Tag: science

Jason Hickel: What’s striking about capitalist civilization is that it has no real direction

moe Leave a comment

Yes, capitalism is not tied to anything real. It’s just about putting a number on the exchange value of something, according to demand. It’s not rooted in reality beyond that, and it has no direction beyond that.

People need food, so it sells food – at a cost to the soil, insects, wildlife, ecosystem health, and future generations. People needs shelter, so it sells shelter – often to the profit of those already very wealthy and at a cost to those who have less.

Mainly, it’s not rooted in physical reality. It’s not rooted in the physical reality of this planet we call Earth.

It’s not rooted in the physical reality that we are local and temporary expressions of this living system, and that our health and well-being fully depend on a thriving and healthy planet Earth.

It’s not rooted in the physical reality of Earth as our literal larger body.

As it is, what’s easy and profitable is often harmful for people, ecosystems, and future generations.

If our economic system took ecological realities into account, what’s easy and profitable would help regenerate people, society, and ecosystems, and benefit all of us and future generations.

Yes, in its current form, capitalism produces global ecological overshoot.

It assumes infinite Earth, so it encourages consumption far beyond the capacity of Earth to regenerate itself.

Humanity is currently using far more resources than this living planet can regenerate, and that inevitably leads to ecological and civilizational collapse. This goes far beyond climate change, which is just one of many expressions of this overshoot.

And since it sells itself as the only realistic and viable economic system (although it’s far from realistic and far from viable), it sells its own solutions. Mainly, it sells techno-fixes.

It can only sell band-aid solutions, since it, itself, is the cause of the problem.

More to the point, it’s organized around assumptions of separation and infinite Earth, which is the real cause of the problem.

Yes, also true.

In our civilization, we talk as if science is our organizing principle. That’s not true. Capitalism is the organizing principle. Far too often, science is in the service of capitalism.

Far too often, the result of science is ignored if it doesn’t serve the narrow interests of capitalism. We see that with climate change. Climate change scientists ring the alarm bells, and society as a whole ignores it because they see it as inconvenient and costly to change.

Also, far too often, the focus of science is decided by what’s profitable. Important research is often not done because it’s not profitable enough, or goes against inherent assumptions of capitalism.

What I know is very little, what I don’t know is infinite

moe Leave a comment

What I know is very little, and what I don’t know is infinite.

It’s relatively easy to grasp at a map level, and it can also be a lived and visceral noticing.

WHAT I KNOW IS LITTLE, WHAT I DON’T KNOW IS INFINITE

In a conventional sense, and in the context of humanity today, what I know about most things is very little. I know some computer programming, web design, and CEO, and it’s little compared with what some knows. I know a good deal about art, art history, and drawing and painting, and others know more. I know some things about what I write about here, and many know far more about the same topics. And so on.

Even if I knew more than anyone in a certain area of life, it’s still a tiny drop in the ocean compared with what there is to know. It’s easy to imagine someone – perhaps in the future, perhaps somewhere else in the universe – knowing far more. There is always more to know, and then more. There is no finishing line. That’s one of the beautiful things about this existence.

OUR COLLECTIVE KNOWING IS ALWAYS CHANGING

What we collectively know will be outdated in the future. Future generations will see different aspects of our current worldview and knowledge as quaint, limited, missing crucial insights, misguided, and so on. It will seem old-fashioned, and even ridiculous.

That also applies to our general worldview and our most fundamental assumptions about ourselves, the world, and existence. We have a certain worldview that we tend to take for granted. Over time, with new insights, orientations, and needs, it will change. Given enough time, even the most fundamental assumptions we have today will change and be seen as outdated.

In general, there are innumerable possible worldviews that fit the data equally well or better than the one(s) we are familiar with.

ALWAYS A BEGINNER

In this way, I am always a beginner. I am always at the very beginning of experience, familiarity, and knowledge about anything.

What I know is finite and very little. It would be, even if I knew more than anyone alive today. What I don’t know is infinite.

I am at the beginning of the imaginary spectrum of knowledge about anything.

Getting this is humbling in a very good way. It opens up the world, and it invites curiosity, receptivity, and wonder.

KNOWING IS NOT REALLY KNOWING

Also, what we think of as knowing may not be what we think it is.

One form of knowing is within the mental field, at a map level. I can know a map about something. I can know some ideas about something. This is useful, and it’s clearly very limited.

A mental representation is a question about the world. It’s a way for this human self to orient and function in the world. It’s an abstraction and highlights some things and leaves a lot out. It’s an interpretation and inevitably a distortion. Ideas can never hold any full, final, or absolute “truth”, that’s not their function. They fit may fit the data more or less well in a conventional sense. And they are ultimately and inevitably wrong, and that’s fine. The world is always different from and more than my ideas about it.

I can also have a more experiential and visceral knowing about something. It usually comes from lived experience over time, and quite a few parts of me (aspects of my psyche and being) has reoriented to align with it. Although this knowing is a more lived knowing, it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily more “true”. It’s still very limited and reflects my own biases, experiences, and the culture I live within.

MAP AND VISCERAL

That’s the same with knowing how little I know.

That too is partly from a map, mental representations, reminding me that what I know is little and what I don’t know is infinite.

And it’s partly visceral, a lived experience.

GENERAL AND IN THE DETAILS

This knowing can be general – a general insight that’s part of my general worldview.

It may be something I am familiar with and apply in some areas of life.

And there are also areas of life where I don’t apply it. Where I “forget” about it, and where the fullness of my psyche does not yet fully apply and live it.

For instance, parts of me still live within the idea that I am unlovable, and they are unaware that that’s a question and not reality. They think they know, and don’t know that they don’t know.

That’s the case with any wounded part of me. To protect me, they hold onto (painful) ideas as if they are true, and they are unaware of how little they know. They are unable to hold those painful ideas more lightly.

IN PRACTICE

What does this mean in practice? What does it mean for how I live my life?

Yes, others may know more than me. Yes, what we collectively know (or think I know) is a drop in the ocean compared with what there is to know. Yes, what I know exists within a particular worldview, and there are many other worldviews (that I, or we collectively, don’t know about) that may make more sense and fits the data better.

That doesn’t mean there is nothing to share. What I have to share – however limited, biased, and ultimately wrong – may be of immense value to someone else.

I can share in this context, knowing and acknowledging this.

SHARING WITH CONFIDENCE

It’s fully possible to acknowledge how little we know, either in a conventional or more real sense, and still share and live with confidence.

That combination is very attractive to many, and it works well in this world.

Where does that confidence come from? Mainly from a healthy upbringing where we felt loved, safe, and listened to and taken seriously by those around us. Or, if we didn’t get it then, from giving it to ourselves later in life – consistently and over time.

MY EXPERIENCE

That brings me to my experience with all of this.

Since early in life, it was clear to me that what I know is little and what I don’t know is infinite.

In early childhood, I remember asking my father the repeated “why” question about something, and then “are you sure?”. My father said: “I am not certain about anything”. That made a deep impression on me and I took it to heart. (As I write this, I am sitting a meter away from where he said those words.)

In childhood, I was fascinated by science and the discoveries possible through science. I don’t think I consciously thought about it in this way, but I was aware that there is an infinite amount of things to explore.

In my early and mid-teens, I was fascinated by the history and philosophy of science. First, through Carl Sagan and the Cosmos series. Then, far more deeply through Fritjof Capra and his Turning Point, The Tao of Physics, and the books he references there.

The oneness shift when I was sixteen showed me even more profoundly, directly, and undeniably how little I know, and how little our mental field can grasp reality. Our mental field is vitally important for this human self to function in the world, and also operates on questions and cannot begin to touch reality.

USING IT TO HIDE

I am also very familiar with how we can use this very real insight – what I know is little, what I don’t know is infinite – to play small and hide.

I don’t have that natural confidence I wrote about earlier. Growing up, I didn’t receive whatever was needed for that to happen. The seed and essence of this is intergenerational trauma, which was strongly amplified by a class in school (elementary through high school) with a strong bulling culture.

Because of my wounds and traumas, many parts of me feel it’s not safe to be visible. They want me to hide to stay safe. And since this trauma is pretty deep, and many parts of my psyche are onboard with this strategy to protect me, I have largely lived that way. I have avoided being visible.

I have been aware of these dynamics in me since my early or mid-teens, and that’s not enough to change deep trauma or how it’s lived in life. Even all the consistent therapy work hasn’t been enough. Even inviting all the different parts of me to reorganize and align within the oneness I am recognizing itself hasn’t been enough.

We can take any genuine insight and use it to feed trauma behavior. In my case, I have used it to justify hiding, not being visible, and not taking the roles someone in my position – with my education, insights, knowledge, skills, and privilege – easily could have taken.

Of course, that’s not all of what’s happening. Different parts of me operate from painful beliefs saying I am unlovable, unloved, that what I have to say is not important, that nobody is interested, and so on. And there is no lack of “evidence” in my life to support that. (There is no lack of evidence for the reverse as well, of course.)

Even now, as a grown person, I am repeatedly experiencing not being seen and listened to by people around me, which sometimes has serious consequences for me and others. I also know that I am setting up those situations by not speaking up, not making sure they understand, not sharing enough information, not telling them my background and expertise in relevant areas, and so on.

This too is humbling. It shows me clearly that my conscious view is – as Freud, Jung and others pointed out – the metaphorical tip of the iceberg of my being.

My life is colored – and lived – by the whole and fullness of my bodymind. It’s run by the innumerable parts of me, some or many of which still operate from wounds and trauma in spite of years of therapy, heart-centered practices, meditation, inquiry, somatic work, and so on.

All the times we didn’t know we didn’t die

moe Leave a comment

I know a few times when I didn’t die. That one time in the car in Oregon, when the driver pulled out right in front of a car going at full speed. (Saved by the miraculous quick reaction of that driver.) The day on the coast of California in winter, when each wave only took me further out. (Saved by the kind guy from Boston built like a truck.) The midsummer when I blacked out and woke up naked, shaking like crazy, and dripping of sweat. (Saved by the ambulance people and the doctors and nurses giving me immediate treatment for sepsis.) And likely the time I went between our beloved cat and a dog, she bit my leg, and I got a persistent infection. (Saved by antibiotics.)

There are also innumerable times I didn’t die that I don’t know about because nothing happened.

And why did nothing happen? Because society is set up to prevent a wide range of things we can die from.

We have clean water. Just about every day, I don’t die from polluted water.

We have sidewalks. Just about every day, I don’t die from being hit by a car when I am out walking.

We have grocery stores with a variety of foods. Just about every day, I don’t die from malnutrition.

We have water and food. Just about every day, I don’t die from dehydration and hunger.

We understand how infectious diseases spread and take precautions. Just about every day, I don’t die from an infectious disease.

We have remarkably effective vaccines. Many times in my life, I didn’t die from diseases people in earlier generations died from.

We have antibiotics. Many times in my life, I didn’t die from an infection that would have killed me just two or three generations ago.

We have laws and a relatively safe society. Just about every day, I don’t die from violence or war.

We have a good social safety net. I don’t have to die from not having enough money.

None of this is a given.

It’s easy for this to become invisible to us, which is why it’s so important to regularly remind ourselves and others about it.

It didn’t happen by accident. It happened because enough of us decided to do something about it. And we need to make that decision anew each day, each election, each time we speak about society and what we value.

The video No One Knows When They Didn’t Die is by Hank Green and is on this topic, and is the inspiration for this brief article.

Human exceptionalism – why is it still around?

moe Leave a comment

Why do some still operate from the idea of human exceptionalism, that we somehow are separate from and inherently different from the rest of life?

ALWAYS CHANGING LIVING SYSTEM

Why do some ask whether we are still evolving or not when all life – the living system we are all part of – is always changing and adapting?

We are part of a self-regulating living system so how can we not?

WHY ASSUME UNIQUENESS?

Why do some still assume that cognition is uniquely human, as the guy about two minutes into this video does? Why do some seem to default to the assumption that if we know something about ourselves from our own experience, that’s unique to us rather than universal among many, most, or all beings?

In this case, why assume that we are the only ones using mental representations and maps to help us navigate and function in the world?

Why make that assumption… When we are closely related to so many other species and so similar to them in every other way? When observation shows us that a great deal of other species, and maybe all of them in their own way, use cognition for the same purpose? When it clearly has an important survival function, so it’s likely to be almost universally present? When cognition can take many different forms, not just as the cognition we are familiar with that reflects about itself?

We scientifically justify using other species to learn about ourselves because they are so similar to us, while we ethically justify those same (often cruel) experiments by saying they are so different from us. Why do we willingly go into that, frankly absurd, mental gymnastics?

Why is the default to assume uniqueness instead of assuming shared traits? Of course, a part of it is to not make assumptions about the presence of something when we can’t know for certain, which is sensible. And yet, assuming the absence of something is also an assumption, and an equally potentially misguided and harmful one.

ASSUMPTIONS OF SEPARATION AND HUMAN SUPERIORITY

The answer to these questions lies in our deep cultural assumptions of separation and superiority.

We assume we somehow – magically, against all we know and see and experience – are separate from the rest of life and this planet. That’s why we may have the idea that evolution is somehow “out there” and also not “in here”.

We also assume that humans somehow – magically and contrary to what we can plainly observe – are superior to the rest of this web of life we are part of. We think while others do not. We feel while others do not. We suffer while others do not. We “have” consciousness while others do not. And so on.

These ideas have been used to justify using the rest of the web of life for our own purposes, without considering the effects on this web of life and the beings that are part of it.

That’s inherently self-destructive, as we are seeing more and more clearly in the world today.

A CHANGE

This is all changing. More and more people seem to realize this.

I can’t help wondering if not the age of the scientist in the video above is a factor in his assumptions of human exceptionalism. Are younger people and scientists more inclined to question those assumptions and see it differently? I don’t know, but I hope so.

THE COST OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS

The assumptions of separation and exceptionalism have some upsides. They have allowed us to go far in science, technology, extracting resources to maintain (a hugely inefficient) civilization, and so on.

They also have a great cost.

We make ourselves feel disconnected and alone by those fantasies. We mentally disconnect ourselves from the web of life we are part of and depend on for our life and (physical and psychological) well-being.

We also give ourselves permission to destroy the web of life we are part of through those fantasies. It’s inherently ecocidal and suicidal.

THE ROOTS OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS

These assumptions are central to our domination culture.

And this domination culture has its roots in the agricultural revolution 10-12 thousand years ago.

When we started domesticating land, vegetation, and animals, and when some of us amassed wealth while others did not, we needed to justify it. And we justified it through developing fantasies of separation, superiority, divine order, and so on. We collectively developed and bought into the assumptions of domination culture, which has taken many forms over time and across cultures.

Today, these assumptions are inherently ecocidal and suicidal. We collectively did OK for several centuries since we were not that many and our technology wasn’t particularly efficient. These days, with 8-9 billions of people and far more advanced technology, the ecocidal and suicidal nature of these assumptions is unavoidable.

Note: The video above is Are Humans Still Evolving? from the American Museum of Natural History, which includes an interview with Ian Tattersall.

Science used with a domination vs partnership mindset

moe Leave a comment

I love Vananda Shiva and her work. What she says here is roughly accurate, but it can also be misunderstood.

It’s important to differentiate between the many scientific methods and the how they are used, the worldviews, assumptions, and aims of the people using them.

THE METHODS OF SCIENCE

The essence of science is the scientific methods.

These are common-sense ways to figure something out, which are then put in system. We all use the principles behind many of the scientific methods in daily life.

Scientific methods are inherently free from either domination or partnership orientations. They are just organized ways to learn about the world, some methods may be more appropriate for some situations than others, and all of them can be used with a domination or partnership mindset.

For instance, we can use quantitative methods with a domination mindset (genetic engineering of plants to make them propriatary) or a partnership mindset (measuring the increase in wildlife in a food forest). Similarly, we can use qualitative methods with a domination (generate data to justify xenophobia) or partnership (better understand the needs ot minorities) mindset.

IMMEDIATE REASONS

Of course, at one level, the difference lies in our goals, the demands put on us, what organization we are part of, and so on.

At another level, it’s all rooted in our worldview and basic assumptions about the world.

THE WORLDVIEWS THE SCIENCE HAPPENS WITHIN

Some worldviews and assumptions are inherently domination-oriented.

For instance: We are separate from nature. Nature is here for our use. Nature is infinite. The sacred is out there in a sky god and the afterlife. Non-human beings are inferior. We understand something best by taking it apart to its smallest parts. Life is a zero-sum game.

