From BBC’s Life on Air. (Part one of six, go to BBC on YouTube for the rest.)

David Attenborough’s most recent documentary. Well worth watching.

February 12th is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday. While reflecting on the life and legacy of this great scientist and devoted husband and father, I’ve been struck by how an evolutionary understanding of the universe has, in fact, REALized my religious faith. I now enjoy all the benefits and blessings of religion from a place of knowledge rather than belief. When I look to the past, I am filled with awe and gratitude. When I look around me in the present, I feel love, compassion, and a desire to do everything I can to ensure a healthy world. And when I look to the future, including a future without me, I feel a deep and all-embracing trust….
- from a post by Michael Dowd on Darwin.

I am enjoying reading Evolutionary Times, and can highly recommend it for anyone interested in science and spirituality. Each post is a gem.

Forty years ago this Christmas, something amazing happened: we visited the Earth’s moon for the first time.

It was the first time humans saw the Earth as a blue marble floating in space, and it gave us the first photo of an Earthrise. (Here is a recent interview with the three Apollo 8 astronauts.)

For the last forty years, we have been familiar with photos of Earth from space. And also the often  transformative experiences of astronauts and cosmonauts. (Especially the ones who left Earth orbit.)

It has nudged us to recognize the Earth as one whole. As a living system. And as tiny even in the context of our own small solar system.

In many ways, seeing the Earth from the outside is a recent step in our collective deprovincialization. It is an invitation for us to grow up a little more as a species and global culture.

(more…)

There’s a sort of unsettling, alien quality to their computers’ results. When the teams examine the ways that singular value decomposition is slotting movies into categories, sometimes it makes sense to them — as when the computer highlights what appears to be some essence of nerdiness in a bunch of sci-fi movies. But many categorizations are now so obscure that they cannot see the reasoning behind them. Possibly the algorithms are finding connections so deep and subconscious that customers themselves wouldn’t even recognize them. At one point, Chabbert showed me a list of movies that his algorithm had discovered share some ineffable similarity; it includes a historical movie, “Joan of Arc,” a wrestling video, “W.W.E.: SummerSlam 2004,” the comedy “It Had to Be You” and a version of Charles Dickens’ “Bleak House.” For the life of me, I can’t figure out what possible connection they have, but Chabbert assures me that this singular value decomposition scored 4 percent higher than Cinematch — so it must be doing something right. As Volinsky surmised, “They’re able to tease out all of these things that we would never, ever think of ourselves.” The machine may be understanding something about us that we do not understand ourselves.

From an interesting NY Times article on the quest to improve Netflix’ recommendation software. 

(more…)

Aurora borealis as seen from the International Space Station. (Source: NY Times.)

A new study published in PLoS One today reveals that hatred isn’t the blind, irrational emotion it might seem. In fact, hate activates the brain regions associated with higher reason and the ability to predict what other people will do.
- Source: i09

Hate isn’t the same as anger, but may be close enough for what I’ll explore - briefly - here.

(When I look at it for myself, it seems that hate is just a particularly persistent and strong form of anger, one that is fueled and maintained by stories taken very much as true, and that the essence of it is anger.)

Academic psychology is still in its infancy, and is still exploring the basics, which is good. In many cases, research helps confirm and refine common perceptions, and it sometimes also come up with quite counter intuitive results - which is even more helpful.

In this case, the general findings seem quite close to how we - or at least I - experience anger.

It clears out the cobwebs. Brings clarity. Focus. Single pointed attention if needed. Energy. And a “get things done” impulse.

(more…)

I keep hearing folks saying that we use only 10% of our brains, most recently at a potluck this weekend.

It is obviously a myth if taken literally. Even on the surface, it makes little sense. Why, for instance, would we evolve a brain that is only partially used when it is so enormously costly in terms of energy? And brain imaging shows that we use all parts of the brain, although all parts are - thankfully - not highly active at any one time.

