the universe and our place in it. We appear to be living in a Living Universe, one that hugs us closely down to the quantum level, so everything we do ripples out into infinity, and in the manner of interrelationship radiates back to us in every instant of time, so we each one of us project our being into the universe as it ‘talks’ to us, and defines in us Who we are. This two way communication regulates the form of Truth for each one of us, what we think and believe, and what we do consciously or not, how we learn from our being and the beings of others, and how, again through infinite interrelationship, we are all connected. We are one planet populated by an interrelated reality of billions, what we project into the world and how it manifests for us. What we project is how we are. And from this universal interaction we learn how to be conscious human beings. Whether from a social cultural perspective, or one of rule of law and constitutional rights, we have organized our world’s societies reflecting how we perceive our reality. This has been trending in an emergent manner, especially now that our world is connected with near instantaneous communications, from a world driven by conflict, as seen all through history, to one merging into common interests, both commercially and intellectually. So in the past century, a new world awareness has formed where we are less inclined to think locally, but see the unfolding of historical events globally. First with newsprint, radio and television, and now the world internet, we have come closer to a world-think than at any time in history. This presents challenges, especially to societies and cultures rooted in the past where ancient religions have a powerful hold. But it also opens the gates to new thinking and awareness, such as universal social justice and human rights, scientific discovery, environmental concerns to reverse centuries of pollution, with runaway carbon fuels effecting climate change, waste such as industrial chemicals and plastics dumped in our waterways and oceans, and the preservation of threatened species dangerously close to extinction. We have both worlds now operable simultaneously, where societies are no longer isolated from each other by distance and language, but increasingly exposed to each other as never before. With this exposure comes the responsibility to face the future with courage, culturally as a whole and in each one of us, as we gradually evolve an emergent world of our common humanity. This is what standing back from two decades of Humancafe shows. But our commonality of a worldwide awareness is not yet there. As the world moves towards a new direction certain needs must be met to usher in a global consciousness. First must be met the condition of ‘presumed innocence’. We cannot have personal and collective freedom without presumed innocence. This has already been achieved in some parts of the world but not all. If a person is accused it must be the burden of proof of the accuser, not the accused. Second condition to be met is ‘rule of law’ where we all share ‘equality before the law’ without prejudice and favoritism. The third condition is ‘truthfulness’. Lies and deceit, all forms of fraud, distort our reality. Once our reality is distorted we no longer occupy our space in time defined by our infinite interrelationship, what defines our reality and being, and we are forced from our identity; then our lives are thrown into turmoil, lose trust, and we suffer. The fourth condition is the ‘sanctity of our being’. Each one of is entitled to being Who we are as a basic condition of our existence. We cannot be that being defined for us by a Living Universe if we are coerced, our sanctity abused and trespassed. We are all connected in the world, and our sanctity of being is a prime directive to connect with our greater universal being. These four conditions must be made universal if we are to occupy as a planet the greater universal reality with which we are all connected. From these four points it is a very short jump to Habeas Mentem and the Law of Agreement. The rest follows naturally. History has shown that democratically elected constitutional governments serve better than autocracies; that societies where people are treated with mutual reciprocal respect are healthier than those where people live in fear; that human orders based on cooperation and team spirit work better and are more productive than those driven by mistrust and divisive competition; and that in societies where human beings are free to pursue their dreams and aspirations within a framework of personal and collective agreements, free of coercions, are happier and more productive and creative than those where they are shackled to a system not of their choosing. These are the natural consequences of the above four conditions. Treat human beings with respect and courtesy and you get the very best from them. Conversely, treat them with disdain and hostility and you get stunted growth, a small and fearful humanity. The new direction of the world is one of emergent growth with new potentials, where a globally aware humanity discovers new doorways to their future with scientific discoveries and personal enlightenments. These could be very exciting times ahead, and the emergence of a new global consciousness is the first level of reaching out for that greater reality where our human identity becomes truly universal. The rest is between a person and their universal identity, in how they live out their Who personality, how they manifest their reality. These are the trends that have appeared on Humancafe over the years. We may in fact be living in a very ‘simple universe’, one universally understandable by all from all walks of life, of every culture. Once we understand that we are connected to a greater reality, everything changes. Our drives are no longer fatalistic, nor nihilistic and narcissistic, but naturally rise to a newer vision of ourselves in a greater interconnected world. The epiphany is when one day walking down the street you see every other human being in a new light, that