This worldview and these assumptions came out of the agricultural revolution and were used to justify the domination of animals, land, and people.

Other worldviews and assumptions are inherently partnership-oriented.

For instance: We are nature. We are ephemeral and local expressions of the living system we call Earth. The sacred is in everyone and everything. We understand something by seeing it in context and as part of larger seamless systems. We are the universe bringing itself into consciousness. We can find win-win-win solutions.

All scientific methods can be used within either of these worldviews and from any of these assumptions.

A SPECTRUM

It’s also important to point out that the domination and partnership orientation exists on a spectrum, and there is always some of each.

Also, even if we come from a partnership orientation, it makes sense to make use of whatever useful comes out of the domination culture and the science produced by the domination culture.

For instance, if we are developing a food forest, there is a lot of helpful science about soil, plants, ecology, succession, and so on that originally came out of a domination culture.

OUR BACKGROUND COLORS OUR PERCEPTION

Maybe this differentiation seems important to me since I grew up in and studied in Norway which has more of a partnership culture, so I have seen many examples of science being used with a partnership mindset.

I also understand why Vananda Shiva talks about it this way, and it’s obviously just a small exerpt from a longer interview. She has fought the horrors of the modern agricultural industry, so she knows how science has often been used from a domination mindset.

Read More

My nature noticing itself, and finding views that match

moe Leave a comment

In my teens and for a couple of decades, I was passionate about systems views, holarchies, integral models, Taoism, Buddhism, Christian mysticism, and so on.

Why? Because these views matched my experience. They fit what was revealed in the oneness shift when I was sixteen.

ONENESS SHIFT

The consciousness I am woke up to itself. It happened on a winter day when this human self was walking along the gravel road to our house, looking up at the starry sky and with a big wind going through it all.

To myself, I am consciousness, and the world as it appears to me happens within and as the consciousness I am. This consciousness, and the experience of the world, is what mystics across cultures and through time have described, often cloathed in the language of their culture, time, and tradition.

The consciousness I am is one, it’s a seamless whole. The experience of time and space happens within it, any ideas of boundaries happen within it. And so on.

WORLDVIEWS

So it makes sense that I explored worldviews and approaches that, as much as possible, match this oneness I find myself as.

First, it was systems views through Fritjof Capra’s The Turning Point, and I also loved Taoism. Later, I explored Buddhism since that’s what I could find, and I also explored the Christian mystics and mystics from anywhere and any time.

I find that my worldviews mirror me, and really ANY worldview is a mirror for me. I can find what it points to here. It seems that any story from within any worldview is something I can turn around to apply to myself and find examples of how it’s true.

In my case, the worldviews I resonate with clearly mirror me. They mirror the oneness I find myself as, although they are all quite imperfect as well. They are the beginnings of worldviews that far better can reflect oneness and the immense simplicity and complexity of oneness.

WE ARE INEVITABLY CONSCIOUSNESS

When the shift first happened, my human self interpreted it in terms of God. All of existence without exception was revealed as consciousness, Spirit, God, and so on. The nature of all is consciousness and God. God seems to want to explore itself in as many different ways as possible, and one of those ways is by temporarily and locally taking the form of this human self, and even – for a while – taking itself to fundamentally be this human self.

These days, I like to explore (what I think of as) the small view on awakening which essentially says the same but frames it slightly differently.

Here are some points:

(I) No matter what, to ourselves we inevitably are consciousness. No matter what we fundamentally are from some outside third-person worldview, we have to be consciousness to ourselves. Consciousness is not some kind of appendix or add-on in our own first-person experience.

(II) We can find ourselves as consciousness. We can most easily find it through pointers and guided looking, for instance through the Big Mind process or the Headless experiments.

(III) The world, as it appears to us, happens within and as the consciousness we are. That too is inevitable. The world, to us, is consciousness, whether we notice or not.

(IV) I can’t say anything for certain about the nature of all of existence. I can say something about my own nature, as it appears to me, but I don’t know if the nature of all of existence is the same as my nature. It has to appear that way since it, to me, happens within and as the consciousness I am. but I don’t know for certain. This opens for compatibility with a range of worldviews from materialism to seeing the whole of existence as consciousness, Spirit, and God.

(V) The big view of awakening is certainly also possible. The nature of all of existence may well be the same as my nature, it may all be consciousness taking what we experience as material forms.

(VI) The small and big views on awakening are complementary. They are compatible, fill each other in, and I like to find fluidity between the views. The small is honest, sober, and compatible with a range of worldviews including materialism. The big is inspiring, fits the language of spirituality and mystics, and is – if I am honest – more likely to be accurate in the big picture.

A deep partnership approach: Valuing partnership and domination cultures and making use of what works

moe Leave a comment

I have written about the partnership versus the domination approach, and there is a deeper form of partnership orientation that I thought I would highlight here. I’ll do it in the context of growing food since we are developing our own food forest these days and it helps ground the abstractions in something practical.

A PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO FOOD GROWING

A partnership approach seeks to work in partnership with nature.

We recognize ourselves as nature, and that what happens with nature happens to us.

We use methods informed by ecology and science. We mimic natural ecosystems.

We create polycultures and rely more on perennials. We seek to build healthy soil. We don’t rely on toxins or chemical fertilizers. We find a variety of income sources from our land.

We create a system that self-maintains and, over time, requires less input of resources and work. We work with systems that create more abundance over time. We work intentionally with the inherent intelligence , wisdom, and dynamics of ecosystems built into it through evolution.

We seek win-win solutions that benefit us, ecosystems, wildlife, and future generations.

If we have animals, we seek to give them a good and natural life as much as possible.

A DOMINATION APPROACH TO FOOD GROWING

A domination approach comes from a view of separation.

We see ourselves as separate from nature. We see nature primarily as a resource for us. We see nature as infinite in resources and capacity to absorb civilization’s waste. We emphasize a narrow view of productivity.

We use monocultures. We use toxins and chemical fertilizers. We see soil as primarily for holding the plants up. We emphasize annuals.

We have a system that requires a steady high input of resources. We often rely on one source of income.

We work against many of the processes of nature, and try to compensate for it by using pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and so on.

We use a zero-sum approach where what benefits us short term (food, money) is harmful for ecosystems, wildlife, and future generations.

If we have animals, they often live a life of suffering. They suffer for our narrow benefit.

ALWAYS SOME OF BOTH

There is always some of both.

Even if we generally use a partnership approach, there is some form of control and management. We plan, plant, regulate, manage, make interventions, harvest, and so on.

Even if we generally use a domination approach, we inevitably have to work in partnership with nature. Otherwise, it won’t work. We rely on and have to take into minimal consideration the dynamics of plants and nature.

A DEEPER FORM OF PARTNERSHIP

If our view of partnership is superficial and one-sided, we miss out on something essential. We are missing out on the partnership with the rest of our world, including the gold found in domination cultures.

In this case, we are missing out on the practices, technology, and insights that come from agricultural practices in our Western domination culture.

There is a deeper partnership approach. That is to find value in the whole spectrum and make pragmatic use of whatever works whether it comes from a domination culture or not.

This, of course, require discernment. Although it requires a bit more work than excluding it all, it works better, is more aligned with reality, and the rewards can be high.

VALUING THE POLARITY AND THE DYNAMICS WITHIN IT

It’s also worth noticing that putting different value judgments on each end of a polarity is common in domination cultures. It’s a way to create the appearances of separation and justify domination: Humans are better than animals. Men are better than women. Whites are better than others. Heterosexuals are better than LGBT+.

If we exclude the value of the domination culture and what comes out of it, we are doing the same. We are joining in with one of the less savory features of domination culture.

A deeper partnership approach is to find value in the polarity as a whole, the dynamics within in, and the roles it seems to play in the larger system.

That doesn’t mean to wholesale adopt what comes from domination culture. It just means to see the value in it, and make use of some of it whenever it makes sense.

VALUING DOMINATION CULTURE

With agriculture came an emphasis on domination culture, and with the domination culture came social hierarchies, kingdoms, elaborate religions, art, science, technology, and everything else that’s part of our civilization.

It’s easy for me to find value in this. I love much of the art, music, architecture, science, and technology that has come with this domination culture – the idea of separation and domination.

I love many of the insights that come with it – the Universe Story, the Epic of Evolution, systems views, integral models.

I love the struggle and dynamic between domination and partnership orientations. It’s a good story that goes as a thread through the recent millennia of human history.

I love identifying and finding alternatives to some of the more detrimental aspects of domination culture. There is an enjoyment there, even if I sometimes also feel frustrated, scared, angry, hopeless, and so on.

MAKING USE OF ELEMENTS FROM DOMINATION CULTURE

We can make use of elements from our modern domination culture within a partnership context.

What are some examples when it comes to growing food?

We can clearly benefit from the science and knowledge that comes out of our Western domination culture. We can benefit from the science of ecosystems, climate, water cycles, plant growth, interactions between plants, soil health and microbiome, and so on.

We can make use of modern testing of water quality, soil health, and so on.

We can use elements from modern agriculture, including drip irrigation, shade cloths (for instance, if the food forest is young), and more.

We can use plants developed for specific purposes, including vetiver which is a hardy non-invasive grass that helps prevent erosion (until other plants are better established).

We can make use of all the approaches developed within and as a response to modern agriculture, including regenerative agriculture, permaculture, syntropic, and agroforestry.

We live in a world created by our domination culture and make use of the internet for connection and information, shipping and transportation, cars, municipal water and electricity, and an endless amount of other things that makes our lives easier and more convenient. This makes it much easier to develop a food forest or other partnership oriented systems for growing food. (While also often being destructive to nature since it’s all part of a system that assumes infinite nature.)

We can make use of frameworks like systems views, integral models, and similar.

We can be inspired by the Universe Story and the Epic of Evolution which comes out of modern science.

EVOLUTION OF THIS LIVING PLANET AND UNIVERSE

This is all part of the evolution of this living planet and universe, and we are temporary and local expressions of this seamless system. Domination and partnership orientations are just two of the many ways that Earth, the Universe, and existence expresses, explores, and experiences itself.

Everything is fleeting so let’s make the most out of what’s here now. And what’s here now is the opportunity – for those of us so inclined – to be consciously aware of ourselves as expressions of these larger systems and a part of the larger creativity of these systems.

Our creativity is a local and temporary expression of the creativity of these larger systems – this living planet, this universe, existence.

We can chose to become conscious participants in this creativity, in the self-exploration of existence, and in working towards a future with an ecologically sound civilization.

If we are able to create that, it will be a stepping stone to things we can’t even imagine.

NOTES

I am aware of the Spiral Dynamics model as I write this, and often like to start at lower levels and move up. In this case, I ended with a bigger-picture view of it all. See below for an AI analysis of the different parts of this text in a Spiral Dynamics context.

The photo is a view from Finca Milagros where we have our regeneration and food forest project.

Read More

When you have a disability that’s (a) invisible, (b) not yet well understood by science, and (c) happens mostly to women

moe Leave a comment

I have a disability that’s invisible (if you meet me casually), not yet well understood by science, and happens mostly to women.

That’s a difficult combination in today’s society.

INVISIBLE DISABILITIES

People – including some doctors – tend to take invisible disabilities less seriously than visible ones.

I was reminded of this when I saw Super/Man: The Christopher Reeve Story last night. It’s wonderful that doctors, family, friends, and society in general took his situation seriously and gave him the support he needed. (His challenge seemed to be that he lived in the US and had private insurance with a cap.)

It’s less wonderful when we don’t receive the same understanding and support because our disability happens not to be visible, at least not to the casual observer.

If you see me, you usually see me because I have a good day and you see me briefly. If it is a planned meeting, I have cleared my schedule for several days before and after the meeting because I need 100% rest to be able to do it. Also, my condition typically severely worsens after the meeting, often for days and sometimes even weeks. If you saw all of this and saw the struggle over time, you would at least see the consequences of living with this invisible disability.

DISABILITIES NOT WELL UNDERSTOOD BY SCIENCE

It’s similar with disabiliites not well understood by science.

They tend to be treated as a kind of pariah among diseases and disabilities.

Doctors would rather not deal with it since the diagnosis can be difficult and there is no treatment.

People in general may think it’s not a real disease, you are imagining it, you are lazy, and so on.

There is no lack of examples of diseases that were not understood and dismissed, and later better understood and taken seriously.

WOMEN’S DISABILITIES

Several of these invisible and less understood disabilities happen to be more common among women.

Or maybe that’s just a consequence of a patriarchical culture.

Diseases that impact men are taken seriously, studied, and better understood.

Diseases that mostly impact women are taken less seriously, are less studied, and less well understood.

A TRIPLE CHALLENGE

If we have an invisible disability that’s less well understood, we live with a triple challenge.

The disability itself can be immensely challenging. It has impacted my life profoundly at all levels and in all areas of life.

Having an invisible disability has led to people dismissing it, not understanding it, not understanding the severity of it, attributing the consequences of living with it to something else, and more.

The same goes for having a disability that’s not well understood by science. In addition to the above challenges, it also means that some doctors will dismiss it.

MY EXPERIENCE

I tend not to talk about my disability, and I am also unable to do much in the world. In a sense, that protects me against some of the challenging situations people in my situation can experience.

Of course, that in itself says something about my situation.

Not talking about it comes from the stigma and challenges of having an invisible disability not understood by science. If it was visible and well understood, the conversations would be easier and sometimes not even needed.

To some extent, it’s similar when I have to severely cut back on social interactions. If people understood my need for rest, it would be easier to try some social interactions. We could set it up so I have a place to rest, I would feel free to rest when I needed to, and they would understand and support it.

UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORT

I have also experienced understanding and support. It was an enormous relief to come to the CFS center in Oslo with professionals familiar with the condition, and even more so to do a CFS retreat at a rehabilitation center in Norway with an understanding professional staff and a group of people in the same situation as me.

My wife’s family also shows understanding. For instance, last Christmas, I went to the family Christmas party and they had a bed ready for me so I could go and rest after the meal. They chatted, danced, and had fun, I had a much-needed rest, and we all got what we wanted.

A FEW CHALLENGING SITUATIONS

Here are a few examples of more challenging situations:

I had a severe worsening when I lived in Oregon, and I previously had a weekly meeting for a while with a friend. At some point, I put all my effort into one more meeting with her, but I had to cancel twice despite doing everything I could to stabilize and try to build up enough energy for that one meeting. It was my main priority. She got upset, said she was not important to me, and cut off all communication.

This dramatic worsening came after months of living with severe pneumonia. My doctor refused to treat it, saying it was “walking pneumonia”. I had been bedridden for weeks at that time and was very concerned about my health, especially considering I already had CFS. She seemed to not understand that I already had a weak and vulnerable system and needed treatment for the pneumonia.

After this severe worsening, I moved to Norway. My general practitioner doctor in Norway was updated on my situation but did nothing to help me with assistance from the government. It took months and years before he finally had a student observing in his office, and then he took me seriously and got things moving. He was willing to let it slide if it was just the two of us, and finally took it seriously when there was a witness.

More recently, I met with a doctor specializing in another field. When I mentioned I have CFS, he (literally) rolled his eyes, scoffed, and treated me with disdain for the rest of the appointment. His demeanor markedly changed. I didn’t go back to him.

Someone in my family has repeatedly said that I just need to pull myself together and get a job. If I do, I won’t have any problems with lack of money. If it was that easy, and if it was possible, I would never have been in this situation in the first person. I love to be engaged in the world and work. I am not living this life because I it’s my first choice.

Several years ago, I took a university degree that required meeting only once or sometimes twice a week. I was just about able to do it, also because the topic was already very familiar to me. At the end of the program, we had a course with daily meetings over two weeks. I knew I would not be able to do it, explained my situation to the teacher, and asked for permission to skip some of that course (and find a way to make up for it at home). I also explained that I was familiar with the topic from earlier and far more in-depth university courses on the same topic. He responded that if I missed even one day, he would make sure I wouldn’t get my degree. These two weeks led to a permanent and dramatic worsening of my condition which I still live with.

I realize that I play a role in some of this. I could have insisted more strongly with my doctor in Oregon, or found another doctor. I could have explained better to my friend, instead of just mentioning that I have CFS and think that’s enough. I could have given my teacher at the university the doctor’s notice before or instead of talking with him.

Not having had the backing I needed, for good portions of this, and the disability itself – feeling drained of energy combined with strong brain fog and confusion – sometimes makes it difficult to insist and make good decisions. This impacts everything in my life. And it’s also good to see my role in these situations and take responsibility for my part. That helps me do it differently now and in the future.