The intention behind the statement (apart from revealing to the world an appalling lack of understanding of common-sense principles of evolution) is obviously to remind us that we have untapped potentials.

(more…)

I had forgotten and this recent photo reminded me: My name is one of a quarter of a million names on that little disc attached to the Phoenix spacecraft, now safely landed on Mars.

I have written earlier about some aspects of the bigger picture of space exploration, so I won’t repeat it here. But it does give me pleasure to think that if there are future colonies of martians (humans), this little disc and its content will be displayed at their museum.

Seen in the context of Earth reproducing itself - through humans and terraforming - that disc represents the contemplation of reproduction, and the first steps of the foreplay.

I especially like Carl Sagan’s greeting, which is part of the rich content of the disc.

(more…)

I was reminded of this part of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos series yesterday, after Michael Dowd’s talk.

And we, we who embody the local eyes, and ears, and thoughts, and feelings of the cosmos — we’ve begun at last to wonder about our origins. Star stuff contemplating the stars, organized collections of 10 billion billion billion atoms contemplating the evolution of matter — tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet Earth and, perhaps, throughout the cosmos.

Carl Sagan, Cosmos

This made a huge impact on me when I saw the series as a kid, and it was a seed of a deep shift in my orientation to life.

(more…)

Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow are back in Oregon, giving a string of presentations in early April.

They will be in Roseburg April 9, Eugene April 10, Portland April 12 and 13, and Salem on the 16th.

If you happen to live around here, it is well worth attending. They are both amazing speakers in the area of evolution and spirituality, and Michael often uses the aqal framework to organize his presentations.

If you live somewhere else in the US, you can find their schedule on the Thank God for Evolution website, where you will also find audio and video snippets.

Over the years, NASA scientists have found several anomalies in the trajectories of different spacecraft. They speed up slightly, in a way that cannot be explained by the models NASA use.

One explanation is that there is something with the spacecrafts themselves which systematically makes them go faster than expected, or that there is an unknown external influence. But none such conventional mechanism has been found.

The other, more interesting, possibility, is that there is something we don’t understand about the habits, or “laws”, of the universe, and maybe specifically gravity.

Scientists - and most people in general - understand of course that our maps only have a temporary and functional value. What they refer to is always different from and more than what any map can cover or appear to explain.

When we use terms such as “laws of nature” it is easy to forget that this is the case. A law seem so permanent. So this is a good reminder that even our most basic maps about how the universe functions are still just maps, in need of revision now and then as any of our other maps.

And there are of course other areas where we forget this. In fact, whenever we identify with a story, we forget it, even if it is as simple as “she should do her dishes”.

So anomalies - whether in science or daily life - is a good reminder to look at whether we take our maps to be more than just a map, and maybe to revise them as well.

See the Wikipedia entry on the flyby and pioneer anomalies, and listen to the most recent Planetary Radio for an interview with a JPL scientist on this topic.

As soon as we take ourselves to be an object in the world, there is an impulse to feel connected, to find that wholeness we feel - and rightly so - is missing.

One of the ways to find this sense of connection is through the Universe Story, with all its minor stories woven in at different size levels (holons in a holarchy) and areas of life. The history of the universe is our history. We are made up star stuff. All life on earth shares the same basic building blocks. We share the same ancestors. We are the ways the universe touches, sees, tastes, knows itself.

It is beautiful, poetic, scientific, aligned very much with spirituality (at least certain forms of it), and gives a deep sense of connection, belonging, shared existence, and meaning.

It also widens our circle of care, compassion and concern, our circle of us. If this human self is a local expression of this universe and its evolution, and the earth and its evolution, what can I leave out of my sense of us? There is really nothing that can be left out.

The more we learn about these connections, the deeper we can feel it. And one way we can learn about it is to read books like Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. (On my reading list.)

(more…)

Few things are as interesting as UFOs.

Not because of what they may or may not be, although that can be interesting enough, but because of what they say about us.