they are like points of light of very long interrelated filaments connected to each of their infinities, and they are each playing out their role in that infinity. What a magic moment! And with each new discovery more doors open to new inquiries, not only for our natural world, but also a supernatural one, connected to a Universal Mind, of which we are but dimly aware. What exciting times they will be! Like a laser created of billions of interrelated points of lights, we can focus our energy of human consciousness on a new direction of coherent human creation, in our thoughts, in our works, and in our dreams for a future world yet to be discovered. We have done this already, tentatively as the four conditions above described, to achieve the level of human awareness witnessed. But it was done in a vacuum without real support from a philosophical base supporting our vision of ourselves as greater universal beings. Now with a new vision of ourselves in our existential being in the universe, we can manifest our collective vision into something coherent and powerful. We are on the first rung, and what lies ahead is an evolution of humanity we had never experienced. It all starts here, with each human being, each point of light rippling into space, but we are all connected. And together as an advanced humanity the universe is the limit. Curia Pompeia [A special thanks to our readers from around the world who, though only reading, had contributed in their own ways to the writings on Humancafe by radiating their minds’ understandings into the world. - IDA] Also see: Navigating our way through a toxic world Inching toward a new world consciousness The conceptual evolution of Interconnectedness - not yet at critical mass Rule of law by Agreement, versus rule of force by Coercion | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Surfing the Milky Way  Mobius and his eight year old great grandson, Albert, sat on a high knoll above the city. The city lights below them had been muffled so the sky shone bright on this clear night, revealing the splendor of the Milky Way stretched above them. It was a spectacularly grand sky filled with a million stars, and they watched it silently with wonder over the soft lights below. They sat quietly when Albert gave off a sigh. “What are you thinking, Albert?” Albert kept looking at the sky, then answered, “I wonder how far we can see up there.” Mobius turned to him. “We can see stars thousands of lightyears away. But galaxies millions of lightyears.” “Light years?...” “Yes, how far light travels in a year, that’s called lightyears.” Albert kept looking up. “Now I remember. Our science teacher talked about that. He likes astronomy and talked about how our space ships can now travel up to five lightyears away, but I wasn’t sure what he meant then. Now I understand.” Albert let that sink in a moment before Mobius added, “In the last part of the third millennium we finally broke the lightyear barrier with enough plasma generated fuel on board, so now in the fourth millennium we have travelled to our nearest stars, and their planets.” Albert smiled precociously, “So it’s a small universe after all,” he joked. “No, it’s still a very big universe,” Mobius smiled as he put an arm around his young protege’s shoulders. They leaned into each other, sharing a mutual wonder of all those stars above. “We’ve done many things in the past Millennium, haven’t we?” “Indeed. We found ways to mute ambient light over the whole sky at night, like we see now, so once again the stars shine as they had for our distant ancestors.” “And we can clone parts of our body, like your arm after it was crushed in accident, and now is new again.” “Yes,” answered his great grandfather, squeezing his new arm closer over his great grandson. “We can do many things now, which is why our average mean lifespan is well over a hundred.” Occasionally they would watch a transport go subliminal arcing across the sky like a meteor. The two were not dissimilar, so they would look up to guess which was it. “Do you think someday in the far future we’ll be able to travel to the ends of our Galaxy?” asked Albert. Mobius thought about it a minute before answering, pondering how much Albert could understand. Though he was only eight, he has proven himself an astute thinker and good student. They were both lost in the vast stretch of Milky Way above them. “I suppose we will, when we learn to tap into the filament energy of plasma throughout space. Then we might even fly beyond our Milky Way.” Albert thought about that a moment, still gazing out to the sky. He squeezed his arm tighter around his gramp’s waist in answer, “I hope I can see that someday, the edge of the Galaxy. But for now, when I grow up, I just want to study life in our sun system, like the living spherules on Mars, or sea life on Europa.” “Don’t forget the newly found sentient life on Saturn, deep inside its thick gas mantle. They’ll be a lot to discover there.” Mobius and Albert sat and thought about it as the city below them quieted down for the night, its denizens turning to sleep. It was getting late but neither was tired yet, so they sat some more. Finally Mobius broke the silence. “You know how everything is connected to infinity?” “Yes, you told me about that, we even talked about it at school. Everything is part of a vast web to the ends of the universe.” Albert looked up at the sky. “Even all those stars up there are a part of us.” “That’s right. Everything is connected, even all those stars and galaxies up there, all connected to every part of us.” Albert shifted a little, then added, “Even every atom. There is nothing alive or not that is not part of that web. That’s what our teacher said, that it’s only logical.” “You’ve been a good student,” Mobius smiled at his great grandson. “Then you know how all those filaments in between stars and galaxies are also related. Those are the ones we hope to tap one day for deeper interstellar travel.” Albert thought a moment. “Then the inertial drive could use their electric potential to keep the gravitic engines going indefinitely?” Mobius