Read More

I am only scratching the surface

moe Leave a comment

The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently, we have waded a little out to sea, enough to dampen our toes or, at most, wet our ankles.

– Carl Sagan in Cosmos

Since my teens, a central part of my experience is that we – I and all of humanity – are only scratching the surface.

What we (think we) know is a drop in the ocean. There is always infinitely further to go. There is more to learn and experience.

There are always other contexts and worldviews to understand something within that make as much or more sense than the ones we are familiar with, and that will turn our view on it upside down and inside out.

MY EXPERIENCE

Why is this so strong for me? I think it’s partly because I loved science from early in life, especially Cosmos by Carl Sagan, and he certainly made this clear. Later, when I was about fifteen, I got into Fritjof Capra, shifting worldviews, and the history and method of science, which also makes this very clear.

That’s likely why I have never thought that whatever noticing or insights I have, or tell myself I have, is even close to any full, final, or absolute truth, or that it’s anything else than scratching the surface.

No matter how much experience or insights I have about something, it’s a drop in the ocean of what’s there to experience, notice, and have insights about.

There is always further to go. It’s an ongoing process.

MENTAL MAPS AND FUTURE UNDERSTANDING

That’s also how it is with my mental maps and understanding. My thoughts are questions about the world. They have a limited and practical function only, which is to help me orient and navigate in the world. They cannot capture any full, final, or absolute truth. There is some validity in most if not all thoughts. (We just need to find what kind of validity.) Reality is always more than and different from our stories about it.

In the future, our current understanding – whether it’s in natural science, social science, psychology, or the science of awakening and healing – will be seen as old-fashioned and outdated. They will have a different understanding and new contexts and worldviews to understand it within.

I love that it very likely is like this. It allows for continued and unlimited exploration.

A PITFALL

To myself, it’s very clear that whatever experience, understanding, and insights I may have is nothing compared to what’s out there to explore. I am always a novice, a beginner. That’s fine. It’s accurate and it allows for receptivity, fascination, and curiosity.

There is something for me to be aware of here. I often present myself in the world in this way too, as a novice and beginner, since it matches my experience and how I see it. It’s accurate in the big-picture context that I use. It’s accurate on the scale of infinite exploration.

The problem is that others understand it in another context, in the everyday context of human life and the scale of what’s out there in society today. Here too, I am not too far on the expert side of the scale in anything, but I am also not a novice in many areas of life. I have explored certain areas of life and mind further than the average person.

This leads others to often dismiss what I have to say or contribute, at least those on the novice side of the scale. (If they have more experience, they tend to recognize it. The exception is if they are strongly tied to certain identities or assumptions.)

This fits into my trauma response of wanting to hide and be invisible. It feels safer for me to be invisible, to be seen as a novice and beginner even if it’s not accurate in a conventional sense. That’s likely why this is happening.

I already have a view of any amount of experience, noticing, and insights as close to nothing compared to what’s possible. That’s accurate enough. If parts of me were not caught up in this trauma response, I would keep that distinct from the conventional scales of experience that most people use in daily life.

Since parts of me are caught up in that trauma response, they use this accurate view and present it in the world, even if I know others are likely to misunderstand.

That’s satisfying to the parts of me that want to keep me safe by hiding, and it’s also frustrating to other parts of me that would like me to be normally visible, behave in a more healthy way, and make more use of my experience, insights, and skills.

A NOTE ON THE QUOTE

The quote I used above is about our understanding of the physical universe. We know very little about the universe beyond this beautiful and fragile planet.

I used it since it works well for any kind of exploration and understanding, including about anything that’s part of this planet, ourselves, and our nature.

We are still in the shallows.

In a sense, we always will be since no matter how much we learn and think we know, there is always an infinite amount more waiting for us to explore and get to know.

Quantum physics and Eastern philosophies

moe Leave a comment

In my mid-teens, I got deeply into systems views, quantum physics, and how they mirror insights from awakening and Eastern philosophies. (Initially through The Turning Point by Fritjof Capra, then The Tao of Physics and Uncommon Wisdom by Capra, and then by working my way through the books he frequently referenced.)

I still find systems views very useful, especially as they are medicine for the typical Western worldview.

I am less sure about quantum physics. It was fascinating at the time, and I loved the parallels between quantum physics and Eastern philosophies. Since I was deeply into science, it helped me mentally bridge the Western and Eastern worldviews, and that was helpful.

Soon, I got a bit disenchanted with it all. For a while, it can be fun playing with worldviews and their parallels, and then it becomes a little too obvious that that’s what it is: Playing with and comparing worldviews. Both are maps of the world. Both are created by the mind. Both are one of innumerable possible worldviews that would fit the data equally well or better, most of which we are not aware of yet. And so on. (I am sure Capra writes about this although I don’t remember.)

I also got a bit disenchanted with what seemed like an attempt by some Westerners to justify and validate Eastern philosophies through quantum physics. Eastern philosophies don’t need validation in that way. They don’t need to be validated by one aspect of Western science, and one interpretation of that one aspect of Western science.

They stand well on their own. Parallels are not validation, so that kind of validation is impossible. And that particular interpretation of quantum physics is very likely temporary. There are many other maps and models that can explain the data equally well or better, most of which we are currently unaware of. Some of these, very likely, don’t match Eastern philosophies nearly that well.

Although it can be fascinating and worth pointing out, it doesn’t make sense to me to invest in one particular understanding (Copenhagen model) of one aspect of Western science (quantum physics) as a kind of validation (not really) of Eastern philosophies.

Science is all about change. Our maps, understandings, and worldviews are always changing. Eastern philosophies are about something slightly more universal and timeless. Although they too, of course, consist of maps, understandings, and worldviews, and these too are up for revision.

Read More

When does life begin?

moe Leave a comment

When does life begin? At conception? A few weeks or months into gestation?

Within the realm of stories, the real answer is that it began close to four billion years ago. That’s when the processes and dynamics of this planet took on the form we call life. That’s when our earliest ancestors came about. Since then, there has really been only one life, one living system that we all are local and temporary expressions of.

We can expand the context one step further: What we call life is one expression of the larger dynamics and processes of this unfolding Universe. As Carl Sagan said: We are the local eyes, ears, thoughts, and feelings of the Universe. We are the Universe bringing itself into consciousness.

I love when people go beyond the answers typically found in our society on these topics, take a big-picture view, and find the more real answer, as Astrid Lundberg does above.

Read More

When politicians ignore science

moe Leave a comment

Yes, politics is about gaining power, not following scientists and research.

There is no lack of examples of where many politicians go one way while scientists and research show us a better way.

Why? It’s likely a range of different reasons or combination of reasons. Sometimes, it’s because of puritanical feelings, as the quote suggests. They know what will appeal to their likely voters. They are aligned with money interests that want something else. Most political systems reward immediate results and not long-term or big-picture projects and planning. In our system, there is not much in place to (a) encourage policies grounded in research, (b) encourage long-term and big-picture thinking, and (c) reward what actually gives results. The system is set up so effective or grounded policies are not necessarily rewarded with votes.

The problem is not with the politicians. It’s with the system, and it’s with the people voting for these politicians.

A FEW EXAMPLES AND LOW-HANGING FRUITS

What are some examples of politicians being out of tune with the science community and research?

The two examples in the quote are a good place to start.

Work. Innumerable studies have, for decades, shown that a four-day workweek helps people be more productive, reduces sick leave, improves well-being, and so on. People get as much done in four days as they do in five when they have a four-day workweek. The same with vacations and shorter shifts. So why do we not implement a shorter work week when research and real-life examples show us it’s effective?

Schools. The same goes for schools. Homework is shown to not be a very effective way to help students learn. Also, teenagers especially benefit from a later start on the school day. It’s more aligned with their biological rhythms which helps them learn more effectively and improves well-being.

Drug policies I. Innumerable studies have for decades mapped out the dangers of different drugs. Marijuana is among the least dangerous and least addictive drugs, while, for instance, alcohol is both dangerous (people injure themselves and others when intoxicated) and highly addictive. So why is alcohol still allowed in most countries while the far less dangerous marijuana is not? (Several states in the US have followed the research and decriminalized marijuana.)

Drug policies II: Research and real-life examples show that harm-reduction strategies, like needle exchange programs and supervised injection sites, reduce crime while not increasing drug use. Why isn’t there widespread use of safe zones for drug addicts – or even decriminalization of most or all drugs – so it can be better regulated and addicts can receive better help?

Drug policies III: Research and real-life examples show that some drugs are effective for therapeutic use. For instance, patients who cannot be helped with pharmaceuticals or therapy show a significant improvement from using some of these in a supervised and therapeutic setting. So why are they not more universally decriminalized for therapeutic use?

Health-care. Almost all developed countries have universal healthcare and decades of experience show it has innumerable benefits, including reduced spending. Why does one country – the US – not have it yet? Likely because the current system is hugely inefficient, and that inefficiency lines the pockets of health insurance companies, private hospitals, and others.

Criminal justice. Research and real-life examples show that focusing on rehabilitation is more effective and less expensive than a punitive approach with longer prison sentences. Again, to take the US as an example: Why are so many in prison there compared to other developed countries? Why do some receive long prison sentences for relatively minor infractions? Here too, it’s because the inefficiency in the system is highly profitable to the prison industry, and money dictates policies more than research, especially when they can also tap into the puritanical feelings of the public combined with their relative lack of education.

GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT

There is also one that’s far more important than any of these:

We are in a global ecological overshoot. Our collective ecological footprint is so large that we need more than one planet Earth to support it, and we don’t have a second planet. We are spending more from our metaphorical ecological savings account than comes in. We are using more resources than Earth can replenish, especially with the massive loss of healthy ecosystems. Just like spending from our savings account, it looks fine for a while until we reach the bottom, our lifestyle cannot be supported anymore, and it all comes crashing down.

This too has been known for decades, at least since the 70s. It’s well-documented. So why don’t most politicians take this seriously? Why do the ones who appear to take it seriously mostly focus on peripheral issues and solutions?

It’s likely because it requires long-term and big-picture planning, a thorough transformation of all aspects of society, and the support of the public. Our current political system rewards short-term projects and discourages long-term and big-picture projects. Similarly, most people are focused on their day-to-day life.

Mainly, any system tries to stay in equilibrium and so also our current civilization. There are innumerable mechanisms in place aimed at ensuring a dynamic status quo.

Our civilization is embedded in our larger ecological systems, and they provide the massive encouragement for change that we need. They are unraveling. They are full of toxins that also go into us. They bring about massive shifts in our climate and ocean currents.

Their unraveling is our unraveling, and that is what can bring us to our senses.

Our civilization is causing this massive ecological destruction, we are receiving feedback since we are embedded in these ecological systems, and we may or may not be receptive enough to make the necessary changes in time.

WHAT CAN I DO?

What can we do about all of this?

I make some effort to stay up-to-date with real-life examples and studies on these and other topics.

I also look at which political parties seem to have policies most grounded in research, and which ones are most grounded on the issues that seem most important. (For me, in Norway, it’s the Green Party. They recently suggested decriminalizing marijuana which was met with scorn and ridicule from other parties less grounded in science.)

It’s important to set aside superficial personal preferences here. I may have voted for another party in the past. I may have family and friends who vote for other parties. My conscious identity may be more aligned with another party. All of that is less important. (In my case, I did vote for another party in the past since the Green Party was so small, although that party does have similar policies. My family are all far more conservative than me. My friends are probably all over the place, with few of them prioritizing reducing our global ecological footprint. My conscious identity fits nicely with the Green Party, although they are more conservative than me on social issues. A similar party with a more integral orientation could fit even better.)

I have educated myself on our ecological footprint, why we are in our current situation, and what we can collectively and individually do about it. I sometimes bring it up in conversation with others, to plant a seed. I eat local and organic when I can. I limit driving and flying to essentials. (Although what’s essential is always something I question.) I am a member of and vote for the Green Party. I am involved in a reforestation and regeneration project in the Andes. And so on.

I do what I can to provide little nudges for the larger system.

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT ESSENTIALS

What are the essentials of our ecological footprint?

More than one Earth. The essence is that we would need two Earths to support our current global ecological footprint, and several Earths if everyone lived as we do in industrialized countries.

Systems. We are in this situation because of our economic and other human-made systems. These systems came in place at a time when Earth, for all practical purposes, was infinite so we didn’t take ecological limits into account. Over the last few decades, with a huge increase in population and far more effective technology, we have quickly run up against these ecological limits.

Systems change. The solution is a thorough system change. We need to change our economic and other systems (transportation, energy, water, waste, education) to take ecological realities into account. We need to create systems where what’s easy and attractive to do, collectively and individually, is also what’s good for our ecological systems.

It’s possible. That’s more than possible. There is no lack of solutions, good small-scale examples, and brilliant people working in this field. We can have a civilization that operates within the limits of our ecological systems, and where people live full, rich, and rewarding lives.

Collective will. To make those changes, we need to find our collective will. Enough of us need to realize that these changes are required – not only for our survival but for having a thriving civilization.

A NOTE ON SCIENCE

Science has two aspects: the methods and the findings.

The methods are mainly common sense put in a system. They reflect methods we all use to figure out how the world works.

The content changes over time, as does how it’s understood and the worldview it is understood within.

Some content of science has been thoroughly researched by many scientists over decades and sometimes centuries. The findings are solid, although the finer points may be open for discussion.

Some content of science has a less rigorous history, and – as they say – we need more research.

In general, the findings of science are far more solid and far more likely to be aligned with reality than the opinion of you or me or anyone else.

In the absence of something better, like the science in one or two hundred years, we have to settle for the best we have which is the science of today.

Synchronicity: After posting this article, I received an email from the Green Party asking for my signature in support of a four-day workweek in Norway. Specifically, to test it out with some among a couple of groups of workers that have an especially hard workload, like nurses. I signed, of course.

BioPsychoEcoSocial approach to CFS

moe Leave a comment

When I studied psychology, I quickly got into the biopsychosocial approach since I loved more integral, systemic, and holistic approaches in general.

BIO-PSYCHO-ECO-SOCIAL APPROACH

Really, I got into what I called a BioPsychoEcoSocial approach since ecology is part of it too, maybe the most important part. (I wrote my undergraduate thesis on that.)

What does it mean? It just means that our health has all of these aspects: Our biology, our psychology, our society, and our ecosystems. It’s all part of what forms our health and influences our well-being.

It’s what we all already know, just formalized a bit.

UNDERSTANDING MY CFS

It’s the approach I use to understand my own health. I live with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and it’s helpful to understand it by looking at these four aspects.

Biology

They find biological changes in people with CFS, and it’s likely I have some or all of those too.

It may have genetic components. When I uploaded my genetic profile to a European database, it told me I had a genetic variation associated with CFS.

When I initially got CFS at age fifteen, it was a few months after mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr). That’s a quite common connection. It’s possible the EB virus stayed in my system, and my system’s reaction to it may have led to CFS.

I was much better in my twenties and most of my thirties. When the CFS returned, it was following weeks and months with pneumonia. (My doctor wouldn’t treat it, and I – for whatever reason – didn’t change doctors.) I also lived in a house in Oregon with some mold problems, and it was after a long and wet winter.

Psychology

Although nobody knows for certain, it seems likely that childhood trauma may play a role in CFS. It may be one of several stressors that sets the stage for CFS. I certainly have my share of that.

I also had a lot of stress and teenage angst when I initially got CFS at age fifteen.

When the CFS returned in my thirties, I had a lot of stress from feeling “trapped” in a life situation that didn’t feel right. (Of course, I trapped myself in it since I could make changes but didn’t until I eventually did.)

Ecology

What’s the ecology part of it?

There may be good evolutionary reasons for having genetic variations that (also) set the stage for CFS. These variations may have other advantages for individuals and humanity as a whole. For instance, according to the genetic database I uploaded my genetic info to, it has to do with sensitivity. It’s not good for everyone to be extra sensitive, but it’s good for humanity and society as a whole to have some individuals like that.

I suspect diet and environment play a significant role in the onset of CFS, and it certainly plays a role in managing it and possibly healing from it. A clean environment and a healthy diet set the stage for better health, and environmental toxins and eating food grown with chemicals in depleted soil sets the stage for less good health.

Also, at least my psychology is influenced by what I see happening with nature and what I know is happening around the world, and I assume it’s similar for most people. Grief and anxiety come up when I see the unraveling and destabilizing of our ecosystems, and that’s another aspect of the overall stress.

