Tag: science

It’s not a theory?

moe Leave a comment

I was watching the trailer for the new Foundation series, where Seldon says: It’s not a theory, it’s the future.

Yes, it’s not a theory. It’s a model. It’s a guess. It’s a question.

It’s a question about the future.

Even if it has been accurate in most or all cases, it’s still a question.

I love Asimov’s Foundation series, but that part of the dialog in the trailer was a bit disappointing to me. When he says “it’s not a theory, it’s the future”, it shows a fundamental and elementary misunderstanding about theories and science.

Any theory, model, and so on, is a guess and a question about the world. Some may be consistent with a huge amount of data, and they are still guesses and questions. They are maps. They are different in type from what they are guesses about. Reality is always different from and more than any map.

I assume the quote is not from the book since Asimov himself was a scientist and knew better. And if I am honest, if it had been in the book, I would likely have abandoned it at that point.

I’ll still watch the first episode since I love the story it’s based on.

Note: The model Seldon refers to is a complex modelling of the future of society.

The problem with stages

moe Leave a comment

Although I love Ken Wilber‘s integral model in general, there are several sides of him and the integral community I find a bit troublesome. This includes green-bashing (vilifying the ones they see at the green level of development), Wilber’s tendency to misrepresent the views of others (straw man arguments), and the tendency of the integral community to adopt both the good and bad sides of Ken Wilber’s personal approach.

I would also include an over-emphasis on stages, and especially the stages described in Spiral Dynamics. Of course, these models can be useful in some contexts and to some extent, if they are held lightly.

WHY FASCINATION WITH STAGES?

Why is there such an emphasis on stages in the integral world? One reason is obviously that they see the difference between first- and second-tier orientation as important and fascinating. (Very roughly, this is the difference between seeing your own view as right and other views as wrong versus appreciating the validity in each one and being curious about how they fit together in describing the world in a more rich and nuanced way.)

I can’t help wonder if there isn’t more going on.

Stage models offer neat ways of dividing up the world and understanding people. They are generally easy to understand. We can put them on top of just about anything and tell ourselves we understand what’s going on. They give us a jumping-off point for easy analysis.

They can be attractive because they give us a sense of understanding and that we grasp something important about the world, and many want to feel they understand.

Also, they can be used to boost our self-esteem. If we understand and like a model, it’s often because we imagine we are pretty high up on the hierarchy.

THE PROBLEMS WITH STAGES

At the same time, it’s important to keep in mind some things about stage models of human development.

Stages are not inherent in reality. They are imagined and put on top of something we observe. These imaginations can fit the data well, and help us orient in the world, and they are still imaginations.

If we have a set of observed data, we can find innumerable imagined overlays that fit this data – more or less well. In the future, we’ll likely come up with models that seem to fit the data, and new data, better, and models we may see as more useful in helping us orient.

What we observe largely depends on what we look for and expect to find. We already operate from assumptions and use those to determine the setting for gathering data, the data we gather, and how we interpret those data. To some extent, we see what we expect to see. It’s easy to imagine alien anthropologists or psychologists coming here, studying us, and highlighting and understanding what they see in a very different way from us, and it may be equally valid and useful as what we are familiar with.

We all operate from different parts of us in different situations and settings. What comes out in one situation may be different from what comes out in another. There is a richness, complexity, and fluidity here that may not be well captured by models.

We are rich and complex, and stages will by necessity only look at one or a few of the aspects of who and what we are. As Ken Wilber says, there are several lines of development. (In reality, there are innumerable since we can divide this up in as many or as few as we want.) Stage models tend to (over?)simplify and overlook the complex ecology of interactions within this organic richness.

We tend to develop stage models of what we value and where we, as culture and individuals, are high up or on top. In another culture, they may see something else as valuable and would develop stage models of that. In these models, they are likely to be closer to the top since they live in a culture where that particular development is valued, encouraged, and supported, and we may be further down. (These could be stage models of being in tune with the natural environment, hunting skills, shamanic development, valuing the interests of the group over self, living from a sense of deep time, and so on.)

In general, stage models can be over-emphasized and held too tightly.

Life is far more complex and rich than any model. Models and thoughts are different in type from what they refer to. Life is always more than and different from our thoughts about it. And our models tend to reflect – and reinforce – our own culture, orientation, and values.

Stage models can still serve as valuable guides for certain things and in certain situations. It’s just helpful to see the bigger picture, be aware of their limitations, and hold them lightly.

Note: I wrote this from what came to me, I am sure others have done a far more thorough and insightful analysis of the limitations of stage theories.

A pragmatic approach to religions and religious topics

moe Leave a comment

I understand that for many, religious topics are for religions. They are a matter of belief and taking someone’s word for it.

For me, religious topics are for science.

Does consciousness, what we more essentially are, continue after the death of this human self? What data is there? What different interpretations of that data can we make? What can we say something about, and what’s unknown and/or speculation?

If a religion encourage certain beliefs, what are the effects of those beliefs at a social and individual level?

What are the effects of the different practices each religion offer or encourage? What practices works for different people, and different phases of the process? What are the drawbacks and things to keep an eye on? If we see practices as medicines for certain conditions, how effective are they?

And even…. how can we make use of the different cosmologies as a mirror? How can we use them as pointers to find what they refer to here and now?

This is how I personally prefer to relate to religions. I look at the effects of certain orientations and views. I explore the effects of the different practices. I take their cosmologies as a mirror for myself.

For instance, several religions and teachers talk about reincarnation. For me, that’s just what someone says and I put it on the “someone said it and I don’t know” shelf in my mind. I find the serious research into what may happen after this life, and reincarnation, very interesting. And I am interested in the different ways we can interpret the data they come up with.

I personally have what seems like memories from the time between lives and before this incarnation (these came in the form of flashbacks before school age), and I also have what seems like memories of certain past lives. (Especially one from Russia in the 1800s.) And these, I put in the “seems like memories but they are really just mental images and I don’t know” category.

Mainly, I use these images as pointers to find what’s here now. I can find the images here and now, and some sensations my mind associated with each of them. I can find what the images point to, here and now.

I can find what the images from between lives point to here and now – all as consciousness, a deep sense of being home, a gentle bliss, and so on.

And I can find what the Russian images point to – the kind-of-radical views, wanting to speak up against injustice, and feeling terrified of the possible consequences of speaking up. Whether or not those images were from a real past life, they certainly point to dynamics and issues in my life now and that’s more important.

In short, I prefer to take a pragmatic approach to religons and topics often found in religions. What’s the most honest way for me to see it? What can I say something about (typically very little), and what’s speculation? How can I make use of it? What happens when I engage in the different practices? What conditions is each one medicine for? How can I use the different cosmologies as a mirror for what’s here now?

And it gets a lot more finely grained than this.

How do you see science?

moe Leave a comment

Someone asked this in a sustainability / nature-oriented group in social media, and I was surprised by the answers. Most answers were cynical and reflected an unfavorable or even hostile view on science.

For me, science is primarily a method for learning about the world. It’s common-sense set in system, and we all use parts of it in daily life. 

The content of science changes over time. How it’s used and applied will depend on society and culture. And since science involves people, the science community has all the characteristics we see in any community. 

Why the cynical view on science? I am not sure. Perhaps it has something to do with how it sometimes is used, and what happens when money and profit get involved. 

For me, that says something about the society we live in and the economic and other systems we have. It doesn’t say anything about science itself.