The world is our mirror. Whatever we see out there is something we recognize from in here.

And in the absence of real data about UFOs, they become a blank slate for us to fill in with our imagination. UFOs become the perfect all-purpose projection object. A nice ready-made rorschach test. Just as it is with other things we may not know much about, like crop circles, ghosts, reincarnation, awakening, other cultures, or whatever it may be.

We get to fill it in with what is alive here now, but doesn’t quite fit our self image, so we put it out on UFOs - or something else - instead. They will save us. They will eat us alive. They represent a galactic brotherhood.

Can I find each of those qualities in myself? Yes, very much so. And if I get really familiar with it here, UFOs are suddenly not so interesting anymore, at least not as saviors or man-hunters or an evolved brotherhood or whatever else it may be.

We also get to see how we relate to unknowns. Are we OK with it? Fine with acknowledging that we don’t know, and that there are many possible explanations for it? (Without closing the door on any of them.)

Or do we right away cling to a story about it, telling ourselves and others that this story - somehow, magically - is true? Do we tell ourselves they really are aliens? Angels? Beings from another dimension?

Or do we tell ourselves it is all bogus, delusions, fantasies, daydreams, wishful thinking?

In each case, we cling to a story as if it was true, even in the absence of real data. In both cases, we find something to believe in just because we want to, because it is - somehow - more comforting that way.

And finally, how do we deal with it in the real world?

It is a world-wide phenomenon, so why doesn’t it yield more serious research?

Why do scientists shun the subject? Are they are afraid of being associated with crackpots? Do they let fear get in their way of research that would reap insights into psychology and sociology, and possibly other areas?

If so, what does that say about science?

An interesting article on one of the more eccentric cosmological theories: Big Brain Theory: Have Cosmologists Lost Theirs?

The basic problem is that across the eons of time, the standard theories suggest, the universe can recur over and over again in an endless cycle of big bangs, but it’s hard for nature to make a whole universe. It’s much easier to make fragments of one, like planets, yourself maybe in a spacesuit or even — in the most absurd and troubling example — a naked brain floating in space. Nature tends to do what is easiest, from the standpoint of energy and probability. And so these fragments — in particular the brains — would appear far more frequently than real full-fledged universes, or than us. Or they might be us.

Stories reflect what is alive for us here now, and cosmological stories such as this one are no different.

They are a projection of a story happening here now, making the content of the story appear out there, in the world, as substantial and real.

And they are (often? always?) a projection of something alive here now, outside of the story itself.

As I explored the sense fields today (visual, sound, taste, smell, sensation, thought) and how thoughts mimic the visual field, I realized that the Big Brain theory is a close reflection of how our visual imagination recreate the world.

If I close my eyes, I find that my visual imagination (thoughts) can create images of my body, of specific body parts, of my immediate surroundings, the room, the building, the town, the region, the country, the earth as a whole, and so on. And in each case, my imagination only creates the bare minimum. It creates fragments, which is all that is needed.

Say I have my eyes closed, or it is dark, and there is a sharp sensation. My visual imagination will then map this onto an image of the body, telling me that it must be my big toe that is hurt. Or there is a sound, and my visual imagination tells me it is a car passing on the street down the hill from the house. Or somebody talks about the moon, and I have a visual image of the moon.

In each case, the universe - as it is created in my imagination - happens in fragments, using as little energy as possible.

So whatever merits the Big Brain theory has, for instance in terms of generating new cosmological insights or models, it also mirrors what is going on here now. It mirrors how our visual imagination works.

This is maybe an obvious example of how our stories reflect what is alive here now, but the simplest examples are often the clearest and best ones, and invite us to explore it further on our own. How is this true for other cosmological stories, either from science or mythology? How is it true for any story?

The classic Powers of Ten film by Charles and Ray Eames…

The Vatican is hosting an astronomy gathering, within the view that the world is one, and the truth of spirituality (or here, religion) and science must be aligned.