Social

The social aspect also plays a role in my CFS, in several ways.

It may have contributed to the onset. I didn’t feel safe and comfortable in my family growing up, due to the dynamics between my parents and their fear of what others may think of them. I also didn’t feel comfortable in my class in school since there was a good deal of hostility and bullying from a few people there, also directed at me.

All together

I suspect that CFS comes about from a combination of predispositions and stressors, from all four aspects mentioned above. Nobody knows for certain, but that’s how it looks for now.

Managing and finding healing from CFS also involves all four of these, and I have explored and worked on all four since my late teens.

NORWEGIAN WEIRDNESS

I am partly writing this because I was reminded of some weirdness in the Norwegian CFS community around this. Several people there seem to have a beef with the biopsychosocial approach to understanding CFS.

They seem to mistake it for a reductionistic psychological understanding of CFS, and of seeing it as mainly or only psychological in origin.

To me, those two approaches are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

A biopsychosocial understanding takes a holistic and whole systems view of health and disease. We look at all the many different factors influencing it to get a better and fuller understanding of what may be going on.

A reductionistic approach, whether it’s psychological or biological or something else, reduces it all to one thing and overlooks the rest.

So if you refer to a reductionistic psychological understanding of CFS, call it that. Don’t call it biopsychosocial since that’s something very different.

Image is created by me and Midjourney

Do non-humans know when they will die?

moe Leave a comment

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this is accurate.

The day before our beloved Merlina died, she followed me around everywhere and touched me the whole time. I commented on it because although she was a loving cat, her behavior that day was very unusual. She died unexpectedly the following morning.

It’s important to collect these stories, even if they are anecdotal. It’s the first step in science to explore a topic. Of course, anecdotes are subject to recall bias, confirmation bias, selection bias, and more. If a non-human friend behaves in an unusual behavior and nothing happens, we tend to forget. If they behave in the same way and they die, we remember. (Recall bias, survivor bias.) We may also interpret the behavior in that context. (Confirmation bias.) If they die without any unusual behavior preceding it, the story is not told because there is no story to tell. If there was an unusual behavior, we may tell the story, and people like Rupert Sheldrake have a story to collect and publish. (Selection bias, publication bias.)

To arrive at more solid conclusions, we would need to take it one or two steps further, for instance, through prospective studies. Also, there is a difference between knowing or sensing you will die if you have a serious illness or knowing or sensing you will die from an accident. The first makes sense within a materialistic worldview, the second requires something else.

William Anders: We came all the way to the moon, and what we discovered was Earth

moe Leave a comment

We came all the way to the moon, to study the moon. And what we discovered was the Earth.

– William Anders, 1933-2024

Three aspects of science

moe Leave a comment

I posted an article on social media about the methods of science and the importance of using solid data and logic in our own lives. Unsurprisingly, one of the comments seemed skeptical about science.

For me, it’s important to differentiate between three aspects of science.

METHODS OF SCIENCE

One is the methods of science. These are mostly common sense put into a system.

These methods help us gather and evaluate data for how solid it is, they help us evaluate the logic used to interpret and understand the data, and they help us recognize biases in ourselves and others.

This is very useful for all of us, even in daily life. We all use some version of this.

CONTENT OF SCIENCE & WORLDVIEWS

Another is what’s produced through science and the worldview we use to understand it.

The content of science is always changing, as it should. It’s updated with new information. It reflects society and culture. What’s valid today may well be seen as outdated tomorrow.

The worldview we understand science within also changes. These days, many still use a materialistic and reductionistic worldview. In some decades or centuries, something else may be the norm – perhaps one that’s more systemic, holistic, and/or integral.

Realizing this helps us hold it all a little more lightly.

HOW SCIENCE IS USED AND MISUSED

Science is performed and used by people, and it lives within society and culture.

Sometimes, it’s used to genuinely help people.

Sometimes, this is mixed in with a profit motivation and may still be mainly helpful.

Sometimes, it’s misused in a more obvious way and it’s used primarily for profit or power.

Sometimes, the name of science is used to promote something that’s not grounded in science at all, to achieve a goal someone sets higher than truth and reality.

Whatever it is, it’s not inherent in science. It happens because of society, culture, and people.

SCIENCE SKEPTICISM IS OFTEN NOT ABOUT SCIENCE

When people express skepticism of science, they are often rightly critical of how some people use science and the name of science. Unfortunately, they also often seem to mix up the methods of science and how science is used by some people and businesses. They see it all as one thing.

They are critical of some uses of science, and then automatically reject anything that comes with that label, including sound and useful methods of science.

Science is essentially about methods. The rest is more peripheral and belongs more to history and society.

Read More

What happens as we die?

moe Leave a comment

I have been reading about the recent research into how people experience death (see “The New Science of Death” from The Guardian), and this video with some of the highlights just showed up in my YouTube recommendations.

Their findings fit what has been previously reported, including from people who have had near-death experiences. People dying often report deep relaxation, light, a review of their life, a sense of coming home, and a few more things.

THE WORLDVIEW CURRENT SCIENCE OPERATES WITHIN

Our current science operates within a strictly materialistic worldview, so scientists are expected to interpret this as more or less random things that happen in the brain because of the dying process.

That’s understandable and it has some upsides. It’s grounded in verifiable data, which is important, and it’s a good starting point for exploring other possible explanations.

If these experiences are random results of a dying brain, I have to say that some of what people report seems surprisingly fitting and meaningful, including the life review and a sense of coming home.

THE POSSIBILITY OF CONTINUING BEYOND THIS LIFE

The findings from this research can also be understood within the context of other worldviews.

For instance, the consciousness we are may continue beyond this life.

Research into apparent past life memories is interesting and may be interpreted in that way, although other explanations also fit the data.

Some people seem to have memories from between lives. I am one of those. When I was little, I had vivid and visceral flashbacks to a time before this life: All was consciousness and golden light, and there was a profound sense of all-encompassing love and of being home. I had a longing back to that place throughout my childhood. This too fits with consciousness continuing, although it can be interpreted in other ways too.

CHANGING WORLDVIEWS

Does the consciousness we are continue beyond this life? For me, that’s a question for science, and it has mostly been taboo in Western science because it doesn’t fit the accepted worldview.

Worldviews change. The one we have now will be replaced by another that makes more sense to future generations, and may better fit the data.

It may well be with a future context of worldview for science is more open to the possibility of consciousness continuing beyond this life. It may be seen as one of several possible explanations, and perhaps one that fits the data well.

Read More

The big problem of consciousness & a simple and elegant solution that doesn’t fit our current worldview

moe Leave a comment

I saw an article in Morgenbladet on consciousness research, Norsk filosof står midt i intens konflikt om bevissthetsforskning. I didn’t find the article itself so interesting, but it is an interesting topic.

A MATERIALISTIC VIEW OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Western science is struggling with consciousness, which is not surprising since it comes from a reductionistic and materialistic worldview.

From that worldview, consciousness is somehow created by the brain. Matter gives birth to consciousness.

It’s almost impossible to understand how that can happen. If you start with matter, just about any view on how it transforms into something as qualitatively different as consciousness seems contrived and unsatisfactory. (Systems views may produce the closest we have to something satisfying, but even that’s pretty contrived.)

A materialistic view creates the hard problem of consciousness. It’s inherent in that particular worldview, not in the topic of consciousness itself.

CONSCIOUSNESS AS PRIMARY

We can take a reverse view.

It’s easy for us to imagine matter within consciousness. It’s what happens when we dream. The world happens within consciousness. It’s also what happens in waking life. The world happens within consciousness. It’s what we are most familiar with. It’s our experience. To ourselves, we are consciousness. To us, the world happens within and as the consciousness we are.

That’s our own experience. What if we take a leap and assume it’s also the case for the world itself? What if existence is consciousness, and matter happens within and as consciousness?

Yes, it’s a leap, and it’s a leap that’s consistent with many traditions in the world. (The mystic ones.)

In this view, what we perceive as matter is a form of consciousness.

LOGICALLY SIMPLE

It’s a logically elegant solution to the big question of consciousness. It’s simple. It’s the obvious solution.

One reason it may seem unattractive is that it’s difficult to test and support with data. (That’s also the case with any materialist views on consciousness.)

Another is that it requires us to abandon a fundamentally materialist worldview, or at least place it in a different context. (Logically, this is not a problem since we collectively shift worldviews through history anyway, but it is a problem for some in terms of habit and familiarity.)

NOT MORE WEIRD THAN THE ALTERNATIVE(S)

This view is also not inherently any more weird than a materialist view. Whether matter or consciousness is primary seems equally weird. If anything, the consciousness-as-primary view is simpler and more logical.

It’s also far less odd than the biggest question: How come there is anything at all? How come there is something rather than nothing? That’s the big question that stops the mind. Anything else pales in comparison.

IF IT’S SO LOGICAL, WHY IS IT NOT TAKEN MORE SERIOUSLY?

If the consciousness-first view is simple and logical, why is it not taken more seriously in academia? Why is it still rare and on the fringes?

I suspect that has more to do with familiarity and what’s considered acceptable than anything else.

Most academics and Western philosophers are used to a materialistic worldview. For them, it’s a leap to seriously consider anything else. (Even if they know that our collective worldviews regularly change.)

The materialistic worldview has existed in academia for some generations, and it comes with taboos. One of these taboos is to question the fundamental assumptions within this worldview. Most people in academia are willing to question a lot, but not the fundamental assumptions inherent in the academic world and modern traditions. It may seem too radical. It may seem too risky for their reputation and careers.

At the same time, I assume they know that any worldview is up for revision and will eventually change. They know that as long there is science, it will inevitably undergo a series of fundamental paradigm shifts. And they know that the ones leading the change will meet these taboos and will face a damaged reputation and ridicule, and perhaps even risk their career.

It’s up to each one if they want to deal with that. Some will. Many won’t, at least not until others have led the way and it seems more safe.

Some may also be concerned that it will open up a can of worms in terms of religious ideas and superstitions. That’s not necessarily true. We can use a scientific approach even if we consider the possibility that all of existence is primarily consciousness. There is no lack of examples, and I hope my writings fall into that category as well (as an example of a layman’s view on these things).

MY HISTORY WITH THIS

Why is it relatively easy for me to consider a consciousness-first view?

It’s partly because I read a lot about paradigm shifts within science in my teens, and also Eastern views on Western science. This was mainly through the books of Fritjof Capra and several of the ones he references.

It’s also because this shift happened with me when I was a teenager. The consciousness I am recognized itself and that recognition went into the foreground and stayed there. To myself, I am primarily consciousness and the world, to me, happens within and as the consciousness I am. (Even more fundamentally, I am capacity for all of that, but that’s another topic.)

Is existence itself consciousness? I cannot know for certain. I have written about the small and big understandings of awakening in other articles, and I like to shift between those two views since each has its place and function. I love the small view since it provides a kind of common lowest denominator for talking about our nature and (ironically in this context) is compatible with a materialistic worldview. I also suspect the big understanding is more accurate. I have experienced too many things that point in that direction. (And I also know it can be understood in other ways.)

CAN NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN

I love that I cannot know. I love that I cannot know anything for certain.

Thoughts are questions about the world.

They have a practical function only. They help me orient and function in the world.

And if they serve as pointers to anything, they cannot even begin to touch what they point to.

Image by me and Midjourey

Read More

What we are never dies? Timeless is not the same as eternal

moe Leave a comment

I saw an ad for a non-dual course that said: Find the part of you that never dies.

I understand it’s a hook, and I see it slightly differently.

The simple answer is: I don’t know for certain. I don’t know if what I am will never die or not.

And there is a longer answer that also points to something essential.

FINDING WHAT WE ARE

We find what we are – that which our field of experience happens within and as.

We find that time, change, and death happen within and as what we are.

We find ourselves as what a thought may call consciousness, and the world to us happens within and as the consciousness we are.

We can also imperfectly label this timeless since it’s inherently free of the passage of time. Change, time, birth and death, and so on happen within and as what I am.

This is our more fundamental nature, and it’s all we have ever known whether we notice it or not.

Our nature has all the characteristics that mystics through time and across traditions talk about.

That’s all fine. It’s something we can find for ourselves and check out for ourselves. It’s not even that difficult to have a taste of it with the right guidance. (To stabilize in it can take a little more effort and, ironically, time.)

STICKING TO WHAT I CAN SAY SOMETHING ABOUT

I like to stick to what I can say something about, which is my own nature as it appears to me.

I can say that, to me, the world happens within and as the consciousness I am. So everything inevitably appears as consciousness to me.

My nature is consciousness. And I cannot say anything about the nature of anything else. It appears as consciousness to me, but I don’t know if that’s its actual nature.

This view is grounded and honest to me. And it has the upside that it’s compatible with a range of different worldviews, including materialism, atheism, non-theism, theism, and more.

I love this approach for those reasons.

I cannot say anything for certain about what happens after the death of this human self. It’s possible that the consciousness I am goes with it. And it’s possible that the consciousness I am will continue free of this human self. Either option is compatible with my nature as I notice it.

In other words, timeless is not necessarily the same as eternal.

And as the Zen master said: I don’t know what happens after I die. I am not dead yet.

TAKING IT ONE STEP FURTHER

Some like to take this a step further.

We can assume that existence itself has the same nature as us.

To us, the world will inevitably appear as consciousness since that’s what we are. From here, we can assume that’s how the world actually is. The world and all of existence is consciousness AKA Spirit, the divine. God, Brahman, and so on.

This view fits with another assumption. And that is that what we are – the consciousness we are – will continue after the death of this human self.

There are two leaps of faith here. One is assuming that the nature of all of existence is the same as our own as we experience it. The other is assuming that it means that what we are continues after the death of this human self.

BEING HONEST ABOUT IT

Taking those leaps is fine. It may be comforting. It may fit what traditions say. It may fit some reports from some people. (Including me since I had memories of my time before incarnation as a little kid.) And it’s good to be honest about it.

It’s good to be honest about it being an assumption and not something we can easily check out for ourselves before this human self dies.

For me, it’s much more comfortable to be honest about all this.

Yes, I know my own nature to some extent. I have been swimming in that water for more than three decades now. I know what traditions say. I have my own memories of the time before this life. (Similar to what people describe from near-death experiences.) I have often checked in with people after they have died and what I sense has matched what others have sensed. (What I pick up about them is surprisingly varied, ranging from immense confusion and turmoil to peace, relief, and joy.) I know what the few studying this scientifically say.

And yet I cannot know. I cannot know for certain what will happen after this life. Anything is possible. I’ll see when that time comes.

THE UPSIDES OF A MORE GROUNDED VIEW

Taking a more honest and grounded view on this has many upsides.

I don’t need to create, uphold, and rehearse stories.

I don’t need to defend stories against anything that may seem threatening to them.

And it gives me more zest for this life. I have no idea what comes next. I have no idea how long this human self is here for. So why not make the most out of it? Why not enjoy what’s here now?

Why not even see if I can find enjoyment in it even if it’s something my personality may not like?

WHY DON’T MORE PEOPLE DIFFERENTIATE?

Why don’t more people differentiate in this way?

Why do some mystics and non-dual folks assume they know what will happen after death? Why do they assume that the nature of all of reality is the same as their own? Why do they assume that timeless means eternal?

I am not sure. Maybe they just latch onto what others have told them. Maybe they haven’t noticed the difference between finding their own nature, and assuming that’s also the nature of all of existence? Maybe they don’t notice the two leaps of faith they have to make? Maybe they find comfort in it? Maybe it’s a kind of wishful thinking? Maybe this differentiation is a more modern (?) way of looking at it, and many still stick with traditions?

SCIENCE

To me, what happens after death is a question for science.

It’s something we can, to our best ability, study. And some do.

And even then, we cannot know for certain. There is always more than one way to understand the data.

DON’T KNOW

Which brings us back to don’t know. We cannot know for certain.

I cannot know anything for certain.

And I find it most comfortable to admit that and rest in and as that. It’s closest to reality.

Image created by me and Midjourney

Read More

Anti-science?

moe Leave a comment

Some seem to take a general anti-science orientation. They think they don’t like science for whatever reason. Maybe they don’t like some of the content of current science as they see it. Or the way it’s being used. Or they don’t like the elitism they see in it. Or they cherry-pick and like some fields of science and not other fields of science.

To me, much of that seems misguided. Some of it lacks differentiation, and the last one lacks consistency.

THE TWO WINGS OF SCIENCE

Science has two wings. One is the methods of science, the approach to finding out things. The other is the content of science, the worldviews and the ideas you typically find within it.