raised his eyebrows and looked at his great grandson in wonder. “That’s the goal we hope to achieve.” “Has anyone done this?” Mobius looked at Albert, wondering how much he could tell his young mind. “We have no formal knowledge of that, except rumors. There is evidence more advanced intelligent races had achieved it, but we have not yet met them. They are very far away.” “Like in another galaxy?” “Perhaps closer, maybe in our own Milky Way.” The thought of meeting far away beings who could travel all over space fascinated Albert. He wondered, “Could they be part of that matrix of all things? And if so, could they also be part of us?” “Good questions. If the same source of everything defines them as it does us, then why not. They may be as different from us as is all life of the planet, but still a part of us.” Mobius thought of it a moment, then added, “But I think most of what defines them, as us, is our own Milky Way. Most of the interconnections are there, with very great distances between galaxies, so they develop their indigenous identities within their galaxies.” “It’s only logical, isn’t it?” “That’s why we need to access those filaments of energy in space, so we could surf them to the end. Perhaps then we’ll meet our contemporaries in space travel.” They stayed silent together, imagining what had only been rumored, that there are intelligent beings free to travel wherever they wished at multiple lightspeeds, closing the gap of lightyears to mere days and months. It was such a compelling thought that it left them speechless. Would the foreign visitors accept our humans as equals, was on Mobius’ mind. Would they be pretty like Earth people, thought Albert. Finally, Mobius thought of something to share with his precocious great grandson. “Think Albert, what if those foreign travelers mastered the energy filaments, and they discovered that they too were part of the infinite matrix in a special way.” “How do you mean?” “Let’s say the filaments in interstellar and intergalactic space act as superhighways not only for travel but also for matrix entities throughout the universe. So it would follow logically, since that infinite matrix defines all life, that those identities could also travel the filaments.” Albert tried to follow this, since he understood logic easily, but this idea was complex for him. “Do you mean the filaments are alive?” Mobius rubbed his chin. This was complicated even for a near centenarian. “Well, let’s say the filaments are not alive themselves, but they act as conduits for a kind of spiritual energy to travel along them. Imagine spiritual beings who could travel the whole universe at will, in nearly instantaneous time... Or conscious thoughts.” He left it at that, not sure where it would go next. But now it was getting late, so he thought it was time to end this session on its speculative note. “Should we call Mom to let her know we’re alright?” asked Albert. “It would be a good idea.” Mobius moved his arm to tap his left wrist, and a virtual projection formed over his hand. Then from the many layers of commands projected he selected “call home”, and an image of his granddaughter flashed before them. She answered. “Hello you two. Still up there on the hill?” Her face beamed them a smile, then Albert chimed in. “Yes Mom, we’re studying the Milky Way. It’s beautiful!” “It’s past your bedtime, young man.” But she said this without rancor. Mobius cut in. “Alex, we’re having a man to man talk, and covered the universe,” he smiled at her. “We’ll be down in a minute, see you in a bit.” “Okay love, see you in a few minutes.” Mobius ended the call, then pressed another command on the projection. It was for their transcar. Within a few seconds, the vehicle parked below was hovering above them, then silently settled on the grassy knoll two meters away. Mobius and Albert rose. But before getting into the car they looked up one more time at the beautiful sight of the myriad stars of the Milky Way above them. “Beautiful, isn’t it, Albert.” “Beautiful gramps, all those stars looking down on us.” He thought about it a second. “Beautiful spirits all over the sky looking down on us. Aren’t we lucky to see them!” “Yes, we are lucky to have them, and each other under that beautiful sky. We are all connected.” Within minutes Alex greeted them at the door, as the car took itself home. IDA | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Is the universe conscious?  We can make a case that the universe in its infinite totality is endowed with life, that it is alive, but can it also be said it is a conscious totality? Is the universe conscious? The answer is not easy. Same as ‘consciousness’ cannot be identified in any part of the brain studied, so it might be as illusive in the universal reality. We know we are conscious, that is a subjective certainty in us who are conscious of themselves; same as we can identify consciousness in others, or other living things. But if the universe is endowed with life, does that make it conscious at some level? Or is it hyperconsciousness? We can make a case for Cosmopsychim, same as some have theorized Panpsychism, where there is some vanishing point in lower complexity living things, which would at the limit reflect some form of consciousness down to the microbial level. Though microbes may not have a self awareness of higher ordered species, they might carry in them a micro-consciousness. Taken down to the next step, this micro-micro-consciousness, whatever it is, may actually exist in the atoms and quarks from which all life is built. Therefore, consciousness in its higher or lower forms may be endemic to how the universe is assembled, from its holistic totality down to its basic elements of energy, and perhaps continuous down to each photon. But where is it? Where in the universe is seated this continuous consciousness? In an infinitely interrelated universe it would be located in ‘all of it.’ Same as a bacterial colony is not self-conscious in any one of its constituent parts, it does exhibit some sort of organizational self-awareness at its totality. The bacterial colony knows how to exist and sustain itself. At a higher level we see this in the hive self-organization of some insects, bees, ants, and other species. But their ‘consciousness’ is at a holistic level, where they operate as a collective entity, like do the cells of our brain, rather than within each member of the aggregate colony. Is each cell in my brain aware of itself, for example, or is it only in the aggregate product of their neurons? It appears to lean towards the latter, that my consciousness is a whole product of their interactions, their internal interrelationship, where as a limited totality within the organized cells, genetic composition, and neurological activity, they are interactive with the whole of me in a way that keeps me alive, and conscious. But where do we find this in the universal reality? If the universe is ‘conscious’ we should find a common link to its reality and life’s consciousness, a kind of hyperconsciousness. In any interrelated system the whole gives identity to its parts, that they are defined by the state of everything else in relation to the whole. This may be interpreted as a form of ‘emergence’ that the constituent parts transcend themselves into something that was not there before. So likewise is it for any biological system, whether planetary biosphere or organic living colonies. So the brain of a beehive is not its queen, but the complexity of interactions between all the members of the colony, that they work in an emergent order of existence and survival. If so, then in looking for universal consciousness, we should not look for a queen, or She God, for the center of Consciousness, but rather look at the whole. Of course, in an infinite universe the Whole is unknowable, except that it is to that Whole we are all connected. We exist as much in our mind and body as we do in an aggregate infinity of our total being to which we are connected; it is that total being that defines for us our Who of existence. And it is within the context of that larger existence that we interact in each instance of time as we live our lives. As we do, the universe does with us; and from that universal reality it is done back to us. This is the essence of all existence. But where that existence is alive and aware of itself, it is interacting with that transcendent existence of the Whole, which in turn may be where our self-consciousness of Who comes from. So for each conscious being that experiences its whoness, there is a commensurate existence totality that itself is endowed with the same whoness. This is not a center of consciousness, not God, but an attribute of an emergence emanating from how the universe is structured as an infinite totality. In us humans, and all self conscious life, it manifests in the billions of cells of our brains. Again referring back to the hive colony, there is no ‘god’ regulating its activities, though holistically they behave as if there were. This is most likely how the Consciousness of the universe manifests itself, in its interactions and definitions with our identity. The defining point of interrelationship is that the whole defines every one of its particular points in the image of its totality; this reduces down to what is evident in its particular points of identity is the same as is evident in its infinite whole; hence our consciousness can only be if, and only if, it is a characteristic of its totality. We are in our consciousness but a transcendent manifestation of the universe’s greater Consciousness, in all of it. And that defines for us, in all our thoughts and actions, how we interact with it, Who we are. Master that awareness and we have mastered our consciousness within a universal Who consciousness. This is where the universe talks with us. Ivan Also see: Extrapolations from an interconnected Universe and other Discussions Did life evolve consciousness for its survival? Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? - Scientific American (January 2020) On “Panpsychism” Is our memory within, or outside of us? | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Can an idea know itself?  Is there a time an idea can ‘know’ itself? No, not anymore than the world wide web can know itself, nor can artificial intelligence know itself, no matter how complex. That would require self consciousness, which is beyond its ability. For an idea to know itself, it would have to transcend its limitations as a closed system, no matter how sophisticated. To know itself it must reach out into the universe without limitation. Perhaps the most comprehensive monolithic idea created by man is Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. It is based on sound premises, has integrity in self consistency, studied intellectually by countless minds in the past century, and confirmed observationally. Light does bend around large gravitational bodies, clocks do slow under acceleration, and time is observed variable from different reference frames. These relativistic protocols have been tested to virtually proffer proof. But the idea, though elegantly self supporting as a totality, is nevertheless a closed system. Theoretically under Relativity, if one starts motion in one direction in the universe, they would ultimately return to their starting point from an opposite direction, as space time curves back on itself. So it is a closed system. However, it is a system understood intellectually by many, enough to have ingrained itself into a world consciousness of what it is. Relativity had reached critical mass so to have achieved world acceptance as a monolithic, self sustaining idea, it made itself a quasi-consciousness within the mind of the world. If Relativity was able to connect not only to human minds but also to a universal reality, meaning it was not a closed system, then it might have been a candidate for an idea that can ‘know itself.’ However, that is not the case, since its infinities are rationalized into a self contained system. This leaves it within the circle of its construction, like a bubble that is entirely independent of what is beyond its domain of applicability. The beautiful and elegant mathematical construct of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is self referential, but not likely self-knowing, nor conscious, though ‘conscious’ at the world state of mind of its acceptability; it had been accepted. This could be said of any mathematically derived theorem or philosophical system. Newton’s laws, Maxwell’s electricity, Planck’s constants, Gauss probabilities, Euler’s mathematics, all have a self-consistency and are monolithic bodies of construction. Yet they are not self-conscious in any way but having been accepted by the conscious understandings of many of the world’s intellects. No, to be an idea that can know itself, it needs to be more than merely self consistent and monolithic. Now, let us suppose we can create an idea that is self-creating, which also connects to infinity in an open system. Could that idea, once understood and accepted by a critical mass of the world’s intellect, become an idea that knows itself? This is no idle speculation, because as all these pages have shown, such an idea fits neatly into the concepts of ‘interrelationship.’ In a universal reality where all is interconnected to infinity and nothing can be other than as the pressure of everything else, from infinity, had allowed to be as an identity of itself, then the resulting system is one that is both self-referential and connected to all existence. This is an open system that is predetermined by its interrelationships, but at the same time indeterministic by its emergent effects from its totality of interconnectedness; in each instant it is new. The idea is monolithic, supporting itself on a basic premise of three points in space, which metamorphoses into a definition of universal identities, living identities, mind consciousness, and human liberty. All these work together as one complete philosophy of mind, what we humans with mind consciousness can come to understand though the idea forms itself. Perhaps this is key, that the idea of a basic interrelationship, three points in space, can grow to encompass all of existence, and from that infinite totality it redefines in emergence every point of itself. As Bruno had said, “infinity has no center, and yet everywhere is its center.” If that emergent totality product is then taken as ‘mind’, then does it not satisfy the conditions of a ‘self-knowing’ idea? This idea has no center, but everywhere to infinity is its center. Starting with three, interrelationship is the principle, the mechanism for spanning infinity. Therefore, in a living universe this idea of interrelationship takes on a life of its own, as a separate and independent idea of existence. And if so, once it is understood and accepted by human minds, it takes on a self-consciousness in the world. When all is considered, a self-knowing idea spanning infinity means the universe is conscious as a totality. Does it mean the universe is consciousness? Again, this is no idle claim, that an idea knows itself in a kind of self-consciousness. Ideas connecting to infinity are not entirely new. For example, nearly all religions had at heart a concept of infinite, all knowing, all powerful Deity that is both in the heavens and on Earth. Such ideas had propelled human civilization and advancements in their own way by making humanity conscious of something that is eternal and outside itself. Their sacred religious texts may or may not be monolithic and self-referenced, but they did have the power to awaken a critical mass of human beliefs, which in turn gave power to these beliefs in ways we could not understand; they persist still after thousands of years and affect lives of their believers. That the world is gradually shifting away from faith based beliefs to a more rational secularism is in fact evident, an inevitable evolution, but also that the power of belief is losing its value, as a decrepitude of moral decay sets into our civilization. Are we happier for it? Humanity’s consciousness seems to need to believe in something bigger than itself, or it becomes rudderless. Hence with the advent of secularism came the siren calls of Marxism, Utopianism, and Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc., not to mention Stalin and Hitler, with disastrous effects. We seem to need to be connected to an idea that is all inclusive and monolithic, even infinite in our minds and being, if we are to find happiness in this world. That is a monolithic idea, and one that is interconnected reasonably. Still, a new idea that has the potential to ‘know itself’, once understood by a critical mass of the world, is not one that seeks populism, for that would negate its universality. Therein lies a paradox. Once an idea is adopted by humanity, it then becomes theirs; while a self-knowing idea remains pure. It is its own universal. This is a critical point, that interrelationship cannot be publicized or contained as a new universal idea, certainly not a religious idea. Rather, it must find its roots in the world on its own, its role unforced by our human faultiness of reason. In effect, this is an idea that if self knowing will find its own way in the world, in its own way in its own time, likely one heart and one mind at a time. But when this process reaches a critical mass, a self knowing idea connects infinitely, which brings into reality the powers of emergence that such infinity projects. In our consciousness we are always on the leading edge of emergence. Therefore, though we only speculate on what the power a self-thinking, self knowing idea-philosophy can be, it appears to become a whole new plane of awareness, worldwide, a whole new power we had never known before. It is in the power of being still. If so, let it be healing to all the ills and errors we as a humanity had done. Then we would have merged our minds with those of the stars. But there is more, still so much more if the universe is consciousness. We have just scratched the surface, still not suspecting how much more there is. Being is consciousness, and a Planet awakens. IDA Also see: Is the universe conscious? Why infinity has no center When the universe works with you Any system is interconnected and self-reflexive | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Algebra made easy for young children, in four easy steps.  Algebra is foundational to basic understanding of mathematics, so it should be taught early to children, as soon as they understood using numbers and fractions, and had learned addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. By the second grade pupils should be ready for algebra. But on reading various syllabuses on learning algebra only reinforces how complicated it all looks, and scary for some. In fact it is very easy if we stick to four basic rules. The rest, such as substitution, reducing, multiple unknowns, factoring, are just extrapolations from the basics. To begin, there are four basic rules:
Now to show an example of how this works, at its simplest: 3x + 5 = 26 First move the +5 from the left of = to the right, ‘flips’ so it becomes -5. Second, move the 3 times x from left to right so it becomes /3, divided by 3. So now the equation looks like this: x = (26 - 5)/3 In words, x equals twenty-six minus five, all divided by three. (The brackets are to show 26-5 is now together). X is the unknown value we’re trying to solve. So the result is: x = 21/3 which is = 7 And that’s it! You just did your first algebra equation! Of course, from here the equations can get more complicated, but the basic four rules of algebra always hold. So if you come across an equation more complex, for example: 3(x+5)=2(-6-x)-2x From here, in the higher grades, students learn the more complex versions of algebra, but the basic four rules always hold. And when you become good in algebra, you can read equations as easily as you can read text. And now you can say “I know mathematics” and feel good about it! *(It’s just logical, the reason they ‘flip’ is because of a basic rule, that what happens on one side of equal must also happen on other side if they are to remain equal. I.e., 3x + 5 = 26, so that if you move the five, you have 3x +5 -5 = 26 -5 which obviously cancels out five on left, zero, but now moves it to right. So it flips from plus to minus.) IDA Also see: Mathematics is a language easy to understand, once you know the grammar | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
What is the Soul?  In most religions there is some concept of us having a ‘soul’ as the essence of our being. Taken together the various definitions of the soul seem to describe a spiritual essence we all have to identify us as conscious human beings, what gives us life and self awareness; something that comes from God, is immortal in that it lives on beyond death, and under some conditions (of mortal sin) can be taken away by God. One of my favorite descriptions comes from ancient Hindu scripts:
This Hindu concept is largely universal for all religious beliefs on the soul, that it is our true self, what defines our living being, is endowed with reason, and is the breath of life in us. However then it gets confusing: in Jain beliefs, all living things down to bacterium have a soul; in Judeo-Christian beliefs, including Bahai’sm, is that only human beings have souls, while other living things like animals and plants do not; in Islam it is the moral ego; in ancient Greek philosophy, the soul is what moves things, the body being moved by mind, free will, what is life’s ‘self-motion’; the ancient Egyptians thought the soul as light as a feather, which can be weighed (for its weight in sins) upon death; philosopher Immanuel Kant thought it was what we know as “I”. In most of these definitions of soul it is thought to be eternal. These ideas of soul go back to very ancient times, already evident in prehistory in dedicated burials for the preservation of the soul in afterlife (burial mounds filled with sacrifices, sometimes slaves and wives, and goods for the departed’s comforts after this world), some aspects of this may still persist in some animistic beliefs, or ancestor worship. These ancient ideas later matured into what we know now as organized religions, those that had consolidated their beliefs into a systematic theology with rules for all members to follow, and dogmas that must be obeyed. As a system of belief, religion has come to dominate our lives in a politicized manner, where obedience is expected and rewarded, while disobedience is punished (in this life, or in the afterlife) so all must believe and think alike. Ideas of the soul survived this politicization of beliefs, but now it was shunted into a narrower definition, that it must be saved from sin, or error of beliefs. Was this not the impetus behind the Catholic Inquisition? You must believe correctly or your sins must be cleansed (sometimes by fire) so that God could preserve your soul. We must understand that all these definitions of the soul were thought of and written eons ago, when our knowledge of the world and universe we live in was limited. Mostly it was fraught with superstitions and myths, unfounded beliefs, but popular and part of the folk culture. Everybody believed in something to do with life, death, disease, God’s will, and of course, the soul. When these multitudinous believes were standardized into religions, they were written down as people then believed; over time these writings became holy script, and ultimately the ‘word of God’, which sealed itself for all time. Belief in the soul became formalized, each to his or her own religion, so the parameters set were now accepted as ‘God’s truth’, and all had to defer to it within the boundaries set. But what is the soul? What is it made of? How does it interact with your being? Does it guide, or follow your life, your beliefs? Is it useful to even know what is the soul? These are persistent questions that an examined life asks of the mind, that we need to know what is it that animates us, and our lives. There may be a perspective from which to now understand the soul more in tune with current understandings of what is the universe, and life in it. To understand this we may need to do a quantum jump, to