“How many awake people are there in the world?”

moe Leave a comment

I have seen this question a few times on social media, and most recently in the Vortex Healing group on FB.

This is fertile ground for exploration.

DEFINITIONS & GREY ZONES

First, what do we mean by awakening?

If we have noticed what we are once, is that awakening? Or if we used to notice?

If we notice what we are now, is that awakening?

If we are in the habit of mostly noticing what we are, even if it’s sometimes in the background of our attention, is that awakening?

If we intentionally explore bringing more of ourselves onboard with awakening, is that awakening?

If we mostly recognize our bubbles of separation consciousness for what they are, and invite them to rest as what they are, is that awakening?

Is awakening something else, like having the “core veil” gone as they talk about in Vortex Healing, is that awakening? Is it really awakening, even if that person still mostly operates from separation consciousness? (Most would probably say no.)

Also, how can we tell? What measures would we use? Would we do some kind of larger-scale study? Would we trust what someone tells us based on psychic sensing? If people give different numbers, who would we trust? And why? (Personally, I wouldn’t trust any specific numbers, apart for perhaps from a conventional larger-scale study.)

There is also an element of in-group bias here. For instance, Vortex Healing folks tend to use the “no core veil” definition and assume that a significant portion of awake people are found within Vortex Healing. (Even if many of these mostly operate from separation consciousness.) And other groups will tend to do the same.

WHAT IT CAN SHOW US ABOUT OURSELVES

Having an answer to the literal question may be interesting, but it doesn’t really do much for us.

So we can turn the focus around. What does the question say about me? Where does it come from? What can I discover?

What needs and wants are behind the question? Is there a sense of lack?

What are my fears and hopes? What do I fear and hope on behalf of humanity and the world?

And closer to home, what are my fears and hopes about awakening? what do I hope to get out of it? What do I fear will happen if it’s not here? (Or if it is here?)

I call also explore this more in-depth through more structured inquiry. I can use The Work to identify and examine stressful thoughts around the topic. And Living Inquiries to examine identities, compulsions, and fears.

MAKING USE OF THE QUESTION

The question itself may be unanswerable because it depends so much on the definition, and we don’t have any accurate way to get a number.

But we can make use of the question. It helps us explore what we mean by “awake”. It can help us explore how we would go about finding a number. What sample would we use that would be representative of humanity as a whole? (Seems unlikely it would be.) What measures would we use for “awake”? (Questionnaire? Interviews? Brain scans? A combination?)

And, most importantly, we can see where the question comes from in ourselves. What are my needs and wants behind it? Is there a sense of lack? How can I invite in healing for this in myself?

Read More

Reflections on society, politics and nature XXXXI

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.

SCIENCE LITERACY & THEORIES

I saw a social media post stating that a theory in science is not “just a theory”, it’s proven by scientists and has become a “fact”. These types of statements make me cringe.

A theory in science is a question about the world. If it’s supported by data, it’s a question that scientists may explore further, build on, and so on. And as we get more data, the theory may be refined or replaced by another one.

It can never be “proven”. It’s never a “fact”. It just fits the data more or less well.

Theories live in an ecosystem. They live within an accepted general worldview. They fit in with a number of other theories. And so on.

There is also an informal hierarchy of theories. Some fit well the general worldview and the ecosystems of related theories, and they have been thoroughly tested through research and practical applications. These are widely accepted as fitting the data and what we know about how the world works. (Einsteins relativity theories are in this category.)

Some theories may not fit the data and are abandoned. And some may not fit the wider ecosystem so well, or there may be less or no solid data supporting it, so it’s on the sidelines for now. (Exemplified by Rupert Sheldrake’s research and ideas.)

That’s how science works these days. A widely accepted theory is widely accepted because it fits a huge amount of data and practical experience. It’s not “just” a theory, and it’s also very far from a “fact”. It’s a formalized question about the world that fits the data.

Of course, in real life, it’s not so clean. Scientists are people with their own worldviews, biases, and so on, so not everything going on in science is a hundred percent rational. But mostly, it works well.

Read More

Carl Sagan: Science is a way of thinking

moe Leave a comment

Science is more than a body of knowledge. It’s a way of thinking.

– Carl Sagan in interview with Charlie Rose, 1996

The body of knowledge from science changes. It doesn’t stay the same. As we have more information, discover new things, and for cultural and other reasons, the specifics of what we think we know change, as do our underlying assumptions and worldviews.

Science as a way of thinking is our approach to explore and learn about the world. It’s essentially common sense systematized. It’s more universal and timeless, although it too changes a bit over time as it’s is adjusted and refined, and varies a bit across cultures.

The scientific approach is a way of figuring things out about our world. We experience something. We explore something. We have some ideas about what’s going on. We find ways to test those ideas. We compare notes with others and share ideas and experiences. And so on.

Applying a scientific approach to spirituality

That’s useful in any area of life, whether it’s studying, working, relationships, sports, or anything else.

It also means that if we are serious about spirituality, we’ll tend to use a scientific approach whether we use that label or not.

What happens when I do this practice? When I explore that pointer?

What do I find? What do others report when they explore it?

What’s the most honest and grounded way of interpreting what I find? What can I know something about? What’s outside of what I can honestly speak about?

Can I know it for certain? Can I know anything for certain? How is it to approach it with a more open mind?

This is a way of being honest with ourselves and staying grounded. Where fantasy doesn’t get us much beyond fantasy, a pragmatic approach gives us some traction.

Energy healing, identity, and science

moe Leave a comment

I discovered healing abilities in my mid-teens, used it occasionally with people close to me, and mainly kept it to myself. More recently, through Vortex Healing, I have done this type of healing more openly.

And although I know it works, and sometimes works well, it does rub up against some desired identities I have. I want to be seen as someone rooted in science, and I have often gone out of the way to explain what I am doing and interested in – meditation, inquiry, heart-centered practices, therapeutic tremoring etc. – in ways that are grounded, logcial, and fits with current science.

Energy healing, often done at a distance, cannot so easily be explained so it makes sense from a current mainstream view. To explain it, we have to bring in non-local connections, and perhaps all as essentially consciousness, or the divine.

Although this moderate identity crisis is a bit uncomfortable, I also know it’s good for me. It helps me see some identities I am still identified with and wish to hold onto. It helps me see where I limit myself, and where I hold onto unexamined beliefs.

Another side to this is that our mainstream worldview, and the content of our science, changes over time. In fifty or a hundred years, perhaps energy healing at a distance fits in with the current worldview and science. I wouldn’t be surprised, although I have no idea about the timeline. These shifts tend to happen when people cannot any longer deny the validity of what doesn’t fit the existing worldview, and that typically requires the accumulation of solid research over time.

Differentiating the content and approach of science

moe Leave a comment

It’s important to differentiate between the approach and content of science.

The approach of science is mostly common sense guidelines for exploring and investigating reality and life. And it’s very applicable for exploring who and what we are, and the nature of reality as it appears to us. In other words, it’s very applicable to our exploration of – what some may call – spirituality.

The content or product of science is different. This is what we think we know and it changes over time and somewhat across cultures. What we think we know today may be outdated tomorrow. Even our worldview and our most basic assumptions about reality changes.

What happens after death: A question for faith or science?

moe Leave a comment

What happens after death? Many see this as a question for religions and spirituality. Although since it’s a question about reality, and the job of science is to investigate reality, it’s clearly a question (also) for science. It’s something that can be studied, at least to some extent. And it is something that is currently being studied at a few universities.