THE METHODS OF SCIENCE

The methods of science are common-sense approaches to get an idea of what’s going on. We observe. Find and describe patterns. Have some thoughts about what’s happening. Test it out. Refine our thoughts. And so on.

If you are generally against the scientific methodology, it means you are against figuring things out and doing so in a sincere, honest, and grounded way.

And there is always room for grounded discussion about specifics. There is always room for improvement in how we do things.

THE CONTENT OF SCIENCE

The content of science is different. It’s colored by our culture and typical worldviews in our culture. (And it, in turn, colors our culture and worldviews.) It’s always changing. It’s always up for revision. It’s provisional.

Much of the current content of science will be seen as obsolete a few decades or centuries from now. And a different culture may understand a lot of the content differently. They have their own worldview and understand it in a different context.

SOME IDEAS ARE MORE SOLID THAN OTHER

That doesn’t mean the content of science is arbitrary or doesn’t have value or that other ideas are equally solid.

The content of science comes from research. It’s typically backed up by solid logic and solid data, and it’s tested over and over. It’s not equal to any random idea someone may have about something.

THE PEOPLE IN SCIENCE

The people performing science are trained and they check each other’s work. Scientists are invested in proving each other wrong, and they will if they can.

What scientists come up with is not equal to what any random person comes up with, and that includes people in other fields of science. (If a microbiologist makes a comment about climate change, it’s not worth more than what any random person would say about it. It’s not their field.)

This is the same in any area of life. We give more weight to what people with expertise in a field say and do. (Which doesn’t mean they are always right. They are humans and biased as we all are. And the content of science changes with changing worldviews and new information, experience, data, and context.)

Most people in science want to do the right thing. They do their work with sincerity. They speak up when they see something that’s not right. They are like you and me.

And, of course, most are not at all the stereotypical lab-coat type of scientists.

THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE

Then there is the social and political dimension of science.

Science is a tool. It’s done by people and used by people. And sometimes, the way it’s used does not align with our personal or collective values. That’s to be expected. It’s inevitable.

It’s something we need to be informed about and involved in. We can spread information. We can organize and take them to court. We can create attractive alternatives. We can vote with our money and ballot.

IS IT OBVIOUS?

It seems that this should be obvious. Don’t we all learn this in school?

And yet, when I look online and in society, it seems that many don’t quite get the basics of science and how it works in society.

Image: Created by me and Midjourney

Do you believe in…?

moe Leave a comment

For as long as I can remember, I have been confused about this question.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

What does it mean to believe in something?

Does it mean to pretend I know something I don’t?

Or that I hope or fear that something is true?

Does it mean I find something likely, based on my limited experience and information?

WHERE DOES THE QUESTION COME FROM?

Why do some ask that question? Where does it come from?

I suspect it may have to do with Christianity and perhaps religions in general.

In Christianity, we are asked to believe something we cannot verify for ourselves. In other words, we either hope (or fear) something, or we pretend we know something we cannot know, and we call it “belief”. Christianity presents this as a virtue, as something good, and perhaps even as a gift.

And in that type of culture, it may be natural to extend this to other areas.

Do you believe in ghosts? Do you believe there is life elsewhere in the universe? Do you believe we have past lives? Do you believe that politician can help our country?

WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?

There is an alternative, and that is to be more specific, which is also to be more honest and grounded in reality.

I don’t consciously and actively believe in anything. (Of course, parts of me believe all sorts of stressful stories but that’s another topic.)

Instead, I have hopes and fears. These clearly say more about me than reality. And I hopefully (!) recognize them as fantasies and I don’t mistake them for reality.

I find something more or less likely. I usually phrase this as “I wouldn’t be surprised if”. For instance, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is life in other places in this galaxy and the universe. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of it is intelligent and technologically advanced, perhaps far beyond us. And I know that reality may be quite different from what I find likely. In the absence of solid data, it’s best to have the mindset that anything is possible. (Within reason, although reality something presents itself outside of what we previously found reasonable!)

I hold second-hand information lightly. If someone says something, and it’s not backed up by solid science or my own experience, I put it on the “maybe” shelf.

With some topics, I say “It’s a topic for science” and “It would be very interesting to see what comes out of a serious investigation”. Ghosts, UFOs, reincarnation, and so on are all appropriate topics for science, and there are some studies on these and similar topics.

With some topics, like our nature, it’s something I can investigate for myself. What do I find in my own first-person experience? Does it match what others report? If not, what are the differences and why may that be?

IS IT A BIG DEAL?

Does it matter?

For me personally, it matters. I get confused about the “do you believe” question because I don’t know what it really means. (Fortunately, people I know don’t tend to ask that question.) It seems far more interesting to be specific and honest about it. And when I say “I try not to believe in anything, but I find it likely….” then it’s a small part in creating a culture that is a little more precise and honest about these things.

Highlighting this also helps us examine how we relate to white areas on the map in general, whether it’s aliens, conspiracy theories, spirituality or religion, past lives, or what will happen tomorrow or next year.

Do I have hopes and fear, and do I recognize them as that? How do I relate to second-hand information not backed up by science or my own experience? How do I relate to what spiritual teachers or religious leaders say? How do I relate to information that’s not backed up by solid data? What do I hold as true, and can I know for certain?

Read More

The pandemic, epidemiology, and the importance of historical knowledge

moe Leave a comment

I have written about this several times and thought I would revisit it briefly.

MY FASCINATION WITH EPIDEMIOLOGY

Since childhood, I have been fascinated by epidemiology. I read articles and books about it growing up, I learned about it in school, and it’s one of the topics I studied at university.

I found the history of it fascinating: How people have understood diseases throughout history and in different cultures. How people have tried to prevent or lessen the impact of spreading diseases. How ships were quarantined, even centuries before we had an understanding of germs. The early modern investigations into the spread of diseases, for instance, the infected well in London spreading cholera. The initial treatment of Semmelweis and others who argued for hygiene. How simple things like clean water, hygiene, and a better diet are responsible for most of the improvements in health we have seen over the last century.

And when it comes to pandemics: What has historically worked and not worked in times of pandemics. (Limiting travel and contact, quarantine, and good hygiene.) And how people tend to react in times of pandemics. (Some groups will react by fueling blame, scapegoating, and conspiracy theories.)

EXPECTED PANDEMIC AND RESPONSES

When the pandemic came a few years ago, I was not surprised. Pandemics typically come once a century, and this came just on schedule. (About one hundred years after the last major one, the Spanish Flu.)

I was also not surprised by the measures put in place by governments around the world. These are the typical measures put in place in times of pandemics, and the ones we know work based on what we have learned from history. Most governments followed established best practices. (WIth China and Brazil as notable exceptions.)

And I was not really surprised by the surge in conspiracy theories. That’s how some people react in times of pandemics. They want to find a scapegoat. They distrust the government. They oppose common-sense measures to prevent the impact of the pandemic. Even if these are temporary, protect vulnerable groups, and we know from history that these measures work. (I wasn’t surprised, but I was disappointed when people I personally know chose this way of reacting to the pandemic.) (1)

WHY DO SOME GO INTO CONSPIRACY THEORIES?

I also have some guesses about why some went into conspiracy theories.

They may not know much about the history of pandemics or of epidemiology. They may not know or understand – or want to understand – how and why the standard pandemic measures work.

They may not understand science and scientific methods very well. They may not know how to evaluate scientific articles and research. They may not know much about valid reasoning or how to avoid logical fallacies. (Most of the conspiracy folks I have seen use both bad data and bad logic.) (2)

Some may prioritize other things over being intellectually honest.

They may have a pre-existing distrust in governments, authority, and possibly science. (Even if just about everything that works in their lives is made possible by governments and science.)

They may want to reinforce an existing identity as an outsider and rebel. They may want to boost their self-esteem by telling themselves they know something most others don’t.

They may just have discovered something disturbing about how society works and draw exaggerated and hasty conclusions because they are not very familiar with the topic.

They may be naturally gullible. They may have heard things from people they think they should trust, and believe it.

Because of the pandemic, some found time to go into internet rabbit holes and spend time in virtual echo chambers.

Some intentionally took on the roles of trolls and fueled conspiracy theories they personally saw as ludicrous. (Some were paid to do this, others did it for more personal reasons.)

And most probably saw themselves as being on the side of truth and the good. (Even if it, in most cases, was misguided.)

WHEN WE DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY

This is an example of why knowledge of history is important. It’s important for the decisions we make today.

These situations – that have to do with science and public policy – tend to look very different depending on how familiar we are with history and science. Knowing a bit about history and science vaccinates us against being misled by paranoia, weak data, and weak logic.

THE VALIDITY IN THE CRITICISM

There is, of course, a grain of truth to a lot of the criticism and the essence of some of the conspiracy theories.

Most governments winged it, with some guidance from doctors and epidemiologists. They made mistakes. They over-reacted and under-reacted at different times and in different situations. They would have done some things differently if they had more time to prepare or had known more than they did at the time. That’s to be expected. We live in an imperfect world. We all wing it, to some extent.

The medical industry is in it for the money. Medical research is often funded by big pharma. Multi-national corporations own a wide range of companies, including medical and media companies. There is a lot of money influence in politics. That’s also to be expected. It’s not news.

And, at the same time, it doesn’t mean that the measures put in place by most governments did not make sense. They did, based on history and what we know works in times of pandemics.

(1) Why did some resist taking simple common-sense measures to slow down the spread of the virus? To me, this didn’t make sense. The main purpose was to prevent hospitals from being overloaded and we saw the consequence of overloaded hospitals in certain areas of the world. Did they want hospitals to get to the point where they had to turn people away? (Including, possibly you or your close family.) Did they assume the measures didn’t work? (Even if they obviously do. None of them are perfect, but they are not meant to the perfect. They are just meant to reduce the rate of transmission. And to reduce the viral load when someone gets infected, which is one of the main predictors of how serious the illness will get.) Did they act out of ignorance, reactivity, and lack of compassion for their fellow humans? Did they allow their reactivity to override their compassion?

(2) For instance, some refer to articles published on less-than-reputable websites, often written by people with no training or expertise in the field, and present it as if it’s solid science. Or they refer to an outlier article that goes against the mainstream view and presents it as if it means something. (Outlier articles and views are found in all fields of science. They need to be backed up with a lot more research to have any real weight or meaning.)

Some set up a false dichotomy and pretended that the measures had to be perfect or rejected. None of the measures are perfect. They are not meant to be. As I mentioned above, they were meant to slow down the spread of the virus so the hospitals wouldn’t get overloaded and had to turn people away. (Including people ill for other reasons.) And they were meant to reduce the viral load when we get infected, which is one of the main predictors of how sick someone gets. (Masks, for instance, hold back the spit that naturally comes out when we talk, this reduces the viral load when someone gets infected, and that can make all the difference for some people.)

Or they pretended that common temporary measures in a pandemic were going to be permanent. Or they presented themselves as victims just because they were asked to take a few common-sense measures to help prevent the hospitals from being overloaded. (This reaction was especially weird to me since we all already take a lot of measures to help society as a whole, including paying taxes, wearing a seat belt, driving on the correct side of the road, washing our hands, and so on.)

Some talk about “rights” when they seem to conveniently forget that we also have duties. In a time of crisis, duty comes into the foreground. In this case, our duty is to be responsible citizens and do our small part in keeping the hospitals functional and reducing the risk of serious illness for other people.

The conspiracy theory crowd seemed naive to me for several reasons. Not the least because they actively fueled distractions from the major and real crisis we are in: our ecological crisis. This is the one we need to focus on and do something about. So why allow yourself to get distracted in that way?

Read More

Why do many scientists and psychologists ignore our nature?

moe Leave a comment

To me, there is something that seems clear, both from direct noticing and logic.

And that is what we are to ourselves, and what the world is to us. It’s our own nature, and the nature of the world as it appears to us.

WHAT I AM IN MY OWN NOTICING

In one sense, I am a human being in the world. That’s not wrong, and it’s an assumption that helps this human self orient and function in the world.

And yet, in my own direct noticing, it is what I most fundamentally am?

When I look, I find I am something else.

I find I am more fundamentally capacity for any and all experience. I am what allows and takes the form of any and all of my experiences. I am what allows and takes the form of what happens in all of my sense fields, in sight, sound, sensation, smell, taste, and the mental field. (And any other sense fields we can differentiate out through our mental overlays.)

I am what the world, to me, happens within and as.

I am the oneness the world, to me happens within and as.

We can call this different things. For instance, consciousness.

And that brings us to the logic side of this.

WHAT I AM LOGICALLY

In our culture, most say that “we have consciousness” as if it’s a kind of appendix we happen to have. There is an assumption here that we are primarily a physical object and this physical object somehow has consciousness as it happens to have arms, legs, and physical organs.

This is a third-person view, and it doesn’t really matter in this context how accurate it is.

The more interesting question for me is: What are we to ourselves, in our own immediate experience?

Logically, if we “have” consciousness, we have to BE consciousness. There is nothing outside of consciousness somehow experiencing consciousness. What experiences and has the idea of consciousness is consciousness itself. Not anything outside of it.

Any experience happens within and as consciousness. It’s consciousness taking the form of that experience.

So to us, the world happens within and as consciousness.

The world, and any experience, happens within and as what we are.

We ARE consciousness and the world and any content of experience happens within and as consciousness, within and as what we are.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF WHAT WE ARE

Both direct noticing and (this particular) logic arrives at the same answer for what we are to ourselves, and it also arrives at the same answer for the characteristics of what we are.

What are some of the characteristics of what we are to ourselves?

What are some of the characteristics of consciousness?

To me, what I am has no beginning or end in space. It also has no beginning or end in time. Any experience of space and time happens within and as what I am.

To me, I am one. I am the oneness the world happens within and as. I am what my field of experience, which my mental field differentiates in many different ways, happens within and as.

To me, I am the world and the world is me. The world happens within and as what I am.

To me, the world happens within and as consciousness. It’s like a dream in that way.

To me, any and all content of experience comes and goes. And this includes any ideas of what I may be within the content of experience (this human self) and what these ideas refer to. In some cases, I may not take myself to be this particular human self, for instance in a dream, and what I more fundamentally am is still here. What any and all experiences happens within and as is still here. (Including shifting ideas of what I am as an object in the world.)

When what I am notices itself, I find that my nature is what can be called love. It’s a love that’s not dependent on shifting states or emotions. It’s the love of the left hand removing a splinter from the right. And this love is often obscured by separation consciousness, by dynamics and patterns created from when I took myself most fundamentally as a separate object in the world.

IS THIS WHAT I “REALLY” AM?

So is this what I really am?

Yes, it is. It’s what I am in my own direct noticing.

Outside of that, I don’t know. I don’t know what my nature more fundamentally happens to be from some kind of outside third-person view. And that’s also less important, at least in my daily life.

WHY DON’T WE ALWAYS NOTICE?

If this is so obvious both in terms of noticing and logic, why don’t we always notice or take this into account?

Most likely, because we live in a culture and world where most don’t. When we grow up, we do as others do. We learn to take on and operate from separation consciousness. And that can be very convincing, at least until we start examining our assumptions – about what we are and what the world is to us – a little more closely.

IS IT IMPORTANT?

Yes and no. We humans obviously get by without noticing or examining our nature.

And yet, when the oneness we are notices itself, keeps noticing itself, and explores how to live from this noticing, it can be profoundly transforming.

It can be profoundly transforming for our perception, sense of fundamental identity, life in the world, and our human psychology.

WHY DO MANY OVERLOOK OR DENY THIS?

If this is so obvious, both in terms of noticing and logic, why do so many ignore or deny this?

Most people are not so interested in the question of what they more fundamentally are in their own immediate experience. That’s fine. They get by anyway. They have more immediate concerns to focus on and take care of.

And yet, for some people, this is their job. For scientists and especially psychologists, this is essential to their job and (I assume) interests.

So why don’t more of them explore this? Why don’t more of them take it seriously?

I am not sure.

The essential answer may be the same as above: We live in a world where we are trained in separation consciousness from we are born. It becomes the norm, so we don’t even consider questioning it. And if we do, we feel we are somehow transgressing and entering dangerous waters so we don’t take it very far or speak about it.

To elaborate a bit:

Exploring these things is a kind of taboo in our culture, especially in academic circles. It goes against our shared worldview. It goes against standard norms. (Although all of that is changing.)

Our western culture, and especially our scientific culture, value the more “objective” third-person view over first-person explorations. Again, this has been different in the past and will very likely be different in the future.