understand objective reality not in a dualistic Cartesian sense, of us and the universe, but in a holistic interconnected sense, of us in the universe. This involves understanding that the universal reality is totally interconnected, both spatially and through time, from largest dimensions to quarks, what has been here called ’interrelationship’. It is infinite and all inclusive, in that nothing in existence can escape it. Here it takes a quantum leap of logic to understand the implications of this: that nothing in existence can be other than how the rest of existence has allowed it to be. This is a deeply profound concept, that it has infinity redefining every part of itself through the interrelationship matrix, a tool emergent, one that we did not have before, redefining for us on how works the universe. This is the reality we each inhabit, but it is also the infinitely interrelated reality that defines for us Who we are. And from that infinite definition of our Who then creates its reality, whether consciously or unconsciously. This image of ourselves as a conscious, subjective mind creating its own reality is abstract to us, because we cannot objectively envision with reason it doing so. It is taking philosophy to a new level, where an interactive idea can think itself. It is how our subjective micro-mind interacts with itself to create its life reality. And this is where the connection to our ‘soul’ takes place: that the definition of our self-identity, our Who, is where we connect to all of existence; it is also where our infinite definition endows us with life. The more aware we become of this, the more conscious, the more the emergent quality of a self-redefining universe modifies our Who identity. That is a condition of infinity of which we have no control over, but it works of its own through our mind. Per this reasoning, interrelationship defines for us Who is our identity as our living soul, an identity that exists not only in us, because we are alive and cognizant (Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am”), but also at our greater, infinite dimensions defining our emergent existence. (In effect, our soul leads us to a kind of ‘bio-feedback’ where we interact with the universe as it interacts with us.) Is this soul eternal? That depends on the universe, if it is eternal, because that is where our soul is defined. To become more conscious of this has other ramifications. Firstly, the well known aphorism “Know thyself” at the Temple of Apollo, in ancient Greece at Delphi, can be seen in a new light. It now can mean that the more you know your Who, the more you know your consciousness, the more you are connected with that infinitely defined Who you are; and in turn the more your greater consciousness is now emergent for you, redefining you in that greater image. It also gives new meaning to Socrates’ “the unexamined life is not worth living”, that the more you examine your life to better know your Who, not to merely know the gods of ancient Greece, or modern religious beliefs, but to know your inner being, the more wisdom will come to you; this again reverts back to knowing your identity, your soul, in an examined philosophical inquiry, even in death. Another ramification is the right to being who you are. Your Who is sacrosanct, so none may deprive you of that right through coercion or violence or enslavement; this is the fundamental principle of Habeas Mentem, that having a mind you have a right to being Who you are. This is your soul, both inside you and astrally outside you: Who you are. We have many ways to express this soul in us, with our knowledge, our arts, our love, our sense of beauty and wonder, our hopes and dreams. It all comes back to what makes us so uniquely human, that we care and live a life of love and beauty, to feed our soul. That is why our human freedoms are so important. None may take that freedom away from us. Lastly, what of other life, all living things? Do they have a soul? If they live and have a certain level of cognizance, especially self cognizance, then our definition of the soul as living consciousness fits comfortably, to a greater or lesser degree. Animals can solve problems, communicate with each other, and have a sense of ‘self’, and desire their freedom, which would make them conscious by most definitions. So they can, within the parameters of their existence, be said to have a soul. On the other hand, even plants exhibit some self awareness, though not in a sense we can understand; plants have chemical ways of disturbing unwanted predators, even other plants, and ways to attract what they need, such as pollination. The intelligence of a plant is difficult for us to measure, unlike the intelligence of mammals, birds, fish and mollusks, which we can do because they are more like us, without anthropomorphizing them. But plants work on another level, cannot easily move, but can make themselves felt to others within the mechanisms allowed to them, so they have a living essence. What of insects? Even bacteria are endowed with life, so may be candidates for the soul, within limits, with their living essence. Is this true of life throughout the universe? It seems a truism, though not shared by some religious beliefs, that all living things qualify for having a soul, even if not measurable to us, if they live. The Jains may have come closest to the truth without knowing it; those beliefs which put limitations on a soul may have missed it, and unfortunately gotten it wrong. There is no easy quick answer to ‘what is the soul’, but a multitude of philosophical observations of the ways the universe works within itself; the product of this is Life. We exist in a Living Universe, one that gives us limitless possibilities to understand it, and now to ‘emerge’ with it within our being. This is Who we are, that we are cognizant enough to be aware that the universe works with us when we work with it. It cannot become more beautiful than this, that we are privileged beings Who have a mind, and with that mind can know Who we are. Like eight billion points of light, each one reaching out to infinity, this is the essence of our human soul. As a people, as a planet, we all who are aware of ourselves as souls, who love life, all life, and who see the magic of existence in all things, we are the lucky ones. There are no limitations on the growth of our soul, for we are truly infinite beings. IDA Also see: Interrelationships end in spheres | ||