Jesuit Brother Guy Consolmagno, a member of Father Funes’s team and curator of one of the world’s most important collections of meteorites, kept at Castelgandolfo (the Pope’s summer residence), explains.

They want the world to know that the Church isn’t afraid of science,” he said.

This is our way of seeing how God created the universe and they want to make as strong a statement as possible that truth doesn’t contradict truth; that if you have faith, then you’re never going to be afraid of what science is going to come up with.

Pretty smart people, those monks.

(more…)

Michael Dowd’s new book, Thank God for Evolution, is available for pre-order. Also check out the book’s website which has articles as well as audio and video samples.

He does a great job of providing bridges from the traditionalist/fundamentalist to the rational/scientific perspectives, and between science and spirituality, all within an integrally informed framework.

(Not sure how much the book goes into the integral maps, but his talks often do.)

I was reminded of an interesting parallel at a science pub last night…

In terms of our current scientific creation story, space unfolded from the Big Bang, and with it time (which is change within the world of form). There was no space before BB, so no time, so the question of what was before BB has no meaning.

Similarly, an overlay of thoughts on pure perception creates a sense of space and time, or of extent and continuity. Outside of this overlay of thoughts, there is no space or time. Prior to, or outside of, this layer of thought, questions of before or after have no meaning. (Other posts have more on this.)

So our story of the Big Bang mirrors what is alive here and now.

As any creation story, and any story in general, it is a projection of what is alive here and now, in two ways…

It is a projection of what is on the inside of a thought, making it appear out there, in the past or the future or at another location. In this case, making it appear in the past, as something substantial and real, even as it is all from just a thought.

It is also a projection of what is happening here and now. There is a field of awakeness and form, prior to and free from space and time. And there is an overlay of thought creating the appearance of extent and continuity, mapping perceptions in space and time. The story of Big Bang mirrors this process quite closely, and is projected onto the universe as a whole and back in time to the very beginning of form.

With an overlay of stories, a sense of extent and continuity is created, and this allows for the whole rich multitude of differentiations and processes we experience in our daily life. A whole universe is created from these stories, whether we see recognize them as just stories or take them as something more than that.

And this too is reflected in the BB creation story. With the BB, space and time unfolds which allows for a whole universe, increasingly rich and complex, to come into being and evolve in time.

Realizing the BB story as a projection does not take anything away from it, apart from its possible sense of solidity. It is only placed in a different context, and has another layer added to it.

A talk on quantum experiments as koans by Thomas McFarlane at the Center for Sacred Sciences. As koans, these quantum experiments pull the rug out from under thoughts, and help us see how there is nothing absolute in our conventional ways of mapping the world.

Quantum Koans from Center for Sacred Sciences and Vimeo.

I have enjoyed listening to the very well produced (as always) episodes on spirituality and science from To The Best of Our Knowledge.

As much as I have enjoyed the programs, it also strikes me how the discussions and interviews almost entirely leaves out an developmental approach and understanding of religious views and values in general. This is especially curious considering how many these days reads Ken Wilber’s books, which do an excellent job popularizing much of the research in that area, and also puts it into a larger framework.

Why do so many in mainstream media talk about the relationship between religion and science, and leave out that - crucial - aspect of it? Maybe they are just concerned about offending someone. (It cannot only be explained by journalists not being at a stage that “gets” the stage view, because they can know about it and decide to cover it even if they are not there themselves.)

It also strikes me that the topic is sometimes approached in a way that is both overly complicated and superficial at the same time, even by people who have explored it to some extent.

For instance, one person talking about the Kaballah talks about how God is the energy that animates the world. But if we look here and now, we find that what everything arises out of, within and to is the stainless awakeness, independent of any content, and that any form of energy is part of content itself. Of course, energy here may be used in a poetic way, referring to something that is not content.