If you work as a scientist in academia or as a psychologist, you typically cannot stray too far from the mainstream. As a scientist, you risk losing (or not getting) funding. You even risk losing your job if you get too weird. And as a psychologist, you risk losing your license. (In Norway, psychologists have lost their license for exploring the possibility of past lives in therapy sessions, even if these explorations obviously deal with projections and don’t say whether or not the past lives were real or not.)

In short, cultures are systems and systems want to stay mostly stable. There are many mechanisms operating to preserve some kind of stability. There are many incentives to not explore this, and not so many opportunities or invitations to do so. (Which, again, is fortunately changing.)

At a more personal level, many people may not have the curiosity or passion for exploring this. They are happy exploring other things, and that’s fine. Not everyone needs to explore these things.

WILL THIS CHANGE?

Will this change?

It is already changing. More and more people, including in science and psychology, are interested in a more transpersonal approach and understanding.

I envision a future where the third-person and first-person approaches exist side-by-side and even hand-in-hand, including in science and psychology.

It will be a far more rich exploration of our human experience, and one that reflects a little more of the bigger picture.

ACKNOWLEDGING THE VALIDITY OF WHAT MYSTICS DESCRIBE

If or when this shift happens, something else will happen as well.

And that is an acknowledgment – in science and our culture – of the validity in what mystics across times and cultures have described.

If we look at the essence of what mystics describe, it’s exactly this.

We are consciousness, and the world to us is consciousness.

We are the oneness the world, to us, happens within and as.

Image: Created by me and Midjourney (AI image)

Maps for the awakening path

moe Leave a comment

Maps for the awakening path can be very helpful.

MAPS HELP US NAVIGATE IN UNFAMILIAR PLACES

After all, any time we enter a place that’s unfamiliar to us, maps, stories, guides, and fellow travelers can be invaluable. They help us orient, make better decisions, avoid some pitfalls, provide company and guidance on the way, and can make the whole experience generally more easy and enjoyable. We can learn from those who are more familiar with the place, and we can find support from others exploring it.

Of course, this depends on the quality of the maps, stories, guides, and fellow travelers.

It depends on how we relate to these sources of information and the journey itself.

And it depends on what we bring with us in terms of baggage, orientation, experience, and good sense.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MAPS

For all the many benefits of maps, they also have some limitations, and it’s good to be aware of and explore the characteristics of maps.

They are different in nature from the terrain. They are mental constructs and are different in nature from what they point to. (Unless they happen to point to other mental constructs!)

They simplify and leave a lot out. That’s why they are useful, and it’s also one of their limitations.

They may be more or less accurate. Sometimes, maps are misleading.

They inevitably reflect the biases of the one(s) making them. They reflect a certain time, culture, worldview, personal orientation, and sometimes even hopes and fears. That doesn’t make them less useful, but it’s good to keep in mind.

As with any story, they inevitably reflect and come out of a certain worldview. There are innumerable other existing and possible worldviews that may make as much or more sense, and fit the data as well or better. And these worldviews may produce very different maps of the same terrain.

Maps and stories in general cannot reflect any full, final, or absolute reality.

Reality is always more than and different from any map.

And any mental construct is a kind of map, no matter what form it takes. Whether it’s a book, a diagram, a teacher or fellow traveler sharing something, or our own mental images and words telling us something.

THE LIMITATIONS OF AWAKENING MAPS

Maps of a physical place have these benefits and limitations, and that goes doubly (or triply!) for maps of non-physical and metaphorical places like an awakening process.

Yes, there may be patterns in how the awakening process unfolds that we can detect and put into a kind of map. Many have done just that. For instance, Ken Wilber has collected and synthesized many of these maps into a more inclusive and comprehensive map.

And yet, life doesn’t follow our shoulds or our maps. Life goes its own way.

The process may be different for people in different cultures. Your process may be very different from mine. Each case is always different to some extent, and sometimes by a lot.

Also, maps about awakening are informal. They come from people’s own experiences, or what they have seen or heard from others. It’s not a topic that’s studied rigorously using scientific methods.

Maps of the awakening process are provisional at best, and likely only partially accurate.

In my experience, the process is not necessarily very linear, and the process itself tends to undo any and all fixed ideas I have about it or anything else.

HOW WE RELATE TO MAPS

How we relate to these stories and maps makes a big difference.

Do I hold onto some of them as true? What happens if I do? For me, I typically find it’s stressful. I need to hold onto, rehearse, and defend the stories. I make an identity for myself out of it. If my path is different from the maps, I feel something is wrong. And it’s generally stressful whenever life shows up differently from the “shoulds” of the maps, which it inevitably does.

How would it be to hold onto them more lightly? Here, I find it’s generally more peaceful. I find more curiosity. I recognize the maps and stories as pointers only, and as questions about the world. I am more open to exploring what’s here rather than being distracted by how a story tells me it should be.

USING MAPS TO FEEL BETTER (OR WORSE)

We can use maps, and especially stage maps, to feel better (or worse) about ourselves and our life.

We can use them to tell ourselves: I am at this stage in the awakening process. It means I am further ahead than these other people. It means those people are ahead of me. It means this will happen next. It’s all cleanly laid out and predictable, and I know how it is.

But do we actually know? Can we know if the maps are accurate? Can we know that we understand them well? Can we know that another worldview wouldn’t make as much or more sense, and bring about a very different map? And what about everything left out of the maps? Isn’t what’s left out far more than what’s included?

HOLDING IT ALL LIGHTLY

For me, and for all of these reasons, it makes more sense to hold these stories and maps lightly, and it gives me more sense of ease. It’s more aligned with reality.

Yes, I have found it fun and fascinating to learn about them. (Since my teens and for about three decades, I read everything by Ken Wilber. I read widely about stage models in general from psychology and spirituality. And I studied developmental psychology and stage models at university.)

Yes, they can be somewhat useful as something I keep in the back of my mind and sometimes check in with.

And it feels better to hold it all lightly. To not invest too much into it.

SCIENCE IN GENERAL

That’s how it is for me with science in general.

I love science and find it fascinating, fun, and helpful.

And yet, I know that the stories from science are maps. They reflect our current culture and understanding. They are provisional. Future generations will see our maps as quaint, at best as partially valid, and often as hopelessly outdated.

Perhaps most importantly, what they leave out is far more than what they include. What they include is likely an infinitely small part of what there is to discover. And what we discover may put what we already (think we) know in a completely different light.

Reality is always more than and different from any story we have about it.

[Read on to see what ChatGPT has to say on this topic.]

Read More

How old am I?

moe Leave a comment

I had a birthday yesterday, and it brings up the topic of age.

How old am I?

It’s a simple question, and if I take it seriously, it can reveal a lot about my nature.

THE AGE ON MY PASSPORT

In a conventional sense, I am the age my passport tells me. It’s the age in my official documents, and the answer most people expect if they ask the question. It’s not wrong, but it’s a small part of a much bigger picture.

MY BODY’S AGE

In another sense, my body has a certain biological age. Depending on genetics and lifestyle, it can be older or younger than my conventional age. This age has some importance in terms of my health. (And depending on how it’s measured and what criteria are used, it will likely change somewhat.)

THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE

In yet another sense, I am the age of this universe. According to current science, I am roughly 13.7 billion years old. This can sound like an answer that’s meant to be cute or clever, but it’s far more real than that.

Everything I am as a human being is the product of 13.7 billion years of evolution of this universe.

Every molecule is the product of this evolution, most having been forged in ancient stars blowing up and reforming into this planet which formed itself into all of us and this living evolving world.

Every dynamic in me is the product of the evolution of this seamless system we call the universe.

As Carl Sagan said, and I often quote: We are the ears, eyes, thoughts and feeling of the universe. We are the universe bringing itself into consciousness.

Everything I am as a human being is the product of the evolution of this larger seamless system I am a local and temporary expression of.

In a very real sense, I am the age of this universe. Everything I am as a human is the age of this universe.

This age is important since it’s a reminder of the reality of the oneness of the universe. It’s a reminder of what current science tells us about our more fundamental identity and nature.

TIMELESS

All of that has some validity to it. And yet, am I most fundamentally this human self? Or even a local and temporary expression of this seamless and evolving larger whole?

If I look in my own first-person experience, what am I more fundamentally?

I find I am more fundamentally capacity for any and all experiences. I am capacity for the world as it appears to me, including this human self and anything connected with it. I am capacity even for any thought or sense that I am fundamentally this human self.

I find that any experience – of the wider world or this human self – happens within and as my sense fields. (Sight, sound, sensations, taste, smell, mental images and words.)

To me, the world as it appears to me, happens within and as what I am.

This is my more fundamental nature, in my own immediate experience.

Here, I find I am what any ideas or experience of time happens within and as. My nature is timeless, allowing and forming itself into ideas and experiences of time and change.

LAYERED

My age is layered.

As a human being, I am the age in my passport and my body’s biological age.

As a local and temporary expression of this larger seamless evolving system, I have the age of this universe. (And that will change somewhat depending on what science says.)

And in my own first-person experience, I find my nature is timeless. I am the timelessness any ideas and experience of age happen within and as.

I love the richness of my age. I love that there are many answers and that some change over time.

I love that each one makes sense in its own way.

WHY DON’T WE USE OUR UNIVERSE AGE MORE OFTEN?

If science tells us we all are 13.7 billion years old, why don’t we use that age more often?

It may seem a silly question, but it’s actually a very important one. Science tells us our more fundamental age is 13.7 billion years, so why don’t we collectively take it more seriously?

It may be because this story is still relatively new so it hasn’t had time to sink in yet.

Also, we are used to using our age in our passport so most people stick with that. Much in society is dependent on separating us by age. (School, tickets, pension, and so on.) And many seem to like to follow that orientation.

For me, it’s beautiful and important that this is an age we all share. Everything that exists has the same age. That’s amazing and wonderful to me. It’s a reminder of what ties us together and that we are all local and temporary expressions of the same seamless evolving whole.

That’s far more fundamental and important than the age we happen to have as local and temporary expressions of this whole.

WHY DON’T WE ACKNOWLEDGE OUR TIMELESS NATURE MORE OFTEN?

Similarly, why don’t we acknowledge our timeless nature more often?

It’s not because it’s not here to be noticed. Based on my own noticing and what I hear from others, it seems we all have this nature. (It’s the nature of the consciousness we all inevitably are to ourselves.) (1)

It’s not even because it’s difficult to find. I assume most can find it with guidance and within minutes.

So why don’t more people acknowledge this?

I assume there are many answers here too. The obvious one is that we live in a society that tells us – directly and indirectly – that we most fundamentally are this human self, an object within the field of our experience. As we grow up, we see that this is what others do so we do the same. In our innocence, which is very beautiful, we train ourselves to do as others do.

There are also many misconceptions about this. Many traditions suggest that finding our nature is difficult or takes a long time, or that it’s for special people, or that it’s about something distant, or that it gives us special powers.

In reality, it’s right here. It’s not only what we are most familiar with, it’s the only thing we are familiar with. It’s what all our experience consists of.

Since it’s about noticing what we already are, it’s for all of us.

It doesn’t give us any special powers, it’s just a noticing of our nature. (And that can be profoundly transforming for our perception and life in the world.)

And with good guidance, most of us can find it within a relatively short time.

How can we find it? The best approaches I am familiar with (so far) are the Headless experiments and the Big Mind process.

Of course, finding it is just the first step. It’s just a glimpse. If we want to continue exploring it, we need to refind it here and now. We need to explore how to live from this noticing. We need to investigate anything in us out of alignment with it, anything created and operating from separation consciousness.

And that takes dedication, passion, and a lifetime. (Or more if there are more.)

(1) Why don’t we acknowledge our timeless nature more often? It’s not even because it’s illogical. Based on logic, we find that in our own experience, we have to be consciousness. If we “have” consciousness, we inevitably and most fundamentally have to BE consciousness in our own experience. And the world, to us, happens within and as the consciousness we are.

We have all of the characteristics of consciousness, and since the world to us happens within and as the consciousness we are, that too – to us – have those characteristics.

We are what’s inherently free of time and space and that our experience of time and space happens within and as. We are the oneness any sense of distinction and separation happens within and as. And so on.

This just says something about our own nature in our own first-person experience, it doesn’t say anything about the nature of existence or the universe. And that’s more than enough. If we are led – by existence – to take it seriously, that’s profoundly transforming.

Image: A look at the distant relatives we call the “Cosmic Cliffs” in the Carina Nebula. (NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI.)

AI-generated images – blessing or doom?

moe Leave a comment

I have wanted to explore AI image generation for a while and finally got around to it tonight in front of the fireplace and with the neighboring café playing live jazz.

Here is one of my first experiments with Midjourney. A neo-shaman in Tokyo in the rain with dramatic backlighting. I love that he or she is covered in plants and flowers.

I have seen some discussions about AI-generated images.

CONCERNS ABOUT NEW TECHNOLOGY

Will it replace human artists? Will it make it possible for people to make their own illustrations instead of commissioning photographers and artists? Will it ruin creativity?

Yes, some of that will probably happen.

And it’s also important the remember that these are the type of concerns that predictably come up when new technology comes onto the scene. And each time, the new technology finds its place among everything that has existed before and continues to exist.

When photography came, people said it was the end of painting. What happened was that it caused painting to change. Much of it became more free, imaginative, and abstract, and photography and painting not only co-exist but inspire each other. When CGI became viable, people said it would replace practical effects and even actors. In reality, CGI co-exists with practical effects, and it has even led to new types of jobs for actors in the form of motion capture.

I assume something similar will happen now. Some will use AI for illustrations. Some will continue to hire artists and photographers. AI art will inspire human-created art. Human-created art will continue to inform AI art.

It’s not either-or, it’s both-and. And it may well be that the interplay between AI and human visuals will create a kind of artistic and creative mini-revolution.

It’s also very likely that human-created art will be valued even more. AI art will make it more prestigious.

CULTURE MEANS LEARNING FROM OTHERS

Some say that AI steals people’s work to create new work and make money on it.

I understand that argument and concern.

And I also know that that’s culture. That’s what people have done from the beginning. We learn and take good ideas from each other and do something different with it. That’s how we have a culture in the first place.

The AI is just a bit more comprehensive and effective than any human can be, and also a little less creative.

WHO DO THE IMAGES BELONG TO?

Another question is: who owns the images?

In a practical sense, it’s determined by the AI companies and the law.

And in a larger sense, they come from the collective experience and creativity of humanity and really from the whole of existence. It’s always that way, no matter which particular human or technology it comes through. It’s just a little more obvious with AI images.

CULTURAL BIASES

Some also criticize AI-generated images because they reflect cultural biases. They learn from our culture so they will inevitably reflect biases in our culture.

For instance, if I don’t specify ethnicity for a portrait, I get a European person. If I ask for a god, even a traditional Hindu god, I get someone absurdly muscular. If I ask for Jesus or his parents, I get Europeans and not middle eastern people. If I ask for a general person, I get someone unusually good-looking in a conventional sense

I would say that’s equally much an upside since it brings cultural biases – picked up by and reflected back to us by the AI – more to the foreground. This leads to awareness and discussions – in the media and among those exploring AI art and the ones they share these reflections and observations with.

A lot of people are more aware of these kinds of cultural biases now because of these AI images.

MY OWN BIAS

I have a background in programming and in art, so I naturally love AI-generated visuals. I see it as a way for people without too much experience to still create amazing images. It’s a way to generate ideas. And it has its place and will co-exist with old-fashioned human skills and creativity.

UPDATE AFTER ONE WEEK

I have explored Midjourney and AI image generation for a week now, and find it seems to fit me well. It’s fun to see images created that I have had in my mind for a while but haven’t created in pencil or oil. It’s also fun to get to know the AI and sometimes be surprised by results better and more interesting than I imagined.

I also find I cannot really take ownership of the images, apart from in the most limited sense. They are generated by the AI, the AI is trained on perhaps millions of images created by others, and it’s really all the local products of the whole of existence – going back to the beginning of the universe and stretching out to the widest extent of the universe (if there is any beginning or edge). It’s always that way, and it’s even more obvious with AI-generated images.

The images are very much co-created by me, Midjourney, innumerable artists whose works have informed the AI, and all of existence.

I have also started an Instagram account for my AI image experiments.

Note: Specific prompt for the image above -> Neo-druid shaman in Tokyo 2300 rain dramatic colorful backlighting semi-realistic

Historic shifts

moe Leave a comment

We are always living history, any moment is a shift in history, and some shifts are more historical and significant than others.