It is clearly an essential question. The answer has a huge impact on how we see ourselves and understand the world. So why is it not one of the main areas of studies at universities around the world?

I assume it may be for a couple of different reasons. It has traditionally – long before modern science existed – been a question for religion. Modern science operates from a mainly materialistic worldview. And it is generally a taboo topic in academic circles, at least outside of the religion and philosophy departments.

If or when a scientist takes it seriously and as a topic of research, they break a lot of traditions and taboos. And not everyone are willing or able to do that.

I suspect this will change. I imagine a world in the future where this – and other “parapsychological” topics – are standard subjects for research at universities across the world.

Why? Because these are central questions. Because they can be studied by science. And because existing and future research may accumulate enough data to bring about an eventual paradigm shift.

Image: The Passing of the Soul at Death by Evelyn De Morgan

Carl Sagan: I like a universe where much is unknown

moe Leave a comment

I like a universe where much is unknown and, at the same time, much is knowable. A universe in which everything is known would be static and dull.

– Carl Sagan

In a conventional sense, we know some things about the world and the universe and there is a lot we don’t know. We don’t even know how much we don’t know. There may even be many things we don’t know that would turn our whole worldview inside-out and upside-down if we knew them.

Looking a little closer, we see that we don’t know anything for certain. Our brain constructs our perception of the world from our senses and with an overlay of mental images and other thoughts to make sense of it. It’s all constructed. Our perceptions and ideas about the world are not the final word on anything. It’s all created to help us orient and navigate in the world. It has nothing to do with any final truth.

So in a conventional sense, we know a little and we know there is a lot we don’t know. And looking closer, we see that we cannot know anything for certain. Not even that which seems most basic, obvious, and what we take the most for granted.

Science of the mind

moe Leave a comment

Most of what I write about in this collection of articles is the science of mind. It’s pragmatic, grounded in experience, and testable by others. I usually use the “spirituality” tag, but “science of mind” may be more accurate. (Of course, some things do fall in under the wider label of spirituality, or just “life”.)

What are some examples of science of mind topics?

In general, it’s anything that’s testable by oneself and others. And mainly, on this blog, it’s the effect of different practices and approaches.

How does the mind create its own experience of the world? What do I find when I explore the different sense fields and how they combine to create this experience of the world? (The sense fields are usually sight, sensation, smell, taste, sound, and thoughts.)

How does the mind create a charged experience for itself? How does it create the experience of thoughts telling it something that’s true? What happens when a certain thought, or set of thoughts, combine (are associated with) certain sensations? (Does the sensations take on meaning? And the thoughts a sense of saying something true?) What happens when we explore and notice this, and rest and allow with the different components?

What happens when I do ho’oponopno towards/for someone I have a strained relationship with? Or parts of myself? Or the world as a whole? Or if I do tonglen?

What happens when I use the heart/Jesus prayer over time? Or the Christ Meditation?

What happens when I train attention to be more stable? What happens in how I feel in general? What happens with how I do everyday activities? Which areas of life do I notice a difference in?

What is awakening? What are some different ways we can understand awakening? How does it unfold for different people? What are some of the challenges and struggles people experience? How do we navigate these?

All of these are examples of what falls in under science of mind. In mainstream culture, it may be seen as spirituality and that’s not wrong. But it’s equally helpful to see it as a science. It’s something we can try out for ourselves and see what happens. It’s something we can research through formal science. It’s something others can test out for themselves. (Although the results will vary, of course, since we are different and do these things slightly differently, and that’s part of the exploration.)

Magical realism in real life

moe Leave a comment

Magical realism, magic realism, or marvelous realism is a style of fiction that paints a realistic view of the modern world while also adding magical elements.

– Wikipedia article on magical realism

This aspect of magical realism describes the world as it has been for most humans who have ever lived: an ordinary mundane life intermixed with magical and fantastic elements.

The exception is our modern western society. We have a largely materialistic scientific worldview, and most of us are understandably wary of mentioning any experiences that don’t fit this worldview.

I love modern science. A great deal of good has come out of it. And even more, I love the scientific methodology. It is essential that we stay sober about our experience and our view of the world, apply grounded critical thinking and verify any claims about reality. Collectively, we need to stay sober.

At the same time, we know that the way we individually and collectively see the world is inherently limited. Reality is always more than and different from our view of it.

Different parts of our current scientific worldview are always updated and replaced. And eventually, it’s inevitable that even its basic assumptions about reality are recognized as outdated and replaced with something that better fits the data we have collected.

So why are most of us wary of talking about any unusual experiences we may have? It doesn’t fit our current collective worldview. Often, it cannot easily be verified by others. And we may even be seen as weird, naive, or delusional.

I am talking about myself too. I usually don’t mention these things unless I talk with someone I know or suspect are receptive or understand.

So what types of experiences have I had?

I have seen energies since I was fifteen, around people, animals, plants, and objects. Mostly, with people, I see how awake the field is (or not).

There was a spiritual opening when I was sixteen where everything – without exception – was revealed as consciousness or the divine. (Of course, this can be interpreted in a small or psychological way (to me, the world happens within and as the consciousness I am and any ideas of being a separate being is added to that), or a big or spiritual way (everything, all of existence, is the divine, and it temporarily and locally takes itself to be a separate being until it no longer does).)

I have had periods with frequent and astonishing synchronicities, far beyond regular coincidences.

I experienced a ghost in an apartment in San Francisco that repeated the sounds from the day before. (Running water, the dog’s ball bouncing on the floor, the dog licking water.) This was verified by another and the dog.

I have an old friend who always seems to know what’s going on for me and in my life, and what will happen in very specific detail. And it’s been accurate so far.

Now, with Vortex Healing, I daily experience sensing at a distance, and often sensing that’s verified (by the client and/or another Vortex healer).

Again, what’s typical for all of these experiences is that they are unverifiable for others who were not there or don’t share them in another way. And they don’t fit in with our mainstream worldview. That’s why I rarely mention any of this unless I talk with others who I know or suspect will understand.

I also do my best to relate to and talk about these experiences in a relatively sane and grounded way, and to hold my stories about them lightly.

My stories about them are questions rather than statements.

Note: Magical realism typically refers to post-colonial critical literature speaking up for marginalized groups of people. I love that aspect of it but left it out of the article above. It was too tempting to use the short Wikipedia definition, and the one aspect of magical realism it talks about, as a starting point. But I realize that what I left out is very interesting too.

Magic and the supernatural is an ordinary part of most traditional cultures but is excluded or treated as superstition by western colonial and imperial powers. Simply including magical elements in literature or other art, and treating it as ordinary and unremarkable, is, in a way, a subversive act.

This helps me to see that when I choose to not speak about it, I allow myself to be colonialized by the modem western mindset, and speaking about it is a subversive and revolutionary act, for me too.

Image: The magic carpet (1880), Viktor Vasnetsov.

The scientific method is universally useful – and science content always changes

moe Leave a comment

I have written a few Life 101 posts, and this one is about the scientific method and science content.

The scientific method

The scientific method is, in many ways, common-sense set in system. It is a formalized version of a grounded, pragmatic, and common sense approach to life and exploring and learning more about anything in life. It’s just about universally useful, any time we wish to explore and learn about something.

And that includes when we want to discover who and what we are, our true nature, and how to live from noticing our true nature. We can follow pointers and practices, notice what happens, notice what we find, invite our human self to be transformed from the practices and the noticing, and so on. We may share it with others. They see that they find and report that. And there is a dialog. We learn from each other and inevitably are our own final authority.