And then the other person talking about how the timeless nirvana of Buddhism is incompatible with creations stories in general, as for instance Genesis in Christianity. But again, if we look here now, we find that the timeless Buddha mind is this crystal clear awakeness within which all forms arise, including the unfolding of the world of form, which in turn includes any stories overlaid upon it such as creation stories from religions and science.

By looking here now, we can find them completely compatible. One is about this timeless awakeness all form arises within, from and to, and the other about the world of form itself. Cleanly divided, yet both the play of the awakeness and not two.

A recent meta-study (a study of a number of existing studies) finds that certain vitamin supplements appear to shorten the lifespan of those taking them (specifically beta-carotene and vitamins E and A.)

Assuming the findings are accurate, and assuming that we are in a fortunate enough situation to have access to sufficient food (which large portions of us are not), then this is another reminder eat a balanced and varied diet of fresh food rather than relying on supplements.

It is usually not a good idea to provide the body with substances it did not evolve to handle, and dietary supplements mostly fall into this category. A balanced diet does provide whatever nutrients the body needs, and a modern balanced diet is nutritionally far beyond what our ancestors - in most cases, had access to, and their bodies still did quite well - as we are living evidence for.

As with health related issues in general, the basic answers are often quite simple - and found when we look at the lives of our ancestors. They ate a varied (omnivorous) diet when possible, ate in moderate amounts… often by necessity, the food was organic and local, and they engaged in a variety of physical activities throughout the day. The closer we are to this, the more physically healthy we are likely to be.

It is very simple. Yet, if there is something about it we don’t like we look for shortcuts, such as dietary supplements, which may not work or have unforeseen effects.

More about the study on BBC: Vitamins ‘could shorten lifespan’

I am in Kirkenes in Northern Norway, north of the arctic circle. I am shown that I am to be the guide on a pilgrim circuit, linking together several new churches and science centers. Everything has a sense of clarity, luminosity and beauty… the landscape, the wildlife, the people, the buildings. There is a sense of new inner clarity, maturity, depth and responsibility, reflected in my new outer role as a guide for those in the region, as well as visitors from other areas.

The name Kirkenes means Church peninsula. And while I have rarely been in the arctic regions, I have always been attracted to the stark beauty and the clear light.

In the dream, I lead groups on a pilgrimage circuit connecting several new churches and science centers, the two main realms of human knowing… spirituality and science. There is a sense of the seamlessness of the two… a church, then a science center, then a church.. as beads on a string. Exploring existence from different angles, informing each other, applying scientific methods in spiritual practice, studying the effects of spiritual practice through science.

There is also a sense of it all being new, unspoiled, virgin… the buildings, the settlements, the landscape, the climate. All new, luminous, clear. And with it, this sense of new depth, solidity, maturity, responsibilities… emerging from the inside, reflected in my role in the outside.

The question of free will, as explored in this article from the New York Times, only arises when there is a sense of I and Other, as all existential question do. When the sense of I and Other falls away, the question also falls away, at least as an existential question.

Falls away as an existential question, but the dynamics of choice can still be explored

The dynamics and mechanism of choice can be explored in the many ways it is explored today, through the inner (self-inquiry, phenomenology) and outer (cognitive and other forms of psychology, biology, evolution) and the one and the many.

But it is not an existential question anymore. It belongs to the realm of form and this human self as a part of this realm of form, but there is no separate I involved anymore. This human self, and anything else arising, is realized as inherently absent of any separate or individual I.

Infinite causes

Even a superficial exploration of choice shows that for any choice in our life, there are infinite causes. We can always find one more, and one more, until we see that the whole of the universe is involved in any choice we make, in the fullness of its extent and going back to the beginning of time itself.

Doing this, over and over, we see that there does not seem to be any need, nor much room, for “free” choice. Where would it come from? How would it slip in between these infinite causes? And, what would its purpose be? Why would there be a need for it?

Choice happening on its own

Similarly, when I explore choice as it happens right now, I see that it does exactly that: it happens. It happens on its own, arising out of emptiness, as anything else. Sounds, sights, thoughts, choices, actions, they all happen on their own.