I have written about the topics of this article in several other posts, mainly under the “Reflections on society, politics, and nature” collections. But I’ll repeat the essence here.

TRUMP ERA

I wasn’t really surprised when Trump was elected, mainly because I had followed 538 closely before the 2016 election and they gave Trump a 1 to 4 chance of winning. (Out of four times the polls looked the way they did, Trump would win one time.)

The main risk of the Trump presidency is and was an erosion of democracy. Even before the election, it was clear that this was a man who did not respect democracy, democratic values, civil and grounded discourse, or a wish to create a society that works for everyone. His words and behavior legitimized bigotry, lies, polarization, anti-democratic views and actions, and much more. And that’s going to change the culture around politics. It’s going to legitimize this type of behavior on a larger scale, and that’s going to have direct and indirect ripple effects around the world. And that’s exactly what happened, and is still happening.

When Trump lost to Biden, I saw it as likely that the next election would be between Trump and Harris. Biden may be too old to continue, and Trump is like a pitbull who will never give up or admit defeat. He would love to come back and undo whatever any sane president over the last several decades put in place before him. Right now, he certainly has enough support in the US to do just that.

CURRENT MIDTERM ELECTIONS

Today is the midterm elections in the US, and Trumpists are likely to win several of the seats, and this will further change the political culture and erode democracy. (Including through gerrymandering, court appointments, and so on.)

It seems that these midterm elections, which usually bring only minor changes, may have larger and more lasting consequences this time. This may very well be a significant historical change in US history, and one that will have ripple effects in the world. (For instance, Ukraine may lose much of its current support from the US.)

US CIVIL WAR

There has been a lot of talk about a coming civil war in the US, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that will happen. (The seeds of it are already there and some, in their insanity, actively want a civil war.)

It obviously won’t be like the last US civil war. It will be a far less formalized civil war. It looks like it may be a kind of civil war between far-right militia groups and the rest of society, and they will target the ones they see as their enemy – progressive politicians, judges and courts that actually uphold the law, police that won’t allow renegades and violence, liberal community activists, and so on.

And who knows where it will go from there. It may be that mainstream society cracks down on it, although that’s not likely if Trumpists are in charge locally and/or federally. (I say “Trumpist” instead of Republicans since there are still some Republican politicians who favor democracy, although these have increasingly been squeezed out of the party.) This kind of low-grade but terrible civil war may continue for years or even decades.

THE BIGGER PICTURE

Although Trump does influence politics and society, he is mostly a symptom. He is a symptom of white folks in the US feeling threatened because their privileged position may be lost. After all, the demography is against them, and many educated folks in the US actively promote a deeper and more real equality between this traditionally privileged group and the rest of the population.

And he is also a reflection of a much larger global trend away from democracy and towards authoritarian regime systems. The world is increasingly becoming less democratic. For me, as a Northern European steeped in democratic values, this is a strange and disturbing trend. I cannot see how this is going to help the majority of people, the world, and future generations. At least not in any obvious or immediate way.

And yet, it seems that many around the world actively hold anti-democratic values. They support authoritarian leaders. Perhaps it’s because they offer simplistic (unrealistic) solutions? Or because they share conservative values, often based on religion? Or because they offer someone to blame, whether it’s a minority in their own country, the west, or someone else?

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

For me, conspiracy theories are a part of this shift into a more uninformed anti-science and anti-democratic mindset and culture. That’s obviously the case when it comes to far-right conspiracy theories, and it’s the case with conspiracy theories in general no matter what flavor they have.

What conspiracy theories have in common is that distract from far more serious issues that we all face and can see are happening. The obvious one is that we live in the middle of a major ecological crisis that will impact all of us and may end civilization as we know it. (That is the case independent of the climate crisis, due to all the other kinds of damage to our ecosystems.) And we have a wide range of other and related crises including hunger, lack of clean water, preventable diseases, huge disparity between wealthy and poor, and political and social systems that holds all of this in place.

OUR ECOLOGICAL CRISIS IS OUR MAIN PRIORITY

Anyone who does not put our ecological crisis as their main priority in their personal life and in their politics has not understood what’s happening.

If you listen to the scientists and use a minimum of common sense (we collectively use far more resources than the Earth can produce), you can see the huge ecological crisis we are in the middle of. You can see where we are headed. And you’ll put that as the main priority in your life and in your political and social life.

Personally, I keep this at the forefront of the main decisions I make in my life these days. (As outlined in other articles.) It’s my main priority when I vote and support political parties and policies. (How can it be anything else?) And a large part of my working life has been focused on this. (I was the paid coordinator of a local sustainability group that focused on cooperation and solutions to the problems we all face together.)

Our ecological crisis is our main priority whether we notice or not, and whether we consciously have it as our main priority or not. Life is not giving us an option.

WE NEED REALITY ORIENTATION TO DEAL WITH OUR CURRENT CRISIS

Trumpists politics is obviously very dangerous just for its anti-democratic orientation and effect.

And something is even more dangerous there, and that is that its anti-reality. They don’t care about what’s actually happening. They don’t care about science. They don’t care about experts. They don’t care about the numbers. (If they don’t like them.)

And that’s the case with conspiracy theories in general. The vast majority of them are inherently anti-reality. They are founded on bad logic and bad data.

People mostly go into conspiracy theories for emotional reasons and then rationalize to make bad logic appear like good logic. For whatever reason, it feels emotionally satisfying to them to go into conspiracy theories. They generally don’t care about science, experts, real logic, history, or whatever else we as a society need to base our decisions on.

And that’s very dangerous. Especially in a time of collective crisis, we need to base our collective decisions on solid science and data. It’s the only sane approach. It’s the only approach that has any chance of working.

THE NEED FOR PROFOUND SYSTEMS CHANGE

I have written about all of this in several other articles, including our need for systems change. (I wrote about this in my teens as well, long before blogs.)

The cause of our ecological crisis, and a large number of other problems, is the way our social and economic system is set up.

It was created at a time when we didn’t need to take ecological dynamics and limits into consideration. For all practical purposes, the resources of nature were unlimited, and the capacity of nature to absorb waste was unlimited. It made sense, at the time, to ignore it. We ignored it because We could.

We still live within these outdated systems.

And now, we can’t ignore ecological realities anymore. We are well past the time when we had that luxury.

We need a profound change in our systems of economy, production, food, water, education, and so on.

We need to create systems in all areas of human life that deeply and thoroughly take ecological realities into account.

We can definitely do it. There is no lack of solutions and grounded visions.

And it’s very possible to find attractive solutions that help us thrive as individuals and society, even more than now.

What we lack is a collective will. Are we going to find that collective will in time?

We are already past the time when we could prevent major ongoing ecological crises. We’ll have to live and deal with them no matter what. The question is how serious it will be, not whether it will happen.

Will we find it at all? I am not sure. It’s possible, and we’ll have to live and make decisions as if it’s possible.

NOTE: Just to mention it – Biden is currently president of the US, the democrats have the house and senate, we are just out of a regularly scheduled pandemic and there will be more to come, there is a war in Ukraine impacting the whole world, scientists and the UN say that it’s the end of civilization unless we engage in major rapid and collective changes, and most people continue with business as usual as if we are not in a disastrous ecological crisis.

Here are a couple of recent mainstream media articles on these topics:

World is on ‘highway to climate hell’, UN chief warns at Cop27 summit

‘These are conditions ripe for political violence’: how close is the US to civil war?

UPDATE: It’s now a few days after the mid-term election in the US and it seems the Trumpists didn’t do as well as expected. That’s good news for democracy. Maybe it shows that many people in the US still are sane enough to choose a more democratic and inclusive approach. Nothing is linear, and politics and society would move away from Trump at some point. Perhaps that’s now?

I lived in the US for twenty years which is partly why I am interested in what’s happening there.

When we don’t know how little we know

moe Leave a comment

If we are familiar with a topic, it’s often easy to recognize how little novices know or understand about it, and it’s easy to recognize their misconceptions and limitations.

And the more we are familiar with any topic, the more we tend to realize how little we know. And we tend to realize that this goes for any area of life or knowledge. We tend to find intellectual humility. (Of course, there are exceptions.)

None of us know what we don’t know. But we can know generally how little we know. We can find some intellectual humility and curiosity and even appreciation for the beauty of knowing little, no matter how much we know about something in a conventional sense.

The more mature and experienced we are, the more we tend to viscerally know how little we know.

As usual, there is a lot more to say about this.

For instance, what do I mean by knowing little? Don’t some know a lot about certain things? Yes, of course. We can have a lot of experience in certain fields and areas of life. And even then, what we think we know may not be entirely accurate. There is always more to be familiar with and learn. Our understanding will change with new insights and experiences, sometimes incrementally and sometimes dramatically. There may be other contexts to understand it within that makes as much or more sense, that will put everything in a new light, and may even turn everything upside-down and inside-out. In the bigger picture, what we are familiar with and think we know – as individuals and collectively – is a drop in the ocean compared to what there is to experience and understand. And we always think we know, we don’t actually know.

Where do I think I know a lot? Perhaps about this particular topic since it’s been of interest to me since my early teens. (Philosophy and methods of science.) Also, perhaps about the essence of awakening. (Although I am very aware that here, there is infinitely further to go and my sense of who and what I am can and likely will change dramatically as life continues to explore this through and as me.) And certainly any time I stress myself by holding any thought as true. (Stress is a sign my system holds certain thoughts and assumptions as true, and that these may not be consciously identified and certainly are not thoroughly investigated so I can find what’s already more true for me.)

What are some examples of where I tend to notice how little folks know about a topic, even if they may assume they know a lot? I sometimes notice it in news stories on topics I am relatively familiar with. I sometimes notice it in articles summarizing a field I am more familiar with than the author. I sometimes notice it in people who are exploring spirituality and awakening and have simplistic notions that betray a lack of experience or go into wishful or fearful thinking that reflects unexamined projections. I see it in some who reject the insights and expertise of professionals in a field and think they know more than them based on having read a few articles on the internet or listened to some podcasts.

Why is this important? It’s of vital importance since we need to be well informed to make good choices, both at an individual and collective level. If we are to deal with the huge challenges we are faced with these days – ecological crisis, mass migrations, pandemics, hunger, poverty – we need to be well informed and make good collective decisions. And we cannot do that if we are misled and assume we know more than people who have spent their life studying certain fields, or if a significant portion of the population misleads themselves in that way.

How do we balance knowing and knowing we don’t know? It’s not necessarily that difficult since they are two different things. We know more or less about certain topics and areas of life in a conventional sense, and this is based on data and logic that’s more or less solid and our assumptions work more or less well when tested out in practice. And no matter what, there is always more to know, our context for understanding may and probably will change, and we always think we know even when our assumptions are based on solid data and logic and work well in practice.

Are there not cases where experts are mistaken? Or intentionally mislead people? Yes, of course. Experts are human and make mistakes. Whole fields change over time and what’s taken as gospel truth today will be seen as old misconceptions a decade or century from now. And that doesn’t mean we need to wholesale reject the current content of science or mainstream views or assume we know more than experts just because we read or heard something. We need to know how little we know. In most cases, mainstream science is the best we have right now, even as we know the content of science changes with time.

Why do we sometimes like to think we know more than we do? It’s partly from a lack of experience and maturity. And there are likely also psychological dynamics at play. For instance, we may go into those ideas to compensate for a sense of lack or inferiority. The more at peace we are with ourselves, and the more psychologically healthy we are, the easier is for us to find peace with, genuinely appreciate, and live from the receptivity of not-knowing and knowing how little we know.

Read More

Video: You are not where you think you are

moe Leave a comment

A reminder that any perspective has limited validity and only makes sense in a specific context. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong. It doesn’t mean the different perspectives are equal in their validity. (They often have different types of validity. And in a conventional sense, some work much better in practice and are supported by much better data.) But it does mean it’s important to hold it all lightly and see it in context.

The different types of validity in different stories

moe Leave a comment

Each story has validity. The question is how and what the specific validity is for each story.

And whatever seems to make the most sense to us is always provisional and up for revision.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF VALIDITY

There are some general ways stories can be valid.

We can use any story as a mirror for ourselves. We can turn any story towards ourselves and find genuine examples – from the past and now – of how it’s valid.

A story can be more or less valid in a conventional sense. It can fit the data more or less well. It can be supported by more or less solid data and different amounts of solid data. It can work more or less well as a map and guide for our life in the world or for a specific area of life.

And a story is valid in the most basic sense that it is a story. We can recognize it as happening in our mental field, as mental images and words. It’s a mental construct. It’s meant as a provisional guide, at most, and not a full or final reflection of something in the world.

OUR ORIENTATION

What helps us discern the particular validity of any one story? 

Sincerity and intellectual honesty help us stay grounded and receptive.

Familiarity with the topic helps us with discernment and nuances. Experts generally understand a topic far better than laypeople. (And as all of us, they too have blind spots and biases and their views are provisional.)

Familiarity with valid arguments, soundness, logical fallacies, biases, media literacy, and so on, helps us avoid some common pitfalls.

It’s easy to go into lazy thinking and adopt the view of those around us or our favored subculture. It’s easy to get caught up in wishful or fearful thinking. It’s easy to deceive ourselves. 

EXAMPLES

Fairy tales have a metaphorical validity and are a mirror for psychological processes. They help us learn something about the world, society, universal human dynamics, and parts of ourselves and how they may relate to each other. This applies to any story – whether it’s in the form of a movie, book, news, a dream, a daydream, and so on. 

Science has a methodology that’s relatively universal. It mirrors how we go about learning about the world and ourselves if we are systematic about it and sincere and intellectually honest.

The content of science is more or less accurate in a conventional sense. It’s supported by more or less solid data, different amounts of data, is provisional, and is always up for revision. It will also always, to some extent, reflect our culture, worldviews, biases, what society sees as important, and so on. 

That we are a human being in the world is valid in a conventional sense. To others, that’s how it looks. It’s a story that works relatively well in our daily life. It helps us function in the world.

That we more fundamentally, and in our own first-person experience, is something else is also valid. Here, we may find we are capacity for the world as it appears to us. We are what the world, to us, happens within and as. This is something we can check and find for ourselves.

When I have stories about someone else, they may be more or less accurate when applied to that person. And even if a story seems accurate, we are always much more than and different from any story about us, and we can always receive more information that shifts how we see the situation or puts it in a different context. 

I can also turn these stories to myself and find genuine and specific examples of how they apply now and in the past. For instance, I can find examples of when I was angry, cruel, deceptive, brilliant, beautiful, and so on, and perhaps also how it applies right now in this situation. 

Does life continue after death? This is a question for science and there is some research on this topic. Also, when it comes to the different stories about what happens after death, we can turn them around and see if we can find the essence of what they point to here and now. 

For instance, what about near-death experiences? They often describe not being the body, a sense of bliss, life review, and so on. When I look for myself, I find the body is in me. In my own first-person experience, I am not most fundamentally this body. I can find a quiet bliss that seems inherent in what I am. And if I examine my mental representations of my past, I can review my life in different ways. 

When it comes to rebirth, can I find that too here and now? At this moment, my mind recreates its story and its mental representations of me. In that sense, I am reborn each moment. Also, this moment is always new, different, and fresh, and any past and sense of continuity are only found within mental representations. I can find rebirth in that sense too. 

If I have a specific story about a past life, it’s difficult to know how accurate it is in terms of something that actually happened. But it does say something about me now. I can relate to it as I would anything in a dream, find it in myself, and explore it in myself here and now. 

The conventional validity in these stories is a matter of science, and it’s an open question so far for lack of solid data and because of the small amount of data we currently have. (This can change, and probably will with more research.) And all of these after-life stories have validity in the sense that I can find what they point to in myself, here and now. 

Astrology is similar to much else. In a conventional sense, it may have more or less validity and that’s a question for science. (Although there is very little to no serious research into it, as far as I know.) And it definitely has validity as a mirror for ourselves – for psychological dynamics, archetypes, and so on. Everything described in astrology, no matter if it happens to explicitly be about our particular configuration or not, mirrors us and describes something in us.

Conspiracy theories tend to have a grain of truth in them, and what that grain is will depend on the story. In most cases, the rest tends to not be supported by very good and verifiable data so it’s best to put it on the “maybe” or “unlikely” shelf until there is more information. 