Science content

The content of science is different. This is the product of the scientific method. It’s what we discover, and how we think and talk about what we discover.

In conventional science, this is less universal. How we understand things in the world varies across time and cultures. Often, we refine smaller things within the bigger worldview. And sometimes, even our bigger worldview changes.

If we explore what we are and our true nature, what we find seems a bit more universal and it tends to be described similarly across times and cultures. And here too, people perceive and express it through the lens of their own time, culture, and personal background and inclinations, and we may focus on and emphasize different facets.

Read More

Why isn’t there more research on what happens after this life?

moe Leave a comment

Why isn’t there more research on what happens after this life?

After all, it’s clearly an important topic. All of us will die. It has a direct bearing on what worldview we adopt as a consensus worldview in our modern society. And it is possible to study. (And some do, as outlined in – among other books – Surviving Death by Leslie Kean.)

So if there are good reasons to do this type of research, and a few already do, why isn’t there more research?

The most obvious answer is that it’s (still) taboo in our modern society. It goes against the consensus atheist view of modern science. (Which I mostly agree with apart from when it creates a taboo.) And it steps into a minefield of opinions from religions and religious people around the world. For both of those reasons, you risk upsetting people if you enter this field through research.

That’s perhaps why it has become a taboo. And why most scientists leave it alone. They see it as a field for personal opinion and not something to explore through research.

Of course, it’s also irrational to maintain this taboo. As mention earlier, it’s an important topic with great ramifications for how we see ourselves and the world and it’s well within what we can do research on. There are no good reasons to not do research in this field, apart from the taboo itself.

And yet, taboos have a way of maintaining themselves. People acculturate and adopt the taboo, sometimes without even knowing what’s happening, and then ridicule and reject those who go outside of it. In this way, scientists are not necessarily more rational than anyone else.

This goes for any research on topics outside of the current mainstream view on the world, including research on ESP and the effects of energy healing.

Will it change? Probably. I can easily imagine a world where this type of research is more widely performed and accepted, and where the findings inform our consensus worldview. After all, it is important. And we can do good research on it.

Read More

Life 101: How we think about the world (philosophy of science)

moe Leave a comment

There are some essential Life 101 topics. Things that are fundamental to being human and can serve us for a lifetime.

One of these is learning how to think about the world, also known – when more formalized – as philosophy of science.

It’s something we all can explore for ourselves. And, as I see it, it’s a bit shocking it’s not included in a more systematic way at all levels of formal education – adapted to each age level and made fun, relevant, and with the ordinariness of it emphasized.

It’s what we already know, this is just a way to bring more awareness into it and investigate it more consciously.

Here are some ideas of what could be included in formal education.

When it comes to exploring the world, there is the basic approach of observation, hypothesis, testing, revising, testing by others, etc. And how each step is influenced by our underlying assumptions and worldviews. What are some examples of how we use these steps, often without thinking about it, in our own life? What are some examples in our history? What do we find if we apply this approach to an area of our own life?

Equally or more important is how we more broadly think about the world and our understanding of it.

We don’t know anything for certain. This goes for us as humanity, as a culture, and in our own life. Our statements or assumptions are practical guidelines for orienting and functioning in the world. They are questions. They are not the final word. What is an example of an assumption we made – about the world, ourselves, others, a situation – that we were convinced was true, and then it turned out it was not? What are some examples from history and science?

Our understanding of specific things in life changes over time. Our collective understanding changes, and our personal understanding changes. Over time, all of it may change. What are some examples of you seeing something a certain way, and then change your view? What are some examples from history?

Our worldview and most basic assumptions about the world change over time. What are some examples of worldviews changing over time? What are some examples of different worldviews from different cultures? What are the most basic assumptions about the world in our culture? Could these change in the future?

There are other understandings and other worldviews that may fit our experience (data) equally well as the ones we are familiar with, and some may even fit them better.

Our worldview and most basic assumptions about ourselves and the world is the water we swim in. It’s hard for us to notice these. And if we do, it’s often hard for us to question them. What are some basic assumptions we – in our society and culture – have about the world? What are some examples of assumptions that we usually wouldn’t even think of questioning? Are there taboos around questioning some of them?

Our background colors our understandings, values, and worldview. Our background – – as a species, culture, and individual – color what we see as important, what we see as right and wrong, and our assumptions about the world and ourselves. What are some examples of how our background influences how we see something? What are some examples of cultural differences? Imagine an intelligent species very different from us (bird, reptilian, fish, etc.). How would their perceptions, inclinations, and perhaps values differ from ours?

What is cognitive bias? What are the most typical cognitive biases? Take one and see how it plays a role in your own life. Is there a time you realized you made a wrong assumption because of bias? Which cognitive biases do we most see in our society? How can I be more aware of these? How can I counteract them? What may happen if I don’t notice or question my biases? And what are the benefits of noticing and questioning them?

How do we discuss well? Do we go into a conversation with the intention to learn from the other? Or do we just want to keep our initial ideas unchanged? (If so, what’s behind it?) What is the outcome of one and the other? Roleplay both and see how each one feels.

What are some common logical fallacies? What are some examples of logical fallacies in public discourse? And in our own life? How can we notice and counteract them in ourselves? How can we – with kindness and effectively – point it out when someone else uses a logical fallacy? When is it appropriate to do so?

This ties into trauma education since traumas often influence our perception, ideas about the world, and how we hold onto them (often for dear life when traumas are involved).

It would be a fun challenge to adapt this to each age level, and also develop (potentially) engaging, fun, and illuminating exercises and activities for each of the areas listed above. (And other areas I inevitably have left out.) Of course, it’s even better when the kids/teens develop this on their own.

And it is important to show that this is a fundamental part of being human. It’s something we already know and apply, at least to some extent. This is just a more organized exploration and application of it.

I personally learned some of these in school. Some on my own in my teens through reading books about science (especially the Fritjof Capra books). And some at university. (Philosophy of science courses are mandatory at universities in Norway, although why not at earlier levels?)

I am a bit surprised that this is not a more integral part of education at all levels. It’s useful in all areas of life and throughout life. Essential for nurturing a more well-functioning society. And today, with the internet echo-chambers, it’s more important than ever.

Read More

Is Buddhism a science or a religion?

moe Leave a comment

I talked with a woman at a Christmas partly and happened to mention that I do a form of “Mindfulness Therapy” based on Buddhist self-inquiry.

Oh, I am Christian and feel uncomfortable about Buddhism.

Hm. I see it more as a science than a religion, at least when it comes to using it as a form of therapy.

But it is a religion! 

So is it a science or a religion? It all depends on how we relate to it.

If we take it as a faith, something to believe in, pray to, set up a shrine to, see it mostly as external, and want to preserve as is, then it becomes a religion.

If we take it as pointers, a guide, something to explore for ourselves, a mirror for what we can explore in ourselves, then it becomes a science. And just as any science, it can be something to test in collaboration with others and clarify, refine, and extend through our shared exploration.

This goes for any aspect of Buddhist practice, including inquiry, heart centered practices, resting with / as our experience, and training a more stable attention. For instance, we can explore the effects of tonglen, a heart centered practice, and some of the mechanisms behind it. (E.g. helps us change our relationship to ourselves, others, and the world which can be very healing.)