There only appears to be an “I” there when a belief in a separate I is placed on top of these thoughts, choices and actions.

Arising within and as timelessness, and causality

In immediate experience, it all happens here now, fresh, new, arising out of emptiness. There is no past that it can be influenced by, nor any future it leads to.

Past, future, causality, all of those are just from ideas placed on top of what arises here now. And they are very useful ideas, helping this human self to orient and function in the world, but still just ideas. Abstractions placed on the timeless present as it arises here and now.

Field

There is this field of seeing and seen, of awake emptiness and form.

Within the world of form, everything has infinite causes and infinite effects. It is a seamless whole, moving as one whole.

Any change, including any thought, choice and action of a human being, is the whole acting locally.

There is no free will within the world of form, and no need for it.

There is no separate I anywhere, so no Other to be free from.

And awake emptiness is form, and always free from form.

Changing experience of free will

There are many ways the experience of choice and free will changes.

If unquestioned, there is certainly a sense of some degree of free will. This human self obviously makes choices and acts (or not) on them, and there is a sense of I there, so then also a sense that I choose and act.

Then, we may come to see how culture and even biology influences these choices, and we may strive to become more conscious of these influences, free ourselves from them, at least to some degree, and place ourselves under a different set of influences.

But even here, there are infinite causes to any thought, choice and action, even as it appears more free from the conventional causes and patterns. And this shift, as anything else, itself has infinite causes.

The question falls away, yet this human self continues to work with causality

Finally, when the field awakens to itself as a field, absent of I anywhere (and still connected with this human self), the whole question falls away. There is no I and Other anymore, so nothing to be free from.

At the same time, within the world of form there is still causality, so at a practical level, this human self still continues to work with causality in all the usual ways, including placing itself under certain influences to invite certain effects such as continued development, healing and maturation, and also acting to invite certain effects in the wider world.

And all of this is the whole acting locally, through and as this human self, and now awakened to itself as the whole acting locally.

(Two previous posts on this topic: 1 & 2)

Our human self is, in some ways, like a Mars rover.

In both cases, there is no I inherently there. In both cases, it serves as a vehicle in the world of form. In both cases, it provides sensory input for awareness, for pure witness consciousness.

Imagine a NASA scientist or engineer who identifies completely with one of the Mars rovers. He or she would experience and talk about the rover as “I”, experience mortal fear whenever it is in a dangerous situation, completely dreading the day it dies, and so on. This would at best be seen as weird and an eccentricity, and at worst as insanity.

Now imagine the same for our human self. If there is an exclusive identification with our human self, there is the same experience of it as “I”, the same fear whenever it is in danger, the same dread of its death.

So what is the difference?

The Mars rovers are an extension of our own bodies and senses, and they are mechanical and far away, so it is relatively easy - even for the most involved scientist, to maintain the “I” at his or her human self, and see the rover as either “it” (third person) or “ours” or “mine” (second of first person possessive).

Our human self is different. It is the primary and immediate vehicle in the world of form, so it is far more understandable if it is seen as an “I”. But this too is a mistaken identity.

If we explore it a little further, we see that there is only the seamless field of seeing and seen, and no I to be found anywhere in it. This sense of I, placed on our human self, comes from a belief that there has to be a separate individual I somewhere, and since the most likely candidate is our human self we place it there.

Waking up from this happens spontaneously, either out of the blue or following some diligent explorations of all of this. Is there really an I here? Where is it? Is it in the seen, in the stream of forms and experiences, always new, fresh, different? Is it in the seeing? Where can I find the boundary between the seeing and the seen? If the I is in the seeing itself, in the pure witness consciousness, where is the boundary between I as the seeing and Other as the seen?

And when we pass through this gateless gate, we see that there never was an I anywhere. It was all innocent, a temporary mistaken identity. There wasn’t even a gate to pass through, it only seemed that way as long as there was a sense of I there. And although it is understandable when there is an identification with this human self, it it still about as weird as being identified with a rover sitting on a little hill on Mars.