For instance, there are a couple of grains of truth in several vaccine conspiracy theories. Some people die from their body’s reaction to vaccines, just as some die from their body’s reaction to medications that are widely in use. (This is not a reason to reject vaccines since they overall do a lot more good than harm.) And the pharmaceutical companies developing and selling vaccines are in it for the money. They are not philanthropists. There are dirty dealings, and not everything around the medical or business sides is as transparent as what would be in the public interest. (Again, that’s not a reason to automatically reject vaccines and it doesn’t mean that they overall haven’t benefited humanity enormously.) 

Also, as mentioned before, I can turn these conspiracy theory stories about the pharmaceutical companies etc. back to myself and find how they are valid. I can find genuine and specific examples from my past, and – if there is any charge on them for me – here and now. 

The vaccine will kill people -> I will kill people. If I believe that story, I’ll likely get very angry and a part of me will want to kill the people behind the (supposed) conspiracy. I kill them in my mind.

The people behind the vaccine want to hide something –> I want to hide something. In this situation, if I strongly believe the conspiracy theories about vaccines, I hide from myself that I cannot know. And perhaps that, somewhere in me, I know just that. I know there isn’t any solid data.

[to be expanded]

Read More

How do we know what’s true? (part one)

moe Leave a comment

There is no single simple answer. 

THE LIMITS OF THOUGHTS

In a more absolute sense, no thought can reflect any final, full, or absolute truth.

Thoughts are questions about the world.

They are mental representations meant to help us orient and function in the world.

They are different in kind from what they refer to. And they simplify.

Reality is always more than and different from any thought. And it’s also inherently simpler than any thought.

For all of these reasons, thoughts are unable to capture any final, full, or absolute truth. 

NAVIGATING IN THE WORLD

When it comes to our life in the world, we need to use our discernment and methods to discern what’s more or less accurate in a conventional sense. 

If possible, we can try something out for ourselves. Someone said something, and we check it out. Most of what I write about in these articles is something we can check out for ourselves and see what we find. And sometimes it requires some guidance and persistence over time. 

If we are told something we cannot, or cannot yet, check out for ourselves, we can put it on the “this person said it and I don’t know” shelf AKA the “maybe” shelf. Depending on the solidity of the data and the logic, and how well it fits the majority of the data, we can hold it as more or less reliable.

We can be aware of biases. We all have biases from our biology and evolution, from our culture and society, from whatever subcultures we are familiar with and resonate with, and our personal experiences, inclinations, preferences, and hangups. What may the biases of the source be? What are my biases, and how do they color how I relate to what this source said? 

Do I have an emotional attachment to a certain view? Do I feel I need to defend it? Does it bring up reactivity in me? If so, it’s a clear sign that I may be caught up in an emotional issue and not be so clearheaded in how I relate to it. 

Another side of this is the weight of the source. Does it align with how experts in the field generally see it? Does it fit the highest quality data and the majority of the data we have? Does it come from someone who has the credentials in the field? That gives it more weight, although these views are also provisional and up for revision in the face of better knowledge. 

Some like to say that our views and opinions on a range of issues are equivalent. “You say that and I say this, and they are equal in value.” That’s obviously not accurate. Some have far more experience and insights into a particular issue. And some views are supported by far more and higher quality data than other views. And that gives it more weight. (It may still be wrong, although it’s less likely to be grossly wrong.) 

In addition, I like to examine the practical effects of certain views. Does it help me live with kindness, receptivity, and curiosity? If so, I’ll give it more weight. 

Ultimately, solid data is what determines what’s true. For instance, Putin says the war against Ukraine is to “denazify” the country. The numbers show that only about 2% of the population vote for right-wing parties, and they elected a Jewish president. This alone shows that Putin’s argument is out of alignment with reality. Similarly, when it comes to the question about the risk of taking the covid vaccine, we can look at the numbers. Hospitals were full of patients with covid, not people who were there because of how their bodies responded to the vaccine. Simple numbers show us something about reality. And there is, of course, a need for nuance and discernment here too.

DISCERNMENT

Yes, it’s true that we cannot know anything for certain, and even our most cherished assumptions are up for revision. Much of what people assumed about the world one or five hundred years ago is different from how we see the world today. 

And it’s also true that views are more or less accurate in a conventional sense, and we can learn discernment to arrive at the views that have the best chance of being accurate. 

This is about learning methods for evaluating views and data, examining sources, knowing a bit about the history of ideas and science, being aware of one’s own biases, and being honest with oneself.

In part two of this article, I’ll write about what we may discover if we take a closer look at this topic.

TRUTH VS VALIDITY

Why do I write about validity and not truth?

It’s mainly because the word “truth” often comes with some unfortunate associations. It can make it sound as if thoughts can hold a full, final, and absolute truth, and that’s obviously not true (!).

Validity is a bit more gentle and open-ended. A thought can have validity, in one way or another, without holding any final, full, or absolute truth.

Using the word “validity” instead of “truth” can help us hold it a bit more lightly and with more curiosity.

At the same time, it’s important to remember that validity in a conventional sense can be more or less supported by solid data, it can be supported by varying amounts of data, it can be more or less logically coherent, and so on.

Note: All of this seems obvious and what many of us learn early in life. So why do I bother writing about it? Because some seem to – against better knowledge? – take a view that “my opinion is as good as yours” when that’s clearly not the case. On many topics, some have a far more informed view, and some views are far more grounded in experience, good data, and good logic. That doesn’t mean we should automatically accept the conclusions or advice of others (I have received terrible advice from doctors). But it does mean that a measure of intellectual honesty and humility is appropriate and useful.

Read More

A single swallow does not a summer make

moe Leave a comment

Some folks who are against vaccines, mask-wearing, and so on refer to research papers to support their view.

PAPERS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WITH NO CREDENTIALS IN THE FIELD

Often, these are not studies. They are theoretical papers written by folks with no credentials in the field. The only thing they have going for them is that they are presented in a format that makes them look scientific at first glance. And this trick sometimes works. If you are not used to reading and evaluating scientific papers, and you don’t have much knowledge about the field, you can be misled to think this is actually serious science.

SINGLE SWALLOW STUDIES

Occasionally, these are single studies that find something different from what was found in innumerable other studies. These studies go against the mainstream. It’s always like that in science. There will always be outliers. And, often, they are outliers because they use a small sample size or otherwise weak or bad methodology. For these outliers to have any value, their findings need to be replicated by several other studies using solid methods. A single swallow does not a summer make.

HOW SCIENCE WORKS

Medical science relies on solid methodology and replication. One or a few studies finding something doesn’t mean much. It’s only when a large number of independent researchers find the same or similar results, using methods other cannot find a serious fault with, that something is taken more seriously. And even then, it’s provisional since future research may find something else.

We cannot cherry pick from outlier studies to support our view. At most, it can be interesting information to hold very lightly. It’s clearly not anything to base our views or life choices on.

WHEN WE CHOSE BAD INFORMATION

In one sense, it’s understandable if people are misled by papers that look serious but aren’t, or take a single study and say “this is how it is and everything else is wrong”. They want something to be true and cling to any straw that can help them support it.

In another sense, it shows a lack of commitment to reality. They know they are not experts in the field. They know they are not used to reading or relating to these types of papers. They know innumerable other studies show something else. They know the view among people with solid credentials in the field is different. And yet they pretend they know the outlier view is true. They promote it to others. And they use it to promote irresponsible behavior. That is inexcusable.

Read More

How do I reconcile a science orientation with spirituality and distance healing?

moe Leave a comment

How do I reconcile my science orientation with my interest in spirituality and distance healing?

Since childhood, I have been fascinated by and loved science and I still do every bit as much.

I also have a fascination and passion for awakening. And I do distance healing.

So how does it all fit together in my mind?

Let’s take spirituality first.

SCIENCE & SPIRITUALITY

I take a pragmatic view on spirituality.

For me, spirituality is mainly about awakening and the effect of spiritual practices.

Awakening is about what more fundamentally we are in our own first-person experience. It doesn’t require any theology or assumptions. It’s purely about what we find in our own direct noticing. And in my experience, What I find fits a wide range of worldviews, is independent of them all, and is what allows and holds and can find the validity in them all. It’s about what I find when I look with sincerity. It’s about what others report they find. (Which seems to be very similar or the same, throughout history and across cultures and traditions.) And it’s about what science finds when this is studied in a more rigorous and systematic way. (We are still in a very early phase here.)

Exploring the effects of spiritual practices is also pragmatic. This is similar. It’s about what I find and what works for me. It’s about what others find and what works for them. And it’s what we can discover through science and more rigorous research. (Here too, we are in a very early phase.)

When it comes to awakening and the effects of spiritual practices, I take a scientific approach as much as possible. I try to do it with sincerity, diligence, and intellectual honesty. As much as possible, I separate what I can know something about (how it appears to me), my stories about it (which are very limited guesses), and what’s actually happening (which I can only make guesses about, which my mind cannot really grasp, and which I cannot know anything for certain about).

SCIENCE AND DISTANCE HEALING & SENSING

What about distance healing and sensing? Isn’t that more woo woo?

Yes and no. It’s certainly a slightly different animal.

Here too, I try to take a scientific approach as much as possible. I look at the effects on animals that don’t know they are receiving healing. I look at patterns over time. I take into account different types of biases. I check my sensing with others. I compare my healing results with those of others. I differentiate what I can say something about, my stories about it, and reality (which I cannot know).

And I wish for a thorough scientific examination of distance healing and sensing, far beyond the little that’s already done.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The methods of science are, in its essence, our natural ways of exploring anything set into system. At least if our exploration is relatively sincere, grounded, rigorous, and intellectual honest.

Whenever we wish to explore how something works, we use approaches we also find in science.

We try something out and see what happens. And if it’s more important to us, we compare this with what others find. We explore other possible explanations. We take our own biases into account. We value intellectual honesty. We hold it all lightly, take it as provisional, and know it will inevitably look different to us with more exploration. And so on.

If something is important to us, we can learn from science and apply a more rigorous approach to our own explorations. This will support any exploration – including of awakening, the effects of spiritual practices, and distance healing and sensing.

Read More

The newness factor and the pandemic

moe Leave a comment

Why do some react to common sense pandemic measures? Why do they react to them when we, from epidemiology and history, long have known they work in terms of limiting the individual and collective impact of the pandemic?

I am not sure, but I suspect a big reason why some react to pandemic measures is that it’s new to them.

WE ALREADY ACCEPT A LOT OF RESTRICITONS

One aspect is that we already accept a lot of restrictions and regulations. It’s part of society and what makes it work. It’s an essential aspect of civilization. We accept all this because we know it makes sense and because we are used to and familiar with it.

So why react so strongly to a few temporary ones that, for most of us, is just a mild inconvenience?

Perhaps new restrictions seem scary to some just because they are new? Perhaps they are unable to see it in perspective?

THE HISTORY OF PANDEMICS

Also, perhaps they are not familiar with the history and regularity of pandemics? Or epidemiology and what we know works to limit the individual and collective impact of pandemics? Or what can happen if we collectively don’t organize ourselves in certain ways to limit its impact?

If they were, I assume they would see that the measures make sense and that none of it is made up now. It may seem new to us because we haven’t experienced it before as individuals. But it’s not at all new from the perspective of history.

REACTIVITY IS NOT RATIONAL

It is a bit baffling to me.

Why react so strongly to a few temporary measures that, for most of us, is just a mild inconvenience?

And why react to the pandemic measures as if it’s what someone made up now? Don’t you know that these have been tested out for decades and centuries? As humanity, we have gone through it many times and we know what works.

I suspect it’s baffling because the reactivity is not all that rational, just like any reactivity.

The body reacts to the vaccine as it does to the virus

moe Leave a comment

There are many arguments from vaccine skeptics and anti-vaccine folks that are baffling to me.

Among these is the possible side effects of the vaccine.

We know serious reactions to a vaccine happen, although it’s rare. Just about everyone already accepts far greater risks in daily life, like getting into a car. So why not also accept this very small risk when our individual and collective benefits are so great?

Equally important is that the serious side effects of vaccines typically reflect what can happen when we have the real infection. It comes from the body’s reaction to the vaccine and the virus.

The vaccine mimics the virus. The body’s reaction to the vaccine mimics its reaction to the virus. And in rare cases, for whatever reason, that reaction can be severe.

So if you are afraid of the body’s reaction to the vaccine, shouldn’t you be as or more scared of how the body may react to the actual virus?

Just because an article looks and sounds scientific doesn’t make it so

moe Leave a comment

A friend on social media referred to scientific-sounding articles going against the consensus view on vaccines, mask-wearing, and other pandemic-related topics.

Here is my response:

In any area of science, there are published articles that don’t fit the mainstream view. In most cases, the findings are not grounded in reality. This is just part of science, and – as I said – you’ll find this in any science and on just about any topic. Just because something is published doesn’t make it valid or something that reflects reality.

Especially these days, there are lots of online journals that, at first glance, look serious and scientific. They use the language and format of reputable publications. But the content is very weak and would likely never be published in serious and respected journals.

Personally, I have seen several articles on pandemic-related topics, published in these types of journals, that are almost laughably bad in terms of data and logic. And, often, the articles are written by people with some sort of credentials, just not in the area they are writing about. Which means they have no credentials at all. They have close to zero credibility.

For the findings and views to be taken seriously, it has to be published in reputable journals, the findings need to be replicated by independent researchers several times, there has to be a sound theory behind it, and competing theories and approaches have to be thoroughly disproven.

Note: The image is a screenshot of one of many articles that look and sound scientific and serious, but is published in a less-than-reputable journal and the authors have zero credentials in the field.

Carl Sagan: I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship

moe Leave a comment

I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship.

– Carl Sagan, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God

Yes, science can certainly be a form of informed worship.

Science is a more formalized way of learning about our world, and it can be approached with curiosity, receptivity, and awe. And a recognition that we are, in a very literal sense, the local eyes, ears, thoughts, and feelings of the universe. We are the universe bringing itself into consciousness. We are the universe, locally and in the form of us, exploring and discovering itself.

Why I typically don’t refer to the vagus nerve, quantum physics, or other popular topics from science

moe Leave a comment

I rarely refer to the vagus nerve, quantum physics, or other popular topics from science in these articles.

Why? If I love science and have spent a good amount of time exploring these and other topics, why don’t I refer more to it when I write here? (For instance, in my teens and twenties, I read everything I could find about the connection between quantum physics and spirituality/philosophy.)

One reason is that our understanding of these topics is very specific to our time and place.

The content of science always changes. The way we think about the vagus nerve and quantum physics today will likely be outdated in a few years or decades, and even more so in a few centuries.

Similarly, our understanding of these topics is very incomplete. We are only seeing fragments of a bigger picture.

Some current views on quantum physics may tie in with some insights from perennial spirituality, and that may quickly change as we understand quantum physics differently in the years ahead. And the vagus nerve is probably important for regulating our nervous system and our system in general, and it’s only one small piece of a much larger dynamic whole.

It doesn’t mean that these topics are not important. I love that people are studying and thinking about it, and share their findings and reflections with the rest of us. That’s the beauty of science, and it benefits me and society as a whole.

When I write here, I do reference what I have picked up from science in my mind. I check if what I write fits or not. (Just as a mentally reference and check with what I have heard people say about healing, awakening, and so on.) But I won’t refer to it explicitly for the reasons mentioned here.

I prefer to focus on what seems a bit more timeless.

And I am very aware that the way I see and talk about this too inevitably reflects my own time and culture.

Reflections on society, politics and nature – vol. 50

moe Leave a comment

This is one in a series of posts with brief notes on society, politics, and nature. I sometimes include short personal notes as well. Click “read more” to see all the entries.

ART HISTORY

In the early ’90s, I studied art history for a year (full time) at the University of Oslo. Since they called it “art history”, and since I was young and naive, I was looking forward to WORLD art history. The history of art from the earliest times and across all cultures. That was what I expected, hoped for, and wanted.

To my surprise and disappointment, the course turned out to be the history of WESTERN art, and really just the art of Western Europe and the European culture in North America.

I was left with several puzzling questions:

Why didn’t they have a course for WORLD art?

Why did they call a course that had such a limited scope “art history” without any qualifiers?

Why didn’t they address or acknowledge this obvious discrepancy?

The answer is probably a kind of ethnocentrism. They – consciously or not – may have seen “real” art as the art of western Europe and the European culture in North America.

I imagine that now, 30 years later, they are a little less provincial and more conscious of this. Hopefully, they include the art of the world and not just a small section of the world. Or, at the very least, they label the course accurately.

Read More

George Kiser: In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it

moe Leave a comment

In an anti-intellectual society, people who know nothing about a complex subject are emboldened to ridicule experts who have spent a lifetime studying it

– George Kiser