And although it’s perhaps easier to take Buddhism as a science of the mind than some of the other traditions, we can apply the same approach to any tradition or approach to spirituality. We can take a pragmatic approach and explore the effects of the different tools and aspects of the tradition.

The social and cultural benefits of genetic ancestry testing

moe Leave a comment

I received my 23andme results a few weeks back and it has reminded me of a few things about genetic testing. Depending on how it’s used, it can definitely have some drawbacks. But it can also have many personal and social / cultural benefits.

Here are some of the possible social and cultural benefits that come to mind.

We are reminded that we are all overwhelmingly alike. Only about 0.5% of our genetic material has to do with our particular geographic or ethnic history. We are overwhelmingly alike as human beings, and as Earthlings we are also overwhelmingly alike. As human beings, we share almost all our history and ancestors, and as Earthlings we share a great deal of our history and ancestors.

Many of us, and especially in North America, have a far more mixed ancestry than we may expect. For instance, some who identify as “white” may have Asian, North-American, or African ancestry mixed in.

Same or similar genetic sequence-patterns are found in most or all human populations. So when the different companies assign an ethnic group based on particular patterns, they do it based on statistics and probably. Any particular pattern may be more prevalent in some groups but are found in other groups as well. So the analysis is not always accurate. Again, it’s a reminder of how similar we are.

Our official family history isn’t always the same as the genetic one. We have an official set of ancestors. We have a genetic set of ancestors. And the two are not always the same. This may help us hold our identity more lightly. We can (learn to) embrace and appreciate both.

This all makes it more difficult to justify or hold onto racism. (Although I am sure some will be able to if they really want to.) We are all Africans. We share almost all of our DNA. Many of us are more mixed than we think. Any differences are, in the big picture, very superficial.

As genetic testing becomes more common and our understanding improves, it may well have an impact on culture. And, if we want, it may help us see how closely we all are related. It may widen and deepen our sense of “us” as human beings and even as part of the Earth community.

As mentioned, there are also possible drawbacks. For instance, it’s easy to misinterpret or hold certain interpretations as more solid than they are. And some may get stressed out by certain interpretations of their health or ancestry data. They may realize one or both of their parents (or grandparents) are not the ones they thought they were. Or they may mistakenly think that’s the case based on misguided interpretation of the data. Or they may think that a slight statistical increase in likelihood of a certain illness means they are actually likely to get it (which may not be the case at all). With all of this, it’s important to be informed before jumping to conclusions, and in any case take it with a big grain of salt.

I guess there is also some risk that employees or governments can use certain data in unfortunate ways. (I don’t think it’s happening much or at all now, but there is always the risk.)

Read More

A quantum physics analogy

moe Leave a comment

In physics, we have the regular physics that applies to our human-scale world, and quantum physics which applies to very small scales. The rules of regular physics makes sense to us intuitively, at least for the most part. It’s a world we are familiar with, and one that our brain is adapted to understand and relate to. In contrast, the rules of the quantum world can seem quite counter-intuitive and outright weird to us.

It’s similar when we explore ourselves. At a normal scale, it’s all relatively familiar. We can find love for ourselves as a whole, or for parts of ourselves and our experience. We can dialogue with these same parts. We can train a more stable attention. We can find in ourselves what we see in others. Some of it may be a bit unfamiliar, but it’s all happening within a quite familiar world.

When we explore our experience in a more finely grained way, and on a “smaller” or more basic scale, it can feel quite unfamiliar at first. It’s similar to quantum physics. Things don’t work quite the way we are used to. Different rules seem to apply.

For instance, we may see that sensations appear “stuck” on images and words, lending them a sense of reality and solidity, and giving them a sense of charge (velcro). We may see how images, words and sensations appears as who we are, or a threat, or a command to do something (due to velcro).

We may see that we cannot find what initially appeared so real and solid, including a body, a particular (deficient or inflated) self, a threat, a command, an object, a person, words, images, sensations, awareness, and anything else we can give a name to.

That’s all quite outside of our normal experience, and yet it’s right there when we slow down and look more closely and systematically. (For example by using the Living Inquiries, as above.)

Read More

Physics and immediate experience: Happening within space, with space within, and as space

moe Leave a comment

This is a commonly recognized analogy.

In modern physics, they discovered that what initially appears solid is really mostly space, and looking even more closely, even the “particles” are really energy and also space. It’s all space.

When I look, I find the same in my own experience, as so many have before me, and so many do these days too. My field of experience is mostly space. Images, words, sensations, sounds, taste, smell all happen within space. Space with no findable end.

When I look more closely, even these – the images, words, sensations, sounds etc. – have space within them, and are space. It’s all space.

More accurately, it’s all awareness, and space, and appearances within and as – made up of – awareness and space.

It can be very helpful to notice this. Especially for appearances that at first appear quite solid, such as strong emotions, or physical pain, or contractions, or suffering, or seeking, or neediness, or a sense of me or I. Anything identified with will, at first, tend to appear quite solid. And when I look, I notice the space around it, and the space within it, and even the space (awareness) making it up.

Some people take this analogy quite literally and make it into something solid (!). I find it more helpful to see it as an analogy.

Even this analogy can be noticed as happening within space, with space within, and as space.

Read More

Brain myths

moe Leave a comment

I keep coming across brain myths, which is surprising since a simple Google search is enough to dispel them. And yet, it’s perhaps not so surprising.

For instance, “we only use 10% of our brain”(or another small percentage), implying that our brain has capacities we are not using. This is silly even on the surface. Why would evolution produce a brain that has capacities we don’t use? Evolution would only select for capacities we – the majority of us, and most of the time – are using. It’s true that we use our brain very effectively, which means that certain parts only “light up” when they are actually needed and in use. The rest of the time, they rest, which is what makes most sense. So we do use all of our brain, but not at the same time. (If we did, it would be called a seizure…!)

The left/right brain myth is also prevalent, and equally much a myth.

So why are these ideas perpetuated? I suspect because they do work as metaphors. There is a grain of truth in them. A metaphorical truth even if it’s not a literal truth.

We do indeed have capacities that most of us are not making use of. It has nothing to do with not using more of our brain, and everything to do with either (a) not having developed these capacities further, or (b) being distracted or having beliefs so they are not revealed to us. We may not have developed our critical thinking, or music skills, or dance abilities. And our attention may be caught up in beliefs and identifications, so we don’t notice that any sense of being a separate me comes from identification with thought. We don’t notice what we really are, which is what this field of experience – as it is here and now – happens within and as. (AKA awareness, love.)

It’s also obvious that we have a more creative and holistic way of experiencing and relating to the world, and a more linear and analytic one. We wouldn’t get very far if we didn’t have both. It has very little to do with brain hemispheres, but we still have these aspects of how we view and relate to the world. It’s a metaphorical truth, not a literal one.

Science and spirituality

moe Leave a comment

Science and spirituality. That’s a topic that comes up now and then in popular media.

Unfortunately, the debate or discussion is usually at a quite superficial level.

There are perhaps two main ways of looking at the relationship between science and spirituality.

One is that they are separate. This means that they can either co-exist (religious scientists often take this view), or that they are mutually exclusive (atheists sometimes take this view). This is often the level of the public discourse on this topic.

Another view is that science and spirituality point to and explore the same reality. Reality is seamless and one, and can be explored in a variety of ways, including through different forms of science, and through spirituality. Ken Wilber is perhaps one of the most sophisticated writers on this topic today. (Although I am sure that even his writings will seem hopelessly old fashioned in one or two or three generations.)