| Ivan Alexander Username: Humancafe Registered: 12-2017 |
Is our memory within, or without of us?  It is common wisdom that our memory (Wiki) is within our brain. But in looking for it in the human brain we come up with the conundrum of where exactly information stored is located. How memory is stored in the frontal lobe or the hippocampus is still an open question. We know that injury, from trauma or stroke, for example, will adversely affect our memory; but brain plasticity may be able to retrieve it in time. Also with age, memory degrades, so it is not a given that what we remember is correct, or invented; some memories may be delusional. How memory is recorded in synapses may also be affected by our genetics, so not all remembered processes equally for us, some with better memory retention than others. So where and how is memory processed and stored in the brain is still something of a mystery, though conventionally accepted that the brain is where memory resides. But can memory be something more generalized than mere brain repository? This idea was posited by Alfred Rupert Sheldrake in his idea of morphic resonance, where he hypothesized that nature has a ‘collective memory’ in which all past events and memories had been recorded in our natural systems, which we collectively as a humanity have the ability to tap into, as can all living organisms. This is not accepted as a valid, falsifiable idea in mainstream science, and Sheldrake offers no mechanism by which this collective memory can operate, except to claim it has ‘telepathic interconnections between organisms’. Therefore, other than a parapsychic phenomenon, there is no scientific understanding of what collective morphic resonance means. Another claim of natural cosmic memory was posited by Madam Blavatsky in her Akashic records, where a kind of ‘life force’ recorded all human thoughts and actions in a ‘mental plane’ of reality. These Akashic records ideas were also explored by other thinkers, such as Rudolf Steiner, and others (see Wiki page), including famous parapsychologist Edgar Casey. However, again, no mechanism for this astral memory phenomenon was offered, so it remains in the realm of paranormal speculations. If there is an external, outside our brain, memory into which all events and thoughts, feelings, dreams and fears, are recorded, we do not know how. At our present understanding, memory resides in the brain, though elusive as to where, and that is where all such phenomena, if imperfectly, are recorded. We may imagine it, citing modern technology, as a video recording of all that is remembered by us. The alternative, that rather than recorded by the brain, that all events and memories are recorded astrophysically, meaning that our brains are more like radio or television receivers, whereby we are recipients of these memories as they are registered in the natural systems by all living organisms; so that from that vast cosmic source we ‘read’ our memories there, rather than merely recorded in our brains. Granted, this is a wide open grand speculation, since we have no mechanism in reality to explain it, but it is intriguing enough an idea to at least give it thought, and seek further explorations. We had speculated earlier that we are all ‘interconnected’ as a living species, both human and living organisms, in a ‘trans-consciousness’ web of infinite interconnections. In effect, as a product of interrelationships that stretch cosmically to infinity, we are all connected in our minds, whether consciously or unconsciously, to the infinite network that defines our mind, our personal identity. This is just how the universe is designed to interact within itself, what manifests in the end as a ‘living universe’. If we are part of this bio-feedback in how it is structured, then we at least have a mechanism by which we are intimately connected to all reality in our minds; which by extension we are all connected to each other, though largely unconsciously. The problem remains of testing this if it can be falsifiable. Other than anecdotal evidence, telepathic events, reported clairvoyance, prophetic dreams, astral visitations, and other parapsychological evidence that may be statistically significant, we have no hard evidence to claims of extra-mental memory. We register our life experiences in our brain, and that is where we retrieve it, or so we now believe. Nevertheless, there remains a nagging doubt, that to explain memory only as recorded by our brains, no matter how well clinically documented, that something is still unsatisfactory, something missing. If we in our minds are the end points of mind of our infinitely defined existence, then what transpires in our mind gets bio-feedbacked back out to infinity. All these events are interrelated, both here, what happens to us, what we do and remember, and what we project out existentially into our reality, at infinity all interconnected into a whole. We are all of it. Do we tap into this at some level we do not understand? And if so, is it part of our existential memory, to which we are all connected? Could Blavatsky’s Akashic records actually exist, or morphic resonance be a tenable hypothesis? Granted, our memory only records back from our first awareness in infancy, so cannot claim universal knowledge offhand. Nor can we claim perfect memory, as we know it can fade and fail. But those instances when we feel we connect to something bigger, when we create, when we guess intuitively what we logically cannot have known, or when a deja vu moment recognizes a place we had never been… Could those be the cosmic connections of memory reaching for us? If so, were they really in our brain? Or something else?
IDA Also see: Is the universe conscious? |