Now, the human self is a me and mine, for practical and conventional reasons, as an aid in navigating in the world and for communication, but clearly absent of any I anywhere. The drama goes out of it. There is just the Ground and field of seeing and seen, awakening to its own nature of no I anywhere, yet still functionally and temporarily connected with this particular human self, as a me or mine.

This human self arises as anything else - thoughts, emotions, feelings, choices, behaviors, personality, clouds, trees, people, situations. It all happens on its own. There is doing but no doer (apart from the doer as the whole of the world of form.)

This beautiful photo of a nebula in the constellation Cassiopeia is an example of the universe gawking in amazement at itself, in the words of Brian Swimme.

The universe forms itself into matter, galaxies, nebula, solar systems, planets, life, awareness organs (living sensing beings), culture, technology, science, computers, telescopes, rockets…

And it gawks at itself… It is amazed by itself. It brings itself into awareness in always new ways.

The universe forms itself into the seen, the technology used for the seeing, and the organisms the seeing occurs through. And all of this and the seeing itself arises all within and as Ground, as Big Mind, Spirit, Brahman, Divine Mind.

There are some major questions in each of our lives, whether we explore these or not. The main one is probably who/what am I? And another is are we, as human beings, alone in the universe?

It is interesting that very few schools spend much or any time on the first question, whether it is through conventional western style philosophy or more direct self-inquiry. And it is also interesting that only a minuscule amount of resources is spent on the second question, are we alone in the universe? No governments, as far as I know, allocate any money to SETI, and the private funding is very limited as well.

I am not sure what that tells us about who we are at this stage in our evolution. Maybe that we are easily distracted. Maybe that for many of us, other issues appear more urgent. Maybe that our natural curiosity is out competed by other impulses or goes in other directions. Maybe that we have trouble peeling off the layers down to the really big questions.

In any case, I have been fascinated by SETI since I first heard about it in my early teens, became a member of the Planetary Society a little later, and was among the first to sign up for SETI@home. Now, after a while of not running the SETI@home screen saver, it seems time to participate again.

It is difficult to imagine any other discovery that will have a more significant impact on how we see ourselves, and eventually the course of our own evolution. Just knowing that we are not alone will be another nudge in our deprovinsialization of ourselves. And any exchange of real information, although it may take a long time before it gets going, will change our culture and evolution deeply.

Just the question itself, and contemplating the consequences of contact, or of not finding anything even after a thorough (still far into the future) search, is hugely important. The question and contemplation itself will change how we see ourselves.

This is not so important, but it makes an astronomy nut like me happy to see that they finally decided to strip Pluto of its status as a full planet and categorize it as a dwarf planet instead. Categorizing it as a regular planet was somewhat of a mistake in the first place, and it is good to see the rational win out over the sentimental.

Which brings me to this inquiry…

They should act in a rational manner.

1. Is it true?

   Yes (especially scientists!)

2. Can I absolutely know it is true? What is the reality of it?

   No, I cannot absolutely know it is true. The reality is that even scientists sometimes don’t act in a rational manner (they get caught up in sentimentality, attachments and so on.)

3. How do I react when I have that belief?

   I get frustrated seeing people who should be champions of rational thought behaving in a less than rational manner, using sentimentality as an argument for wishful categorizing.

   How do I treat them?

   As a little soft brained, not standing up for what they know is right.

   How do I treat myself?

   As someone who is more rational, more cool-headed, more able to let go of sentimental attachments when that is called for.

   When did I first have the thought?

   Probably in middle-school, when I got more interested in science, rational thinking, valid arguments and so on.

   Does the thought bring me peace or stress?

   Stress, definitely.

   What is the worst that can happen if I let go of that belief?

   I would let the sentimental override the rational, like (some of) them.