Needless to say, the last view resonates the most with me. I am fascinated with science, and have been since childhood. (Especially astronomy, ecology, zoology, biology.) And I am fascinated by spirituality too, or rather the spiritual exploration.

Both describe facets of the same reality, and how it looks when you use “external” or “internal” methods for exploration.

Both use many of the same methods:

Learning from what’s been done before. Maintaining a questioning approach. Testing it out for yourself. Placing direct experience and data over theory. Recognizing that the terrain is not the same as the map. (Or a meal is not the same as the menu.) Being mentored by people who have gone the path before you. And eventually reporting your findings to the benefit of the community, so others can test it out for themselves and perhaps go further. (Yes, I know that this is an idealized view, and that reality is often much more messy, and sometimes less pretty in a superficial sense.)

P.S. I am intentionally ignoring religion here. Spirituality – in the sense I am using it here – can certainly exist within religion. A sincere spiritual exploration of reality can and does happen among some who belong to a certain religion. Religion itself is more of a mix of ritual (which can be very helpful), theology (which can include valuable practical pointers), genuine reports that may either become an official “truth” or more hidden within the tradition, and institutions (necessary to maintain the religion). Although it’s often not said explicitly, the main aim of religion is often – and necessarily – to perpetuate itself.

Reincarnation

moe Leave a comment

I don’t have much interest in reincarnation in a conventional sense. I see it as (a) so far unfounded in science, (b) a good projection object, and (c) equally well explained otherwise.

Going a bit further, here are some ways of looking at it:

There is the conventional view, where an entity of sorts (AKA soul) passes from one life to another. This is certainly (in theory) possible. And although this soul is “me” as this human self is it, neither is what I am (that which all happens within and as, including human self and a possible soul).

The information a real past life may be picked up in another way. For instance, some suggest elements from past lives are reorganized into current lives but not in a “one to one” fashion (Jac O’Keefe). Other suggest that souls mentor babies and pass on memories of their past lives that way (Lorna Byrne). It’s also possible that the information about real past lives are passed on in another way, either in a way well known or less known or understood by us today.

Whatever else is going on, there is an element of projection here. We imagine something in the past or future, and also imagine time and space that this takes place within, and take it as real or not. And all of those images are happening here and now. (We can also say that a form of “reincarnation” is happening over small time spans. Patterns are “reborn” anew here and now. And this too requires ideas of time and space etc.)

It’s a good topic for research and scientific studies. No matter what we find, it will help us learn more about the world. (Either what happens – if anything – after death, and also about culture and how we relate to our fears and hopes.)

Read More

Skeptics

moe Leave a comment

This is again an old topic, but it keeps coming up for me when I read or hear certain folks in the media.

To blindly accept and blindly reject, are both forms of blindness.

If others are similar to me, it’s a way of dealing with fear, of avoiding feeling the fear. It comes from hope, again as a way to avoid feeling fear and discomfort. It comes from identification with a certain identity, which appears solid and real as “me”. It comes from beliefs, from taking certain thoughts as true and reflecting a reality “out there”. It comes from velcro, from sensations attached to words and images, creating an sense of reality, solidity, charge and likes and dislikes. It’s a way of reinforcing belonging to certain groups, for instance hard nosed skeptics, or those who have “seen behind the veil” (new age etc.). Each of these are slightly different ways of pointing to the same.

This came up for me again when I saw that NRK (the Norwegian broadcasting company) has another TV series where the host clearly sets out to dismiss certain things, rather than seriously investigate to find what’s really there. Of course, others do the same only in reverse – accepting certain things without really looking into to to see what’s there. And many do look into it seriously and in a more sober way, to find what’s really there.

One of the topics of the TV series was sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation. It’s an interesting topic because the nocebo effect most likely plays a role for many. And it is true that research into possible mechanisms, and connections between radiation and health, haven’t come up with anything conclusive. Still, that doesn’t mean something more may be going on that it’s worth exploring further.

Read More

Images of God

moe Leave a comment

In discussions, some people argue for or against a particular image of God, without acknowledging that it’s one of many possible – and existing – images of God. I especially notice this among some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins. It’s unfortunate since it tends to distract from the intended focus of the discussion, and it can also come across as (a) intellectually dishonest, (b) myopic, (c) valuing shock value over accuracy, and (d) lack of interest in sincerely exploring the topic.

For instance, Richard Dawkins often argue against a Christian image of God, and even one particular image of God found among some Christians. (I am not even sure if they would agree with how he represents their views.) Other Christians have other images, as do other religions and spiritual traditions. And some of these are quite compatible with science.

For instance, Daoism and Buddhism, when approached with curiosity and a scientific approach, are very much compatible with science. And if reality – as it is – is called God, then science is one of the ways we can explore God.

This seems very obvious, which is why I usually don’t write about these topics, but I thought I would mention it this time.

Read More

Fritjof Capra: The Systems View of Life

moe Leave a comment

Fritjof Capra’s talk at Schumacher College last week. His new book, The Systems View of Life: A Unifying Vision, is highly recommended.

Phage Therapy

moe Leave a comment

I usually don’t write about science here, mainly because many others do it, and since I want to keep this blog limited in terms of topics.

And yet, sometimes mainstream science and media overlook a topic that seems crucial. In this case, I keep reading about the increasing problem of multi-resistant bacteria, harmful and potentially deadly bacteria resistant to a wide range of antibiotics. What these articles, as well as western science and medicine, seem to largely ignore, is a completely different approach that’s easier, cheaper, and as or more effective. And that’s phage therapy.

It’s been succesfully used in eastern Europe for decades, there is a great deal of research on it, and its less expensive than antibiotics, so why not use it in the west as well? If they don’t trust the research, why not put resources into your own research? If you encounter multi-resistant bacteria, why not apply an approach you know works well? Why not even use it in combination with antibiotics? After all, peoples lives are at stake.

It seems that the old political divide between eastern and western Europe is still at play here, two decades after the political divide largely ended.

If anything, this is yet another example of how science and medicine is influenced – and keeps itself limited – by old habits and financial interests. If researchers and pharmaceutical corporations had people’s best interest at heart (a shocking idea), they would invest a great deal of time and resource in phage research. And yet, inertia and lack of financial incentives makes this a slower process, at least so far.

P.S. Science Friday is an exception to the rule, as they frequently do stories on phage therapy.

God and science

moe Leave a comment

Since childhood I have thought that the discussion about God and science has been a bit silly.

Initially, it was because I identified myself as an atheist and saw the idea of God as irrelevant. I saw it as something people used for comfort.

In mid- to late-teens, I still recognized the idea of God as an idea, and could see that if God=reality, then there is no conflict between spirituality and science. They are both approaches to explore reality, and we can use scientific principles in both areas.

It’s interesting how it hasn’t changed that much for me. I see God as an idea. I see God as equal to reality, and as something to explore through science and spirituality. And I also see how people – including myself – sometimes use the image or idea of God as a comfort, as a crutch until it’s not needed anymore.

How can we explore God using scientific principles? There are many answers to this. One is to explore it mapping out the descriptions of reality found in the different spiritual traditions, as Ken Wilber and some others do. Another is to follow the guidelines for explorations found in one or more traditions – whether it’s meditation, prayer, inquiry, ethics or something else – and see what happens. Each of these is an experiment. What happens if I do this particular meditation over time? What happens if I engage in the heart prayer over time? What do I find if I engage in a particular form of inquiry? Does it match what others report? How is it different?

Research: Modern Parenting May Hinder Brain Development

moe 1 Comment

Studies show that responding to a baby’s needs (not letting a baby “cry it out”) has been shown to influence the development of conscience; positive touch affects stress reactivity, impulse control and empathy; free play in nature influences social capacities and aggression; and a set of supportive caregivers (beyond the mother alone) predicts IQ and ego resilience as well as empathy. […]

“The right brain, which governs much of our self-regulation, creativity and empathy, can grow throughout life. The right brain grows though full-body experience like rough-and-tumble play, dancing or freelance artistic creation. So at any point, a parent can take up a creative activity with a child and they can grow together.”

– Science Daily, Modern Parenting May Hinder Brain Development.

All of this seems like common sense, and yet I know it’s not in our society – yet.

If we want to see how we evolved to be raised, we don’t need to look further than looking at primates and – to some extent – current hunter-gatherer societies. It’s our natural way to raise children be raised: Plenty of body contact. Responsiveness from the adults. Freedom to explore and learn from own mistakes.

Michael Dowd and Connie Barlow: Climate change and intergenerational evil

moe Leave a comment

Video: The Overview Effect

moe 1 Comment

The Overview Effect was one of my favorite books in my early twenties.

Glitch in the brain

moe Leave a comment

One part of our brains – the limbic system – generates a challenging emotion for us to feel. Another part of our brain – called either primitive or reptilian – considers that emotion as life-threatening and blocks it at all cost. This battle between the two parts of our brain leaves us cross-wired and stuck.

Raphael Cushnir sometimes talks about a glitch in the brain, and that is of course a valid and helpful perspective. It’s how it looks from the perspective of biology and evolution, and it helps us see it’s not personal.

Another perspective, which I tend to gravitate towards, is seeing this in terms of beliefs.

The limbic system here becomes a metaphor for or a pointer to beliefs creating reactive emotions – sadness, anger, grief etc. And the reptilian part of the brain becomes a metaphor for or pointer to beliefs about these emotions and what they mean.

For instance, I believe that he is disrespectful towards me and this trigger anger. Using Cushnir’s metaphor, this is the limbic system in action.

I have another set of beliefs about anger – anger is bad, anger means something terrible has happened, anger means I will go out of control, anger means people won’t like me – so I push aside this anger, I stuff it, I tighten muscles and breathe more shallowly, I try to not feel it.  In Cushnir’s metaphor, this is the primitve or reptilian brain. (Although some of these beliefs, some of the beliefs that causes me to stuff the anger, are certainly not reptilian. They are more mammalian and social.)

The benefit of looking at it through the lens of beliefs is that it gives me something to explore, both in terms of what triggers reactive emotions and how I relate to them. I can inquire into my beliefs, and find what’s more true for me.

And these two perspectives can easily co-exist and mutually enhance and support each other. One shows me it’s not personal, and makes it feel more scientific. The other helps me identify and inquire into my beliefs relating to emotions.

Evolution of the spirit

moe Leave a comment

The idea of an evolution of the Spirit is of course just that, an idea.

The image of Spiritual evolution, stages, phases, changing characteristics, data, people supporting and talking about it, are all images happening within and as the mental field. Any sense it’s real and true happens because the thought that’s it’s true is taken as true. Any idea of it being inherent in reality is just that, an idea and an image. If I take the thought of spiritual evolution as true, I’ll perceive, feel and live as if it’s true.

When this idea is examined more closely, it’s freed from being taken as true, and can still be quite helpful in some situations. It can be inspiring and interesting for some, it may serve as a hook or a first step into own exploration, it may offer a temporary sense of knowing or safety – along with some stress (!).

Spirit (reality, God, Big Mind) can be talked about has having several facets. One is capacity for awareness and it’s contents (aka Godhead). Another is as awareness and any experience happening within and as awareness. And yet another is the world of experiences and form. Even within the context of those distinctions, they are the same. (It’s the play of Spirit as capacity, as a seamless whole of awareness and it’s contents, appearing to itself in these three ways when filtered through an image of these three ways.) And I can only find those distinctions within my images, within my mental field overlay.

Evolves and doesn’t

As capacity and awareness, it’s easy to assume it stays the same. As form, it – according to the story of the universe from current western science – it evolves over time, from energy to simple hydrogen atoms to heavier elements to the earth coming into life to ecosystems, species, humans, culture, technology, science and everything happening within and through us humans. So in that sense, Spirit evolves. It evolves as form. It doesn’t evolve and it does, and that’s happening as images within the mental field.

Types of evolution

What are some of the types and mechanisms of this evolution? It’s a while since I explored this, so will just mention it briefly here.

As mentioned above, the universe seems to evolve over time from simplicity to complexity, from energy to matter to life. This form of evolution may be best explained through systems theories.

It may also happen through the mechanisms of biological/Darwinian evolution: variation, selection, reproduction etc. This has brought us humans to where we are today, with out biological possibilities and limitations. One interesting question here is the relationship between clarity on thoughts and evolution. Is there a biological tendency in us to take thoughts as true, or is it just learned and from culture? If there is this biological tendency, how did it come about? Has it been selected because it aids survival? To me, it seems that being more clear on thoughts aids healthy functioning and survival. It may be more likely that (a) too few people found this clarity to have an impact, (b) the selection pressure hasn’t been strong enough to select it out on a larger scale, and/or (c) although clarity on thoughts aids an healthy functioning, this may not translate into more children. Still, it’s possible that our biological evolution moves us in this direction, from a tendency to taking thoughts as true to a tendency to be more clear on thoughts. Or not.

It may happen through evolution of culture. Looking at the changes in human culture over time, from neolithic to today, we see different phases and stages. This can be seen as a meme evolution, driven by material, cultural and psychological factors.

Each of these maps of different types of evolution are from current western science. These maps and the data supporting them are images within my world of images. Recognizing that, through inquiry, they can be very helpful practical guidelines in some situations. Taking them as true, they become – among other things – a burden for me, a source of stress.

Read More

Mars

moe Leave a comment

There are two Mars related stories in the news these days: The quite exciting landing of Curiosity on Mars a few days ago, and Elon Musk’s plan to bring people to Mars within 10-15 years.

I have been interested in astronomy and space exploration since I was a little boy, and this interest was fueled even more when I saw Cosmos by Carl Sagan at age ten or eleven. It brought me directly into a profound sense of awe of the universe and life itself, of us all – quite literally – made of star dust, the product of 13.4 billions years of evolution, and that these eyes, these ears, these thoughts, these feelings are the eyes, ears, thoughts and feelings of the universe. In the words of Carl Sagan:

And we, we who embody the local eyes and ears and thoughts and feelings of the cosmos, we have begun at least to wonder about our origins — star stuff contemplating the stars, organized collections of ten billion billion billion atoms, contemplating the evolution of nature, tracing that long path by which it arrived at consciousness here on the planet earth, and perhaps throughout the cosmos.

In my teens, I became interested in systems views and the Gaia theory, and it was quite clear that the Earth as a whole can be seen as a seamless living organism, where we as humans have specific roles and functions, as any other species and ecosystem does. What is our role? We are, clearly, an awareness organ for the Earth and the universe. We are a way for the Earth and the universe to bring itself into awareness. We are a way for the Earth and the universe to experience itself. Through us, the Earth and the universe develops technologies which allows for it to explore itself even further, in even smaller details (microscopes), even further out in space (telescopes, space travel). Through us, Earth is able to see itself from the outside, as one seamless whole, and that feeds back into and even transforms our human society and culture.