   Turnaround: I would not let the sentimental override the rational. Yes, that seems as or more likely. Without the stress coming from this belief, I would be more receptive, open, clear.

4. Who/what would I be without the thought?

   I would be receptive, open, clear. Able to enjoy the small-scale drama around the discussion. Able to see the validity and good points in the different arguments, coming from any view.

5. Turnarounds

   (a) They shouldn’t act in a rational manner.

   That is true. Some of them don’t, and that is the reality of it according to my story. The benefit for me is that I get to see my own beliefs around this, the stress it brings me, and it gives me an opportunity to inquire into it.

   (b) I should act in a rational manner.

   Yes, certainly. The advice is for myself here. When I believe that they should act in a different way from what they do, I am irrational. There is no way I can influence it in any real way, not even with people close to me. These are just processes playing themselves out.

   (c) I should not act in a rational manner.

   Well, not if I don’t. When I believe that thought, I do not act in a rational manner, and that is what is playing itself out right then. It is OK. And it, as anything, is subject to change.

   (x) Turnaround to live in daily life

   I should act in a rational manner. I shouldn’t expect people to change because it would be convenient to me. I can take my own advice instead. The advice is for me.

I came across Dr. Demko’s Death Calculator, and it is pretty interesting.

It brings up many things…

It is a reminder for me that although my days are numbered (limited), the exact date of my death is a mystery to me. It can be today. Or it can be in many decades, possibly five or more.

It is a reminder that although my date of death is a mystery, I can do quite a few things to increase or maintain my health and well-being - which may (or may not) also prolong my life.

And it is a reminder that none of these things are particularly mysterious. They all involve nurturing a variety of relationships: To other people, nurturing nurturing relationships. To my mind, keeping it active. To my body, eating a good diet and getting some excercise. And to my body/mind, allowing it to unwind, relax, and find some resolution to challenges in my life.

And finally, the death calculator is a reminder that things like death calculators can be very useful. They serve as a reminder of all these things, a gentle kick in the butt.

Maybe the very last reminder is to not go into complacency, even if the number coming out of the calculator is pretty good (90 to 100 or more in my case). It only works if I am actually doing all these things, maintaining engagement with all those relationships.

I recently watched Contact again, and it brings up several things for me…

Mostly, the incredible beauty and awe that comes up from realizing that we are this universe bringing itself into awareness. And the deep sense of humility and belonging that comes from realizing that we, as human beings, are infinitely small parts of this infinitely large and rich universe.

Also, the continuing de-provinsialization in our culture, as it shows up in so many areas - going towards deepening worldcentric views and experiences of the world. From anthropocentrism to biocentrism and possibly beyond. From ethnocentrism to ethnodiversity. From rights for a few to universal human rights. From seeing this planet as the center of the universe, to seeing the sun as the center, to seeing this galaxy as the center (or rather all there is), to realizing the infinite number of galaxies out there - everywhere a center to itself. And how even the thought of life other places in the universe brings us even further out of our provincial outlook, to acknowledging that this planet may be one of a large number of living planets out there.

And also, slightly disappointing maybe, the orange (in Spiral Dynamics) view on science and religion which the story is filtered through - making it appear to be a choice between the scientific methodology and faith, or maybe both although for separate realms.

In any case, when I saw the movie the first time it brought me straight into Big Mind, and it still does. It reminds me of the big picture - that we, as humans, are stardust. That we are the universe temporarily reorganizing itself into humans, human culture, human technology, cities, thoughts, emotions, feelings, sensations, animals, plants, mountains, stars, oceans, clouds, rain, rocks, beaches, trees, the living Earth, this solar system, this galaxy, and all there is. That we, along with everything else that is, are the leading edge of the evolving universe. That all this is, with a center everywhere and nowhere, one seamless unfolding process - where there are no separate individuals, no separate doers, thinkers, seers, experiencers. Everything belongs, everything is the local movements of the whole - beyond and including all polarities.