Perhaps most importantly in the long run – we may be a way for the Earth to reproduce. The Earth has already taken the first steps in this direction, through our space travel and ideas of Mars colonization and terraforming. It’s an universal impulse for life to wish to (a) survive and (b) reproduce, so why wouldn’t this also be the case for Earth as a whole? There are several mechanisms which may make this happen. It’s a natural consequence of our combination of (a) curiosity and passion for exploration, and (b) our current and future levels of technology. It makes sense. Having two – or more – planets with human colonies and Earth life (plants, animals, ecosystems) makes humanity and Earth life far more resilient. A large space object may crash into the Earth, wiping out civilization and large portions of life, or we may do it ourselves. So if we have a “backup” civilization and Earth life somewhere else, life can continue there and perhaps even support or re-seed life on Earth. In a longer perspective, we know that the sun will eventually engulf the Earth.

Read More

Quantum physics and inquiry

moe

In my teens and early twenties, I was quite interested in quantum physics and especially it’s connection with spirituality. I read just about any book published on it at the time – by Fritjof Capra and others. Most writers seem to present the connection between quantum physics and spirituality (typically Taoism and Buddhism) in a more theoretical way. And it can also be presented in the context of inquiry.

For instance, in some quantum physics experiments, time and space doesn’t seem to function the way we are used to in conventional experience. This suggests that time and space may not “really” be as we typically perceive it. It’s perhaps not inherent in the world as we perceive it. I can find the same by exploring the sense fields, and notice how time and space only appears due to my overlay of images of time and space on my sense fields. There is no time or space found outside of these images. There is no evidence for time or space existing “out there” or being inherent in the world or reality.

The same is the case with causality. Some quantum physics experiments throws our conventional ideas of causality into question. The way we typically experience causality may not be inherent in the world “all the way down and all the way up”. Exploring my everyday experience of causality through the sense fields, I find the same.

So referring to quantum physics in this context may invite or inspire to own investigation, and this may be very helpful. It may inspire more scientifically minded folks to investigate their own immediate experience of reality.

The potential drawback is that it makes it all sound more abstract and foreign that it needs to be. And it’s also likely that our current understanding of quantum physics and it’s experiments will change over time, and we don’t know how, so it may be a bit unfortunate to create too strong of a mental connection between quantum physics and spirituality (as Ken Wilber has pointed out).

Read More

Science: Higgs boson find could make light-speed travel possible, scientists say

moe Leave a comment

Scientists went into a frenzy following the announcement, speculating that it could one day make light-speed travel possible by “un-massing” objects or allow huge items to be launched into space by “switching off” the Higgs. CERN scientist Albert de Roeck likened it to the discovery of electricity, when he said humanity could never have imagined its future applications.
– Higgs boson find could make light-speed travel possible, scientists say

This is of course free speculation at this point, but it is possible that understanding the Higgs field better, and how matter gains mass, may lead to technologies that earlier belonged just to science fiction and not science. As this article suggest, if we can suspend mass it would allow very fast vehicles on earth and in space, and much easier access to space. With mass, getting close to light speed is just about impossible. Without mass, it’s very much possible.

This is another reminder that much of what has happened in history and technology was unimagined and sometimes unimaginable to earlier generations, just as much of what we do imagine never do happen. And when I turn that around to my own life, I see it’s true. Much of what did happened were things I didn’t expect or couldn’t imagine, and much of what I did imagine didn’t happen.

Study: Psychological Trauma & Whiplash

moe Leave a comment

According to a new study, PTSD can aggravate the damage from the whiplash and further increase the pain. ”We have found that PTSD leads to an increased bodily awareness and a fear of movement,” says psychologist Tonny Elmose Andersen, of the Department of Psychology at the University of Southern Denmark. “This is why PTSD patients tend to feel stronger pain than they otherwise would.”
– Psychological traumas intensify whiplash in Science Nordic.

They listed a few possible connection between psychological trauma and whiplash. Here are a few that comes up for me:

  1. Psychological trauma (triggered beliefs) create muscle tension, which can further injure already injured tissue and also prevent it from healing (reduced blood flow etc.)
  2. Psychological trauma creates a heightened state of alertness and tension which may fuel beliefs about the injury: What it means (I won’t be able to work, I won’t get better, I will stay in pain, I will suffer), how it will unfold in the future, and even what it is (it’s pain, it’s an injury). All of these may intensify the experience of pain, and may not support healing.

I see the researchers made a connection from #2 to immobility, which in turn is less-than-ideal for healing. That’s probably true as well. It may be they included #1 in their original research article (although it was left out in this news reporting).

Seems that a combination of traditional therapy (massage, acupuncture tc.) and TRE (to release tension and trauma) may be helpful here, starting gently and early after injury. As usual with TRE, it’s helpful to be gentle and progress slowly, and, in this case, perhaps focus the tremors to the hip and leg area for a while to keep the neck comfortable.

And if this (massage, TRE, releasing tension, supporting healthy muscles) is done before any injuries, then even better.

UFOs

moe Leave a comment

For the record, what Pitts endorses is the “unidentified” aspect of an unidentified flying object. “I have never seen a UFO myself,” he says, “and I am not saying that UFOs are ET spacecraft. I am saying [that] here, there is some mystery, and we should be able to address it scientifically, without all the stigma involved.”
– Astronomer Derrick Pitts quoted in ET, Phone Derrick Pitts

As most boys, I was quite interested in UFOs and was even a member of the UFO organization in Norway. In my teens, the interest shifted into exploring UFOs as projection objects (especially after I found Jung’s book on the topic), and later on, I have occasionally read up on what’s happening in the field.

UFOs are interesting to me for a few different reasons:

Some appear to be natural phenomena not very well understood by science, or entirely unknown to science.  The Hessdalen lights in Norway may be one example.

They are excellent projection objects – unknown, rare, ephemeral, mysterious. They are great for putting our fears and hopes on and create beliefs around. (They will save us, they will eat us, I will dismiss it and don’t take it seriously.) This in itself is a very interesting phenomenon, and well worth exploring.

Some – a few – may be crafts of nonterresital origin. The universe may be populated by many different civilizations, and although the chances of any one actually visiting us may be miniscule considering the huge distances and enormous space, it could happen. After all, our modern scientific exploration of physics is very young, what we don’t know will always be infinitely more than what we do know, and what we have discovered so far, through for instance quantum physics, shows us that reality seems much stranger than what we could have imagined. It’s worth keeping an open mind, take the possibility of visits seriously, and do some serious investigation.

And then there is the military and national security reasons. Independent of origin, some may be crafts. This is one reason most or all governments take UFOs seriously, whether or not they admit to it.

The rational approach is to take and investigate the more well documented reports seriously.

UFOs clearly exist. People see unidentified flying objects all the time. The question is, what is it in each case? The answers may range from the mundane to little known natural phenomena, and may also include possible ET visits. I don’t think I would be surprised either way. If we are visited, the implications are significant. And if there eventually is contact – in the open and at a large scale – then it’s the beginning of a new phase of human civilization.

Here is a good interview of author Leslie Kean by Michio Kaku.

One of several documentaries, I Know What I Saw:

Read More

Documentary: Friendship Seven

moe Leave a comment

The Earth taking it’s first steps outside of it’s immediate boundaries. And the age of the shiny space suits.

David Christian: Big History

moe Leave a comment